Taken from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,11981,1092466,00.html

The 'new' anti-semitism: is Europe in grip of worst bout of hatred since the Holocaust?

Jewish leaders claim rising Muslim influence has altered mood of continent

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Tuesday November 25, 2003
The Guardian

Sixty years after the Holocaust, European Jews and Israelis are increasingly wondering if Europe is being sucked into the worst wave of anti-semitism since the second world war.

In the past few weeks, a German MP was forced to resign after saying that Jews were responsible for Soviet atrocities, and the commander of the German army's special forces was sacked for agreeing with him.

Then came the observation by the Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis that Jews are at the root of all evil, and the firebombing of a Jewish school in Paris.

But Israelis felt their fears were confirmed by an opinion poll of EU citizens that placed Israel as the greatest danger to world peace. Israelis were shocked, perplexed and outraged that they should be seen as a bigger threat than North Korea or Iran.

"Anti-semitism has become politically correct in Europe," said Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident and minister in Ariel Sharon's government.

Yesterday Mr Sharon warned European governments that they need to do more to combat a revival of old hatreds responsible for rising anti-semitism. He described Europe's burgeoning Muslim population as a threat to Jews and dismissed accusations that rocket attacks on Gaza and tanks in Jenin have contributed to growing hostility.

"What we are facing in Europe is an anti-semitism that has always existed and it really is not a new phenomenon," the prime minister said in an interview with EUpolitix.com, an online newswire dedicated to EU affairs. "This anti-semitism is fundamental, and today, in order to incite it and to undermine the Jews' rights for self-defence, it is re-aroused. These days to conduct an anti-semite policy is not a popular thing, so the anti-semites bundle their policies in with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Last week, Mr Sharon said growing anti-semitism in Europe contributed to the bombing of two synagogues in Istanbul, the destruction of part of a Jewish school in Paris and a series of smaller attacks on Jewish targets.

"It's 60 years since the Holocaust and we are again the target of attacks, fires," said Cobi Benatoff, president of the European Jewish Congress. "Anti-semitism should have been part of the history of old Europe by now, but unfortunately it is very present and alive in the Europe of today."

For the chairman of Israel's Holocaust memorial council, Avner Shalev, Mr Theodorakis's anti-Jewish statement is a "symptom of the systematic flooding of Europe with incitement against the Jewish people and the state of Israel".

The Israeli Forum to Coordinate the Struggle Against Anti-semitism - a group of Israeli intelligence and foreign ministry officials - defines anti-semitism in three forms: classic, new and Muslim.

The forum asserts that the most dangerous strand has its roots in Islam and that the rising number of Muslims in Europe is responsible for fuelling terror attacks, street violence and general harassment of Jews.

Muslims are also blamed for the spread of anti-semitism to countries such as Denmark, previously renowned for its efforts to save Jewish lives during the Holocaust. Mr Sharon described the growing Muslim population in Europe as "endangering the life of Jewish people."

"Of course the sheer fact that there are a huge amount of Muslims, approximately 70 million in the EU, this issue has also turned into a political matter. I would say, in my opinion, EU governments are not doing enough to tackle anti-semitism," he said.

That view was confirmed for many Israelis when it was revealed that the EU's racism watchdog has suppressed a report on anti-semitism because it concluded that Muslims were behind many incidents.

Israeli officials say the comments of Mr Theodorakis and the German MP, and a claim by the outgoing Malaysian leader, Mahathir Mohamad, that Jews rule the world by proxy and get others to fight and die for them, fall into the category of "classic" anti-semitism.

But it is the "new" anti-semitism that most disturbs some Jewish leaders because they say it emanates from influential groups such as academics, politicians and the media and is dressed up as criticism of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.

Deborah Lipstadt, the academic who won a libel victory after describing the rightwing historian David Irving as a Holocaust denier, this month described the "new" anti-semitism as directed at the "Rambo Jew, the Jew who is the aggressor".

"What we have seen in these attacks is an obsession with the vilification of Israel; a use of Nazi and Holocaust images to describe Israel and its politics, and a focus on Israel's failures regarding human rights, while totally ignoring the Arab world's failures of human rights," she told a conference in Jerusalem.

Some Israeli critics say a country that claims to be at the forefront of defending western civilisation cannot then demand to be judged by the standards of the states it portrays as terrorist regimes.

But Robert Wistrich, director of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's international centre for the study of anti-semitism, says human rights is merely a cover. "On the left we see a trend to believing there is a worldwide conspiracy in which Jews and Zionists are implicated," he said. "You have a link of money, Jews, America, world domination, globalisation. The notion that the Jews are a superpower that controls America is both a classic and revamped form of anti-semitism. The most interesting phenomenon is the singling out and demonisation of the state of Israel, that brands it as a Nazi-like state or accuses it of genocide. This kind of discourse is often put forward under the banner of human rights. This is new."

Many on the Israeli left are sceptical.

"We should bear in mind that during the time of the peace process, when Rabin and Peres were leading, Israel was the favourite of the west," said Yaron Ezrahi, an Israeli political scientist. "There was so much support from Europe and its public. Why was anti-semitism so limited during the time Rabin and Peres led the peace process and gave the world the message that Israel was prepared to abandon the occupied territories? Sharon has a long record of calling Israeli critics of his policies traitors, and foreign critics anti-semites. The left is concerned that Sharon's policies are endangering Israel's future by fuelling virulent and violent anti-semitism."

The highlighting are things that strike me.

A couple of questions that come to my mind:
Is the European public really against Israel and Jews in general?
Is it true, as Mr. Sharon puts it, that you cannot separate criticism of Israeli politics and anti-semitism?
Is it true that criticism of anything ever done by Jews equals anti-semitism?
Is it really a bad thing that today there are more Muslims in Europe?
And is it possible that it's their influence that induces European criticism of Israeli politics?

Thank you Patrick for this interesting topic. 

Off topic (that was fast!): When Claude Lanzmann was shooting his film Shoah back in the 20th century, the typical response I would hear in the US to a topic like this one was: "Because the Poles suckled their antisemitism with their mothers' milk."  Looks like in the 21st c. the phenomenon is more complex than that.  (Should you be interested in some of the fallout of that 20th c. Polish debate, here is one link: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5129)

Jacek

Hi

I think Europe is antisemitic, but not as much as the US. Nevertheless, Europe is mainly anti-Zionist, and the US media understands it as antisemitism (which I do not think that is right, since Zionism is just a non-religiuos political ideology).

Nevertheless, if we have to set the Israeli mentality, they are certainly Europeans, and I do not think that the average Israeli considers Europe an anti semitic Continent. Nor I think the thousand of Europeans who are Jews consider Europe antisemit, though, again, there is antisemitsm in Europe.

Jairo

Hi everybody and thanks Patrick for this interesting topic.

Here's another point of view:

Israel's Jewish Critics Aren't 'Self-Hating' There is no path to Jewish security that does not also lead us to global security for all peoples.

by Rabbi Michael Lerner

"Every day, I receive anguished letters, e-mails and phone calls from members of my congregation and others who have been tagged with the label "self-hating Jews." Why? Solely because they've raised questions about Israel's policy toward Palestinians.

There is something deeply hurtful about that term and about the way the Jewish community is treating its dissenters, something reminiscent of the cultural repressiveness of 1950s McCarthyism and its labeling of dissidents as "anti-American." Jews in America are all Jews by choice. Those who wish to leave their religion and ethnicity behind can easily do so. Increasing numbers, when asked about their ethnicity or religion, answer, "my parents are Jewish," indicating that they no longer feel connected to that identity. But most Jews don't make that choice. They feel a special resonance with the history and culture of a people that has proclaimed a message of love, justice and peace while others pursued paths of cruelty and domination. They feel a special pride in being part of a people that has insisted on the possibility of "tikkun," a Hebrew word expressing a belief that the world can be fundamentally healed and transformed. They know that the Jews have paid dearly for that belief, and, though they are angry at the history of anti-Semitism and convinced that no one should ever have to endure again what we endured from Christian Europe, they are also proud that Jewish values kept us from becoming like our oppressors.

A Los Angeles Times poll in 1988 found that some 50% of Jews surveyed identified "a commitment to social equality" as the characteristic most important to their Jewish identity. Only 17% cited a commitment to Israel. Similar statistics have been reported many times in the subsequent 14 years by other pollsters. No wonder, then, that these social-justice oriented American Jews should feel betrayed by Israeli policies that seem transparently immoral and self-destructive.

All of us are outraged at the immoral acts of Palestinian terrorists who blow up Israelis as they sit at a Seder table, or shop in their stores, or sit in cafes or ride in buses. We know that these acts cannot be forgiven, no matter how they have been provoked.

But many of us also understand that Israeli treatment of Palestinians has been immoral and outrageous. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled their homes in 1948, and recent Israeli historical research has shown that most of them fled not because they were responding to the appeal of Arab leaders, but because they were terrified at the acts of violence by right-wing Israeli terrorists or because they were actually physically forced from their homes by the Israeli army. (The slaying of some 250 Palestinian civilians in a town that had indicated loyalty to Israel, Deir Yassin, was intentionally aimed at convincing Palestinians that they would not be safe in a new Israeli state, no matter how much they wished to live in peace.) Palestinian refugees and their families now number more than 3 million, and many live in horrifying conditions in refugee camps under Israeli military rule. "

Read the whole article at: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0428-04.htm

Personally I don't think antisemistism is getting stronger in Europe - of course, most people don't agree with Sharon's politics, but personally speaking I don't identify Jewish people with Israeli's current government. It's the same absurd mechanism which led somebody to label anti- Bush manifestations as "anti-American" & consider this a sign of "the hatred against America"

Anna Maria

The recent surge of antisemitism, as the media refer to it, may be due to the protracting of the old Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the latest American escalation of tension in the Middle East, especially since we have more and more time to speculate about a possible link between the two.

J.

Originally written by Jacek Krankowski on November 25, 2003 2:27 PM The antisemitism, as the media refer to it

that's the point: ca we always speak of antisemitism? What exactly is antisemitism?

A look at the free dictionary:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/AntiSemitism

AntiSemitism

An`tiSem´i`tism

n.

1.

Opposition to, or hatred of, Semites, esp. Jews. The word is sometimes also applied to acts motivated by or evincing antisemitism.

No mention of criticism of Israeli's current government's politics.

AM

I agree that antisemitism should have become history a long time ago.  But this seems to be rendered difficult by constant references to the exclusive rights which were written down in Heaven thousands of years ago and which therefore the chosen people cannot renounce.  The same goes for all the other mythologies which are parties to the bloody conflicts we are witnessing.

J.

sorry, but this interesting interview with avi primor, former ambassador to germany, is only available in german...

http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/interview_dlf/213069/

18.11.2003

Primor sieht keinen wachsenden Antisemitismus in Europa

Interview mit Avi Primor, ehemaliger Botschafter Israels in Deutschland

Avi Primor, ehemaliger Botschafter Israels in Deutschland (Foto: AP) Dirk Müller: Herr Primor, das was Schalom gesagt hat, musste das den Europäern aus israelischer Sicht endlich einmal gesagt werden? Avi Primor: Ich glaube, dass das gar nicht neu ist. Wir hören das in Israel seit Jahren. Zunächst einmal, dass die Europäer unausgewogen sind gegenüber dem Nahostkonflikt und eher proarabisch oder propalästinensisch seien. Das ist die Tradition in Israel zu mindestens seit 1980, seit dem Gipfel in Venedig, der für einen Palästinenserstaat sich ausgesprochen hat. Damals war dies in Israel noch streng verboten und galt sogar als Sakrileg. Es gab eine kurze Pause während der drei Jahre der Rabin- und Peres-Regierungen, aber sonst ist es immer das gleiche und immer dieselben Vorwürfe. Jetzt spricht man sehr viel von Antisemitismus, zunächst einmal, weil es tatsächlich Antisemitismus gibt, aber ich glaube nicht, dass der Antisemitismus in Europa wächst. Es gibt antisemitische Vorfälle, aber die werden meistens von arabischstämmigen Europäern verursacht und sind mit dem Nahen Osten verbunden. Auf jeden Fall ist es sehr üblich, und ich würde sogar sagen bequem, die Europäer mit Antisemitismus zu beschuldigen, sobald sie die israelische Politik kritisieren. Das ist ja bequemer so, da muss man die Thesen der Kritiker nicht widerlegen, weil man behauptet sie wären nicht rational, sondern emotional. Müller: Sehen Sie denn, Herr Primor, auch die Europäische Union auf dem Weg der Einseitigkeit? Primor: Nein, ich glaube nicht, dass die Europäische Union einseitig ist, aber was man sagen muss, ist, dass die Europäische Union keine gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik hat und insofern gibt es verschiedene Stimmen aus Europa. Auf jeden Fall ist klar, dass die Mehrheit der Bevölkerungen der Europäischen Länder eher die israelische Politik kritisiert. Jetzt muss man differenzieren zwischen einer Kritik gegen eine bestimmte Regierung oder sogar besonders gegen eine bestimmte Politik, mit einer Feindseligkeit gegenüber einem Land oder einer Nation. Die Israelis machen diese Differenzierung nicht und insofern glaube ich, dass sie nicht im Recht sind. Aber was Schalom sagt, dass wenn die Europäer eine ausgewogene Politik betreiben würden, anders gesagt, wenn sie eher die israelische Regierung und weniger die Palästinenser unterstützen würden, würden sie mehr Gewicht im Nahen Osten haben, das glaube ich nicht, weil ich fest davon überzeugt bin, dass die Israelis nur Augen für die Vereinigten Staaten haben, weil wir von den Vereinigten Staaten total abhängig sind und auch weil die Vereinigten Staaten uns bedingungslos oder fast bedingungslos unterstützen. Müller: Sie kennen den europäischen Kontinent ja sehr gut durch ihre politische Erfahrung ja auch in Deutschland. Gibt es da so eine Art politische Falle für die Europäer, gerade auch für die Deutschen, dass ein Anti-Israelismus mit scharfer Kritik an der Regierung Scharon in Israel mit Antisemitismus gleichgesetzt wird? Primor: Die Israelis haben ja eine gewisse Tradition mit der sie in den Schulen als Kinder schon aufwachsen und das ist die Tradition des Antisemitismus in Europa. Wir lernen als Kinder schon sehr viel von der Verfolgung der Juden in Europa zweitausend Jahre lang und natürlich ist dann der Gipfel dieser Geschichte der Holocaust. Und dann sagt man, die Europäer sind sowieso sehr anfällig, sehr schnell werden sie zu Antisemiten - und damit erklärt man jegliche Kritik gegen eine bestimmte Politik. Müller: Habe ich Sie denn richtig verstanden, dass der Holocaust und Antisemitismus zum Teil in Israel politisch instrumentalisiert wird? Primor: Ja, ich würde sagen, es gibt Politiker die instrumentalisieren den Antisemitismus und auch die Erinnerungen an Tragödien der Juden in Europa. Damit meinen Sie eigentlich nicht die Politik, die wir in den besetzten Gebieten zum Beispiel betreiben, oder die Politik gegenüber den Palästinensern, sondern sie sind gegen uns, sie hassen uns und das hat ja seine Wurzeln in der Geschichte. Das wird mehrfach überholt und es gibt Politiker, die das fast täglich der Bevölkerung sagen. Und die Bevölkerung, die diesbezüglich sehr empfindlich ist, aus verständlichen Gründen, glaubt das sehr leicht. Müller: Wie hat die Bevölkerung, wie haben die Medien auf diese Umfrage reagiert, wonach fast 60 Prozent der EU-Bürger gesagt haben, das Israel eine Gefahr für den Weltfrieden ist? Primor: Diese Umfrage war tatsächlich sehr verkehrt. Wie kann man fragen, wer oder von wem die größte Gefahr für die Welt besteht, ohne von Palästinensern, El Kaida, Weltterrorismus und Fundamentalismus zu sprechen oder überhaupt von dem Nahen Osten, sondern nur Israel nennen. Also ich gehe davon aus, dass die Leute, die behauptet haben, die größte Gefahr für die Welt und für den Weltfrieden sei Israel, meinten eigentlich den Nahen Osten. Ich glaube, es gab auch solche, die Israel meinten, es gibt ja auch echte Antisemiten. Aber die meisten haben wahrscheinlich an den Nahostkonflikt gedacht und nicht an Israel, aber in dieser Meinungsumfrage haben sie keine Wahl gehabt, sie haben nur Israel gehabt. Aber in Israel versteht man das nicht so. Man sagt: Aha, Sie sagen, das Israel einen Gefahr für sie ist, weil sie Israel hassen, weil sie eigentlich einen Staat Israel eigentlich überhaupt nicht haben wollen und das ist doch die europäische Tradition des Antisemitismus. So erklärt man sich die Sache sehr leicht. Müller: Helfen diese Töne, die jetzt nun zu hören waren von Schalom, im Friedensprozess weiter? Ist das konstruktiv? Werden die Europäer einlenken? Primor: Was können die Europäer eigentlich machen? Die Europäer unterstützen ein wenig die Palästinensische Behörde und das tun sie seitdem wir, die israelische Regierung zu Zeiten Rabins und Peres darum gebeten haben. Außerdem brauchen wir eine palästinensische Behörde. Selbst die israelische Regierung weiß, dass wir eine palästinensische Behörde haben. Also insofern sind die Europäer eher nützlich und nicht schädlich. Aber die Europäer, so oder so, wie schon gesagt, werden keinen Einfluss auf die Krise im Nahen Osten haben, oder auf einen Friedensprozess, weil die Amerikaner alles in den Händen halten und wir von den Amerikanern so total abhängig sind, dass wir davon gar nicht ablenken können und auch nicht ablenken wollen. Müller: Letzte Frage Herr Primor, wer ist der verlässlichste Partner in Europa? Primor: Also, normalerweise denkt man an Deutschland. Müller: Und das ist auch so? Primor: Ja, das ist auch so. Ich glaube nicht, dass Deutschland alleine ist. Es gibt auch andere Länder in Europa, die eine Neigung zu Israel haben. Heute gilt auch Italien als ein Freund Israels, aber das liegt an der Regierung Berlusconi, weil Berlusconi mit seinen Ideen eher sehr antiarabisch ist. Aber als Land, als Tradition, würde ich sagen eher Deutschland. Müller: Avi Primor war das, früherer israelischer Botschafter in Deutschland, vielen Dank für das Gespräch.

A rash of doomsday articles in the American and American Jewish press, warning of the approach of a "Second Holocaust," is prompting a rash of, well, bewilderment in Israel, wrote last year http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.06.07/news3.html, quoting, among others, Avi Primor, vice president of Tel Aviv University and former Israeli ambassador to Germany, who said that Americans are "overreacting" to the threat of European antisemitism because of lingering psychological scars. "They have a complex that American Jewry did nothing to save European Jewry. During World War II, they didn't act like a strong Jewish lobby. If they'd had AIPAC then, B-52 bombers might have bombed the railroad tracks. So they are trying to do today what they didn't do then, and save European Jewry that no longer needs saving."

Jacek

Quoting, for the record, from another thread:

Le sionisme a été le dernier mouvement national européen. Le colonialisme israélien, également, est arrivé deux cents ans trop tard. Aussi peut-être est-il normal que le défi d’une nouvelle conception nationale arrive relativement tard.

Uri Avnery

* * *

Selon un sondage de Newsweek effectué juste après le 11 septembre 2001, 58 % des Américains considéraient eux aussi que le soutien de leur pays à Israël était, dans une certaine mesure, responsable des attentats....

"Nous devons comprendre que nous avons une obligation particulière, différente de tout ce que nous avons connu depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, de soutenir l’effort de guerre de notre précieuse communauté à tous, les Etats-Unis d’Amérique. Joel Kotkin"

http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/MegaBBS/thread-view.asp?threadid=1145&MessageID=13362#13362

Europe is outrageously anti-Semitic, if you define a Semite as any descendant of Abraham: Arabs included! It is also anti-gay, anti-gypsy, anti-communist, anti-freemasonic.

Moreover it dates all the way back to the Inquisition, which is the biggest disaster of free thought in Western history.

And I would term Germany's National Socialism as just another inquisition, i.e. a systematic purge of anti-Christian elements.

And now there are folks around who want the EU to sipulate its Christian identity on paper.

Within that broad context, I note with great pleasure a shift in European public opinion in favour of the Palestinian people despite all the claptrap cut loose in the wake of 9/11. As a Colombian professor noted  in November 2001: "3,000 people and two buildings? Why all the fuss? We've been living that way for years."

In addition, Jews shoot themselves in the figurative foot with statements like Sharon's "Don't worry about the Americans, we control America." and talk by others about the genetic superiority of people called Cohen thanks to a special chromosome in their DNA. Even if they're right. And they may be right. I don't know. 

How do we define genetic "superiority," Arthur?  In Darwinian or in Biblical terms?  Whoever wants a Darwinian survival of the fittest contest in the 21st century, has got it.  The same debate is also open in Biblical terms.  Shouldn't we change repertoire?

Jacek

Yup, we're all a fine bunch of monkeys, alright.

The same debate is also open in Biblical terms.  Shouldn't we change repertoire?

I'm with you. Now all we have to do is ask the orchestra and all the conductors. 

If I may play a joker, I ran into this airport driver on the way out to Dorval once who had spent 10 years up north and joined a wolf pack (once the leader of the pack takes a liking to you, you just lie till he comes up and licks your cheek, but I'm digressing).

Anyhow, she figured that people with Downe's Syndrome were folks straight out of the next and higher level of evolution. That threw me back to an afternoon where I was seated across from a youngish couple, both Downies, who kissing each other so sweetly, with extreme attention to each caress. They thoroughly disgusted the woman next to me, yet there was nothing obscene about it: the kisses were short pecks of the sort Ronald Reagan in his nationally-televised family sitcom of the 1950s and the caresses were limited to the hands and cheeks. Yet it had the intensity you radiate whenever you do anything with total focus. Now, with little poetic licence, I can define "nirvana" as a state of total feeling and start wondering if the Downies aren't already almost up there.

We're just too dumb to realise it.

Thank God, not all of us.

J.

I'm afraid it's a global problem:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13958

Antiglobalism’s Jewish Problem
(November/December 2003)

Anti-Semitism is again on the rise. Why now? Blame the backlash against globalization. As public anxiety grows over lost jobs, shaky economies, and political and social upheaval, the Brownshirt and Birkenstock crowds are seeking solace in conspiracy theories. And in their search for the hidden hand that guides the new world order, modern anxieties are merging with old hatreds and the myths on which they rest.

By Mark Strauss

[snip] ....Porto Alegre provides just one snapshot of an unfolding phenomenon known as the "new anti-Semitism." Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the oldest hatred has been making a global comeback, culminating in 2002 with the highest number of anti-Semitic attacks in 12 years. Not since Kristallnacht, the Nazi-led pogrom against German Jews in 1938, have so many European synagogues and Jewish schools been desecrated. This new anti-Semitism is a kaleidoscope of old hatreds shattered and rearranged into random patterns at once familiar and strange. It is the medieval image of the "Christ-killing" Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers. It is the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement refusing to put the Star of David on their ambulances. It is Zimbabwe and Malaysia—nations nearly bereft of Jews—warning of an international Jewish conspiracy to control the world’s finances. It is neo-Nazis donning checkered Palestinian kaffiyehs and Palestinians lining up to buy copies of Mein Kampf.

The last decade had promised a different world. As statues of Lenin fell, synagogues reopened throughout Russia and Eastern Europe. In a decisive 111 to 25 vote, the U.N. General Assembly overturned the 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism. The leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization shook hands with the prime minister of Israel. The European Union (EU), mindful of the legacy of the Holocaust and the genocidal Balkan wars, created an independent agency to combat xenophobia and anti-Semitism within its own borders. Confronted with a resurgence in hatred after what had seemed to be an era of extraordinary progress, the Jewish community now finds itself asking: Why now?

Historically, anti-Semitism has fluctuated with the boom and bust of business cycles. Jews have long been scapegoats during economic downturns, as a small minority with outsized political and financial influence. To some extent, that pattern still applies. Demagogues in countries engulfed by the financial crises of the late 1990s fell back on familiar stereotypes. "Who is to blame?" asked General Albert Makashov of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation following the collapse of the ruble in 1998. "Usury, deceit, corruption, and thievery are flourishing in the country. That is why I call the reformers Yids [Jews]." But other countries don’t fit this profile. How, for instance, does one explain anti-Semitism’s resurgence in Austria and Great Britain, which have enjoyed some of the lowest unemployment rates in Europe?

Rising hostility toward Israel is also a significant factor. The 2000 Al-Aqsa Intifada was more violent than its 1987 predecessor, as helicopter gunships and suicide bombers supplanted rubber bullets and stones. This second Intifada also marked the emergence of the "Al-Jazeera" effect, with satellite television beaming brutal images of the conflict, such as the death of 12-year-old Palestinian Muhammed al-Dura, into millions of homes worldwide. In Europe, Muslim extremists took out their fury on Jews and Jewish institutions. Some in the European press, even as they dismissed anti-Jewish violence as random hooliganism or a political grudge match between rival ethnic groups, used incendiary imagery that routinely drew comparisons between Israel and the Nazi regime. This crude caricature of Israelis as slaughterers of the innocent soon morphed into the age-old "blood libel"—as when the Italian newspaper La Stampa published a cartoon depicting the infant Jesus threatened by Israeli tanks imploring, "Don’t tell me they want to kill me again."

Then came the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The U.S.-Israeli relationship—bound together by shared values, shared enemies such as Iran and Iraq, $2.7 billion a year in economic aid, and a powerful U.S. Jewish lobby—had allegedly brought down the wrath of the Islamic world and dragged the West into a clash of civilizations. This sentiment only deepened with U.S. military action against Iraq, when anti-Semitism bandwagoned on the anti-war movement and rising anti-Americanism. How else to explain a war against a country that had never attacked the United States, it was argued, if not for a cabal of Jewish neocon advisors who had hoodwinked the U.S. president into conquering Iraq to safeguard Israel?

But another element of the new anti-Semitism is often overlooked: The time frame for this resurgence of judeophobia corresponds with the intensification of international links that took place in the 1990s. "People are losing their compass," observes Dan Dinar, a historian at Hebrew University. "A worldwide stock market, a new form of money, no borders. Concepts like country, nationality, everything is in doubt. They are looking for the ones who are guilty for this new situation and they find the Jews." The backlash against globalization unites all elements of the political spectrum through a common cause, and in doing so it sometimes fosters a common enemy—what French Jewish leader Roger Cukierman calls an anti-Semitic "brown-green-red alliance" among ultra-nationalists, the populist green movement, and communism’s fellow travelers. The new anti-Semitism is unique because it seamlessly stitches together the various forms of old anti-Semitism: The far right’s conception of the Jew (a fifth column, loyal only to itself, undermining economic sovereignty and national culture), the far left’s conception of the Jew (capitalists and usurers, controlling the international economic system), and the "blood libel" Jew (murderers and modern-day colonial oppressors).

First They Came for the WTO
Jews have always aroused suspicion and contempt as a people apart, stubbornly resisting assimilation and clinging to their own religion, language, rituals, and dietary laws. But modern anti-Semitism made its debut with the emergence of global capitalism in the 19th century. When Jews left their urban ghettos and a small but visible number emerged as successful bankers, financiers, and entrepreneurs, they engendered resentment among those who envied their unfathomable success, especially given Jews’ secondary status in society....

Modern-day globalization—the opening of borders to the greater movement of ideas, people, and money—has stirred familiar anxieties about ill-defined "outside forces." Last June, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press published a survey conducted in 44 countries revealing that, although people generally have a favorable view of globalization, sizable majorities of those polled said their "traditional ways of life" are being threatened and agreed with the statement that "our way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence." And many believe "success is determined by forces outside their personal control."

With familiar anxieties come familiar scapegoats. Today’s financial crashes aren’t on the same scale as the economic dislocations of the 1880s and 1930s. But, as the 1997 Asian crisis revealed, in an era of volatile capital flows, damaging financial contagion can sweep through nations in a matter of weeks. Countries in the developing world, who view themselves as victims of globalization, sometimes see conspiratorial undertones. Modern-day resentment against the perceived power of international financial institutions has merged with old mythologies. The 19th century had its Rothschilds; the current era has had Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin at the U.S. Treasury Department, Alan Greenspan at the U.S. Federal Reserve, James Wolfensohn at the World Bank, and Stanley Fischer at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad once lashed out against "Jews who determine our currency levels, and bring about the collapse of our economy." The spokesman for the Jamaat-i-Islami political party in Pakistan complained: "Most anything bad that happens, prices going up, whatever, this can usually be attributed to the IMF and the World Bank, which are synonymous with the United States. And who controls the United States? The Jews do." Economic chaos in Zimbabwe, where a once thriving Jewish community of 8,000 has dwindled to just 650, prompted President Robert Mugabe to deliver a speech declaring that the "Jews in South Africa, working in cahoots with their colleagues here, want our textile and clothing factories to close down."

Throughout the Middle East, where economic growth remains stagnant everywhere but Israel, Islamists and secular nationalists alike portray globalization as the latest in a series of U.S.-Zionist plots to subjugate the Arab world under Western economic control and erase its cultural borders. A former spokesman for the militant group Hamas warned in the early 1990s that if Arab governments accepted the Jewish state’s existence, "Israel would rule in the region just as Japan dominates Southeast Asia, and all the Arabs will turn into the Jews’ workers." Mainstream Arab media outlets, such as the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram and the Palestinian newspaper Al Ayyam, publish columns that praise Osama bin Laden as the "man who says ‘no’ to the domination of globalization," and which cite the The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion—the infamous 19th century forgery of a purported blueprint for Jewish world domination—as hard evidence of globalization’s true intent.

In the West, anxiety over globalization provides opportunities for far-right political parties, who exploit the fears of those who see their way of life threatened by migrants from the developing world and who believe their sovereignty is besieged by regional trade pacts and monetary union. Jörg Haider, the head of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party, and Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Front Party—who both rode to electoral success on anti-immigrant, anti-Europe platforms—kept their anti-Semitic sentiments under wraps as they campaigned before the media. But other far-right organizations in Europe are not shy about pointing a finger at the "true culprits" behind their countries’ woes. In Italy, the Movimento Fascismo e Liberta identifies globalization as an "instrument in the hands of international Zionism." In Russia and Eastern Europe, "brown" ultra-nationalists and "red" communist stalwarts have formed an ideological alliance against foreign investors and multinational corporations, identifying Jews as the capitalist carpetbaggers sacking their national heritage.

In their war against globalization, the browns on the far right have also found common cause with the greens of the new left. Matt Hale, the leader of the U.S. white supremacist World Church of the Creator, praised the 1999 antiglobalization protests in Seattle as "incredibly successful from the point of view of the rioters as well as our Church. They helped shut down talks of the Jew World Order WTO and helped make a mockery of the Jewish Occupational Government around the world. Bravo." To lure in activists planning to protest the 2002 G-8 summit in Calgary, the National Alliance—the largest neo-Nazi organization in the United States that maintains ties with white supremacist groups worldwide—set up a Web site called the Anti-Globalism Action Network, dedicated to "broadening the anti-globalism movement to include divergent and marginalized voices."

Antiglobalization activists find themselves fighting a two-front battle, simultaneously protesting the World Trade Organization (WTO), IMF, and World Bank, while organizing impromptu counter-protests against far-right extremists who gate-crash their rallies. A bizarre ideological turf war has broken out. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) voice alarm about neo-Nazis "masquerading" as anti-globalization activists. On the Web site of the white supremacist Church of True Israel, an aggrieved Walter Nowotny retorts: "This accusation implies that we are late-comers to this movement and only associate with it to jump on a bandwagon that already has considerable momentum. But who are the real infiltrators and trespassers?"

History is repeating itself. As in the 19th century, the far right is plagiarizing left-wing dogma and imbuing it with racist overtones, transforming the campaign against the capitalist "New World Order" into a struggle against the "Jew World Order." The antiglobalization movement is, however, somewhat culpable. It isn’t inherently anti-Semitic, yet it helps enable anti-Semitism by peddling conspiracy theories. In its eyes, globalization is less a process than a plot hatched behind closed doors by a handful of unaccountable bureaucrats and corporations. Underlying the movement’s humanistic goals of universal social justice is a current of fear mongering—the IMF, the WTO, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) are portrayed not just as exploiters of the developing world, but as supranational instruments to undermine our sovereignty. Pick up a copy of the 1998 book MAI and the Threat to American Freedom (wrapped in a patriotic red, white, and blue cover), written by antiglobalization activists Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke, and you’ll read how "Over the past twenty-five years, corporations and the state seem to have forged a new political alliance that allows corporations to gain more and more control over governance. This new ‘corporate rule’ poses a fundamental threat to the rights and democratic freedoms of all people." At an even more extreme end of the spectrum, the Web site of the Canadian-based Centre for Research on Globalization sells books and videos that "expose" how the September 11 terrorist attacks were "most likely a special covert action" to "further the goals of corporate globalization."

Unfortunately, conspiracy theories must always have a conspirator, and all too often, the conspirators are perceived to be Jews. It takes but a small step to cross the line dividing the two worldviews. "If I told you I thought the world was controlled by a handful of capitalists and corporate bosses, you would say I was a left-winger," an anarchist demonstrator told the online Russian publication Pravda. "But if I told you who I thought the capitalists and corporate bosses were, you’d say I was far right."

The browns and greens are not simply plagiarizing one another’s ideas. They’re frequently reading from the same page. In Canada, a lecture by anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist David Icke was advertised in lefty magazines such as Shared Vision and Common Ground. ("Canadians voted down free trade and we got it anyway," said one woman who saw the ads and attended the event. "So there has to be something to that.") Far-right nationalists, such as former skinhead Jaroslaw Tomasiewicz, have infiltrated the Polish branch of the international antiglobalization organization ATTAC. The British Fascist Party includes among its list of recommended readings the works of left-wing antiglobalists George Monbiot and Noam Chomsky. A Web site warning of the dangers of "Jewish Plutocracy, Jewish Power" includes links to antiglobalization NGOs such as Corpwatch and Reclaim Democracy. The Dutch NGO De Fabel van de illegaal withdrew in disgust from the anti-MAI movement when it learned that the campaign’s activities were attracting the attention of far-right, anti-Semitic student groups. "By pointing to this so-called globalisation as our main problem, the anti-MAI activists prepare our thinking for the corresponding logical consequence—the struggle for ‘our own’ local economy, and as a consequence also for ‘our own’ state and culture," the director of De Fabel warned. "Left-wing groups are spreading an ideology that offers the New Right, rather than the left, bright opportunities for future growth."

Anti-Globalizionism
The greens and the browns share another common cause: opposition to Israel. Given the antiglobalization movement’s sympathy for Third-World causes, it’s not surprising that French activist Jose Bove took a break from trashing McDonald’s restaurants to show his solidarity with the Palestinian movement by visiting a besieged Yasir Arafat in Ramallah last year.

But, in the case of the new left, the salient question is not: What do antiglobalization activists have against Israel? Rather, it is important to ask: Why only Israel? Why didn’t Bove travel to Russia to demonstrate his solidarity with Muslim Chechen separatists fighting their own war of liberation? Why are campus petitions demanding that universities divest funds from companies with ties to Israel, but not China? Why do the same anti-globalization rallies that denounce Israel’s tactics against the Palestinians remain silent on the thousands of Muslims killed in pogroms in Gujarat, India?

Israel enjoys a unique pariah status among the antiglobalization movement because it is viewed as the world’s sole remaining colonialist state—an exploitative, capitalist enclave created by Western powers in the heart of the developing world. "They’re trying to impose an apartheid system on both the occupied territories and the Arab population in the rest of Israel," says Bove. "They are also putting in place—with the support of the World Bank—a series of neoliberal measures intended to integrate the Middle East into globalized production circuits, through the exploitation of cheap Palestinian labor."

Opposing the policies of the Israeli government does not make the new left anti-Semitic. But a movement campaigning for global social justice makes a mockery of itself by singling out just the Jewish state for condemnation. And when the conspiratorial mindset of the antiglobalization movement mingles with anti-Israeli rhetoric, the results can get ugly. Bove, for instance, told a reporter that the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, was responsible for anti-Semitic attacks in France in order to distract attention from its government’s actions in the occupied territories.

The consequences of embracing a double standard toward Israel are all too apparent at antiglobalization rallies. In Italy, a member of Milan’s Jewish community carrying an Israeli flag at a protest march was beaten by a mob of antiglobalization activists. At Davos, a group of protestors wearing masks of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (wearing a yellow star) carried a golden calf laden with money. Worldwide, protesters carry signs that compare Sharon to Hitler, while waving Israeli flags where the Star of David has been replaced with the swastika. Such displays portray Israel as the sole perpetrator of violence, ignoring the hundreds of Israelis who have died in suicide bombings and the role of the Palestinian Authority in fomenting the conflict. And equating Israel with the Third Reich is the basest form of Holocaust revisionism, sending the message that the only "solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nothing less than the complete destruction of the Jewish state. Antiglobalization activist and author Naomi Klein has spoken out against such displays, but she is in the minority. The very same antiglobalization movement that prides itself on staging counter-protests against neo-Nazis who crash their rallies links arms with protestors who wave the swastika in the name of Palestinian rights.

Like the antiglobalist left, far-right activists have also embraced their own form of anticolonialism. For them, globalization is synonymous with "mongrelization," an attempt to mix race and cultures and destroy unique heritages. When the greens preach the virtues of "localization," a hearty "amen" echoes among the browns, who seek to insulate their countries against the twin evils of human migration and foreign capital. The far right sees nationalist movements and indigenous rights groups as allies in the assault against the multiculturalism of the new world order. And it sees the Palestinians, in particular, as a resistance movement against the modern-day Elders of Zion. American neo-Nazi David Duke summed up this worldview in an essay on his Web site: "These Jewish supremacists have a master plan that should be obvious for anyone to see. They consistently attempt to undermine the culture, racial identity and solidarity, economy, political independence of every nation.…[They] really think they have some divine right to rule over not only Palestine but over the rest of the world as well."

Is Another World Possible?
....But, even if and when real peace comes, the conditions conducive to anti-Semitism aren’t going away. The very existence of Israel offends those who view it as a colonialist aberration. Arab governments remain averse to serious economic and political reforms that would open their societies and lift their citizens out of poverty. War, terrorism, and recession may periodically slow the pace of globalization, but the movement of people and money around the world continues unabated. The anxieties that accompany global integration—the fear that nations are surrendering their cultural, political, and economic sovereignty to shadowy outside forces—will not simply disappear.

It is paradoxical that Jews should find themselves swept up in the backlash against globalization, since Jews were the first truly globalized people. The survival of Jewish civilization—despite 2,000 years without a state and the scattering of its diaspora to nearly every nation on Earth—undermines the claim that globalization creates a homogenized world that destroys local cultures. Jews accommodated, and at times embraced, the foreign cultures they lived in without sacrificing their identity. The golden age of Jewish learning was not in ancient Israel, but in medieval Spain, where Jewish religious study, literature, and poetry flourished under the influence of Muslim scholars.

....And then there are the Jews within the antiglobalization movement itself. Many are drawn to the movement for the same reason that Jews have always been disproportionately represented in campaigns for social justice: the principle of tikkun olam (repairing the world). It imparts a commitment not only to care for the Jewish community, but for all of society. The antiglobalization activists who are Jewish carry a unique burden in that they are made to feel like strangers even though they are passionately devoted to safeguarding the environment, advocating human rights, and promoting economic equality. But rather than abandoning the movement, they seek to wrest the agenda from the extremists who would exclude them. A measure of their success could be seen in the final day of the 2003 World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. While street protesters waved their swastikas, a small group of Jewish and Palestinian peace activists organized a series of workshops, funded by local Jewish and Palestinian communities in Brazil. The result was a joint statement, read to 20,000 cheering activists, calling for "peace, justice, and sovereignty for our peoples," and a Palestinian state existing side by side with Israel....

Mark Strauss is a senior editor at FOREIGN POLICY.

* * *

See also the big debate in http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16824

in response to: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16671

OMG, after Tony Judt advocated a binational state in Israel/Palestine, "Much of the American response verged on hysteria. Readers accused me of belonging to the "Nazi Left," of hating Jews, of denying Israel's right to exist. "Distinguished professors" at American universities canceled their NYR subscriptions (in marked contrast to Israeli correspondents who welcomed the disagreement, "basic to freedom" as the director of the Yad Vashem Archives put it). Andrea Levin, executive director of the "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America," accused me of "pandering to genocide" and being "party to preparations for a final solution." Alan Dershowitz of Harvard made the analogy with Adolf Hitler's "one-state solution for all of Europe." David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, charged me with advocating "genocidal liberalism": characteristically, he attributed my opinions to my origins, which he mistakenly took to be Belgian. The New Republic described my essay as "crossing a line": in a broad hint to readers for whom anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are indistinguishable, it dubbed my views "anti-Zionism with a human face."

One Distinguished Professor of European History writes: "Judt means that Israel is an anachronism compared to Europe. But according to his reading, modern Poland and Serbia, for instance, are anachronisms, because they are based on a view of a unity of nation and state. Conversely, Poland of the interwar period, 40 percent of whose population was made up of Ukrainians, Jews, Germans, and other minorities, and which was rife with ethnic conflict and antiSemitism, points out the way of the future for Israel. Or Yugoslavia, which broke up in a sea of blood.

Judt neglects to mention that Germany, the most populous and important European country, still bases its citizenship on a law dating back to 1913, which defines Germans by blood and heritage, and that a majority of Germans today support the idea of minorities accepting the Leitkultur (primary culture) of the land. He also curiously leaves aside the fact that about a fifth of the French recently voted for Jean-Marie Le Pen in the name of kicking out foreigners, and that traditionally the French republic accepts foreigners only if they are willing to become culturally French republicans. Finally, he does not mention that the European Union is based on the principal of opening its interior borders and sealing itself off from the rest of humanity, which is banging on its gates in despair caused not least by economic policies pursued by Europe and the United States vis-à-vis the poorer countries of the world."

Another Professor of Social Science adds: "Ridding the world of the nation-state is an interesting, if not a new, idea. But why start with Israel? Why not start with France—which is, after all, the original nation-state? The French led the way into this parochial political structure that, in violation of all the tenets of advanced opinion, privileges a particular people, history, and language. Let them lead the way out. Or the Germans, or the Swedes, or the Bulgarians, or the Japanese, all of whom have enjoyed those "privileges" much longer than the Jews."

Judt replies: "we have not entered into a post-national, transcultural, globalized paradise in which the state has become redundant. On the contrary: in a time of heightened insecurity the prime attribute of the state as Hobbes saw it—providing security in return for allegiance and obedience—will matter more than ever.

That is why the European Union, for example, can never replace its constituent member states as the legitimate incarnation of their citizens' core interests. It is also, incidentally, why Israel has a right of self-defense, like any other state. I did not write that Israel should take actions that would endanger its citizens' security, and I would not expect it to do so. When I wrote that Israel is at odds with "a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law," what I meant—as I went on to say—is that a state in which one category of persons has exclusive privileges, from which another category is forever excluded, is out of step with modern democratic practice....

The comparison with France, which many critics raised, is revealing in this respect. Yes, France—like Italy, Germany, and every other sovereign state—distinguishes and discriminates between citizens and noncitizens. No country welcomes anyone and everyone—as Omer Bartov rightly observes, the Europeans in particular discriminate quite shamelessly against would-be immigrants. And all countries have resident noncitizens who get second-class treatment. But if someone is a citizen of, e.g., France, he or she is French and that is all there is to the matter, at least as far as the law is concerned. The categories become tautological: France is the state of all the French; all French persons are by definition citizens of France; and all citizens of France are...French. Israel, by contrast, is by its own account the "state of all the Jews" (wherever they live and whether or not they seek the association), while containing non-Jewish (Arab) citizens who do not enjoy similar status and rights. There is no comparison.

To be sure, there is indeed a political party in France that would very much like to emulate the Israeli model and discriminate between categories of citizenship according to religion or ethnicity or country of origin. That is the Front National, whose leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, is—perhaps not coincidentally—a great admirer of Israel's way of handling Arabs and has long advocated "relocation packages" for French citizens of the wrong color, creed, and provenance. But no respectable European politician, however tempted to pander to local prejudices, would ever contemplate recasting citizenship laws along such lines; moreover, any such proposal would fall foul of European law. Even Germany (whose 1913 citizenship law has since been revised, as Professor Bartov must know), while it favors certain candidates for citizenship, makes no distinctions among German citizens themselves. Israel is truly unique in this respect.

But Israel is at war, and that, as many correspondents suggested, has to be taken into account. Indeed so. Actually, Zionism has always been at war and its very identity is a function of conflict, struggle, and mutually exclusive claims on history. From the outset, and long before the Holocaust could be invoked in mitigation, the leaders of the Zionist project regarded the indigenous Arab population of Palestine as their enemy. More than a century ago the Zionist writer Ahad Ha'Am observed that the settlers "treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly on their territories, beat them shamelessly for no sufficient reason, and boast at having done so." To the extent that little has changed, it is understandable that many readers would dismiss my reflections on a binational state as a crazy fantasy....

Ideas acquire traction over time as part of a process. It is only when we look back across a sufficient span of years that we recognize, if we are honest, how much has happened that we could literally not have conceived of before. Franco-German relations today; the accords reached across a table by Protestant Unionists and Sinn Fein; post-apartheid reconciliation in South Africa—all these represent transformations in consciousness and political imagination that few but "escapist fantasists" could have dreamed of before they happened. And every one of those thickets of bloodshed and animosity and injustice was at least as old and as intricate and as bitter as the Israel–Arab conflict, if not more so...."

I took interest in this topic also because racism and xenophobia transcend the borders of the Middle East.  Many of us live in places like Northern Ireland or South Africa, mentioned in the previous paragraph, and we also have to cope with hatred between neighbors.  I am glad Arthur agrees that men are monkeys.

Jacek

I don't know about Serbia, but the Distinguished Professor of European History is wrong when he says that Poland "is based on a view of a unity of nation and state."  60 years ago, when the superpowers decided to move Polish borders westwards (without asking the Poles for permission as far as I know), "natural historical ethnic adjustments" followed on the new Polish western border with Germany, but certainly today, on the eve of Poland's accession to the EU, any unity of nation and state is an anachronism.  I do not see how Poland, as an EU member, could close today its borders to immigrants. 

Jacek

I heartily recommend this website. Israel Shamir is a Russian Jew living in Israel, accused by some of being a Christian. At all events, he has some very thought-provoking pieces -- enough so to face undeserved censorship in paradigms of freedom, democracy, etc.

http://www.israelshamir.net/

(Fond thanks in passing to Jacek for gently nudging me into, um, resurrecting this thread.)

ok, here's the latest eu study on antisemitism in europe, 105 pages, in english, and really interesting.

http://www.cohn-bendit.de/depot/standpunkte/Manifestations%20of%20anti-Semitism%20in%20the%20European%20Union_EN.pdf

have a nice day

uli

Dear Ulrike,

While nothing can be done, I am afraid, to stave off the spread of conspiracy theories, it is so sad that hardly anything can be done to stop politicians from fomenting trouble in so many parts of the world. (70% of Poles are against Poland's presence in Iraq?  Sure enough, the government sends our troops there.)  As others have already said, the reason we so often talk about anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism these days is that millions of people hate what the US and Israeli governments, not nations, are doing and as a result that feeling extends to individuals.  That is a very counter-productive and irresponsible process, but to eradicate fanaticism one would need to learn how to pour oil on rather than fan the flames.  Too many are unable to do that even in simple everyday situations to hope for any genetic mutation in humans any time soon.

Thank you very much for sharing that interesting report.

Jacek

As I said elsewhere, on the eve of his departure for Brussels, Polish prime minister, conveniently an ex-communist, was struck by the Almighty as his helicopter crashed.  This time, said the Almighty, I will let you walk away.  Mr Miller vows to attend the summit in Brussels tomorrow.  We will see how he fares with his beacon of Christianity.

Jacek

http://www.courrierinternational.com/mag/ERsoc.htm

...une référence à l’histoire des convictions est-elle possible, qui ne soit pas un prolongement des querelles indécentes du passé ?

Il nous semble que le concept de “désaccord fondateur” avancé par [le philosophe français] Olivier Abel* est prometteur à ce propos. Un désaccord est fondateur lorsqu’il est reconnu comme valeur par un peuple. Une telle reconnaissance permet une dynamique créative de lien social équitable. La dévalorisation du désaccord, au contraire, entraîne une dérive. C’est pourquoi le désaccord peut être reconnu comme fondement nécessaire. Ici, dans le préambule de la Constitution européenne, le désaccord porterait sur le principe de transcendance. L’inscription d’un principe de transcendance est-elle nécessaire pour fonder la politique européenne ? La question est indécidable. Inscrire ce point sous le titre de désaccord fondateur dessine un espace de pluralisme s’accordant avec la recherche, incontournable, de normes communes, par le chemin du consensus par confrontation.

La reconnaissance du désaccord comme coeur de la culture européenne dessine un espace où l’Etat se reçoit d’une confrontation permanente entre les diverses “visions du monde” qui, simultanément, renoncent à toute prétention hégémonique du vrai et du juste. Elles ne renoncent cependant pas à une tension vers le vrai et le juste. L’espace ainsi dessiné correspond à la véritable laïcité de l’Etat. Il est le résultat d’une pression réciproque exercée par la pluralité des convictions religieuses ou sécularisées. Ce qui fait la solidité d’une voûte, c’est l’équilibre des pressions et non leur neutralisation. Nous sommes loin du pluralisme mou qui guette nos démocraties et ne leur donne pas les moyens de traverser humainement les défis du moment.

Le concept de désaccord fondateur permet d’écarter toute organisation politique qui se réclame d’un fondement philosophique ou théologique unilatéral. La non-reconnaissance du principe de désaccord fondateur par un Etat pour son organisation politique suffit à disqualifier sa requête d’appartenance à l’Europe. Honorer le désaccord fondateur revient à construire une digue qui préserve l’espace européen contre toute émergence de régimes intégristes ou totalitaires. Il permet d’approfondir la conception laïque et pluraliste de l’Etat, sans confisquer la citoyenneté à quiconque.

Sur la question des fondements des valeurs et du droit, les citoyens européens sont depuis des siècles en désaccord. L’inscription de ce désaccord dans le préambule de la Constitution revient à honorer la vérité d’une dynamique historique. Elle permet aussi d’asseoir la légitimité du pluralisme au sujet de cette question. Nul Européen n’est plus habilité à réclamer l’hégémonie de sa conception pour l’organisation politique de l’Etat. Souvent, poser la question des références fait craindre qu’on ouvre la boîte de Pandore. Le concept de désaccord fondateur évite ce risque. Il interdit toute prise de pouvoir violente d’une lecture hégémonique des racines culturelles de l’histoire européenne. ...

Japan remains a touchy issue in China because of WW II and the Nanjing massacres. Then there were the biowarfare experiments up north (the experts, by the way, never faced war crimes charges -- they took up job offers in the USA or offers of amnesty against full disclosure and consultancy services).

That said, Internet, increasing PR awareness among Palestinians and, above all, Europe's emancipation from US, um, patronage have combined to sway public opinion considerably in the past decade. Already apparent in information-savvy Sweden in the late 1960s, the swing of public opinion is clearly moving towards support of the Palestinian side.

In fact, even the British monarchy was pro-Nazi during World War II: Germany was perceived in those circles, as among US and European industrialists, as the best chance of crushing Communism. Once Germany had fumbled its shot at Moscow, Churchill shifted into fourth gear and strove to play off a rising Germany against a rising USSR with a view to letting them bleed each other to death. He underestimated the human resources, stamina and support available to Stalin, who played the "Mother Russia" card to the hilt, however.

George Bush Sr tried to cut Israel down to size -- it was costing the US some USD 15 billion a year in 1991 (not the official 3 or 4!). He failed.

Israel's plight is desperate: no nation can survive indefinitely against the enmity of all its neighbours -- even with the solid backing of the world's only superpower. Even the ultraconservative mystics of Judaism oppose Zionism. The Sufi and other mystics also take a dim view of Zionism: it is only a matter of time -- a country with a mere pair of centuries of history can have no inkling of the power of having 30 centuries of history in your people's blood. That superpower will either go down with Israel or it will drop Israel like a wet tampax before it's too late.

What is characteristic of all the empires' fall is that no one imagines it is possible. 

J.

Patrick,

Jews, I imagine, could object by saying that when the Holocaust happened, there was no modern state of Israel yet (although, of course, there was Palestine and Zionism).  It is, to a large extent, about memory.

I think that the survey you have reported on may be part of broader attempts we are witnessing to demonstrate that Germany was also a victim in WWII.  This is believed by one-third of Germans, but it is debatable.

If you don't know what it is, you can be sure it's all politics:

Germans as Victims
By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, October 15, 2003; Page A23, The Washington Post

"It was also hard not to notice how much the chatter about books in Germany reveals nowadays about the mood in Germany. As in the United States, many of the books that have recently found their way to the top of German bestseller lists concern Sept. 11, 2001. Unlike those in the United States, many of them also argue that the Bush administration was responsible for Sept. 11. One book, by a former German government minister, argues that the planes that hit the World Trade Center may have been secretly steered from the ground. Another — translated from the French and titled "The Appalling Lie" — says that the Pentagon was never hit by a plane at all but was instead deliberately blown up with a bomb. Germany's establishment press has studiously debunked these theories, to little avail: Recently, an opinion poll showed that one in five Germans believe them.

But if German bestseller lists reveal a German reassessment of the United States, they have also in recent years revealed an even more vigorous German reassessment of Germany. Not one but two books have become popular through their descriptions of the Allied bombing of Dresden in 1945, which resulted in fires that caused tens of thousands of deaths. One of the authors used the word "crematoria" to describe the burning buildings, described the Allied bomber pilots as the equivalents of Nazi police units that murdered Jews and concluded by wondering whether Winston Churchill, who ordered the bombings, ought to have been condemned as a war criminal.

These books have also been effective: According to another opinion poll, more than a third of the Germans now think of themselves as "victims" of the Second World War — just like the Jews. Nor has this new interpretation of history remained limited to books. Lately momentum has gathered behind a movement to build a new museum in Berlin dedicated to Germans expelled from their homes at the end of the war — just like the Holocaust museum. It's not wrong for Germans to remember their relatives who suffered, but the tone of the campaigners is disturbing, because they seem, at times, almost to forget why the war started in the first place. Their leader, for example, is the daughter of a Wehrmacht officer, and was born in occupied Poland. Tragically, she was expelled from her childhood home when German troops were defeated — the adverb "tragically" representing a certain point of view here, not an objective observation."

Jacek

From http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faessay82607-p10/dominique-moisi/reinventing-the-west.html

"Europe is not doomed to be a continent of betrayal and antisemitism, a view too often trumpeted in popular American magazines such as Vanity Fair. Antisemitic acts in modern Europe are perpetuated by individuals, not states, and have nothing to do with Europe's past. There is an equally dangerous tendency, on both sides of the Atlantic, to believe that in today's Europe, Jews are the primary target of discrimination and, in America, an insidious source of influence. This dichotomy must be resisted, as neither assertion is true. Muslims are far more likely to suffer prejudice and discrimination in Europe, and Jewish power in America has always been greatly exaggerated."

Dominique Moisi is Senior Adviser to the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales. A longer version of this essay will appear as a report of the Trilateral Commission.

Otherwise, the author advocates a new doctrine of no European-American mutual interference:

"The result might amount to something like the acceptance of two Monroe Doctrines, with the transatlantic partners each holding sway in certain areas, and on certain issues, that reflect their de facto spheres of interest. Europeans would concentrate on Europe, with a special emphasis on the Balkans and the Mediterranean, and the United States would have priority in the Americas and in Asia. Both Wests would support moderate leaders and promote the rule of law in their respective spheres of influence. They would collaborate in the Middle East, attempting to close the emotional gap between them over the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. And the two sides would also come together over a new doctrine of enlightened interventionism in Africa."

The twin-Monroe doctrine would be an improvement but US reticence to allow Europe to create an independent military command suggests they intend to continue running the show in Europe, e.g. there is a world of difference between "Secret" and "NATO Secret", "Top Secret" and "NATO Top Secret" with the unqualified being reserved for US eyes only and French Air Force pilots and ATC use English to simplify monitoring as much as coordination. Most Frenchmen ignore this and the French Defence Ministry isn't shouting it out loud.

Alas, as Mediterranean neighbours of the Muslim world, Europe's buns are on the line if relations continue to sour -- just as Germany would have become the first instant lunar landscape if Cold War push had come to Hot War shove in the latter half of the last century. And graduated response doctrine might have contained it to just that land too.

Anyhow: a belated Happy Xmas to you & fam, Jacek, and think of me the next time you dig your teeth into a fine piece of kielbasa.

Dear Arthur and all,

I felt blessed anyhow with everyone's greetings, whether personalized or not, and I am sorry if I did not pay everyone back accordingly on time. But I did think about all of you I interact with, whether I was eating the little kielbasa I did or not during Christmas.  It's pretty cruel to interrupt this vacation for three days now...

Jacek

Tuesday May 30, 2006
The Guardian

Britain's largest lecturers' union yesterday voted in favour of a boycott of Israeli lecturers and academic institutions who do not publicly dissociate themselves from Israel's "apartheid policies": http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,1785634,00.html

A couple other recent articles on the plight of Palestinians:

The racist and colonial policies echo apartheid, and call for a similar response: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1491646,00.html

the most recent diplomatic moves by the Quartet - the US, the EU, the UN and Russia - to alleviate suffering, while keeping up the ban on dealing with the Palestinians' elected leaders, are totally inadequate: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1778549,00.html

Originally written by Arthur Borges on June 15, 2006 9:12 PM ....you are forgiven in the name of the Dad, the Tyke and the Holy Spook. Amen.

Dear Arthur,

It is the second time I have to say today, on this Corpus Christi holiday, that I appreciate being heard. And kielbasa is a very appropriate association because the related Polish verb pokielbasic means to get all muddled up. For God's sake, what are you doing at this hour in the morning?

Fondest,

Jacek

Originally written by Jacek Krankowski on November 25, 2003 5:28 PM A rash of doomsday articles in the American and American Jewish press, warning of the approach of a "Second Holocaust," is prompting a rash of, well, bewilderment in Israel, wrote last year http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.06.07/news3.html, quoting, among others, Avi Primor, vice president of Tel Aviv University and former Israeli ambassador to Germany, who said that Americans are "overreacting" to the threat of European antisemitism because of lingering psychological scars. "They have a complex that American Jewry did nothing to save European Jewry. During World War II, they didn't act like a strong Jewish lobby. If they'd had AIPAC then, B-52 bombers might have bombed the railroad tracks. So they are trying to do today what they didn't do then, and save European Jewry that no longer needs saving."

Compare the latest:

Originally written by Jacek Krankowski on January 14, 2008 11:59 AM President Bush said at Yad Vashem that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz during WWII to halt the killing .... http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/943955.html

So, blame the Poles:

"The Polish language version of Fear: anti-Semitism in Poland, the book by Jan Gross, has just been published here, two years after the English version": http://beatroot.blogspot.com/2008/01/fear-in-poland.html

An excerpt from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21031

The 'Problem of Evil' in Postwar Europe

By Tony Judt

...Today, when Israel is exposed to international criticism for its mistreatment of Palestinians and its occupation of territory conquered in 1967, its defenders prefer to emphasize the memory of the Holocaust. ...

I understand the emotions behind such claims. But the claims themselves are extraordinarily dangerous. When people chide me and others for criticizing Israel too forcefully, lest we rouse the ghosts of prejudice, I tell them that they have the problem exactly the wrong way around. It is just such a taboo that may itself stimulate anti-Semitism. For some years now I have visited colleges and high schools in the US and elsewhere, lecturing on postwar European history and the memory of the Shoah. I also teach these topics in my university. And I can report on my findings.

Students today do not need to be reminded of the genocide of the Jews, the historical consequences of anti-Semitism, or the problem of evil. They know all about these—in ways their parents never did. And that is as it should be. But I have been struck lately by the frequency with which new questions are surfacing: "Why do we focus so on the Holocaust?" "Why is it illegal [in certain countries] to deny the Holocaust but not other genocides?" "Is the threat of anti-Semitism not exaggerated?" And, increasingly, "Doesn't Israel use the Holocaust as an excuse?" I do not recall hearing those questions in the past.

My fear is that two things have happened. By emphasizing the historical uniqueness of the Holocaust while at the same time invoking it constantly with reference to contemporary affairs, we have confused young people. And by shouting "anti-Semitism" every time someone attacks Israel or defends the Palestinians, we are breeding cynics. For the truth is that Israel today is not in existential danger. And Jews today here in the West face no threats or prejudices remotely comparable to those of the past—or comparable to contemporary prejudices against other minorities.

Imagine the following exercise: Would you feel safe, accepted, welcome today as a Muslim or an "illegal immigrant" in the US? As a "Paki" in parts of England? A Moroccan in Holland? A beur in France? A black in Switzerland? An "alien" in Denmark? A Romanian in Italy? A Gypsy anywhere in Europe? Or would you not feel safer, more integrated, more accepted as a Jew? I think we all know the answer. In many of these countries—Holland, France, the US, not to mention Germany—the local Jewish minority is prominently represented in business, the media, and the arts. In none of them are Jews stigmatized, threatened, or excluded.

If there is a threat that should concern Jews—and everyone else—it comes from a different direction. We have attached the memory of the Holocaust so firmly to the defense of a single country—Israel—that we are in danger of provincializing its moral significance. Yes, the problem of evil in the last century, to invoke Arendt once again, took the form of a German attempt to exterminate Jews. But it is not just about Germans and it is not just about Jews. It is not even just about Europe, though it happened there. The problem of evil —of totalitarian evil, or genocidal evil —is a universal problem. But if it is manipulated to local advantage, what will then happen (what is, I believe, already happening) is that those who stand at some distance from the memory of the European crime—because they are not Europeans, or because they are too young to remember why it matters—will not understand how that memory relates to them and they will stop listening when we try to explain.

In short, the Holocaust may lose its universal resonance. We must hope that this will not be the case and we need to find a way to preserve the core lesson that the Shoah really can teach: the ease with which people—a whole people—can be defamed, dehumanized, and destroyed. ...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=948514&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1

		The postcard depicting Holocaust victim Anne Frank in a kaffiyeh.

"to create an idealistic image in which both states exist alongside one another in peace."

When I read the little 'blurb' in the Danish news, I thought that it can't be as serious as all that, but sadly, it is true. 

What can we do to change this downward spiral? 

-------

Unfavorable Views of Both Jews and Muslims Increase in Europe

18 September 2008, Thursday

I would be interested to hear comments on:

The new anti-Semitism?

How ancient prejudice and outright hostility have re-emerged since the Nuremberg Trials

This is a review of:

Denis MacShane
GLOBALISING HATRED
The new antisemitism
188pp. Orion. £12.99.
978 0 297 84473 0

by Christopher Hitchens who is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book, God Is Not Great: The case against religion, appeared earlier this year.

Full story: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article5186954.ece

Anti-semitism is a very complex matter and this article fails to address some very pertinent facts.  Chief among these:

1.  The article speaks about the traditional antagonism between a rural, established conservative Christian community and the Jewish, urban, eduated elite.  However, in the contemporary US, the biggest supporters of Israel are in fact rural Christian fundamentalists who wish Israel to prosper becuase they see it as a sign of the imminent return of Christ.  Support of Israel is thus linked to ideas such as anti-scientific reasonging (e.g. support of creationism).  The most prominent Jew in American politics, Joe Lieberman, campaigned ardently on behalf of the most anti-intellectual politician in America, Sarah Palin.  Some anti-Jewish sentiment thus stems from its association with conservative ideas.

2.  The article fails to address the cultural tensions between Jewish and Anglo-Saxon American culture.  As a WASP who has spent considerable time among Jews, I have observed a number of Jewish cultural traits that WASPS view disfavorably.  First, Jews can be very clanish and arrogant, and even cold, to non-Jews.  Second, the approach to language and discourse between Jews and WASPS is quite different.  WASPS tend to favor subtle, indirect language, whereas many Jews are direct and blunt, which WASPS interpret as rude. 

3.  Many Americans have lost respect for Jews because they are so clearly self-centered and indifferent to other groups.  The treatment of Palestinians has eroded much good will, and many have been horified at the silence of the Jewish community in the face of genocide in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Darfur.  I grew up in the 1970s hearing Jews say over and over again that they would "never again" allow genocide to occur.  It appears, however, that they only meant Jewish genocide, and that the genocide of other peoples is unimportant.

This has always struck me too and is actually beyond my comprehension.

Jacek

Originally written by John Bunch on November 20, 2008 6:20 PM We Americans never wanted the Germans to be pacifists. We wanted them in NATO. Or am I missing something ?

The US never wanted a German army that was able to do anything on its own.  Mostly the US wanted to base its own forces on German soil and work with token German forces that would follow US policy.  The last thing the US, or any of its other WWII allies, wanted was an independent and strong German military that could actualy exert power on its own, even if it was within NATO.  The US was displeased enough when France removed its forces from NATO control.

Ukrainian gendarmes and Latvian auxiliary police, Romanian soldiers or Hungarian railway workers, Polish farmers, Dutch land registry officials, French mayors, Norwegian ministers, Italian soldiers -- they all took part in Germany's Holocaust.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,625824,00.html

Originally written by John Bunch on May 21, 2009 1:04 AM Over half of the concentration camp guards were not Germans,

This is one of many instances described in literature:

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Reunion_A_Holocaust_Memoir.asp

"Ana was our Kapo. She was the butt of our hatred. We couldn't assimilate the fact that a Jew just like us, stemming from the very same hallowed roots as ours, could treat her fellow sisters with such abject cruelty. That pain cut deep, and was the source of the intense hatred that we felt towards her.

"We, all of us from Barracks 267, were terrified of her. We shook at the very sight of her, we trembled at the sound of her voice, but mainly we feared her beatings. When she would enter the barracks, locking the door behind her, tap-tapping her way across the floor with her shining black leather boots, with the gold buckles glinting in the dim light of the barracks, we quaked in fear.

As was said before, there are no innocent victims:

Jewish Ghetto Police

Judenrat

All this blame game makes no sense whatsoever.

Jacek

Originally written by Jacek K. on May 21, 2009 1:19 AM Originally written by John Bunch on May 21, 2009 1:04 AM Over half of the concentration camp guards were not Germans,

Because the nazis made them do it: it is bad too of course that they agreed instead of dying but nazi tortures were more than waterboadring, which is a terrible torture, but nothing like what the nazis did to make people obey them: pulling out nails, injecting them with poisons and different medical substances, I would rather not think about the: rest throwing infants against concrete walls.      

Originally written by John Bunch on May 20, 2009 7:04 PM That is true. Over half of the concentration camp guards were not Germans, I read somewhere. And historically, Germany was not one of the more anti-Semitic countries.

I do not know if Germany was an anti-Semitic country or not but it was Hitler and nazi Germany that decided to kill all the Jews, not anybody else and they did everything to make sure their plan worked, although it did not in the end, because many survived regardless of what the nazis were certain about. I will admit that there probably was a certain kind of anti-Semitism in Poland, although where I lived there were not too many Jewish people so you could not really tell the total extent, but it was more in jokes and stories like the Scottish have about the English or the Swedes about Norwegians. They would probably laugh at some people just because they were different like they would laugh at me when I put on high heels in sixth grade, or at somebody's Silesian accent, not mine, because I never had any Silesian accent, but a lot of my friends did and I could see sometimes what was happening when we entered a different region of Poland, considered Polish as opposed to Silesian. Many young people would simply laugh at them and call them different names: such as Hanys, name coming from Silesian Hanek-male name, a short form of Johann or Jan. But I can assure you, that 99.9% of Polish people would not do anything harmful in a physical sense to Jews or even to Silesians. Many were saving the Jews during the war.

The reason why I am writing this is because of the propaganda of some extremely right Western groups, the history has been presented in such a way that some people are almost ready to build monuments to Hitler and to the nazi soldiers, Auschwitz was liberated by the Americans, the concentration camps were Polish, Poles were the biggest anti-Semites, waterboarding is the most severe torture, the Japanese including the World War II army just meditated, no one was decapitating POWs and eating their livers while they were still alive, for strength.

The source of some anti-Semitism in Poland or rather anti-socializing than anti-Semitism has its roots in Christian religion: they tell you from an early childhood that if you marry somebody out of your religion, you go to hell. Also I think people in Poland were quite conservative, so even if you were inappropriately dressed according to their concepts of Fashion they laughed. They found everything different suspicious, probably out of fear of the unknown

Originally written by Jacek K. on May 21, 2009 7:19 AM ...All this blame game makes no sense whatsoever.

 

The very emotional and highly charged story about Ana (the Kapo) is not helpful to anyone else but the person telling the story. I don't know how such a story can be told without resorting to emotional and highly charged language, but as far as I can see, it only underlines and reiterates an intense hatred that will surface to the conscious mind and once there...

I was very young but can still remember the incredible discussions (that I didn't understand), as well as the intense hatred in my mother's eyes when she discussed the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem with the rest of the family. Why, I wondered are they all so angry at this man? He is a nasty German and a Nazi, I was told. That is one way to inculcate fear and hatred of the Other.

Now, with the Demjanjuk trial coming up, we can look forward to another highly charged, emotional feeding frenzy.

It makes no sense...

Nanna

It is different, Nanna, I think if you lived through the World War II and saw all the atrocities of it, like your mother probably did. It is different if you see it in person, or even just see the camps , the hair of the people murdered, the neatly separated things taken away from them on their last journey to the chambers. Only then it becomes real. I grew up on the remembrance of World War II: all our trips from school were to the labor camp, except maybe one or two to the Zoo. These were the 70's. All we learned in school from the first grade was hatred towards nazism. Everything was arranged around the World War II. I agree we cannot feed hatred so it goes on and on for generations, but we also cannot forget, forgive yes, perhaps yes, but not forget,  nor let the history to be distorted again into mineralizing nazi crimes at the cost of accusing other nations of something they did not do, just for political reasons.

I really don't know, Lily, for I am born right after WWII, when the age-old vexation and hypersensitivity toward the Germans burned brighter than bright and the baby-boomers imbibed this with mother's milk. Certainly, to this day, there's no love lost between the Danes and the Germans. As far as I know, the Danes are not anti-Semitic, but they will tell fairly nasty jokes about the Germans, and their (supposedly) greasy diet of sauerkraut and big fat sausages. It's patently stupid, but the jokes are not harmless for underneath the veneer of telling a joke you can find real feelings.  

I have vistied the Holocaust Museum in Washington. I have never visted the site of any KZ camp and unless forced to, I won't do it. While in University, I attended classes (two semesters worth) about the Holocaust. The professor had lost family in the KZ camps, and while we all felt terrible for him, there was no room for anything other than his highly charged feelings about the Third Reich. At his request, I had to rewrite a paper because he felt that I failed to treat the subject with the right kind of seriousness. 

We should not, I agree, distort what happened during WWII, but there is more than way to distort an issue.

Nanna

None did what the nazis did, perhaps just the regime in Cambodia had slightly similar methods.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 21, 2009 2:41 PM None did what the nazis did, perhaps just the regime in Cambodia had slightly similar methods.

Sorry, you seem to be misinformed. Some did.

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on May 21, 2009 3:04 PM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 21, 2009 2:41 PM None did what the nazis did, perhaps just the regime in Cambodia had slightly similar methods. Sorry, you seem to be misinformed. Some did.

Many people and dictators did a lot of bad things and killed a lot of people, but nobody else to my knowledge made soap out of human bones, methodically collected human hair to make thread and fabrics out of it, eventually clothes, no one has put people through gas chambers and crematoria, no one has degraded people to such an extent. I have not heard about anybody else who did those things, except perhaps Pol Pot.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 21, 2009 3:23 PM Many people and dictators did a lot of bad things and killed a lot of people, but nobody else to my knowledge made soap out of human bones, methodically collected human hair to make thread and fabrics out of it, eventually clothes, no one has put people through gas chambers and crematoria, no one has degraded people to such an extent.

Gas chambers and crematoria are not the worst human ingenuity could offer.

A person, once killed, doesn`t care much about bones or hair or clothes or soap, I suppose. Yet some things are worse. Kept alive with your soul killed, for example.

But I also personally don't see much of a difference between what Hitler did to the Jews, and what Stalin or Mao did to various "out" groups (the kulaks, the "land owners", etc.). In each case, the dictator utilized an "outsider group" as a scapegoat for the nation's problems, and then mobilized a mass movement to annihilate that group. We should thus be very wary of collectivism and mass movements. The only difference to me is that Germany is the nation of "Dichter und Denker" ("Poets and Thinkers"), and the fact that this atrocity occurred in the - at that time - most educated country in the world, is shocking, but also should be a lesson to us.

Before then, the Germans - under the Kaiser - had turned the largest ethnic community in Namibia into a small minority due to the community's aversion to foreign domination. I believe something similar happened in Zimbabwe carried out by the Boers and like-minded Britons.

As for the 'proper' capitalists, what exactly did the Kumitang do after taking over Taiwan? I gather school children in uniform were considered one of the greatest threats to their rule, a threat that had to be eradicated.

Now that the opportunity presents itself, what of the good US of A? All one sees of America on a social setting, is what the supposedly homogenous 'whites' have, and what the blacks don't have, and I always wonder about what should surely be the most important of all Americans, the native Americans, the owners of the land. What happened to them? What did Jackson and the Dutchman do to them, and where are the survivers?

I sometimes crush on Chinese, English forums just to get a feel of these new "Germans at the gates of Rome", and one must say that it is just as disheartening as it must have been for the ancient Romans. One would expect discussions on Zhao Ziyang's biography; Prisoner of The State, discussions on a new constitution for a new China, the upcoming Tiannamen anniversary ...etc, but all one finds there is foreigners lamenting on the lack of 'globalisation' of basic mannerism by many of the Chinese, and the Chinese's virulent tirade against 'imperialism' and Anglo-American 'liars'. There is nothing there about compensation and investigation into poor workmanship of public schools in Sichuan and possibly all over China. At the moment the new emperors are  unfortunately not very impressive.

Is there any reason why all the problems of the world have to always boil down to anti-Semitism? With all the wars going on in 2009 and millions having been killed in various instances of genocide (Post #41029) over the last century, people keep digging up events of 70 years ago while quietly continuing on the same path in various parts of the world.

Sure enough, there is one point of reference that has always to be there:

Jews should actually take offence at these attempts to supersede their persecution as the single biggest and unique suffering of the world's entire history. Except that in Poland, the analogy is between gays and not Jews but Blacks and how the hoi polloi treat them.

Originally written by Raymond Anthony on May 22, 2009 10:33 AM One would expect discussions on Zhao Ziyang's biography; Prisoner of The State

Definitely on my reading list!

Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 4:34 AM http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=is_homophobia_the_new_anti_semitism     Jews should actually take offence at these attempts to supersede their persecution as the single biggest and unique suffering of the world's entire history. Except that in Poland, the analogy is between gays and not Jews but Blacks and how the hoi polloi treat them. Originally written by Raymond Anthony on May 22, 2009 10:33 AM One would expect discussions on Zhao Ziyang's biography; Prisoner of The State Definitely on my reading list!

What is the reason for all these phobias in Poland, because otherwise Poles are very intelligent and often nice people.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 11:33 AM Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 4:34 AM  Except that in Poland, the analogy is between gays and not Jews but Blacks and how the hoi polloi treat them. What is the reason for all these phobias in Poland, because otherwise Poles are very intelligent and often nice people.

The reason is the same all over the world; people are afraid of what they don't understand. When they don't understand  someone or something, they'll do their horrible best to iradicate whoever or whatever so it will stop bothering the edges of their conscious mind. They'll even kill to stop it bothering them...for rather than open their minds to what can give rise to often very unpleasant cognitive dissonance Post #127280...

Nanna

Originally written by Raymond Anthony on May 22, 2009 4:33 AM Now that the opportunity presents itself, what of the good US of A? All one sees of America on a social setting, is what the supposedly homogenous 'whites' have, and what the blacks don't have, and I always wonder about what should surely be the most important of all Americans, the native Americans, the owners of the land. What happened to them? What did Jackson and the Dutchman do to them, and where are the survivers?

First of all I would like to mention that I really  feel sorry for what has happened to the Native American people, or Indians, as they call themselves. I like a lot of their culture and spirituality. I do not think that anyone was the only owner of such a big land as America and other people had the right to a settlement too, maybe not in such a way as it was done. Secondly, the Native Americans weren't exactly Buddhist Monks or Jehovah Witnesses, as far as war methods were concerned. They had wars with each other, one tribe fighting other tribes for land, women, game. They loved scalping, counting coup, etc, so I think the judgement has to be a little bit restrained.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 11:33 AM What is the reason for all these phobias in Poland, because otherwise Poles are very intelligent and often nice people.

It would be more interesting to see what statistics say. The fact that socially involved media carry these shocking stories about how gays and Blacks are sometimes battered says nothing about the extent of the phenomenon. That's why our own memories are also important. To follow up on your Post #176597, I grew up in Poland without knowing anything about anti-Semitism and, frankly, I didn't learn about it until I emigrated to the US.

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on May 22, 2009 5:56 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 11:33 AM Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 4:34 AM  Except that in Poland, the analogy is between gays and not Jews but Blacks and how the hoi polloi treat them. What is the reason for all these phobias in Poland, because otherwise Poles are very intelligent and often nice people. The reason is the same all over the world; people are afraid of what they don't understand. When they don't understand  someone or something, they'll do their horrible best to iradicate whoever or whatever so it will stop bothering the edges of their conscious mind. They'll even kill to stop it bothering them...for rather than open their minds to what can give rise to often very unpleasant cognitive dissonance Post #127280...   Nanna

I thought so too. I even think that this is a part of the Palestinian problem: that if Israel supported the return of the refugees or the establishment of the Palestinian state, no one could tell  what would happen in terms of security. I think it is not hatred but fear that stops them. 

Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 6:18 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 11:33 AM What is the reason for all these phobias in Poland, because otherwise Poles are very intelligent and often nice people. It would be more interesting to see what statistics say. The fact that socially involved media carry these shocking stories about how gays and Blacks are sometimes battered says nothing about the extent of the phenomenon. That's why our own memories are also important. To follow up on your Post #176597, I grew up in Poland without knowing anything about anti-Semitism and, frankly, I didn't learn about it until I emigrated to the US.

Jacek, I meant in the present times. When I was growing up there was only one Black person I knew in  the 3 mln metropolitan area of Katowice and no gay people, as far as what I was told.

The only complaint the Black boy had was that children would call him Murzynek and try to touch him, otherwise he was fine, at least looked fine.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 12:30 PM Jacek, I meant in the present times.

As I said, we don't know until we can see surveys. It's one thing if 12% of the population is racist and the media blow it up and it's a completely different thing if 42% of the population is racist. I don't measure these things. For example, with controversial topics strictly censored under communism, I was growing up without knowing the full extent and impact of the 1968 Jewish purge in Poland. You cannot opine on the state of mind of a nation without access to current demographic and sociological data.

Um... Is Europe anti-semitic? Well the very question is insulting. Is America dumb? Is Asia murderous? Is Africa lazy? Is Australia criminal?

Must needs tag and brand! Is that not where problems start?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 6:12 AM  the Native American people, or Indians, as they call themselves

"American Indian" is not just a double insult but deceit and aspersion too.

Oh well... Зачем мне считаться шпаной и бандитом...

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on May 22, 2009 1:19 PM the very question is insulting

Is that why Der Spiegel answered it? To dispel any doubts? Or is it a red herring considering what's going on in the world 70 years later?

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on May 22, 2009 7:19 AM Um... Is Europe anti-semitic? Well the very question is insulting. Is America dumb? Is Asia murderous? Is Africa lazy? Is Australia criminal? Must needs tag and brand! Is that not where problems start? Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 6:12 AM  the Native American people, or Indians, as they call themselves "American Indian" is not just a double insult but deceit and aspersion too.   Oh well... Зачем мне считаться шпаной и бандитом...

No, Dodo,  Native Americans often call themselves Indians [indens] and they are proud of it. It would be an insult if somebody else called them that.

Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 12:52 PM ... You cannot opine on the state of mind of a nation without access to current demographic and sociological data.

Oh, I don't know, Jacek. Reading a large variety of news both online and offline while also living in-country, I think it's possible to have an opinion that reflects the general trends in a society. Of course, If I read only the news that come from the People's Party (DF) or if my best news source is the National Enquirer, well...

Nanna

See, in Poland when one went to school, in the communist times, in the first grade we had a Polish language text book, which started:

Murzynek Bambo w Afryce mieszka
Czarna ma buzie ten nasz kolezka
Uczy sie pilnie przez cale ranki
ze swej murzynskiej pierwszej czytanki.

It is just a poem which translates:

A Black boy Bambo lives in Africa
He has a black face, this friend of ours
He studies hard  from early morning
From his first African text book,
 

Not too good rhyme, but anyhow.

This is why when this boy showed up in our school everybody thought it was Murzynek Bambo from Africa so everybody wanted to touch him. It was an event of the range of UFO.

The whole text

Murzynek Bambo w Afryce mieszka,
Czarną ma skórę ten nasz koleżka.
Uczy się pilnie przez całe ranki
Ze swej murzyńskiej Pierwszej czytanki.
A gdy do domu ze szkoły wraca,
Psoci, figluje – to jego praca.
Aż mama krzyczy: “Bambo, łobuzie!”
A Bambo czarną nadyma buzię.
Mama powiada: “Napij się mleka”,
A on na drzewo mamie ucieka.
Mama powiada: “Chodź do kąpieli”,
A on się boi, że się wybieli.
Lecz mama kocha swojego synka,
Bo dobry chłopak z tego Murzynka.

Szkoda, że Bambo czarny, wesoły,

Nie chodzi razem z nami do szkoły.

- Julian Tuwim - in fact a poem by a  great Polish poet.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 2:00 PM - Julian Tuwim - in fact a poem by a  great Polish poet.

And a Polish Jew or a Jewish Pole (I don't know how he would define himself) for that matter. A detail like that, of course, would be kept secret under communism.

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on May 22, 2009 1:38 PM Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 12:52 PM ... You cannot opine on the state of mind of a nation without access to current demographic and sociological data. Oh, I don't know, Jacek. Reading a large variety of news both online and offline while also living in-country, I think it's possible to have an opinion that reflects the general trends in a society.

Unfortunately, living in Poland I am totally unable to quantify Polish racism. Also because the situation in a metropolis may be different from small towns.

Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 2:36 PM the situation in a metropolis may be different from small towns.

I readily agree with that, but I still think it's possible to have an opinion, unless, of course, you never get beyond the small town or if all you read is small town news.

Nanna

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on May 22, 2009 3:12 PM I still think it's possible to have an opinion...

True. In an interview in today's paper, Jens Høvsgaard questions, for example, the recurring idea (e.g., Post #176379) that Danes are among people who feel the happiest in the world. It's an illusion, he says.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 7:33 AM Native Americans often call themselves Indians [indens] and they are proud of it. It would be an insult if somebody else called them that.

Well... I`m not much of an expert, yet, AFAIK, people(s) named American Indians by whites used to have different names for themselves. One of those was Mapuche (People of the Earth), if only my memory serves me right. Anyway, both "American" and "Indians" are European terms. Not that this could solve any anti-semitic or zionist issues...

Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 3:31 PM Originally written by Nanna Mercer on May 22, 2009 3:12 PM I still think it's possible to have an opinion... True. In an interview in today's paper, Jens Høvsgaard questions,

(Laughing). OK --- If you were aiming to set me up with that cheap trick...

Nanna

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on May 22, 2009 4:46 PM (Laughing). OK --- If you were aiming to set me up with that cheap trick...

You are such an attentive reader of Polish press, Nanna! Indeed, it was yesterday:

Z Jensem Hovsgaardem, pisarzem i reporterem, któremu na widok duńskiej flagi robi się niedobrze, rozmawia Katarzyna Klukowska: http://wyborcza.pl/1,75480,6629785,W_papierowym__Duzym_Formacie_.html

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on May 22, 2009 10:40 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 7:33 AM Native Americans often call themselves Indians [indens] and they are proud of it. It would be an insult if somebody else called them that. Well... I`m not much of an expert, yet, AFAIK, people(s) named American Indians by whites used to have different names for themselves. One of those was Mapuche (People of the Earth), if only my memory serves me right. Anyway, both "American" and "Indians" are European terms. Not that this could solve any anti-semitic or zionist issues...

I think, Dodo, at least some Native Americans call themselves Indians, but they pronounce it [indens] on top of calling themselves by their tribal name like Navaho, etc. as a sign of solidarity with other native peoples. at least this is what I have learned or read in books devoted to Native American culture written both by non Native American writers and Native American.  

Originally written by John Bunch on May 22, 2009 10:48 AM One aspect in Europe that I think has been played down is the extent to which, for example, in Germany, the modern far-Right (skinheads, etc.) has come directly from the communist system. I recall being in East Berlin in 1986, and I could feel the hostility toward me as an American coming from a small group of communist youths (I think they were called FDJ or something, I can't remember, but they wore blue uniforms). That xenophobia was palpable in the East back then (I had never encountered anything like it in western Germany). And people wonder why the Right is resurgent in Germany and in the East. My thesis is that mostly it is those same people who learned that under communism.

There wasn't any hostility towards Americans in so called communist Poland, there is more now than then. I doubt that there was much anti-American sentiment among young people in Russia. How would you explain that?

Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 8:36 AM And a Polish Jew or a Jewish Pole (I don't know how he would define himself)

Which would Janusz Korczak be? One of my very favourite authors and a very brave person... alas???

Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 10:57 AM Originally written by Nanna Mercer on May 22, 2009 4:46 PM (Laughing). OK --- If you were aiming to set me up with that cheap trick... You are such an attentive reader of Polish press, Nanna! Indeed, it was yesterday: Z Jensem Hovsgaardem, pisarzem i reporterem, któremu na widok duńskiej flagi robi się niedobrze, rozmawia Katarzyna Klukowska: http://wyborcza.pl/1,75480,6629785,W_papierowym__Duzym_Formacie_.html

In which language is Gazeta Wyborcza written these days it is definitely not Polish. Borderline vulgar Polish slang, I may agree.

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on May 22, 2009 11:14 AM Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 8:36 AM And a Polish Jew or a Jewish Pole (I don't know how he would define himself) Which would Janusz Korczak be? One of my very favourite authors and a very brave person... alas???

For me he would be whatever he would like to be himself, a Pole, a Polish Jew, a Jew, a Jewish Pole just a human being, a cosmopolitan being: for the majority of Polish people you would have to ask them, because I really do not know. Times have changed and I do not know how much the culture in Poland has changed.

One of the determining factors whether the Polish people would consider somebody Polish or not was the language and especially accent: if you spoke without any accent- pure standard Polish you would most likely be considered Polish: The Silesians never stood a chance because they usually spoke with some accent. The other factors used to be religion; if you were Christian, preferably Catholic and spoke Polish without an accent you would be considered Polish even if 90% of your relatives were form somewhere else. This is my experience however, from over twenty years ago and it should not be taken as the absolute truth. Sometimes somebody's last name might have been a factor whether he or she was considered Polish or foreign, but this was of a lesser importance than accent.

Originally written by John Bunch on May 22, 2009 4:48 PM That xenophobia was palpable in the East back then

You definitely have to allow for geographic differences, John. Again, I agree with Liliana that there was no feeling of xenophobia in Poland back in the 1970s. The difficulty in comparisons lies in the fact that now we have many more foreigners living in Poland. Some of them are old Germans, for example, who want to come back to their native homes (where Poles have been living since WWII) to die there. In the same yesterday's magazine I mentioned earlier today, the ordeal of both sides in one such case is described.

Originally written by Dodo Kaipdodo on May 22, 2009 5:14 PM Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 8:36 AM And a Polish Jew or a Jewish Pole (I don't know how he would define himself) Which would Janusz Korczak be?

Personally, when taking the line for US citizens on arrival in the US, I don't insist on being defined other than American, but I realize that if someone is a Jew, it has to be different. I understand that you are always a Jew first and then a member of the nation you are a citizen of second. Please correct me if I am wrong. There are numerous exceptions in Poland where Jews did not come out until the fall of communism for fear of reprisals. That's why, when interacting with them at school back in the 1970s, we were not aware of any problems because they were simply Polish kids as anybody else. It is only in 1989 that they started coming to terms with their double personality so to speak and some may have now difficulty choosing between being Polish Jews and Jewish Poles. In the States, the problem was solved a long time ago with labels like Polish American -- for those who, while being US citizens, really want to insist on being different from others. As for Janusz Korczak Wikipedia says that he was a Polish-Jewish author, while Julian Tuwim was "one of the greatest Polish poets." We do have to be pigeonholed somehow...

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 5:22 PM In which language is Gazeta Wyborcza written these days it is definitely not Polish. Borderline vulgar Polish slang, I may agree.

Your comments about Polish have been very entertaining, Liliana, all along...

You are right Jacek, maybe I should not write about Polish matters at all: I will try not to, except for literature and language matters. This comment however is just a result of my total disenchantment with the Polish paper. I was just about to read something interesting there, and all I found was some unusual words and curses ... etc.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 6:02 PM ...all I found was some unusual words and curses ... etc.

Maybe you came across the respectable genre called reportaż which has a very strong tradition in Poland. I never have the time to really savor those because of their length but that's what they are about: putting you in touch with real life as it is in people's houses, streets, etc. You can be bewildered or shocked, but that's what real life looks like. Considering that we owe to those reporters our knowledge of a reality we may never directly experience, I think we should be grateful.

I started reading the paper and I found that somebody bought a ruski chodzik, I had no idea what he was talking about, then the coal mine where some accident happenedt was called k...ska, mezczyzni were called faceci. It is good: it is all perfect but not for a respectable Polish paper, maybe for Yellow Press or some more entertaining media.  Then something like kiss my a....

Liliana (and I will close this parenthesis here), faceci meaning 'guys' is a word that you hear all the time in its country of origin. And the art of reportaż in the sense I mean it is cultivated by the most respectable papers. Note the English language service of Gazeta Wyborcza for your peace of mind: http://wyborcza.pl/0,86871.html

Originally written by Jacek K. on May 22, 2009 11:47 AM  As for Janusz Korczak Wikipedia says that he was a Polish-Jewish author, while Julian Tuwim was "one of the greatest Polish poets." We do have to be pigeonholed somehow...

Do we?

OK. Korczak didn`t save the children and he perished together with them. From the practical point of view, he should have taken the chance offered to him. He didn`t. I like to think I`m a practical person, yet I`m afraid I`d do the same in the same conditions, because you just don`t desert those that are entrusted to you or dependent on you. Was what he did Jewish? or Polish? Or just human? Or just silly, perhaps?

You know, it was me that translated the last part of his "Pamiętnik". Documentary, yet better than some fiction, simple yet painful...

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 22, 2009 11:30 AM  be whatever he would like to be himself, a Pole, a Polish Jew, a Jew, a Jewish Pole just a human being, a cosmopolitan being

That`s how it should be. A pity it is not.