Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

The tragedy, of course, is that the construct of a new anti-Semitism is itself anti-Semitic. Using the same conspiratorial logic as the anti-Semite Lord Balfour and others of his ilk, the new anti-Semitism posits Jews as a "people apart," needing a special place, Israel. There "they" can be kept.

As Klug makes clear, if we reject the either/or, Israel as a Jewish state or no Israel at all, the "new" anti-Semitism disappears.

It is important to keep a clear head, as Klug allows us to do, so that the victims of the "old" anti-Semitism, the real European one, are not insulted and forgotten.

Web Letter

The new anti-Semitism is clearly implied as the denial of the right of the state of Israel to exist. Traditional anti-Semitism, is ongoing, as I have read that every Jew experiences some form of anti-Semitism at some point in his/her life. Anti-Semitism altogether, is still not a bygone dark era. Furthermore, hate ultimately doesn't resolve anything, especially with anti-Semitism. To deny the new anti-Semitism sounds like denying any anti-Semitic incidents occurring in the present day. The Holocaust, has plenty of proof and evidence that at least 6 million Jews died, among others more. As for Israel, those who deny the new anti-Semitism as for those who want to destroy it entails that they have a bias of looking the other way from worser nations that treat their citizens oppressively more so than Israel is perceived as. To call Israel "apartheid" as some including Jimmy Carter have suggested, are using a poor choice of words, like "occupations" perceived by Palestinians and others is another poor word choice, because these are settlements, in which the Jewish bible promised the land for, whereas the Qu'ran has no mention of Palestinian settlements, nor was there ever a recognized Palestinian state itself. The land of Israel was reclaimed after the Palestinians were under the British Ottoman empire.

All in all, it's best that there be better word choice and titles when writing articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, otherwise there are slants and biases that don't get a good balance of both sides.

Web Letter

Brian Klug makes interesting arguments and is not far off the mark in some of them. To speak of a 'global war' against the Jews is putting things too strongly, and to say that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic in intent is to go one step too far.

But I think he is myopic about some of the realities, particularly the role now being played by Muslim anti-Semitism, particularly in several Arab states, Iran, Pakistan, and even secular Turkey.

The history of this form of anti-Semitism reveals much about the 'new' anti-Semitism that is now increasing by the year, if not the month. To put this simply, a basic level of anti-Jewish sentiment (derived from certain verses of the Qur'an, some hadiths, and the history of attacks on Jews made by the Prophet) had laid a foundation over centuries that allowed Muslims to regard and treat the Jews as inferior people who deserved to be humiliated (and against whom occasional pogroms could be launched).

This level was overlaid in the 1930s and 40s by a deeper stratum of racist anti-Semitism taken straight from the Third Reich, in content and in imagery. Before the establishment of the state of Israel, the Arabs of Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, and elsewhere opted to support the Nazis in their struggle. The Palestinians, led by Hajj Amin al-Husayni (who spent the war in Berlin), anticipated the establishment of a death camp in Nablus, at which all the region's Jews were to be eliminated.

Remember that the alliance with Nazi Germany was one that the Arabs freely chose. Then look at the Middle East today. The anti-Semitism that one finds everywhere, in ther form of newspaper articles and cartoons, TV shows, radio broadcasts, school textbooks, and mosque sermons is every bit as vicious as anything from the Reich. Why wouldn't Israeli Jews be frightened when they see Hamas and Hizbullah using the Nazi salute and explicitly threatening to destroy Israel and punish the Jews?

Only someone exceptionally naïve would suggest for a moment that a one-state solution would be viable for a moment. To think that the PLO, Hamas, Hizbullah, and their backers would just shake hands, smile, and say 'it's so nice to be back, and to know we have such nice Jewish friends' is to live in a cloud-cuckooland that no one with any sense has inhabited since 1939.

Now, this Middle Eastern anti-Semitism has done something odd. It has started to trickle back to Europe and over to North America, where it has taken root among certain sectors of the Left. The Jewish conspiracy trope, the blood libel, the Jews as Nazis caricature, the Jews as manipulators of the media and politics lie, and much else are alive and well on university campuses, anti-war demonstrations, and in much political discourse.

Like Brian, I would like to think that most anti-Israelism is just that, but honestly don't believe that, and the main reason I don't is because I can see how powerful those themes have become among people who claim not to be anti-Semitic. There's just too much real anti-Semitism in the air for me to be comfortable. When The Guardian prints a cartoon that could have come out of al-Akhbar that itself could have come out of Die Stürmer, I feel more than a little uneasy.

I don't deny that it is possible to develop an anti-Zionist style that is manifestly not anti-Semitic. Brian actually does it very well. But there is so much anti-Zionism that is clearly anti-Jewish that I have to assume that a lot of the less obvious stuff is anti-Jewish too, but perhaps restrained by Western social embarrassment about being openly anti-Semitic. I don't mean this in a paranoid way: 'all anti-Zionism must be anti-Semitic, even if it doesn't say so'. I'm simply extrapolating from what I do see.

Take the recent case of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign: two members asked them to support a motion condemning anti-Semitism, and were turned down. Would I be wrong to conclude that the PSC is anti-Semitic?

So many of the things said about Israel ring with exactly the same tone as things traditionally said about Jews. This is most evident in Islamic anti-Semitic imagery and speech, and Brian's article makes little sense by paying such scant attention to it; but this form of anti-Semitism has gone into Europe via our Muslim communities and has detoured to left-wing groups who show no discomfort in joining hands with Islamic organizations who openly condemn democracy, free speech, and religious tolerance. The two make a dangerous combination for all of us (and I say this coming from a liberal, not a right-wing position), but above all for Jews.

That is why I still maintain that constant vigilance both for our freedoms and for the fate of the Jews makes it essential for there to be a Jewish state to offer sanctuary. The Arabs think less in terms of territory than along religious lines.

The concept of the Westphalian state has never taken root in the Middle East, and so the notion of a new state being established and functioning alongside its neighbours in peace and harmony has never entered into Arab calculations. Until a different sort of thinking takes hold, I can't see what choice Israel has. It is the most vibrant, democratic, tolerant, and open state in the region, and to see it destroyed just to satisfy an atavistic call for revenge would be a tragedy of immense proportions.

It has never been the Israeli mainstream calling for the destruction of the Palestinians, but it is still the Palestinians calling for the obliteration of Israel. There is only one moral choice.