Tag: British anit-semitism

LESSON OF RWANDA TRAGEDY—PREVENT GENOCIDE, BY FIGHTING INCITEMENT & INDIFFERENCE TO HATE

‘Never Again,’ Again and Again: Irwin Cotler, National Post, Apr. 7, 2016— This week marks an important moment of remembrance and reminder, of bearing witness and public warning.

Putting Anti-Semitism on the Radar at the University of California and Beyond: Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, Jewish Journal, Apr. 1, 2016

Bewildered Britain Still Doesn’t Get It: Melanie Phillips, Jerusalem Post, Mar. 31, 2016— What is that unfamiliar rustling in the British cultural undergrowth? It’s the sound of people suddenly acknowledging a problem with anti-Semitism.

The Nazi's Table: Robert Sussman, Jewish Life, Mar. 1, 2016— Norman Eisen met Barack Obama as law school classmates at Harvard University, where they became friends, remaining in touch even after their school days ended.

 

On Topic Links

 

Hillel Neuer Interview from "Beyond Paranoia: The New Anti-Semitism”: UN Watch, Mar. 25, 2016

The German Bellwether: Michael Sussman, National Post, Mar. 30, 2016

Terror as a Fact of Life: Robert Fulford, National Post, Mar. 26, 2016

Angela Merkel’s Unpopular Goodness: Daniel Kehlmann, New York Times, Apr. 1, 2016

 

 

            ‘NEVER AGAIN,’ AGAIN AND AGAIN

            Irwin Cotler                  

                                                            National Post, Apr. 7, 2016

 

This week marks an important moment of remembrance and reminder, of bearing witness and public warning. For it marks the 22nd anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide – an unspeakable atrocity where one million Rwandans were murdered in a three-month genocidal onslaught that began April 7, 1994. Indeed, what makes the Rwandan Genocide so unspeakable was not only the horror of the genocide itself, but the fact that it was preventable. No one can say that we did not know – we knew, but we did not act.

 

Eight years ago, the Canadian Parliament – by a unanimous motion – designated April 7th as a National Day of Reflection on the Prevention of Genocide. We are invited to remember not only the horrors of genocide, but as the Canadian Parliamentary motion called for, to reflect and act upon its lessons. For while the world vowed “Never Again” after the unprecedented horrors of the Holocaust, “Never Again” has happened again and again, symbolized by the international community as bystander in Rwanda.

 

As former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, lamented on the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide, “Such crimes cannot be reversed. Such failures cannot be repaired. The dead cannot be brought back to life. So what can we do?” The answer is that the international community will only prevent the killing fields of the future by heeding the lessons from past tragedies. What, then, are these lessons, and, what is it that we can do?

 

The first lesson of the Rwandan Genocide – not unlike the Holocaust – is that these genocides occurred not simply because of the machinery of death, but also because of state-sanctioned incitement to hate and genocide. Indeed, as the case law of the Rwandan Genocide demonstrates, these acts of genocide were preceded by – and anchored in – an orchestrated dehumanization and demonization of the minority Tutsi population in Rwanda. This included invoking epidemiological metaphors of Tutsis as “inyenzi” – “cockroaches” – as prologue to and justification for their extermination.

 

On this 80th anniversary year of the Nuremberg Race Laws the international community must bear in mind – as the Supreme Court of Canada also affirmed in the Léon Mugesera case – that incitement to genocide is a crime in and of itself. Taking action to prevent it, as the Genocide Convention mandates us to do, is not a policy option; it is an international legal obligation of the highest order. Indeed, this is what the Responsibility to Prevent – the centerpiece of the Responsibility to Protect – is all about.

 

The second lesson, dramatized by the Rwandan Genocide, is the danger of indifference and the consequences of inaction – hence the Responsibility to Act and Protect. Simply put, while the United Nations Security Council and the international community dithered and delayed, Rwandans were dying. Accordingly, as we remember Rwanda, we must recommit ourselves to prevent and protect the victims of mass atrocities in our time. Indeed, while urgent protective action was so needed in Syria, appeals for help these past five years fell on the deaf ears of the international community, a bystander once again. We must break this cycle of indifference and inaction if we are truly to learn the requisite lesson.

 

The third lesson is the danger of a culture of impunity – that repeatedly emboldens those intent on committing mass atrocities – and the corresponding responsibility, therefore, to bring these war criminals to justice. Indeed, if the last century – symbolized by the Holocaust and the genocide in Rwanda – was the age of atrocity, it was also the age of impunity. Few of the perpetrators were brought to justice. Just as there must be no sanctuary for hate, no refuge for bigotry so there must be no base or sanctuary for the perpetrators of the worst crimes against humanity.

 

And that is why as minister of justice, I initiated the first-ever prosecution under the War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Act of Rwandan War Criminal Désiré Munyaneza, who was convicted of such crimes by Canadian courts. Yet the culture of impunity continues to abound. Consider Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir who continues to evade justice and accountability for his role in the Darfurian genocide; or the impunity of the Syrian leadership for its ongoing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria, aided and abetted by its Russian and Chinese enablers who vetoed UN Security Council resolutions to refer Syrian criminality to the International Criminal Court.

 

The fourth lesson is the persistent danger of violence against women during mass atrocities, of rape in particular, as a weapon of war. Indeed, evidence from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda dramatizes the systematic use of sexual assault during the genocide as a means of continued degradation, humiliation, and torture, while rape in Syria emerged not just as a consequence of atrocity, but as an instrument for pursuing it…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

Contents

 

PUTTING ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE RADAR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND BEYOND

                                               Tammi Rossman-Benjamin

                                                    Jewish Journal, Apr. 1, 2016

 

 

Last week, the Regents of the University of California unanimously approved a landmark Statement of Principles Against Intolerance containing the following language: “Anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.” Although the statement has been widely hailed within the Jewish community for its unprecedented acknowledgement of anti-Zionism as a source of anti-Jewish hostility, many have overlooked an aspect of the statement’s language every bit as significant when it comes to ensuring the safety and well-being of Jewish students: the Regents’ clear call for anti-Semitism, in all of its forms, to be treated like every other kind of discrimination at the University of California – no more, but certainly no less.

 

Why is this so significant?  Because for far too long the problem of anti-Jewish bigotry has not been on the radar at the University of California.  In 2010, when UC launched the Advisory Council on Campus Climate and satellite working groups on each campus with the goal of “enhancing and sustaining a tolerant, inclusive environment…so that every single member of the UC community feels welcome, comfortable and safe,” Jewish student concerns were conspicuously absent from these groups’ agenda. This, despite the fact that Jewish students were already reporting an alarming incidence of anti-Jewish bigotry on several UC campuses.

 

Furthermore, when attempts were made to put anti-Jewish hostility on the UC radar, they were aggressively and successfully suppressed by the very groups most responsible for creating that hostility.  For example in 2012, within days of the publication of a Jewish Student Campus Climate Report commissioned by then UC President Mark Yudof, which found that “Jewish students are confronting significant and difficult climate issues as a result of … anti-Zionism and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)”, anti-Zionist student and community groups viciously attacked the report and demanded it be withdrawn.  

 

To this day the 2012 report’s findings and recommendations have been ignored by UC administrators, who have shown themselves unwilling to acknowledge let alone address acts of blatant anti-Semitism. Instead, they engage in a discriminatory double standard, tolerating hateful language or behavior when it is directed towards Jewish students but promptly and vigorously challenging it when directed towards other racial, ethnic or gender minorities. It is precisely this inequity that the Regents Statement Against Intolerance sought to redress. Indeed, it is only against the backdrop of the long-standing and discriminatory treatment of Jewish students that the UC statement and its curious emphasis on anti-Semitism can be understood at all.

 

And the Regents statement is historic, both for California’s Jewish students and for Jewish students nationwide, who have also fallen victim to an alarming growth in campus anti-Semitism and campus administrators who turn a blind eye to it. The University of California is our country’s most prestigious public university system.  Now that its governing board has unanimously acknowledged the serious and growing threat faced by Jewish students and called on its Chancellors to provide appropriate protection, it will surely encourage other university leaders to follow suit…                                                                    

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

Contents

                                    BEWILDERED BRITAIN STILL DOESN’T GET IT                                                                             

Melanie Phillips

Jerusalem Post, Mar. 31, 2016

 

What is that unfamiliar rustling in the British cultural undergrowth? It’s the sound of people suddenly acknowledging a problem with anti-Semitism. For years, anti-Semitism in Britain was the prejudice that dared not speak its name. The hostility toward Israel endemic in educated circles was emphatically declared to have nothing whatever to do with hatred of Jews. Anyone who claimed a connection was denounced as “waving the shroud of the Holocaust” to silence legitimate “criticism” of Israel.

 

Jewish students have long run the gauntlet of vicious Israel- and Jew-hatred. “Israel apartheid” weeks, BDS motions and campus conferences declaring Israel is a “settler-colonial state” have morphed into intimidation, stigmatization and discrimination against Jews at university. Virtually no one outside the Jewish community has paid this any attention. Now, though, unease has begun to seep into British national consciousness. The reason is a shift in perspective. Israel is no longer seen as the world’s major flashpoint. The TV news is instead pumping images of Syrian atrocities and floods of displaced migrants into the living rooms of the nation. Security officials repeatedly warn of the likelihood of coordinated Islamist attacks in Britain. The terrorist atrocities last year in Paris and most recently in Brussels have ratcheted up anxiety levels.

 

After the Paris attacks, though, something else changed. Many, from Prime Minister David Cameron downward, expressed their shock when British Jews said they no longer felt safe in Britain, specifically as Jews. How could this be, Britain asked itself in blinkered bewilderment. With the election of the far-left Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labor Party, moreover, two further things happened to propel the issue of Jew-hatred to center-stage. First, people became aware that this potential future prime minister had been “honored” to host members of Hamas and Hezbollah, and supported people who had promoted blood libels or 9/11 conspiracy theories against the Jews. At the same time, however, Jew-bashers became bolder as the far-left started to dominate the Labor Party. As a result, the party has become engulfed by more and more revelations of anti-Semitism, which Corbyn has been unable or unwilling to put to rest.

 

Vicki Kirby, a former Labor parliamentary candidate, was suspended for tweeting that Jews had “big noses,” Adolf Hitler was the “Zionist god” and Islamic State should attack Israel. She had her suspension lifted and became vice chairwoman of a local party branch before exposure of these events forced Labor to suspend her again. Another Labor member, Gerry Downing, who has extolled “Hamas heroism” and demanded that the “Jewish question” be solved, was expelled from the party but then readmitted. He was expelled again only after Cameron raised the case in Parliament.

 

Meanwhile, the issue of campus Jew-hatred exploded when Alex Chalmers, the non-Jewish co-chairman of the Labor Party-affiliated Oxford University Labor Club (OULC), resigned with a devastating account of the Jew-bashing in such circles. “Whether it be,” he wrote, “members of the executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explicitly defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former co-chair claiming that ‘most accusations of anti-Semitism are just the Zionists crying wolf,’ a large proportion of both OULC and the student Left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews,” he wrote.

 

The Chalmers statement received huge attention from the British media. For the first time, non-Jewish commentators started expressing horrified concern about the swell of anti-Semitism. Many, though, still don’t get it. Where did all this come from, they ask – unable to comprehend that, for the answer, they need to look within themselves. The former archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, now master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, has said he is shocked by a series of anti-Semitic incidents at British universities and criticized the “muted” official response.

 

However at Christmas 2006, while Williams was in charge of the Church of England, he preached that Christians were being driven out of Bethlehem by Israel’s policies and its security barrier. Yet it is Bethlehem’s Muslim administration that the town’s Christians have fled, while Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Christians are safe. In a similar vein, Chris Bryant, Labor’s shadow leader of the House of Commons, has warned against “anti-Semitism by proxy” in his party, and observed: “Questioning the very existence of the State of Israel is a not-too-subtle form of anti-Semitism.” Yet he also wrote: “The Israeli settlements are illegal and must stop. All too often, the Israeli government has made it impossible for the Palestinians to build homes, develop infrastructure or even have access to basic utilities.” Like Williams’ comments about Bethlehem, these charges by Bryant are false, grossly unfair and part of the demonization of Israel that leads directly to Jew-bashing.

 

Anti-semitism is not merely one of many prejudices. It has unique features, the same ones that characterize the demonization of Israel. Both are irrational obsessions consisting entirely of grotesque lies and libels. Both accuse a group of people of a conspiracy of evil of cosmic proportions. Both accuse those people of committing abuses of which they are not only innocent, but are, in fact, the victims…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

 

Contents

    THE NAZI'S TABLE

           Robert Sussman                     

                                                 Jewish Life, Mar. 1, 2016

 

Norman Eisen met Barack Obama as law school classmates at Harvard University, where they became friends, remaining in touch even after their school days ended. When Obama eventually won the US Presidency, he appointed Eisen, in 2009, to serve as his Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform. Only a couple of years later, in 2011, the president tapped Eisen to be the US ambassador to the Czechs. It was no coincidence that Obama chose Eisen to be ambassador in Prague of all places: “The president thought it would be a remarkable thing for the son of a Czechoslovak Holocaust survivor to return and represent the US… No one from my immediate family had returned since my mother fled Communism in 1949, and the symbolism of [returning there] was just too unique an opportunity to pass up.”

 

In 1944, Frieda – along with her parents, siblings, and other family members – was sent to Auschwitz. Although she and two siblings miraculously survived, their parents and other relatives weren’t as fortunate. On his first day as ambassador, following all of the formal greetings and arrival ceremonies, Eisen sat alone in the library of his new home reflecting on the events of the day. The head of the ambassador’s household, Miroslav Cernik, came into the room and informed the ambassador that there was something Cernik wanted to show him. Cernik led Eisen to a small, ornate table and asked Eisen to look underneath the table. The ambassador, who thought it a rather unusual request, complied nonetheless, and got down on his hands and knees, crawling under the table.

 

Nothing could have prepared Eisen for what he found there: a sticker with the clearly discernable image of an eagle and a swastika, the formal symbol of the Nazi party, emblazoned upon it, thus marking the table as former Nazi property. Cernik explained that he had not wanted Eisen to make the upsetting discovery for himself by chance. Eisen, who had envisioned carrying out the many responsibilities of his office, was unprepared for such a thing and described seeing the sticker as “a punch in the gut”, hitting him on an emotional, as well as a physical, level. In an ironic twist, Eisen would later use that very table during his tenure as ambassador as the stand for his Chanukah menorah.

 

The Nazis were not the original owners of that table or that house. The US ambassador’s residence in Prague, named Petschek Villa, was originally built by a wealthy Jewish industrialist by the name of Otto Petschek in the late 1920s. Petschek, who made his money from coal mine holdings as well as banking, was one of the wealthiest men in Czechoslovakia, before his untimely death in 1934. With Germany’s designs for Czechoslovakia clear and the threat of an invasion on the horizon, Petschek’s family fled the country in 1938. The property was subsequently seized by the Germans and commandeered for use as the headquarters of the Wehrmacht (German armed forces) commander of Prague, General Toussaint, his staff, and other Nazi officials and aides during their seven-year occupation of Prague. Occupied afterwards briefly by the Russians and then the Czechoslovak General Staff, the US leased the property in 1945 before eventually buying it from the Czechoslovak government in 1948.

 

On his arrival at the Petschek Villa, Eisen had the home returned to its Jewish roots and made suitable for a Torah-observant Jewish family to live in, kashering the kitchens and affixing mezuzos to the doorposts of the residence where he and his family would be staying. The kitchen staff “went into overdrive mastering the Jewish dietary laws”, learning to make traditional Jewish foods like challah and matzah ball soup, and sourcing kosher products, especially a variety of kosher meats, which were unavailable in Prague and had to be ordered from either Berlin or Vienna. Eisen and his family kept Shabbos in their new Czech home each week, sometimes in the company of various dignitaries and dining in a room and at a table that were once in the hands of the Nazis. As Eisen describes it, “It [was] mind-blowing, eating on kosher State Department china where the commander of the Nazi Wehrmacht used to live.”

 

Frieda opted not to return to her homeland, even when her son was there serving as the ambassador. She passed away in 2012, during her son’s tenure in Prague, but not without a “tremendous sense of triumph” at the fact that her son had returned to the country of her birth as the representative of the most powerful nation on earth. Frieda was fond of telling people, “The Nazis deported us in cattle cars and my son flew back on Air Force One,” a reference to a trip that Eisen made to Prague with Obama in 2010 for an international treaty signing ceremony.

 

Joe Lieberman testified regarding Eisen’s appointment in the US Senate: “It is indeed a profound historical justice…that the ambassador's residence in Prague, which was originally built by a Jewish family that was forced to flee Prague by the Nazis, [which], in turn, the Nazis took over…as their headquarters, now 70 years later, is occupied by Norman and his family. And I might, on a point of personal privilege, add that they observe the Sabbath there every Friday night and Saturday. So if you need any evidence that there is a God, I offer that to you.” Eisen ended up serving in Prague for almost four years, one of the longest tenures of any recent US ambassador there.

 

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!

On Topic

 

Hillel Neuer Interview from "Beyond Paranoia: The New Anti-Semitism”: UN Watch, Mar. 25, 2016—In this new documentary film, UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer tells his personal story and feelings about being at the UN and speaking out. “When I walk into the Human Rights Council, I feel the glares of hatred, of enmity directed at me. I see it in in their eyes, and it's from dictatorships, it's from Arab states, it's from others — sometimes even from some democracies."

The German Bellwether: Michael Sussman, National Post, Mar. 30, 2016—I was recently visiting a friend in Germany as local elections took place in before national elections next year. In her region, not far from sophisticated Frankfurt, the neo-Nazi NPD party won 17 per cent of the vote, taking its place as the third largest party.

Terror as a Fact of Life: Robert Fulford, National Post, Mar. 26, 2016 —Absorbing the grim reality of Islamic terrorism, many of us have found ourselves changing our ideas about the menace our civilization faces. The atrocities in Brussels on Tuesday, coming so soon after the November bombings that killed 130 people in Paris, have heightened the meaning of jihadist violence. We knew the world was in trouble. Now we have an appalling sense of how bad the trouble is.

Angela Merkel’s Unpopular Goodness: Daniel Kehlmann, New York Times, Apr. 1, 2016—When I returned to Berlin recently after a few months away, a friend asked me to try a new Chinese restaurant in Kreuzberg, a hip multiethnic neighborhood in the city. “It’s close to the subway station Kottbusser Tor,” he texted. “But take a cab, otherwise it’s too dangerous.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

                        

 

 

 

                  

 

 

 

EUROPEAN LIBERALS THINK ISRAEL, WESTERN INTERVENTION & “CLIMATE CHANGE” ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT ISLAMISTS

 

 

The New French "Résistance": Guy Millière, Gatestone Institute, Dec. 2, 2015 — President Obama sold his nuclear deal with Iran with promises that the accord would be based on “unprecedented verification,” and this week we were reminded of how much that promise was worth.

Sweden’s Blood Libel Against Israel Over the Paris Terrorist Attacks: Shmuley Boteach, Jerusalem Post, Nov. 19, 2015— After the murder of Jews by Muslim extremists in France gave a preview of what the rest of the country could expect…

British Jews Under Pressure: Isi Leibler, Candidly Speaking, Dec. 9, 2015— Reviewing the status of Anglo-Jewry can lead to diametrically opposing conclusions.

Germany’s Choice: Easy or Hard Asylum Integration: Jeffrey Herf, American Interest, Dec. 8, 2015 — The circumstance that Syrians are coming in large numbers to settle in Germany raises a key series of questions, but not in the way one might think.

 

On Topic Links

 

France's Thousand Year War Against the Jews: Susan Warner, Gatestone Institute, Dec. 7, 2015

“Israel is Behind Isis”: a Fast Mutation of a Major Hate Motif: Manfred Gerstenfeld, CIJR, Dec. 8, 2015

The Swedish Tiger Roars as Synagogues Close: Eric Fusfield, Algemeiner, Dec. 2, 2015  

Muslim ‘No-Go Zones’ In Europe?: Daniel Pipes, Daily Caller, Dec. 2, 2015

 

 

THE NEW FRENCH "RÉSISTANCE"          

Guy Millière        

                                 Gatestone Institute, Dec. 2, 2015

 

Several weeks have passed since Islamist attackers bloodied Paris. France's President François Hollande is describing the killers as just "a horde of murderers" acting in the name of a "mad cause." He adds that "France has no enemy." He never uses the word "terrorism." He no longer says the word "war."

 

France never was, in fact, at war. Police were deployed on the streets. Special Forces had to "intervene" a few days later in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. That was it. French forces did bomb positions of the Islamic State in Syria; and Hollande traveled the world to find coalition, but could not. Now he says he wants to turn a page. The French public seems to want to turn a page, too.

 

From the beginning, pacifism and appeasement filled the air. A German pianist came to play John Lennon's Imagine in front of the Bataclan Theater; since then, other pianists have come. On the Place de la République, people assemble every evening to sing more songs by the Beatles: All You Need Is Love; Love Me Do. Candles are lit, and banners deployed, calling for "universal brotherhood." Those invited to speak on TV about what happened allude to "senseless acts." They do not blame anyone. Some spoke of "resistance," but to them, resistance meant listening to music. To others, it meant having a drink with friends in a bar. In a widely circulated video, a man tries to reassure his child. "They have guns," he mutters, "but we have flowers."

 

Heart-shaped stickers are posted on mosques. Words such as "We love you" and "We share your pain" are written on the hearts. Just after the attacks, French philosopher Michel Onfray said that France for many years had led Islamophobic bombings against the Muslim world, so "it was logical if the Muslims now attacked France." When his words were used in an Islamic State propaganda video, and reporters asked him if he regretted what he said, he replied, "No." A man who lost his wife in the Bataclan massacre said on a talk show that he would live in the future as he did before; that he had no hatred at all against the murderers, just compassion. Another man on a different talk show said he was offering "free hugs."

 

If some French think otherwise, they are silent. All political leaders in France speak like Hollande. They say the country must show "unity" and "solidarity." All of them know the mood of the vast majority; even those who might want to say more, stay silent. Almost no one mentions radical Islam. Those who do, prefer the word "jihadism," and rush to emphasize that "jihadism" is "not related to Islam."

 

Hollande, when he still spoke of war, said that France had "an enemy." He avoided the word "Islamic," instead referring to the Islamic State by its Arabic acronym, "Daesh." He knew that "Daesh" could not be defeated without an American intervention that would not take place. With symbolic gestures, he did the best he could. He also seems to know that the main enemy of France is not in Syria or Iraq, but inside the country: France already finds herself defeated.

 

More than half the Islamists who attacked Paris on November 13 were Muslims born and raised in France. Mohamed Merah, the murderer of Jewish children in Toulouse in 2012, and those who attacked the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket in January all were Muslims born and raised in France. Over 750 no-go zones — autonomous areas ruled by radical imams and Muslim gangs — exist in France. Radical imams and Muslim gangs also control most of France's prisons: 70% of prison inmates in France are apparently Muslim. Non-Muslim inmates are attacked and threatened; many are forced to convert to Islam.

 

A British survey published in 2014 showed that 16% of French approve of the Islamic State. Among people aged 18-25, the proportion rose to 27%. Within the French Muslim population, the numbers are undoubtedly higher. More than 1000 French Muslims have left France to fight for the Islamic State. At least 400 have returned without being stopped or vetted at a border. Thousands of radicalized French Muslims have never left. Many are good, loyal citizens; but many could have learned all they wanted to know on the internet and on Islamic satellite television stations. Still others — hundreds of thousands of French Muslims — are not radicalized but are ready to help the radicalized ones; ready to host them or offer them asylum.

 

More than 10,000 French Muslims are classified as extremely dangerous by the police and are linked to "jihadist activities". They are registered in what the French government calls "S files," but there is no way to monitor their whereabouts. Placing them all in detention centers would involve a complete break with what is left of the rule of law in France. All of the French Muslims who participated in the November 13 attacks were registered in "S files," but that did not change anything. They were free to act, and they did.

 

A French judge, Marc Trevidic, in charge of all the main Islamic terrorism cases over the last ten years, said a few days before the November attacks that the situation was "getting worse," was now "out of control," and that "radicalized groups" established in the country could "carry out attacks resulting in hundreds of deaths." He was quickly transferred to a court in Lille, northern France, where he was assigned to petty crimes and divorce cases. All the French political leaders know that Marc Trevidic is right — that the situation is out of control — but not one will say so publicly. Not one has asked the government why it took almost three hours for the police to intervene during the attack at the Bataclan Theater, where 89 people were murdered and over 200 wounded. There are simply not enough well-trained police, and not enough weapons in the hands of the police, and not enough bulletproof vests.

 

For the next few months, more soldiers and police officers will be placed in front of public buildings, synagogues, churches and mosques, but "soft" targets, such as theaters, cafés and restaurants, are not protected. It is as easy to enter a theater in Paris today as it was on November 13. French police do not have the right to carry a weapon when they are on duty.

 

In a few weeks, French military actions against the Islamic State will doubtless stop. President Hollande, the French government, and most French political leaders probably hope that the French will soon forget the attacks. They know that the problems are now too widespread to be solved without something resembling a civil war. When more attacks occur, they will talk of "war" again. They are supposedly hoping that people will get used to being attacked and learn to live with terrorism.

 

In the meantime, French politicians are trying to divert the attention of the public with — "climate change!" The conference in Paris will last a fortnight. President Hollande says he wants save the planet. He will be photographed next to America's Barack Obama and China's Jiang Zemin. French journalists are no longer discussing jihad; they are discussing "climate change." Until December 11, at least, Paris will be the safest city… 

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]                                                                         

 

Contents

                                       

 

SWEDEN’S BLOOD LIBEL AGAINST ISRAEL

OVER THE PARIS TERRORIST ATTACKS

                      Shmuley Boteach

                      Jerusalem Post, Nov. 19, 2015

 

After the murder of Jews by Muslim extremists in France gave a preview of what the rest of the country could expect, the usual apologists blamed the victims, suggesting these terrorists were reacting to the policies of Israel toward the Palestinians miles away. Now, predictably, Jews are again being libeled by ignoramuses, conspiracy theorists, and propagandists who suggest Israel is responsible for the Paris attacks.

 

It is not surprising these allegations come from the Arab world. After all, many Arabs still believe the Mossad was responsible for 9/11. In the case of the Paris attacks, Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik of Palestinian Media Watch, reported that the official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper blamed the Mossad for the atrocities.

 

According to the paper, “It is not a coincidence that human blood was exploded in Paris at the same time that certain European sanctions are beginning to be implemented against settlement products, and while France leads Europe in advising the security council that will implement the two-state solution, Palestine and Israel – which the Israelis see as a warning of sudden danger coming from the direction of Europe…” The article’s author concludes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu somehow benefits from the carnage.

 

Marcus and Zilberdik note the PA is spinning similar lies “to draw an imaginary false parallel to Israel’s alleged ‘terror’ against Palestinians and to repeat the allegation that Israel is like the Islamic State terror organization.” Where else but the Middle East could you find the Orwellian formulation that Israel is equivalent to Islamic State disseminated by a Palestinian terrorist organization – Fatah – that has engaged in international terrorism for half a century? Palestinian leaders have become masters of the “Big Lie,” perfected by the Nazis, so I was not surprised to hear one more fabrication emanating from Ramallah aimed at demonizing Israel.

 

Although many European officials have fallen into the Palestinian trap, and not only believed their lies but repeated them, I was still surprised by the outrageous remarks by Margot Wallström, Sweden’s foreign affairs minister, suggesting the explanation for the Paris violence could be found in the plight of the Palestinians whose desperation, she believes, forces them to resort to violence. This view is inane on so many levels it’s hard to know where to start.

 

First, the terrorists in Paris were not Palestinians, had nothing to do with their cause and attacked their targets because of their belief that all nations should be ruled by Muslims according to their interpretation of Shari’a law. As the French president said, this was an act of war, not desperation. Second, Palestinians do not resort to terrorism out of desperation. They have alternatives such as negotiations and nonviolence, which they have eschewed. Instead, their leaders incite them to violence through mosques, social and conventional media and the schools. Third, State Department Arabists, as well as ignoramuses such as Wallström, believe all Middle East problems would evaporate if the Palestinian issue were resolved or, better yet, if Israel disappeared.

 

Islamic State is just one example of the absurdity of this view. If Israel was destroyed tomorrow, Islamic State would still be determined to establish a world-wide caliphate and would still have attacked Paris. Furthermore, Israel’s disappearance would not halt the civil wars in Yemen, Syria and Iraq, stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, defeat al-Qaida or erase the enmity between Shiites and Sunnis.

 

Let’s not mince words. Wallström is no better than the conspiracy theorists who seek to blame the Jews for the world’s ills. If she read the reports of European intelligence agencies or listened to the public remarks by the directors of British intelligence she would know that radical Islamists are a serious threat. Andrew Parker, director of MI5, said last month that plots were being directed from Syria and citizens were being radicalized by Islamic State’s online propaganda. “On top of that,” he said, “in a range of attacks in Europe and elsewhere, this year we have seen greater ambition for mass casualty attacks.”

 

Parker, a 32-year veteran of the intelligence world, added that “the threat we are facing today is on a scale and at a tempo that I have not seen before in my career.” Parker did not attribute any of this danger to Israel or the Palestinian issue. US President Barack Obama also doesn’t understand or acknowledge the source of the menace we are facing. He refuses to utter the words “Islamist extremists,” and has banned the expression from his administration. At a meeting of world leaders at the UN to develop an international strategy for defeating Islamic State and other terrorist groups, Obama insisted that “violent extremism is not unique to any one faith.”

 

This prompted a sharp retort from British Prime Minister David Cameron who said, “Barack, you said it and you’re right – every religion has its extremists, but we have to be frank that the biggest problem we have today is the Islamist extremist violence that has given birth to ISIL [Islamic State], to al-Shabaab, to al-Nusra, al-Qaida and so many other groups.” If only the rest of the world’s leaders were as clear-eyed in their assessments. Unlike Obama, whose counterterror policy is indecipherable, if he has one at all, Cameron knows what has to be done. “We need to make sure we don’t allow the incubation of an extremist worldview even before it gets to justifying violence… We’ve got to get it out of our schools, get it out of our prisons, get it out of our universities. I believe in freedom of speech, but freedom to hate is not the same thing.” Obama needs to take Cameron’s advice by acknowledging that there is indeed radical Islam that is endangering our security.

 

As for the Palestinian propagandists, they should be exposed as inciters of violence who will politicize the tragedies in Paris to demonize Jews. The Swedish foreign minister should be admonished by not just Israel, but her own government. Swedish Prime Minister Kjell Stefan Löfvén should realize that someone so quick to blame the Jews, and so ignorant of the real causes of the terrorist threat in Europe, has no business in the job of foreign minister.                

 

Contents

                                

BRITISH JEWS UNDER PRESSURE                                                                      

Isi Leibler                                                                                           

Candidly Speaking, Dec. 9, 2015

 

Reviewing the status of Anglo-Jewry can lead to diametrically opposing conclusions. Residing in a northwest London Jewish suburb, one can easily be deluded that life for Jews in the U.K. is rosy. Jewish cultural and religious life is thriving, as exemplified by the mushrooming of synagogues and kosher facilities, not to mention the highly successful educational initiatives like Limmud. Indeed, insulated from the outside world and living and socializing primarily in a Jewish “ghetto,” it is not difficult to convince oneself that life in this Anglo-Jewish Diaspora is almost idyllic.

 

But this picture is delusionary and a far cry from reality. The demographic projections reflect snowballing intermarriage offset by the high birthrate of the ultra-Orthodox — which will make them the dominant element in the Jewish community within the not too distant future. More importantly, even though British Jews have not yet suffered from the bloody jihadi violence and murders of their French counterparts, as European Jews they will ultimately face the same threat, and if they believe they are in a different category, they are in denial.

 

Although Muslim jihadi elements are currently less dominant in the U.K. than in France, they face very similar threats from ISIS followers and homegrown terrorists. Moreover, indigenous anti-Semitism in the form of feral anti-Israelism is as blatant in the U.K. as in France. One need only peruse the vicious anti-Jewish talkbacks to appreciate the extent of the problem. The media, especially the BBC, effectively incites hatred against Israel by its biased and distorted reporting, which at best portrays Jewish victims of terror and the perpetrators with moral equivalence and frequently condemns Israelis for defending themselves.

 

The regular mass support for anti-Israel demonstrations headed by leftist and human rights groups — for whom Israel-baiting is considered axiomatic — confirm that hatred of Jews has become a central feature of the British political system. Some of the banners and placards at these demonstrations, such as “Jews to the gas,” resemble Nazi anti-Semitic campaigns. The situation at universities is appalling, with BDS being promoted at all levels and pro-Israeli speakers denied the opportunity of expressing their views and frequently facing violence. This has led to the intimidation of Jewish students and the exclusion of lectures or activities relating to Israel. This has led to the atrocious situation in which cowardly Jewish student leaders even justify their refusal to engage in pro-Israel advocacy so as to cater to “non-Zionist” members and avoid confrontation with anti-Israeli student unions.

 

The most shocking developments are at the parliamentary level, despite the presence of the pro-Israel Prime Minister David Cameron, who consistently displays friendship toward Israel. For over 20 years, until Ed Miliband headed the Labour Party, a tepid but overall bipartisan positive approach toward Israel prevailed. Labour leaders including Tony Blair proved to be among Israel’s staunchest supporters. However, the tide has turned as Labour has now elected as its leader Jeremy Corbyn, who after a visit to the Middle East in 2015, characterized Israeli policies as “immoral” and “illegal” and related to the genocidal terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah as his “friends,” insisting they be recognized as key negotiating partners.

 

Corbyn was accused by the London Jewish Chronicle and others of links with – and even in one case funding of – Holocaust deniers, terrorists and outright anti-Semites. In July 2015, Corbyn described as “a very good friend” the fundamentalist Islamic preacher Ibrahim Hewitt, who believes apostates and adulterers should be killed and is considered by the U.S government as a promoter of Hamas funding.

 

The change in attitude by the Labour Party toward Jews was recently reflected by an outburst from the hostile Jewish Sir Gerald Kaufman, a veteran Labour MP who accused the Conservatives of being influenced by “Jewish money” and claimed that the stabbing attacks on Israeli civilians were fabricated by the Israelis in order to “execute Palestinians.” It took a week for Corbyn’s party to respond to protests and then it merely expressed concern over Kaufman’s obscene remarks but failed to condemn or censure him.

 

Although opinion polls show that under Corbyn’s leadership, Labour would be overwhelmingly defeated in an election, the fact that the alternative party to government could elect such a person should have sent chills throughout the Jewish community. That is particularly so because, in these volatile times, unexpected upheavals could bring about the downfall of the government and the opposition could assume control by default…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

 

Contents                       

GERMANY’S CHOICE: EASY OR HARD ASYLUM INTEGRATION

Jeffrey Herf

           American Interest, Dec. 8, 2015

 

The circumstance that Syrians are coming in large numbers to settle in Germany raises a key series of questions, but not in the way one might think. The question in months and years to come will not only be whether the refugees become integrated into German society or whether terrorists merged with, or later arose from, the refugee stream of 2015. The more enduring issue is about the terms on which integration either will or will not take place, how easy or hard it will be. The question is all the more pressing given the historical connection between these two countries—and their utterly contrasting approaches since World War II to the conflict in the Middle East and to the State of Israel. How will Germany respond to people from a country that has been at war with Israel since 1948, was a Soviet ally during the Cold War, and which blended antagonism Israel with official hatred of Jews. How will the refugees respond to a Germany in which the memory of the crimes of the Nazi regime, not least the Holocaust, and support for the State of Israel have become core elements of a broad political consensus?…

 

Following the attacks in Paris on November 13, the discussion in Germany, as elsewhere, has turned in part to whether terrorists used the refugee stream to enter the country. Berthold Kohler, the publisher of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, has criticized German government efforts to insist that the issues of terrorism and migration are not related. Kohler stated the obvious: It is entirely conceivable that there will be Islamists among the approximately 800,000 migrants that the German government expects to receive in 2015. Christopher Caldwell in the Weekly Standard has examined “the bloody crossroads where migration and terrorism meet” in Europe and Germany. Since Chancellor Merkel relaxed border controls in the summer, Caldwell writes, “migrants started pouring into the country without identity check or proper registration.”

 

Today, the German government does not know for sure who has arrived. It does know that, regardless of how things resolve in the Middle East, hundreds of thousands of Syrians or people claiming to be Syrians will be living in Germany for some time to come. Especially after the Paris attacks, the connection between migration and terrorism is firmly established. What’s done is done. Now the challenge facing Germany is that the country must foster integration on terms that preserve its values and political identity. In other words, it must relinquish its earlier penchant for thinking “easy” about integration and begin to face the reality of “hard” integration…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]    

 

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Chag Sameach, Happy Hanukkah Holiday!

 

 

 

On Topic

 

France's Thousand Year War Against the Jews: Susan Warner, Gatestone Institute, Dec. 7, 2015—For French citizens, the Holocaust seems a faded memory. The anti-Jewish sentiment that drove the French Vichy government to serve up an estimated 77,000-90,000[1] French Jews to the maw of Hitler's Jew-killing machine was not driven by anything that looks like today's Islamic jihad, but by the same majority of French Catholics.

“Israel is Behind Isis”: a Fast Mutation of a Major Hate Motif: Manfred Gerstenfeld, CIJR, Dec. 8, 2015—For many centuries Jews have been accused of embodying absolute evil by their most vile enemies. This motif formed the unifying thread passing through blood libels, accusations of poisoning, conspiracy theories involving Jewish financial and military manipulations, and suchlike. The central hate tactic used was frequent emotive, often religion-oriented repetition.

The Swedish Tiger Roars as Synagogues Close: Eric Fusfield, Algemeiner, Dec. 2, 2015 —It was a familiar slogan throughout war-time Sweden: en Svensk tiger, which can be translated as “a Swedish tiger” — or, more to the point: “a Swede keeps secrets.”

Muslim ‘No-Go Zones’ In Europe?: Daniel Pipes, Daily Caller, Dec. 2, 2015—The existence of “no-go zones” in predominantly Muslim areas in Europe has been a major topic of conversation since the latest Paris massacre on Nov. 13, primarily due to the assailants’ many connections to Molenbeek, a heavily Muslim district of Brussels. This discussion brings to mind my visit to a drug– and crime-infested slum of 7,000 inhabitants in Marseilles, France, on Jan. 29, to see the situation for myself.

 

 

                   

 

 

 

                  

 

 

 

HAMAS & ISIS: “TWO SIDES OF THE SAME ISLAMIC TERROR COIN”

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 

 

Contents:

 

Letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon: Alan Baker, Aug. 15, 2014  — It is with considerable sadness and disappointment that we write this letter to you, in the name of thousands of lawyers associated with the Legal Forum for Israel.

Appeasing the Mob? That Ain’t Kosher: Stephen Pollard, National Post, Aug. 20, 2014 — Terrorism takes many forms. But whether it is Islamist extremists on the streets of London or beheadings in Syria and Iraq, it has one common thread: It is designed to instil such fear that a society or community changes its very way of life.

ISIS and Hamas: The Double Standard: Arsen Ostrovsky, Huffington Post, Aug. 20, 2014  — Hamas and ISIS are two sides of the same Islamic terror coin, yet while the West has rightfully united in condemnation and action against ISIS, it has applied a different standard towards Israel, who has been faced with the incessant terror of Hamas.

The Death Knell Sounds for the Christians of Iraq: Paul Merkley, Bayview Review, Aug. 19, 2014 — In just a few weeks the government of Iraq lost control of most of Western Iraq and Northern Iraq.

 

On Topic Links

 

Dear World (Video): Youtube, July 28, 2014

It’s Anti-Semitism, Stupid: Efraim Karsh, Jerusalem Post, Aug. 11, 2014

It's Britain, So the Anti-Semitism Is More Refined: Brendan O'Neil, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 15, 2014

The Battle of our Century: Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post, Aug. 14, 2014

 

LETTER TO UN SECRETARY GENERAL BAN KI MOON                        

Alan Baker                                                                                                            

Aug. 15, 2014

 

Excellency,

 

It is with considerable sadness and disappointment that we write this letter to you, in the name of thousands of lawyers associated with the Legal Forum for Israel. We heard and read with amazement and incredulity your recent statements accusing Israeli forces of violating international humanitarian law, and especially your statement of 12 August 2014 questioning of Israel’s respect for the principles of distinction and proportionality, and your call for an “investigation into the repeated shelling of UN facilities harboring civilians”. We find these statements by you to be nothing less than shocking, deceitful and totally inaccurate.

 

We know that you have been fully briefed, and are well aware of the circumstances that have given rise to the hostilities between Israel and the Hamas terror organization, including the mass barrage of rockets fired by Hamas at Israel’s civilian centers, and the extensive offensive tunnels under Israel’s sovereign territory.

 

We also know that you are fully aware of the extraordinary lengths to which the Israeli forces have gone in order to ensure that all targets are legitimate military targets, and to fully observe the principles of distinction and proportionality – to the extent of suffering casualties because of this. We know that you are fully aware of the repeated warnings given to civilians to distance themselves from those structures used by Hamas for purposes of combat. We know that you are fully aware of the fact that Hamas, as a matter of its basic operational procedure, deliberately and willfully uses its civilians and its civilian structures, whether schools, hospitals, mosques or private homes, in order to shield its rocket emplacements, weapons manufacture facilities, tactical planning and operation centers and its stocks of rockets and other weapons. You are fully aware of the fact that they do this deliberately in order to generate civilian casualties, as part of their propaganda warfare.

 

Yet despite your knowing all these facts, you have nevertheless found it necessary to play along with the Hamas tactics and to arbitrarily and falsely accuse Israel of violating humanitarian norms, and you have even determined “that these attacks should be investigated and those found responsible will bear the consequences of their actions.” We have great difficulty in understanding the reasons for this deliberate and false deceit on your part. As Secretary General of the United Nations, we would have expected you to live up to the principles set out in the UN Charter requiring you and your staff to “refrain from actions which might reflect on [your] position as international officials responsible only to the Organization.” To lay the blame so blatantly and falsely on Israel, while totally ignoring the continued, willful and indiscriminate aggression by Hamas against Israel’s citizens, its utter disregard of humanitarian norms, and Hamas’s cynical violation of the basic rights to life of its own civilian population, you are undermining and discrediting your own position as Secretary General, as well as undermining the guiding principles set out in the Charter, and discrediting the organization.

 

We are shocked at your utter disregard of the fact that the very UN premises of which you accuse Israel of attacking, have been cynically abused by Hamas and used as store-houses for ammunition, and launching pads for rockets. Rather than falsely accusing Israel, one might have expected that as the executive head of the UN, you would have admitted responsibility of the UN for such abuse of its facilities, and instituted a thorough inquiry as to how and why UNRWA facilities were placed at the disposal of the Hamas terror organization, how and why the UN officials responsible for such facilities permitted this situation to occur, and why those rockets and other weapons that were discovered in such facilities were transferred to Hamas, for their continued use against Israel’s citizens. In permitting the storage of weapons, and in transferring such weapons into the hands of Hamas, the UN has in fact permitted itself to become accessory to the commission of war crimes…

 

Sincerely,

 

Alan Baker, Ambassador (ret’), Attorney Nachi Eyal, Director, International Action Division, CEO, Legal Forum for Israel

 

Contents
                             APPEASING THE MOB? THAT AIN’T KOSHER                                         

Stephen Pollard                                                                                          

National Post, Aug. 20, 2014

 

Terrorism takes many forms. But whether it is Islamist extremists on the streets of London or beheadings in Syria and Iraq, it has one common thread: It is designed to instill such fear that a society or community changes its very way of life. On Saturday, a branch of the British supermarket chain Sainsbury’s removed all kosher food from its shelves over fears that anti-Israel protesters picketing outside would attack the shop. In its way, the store was both giving in to, and colluding with, a form of terrorism. In response to those protesters outside Sainsbury’s Holborn branch calling for a boycott of its Israeli goods, the manager ordered his staff to clear the shop of all its kosher goods. Clearly the manager is not the brightest spark in the firmament, since kosher produce — which is the only food observant Jews are allowed to eat — is not the same as Israeli produce (which is simply food produced in Israel). The kosher produce in the shop was apparently made in the UK and Poland, and had never been near Israel.

 

It’s easy to imagine what went through the manager’s mind: “Israelis, Jews – heh, they’re all the same. Let’s just get rid of this stuff pronto and keep the protesters happy.” According to the witness whose Facebook posting of the empty shelves revealed the story, a staff member then defended the move, saying: “We support Free Gaza.” I can think of no other description for Sainsbury’s behaviour than that it is a “hate crime”. How else should one describe the targeting of Jews — by removing kosher food from a shop — simply because of the actions of a foreign government with which they have no connection other than religion, and with which they may or may not agree? Worse, the idea that the best way to deal with a mob of angry anti-Israel protesters is to give them even more than what they want, by removing all Jewish produce in the hope that they will then go away, is not merely spineless. It is, in its broadest terms, exactly the response that terrorists seek. Some hapless Sainsbury’s spokesperson issued a statement saying that the company was “an absolutely non-political organisation,” and went on: “It was an isolated decision made in a very challenging situation.”

 

Challenging. What a wonderful word that is, designed as a catch-all to excuse all sorts of inexcusable acts. So – given how challenging things are in Iraq at the moment – presumably Sainsbury’s will be removing all halal goods from its shelves because Islamic State is slaughtering Yazidis. No? You mean Sainsbury’s does not believe all British Muslims should be punished for the actions of a foreign body with which they have no connection? Mistakes happen. But the way they are dealt with is usually more indicative of the way an organisation is run. And Sainsbury’s is refusing even to investigate the incident. Not that it is the only supermarket to have been targeted by protesters. Over the past few weeks, they have been attempting to shut all sorts of shops. Until Saturday, the main significance of the protests had been to show how resolute the retailers have been. In a Tesco in the Midlands, for example, also on Saturday, a group waving Palestinian flags burst in and threw produce from the shelves to the floor. The police were called. That is the only sensible response to intimidation. But for Sainsbury’s, it seems, the correct response to threats is to give in to them.

 

The mobs, of course, do not come from nowhere. The previous Saturday, a front-bench Labour MP, Shabana Mahmood, praised a protest against a Sainsbury’s branch in Birmingham that had been forced to close while the police restored order. She told marchers in Hyde Park that such direct action against any firm that did business with Israel was the way forward: “Just as powerful as our passion is the practical action we can all take to make our Government sit up and take notice.” She proclaimed: “We lay down in Sainsbury’s in Birmingham and closed down a store for five-and-a-half hours at peak time on a Saturday.” It is no surprise to see such direct action — mob rule, to be more precise — when the British government itself includes a party that refuses to take action against an MP (David Ward of the Liberal Democrats) who writes: “If I lived in Gaza would I fire a rocket? — Probably yes,” and which has a Business Secretary who has said he will impose an arms embargo on Israel should fighting recommence.

 

A pattern is emerging in which a form of anti-Semitism is becoming normalised — as if it were now acceptable to speak or even act against Jews as Jews, under the cover of acting against Israel. Two week ago, the Tricycle Theatre in north London decided that it would not be able to host the UK Jewish Film Festival, which had graced its screens for the past eight years. Not an Israeli festival, mind you — a Jewish festival. The reason? The festival has received a £1,400 donation from the Israeli government. The Tricycle has happily shown films from Russia, China and other nations with deplorable human rights records and made no demands over the funding of the films. But unless the British Jews who put on the film festival were prepared to divorce themselves from Israel, they would no longer be welcome, they were told. Over the weekend, the Tricycle caved in and reversed its stance, although the film festival will not return there until next year at the earliest…

 

Over the course of July, the Community Security Trust, which monitors anti-Semitism in co-operation with the police, recorded over 240 incidents – and they have been on a similar scale in August. The situation in Britain is not comparable to that in France, where there have been anti-Semitic mobs torching synagogues, but for many British Jews something poisonous has now entered the ether and anti-Semitism, the oldest hatred, is being normalised. Last week, my own newspaper, the Jewish Chronicle, conducted a straw poll of 150 Jews stopped randomly in the street. The results were not scientific. But fully 63% said they and their friends had, over the past month, discussed whether Jews have a future in Britain. That’s not, of course, the same as saying they would leave. But in 2014, how shaming that even one Jew feels that the discussion needs to be had.

                                                                                                               

Contents

ISIS AND HAMAS: THE DOUBLE STANDARD                                  

Arsen Ostrovsky                                             

Huffington Post, Aug. 20, 2014

 

Hamas and ISIS are two sides of the same Islamic terror coin, yet while the West has rightfully united in condemnation and action against ISIS, it has applied a different standard towards Israel, who has been faced with the incessant terror of Hamas. A chorus of world leaders, from President Obama, the UN Secretary General and Pope Francis — have all been rightfully outraged by the barbaric carnage we are witnessing from ISIS in Iraq. Even other arch-terrorists, like Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, have called ISIS "a monster", while Osama Bin Laden, before he was killed, called for al-Qaeda to sever all ties with ISIS due to the group's "extreme brutality," saying that it could "harm al-Qaeda's reputation." They have sought to annihilate entire communities of minorities in Iraq, including the ancient Yazidis and Christians. Their tactics and methods have shocked all people with a shred of decency to the very core, including now their gruesome murder and public beheading of American journalist James Foley.

 

Today, ISIS makes Hezbollah and al Qaeda look like Mother Theresa. From the use of death squads, beheadings, rape and crucifixions, no one has been spared, especially not women and children. Simply put, their evil and depravity knows no rational bounds. Calling ISIS a "cancer", President Obama, with the support of other world leaders, instructed U.S. forces to conduct a military operation in order to prevent the "genocide" of the Yazidis and other minorities in Iraq, saying "the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye." However, in stark contrast, many of these same world leaders effectively question Israel's right to self-defense against Hamas, with President Obama having called for Israel to institute an "immediate and unconditional" cease fire, while at the same halting weapons sales to Israel, America's key ally in the region, as it faces a renewed bombardment of rockets from Hamas.

 

So, one begs to ask the question — what is the difference between Hamas and ISIS? Both organizations come from the same radical, murderous Islamic roots with a pervasive indifference to human life, freedom and democracy. Hamas is essentially Israel's ISIS — but funded by Iran, assembled on the border of the Jewish state and with genocidal intentions of destroying Israel and killing all Jews around the world. One need only read Hamas' own Charter and observe their methods, including using their own children as human shields, while openly professing to Israel "We desire death as you desire life," to see they are in word and deed made of the same terrorist cloth as ISIS. Just a few weeks ago, Hamas reiterated again, "Our doctrine in fighting you [the Jews] is that we will totally exterminate you. We will not leave a single one of you alive."

 

Yet, the double standards that exist between how the West has (rightfully so) approached the terrorist ISIS and Hamas-Israel conflict, is breathtaking. The UN Human Rights Council for example has recently ordered another one-sided 'Fact Finding Mission' against Israel. It would be better served by dropping this anti-Israel witch-hunt and instead focusing on what are the most egregious human rights violations in this region, such as the attempted genocide of Yazidis by ISIS. But don't hold your breath. Last week, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution condemning ISIS for "gross, systematic and widespread abuse of human rights," but has yet to call out Hamas for their gross human rights violations, including bombarding innocent Israeli civilians, using Palestinians as human shields, while also persecuting women, gays and Christian minorities in Gaza.

 

One may also ask where are all those so-called enlightened liberals who continue to call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against the Jewish State, but are silent in the face of Palestinian terror, or for that matter, the real oppressed people of Iraq? Hollywood stars Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz signed an open-letter castigating Israel and calling its actions against Hamas in Gaza "genocide." They too have been conspicuously silent as Hamas is firing thousands of rockets against Israeli civilians and an actual genocide is occurring in Iraq. Every Western leader, including Ban-Ki Moon and President Obama repeatedly call on Israel to exercise more "restraint," to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Taking aside for a moment that the Israel Defense Forces go to "unprecedented lengths" to avoid civilian casualties (many of which Hamas intentionally put in harm's way), you will seldom hear a world leader calling on President Obama or the West to exercise 'restraint' against ISIS. In short, the world seems to have one standard for the West dealing with terror, and a different one when it comes to Israel fighting terror. Is Jewish or Israeli blood really somehow cheaper?

 

Contents

THE DEATH KNELL SOUNDS FOR THE CHRISTIANS OF IRAQ           

Paul Merkley                                                      

Bayview Review, Aug. 19, 2014

 

In just a few weeks the government of Iraq lost control of most of Western Iraq and Northern Iraq. As the Army of Iraqi disintegrated, leaving to the Army of IS all that heavy weaponry (the very best of its kind in the whole world, paid for over two decades by the American taxpayer), mass executions, filmed by IS itself for us all to admire, were clearing the ground of any elements associated with the Baghdad regime. At this moment it became clear to most alert Iraqis on the path to Baghdad that the best way of demonstrating fidelity to the new Caliph Imam Abu-bakr al-Baghdadi and to the goals of his pretended universal regime was to resume the task that Muhammad had left to all Muslims – the neglect of which, according to all believers everywhere, is the essential reason for the humiliation that befell the World of Islam in the Twentieth Century: that is, the task of eliminating Jews and Christians.

 

Evidently only a few individuals have taken up the Caliph’s “invitation” to convert even though mass executions have occurred in many places already. Entire communities of Christians, people who had lived in the land between the Euphrates and the Tigris for many centuries prior to the happy day when the Angel Gabriel handed down the Qur’an to Muhammad, have been forced onto the road; their homes have been marked with the Arabic equivalent of the letter N (for “Nassarah” = Nazarenes or Christians), advertizing that Muslims are invited to loot. In an interview for the Lebanese LBC/LDC TV Channel, a Christian refugee from Iraq reports that his Sunni neighbours, now imagining themselves on an ascendant curve as the army that served the purposes of the Shia-dominated Maliki government, dropped all its weapons and ran away, cried out in chorus: “The land belongs to Islam and Christians should not live here.”…

 

The Assyrians: The great majority of Christians who live in Iraq today are called “Assyrians.” They probably do not descend from the Old Testament Assyrians –among history’s most blood-thirsty conquerors — but they most certainly are Christians and equally certainly have lived as a distinct population in the Middle East since the very beginning of the history of the Church – that is, for at least four centuries before the time of Muhammad. Their story began in one of the Christian kingdoms that on today’s map would be located partly in Syria, partly in Iraq. They were among several distinct national minorities still governed by the Ottoman Empire at the opening of the Twentieth Century and then set loose from that regime when the Allies dismantled the Ottoman Empire after 1922. Because the Assyrians were Christians, they were despised by all of the other national communities who competed with them for the privilege of founding a separate nation – among whom were the Arabs and the Kurds. The Twentieth Century leaders of the Assyrian communities in the Middle East imagined that since they were Christians and had indeed been Christians since long before any European nation had turned to Christian faith they would enjoy some sentimental advantage, to say the least, with the leaders of the Great Western Powers. But the days when the leaders of the Western Democracies openly identified themselves as “Christian” were already long gone and the days when their governments would pride themselves on never appearing to prefer the cause of Christians anywhere in the world had now begun.

 

Another major ethnic minority set loose by the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and seeking recognition as a State was the Kurds. These are about eighty million in number today; they are related to the Iranians and are mainly Sunni Muslims, but their leading politicians are considered as dangerously secular by the major religious establishments. We have to set aside the good press that the Kurds are receiving these days and recall that the Kurds of Britain’s Mandate of Mesopotamia (what is today Iraq) put themselves in August 1933 at the head of a military campaign to liquidate the Assyrians of Iraq, whom all sides hated because they were Christians. Several thousand Assyrians were massacred in the course of a few days…The Kurdish leaders of that time assumed that this heroic campaign to liquidate the only intact Christian community surviving in this region since the Turks had carried out their attempted genocide of the Armenians during the First World War would be accepted by the British and French colonial regimes and then by the post-colonial Arab regimes in Iraq and Syria as proof of their entitlement to a nation-state of their own. However, it was not until the Americans imposed their no-fly against Saddam Hussein’s dying regime after the first Iraq War in the late 1990s that the Kurds of Iraq achieved an Autonomous State-within-a-state in Iraq.

 

The Assyrian Remnant in Iraq: In Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the surviving Assyrians had looked to the dictator as their protector against popular hostility. Since Saddam Hussein’s fall, the small community of Assyrian Christians in Iraq has been reduced to something like half its previous numbers by the actions of Muslim mobs acting on the advice of their religious teachers. Even before the Islamic State got into the game a few months ago, there had been hundreds of Christians kidnapped and murdered by other Iraqis because of their Assyrian ethnicity and their Christian faith. Taken together, these acts have driven approximately 1 million Assyrians out of their homeland. Many thousands now languish in refugee camps in Jordan, Turkey, and Syria. Only about 450,000 Assyrians remain in Iraq. Now the Islamic State has put this remnant on notice of imminent extirpation.

 

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post notes: For months, the march of the militant Islamic State organization was ignored by the international community. It wasn’t for lack of knowledge. Islamic State bragged about its atrocities, posting videos of its fighters loading Shi’ite men onto trucks and making them dig their own graves. They bragged about stoning women for “adultery” and posted gruesome photos of executions and crucifixions…. The deafening silence from the West was similar to that which has greeted previous genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda and Sudan, where lip-service was paid too late for crimes that could have been prevented…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

 

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!

 

On Topic

 

Dear World (Video): Youtube, July 28, 2014—Dear world, sorry that we established a country…

It’s Anti-Semitism, Stupid: Efraim Karsh, Jerusalem Post, Aug. 11, 2014—Let’s admit it: Israel can never win the media war against Hamas. No matter what it does, no matter how hard it tries.

It's Britain, So the Anti-Semitism Is More Refined: Brendan O'Neil, Wall Street Journal, Aug. 15, 2014 —Britain's leftists are patting themselves on the back for having resisted the lure of anti-Semitism.

The Battle of our Century: Father Raymond J. de Souza, National Post, Aug. 14, 2014—It began dramatically on Sept. 11, 2001. Our century is characterized by a lethal theological war in the house of Islam, with brutal consequences for the whole world, whether it be lower Manhattan or northern Iraq.

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Contents:         

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

BRITS’ HYPOCRITICAL PUSH TO LABEL “SETTLEMENT” PRODUCTS, PROVES HERZL’S VISION: JEWS MUST HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN THEIR OWN LAND

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Ber Lazarus, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 – Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284; E-mail:  ber@isranet.org

 

 

 Download a pdf version of today's Daily Briefing.

 

Europe Losing its Patience: Dan D. Aridor, Gatestone Institute, June 25, 2013 —In a move reminiscent of Nazi Germany, Britain, led by Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hague, is part of a growing effort in the European Union to label Israeli products exported from beyond the 1949 armistice lines — where the shooting stopped after Israel survived the invasion in 1948, on the eve of its birth, by five Arab armies.

 

PM Netanyahu's Speech at the State Memorial Ceremony for Benjamin Zeev Herzl: Prime Minister’s Office, June 27, 2013 — Peace is desirable in and of itself.  Peace is based on security; it is not based on goodwill and legitimacy as people think.  It is based first and foremost on our ability to defend ourselves.  Without security, without the army that Herzl called to establish, we cannot defend the peace; we cannot defend ourselves if the peace unravels.

 

On Topic Links

 

French Jewish Defense League on the Attack: Cnaan Liphshiz, Times of Israel, June 28, 2013

Palestinians: "No Jews Allowed!": Khaled Abu Toameh, Gatestone Institute, June 25, 2013

Evidence Found of  2,000-Year-Old Siege of Jerusalem: Daniel K. Eisenbud, Jerusalem Post, June 27, 2013

 

 

EUROPE LOSING ITS PATIENCE

Dan D. Aridor

Gatestone Institute, June 25, 2013 at 4:00 am

 

At the end of May of this year, British Foreign Minister William Hague made a statement that "Europe is losing its patience." There are quite a few reasons for Secretary Hague to have made such a statement:
 

  • In Britain a soldier was beheaded in the street, and in France a soldier was murdered. Both attacks seem to be hate crimes of Muslims against Christians.
  • 60,000 British women were genitally mutilated due to a ritual practiced by Muslims, and 20,000 more are in immediate danger of being forced to undergo this procedure.
  • In Egypt, the original inhabitants of the country, Christian Copts, are been hunted down by the Muslims.
  • In Syria, the level of atrocities has reached a new high as chemical weapons have been deployed. The death toll in the civil war is approaching 100,000.
  • In Saudi Arabia, women are discriminated against and a culture of women as sex slaves is flourishing.
  • An important Palestinian Authority figure, Jibril Rajoub, has just said that Palestinians, if they could, would nuke Israel. No condemnation or rebuff of his statements was heard from any Palestinian politician.
  • Mauritania still has slaves; Indonesia still canes people; Iran hangs homosexuals from cranes; Turkey has more journalists in prison than any other country, including Iran and North Korea; Saudi Arabia denies women freedom of movement; does not allow Bibles into the country; and there is no equal justice under law, property rights, free speech, free press, or free worship.
  • In Britain and across Europe, Israeli and Jewish speakers, Jewish students or just plain Jews are routinely attacked by what can be described as the new "Brown Shirts" of Europe (and occasionally also in and American and Canadian Universities).
     

Secretary Hague's comments, however were directed at Israel and the settlements. Hague presumably by accident failed to recall that to most Arabs — in both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas Charters, and all maps of Palestine currently in use by them — the entire State of Israel is one big "settlement." Hague made these comments during his visit to Israel at the end of May. What Secretary Hague apparently condemns is the Jewish people's settlement into its historic home — the creation of which the British Empire tried to prevent, despite its commitments in the 1917 Balfour declaration to establish a national home for the Jewish people, and despite the 1920 San Remo Agreement (an international meeting attended by Britain France Italy and Japan, which, among other things, adopted the Balfour declaration). The British Mandate for Palestine was based on San Remo decisions, in order to establish a Jewish home in Palestine.

 

So seemingly it is not hate crimes around the Muslim world, in Arab countries or in Sharia's enclaves in Britain, or even in London that anger Secretary Hague. The latest hate crime, the beheading of an British soldier in London, propelled one of the most supportive "politically correct" advocates of our time, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, finally to say what no one else dares to say: that there is a "problem within Islam."

 

In a move reminiscent of Nazi Germany, Britain, led by Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hague, is part of a growing effort in the European Union to label Israeli products exported from beyond the 1949 armistice lines — where the shooting stopped after Israel survived the invasion in 1948, on the eve of its birth, by five Arab armies. Also known as "'67 borders," after the date of the Six Day War, these boundaries were called by the late, left-wing Foreign Minister of Israel, Abba Eban, "Auschwitz borders" for having, among other vulnerabilities, the width of a mere 14 km, not even nine miles, less than the length of the island of Manhattan. This "waist" now makes up the center of Israel, and is its most populated part.

 

Notably, the EU does not propose similarly labeling goods from any other territories deemed "occupied." Further, while condemning Israel for what they call "the Territories," the British still "occupy" the Falkland Islands, disputed by Argentina as their Malvinas, on the other side of the Atlantic, nowhere near Britain.

 

Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hague added their names to list of people who advocated labelling Jewish goods or businesses. At a time when both the State of Israel and Jews are being so violently attacked in so many international forums — not because of the so-called territories but simply for existing — this foreign minister is aligning himself with an unholy tradition of British politicians since the days of the British Mandate in Israel, from the end of World War I until 1947. This unseemly policy seems to blind the British bureaucracy and many of Britain's elite to other policies and other times, and is presumably a campaign waged against the legitimacy of Israel and its right to exist in its 3,000 year-old historic home.

 

According to The Bible and the Sword, a comprehensive study of the historical relationship between the English people and the Jews, and their connection through the centuries to the land known as Israel or Palestine, by the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Barbara Tuchman, it was one of the greatest figures in British history, Richard the Lionheart, who sacrificed so many Christians for a chance to conquer Jerusalem. William Marshal, described as The Greatest Knight, also fought for the Holy Land. For Richard the Lionheart and William Marshal, there was no armistice treaty of 1949, "'67 borders," "occupation," or "settlements." Deferring to the Bible, they attributed to a higher authority their excuse for fighting for the land of Israel — the Promised Land.

 

Jerusalem is in the heart of the country as it was the hearts of so many Christians who died trying to liberate it from Muslim occupation. In the centuries when the Muslims controlled Jerusalem, it was never a capital. It is nowhere even mentioned in the Quran, not once. Yet it has been mentioned for more than two millennia on the lips of every Jew in their daily prayers, on their high holy days and at every marriage, and it was, and still is, the heart and soul of the Jewish people. Five times a day every observant Muslim turns his back on Jerusalem to pray to Mecca.

 

William Hague is losing his patience with a connection of more than three millennia between the Jewish people and a tiny strip of land — a connection that was also so critical for generations of British leaders. Tuchman, in the preface of her book, states that, "The British betrayal of their own impulse in establishing the national home, the white paper policy, the collusion with the Arabs, the ramming of the Exodus and the detention of Jewish refugees from Hitler in new concentration camps in Cyprus, and finally, the encouragement of the Arab offensive on the heels of the British departure was all impossible to relate without outrage."

 

Those, however, were not the last betrayals by British politicians of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Within a span of eight years, the British proved that Israel and its survival were of no interest to the British "elite." It was in June 1967 that for three weeks the armies of Jordan, Syria and Egypt threatened to obliterate the State of Israel — which then had no "territories." Not England, not France and not even the United States came to Israel's aid.

 

A little more than seven years later, in 1973, during the darkest hours of the Yom Kippur War, when the Americans wanted to send an airlift operation to assist the surprised Israelis, they could not find a single Western democracy that would allow the airplanes to land and refuel. Not even England, America's strategic and cultural partner, which was saved by the Americans in two world wars. Not only did the Western countries decline to come to the aid of the remaining few who survived the Holocaust; they even declined to help fuel American aircraft, or allow them to traverse their airspace. The American pilots who saved Europe with their blood had to risk their lives flying a precise route between Europe and the Arab countries bordering the Mediterranean, in order not to violate the air space of European countries. It was only the dictatorship of Portugal that allowed the airplanes to land and refuel in the Azores.

 

A few years earlier, on December 7, 1970, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, had dropped to his knees before the monument to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943. Many in Poland and Germany were deeply moved by this famous gesture of repentance and apology. As the Chancellor later said, "under the weight of recent history, I did what people do when words fail them. In this way, I commemorated millions of murdered people." That gesture, however, did not prevent Chancellor Brandt from betraying his own words in 1973 by also refusing to allow American airplanes to refuel in Germany. He refused to help the refugees of the Holocaust and their descendents, the very people from whom, on his knees and in tears, he had begged forgiveness.

 

Great Britain, so quick to condemn Israel and be impatient with it, then virtually embargoed Israel by revoking arms export licenses to Israel after Operation Cast Lead in 2009. Operation Cast Lead was carried out by the then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after thousands of missiles had been fired by Hamas into Israeli towns, targeting civilians, for years. The embargo of 2009 was not an isolated incident: In 2002, the British government also refused to sell ejector seats for F4 Phantom jet planes used by the Israel Air Force. The same Ehud Olmert in 2008 proposed the most far-reaching peace offer to Palestinian Authority President Mohammad Abbas, who rejected it, just as Yasser Arafat rejected Prime Minister Ehud Barak's offer at Camp David in 2000, and as the Arab League rejected Israel's offer to negotiate for the return of the "territories", in its Khartoum resolution a few months after the Six Day War in 1967 — every rejection without even a counter-offer.

 

British policy is, as usual, two-faced and hypocritical. Britain condemns Israel at every possible turn, then seeks Israel's assistance and good will. This year the birthday of her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II was celebrated in Israel at the world-renowned Weizmann Institute. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and a world-class scientist, made major contributions in assisting the war effort of the Allies in WW I; it is this scientific and technological collaboration that the British government cherishes — so much so that Prime Minister David Cameron is taking a personal interest in it.

 

Britain has created a technological hub placed in the British embassy in Tel-Aviv — a first of its kind. The purpose of the hub is to encourage, among other things, Israeli businesses to make their home in Britain. While visiting Israel in November 2010, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague called UK-Israel science and business ties "one of the cornerstones of the relationship between Britain and Israel." It is almost as if history is repeating itself. Trying to accelerate its economy, England is seeking Jewish assistance — an invitation that resembles Oliver Cromwell, in 1657, lifting the 350-year ban on Jews in England.

 

Perhaps Secretary Hague and Prime Minister Cameron might become concerned about the lawlessness and infringements of human rights, especially of women, in their own country, Britain — the direct result of caving into Muslim demands for Sharia law there. This policy of submission should pose a serious concern to the West. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that England can no longer send its own men in uniform out into the streets; British soldiers are not targets in Israel but in London. If Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hague are still concerned about human rights, perhaps they might start by speaking to officials in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, where there is plenty to lose their patience about: The Wahhabis and Muslim Brotherhood rulers systematically trample human rights, women's rights, children's rights, property rights, equal justice under law, rule of law, free speech, free press, and freedom of religion, among other distasteful practices. There is persecution of Christians and anyone else considered "not Muslim enough."

 

Picking on Jews is relatively easy; there are no real consequences except for revealing the true color of one's own character. Perhaps William Hague need not be concerned with the policy his government promotes regarding Palestine: future generations of Britons might continue their claim to Jerusalem, but from a religious foundation other than Anglican. By that time, the British might find the question of "occupied territories" closer to home, as it already is in Spain, where Muslims are staking claims to "occupied" Andalusia. The Europe of Mr. Hague is not losing its patience; it is losing its nerve, its character, its values, its home.

Contents

 

 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU'S SPEECH AT THE STATE
MEMORIAL CEREMONY FOR BENJAMIN ZEEV HERZL

Prime Minister’s Office, June 27, 2013
 

We say, rightly, that Herzl's greatness is particularly noticeable when we look at the dire condition of the Jews of his time.  It is true.  The conditions they faced in Eastern Europe, in the ghettoes, were dismal, at a low point.  However, we can say in equal measure, and I do, that Herzl's greatness is even more noticeable in light of the wonderful condition the Jews in his immediate vicinity experienced.  Herzl lived and worked in Vienna.  Vienna at the end of the 19th century was the site of a Jewish renaissance that is difficult to describe.  One person who could testify to this better than anyone was one of the greatest American writers, Mark Twain.

Mark Twain is no doubt familiar to you because of his books, and he is also known for his visit to the Holy Land in 1869.  Almost 20 years later he travelled to Vienna.  He lived there for two years.  He met the Jews there.  In 1850 in Vienna there were barely any Jews.  The Hapsburg Empire welcomed them so they came.  They moved to Vienna and flourished in the fields of science, the arts, medicine, philosophy, music, journalism, business and economics – a Jewish blossoming that can hardly be described.  Freud, Mahler, Schnitzler, Schoenberg, Wittgenstein.  All Jews.  Stefan Zweig, Wasserman – you all know the medical test named after him – and many, many, many, many, many others.

Twain came to Vienna and met them all.  He knew Jews in the United States, but how many were there?  In Vienna he saw this renaissance, the tremendous contribution made by the Jews to advancing humanity.  He wrote a wonderful essay about the Jews in which he wrote: "He has made a marvellous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendour, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished.  The Jew saw them all, beat them all…"  He wrote this after he met them.

But he wrote something else.  He wrote: "What is this anti-Semitism?"  At the same time in Vienna, Karl Lueger, Hitler's spiritual mentor and mayor of Vienna, nurtured this hatred despite the Jews' great contribution.  Twain wrote: "What do they want from the Jews?  They make such a tremendous contribution to humanity – what is this anti-Semitism?"  He did not know how to answer that question. 

But these successful, good Jews, these geniuses, they did not even ask the question.  There was only one man who asked the question, one man, and he too was a genius.  Unlike his intellectual and creative colleagues, he was not delusional, he was a visionary and each of his visions and prophecies, his dictates and suggestions, were based on a considered, even cruel analysis of reality – not based on wishful thinking but on a correct reading of reality.

Twain became friendly with Herzl.  He even went with him to a play Herzl wrote about the ghetto walls.  In the play Herzl wrote that the bringing down of the ghetto walls and the assimilation of the Jews into advanced European society would not erase the anti-Semitism; it would only increase.  He wrote this in his letters as well. Herzl did not believe that the Jews' contribution to humanity, that tikkun olam – something we would all want to see – would erase anti-Semitism.  He did not believe that it would protect the Jews from the ancient hatred that had been nurtured for 2,500 years, ever since the Hellenistic period.  He believed that people would believe anything about the Jews – including people considered great figures in history.

Herzl had one solution.  Like Twain, Herzl believed that only with the return of the Jews to their homeland, which he expressed during his visit here in 1869 – only if the Jews returned to this land, would they be reborn in larger numbers.  However, here Herzl parted ways with Twain who believed that the Jews would be victorious in any situation and under any conditions.  Herzl was more cautious, much more cautious.  He wrote: "No people may be saved except by itself, and the Jewish question can only be resolved by the Jews".  And to this end, he demanded that the powers grant the Jews sovereign and settlement rights that we could defend with a Jewish army.  Why an army?  He understood very well why an army, and because of this demand, he was branded a crazy person.  Demanding a Jewish army at the end of the 19th century!?!  He understood very well that there would be a struggle here.

 

He also called for a policy that would rule out relying on the kindness of other peoples and countries, but not because he was an isolationist.  He was far from an isolationist.  He was cosmopolitan in the best sense of the world, but he was also a realist.  The State Visionary saw the country in his vision, but first he saw the dangers and the path to creating a national force to defend us from the ongoing danger.

In his speech before the Maccabean Club in London, Herzl emphasized the point of accumulating private strength.  Don't rely on the help of strangers and don't rely on their generosity.  This will soften the stones because even the most charitable people give donations that humiliate the individual – and stones never grow soft.  A people that wishes to be reborn, he said, must take care of everything on their own – be independent materially, spiritually and in terms of strength.  This was not a dream.  It was the most realistic, reasonable prognosis that could be made at the time.

Now the Jewish state has been established according to Herzl's vision, and it indeed unified Jewish knowledge as it was during Herzl's time.  The Nobel Peace Prize was established at the end of the 19th century, and since then, the Jews have continued contributing to humanity – more than 20% of Nobel Prizes have been awarded to Jews, as if there were a billion Jews in the world and not 14 million.  And the State of Israel has more Nobel Prize winners than any other country in relative terms given our population size.  The contribution to humanity continues, but there still is a fundamental realization that tikkun olam, fixing the world, does not protect us – it simply does not protect us because the beliefs against us persist.

In a survey conducted by the BBC, they asked which country had the most positive effect on humanity and which country had the most negative effect.  Israel was named in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and today – I am not the bearer of good tidings, although there has been a certain improvement over the past two years, the past four years.  But we are continually on the bottom of that list alongside Iran and it does not matter what we do.  It does not matter what we contribute.  It does not matter because we are not dealing in facts.

The blackening of the State of Israel, the description of us as rejecters of peace, as warmongers, as a dark country that aspires to conquer continues; rather than being seen as an enlightened country which fights as no other democracy in the world must, as no other country in the world must, against the aspirations to destroy us that surround us – and in the most enlightened way possible.  All the accusations against us are exaggerated, embellished, overblown – but they still hold sway.

It does not matter that we were in the midst of the political process, in the middle of the peace process.  Nothing changes.  We want peace because we want to live in peace.  And it is also true that we do not want a binational country.  However, let no one delude themselves into thinking that if we reach an agreement with the Palestinians it would erase the wild slander against the Jewish state.  Because the legacy of the Jews before this, for generations and generations, is the legacy of the Jewish state today.

Peace is desirable in and of itself.  Peace is based on security; it is not based on goodwill and legitimacy as people think.  It is based first and foremost on our ability to defend ourselves.  Without security, without the army that Herzl called to establish, we cannot defend the peace; we cannot defend ourselves if the peace unravels.

A fundamental condition for our existence and for the existence of peace, to achieve peace and maintain it, is security.  I think that this conclusion is understood by most citizens of Israel.  I think and I believe that Herzl understood this well and we will remain faithful to his outlook: to establish here an exemplary country, an advanced country, a country that is connected to its roots in our land, the Land of Israel, but a country that above all can give the Jews what they lost during their generations of exile – the ability to defend themselves, by themselves, against any threat.

May Herzl's memory be blessed.

 

Contents

 

French Jewish Defense League on the Attack: Cnaan Liphshiz, Times of Israel, June 28, 2013—LDJ stages violent reprisals to anti-Semitic attacks. The group, which numbers about 300 members, is now on a collision course with France’s Jewish establishment, which has condemned its activities and threatened a lawsuit. French authorities have ignored calls to ban LDJ.

 

Palestinians: "No Jews Allowed!": Khaled Abu Toameh, Gatestone Institute, June 25, 2013—"We will approve the meeting on condition there are no Jews." This is what you are likely to hear these days if you request a meeting with any senior Palestinian Authority official in the West Bank. "We are sorry, but we do not meet with Jews or Israelis."

 

Evidence Found of 2,000-Year-Old Siege of Jerusalem: Daniel K. Eisenbud, Jerusalem Post, June 27, 2013—Cistern found near Robinson's Arch contained an unprecedented discovery – three intact cooking pots and a small ceramic oil lamp. “The complete cooking pots and ceramic oil lamp indicate that the people went down into the cistern where they secretly ate the food that was contained in the pots, without anyone seeing them. This is consistent with the account provided by Josephus.”

 

Top of Page

 

 

Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.

 

 

Ber Lazarus, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org