Tag: islamic antisemitism

ANTI-ISRAEL MUSLIMS ELECTED TO U.S. CONGRESS; IN CANADA, TAXPAYERS INDIRECTLY FUNDING HAMAS

First Muslim Women in US Congress Misled Voters About Views on Israel: Soeren Kern, Gatestone Institute, Nov. 16, 2018— Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress.

Is Canada Knowingly Funding Extremism and Terrorism?: Tom Quiggin, IPT News, Oct. 18, 2018— Canadian taxpayer money may be finding its way to Hamas, a listed terrorist group.

Laïcité Can Help Block Advance of Political Islam: Lise Ravary, Montreal Gazette, Oct. 22, 2018 — “We must get involved in all domains where we can have more Islam …”

Congress Has the Chance to Combat Terrorist Use of Human Shields: Rabbi Abraham Cooper, The Hill, Oct. 10, 2018 — Innocent civilian casualties are an inevitable legacy of any war.

On Topic Links

Don’t Expect Democrats to Obstruct Trump’s Pro-Israel Policies – or Punish Netanyahu: Jonathan S. Tobin, Ha’aretz, Nov. 8, 2018

Canada’s Welcome Mat for Jihadis Poses Threat to US: Clarion Project, Nov. 18, 2018

Jihad Jane’s Recruiter Sentenced to 15 Years: Abha Shankar, IPT News, Oct 31, 2018

Islamic State’s Future in Afghanistan – Part II: Daud Khattak, BESA, Nov. 19, 2018

                             

FIRST MUSLIM WOMEN IN US CONGRESS

MISLED VOTERS ABOUT VIEWS ON ISRAEL                                                                          Soeren Kern                                     

Gatestone Institute, Nov. 16, 2018

 

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Harbi Tlaib of Michigan will be the first two Muslim women ever to serve in the US Congress. Most of the media coverage since their election on November 6 has been effusive in praise of their Muslim identity and personal history. Less known is that both women deceived voters about their positions on Israel. Both women, at some point during their rise in electoral politics, led voters — especially Jewish voters — to believe that they held moderate views on Israel. After being elected, both women reversed their positions and now say they are committed to sanctioning the Jewish state.

America’s first two Muslim congresswomen are now both on record as appearing to oppose Israel’s right to exist. They both support the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. Both are also explicitly or implicitly opposed to continuing military aid to Israel, as well as to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — an outcome that would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead, they favor a one-state solution — an outcome that many analysts believe would, due to demographics over time, replace the Jewish state with a unitary Palestinian state.

Ilhan Omar, who will replace outgoing Rep. Keith Ellison (the first Muslim elected to Congress) in Minnesota’s 5th congressional district, came to the United States as a 12-year-old refugee from Somalia and settled in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis and Saint Paul, in the late 1990s. In her acceptance speech, delivered without an American flag, Congresswoman-elect Omar opened her speech in Arabic with the greeting, “As-Salam Alaikum, (peace be upon you), alhamdulillah (praise be to Allah), alhamdulillah, alhamdulillah.” She continued: “I stand here before you tonight as your congresswoman-elect with many firsts behind my name. The first woman of color to represent our state in Congress. The first woman to wear a hijab. The first refugee ever elected to Congress. And one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress.”

Omar faced some controversy during the campaign, including a disturbing report that she had married her own brother in 2009 for fraudulent purposes, as well as a tweet from May 2018 in which she refers to Israel as an “apartheid regime,” and another tweet from November 2012, in which she stated: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

After the tweets came to light, Omar met with members of her congressional district’s large Jewish population to address concerns over her position on Israel, as reported by Minneapolis’s Star Tribune. During a Democratic Party candidates’ forum at Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park on August 6 — one week before Omar defeated four other candidates in the party’s primary — Omar publicly criticized the anti-Israel BDS movement. In front of an audience of more than a thousand people, Omar said she supported a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and that the BDS movement aimed at pressuring Israel was not helpful in trying to achieve that goal.

Pressed by moderator Mary Lahammer to specify “exactly where you stand on that,” Omar replied that the BDS movement was “counteractive” because it stopped both sides from coming together for “a conversation about how that’s going to be possible.”

Less than a week after being elected, however, Omar admitted that she supports the BDS movement. On November 11, Omar’s office told the website MuslimGirl.com that she favors BDS against Israel: “Ilhan believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized. She does however, have reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution.” On November 12, Omar told TC Jewfolk, a website catering to the Jewish community in the Twin Cities, that her position on the BDS movement “has always been the same” and pointed to her vote as a state lawmaker against House bill HF 400, which prohibits the state from doing business with companies or organizations that boycott Israel.

In a recent interview with the Star Tribune, Omar characterized the controversy over her tweets about Israel as an effort to “stigmatize and shame me into saying something other than what I believed.” In a July 8, 2018 interview with ABC News, for a segment entitled, “Progressive Democrats Increasingly Criticize Israel, and Could Reap Political Rewards,” Omar defended her tweets. She said the accusations of anti-Semitism “are without merit” and “rooted in bigotry toward a belief about what Muslims are stereotyped to believe.”

On September 22, Omar was the keynote speaker in Minneapolis at a fundraiser focused on providing monetary support for Palestinians in Gaza, which is ruled by Hamas. The US Department of State has officially designated Hamas a terrorist group. After the event, Omar tweeted: “It was such an honor to attend the ‘Dear Gaza’ fundraiser … I know Palestinians are resilient people, hateful protesters nor unjust occupation will dim their spirit.”

Writing in the New York Post, political commentator David Harsanyi noted that Omar’s rhetoric had anti-Semitic undertones: “Now, it isn’t inherently anti-Semitic to be critical of Israeli political leadership or policies. The Democratic Party antagonism toward the Jewish state has been well-established over the past decade. But Omar used a well-worn anti-Semitic trope about the preternatural ability of a nefarious Jewish cabal to deceive the world….

In Michigan, meanwhile, Rashida Tlaib, the daughter of Palestinian immigrants, won a largely uncontested race for the open seat in state’s heavily Democratic 13th congressional district. In Tlaib’s acceptance speech, delivered with a Palestinian flag, she credited her victory to the Palestinian cause. “A lot of my strength comes from being Palestinian,” she said.

Like Omar, Tlaib has changed her positions on key issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During her race for the Democratic nomination in the state primary, Tlaib actively “sought out the support and received the endorsement of J Street.” J Street is a left-leaning organization that is highly critical of the Israel government, and through “JStreetPAC,” it also allocates financial support to those who back J Street’s policies. J Street endorsed Tlaib “based on her support for two states” with the JStreetPAC website claiming that she “believes that the U.S. should be directly involved with negotiations to reach a two-state solution. Additionally, she supports all current aid to Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

After her primary win on August 7, however, Tlaib radically shifted her positions on Israel, so much so that Haaretz suggested that she pulled a “bait-and-switch.” In an August 14 interview with In These Times magazine, Tlaib was asked whether she supported a one-state or two-state solution. She replied: “One state. It has to be one state. Separate but equal does not work…. This whole idea of a two-state solution, it doesn’t work.” Tlaib also declared her opposition to US aid for Israel, as well as her support for the BDS movement…[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]                    

Contents

   

IS CANADA KNOWINGLY FUNDING EXTREMISM AND TERRORISM?

Tom Quiggin

IPT News, Oct. 18, 2018

Canadian taxpayer money may be finding its way to Hamas, a listed terrorist group. The Criminal Code of Canada forbids funding terrorism, as well as forbidding the facilitation of those funding terrorism. But last Friday, Minister of International Development Marie-Claude Bibeau announced that Canada would send $50 million in the next two years to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This is in addition to the $110 million that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has committed to UNRWA since 2016. UNRWA has been repeatedly accused of supporting extremism, promoting violence and not checking beneficiaries against a list of known terrorists provided by the police. The announcement made no reference to UNRWA’s alleged connections, and said the money is meant to help provide education and health services to Palestinians.

Funding UNWRA is not illegal in Canada, although given the agency’s reputation, it is a questionable use of taxpayer money. For instance, in August President Donald Trump withdrew $300 million in UNRWA funding. The U.S. government would no longer “shoulder the very disproportionate share of the burden of UNRWA’s costs,” a U.S. State Department press release said, calling it an “irredeemably flawed operation.” In addition to funding UNRWA, the Trudeau government gave millions of taxpayers’ dollars to Islamic Relief Canada. Some of this money is forwarded to Islamic Relief Worldwide (UK), which has been repeatedly linked to Hamas…

The Canadian aid is funneled through government programs, including International Humanitarian Aid Program (2017), M103 Islamophobia Funding (2018), Canada Summer Jobs Program (2017 and 2018), Myanmar Crisis Relief Fund/Islamic Relief (May 2018), Canadian Humanitarian Assistance Fund CHAF, Canada’s Humanitarian and Development Assistance to Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, and Prime Minister Trudeau’s volunteer work and promotional video for Islamic Relief Canada.

In June, MP Iqra Khalid of Mississauga announced that $23 million Canadian dollars would help fund her M103 Parliamentary Motion on “Islamophobia.” The money, she said, would go to Islamic Relief Canada and a local boys and girls club. Other members of Parliament who appear to have played a role in directing money to Islamic Relief Canada include Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Immigration and Refugees Minister Ahmed Hussen, Global Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, International Development Minister Bibeau and Parliamentary Secretary Omar Alghabra.

A variety of independent and credible sources have identified Islamic Relief Worldwide as funding extremist and terrorist activities. This includes American think tank studies and international actors. The following is a partial list of statements concerning the activities of Islamic Relief International. 1. In 2014 the United Arab Emirates produced a list of organizations they deemed to be terrorist entities. Among those was Islamic Relief Worldwide and Islamic Relief UK. 2. In 2017, Bangladesh banned three organizations, including Islamic Relief, from working with Rohingya refugees fleeing Myanmar out of concern about potential radicalization in refugee camps. 3. In 2014, Israel banned Islamic Relief from operating in the occupied West Bank, accusing Islamic Relief Worldwide of being a source of funding for the Palestinian Hamas Islamist movement. That led the UK Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) to remove Islamic Relief from its online donations page. The Financial Post of Canada similarly removed Islamic Relief from a charity page “since its international arm has been banned elsewhere (though not in Canada) for allegedly funneling funds to the terrorist organization Hamas.” 4. In 2015, the HSBC Bank of the United Kingdom closed Islamic Relief accounts citing fears that money could wind up with terrorist groups. 5. In 2012, the UBS cut ties with Islamic Relief due to concerns about counter-terrorist regulations.

The use of federally registered charities to fund terrorism is not a new practice. In the United States, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development was considered the country’s largest Muslim charity until it was shut down in 2001 for funneling millions of dollars to Hamas. Canada revoked the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN)’s charitable status in 2014 for similar Hamas support. The Islamic Society of North America in Canada has suffered four different charity revocations – two of which were for funding the Jamaat e Islami terrorist group.

What is different in this case, however, is how the money is getting directed down the path to terrorism. In the recent past, it was private citizens exploiting weaknesses in government oversight of registered charities. Now, however, it appears that Canadian MPs are using their positions to direct millions of dollars to Islamic Relief Canada. Some of this money is passed to Islamic Relief Worldwide, which is in turn passing money to extremist and terrorist groups. Given that it is generally known about Islamic Relief Worldwide’s terrorism financing connections, Canadian officials appear willfully blind. Even if they don’t know better, this practice violates Canadian law and Canadian values. An investigation could determine if the money could wind up in the hands of a terrorist organization.

Contents

   

LAÏCITÉ CAN HELP BLOCK ADVANCE OF POLITICAL ISLAM                                                   Lise Ravary

Montreal Gazette, Oct. 22, 2018

“We must get involved in all domains where we can have more Islam …” “The more we are present, the more women are seen wearing hijab, discussing it, explaining their approach, explaining who they are, the more we will create habits and things will change.” “We must control school programs and stop them from propagating values that do not conform to our principles.” “We must move into public schools, using empty spaces to dispense complementary religious learning.”

These words by Swiss-born global superstar Muslim preacher Tariq Ramadan, grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, explain why so many francophones see hijabs and niqabs as symbols of political Islam, or Islamism: using the tools of the state in order to further a religious agenda. Before being jailed in France to await trial on rape charges, Ramadan was a frequent visitor to Quebec, where he gave interviews to mainstream media and spoke to large crowds at the Palais des congrès.

Francophones read newspapers, books and magazines from France, where relationships between immigrants from North Africa and Français de vieille souche are bad for reasons that mostly don’t exist here. France failed at integrating les Maghrébins who moved there after her North African possessions became independent. Algeria, in particular, was not just a colony, it was a full-fledged French territory, its inhabitants French citizens. The terrible war of independence created a lot of hatred, bitterness and resentment before de Gaulle said “enough” in 1962.

Islamists continue to make inroads in France. Newspapers often report comments by radical imams on women, non-Muslims or Jews that make people’s hair stand on end. Salafist imams are regularly expelled and hundreds of mosques have been closed in recent years. More than 500 French Muslims joined ISIS. Who can forget Charlie Hebdo, le Bataclan and the people killed in Nice on Bastille Day?

Many francophones worry that Quebec will turn into France, where crowds pray in the streets, because Canada’s multiculturalism, they feel, promotes apartness instead of togetherness. As Ramadan said to L’Express: “We are in favour of integration as long as we control the content.” Although his speeches in Arabic have always been more strident and extreme than in French, he cultivated the image of bridge builder, a man of peace. People bought into his mystique. The sexual assault accusations have not stopped many Muslims from admiring Ramadan. Being the grandson of Hassan al-Banna confers a lot of prestige although he denies being a member of the Brotherhood.

Laïcité, which has never been explained to Quebecers, cannot and should not silence people like Ramadan, unless they promote hatred or incite violence. In itself, political Islam is not a crime. But many Quebecers feel that laïcité could at least prevent attempts to change things toward “more Islam.” However, this strategy did not work so well in France, where laïcité has been the law of the land since 1905. Yet, with laïcité, public schools could not set aside rooms for prayer, separate boys and girls — even non-Muslim — for gym, pull students from music lessons or sex education, or agree to some parents’ requests for segregated school yards.

Last spring, a public school in Montreal was set to rent out its premises for the annual “cérémonie du voile,” a Shiite ritual during which 9-year-old girls agree to wear the hijab forever. Many Muslims feel the girls are too young to take on such a commitment. Religions should be kept out of all state institutions, not only to stop people like Tariq Ramadan and other insidious promoters of Islamism from scoring political points, but also to allow the faithful to worship without having fingers pointed at them. Let’s not forget that many Muslims who emigrated here did so to escape Islamism.

Contents

   

CONGRESS HAS THE CHANCE TO COMBAT

TERRORIST USE OF HUMAN SHIELDS                                                               

Rabbi Abraham Cooper

The Hill, Oct. 10, 2018

Innocent civilian casualties are an inevitable legacy of any war. But the idea that armies would use civilians as human shields to protect armed combatants from the enemy’s bullets is considered by most civilized nations and adherents to International Law (1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, and the 1998 Rome Statute) to be a War Crime.

During World War II, across Europe and in Asia, the Axis partners were accused of deploying human shields to secure military objectives, root out insurgents and in the Battle of Okinawa, use civilians in a ferocious battle the Japanese knew they would lose. Over 100,000 Okinawans perished.

Saddam Hussein took the deployment of human shields to a whole new level. In the lead up to the Gulf War of 1990-1991. Hussein detained hundreds of citizens of Western countries as human shields in an attempt to deter nations from launching military strikes. A number of these hostages were filmed meeting Hussein, and kept with him to deter any targeted attacks, whilst others were held in or near military, nuclear and industrial targets.

More recently, in 2016, Islamic State fighters began using human shields — hostages — in Fallujah. Fox News reported that the shields consisted of “several hundred” families — in other words, an entire neighborhood. USA Today reported that Islamic State thugs were “locking some families down inside the hospital building.” The Iraqi government and the UN also estimated at least 50,000 innocent people were trapped in Fallujah.

Which brings us to the new Capitol Hill initiative. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) have introduced an increasingly rare bipartisan bill to counter the use of human shields by Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Nigeria’s Boko Haram and other terrorist groups. Why the need for the bill now? What can it achieve? Most of the examples of cited above about the use of human shields in the past took place in the heat of battle or as a desperation move on the eve of a military confrontation.

In our time, we are confronted with Iranian-backed terrorist groups who brazenly have established the deployment of human shields as a core tactic and strategy for present and future battles with the enemy. For months now, Hamas has been using children as part of orchestrated riots at the Gaza-Israeli border. When Israel soldiers rush to the area and see children, their first reaction is to hesitate targeting children. These traps have already cost the lives of an Israeli soldier.

Rather than condemn Hamas, as outgoing US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley tried unsuccessfully at the Security Council and General Assembly tried to do, UN members always vote to condemn Israel for defending herself. This only encourages Hamas to put more children at risk. Every dead child is a social media bonanza. In early wars with Israel, Hamas used civilian infrastructures, including UNRWA schools to store missiles and launch them against the Jewish State. While using children as cannon fodder, the Hamas brain-trust found safe haven beneath a civilian hospital. Palestinian children have died building terror tunnels burrowing into Israeli communities…

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

Contents

 

On Topic Links

Don’t Expect Democrats to Obstruct Trump’s Pro-Israel Policies – or Punish Netanyahu: Jonathan S. Tobin, Ha’aretz, Nov. 8, 2018—The 2018 U.S. midterm elections were a mixed bag for U.S. partisans.

Canada’s Welcome Mat for Jihadis Poses Threat to US: Clarion Project, Nov. 18, 2018—Canada’s welcome mat for jihadis — including returning ISIS terrorists as well as numerous Islamists immigrants — is well known.  This not only threatens our northern neighbors but is an increasing threat to the U.S. as well.

Jihad Jane’s Recruiter Sentenced to 15 Years: Abha Shankar, IPT News, Oct 31, 2018—An Algerian man was sentenced Tuesday to 15 years in prison for conspiring with Americans and others to recruit men and women in Europe and the United States to a terrorist cell to wage violent jihad in the West.

Islamic State’s Future in Afghanistan – Part II: Daud Khattak, BESA, Nov. 19, 2018—Islamic State in Khorasan (IS-K) emerged in Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan, on the border of Pakistan’s volatile tribal region.

ANTISEMITISM: AN “ANCIENT CANCER OF THE SOUL THAT REFUSES TO DIE”

The Rise of Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century: Philip Carl Salzman, FCPP, Nov. 14, 2017— At one of Canada’s elite universities, McGill University in Montreal, a series of disturbing anti-Semitic incidents have drawn wide attention and unsettled Jewish students and faculty members.

A New Anti-Semitism is Growing in America and We Must Unite Against It: Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Harold Brackman, Fox News, Nov. 24, 2017 — Hatred of Jews is an ancient cancer of the soul that refuses to die.

Antisemitism As a Gateway to Terrorism: Ramy Aziz, ISGAP, Nov. 27, 2017— Antisemitism is one of the most lethal diseases of hatred that has ever faced humanity…

Amid Celebrations of Martin Luther, Some Want to Talk About His Anti-Semitism: Verónica Zaragovia, Tablet, Oct. 31, 2017— Is the war in Syria won?

 

On Topic Links

 

Alberta Professor Accused of Anti-Semitic Views Reinstated: J.W. Schnarr, Lethbridge Herald, Nov. 23, 2017

Roger Waters Hits Another Wall, Losing German Broadcasters’ Backing Because of His Support for BDS: Liel Leibovitz, Tablet, Nov. 29, 2017

France Submits to Terrorism, Muslim Anti-Semitism: Guy Millière, Gatestone Institute, Nov. 28, 2017

The Plame Truth About Antisemitism in America: Gary C. Gambill, The Jewish Exponent, Nov. 1, 2017

                                                           

 

THE RISE OF ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Philip Carl Salzman

FCPP, Nov. 14, 2017

 

At one of Canada’s elite universities, McGill University in Montreal, a series of disturbing anti-Semitic incidents have drawn wide attention and unsettled Jewish students and faculty members. There have been repeated campaigns to “Boycott, Divest, and Sanction”(BDS) Israel, the homeland of the Jewish People. The McGill Daily student newspaper has an established policy of rejecting any article supporting or defending Zionism, the national movement of the Jews, or presenting Israel in any but a negative fashion. Most recently, in response to the failure of the BDS movement to be  validated at McGill by the Student Society Judicial Board , disappointed supporters voted down three nominated members of the Student Society Board of Directors, one Jewish and two not, on the grounds that their ties to Jewish organizations and/or their supportive attitudes toward Israel made them biased.

 

Some Canadian Jewish organizations have raised concern about this, and, for its own part, the McGill Administration, which does not support the BDS movement, and favours inclusiveness, has launched an investigation. Anti-Semitism is not a new phenomenon. For two thousand years there was an element of anti-Semitism in Christianity, with Jews being blamed for rejecting the Messiah and even for the death of Jesus. Anti-Jewish texts can be found among both Roman Catholics and Protestants, most notably in the (work) of Martin Luther and other reformers. But over the years, traditional Christian anti-Semitism gradually declined in Western Europe and most of North America, although not in much of Eastern Europe and not in Quebec. After World War Two, and the Holocaust, anti-Semitism because less fashionable in Western Europe and North America Nonetheless, in both the U.S. and Canada, hate crime against religion has traditionally overwhelmingly targeted Jews.

 

In the 21st century, anti-Semitism has taken a new form, hatred of the Jewish people in their collective representations, particularly hatred of Israel. This is not a matter of criticism of government policies of Israel, as one might make of policies of the U.S., Russia, or China. Rather, this hatred is reflected in the demand and intention that Israel be destroyed. We hear this regularly from Iran, Palestinian Hamas, Hezbollah, and, more stealthfully from Palestinian Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, as well as from the European, Canadian, and American supporters of these organizations.

 

 

Hatred of Jews is also manifested in identifying Jews as a cause of evil in the world, which is common among Imams during mosque sermons, as well as in the intention to cleanse the world of all Jews: “the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews)….’” This hatred is seen in the double standard applied to Israel, in which it is uniquely condemned for crimes against humanity, without ever considering other states, such as Iran, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Syria, for their crimes against humanity. But, of course, for anti-Semites, only Israel in all the world is to be condemned.

 

There are two main sources of contemporary anti-Semitism, particularly of hatred of the Jewish People and of their homeland, Israel. One source is the “progressive” left, which dominates higher education, especially in the social “sciences,” humanities, social work, and education. Remarkably, after Marxism failed in many places in the world, having mainly produced despotism, poverty, and death, it was wholeheartedly adopted by Western academics as the new Truth. Marxism-Leninism became the framework through which most Western academics viewed the world. After celebrations of the classical Marxist class struggle which never arrived, attention turned to Lenin’s imperialism theories, and became the dominant model, under such labels as “political economy”, “globalization”, “political ecology”, and, most popular, “postcolonialism”.

 

This approach is applied to the Jewish state, arguing that Israel was a colony of the West, that it was an imperialist settler state, oppressing and supplanting the” “indigenous” Palestinians, and, in the last weeks, that it is a white, supremacist state. This is the account of Israel taught by many professors in Western colleges and universities. In my own faculty, for example, dozens of professors from Anthropology, Political Science, Islamic Studies, History, and other departments published a letter announcing that they took this particular view of Israel and they supported BDS. In the BDS vote held last year by the American Anthropological Association, almost half of the Anthropoligists voting, voted in favour of boycotting Israel. In contrast, no boycotts were proposed in any BDS supporting academic organization for boycotting China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, or even the Islamic State.

 

Nothing in the Marxist, postcolonial model actually fits Israel. As is well known, Jews occupied the entire area of ancient Judea and Israel, and were the only people there when the Romans invaded prior to the birth of Christ. It was, after all, the Romans who renamed the territory “Palestine,” to erase the memory of the Jews who fought against them for two centuries.

 

As for modern Israel, no Western country sent Jews as a colonial force to their ancient homeland in Palestine; rather, Europeans, especially the British, did everything possible to keep Jews from emigrating to Palestine. As for being Western and white, half of all Israeli Jews are of mizrahi or of Sephardic origin, that is, of Middle Eastern ethnic background. This does not include the Israelis from East Asian, South Asian, and Ethiopian origins, who add to population of non-European Jews in Israel. Arabs came relatively late to Palestine, initially in the 7th century, replacing the Roman Byzantines. Today, Arabs represent around 20% of Israelis, most of whom are Israeli citizens, and of whom around 80% are Muslims. All citizens of Israel, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, have the same legal status. All can vote in the only democracy in the Middle East. As well, Arabs and Muslims have positions in all professions and institutions, governmental and civilian. Accusations of apartheid are risible…

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

                                                                       

 

Contents

A NEW ANTI-SEMITISM IS GROWING IN AMERICA

AND WE MUST UNITE AGAINST IT

Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Harold Brackman

Fox News, Nov. 24, 2017

 

Hatred of Jews is an ancient cancer of the soul that refuses to die. For thousands of years, successive generations of bigots have embraced it, each trying to sell anti-Semitism in a new and more attractive way, with new lies and slanders. One of the most prominent peddlers of this vile doctrine in America today is Palestinian-American Linda Sarsour. And now, in a supreme irony, Sarsour has been invited to head a panel discussion Tuesday at the New School for Social Research in New York City on combating anti-Semitism. This makes as much sense as inviting a Ku Klux Klan leader to head a discussion on combating racism, or inviting disgraced filmmaker Harvey Weinstein to head a discussion on combating sexual misconduct.

 

Sadly, Sarsour is just one of many enablers and inciters of a troubling new anti-Semitism growing in America today, especially on college campuses, where it is poisoning young minds. Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, this new anti-Semitism seeks to disguise itself – often by posing as a progressive movement supporting human rights of Palestinians. But like the wolf that masquerades as a sheep, the modern-day Jew-haters are what they are, regardless of how they seek to cover it up.  

 

Sarsour gained instant media celebrity status as co-chair of the National Women’s March protesting in Washington against President Trump the day after his inauguration. She was warmly embraced by many as a leader of the so-called “resistance” to our new president. Speaking to the Islamic Society of North America in July, Sarsour said that Muslims are “struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world (she means Israel), but here in these United States of America where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.” 

 

And Sarsour is also a strong supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. The movement compares Israel to South Africa under its former white minority government that discriminated against nonwhites. BDS seeks to isolate Israel from the world as an international pariah, calling for the end to investment, trade, cultural and academic ties with the Jewish State. The BDS movement echoes the boycott of Jewish businesses ordered by Adolf Hitler after he became the dictator of Germany in 1933. The Star of David was painted on the doors and windows of businesses owned by Jews, along with anti-Semitic slogans and signs saying “Don’t Buy from Jews.”

 

And while Sarsour asserts she is not against the existence of Israel, her claim is absurd. She wants to replace Israel with a “one-state solution” in which the culture and identities of over 6 million Jewish citizens would be extinguished and subsumed under a nation combining Israel, the West Bank and Gaza that would quickly have an Arab majority. Making Jews a minority in the land of Israel, which was created to be the only Jewish state on Earth, would turn the country into yet another Arab-majority Mideast nation. From Morocco to Iraq, those nations drove out most of their Jewish citizens decades ago and have a long record of discrimination against the few who remained. Israeli Jews would meet a similar fate, or worse.

 

Sarsour is a symptom of worsening anti-Semitism in America. In 2016, despite constituting under 2 percent of the U.S. population, Jews were the targets of 684 of the 1,273 anti-religion incidents tallied by the FBI – more than double all other anti-religious attacks combined. Most of the incidents involved damage or vandalism against synagogues and cemeteries. But 238 involved ugly intimidation on our nation’s campuses. FBI findings are echoed by an Anti-Defamation League report that shows anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. surged by more than one-third in 2016, and by an astounding 86 percent in the first quarter of 2017. This includes a doubling of anti-Semitic bullying and vandalism at schools.

 

Fortunately, there is no indication that most Americans have embraced anti-Jewish attitudes. A 2017 Pew Poll shows that 67 percent of Americans have “warm” views about Jews. However, there are troubling signs. For example: Anti-Semitic incidents on America’s top college campuses from 2014 to 2015 are increasing. Most involve intimidation of Jewish students who support Israel, pressure to disinvite or silence pro-Israel speakers, and the de-legitimization of Israel by a double standard applied to no other nation; The BDS movement is growing on college campuses, supporting by vicious lies alleging Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. Some professors support this movement and its lies; Vandalism continues at synagogues and Jewish cemeteries. Jewish institutions are forced to spend large sums on security measures, fearing attacks like the recent murderous rampage at a church in Texas…

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

                                                                       

 

Contents

ANTISEMITISM AS A GATEWAY TO TERRORISM

Ramy Aziz

ISGAP, Nov. 27, 2017

 

Antisemitism is one of the most lethal diseases of hatred that has ever faced humanity; it led to the Holocaust, a horrific and premeditated tragedy of human history, which resulted in the murder of millions of innocent lives and erased thousands of towns and villages from the map. Yet, despite centuries of antisemitism, this genocidal ideology still exists today. In fact, it is increasing at alarming rates, both in the East and in the West. In fact, antisemitism has become one of the most common tools used by political Islamist terror groups as a way of gaining sympathy and support, spreading extremism, and recruiting new members. This process is carried out using different methods, depending on the receiving audience. As demonstrated below, terrorist groups market extremist ideologies differently in the East and in the West.

 

In the West, specifically in Europe, terrorists and extremist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and Hamas — a designated terrorist organization according to the European Court of Justice— are working under the cover of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and student unions, thereby engaging in clear and severe violations of European laws, while simultaneously taking advantage of European freedom and democracy. These extremist groups exploit their presence in universities and other social and political circles to promote lies, falsify facts, and present a distorted narrative of the ongoing conflict between Israel and terror organizations. They solicit empathy by using the rhetoric of “resistance” in order to gain the support of young people and the European community, who remain unaware of the nuances and context of the Arab-Israeli conflict or the destructive role of terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

 

These terrorist groups cooperate with other factions of political Islam that have been gaining traction in Europe in order to organize events that urge Europeans to put pressure on their governments and parliamentary and economic institutions to boycott Israel. They use speech that is loaded with hatred and violence against the Jews, presenting an outrageous picture of antisemitism in Europe, the continent that bore witness to one of the most terrible crimes in human history.

 

Today, antisemitism in Europe has reached dangerous levels, enabling prominent European politicians, such as Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the British Labour Party, to call for removing terror organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah, which he calls ”friends,” from both the British and European lists of terrorist organizations. This shows how many young Europeans and politicians have moved to support terrorism from the gateway of antisemitism, which remains deeply rooted in European societies until today.

 

In the East, terrorist and extremist groups, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others, depend on the principle of Jihad against the Jews and the restoration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque to recruit Muslim youth and use them to carry out various terrorist activities. To perform this task, these groups use religious texts and interpretations, which present Jews as the enemy of Islam and promote the idea that God has ordered Muslims to kill Jews “wherever you may find them.”

 

Extremist Islamic currents are competing to use antisemitism and the fight against the Jews as a way of gaining legitimacy and attracting the largest number of supporters and fighters to their ranks. The Muslim Brotherhood has used this ideology since its establishment, as is evident in many of the organization’s writings, most notably in Muslim Brotherhood leader Sayyid Qutb’s book, Our Battle with the Jews. Hamas also uses antisemitic propaganda, based on the same doctrinal interpretations, in order to raise funds to execute terrorist operations, under the banner of Jihad against the Jews, while also attempting to gain support in an effort to displace Fatah, its main political rival…

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

 

Contents

AMID CELEBRATIONS OF MARTIN LUTHER,

SOME WANT TO TALK ABOUT HIS ANTI-SEMITISM

Verónica Zaragovia

Tablet, Oct. 31, 2017

 

In Wittenberg, Germany, right now, walking around without a city map in one hand and camera in the other makes you stand out. The Protestant Reformation began, one could argue, 500 years ago this month, and tourists have been coming in droves to its birthplace. Martin Luther did not begin the Reformation but gave it a major kick in the pants here, and just about everything here is named after him, including the city’s official name, which in 1938 became Lutherstadt Wittenberg…

 

According to legend, on Oct. 31, 1517, Luther nailed a copy of his 95 Theses to the wooden doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. In his theses, Luther criticized the pope and Catholic Church practices like the selling of indulgences for redemption (when in reality, Luther wrote, the money was for renovations of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome). The doors burned down in 1760, but because of the printing press’s advent, copies of Luther’s work went viral, and he helped splinter the Catholic Church. But Luther wrote more than just the 95 Theses. He’s also the author of a corpus of virulent anti-Jewish writings. Over the next 30 years, as Protestantism took root, Luther evolved from being tolerant of Jews, hopeful they could become good Christians, to being disgusted with them. He described Jews as blasphemous, contaminators and murderers who should be expelled by Protestant authorities.

 

Helena Fuentes, a nun with the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary in Darmstadt, near Frankfurt, wants people to acknowledge this dark side of Luther before celebrating the Reformation. On Wednesdays, she joins other members of the Sisterhood who stand by Wittenberg’s main square with Pastor Thomas Piehler of the Andreas Church in Leipzig. Together, they’ve been hosting silent vigils calling for an anti-Semitic stone relief on a historic Wittenberg church to come down. The relief is called a Judensau, or Jewish sow, high up on an exterior wall of St. Mary’s Town Church, a UNESCO World Heritage Site where Luther preached. “Praise of God and Jew hate do not belong together,” Piehler added. He and the nuns hold banners with statements, in German, like “Luther used the Judensau for his anti-Semitism” and “Let’s call it Luthersau. Then would you take it down?”

 

Luther wrote about this relief in 1543 in On the Schem Hamphoras. The title of his work refers to the nonsensical name of the Wittenberg relief, apparently a play on the Hebrew term shem ha-meforash, which refers to God’s name. Luther describes the rabbi as looking under the sow’s tail into the Talmud, insinuating that the ancient writings on Jewish law and tradition were in her bowels. Earlier this year, the Wittenberg city council voted to keep the Judensau on the church, arguing that to do so preserves history. Piehler, though, hopes the attention paid to this Judensau could renew the debate. “So many articles have been published in Germany and this question has once again come to the table,” Piehler said. “That is very important to me—that the discussion does not stop there, and of course, our hope is that the Judensau is taken down in the Jubilee year.”

 

Historian Mirko Gutjahr, of the Luther Memorials Foundation, points out the downside of taking it down. Gutjahr is a curator of the Wittenberg exhibit “Luther 95 Treasures 95 People,” which includes pieces related to Luther’s anti-Judaism. If a museum displays the Judensau within its walls, only people “coming to the museum to learn things,” would see this stone relief, Gutjahr said. He doesn’t think that’s an effective way to combat anti-Semitism. Instead, everyone should have access to the Judensau. It should stay exposed in the city “like an open wound,” Gutjahr said. But he, like Piehler, believes the topic, and Luther’s anti-Judaism more generally, should be debated. “Parts of the world are taking up ideas which we thought would be now in the backdrops of history again,” Gutjahr said, referring to current anti-immigrant sentiment—in medieval Germany, a Judensau was supposed to deter Jews from settling in an area. You should not leave it out, he believes, “since it’s part of the history as well, part of the Reformation and part of Martin Luther.”

 

Another question, still unresolved, is how much to blame Luther for Nazism, centuries later. Julius Streicher, who published some of the most hateful propaganda against Jews in his anti-Semitic newspaper, Der Stürmer, brought up Luther during his trial before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. “Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants’ dock today if this book had been taken into consideration by the prosecution,” Streicher said in the morning session on April 29, 1946. “In the book The Jews and Their Lies, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent’s brood, and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them…” Later that year, the tribunal convicted him of crimes against humanity, and he was hanged. Others ask whether this is an anachronistic reading of history. Luther certainly was not the only one of his time to bash Jews. Plus, Luther also attacked Turks, Islam, and the papacy. “This is precisely the opportunity to ask those kinds of questions,” said Dean Bell, professor of history at Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership in Chicago, who’s been speaking at and attending recent events on Luther…

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

 

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!

 

 

Contents

 

On Topic Links

 

Alberta Professor Accused of Anti-Semitic Views Reinstated: J.W. Schnarr, Lethbridge Herald, Nov. 23, 2017—A professor accused of espousing anti-Semitic views has been reinstated at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta.

Roger Waters Hits Another Wall, Losing German Broadcasters’ Backing Because of His Support for BDS: Liel Leibovitz, Tablet, Nov. 29, 2017—When activist Malca Goldstein-Wolf learned that former Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters was slated to play Lanxess Arena in Cologne, Germany next June, and that the concert will be sponsored by the public broadcast Westdeutscher Rundfunkshe (WDR), she took to Facebook to protest against using taxpayer money to fund a man she labeled a “Jew-hater.”

France Submits to Terrorism, Muslim Anti-Semitism: Guy Millière, Gatestone Institute, Nov. 28, 2017—In Bagneux, France, on November 1, 2017, a plaque placed in memory of Ilan Halimi, a young Jew murdered in 2006 by a "gang of barbarians", was destroyed and covered with graffiti. When a few days later, another plaque replaced it, the French government issued a statement that "hate will not win".

The Plame Truth About Antisemitism in America: Gary C. Gambill, The Jewish Exponent, Nov. 1, 2017—No one born into this world makes it very far without developing subconscious prejudices of one kind or another.

EUROPE VILIFIES ISRAEL BUT FAILS TO ADDRESS DEADLY MUSLIM ANTISEMITISM

Mind-Boggling European Union Chutzpah: David M. Weinberg, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 19, 2017— Israel should repulse the escalating European Union campaign of intimidation.

The Norwegian Elections, Israel, and the Jews: Manfred Gerstenfeld, BESA, October 19, 2017— The current prime minister of Norway, Erna Solberg, leader of the Conservative Party (Hoyre), and three potential coalition parties unexpectedly won Norway’s September 11 elections…

Europe Has a ‘Jewish’ Soccer Team Problem: Cnaan Liphshiz, JTA, Oct. 24, 2017— Seventeen-year-old Sjuul Deriet, standing outside this port city’s main soccer stadium on a rainy Sunday, vividly explains why he hates the people he calls “the Jews.”

In France, a Deadly Mix of Antisemitism, Islamism, and Family Violence: Michel Gurfinkiel, Jewish Chronicle, Oct. 19, 2017— "Burning hatred against France and against Jews, and an orgy of domestic violence."

 

On Topic Links

 

An Italian Soccer Club Struggles to Battle Anti-Semitism: Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner, Oct. 25, 2017

Europe: What do Islamic Parties Want?: Judith Bergman, Gatestone Institute, Sept. 29, 2017

This BBC Interview Perfectly Illustrates Britain’s Left-Wing Anti-Semitism Problem: Yair Rosenberg, Tablet, Sept. 26, 2017

A UK Angel for Angela?: Francesco Sisci, Settimana News, Sept. 29, 2017

 

 

 

MIND-BOGGLING EUROPEAN UNION CHUTZPAH

David M. Weinberg

Jerusalem Post, Oct. 19, 2017

 

Israel should repulse the escalating European Union campaign of intimidation. You see, boycotts of Israeli products from Judea and Samaria no longer satisfy Brussels. Ramping-up its confrontation with Israel, the European Union has gone into the business of establishing “settlements” for the Beduin and Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, tower and stockade style.

 

This includes the wild Beduin building spurt that the EU has insolently funded in the strategic E1 quadrant between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim, in entirely purposeful defiance of Israel. The IDF defines the area in question a pivotal part of Israel’s strategic depth, and essential to defensible borders for Israel. It is also in Area C under the Oslo Accords, which means that Israel holds exclusive civilian and military control.

 

Yet illegally established Palestinian villages and Beduin shantytowns have slowly closed the corridor between Jerusalem and Ma’aleh Adumim, where a major highway runs, crawling to within several meters from it. These illegal outposts steal electricity from the highway lights, and water from Israeli pipelines. Civil Administration data, presented last year to the Knesset’s subcommittee on Judea and Samaria, showed that 6,500 Palestinians were living in some 1,220 illegally built homes in the area, and the number undoubtedly has grown since then – thanks to the EU.

 

The imperious EU has poured perhaps €100 million into EU-emblazoned prefabs, EU-signed roads, and water and energy installations – in E1, in Gush Etzion (near Tekoa), in the South Hebron Hills, and even in the Negev. Under the cover of diplomatic immunity, the EU’s settlement-building bosses audaciously thumb their noses at inspectors of the IDF’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) unit. Then, they scream bloody murder when the IDF moves in, ever so minimally (– far too meekly and infrequently, I think!) to knock back a few of the most provocatively and problematically positioned EU illegal outposts.

 

Note that every prime minister since Yitzhak Rabin has promised and intended to build in the E1 quadrant as the eastern strategic anchor for Jerusalem and its critical connection to the Jordan Valley, only to be stymied by international protests. In short, the EU’s support of the Palestinians has graduated from passive diplomatic and financial assistance to subversive participation in the Palestinian Authority’s illegal construction ventures. The explicit EU intent is to erode Israeli control of Areas C and eastern Jerusalem while promoting Palestinian territorial continuity leading to runaway Palestinian statehood.

 

In June and August, the EU fiercely warned COGAT that Israel’s policy of demolishing illegal and unauthorized Palestinian construction is harming ties between Israel and the 28 EU member countries. According to Le Monde, eight EU member states this week took the further, unprecedented move of penning a letter to the Israeli Foreign Ministry demanding that Jerusalem reimburse (!) EU countries for the dismantling of infrastructure in the West Bank such as solar panels and mobile homes that were slated to serve innocent “local Arab schools.”

 

Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden – members of the so-called “West Bank Protection Consortium,” a body which coordinates “humanitarian assistance” to Beduin and Palestinian squatters in Area C – are now demanding that Israel pay them compensation of more than €30,000 each. Such mind-boggling chutzpah! First the EU builds illegal settlements in defiance of Israel, then it demands that Israel pay for these offenses when Israel acts against them.

 

How much more contemptuous can you get than that? The European position is that under the Geneva Convention, Israel is responsible for dealing with the everyday needs of the Palestinian population in Area C, and since it is “not doing so,” the European states are stepping in with humanitarian aid. But it’s clear to anybody with a brain that European activity in Area C is not “humanitarian assistance” but political activity that brazenly seeks to create “facts on the ground” – to strengthen the Palestinians’ hold on Area C. In doing so, the EU has thrown key cornerstones of peace diplomacy out the window.

 

“Not prejudging the outcome of negotiations,” and “direct negotiations between the parties without coercion” – are principles that no longer hold sway, at least as far as EU pampering of the Palestinians is concerned. Instead, collusion with Palestinians and defiance of Israel is in vogue. The EU superciliously ignores the fact that the Palestinian Authority has rejected Israeli offers three times (2000, 2001, and 2008) which would have given the Palestinians statehood, including possession of almost all the West Bank and a share of Jerusalem. They also fled from US secretary of state John Kerry’s talks in 2014, and have sought to grab international recognition of their “statehood” unilaterally, while demonizing and criminalizing Israel in international courts.

 

Then the Palestinians revel in useless peace confabs, like the conference that Paris convened last summer, because this diverts attention from their intransigence and heightens Israel’s diplomatic isolation without actually brokering a peace negotiation that the PA doesn’t want. But none of this bothers the EU. It’s just happy to push Israel toward essentially unilateral withdrawals – without any expectations of real moderation from the Palestinians. Obviously, Israel shouldn’t pay the EU one red cent in “compensation” for its confiscated, cheeky solar panels.

 

In-your-face EU diplomacy should be met with in-your-face Israeli diplomacy. Perhaps Israel should demand compensation from Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden for the Jews persecuted, the Jewish property confiscated, and the synagogues destroyed in their territories over the past 2,000 years. And if our government idiotically dares to settle with the EU, and shells out a single shekel, I am going to withhold paying my taxes in protest.

                                                                       

 

Contents

THE NORWEGIAN ELECTIONS, ISRAEL, AND THE JEWS                                                 

Manfred Gerstenfeld

BESA, October 19, 2017

 

The current prime minister of Norway, Erna Solberg, leader of the Conservative Party (Hoyre), and three potential coalition parties unexpectedly won Norway’s September 11 elections, receiving 89 out of 170 seats. Creating a government will not be easy, however. The Christian Democrat Party, a Solberg ally that barely passed the entrance threshold of 4%, is opposed to the anti-Islam Progress Party’s continuing in government.

 

A few months ago, polls indicated that Labor and its allies would return to power. Had that in fact occurred, Labor leader Jonas Gahr Stoere would have become prime minister. In that event, Norway would likely have joined Sweden sooner or later in recognizing a Palestinian Authority government that controls part of the Palestinian territories. In 2011, Anders Breivik murdered 77 people, mainly Labor Party youngsters. Then-prime minister Jens Stoltenberg thereafter publicly proclaimed that Norway, despite this tragic event, would become an even more open democracy. In reality, dissenters who strongly opposed social-democratic rule were even more ostracized than before. (After his 2013 defeat, Stoltenberg became secretary general of NATO.)

 

As prime minister, Stoltenberg was not so much an anti-Israeli inciter himself as he was tolerant of such incitement by his party and allies. At several venues where he spoke, there were brutal verbal attacks on Israel, but he remained silent. By not confronting these attacks he condoned them. Moreover, the Stoltenberg governments were the only European ones to include the extreme left. Several ministers came from the SV party, some of the founders of which were Norwegian communists. These governments frequently applied double standards against Israel, a behavior that fits the European definition of anti-Semitic acts.

 

The Stoltenberg government proffered de facto legitimization on the Islamist Palestinian terror group Hamas on several occasions. It also called on Israel to take down the security barrier, which would, had Israel complied, have facilitated Palestinian terror attacks. In yet another example of the poor judgment of a democratic prime minister, the Stoltenberg government also organized major festivities on the occasion of the 150th birthday of the late writer Knut Hamsun, a fanatical admirer of Hitler.

 

As for Labor leader Stoere, his anti-Israelism reached an extreme point when he wrote a back-cover blurb legitimizing a book by two Norwegian Hamas supporters, Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse. Writing on the 2009 Cast Lead campaign in Øyne i Gaza (“Eyes in Gaza”), they claimed that Israel had entered the Gaza Strip in 2009 to kill women and children. Stoere has always played both sides, however. In January 2009, the most anti-Semitic riots ever to have taken place in Norway occurred in Oslo. Muslims attacked pro-Israel demonstrators with potentially lethal projectiles. Stoere visited the Oslo synagogue afterward to express his solidarity with the Jewish community.

 

A study, paid for by the government, was published in 2012 by the Norwegian Center for Studies of the Holocaust and Religious Minorities. The study found that 38% percent of Norwegians believe Israel acts towards the Palestinians the way the Nazis behaved towards the Jews. During Erna Solberg’s tenure as prime minister, which began in 2013, extreme anti-Israelism among organizations mainly on the Norwegian left continued apace. The large trade union LO, which is a major force behind the Labor Party, came out in favor of totally boycotting Israel. In 2014, the Christian youth organization YMCA-YWCA voted in favor of a boycott on goods and services from the territories. (The Oslo chapter rejected the boycott.)

 

It is easy to underestimate the importance of Norway because it is not a member of the EU and has only about 5 million inhabitants. Yet its huge gas and oil income has enabled it to make major donations abroad, including to Palestinian causes. Labor governments did so extensively, and the Solberg government has continued the practice. In May of this year, however, Norway asked for funds it had donated to a center for women in the West Bank village of Barak to be returned. It had become known that the center was named for Dalal Mughrabi, who led the 1978 massacre on a highway near Tel Aviv that killed 37 Israeli civilians, many of them children, and wounded dozens.

 

A recent study by Jonas Duc Enstad of Oslo University’s Center for the Study of Extremism stated that it seems that “most anti-Semitic incidents in Norway are caused by Arabs and left-wing radicals.” As Sweden’s government is currently the main anti-Israel inciter in Europe, it is interesting to note that before the elections, Norwegian Immigration Minister Sylvi Listhaug, of the Progress Party, kept warning that Norway should not allow “Swedish conditions” to develop. The Financial Times wrote: “That is code for the gang warfare, shootings, car burnings and other integration problems that Sweden has endured recently in the suburbs of its three largest cities, Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö.” One might also recall that Malmö is considered by many experts the anti-Semitism capital of Europe.

 

Listhaug traveled to Stockholm shortly before the elections and visited the extremely violent Rinkeby suburb. She made a point of noting that there are more than 60 no-go zones in Sweden. Sweden, with its 10 million citizens, is the dominant Scandinavian country, and many Swedes look down on Norway. This unusual Norwegian criticism hit Sweden below the belt, all the more so as it is largely true. If Solberg manages to govern for four years, this may enable Israel to further improve relations with Norway and better counteract its leftwing enemies there.                        

 

Contents

EUROPE HAS A ‘JEWISH’ SOCCER TEAM PROBLEM                                                                  

Cnaan Liphshiz

JTA, Oct. 24, 2017

 

Seventeen-year-old Sjuul Deriet, standing outside this port city’s main soccer stadium on a rainy Sunday, vividly explains why he hates the people he calls “the Jews.” “They have the money, they run the business from management positions and they think they’re better than blue-collar people like us,” said Deriet, who works at a catering business. Yes, the statement sounds like typical anti-Semitic cliches. But it has nothing to do with actual Jews, Deriet hastened to tell JTA. “I have nothing against your people. When I say I hate Jews, I just mean supporters of Ajax,” he said, referring to the Amsterdam soccer team that is an archrival of Deriet’s beloved Feyenoord Football Club of Rotterdam.

 

For the uninitiated: Fans of Ajax are often referred to as “the Jews,” likely because of the historical presence of Jews in the Dutch capital. As it happens, there are several soccer teams across Europe that are known as “Jewish” for similar reasons, including England’s Tottenham Hotspurs — they once had a strong fan base among the Jewish immigrants of North London — as well as Italy’s Roma and Germany’s Bayern Munich. Both supporters and detractors often call the clubs Jewish, leading to some complicated situations. For example, it’s not uncommon at matches for fans of these teams to wave Israeli flags or shout their adoration for “the Jews.” At the same time, however, the detractors often display acrimonious hatred of “the Jews” — an uncomfortable situation that, depending on whom you ask, is either fed by or feeding anti-Semitism’s seeming comeback in Europe.

 

“Anti-Semitism in the stadiums has allowed the hate songs to gradually seep into society at large,” Manfred Gerstenfeld, a researcher of anti-Semitism and fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, wrote in a 2011 research paper titled “Antisemitism and the Dutch Soccer Fields.” Gerstenfeld’s paper shows how the chant “Hamas, Jews to the gas” has moved in Holland from the soccer pitch to anti-Israel protests.

 

In the case of Ajax, its “Jewish” nickname dates to the 1970s. It has the Amsterdam locale, and the team has had several Jewish managers and players — notably the late Johnny Roeg and Daniël de Ridder — as Ajax archivist Wim Schoevaart told Israeli filmmaker Nirit Peled in 2012. Peled made a film,“Super Jews,” about the team’s Jewish ties. Ajax also had many Jewish fans because — ahem — “they played well and Jews like to get good quality for their money,” added Schoevaart, who died in 2013 at the age of 94. Supporters of England’s Hotspurs proudly call themselves “Yids.” Based in North London, where most of the city’s 250,000 Jews reside, the Tottenham club also earned its Jewish credentials because its three chairmen since 1982 have been Jews.

 

But nowhere is the Jewish affiliation stronger than among Ajax fans, who like the film call themselves “Super Jews.” They wave giant Israeli flags during matches, sing “Hava Nagila” in stadiums and wear Star of David pendants around their necks. “Maybe it sounds silly, but it was a uniting element that brought fans together,” veteran Ajax fan Ronald Pieldoor told Peled. “They sing about it, they wear the symbols, so it seems that it’s part of the identity of some Ajax supporters.” At the same time, however, this borrowing of Jewish symbols by non-Jews (or “Ajax Jews,” as hardcore supporters call themselves) is triggering some of the most explicit and provocative expressions of anti-Semitic speech seen on the continent.

 

On Twitter, ahead of Sunday’s match in Rotterdam — Ajax won, 4-1 — fans of the rival team widely shared a picture of two Lithuanian Jewish boys wearing yellow stars taken just before their murder by Nazi collaborators. Ridiculing their suffering, the picture was titled “Back when Amsterdam had only one star.” Jewish organizations decried the tweet as a new low point in a long list of offensive jokes and acts, including Nazi salutes in stadiums and hissing sounds, a reference to gas chambers, made by rivals when Ajax comes on the pitch. One popular anti-Ajax banner reads “Adolf, here are another 11 for you” — a reference to the team’s 11 players.

 

While similar phenomena occur with Tottenham and Roma, they are particularly loaded in the Netherlands, where Nazis and their collaborators murdered 75 percent of the country’s prewar Jewish population of 140,000 – the highest death rate in Nazi-occupied Western Europe. “It’s extremely hurtful,” said Ronny Naftaniel, a Dutch board member of CEJI, a Brussels-based Jewish organization promoting tolerance through education. Yet not everyone believes the chants are anti-Semitic, per se. To Pieldoor, the veteran Ajax fan, the offensive chants have nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with fans’ desire to provoke Ajax supporters.

 

Following deadly hooliganism in the 1990s, Dutch police imposed strict measures during games, including a ban on Ajax contingents attending Feyenoord home games and vice versa. “As police got better at keeping us apart, you could no longer have at it, you couldn’t throw bottles at each other, so the only recourse was verbal aggression,” Pieldoor said in the “Super Jews” documentary. Remarks that would be considered anti-Semitic in any other context are not necessarily so in soccer, he argued. Soccer clubs and stadiums in the Netherlands and beyond have banned several fans for chanting insults and praises about Jews. Several court cases for incitement to racial hatred have been opened in recent years against fans who shouted anti-Semitic slogans at soccer matches…

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

 

Contents

IN FRANCE, A DEADLY MIX OF ANTISEMITISM,

ISLAMISM, AND FAMILY VIOLENCE

Michel Gurfinkiel

Jewish Chronicle, Oct. 19, 2017

 

"Burning hatred against France and against Jews, and an orgy of domestic violence." That was how Anne Chenevat, a major witness, described the Merah family – a divorced mother, three sons and two daughters – to the Special Criminal Court of Paris last Tuesday. Mohamed Merah, the youngest of the family's sons, killed seven people – including three Jewish children shot at point-blank range – and maimed six others in the southern French towns of Montauban and Toulouse between March 11 and March 19, 2012. He was himself killed by security forces three days later.

 

The main defendants in the present trial, which started three weeks ago, are his older brother Abdelkader Merah and his older sister Souad. The siblings are accused of inspiring the killing spree. Abdelkader was arrested in 2012; Souad fled to Algeria. Anne Chenevat, a former partner of the eldest Merah brother, Abdelghani, testified about the toxic influence of the family's Algerian-born mother, Zuleikha Aziri. "I was routinely abused and spat upon by Zuleikha for being 'a dirty French woman' and a 'dirty Jewess'." Anne Chenevat's importance as a witness stems from the fact that she was for six years the partner of Abdelghani Merah, the eldest Merah brother. According to her, Zuleikha Aziri, the Algerian-born mother, would use electric wire to beat her children. Violence between the brothers was rampant: on one occasion, Abdelkader inflicted seven stab wounds on Abdelghani.

 

Hatred for the non-Muslim French and antisemitism were held as self-evident in the family." As a result, I was routinely abused and spat upon by Zuleikha for being 'a dirty French woman' and a 'dirty Jewess'," Chenevat said. A Catholic by birth, she once admitted to the Merahs that she had a Jewish grandfather. She left Abdelghani because of his addiction to alcohol and drugs and raised their son Theodore alone. Also called also as a witness to the trial, Abdelghani concurred with his former companion about the Merahs' ethnic and religious prejudices: "We all grew up hating France and the Jews, it is a fact."

 

According to him, Abdelkader turned to radical Islam in 2006 along with Souad and frequently visited salafist mosques and madrasas in Egypt, and was the main nefarious influence on Mohamed. Theodore Chenevat, the son of Anne Chenevat and Abdelghani Merah – now a 21-year-old business and economics student – chillingly told the Court that in order to indoctrinate him into jihad, his uncle Abdelkader shared with him videos of "Islamic beheading" and attempted to have him visit mortuaries. When the counsel of Mohamed Merah's Jewish victims, Elie Korchia, asked him whether Abdelkader and Mohamed should be seen as two heads of a single terrorist beast, he answered that the fugitive older sister Souad should be counted as a third and equally dangerous head. The trial, which is expected to last until early November, continues.

 

Contents

 

On Topic Links

 

An Italian Soccer Club Struggles to Battle Anti-Semitism: Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner, Oct. 25, 2017—Lazio, a top flight Italian soccer club, is finally confronting the scourge of anti-Semitism.

Europe: What do Islamic Parties Want?: Judith Bergman, Gatestone Institute, Sept. 29, 2017—Sweden's brand new first Islamic party, Jasin, is aiming to run for the 2018 parliamentary elections.

This BBC Interview Perfectly Illustrates Britain’s Left-Wing Anti-Semitism Problem: Yair Rosenberg, Tablet, Sept. 26, 2017 —At the moment, the British Labour party is holding its annual conference, at which members have been tackling, among other concerns, internal hate speech guidelines.

A UK Angel for Angela?: Francesco Sisci, Settimana News, Sept. 29, 2017—Like many times in the past century, German internal political events toll a bell for Great Britain and the rest of Europe, while the world looks the other way.

 

 

 

 

PALESTINIANS HAIL TERRORISTS MOTIVATED BY ANTISEMITISM AS “HEROES” AND “MARTYRS”

Is the Las Vegas Mass-Murderer a Terrorist?: National Review, Oct. 2, 2017 — In Las Vegas, (at least 58) people are dead, and perhaps hundreds of others have been injured, in the deadliest mass-shooting attack in American history.

The Big Middle East Lie: Bassam Tawil, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 2, 2017— Nimer Mahmoud Jamal, the 37-year-old Palestinian terrorist who on September 25 murdered three Israelis at the entrance to Har Adar near Jerusalem, had a permit from the Israeli authorities to work in Israel.

 

Hamas Masquerade: Prof. Eyal Zisser, Israel Hayom, Oct. 1, 2017 — It took Hamas 10 years to completely ruin the Gaza Strip and prove to all that it can't and is not worthy of ruling over its inhabitants.

Interpol and the Palestinians: Where’s a Cop When You Need One?: Jonathan S. Tobin, JNS, Oct. 2, 2017 — The good news is that Interpol apparently isn’t the international police agency that movies and television shows have led us to believe.

 

On Topic Links

 

Palestinian Leaders Unite in Praise of Deadly Terror Attack: United With Israel, Sept. 27, 2017

Don't be Fooled by Hamas and Fatah Reconciliation in Gaza: Barry Shaw, Arutz Sheva, Sept. 28, 2017

Iran and Hamas Reconnect: Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall, JCPA, Sept. 25, 2017

Abbas Says No to 'Hezbollah Model' in Gaza as Hamas Hopes to Retain Armed Wing: Jack Khoury, Ha’aretz, Sept. 30, 2017

 

AS WE GO TO PRESS: EDMONTON ATTACK SUSPECT CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER: A suspect has been charged in an attack in which an Edmonton officer was stabbed and four people were injured when they were hit by a rental truck fleeing police. Abdulahi Hasan Sharif faces five counts of attempted murder, five counts of dangerous driving and one weapons-related charge. Although police have said that terrorism charges are expected, none has been laid so far. Sharif, who is 30, is a Somali refugee once investigated for allegedly espousing extremism. Edmonton police…said the events of Saturday night appear to have been the work of a single person. It started when a police officer handling crowd control at a football game was hit by a speeding car that rammed through a barrier and sent him flying five metres through the air. The driver got out, pulled out a large knife and began stabbing the officer. A suspect was taken into custody by police hours later after a chase through downtown Edmonton in which four pedestrians were purposely hit by the driver… (National Post, Oct. 2, 2017)

 

 

                        IS THE LAS VEGAS MASS-MURDERER A TERRORIST?

Andrew C. McCarthy

National Review, Oct. 2, 2017

 

In Las Vegas, (at least 58) people are dead, and perhaps hundreds of others have been injured, in the deadliest mass-shooting attack in American history. Stephen Paddock, a 64-year-old Nevadan believed to be the lone gunman, fired upon attendees of the Route 91 Harvest music festival from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort across the street. He killed himself before police reached him.

 

As we begin to process what has happened, it is important to remember — as we have learned from too many of these incidents — that initial reports are often wrong. We must wait for investigators and responsible journalists to do their work before we can have a clear picture of what happened.

 

On that score, news reports this morning are already referring to this atrocity as a “terrorist attack.” And that was even before the Islamic State jihadist organization claimed responsibility for the attack, a claim that has just been reported by the Washington Examiner. ISIS offered no proof of its assertions that Paddock was a recent convert to Islam and had carried out the massacre on the terror network’s behalf. Again, we cannot assess it until the investigation unfolds.

 

Clearly, Paddock did terrorize a community, particularly an event attended by 22,000 people, at least hundreds of whom he put in mortal peril. Does that make him a terrorist? Let’s put the unverified ISIS claims aside. If Paddock was a lone gunman acting independently and not under the influence of any organization or ideology, the answer to the question may depend on which law we apply — the federal penal code or Nevada’s criminal law.

 

We’ve recently had occasion to consider federal terrorism law in connection with a discussion over whether the violent “Antifa” movement should be legally designated as a terrorist organization. Under the U.S. penal code (section 2331(5) of Title 18), a violent act meets the definition of “domestic terrorism” if the actor was seeking: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

 

Many (perhaps most) mass killings will meet this test. Plainly, shooting at a crowd is an act of intimidation. But as the word “coerce” (also in that first clause) implies, the federal terrorism statute speaks to intimidation or coercion of a civilian population toward some identifiable objective. This kind of intimidation is easy to make out when the aggressor is a jihadist, whether associated with an outfit such as ISIS or merely “inspired by” sharia-supremacist ideology (which seeks the imposition of sharia law and to force changes in American policy). Establishing such intimidation is also straightforward when a group with a radical political agenda, such as Antifa, is involved. It is more difficult, though, when we are dealing with a lone gunman…

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

 

Contents

THE BIG MIDDLE EAST LIE                                                               

Bassam Tawil

Gatestone Institute, Oct. 2, 2017

 

Nimer Mahmoud Jamal, the 37-year-old Palestinian terrorist who on September 25 murdered three Israelis at the entrance to Har Adar near Jerusalem, had a permit from the Israeli authorities to work in Israel. His family and friends say he also had a good life and was considered lucky to have been employed by Jews because he received a higher salary and was protected by Israeli labor laws. The night before Jamal set out in his murderous mission, he spent a few hours at the fitness gym in his village, located only a few miles away from Har Adar.

 

So, Jamal, the murderer of the three Israelis (two of the victims were Arab Israelis), was not poor. He was not unemployed. In fact, according his friends, Jamal earned much more than what a senior police officer or school teacher working for the Palestinian Authority or Hamas brings home every month. What was it, then, that drove Jamal to his murderous scheme, gunning down three young men who were supposed to be facilitating his entry into Israel? Was it because he could not provide for his children? No. Was it because his landlord was pressuring him about the rent? No: Jamal lived in a nice place of his own, complete with furniture, appliances and bedrooms that any family in the West would be proud to own.

 

Jamal wanted to murder Jews because he believed this was a noble deed that would earn him the status of shaheed (martyr) and hero among his family, friends and society. In Palestinian culture in particular, and Arab culture in general, murderers of Jews are glorified on a daily basis. They are touted as the lucky ones who are now in the company of Prophet Mohammed and the angels in Paradise. Male terrorists are also busy with the 72 virgins they were awarded as a prize for murdering Jews. The murderers — as Muslim clerics and leaders hammer into the heads of Palestinians — are also given access to rivers of honey and fine drinks once they set foot in their imaginary Paradise.

 

Jamal's friends and family are now convinced that he has been rewarded by Allah and Prophet Mohammed in Paradise for murdering three Israelis. They do not care about his children, whom he left behind, and certainly not about the families of the three Israelis he murdered. In his village and on social media, Jamal is being hailed as a hero and martyr. Not a single Palestinian has come out against the cowardly terror attack by a man who took advantage of a permit from the Israeli authorities to commit a terror attack.

 

The Jewish families that once employed Jamal as a cleaner had trusted him. They had opened their homes and hearts, as well as their wallets, to him. The Israeli authorities wanted to trust him and see him as a normal person who just wanted a job with a decent income to support his family. But Jamal, like many other Palestinians, betrayed the trust the Jews gave him. He chose to stab in the back the same people who had gone out of their way to help him. Sadly, this terrorist also betrayed the cause of thousands of Palestinian workers who enter Israel for work every day. These workers stand to lose the most from Jamal's terror attack and treachery. Luckily for them, the Israeli authorities are saying that the Har Adar murder will not affect Israel's policy of granting permits to Palestinians to work inside Israel, because the vast majority are not involved in violence.

 

The Har Adar murders ought to teach us at least one thing: that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about the economy or improving the living conditions of the Palestinians. Jamal, who had a job and freedom of movement and a lovely apartment, surely proves this point, as do the murders or attempted murders by other well-to-do terrorists such as Mohammad Atta, Osama bin Laden, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and many others. Jamal's bloody lesson, however, apparently still needs to be learned by the West, which, despite all evidence, doggedly persists in drawing an unbroken line between Palestinian terrorism and poverty.

 

Jamal, however, is far from the first terrorist to convey this crucial lesson: most Palestinian terrorists over the past decades were educated and had jobs. Some Palestinian suicide bombers were nurses, schoolteachers and lawyers. Some came from middle class and even wealthy families and clans. Money and education, however, did not stop them from committing atrocities against Israelis. Terrorists like Jamal are motivated by deep hatred for Jews and Israel. They have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by their leaders and Muslim religious clerics into believing that Jews are evil and need to be eliminated by all available means.

 

Not a single terrorist has complained of carrying out an attack because he or she were starving, had no food for the children and were unable to buy ice cream from the local grocery store. The terrorists, in fact, spell it out as it is: they openly announce that they are motivated by their indoctrinated hatred for Israel and Jews. This is what the Palestinian, Arab and Islamic propaganda machine has done to generations of Arabs and Muslims. Officials and people in the West may deny what they hear as hard as they like; but the terrorists could not be more are honest about what their murderous motives are.

 

What, then, about those on the West who continue to talk about the conflict as if it were about creating new jobs and paving roads and improving infrastructure for the Palestinians? This seems to be the approach endorsed in the U.S. by Donald Trump's administration. There is nothing wrong, of course, with boosting the economy and creating job opportunities. This might have a moderating effect on a few Palestinians. They will be happy to see a better economy and a drop in the unemployment rate. Such measures, however, will never change the hearts and minds of Palestinians. Palestinians will never recognize Israel's right to exist because Americans and Europeans built them an industrial park somewhere in the West Bank. Over the past 25 years, the Palestinians have received billions of dollars in aid from the international community. When they headed to the ballot boxes, they voted for Hamas because it told them it will destroy Israel. Palestinians are most likely to vote for Hamas once again if free and democratic elections were held tomorrow in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

 

We might remember this as Trump's Middle East envoy, Jason Greenblatt, returns to our region to discuss ways of reviving the so-called peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The Trump administration and Jason Greenblatt seem to have bought the lie that "It's about money, stupid." No. The conflict is about an unbendable refusal to allow a Jewish Israel to exist in the Middle East. It is about the abiding interest in the Arab and Islamic world to obliterate Israel and murder Jews. It is about the ongoing, bloody Arab and Islamic incitement against Israel and Jews. Jobs are not the problem, and they are not the solution. Let us pay attention to reality for a change: Jamal and his fellow terrorists can teach us something — if only we would listen.

                                                                       

 

Contents

HAMAS MASQUERADE                                       

                                                Prof. Eyal Zisser

Israel Hayom, Oct. 1, 2017

 

It took Hamas 10 years to completely ruin the Gaza Strip and prove to all that it can't and is not worthy of ruling over its inhabitants. A decade after the terrorist organization forcefully seized control of the coastal enclave its government has crumbled, but more importantly, the situation for the people of Gaza has never been more desperate. Unemployment and poverty are rampant, quality of life is in sharp decline and infrastructure is collapsing. There has only been steady progress in one area – tunnel digging along the border with Israel is prospering and the group has expanded its missile arsenal.

 

The first place Hamas has looked for a solution is Tehran, which is looking to bring the group back into its fold after several years of severed ties. The Arab spring revolution in Egypt and Syria distanced Hamas from Iran, bringing it closer to Turkey and even Qatar. These Sunni countries have been a disappointment and their ability to help the organization has been and remains limited. Hamas can only receive unlimited weapons and money from the Iranians, even if doing so means it must sharply alter its positions. This pertains, for example, to the Sunni rebel groups in Syria, which Hamas has supported over the years but now must abandon.

 

At the same time Hamas is also working to improve its relations with the Palestinian Authority; more precisely it is trying to turn the PA into a human shield to perpetuate its rule over Gaza. In this context, Hamas' leaders declared an end to the "Hamas government" in Gaza, and their willingness to give the keys to Gaza to the Palestinian national unity government sitting in Ramallah. This is merely a charade, however, as Hamas is unwilling to truly relinquish its power and will not allow, for instance, the PA's security apparatus to deploy in Gaza. In this vein, it will permit the PA and its president, Mahmoud Abbas, to resolve the electricity crisis in Gaza and to try improving the economic situation there. Meanwhile, Hamas will still reserve ultimate say in Gaza and will be the only entity with weapons.

 

Hamas, therefore, is trying to mimic the Lebanese model. In Lebanon, the government maintains diplomatic relations with the international community and is responsible for the welfare of the population and bettering the economy; Hezbollah, meanwhile, is the driving military force without bearing governmental responsibility for the fate of Lebanon. This is a comfortable arrangement, as the Lebanese government provides protection for Hezbollah and mainly absolves it of any responsibility for the Lebanese population.

 

Abbas does have reasons to be happy with this arrangement, as it means the economic pressure and sanctions he has imposed on Hamas has borne fruit. Egypt, too, is satisfied and continues to advance Palestinian reconciliation, in the hopes that such a development will empower its protégé, Mohammed Dahlan, in Gaza and perhaps the West Bank as well. Without a doubt, however, the main winner is Hamas, which will cede governmental responsibility for the economy and welfare, which it never cared for regardless, in exchange for a security blanket from the PA and perhaps Egypt. All the while it will continue ruling the Strip with an iron fist.

 

Hamas' game is obvious, but its decision to pursue a two-pronged course of reconciliation with the PA and Iran poses a challenge to Israel. During Operation Protective Edge, Israel allowed Hamas to remain in power in Gaza because it believed that doing so would render it deterred and restricted. Now, however, Hamas is trying to shed these restrictions and essentially erase Israel's leverage against it. Israel cannot allow this to happen.                                                           

 

Contents

INTERPOL AND THE PALESTINIANS:

WHERE’S A COP WHEN YOU NEED ONE?

Jonathan S. Tobin

JNS, Oct. 2, 2017

 

The good news is that Interpol apparently isn’t the international police agency that movies and television shows have led us to believe. The bad news is that the international community just gave another seal of approval to those who traffic in terrorism. The Palestinian Authority (PA), just as it has done at other international organizations, recently gained admittance to Interpol by an overwhelming vote of member nations.

 

Though the PA does autonomously govern most of the West Bank, it doesn’t exercise sovereign control over any territory. But the international community has nevertheless embraced every opportunity to grant recognition to Palestinian Arab aspirations for statehood — without first forcing them to conclude a peace with Israel that could resolve the dispute by the two peoples over one, small land.

 

The latest move sounds scarier than some of the others, because most of us assume that Interpol is an international police force with power to make arrests and act with impunity around the globe. Yet it turns out that this perception of Interpol is misleading. Interpol has no law enforcement agents, and arrests no one. It is merely a coordinating group that functions as an administration liaison between police departments of different countries. It does help fight international crime by making the large database that it maintains available to law enforcement agencies — but that’s about the extent of it.

 

One thing that members of Interpol can do is to issue so-called “red notices” about outstanding criminals; but these are not international arrest warrants. Nevertheless, this raises the possibility that the PA might copy the practice of leftist foes of Israel in various Western countries, who seek to indict Israeli officials on bogus allegations of war crimes. The US has already said it won’t recognize any red notices from the PA. And since the PA is dependent on cooperation with Israeli security agencies to defend themselves against Hamas and more radical opponents, this would be a risky strategy. If the PA does use the tactic, it would probably be directed against Palestinian political foes, rather than Israelis.

 

Seen in that light, the Interpol vote can be viewed as just another meaningless gesture that does nothing to advance peace — or Palestinian aspirations for actual statehood. But the decision is not entirely harmless — because the same PA that just joined Interpol actually funds terrorism. The PA pays salaries and pensions to Palestinians who commit terrorism against Israelis and others (including Americans). This program has an ascending scale of compensation, which gives greater rewards for more serious crimes involving bloodshed. The PA’s education system and official media also incite hate, and applaud acts of terror on a regular basis. Just last week, Abbas’ Fatah party lauded a deadly attack that resulted in the killing of an Israeli Border Police officer and two security guards, one of whom was an Arab Israeli. And now, the family of the slain terrorist can expect a generous pension from the PA.

 

Though some excuse this practice of paying terrorists as a legitimate aspect of their political culture, it is one more indication that Palestinians are still stuck fighting the same war on Zionism and Israel that they’ve been fighting for a century. And it illustrates the folly of any policy towards the Palestinians that does not start with an effort to impress upon them the necessity to accept the existence of a Jewish state. Until Israel makes it clear that its existence is conclusive and final, no peace plan, including a two-state solution, will be possible.

 

Unlike its predecessor, the Trump administration has made it clear that it regards the PA’s attitude toward terror as an impediment to peace. Congress might be on its way to passing the Taylor Force Act, which is named for an American veteran who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist; the bill would make future aid to the PA contingent on ending its incitement and terror funding. But with the Interpol vote, the world has once again sent the opposite message to the Palestinians about terror and ending the conflict. A group that honors and pays terrorists rather than arresting them just joined the international law enforcement establishment. Israelis, Jews and Americans that are targeted for death by Palestinians are justified in wondering: where’s a cop when you need one?

 

Contents

On Topic Links

 

Palestinian Leaders Unite in Praise of Deadly Terror Attack: United With Israel, Sept. 27, 2017 —The reactions to Tuesday morning’s terror attack that left three Israelis dead by the two largest Palestinian factions were of full endorsement and support for the terrorist’s actions.

Don't be Fooled by Hamas and Fatah Reconciliation in Gaza: Barry Shaw, Arutz Sheva, Sept. 28, 2017—Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar is ready to hand over the civil administration of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority. Don't be fooled by this gesture.

Iran and Hamas Reconnect: Lt. Col. (ret.) Michael Segall, JCPA, Sept. 25, 2017—With an eye to Syria’s postwar period, Iran is working to unite the ranks of the “resistance camp” to continue the struggle against Israel and deepen the dissension in the Arab world. Iran views Hamas, despite its independent path, as an important element of this camp that challenges not only Israel but also the main members of the “moderate” Arab camp, and hence contributes to bolstering its influence in the region.

Abbas Says No to 'Hezbollah Model' in Gaza as Hamas Hopes to Retain Armed Wing: Jack Khoury, Ha’aretz, Sept. 30, 2017—Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip and senior Palestinian Authority officials issued further declarations over the weekend about their commitment to reconcile and said both sides are committed to moving the process ahead.

 

 

 

 

IMPROVING SAUDI-ISRAEL TIES, & YEMEN PROXY WAR, REFLECT GROWING SAUDI-IRAN TENSION

 

Is Saudi Arabia Warming Up to Jews?: Elliot Friedland, Clarion Project, Aug. 23, 2016 — Saudi Arabia has long been the hub of the austere form of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, and has long perpetuated anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews in the country’s media.

A Joyous Holiday and a Sad World: Dr. Mordechai Kedar, Arutz Sheva, Sept. 20, 2016 — Two million Muslims will be making the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca, known as the Hajj, this month, as mandated by the Islamic calendar.

Holy War of Words: Growing Saudi-Iranian Tensions: Simon Henderson, Washington Institute, Sept. 7, 2016 — In the coming days, hundreds of thousands of Muslims will visit the Saudi city of Mecca to partake in the annual Hajj pilgrimage.

Yemen: The War Canada Can’t Afford to Ignore: Elizabeth Renzetti, Globe & Mail, Aug. 26, 2016— Far from the watchful eye of the world’s media, war is ravaging Yemen, killing thousands of civilians, and starving and displacing millions more.

 

On Topic Links

 

No Saudi Money for American Mosques : Daniel Pipes, The Hill, Aug. 22, 2016

In Saudi Arabia, a Revolution Disguised as Reform: Dennis Ross, Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2016

‘We Misled You’: How the Saudis Are Coming Clean on Funding Terrorism: Zalmay Khalilzad, Politico, Sept. 14, 2016

Hajj Prep: Search Soul, Buy Sturdy Shoes, Pay the Dentist: Diaa Hadid, New York Times, Sept. 9, 2016

 

IS SAUDI ARABIA WARMING UP TO JEWS?

Elliot Friedland

 Clarion Project, Aug. 23, 2016

 

Saudi Arabia has long been the hub of the austere form of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, and has long perpetuated anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews in the country’s media. For example one sermon broadcast on the official state channel from the Holy Mosque in Mecca said “O God, destroy the tyrant Jews. O God, deal with the Jews and their supporters. O God, destroy them for they are within your power.” But now relations seem to be thawing between Saudi Arabia and Israel and several prominent media personalities have publicly written about changing attitudes towards Jews.

 

Famous Saudi columnist Saham al-Kahtani wrote that references in the Quran to Jews as being “apes and pigs” could only be taken to refer to the Jews of the time of Muhammed and did not apply to contemporary Jews. Yasser Hijazi, of the influential paper Riyadh, published in the nation’s capital, went further, calling on Muslims to “leave behind their hostility and hatred of Jews” in a piece translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

 

Israel’s Channel Two TV, reported on this trend in a recent newscast. Israeli media attributed the change in focus to warming ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia following the Iran Deal over Iran’s nuclear program. “The change in tone in Saudi rhetoric towards Israel comes a year after the signing of the nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers — a deal that leaves Riyadh concerned over its position in the Middle East — and as Tehran’s proxies in Syria and Lebanon are holding their ground in the Syrian civil war,” The Times of Israel wrote. The Times of Israel cited a July delegation to Israel of academics and businessmen headed by a retired Saudi general as further evidence of warming ties. The delegation met with Israeli Foreign Ministry Director-General Dore Gold and other senior military and political officials, as well as with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

 

Over the last few years there have been subtle changes in Saudi Arabia’s position that may indicate a gradual shift towards a less anti-Semitic policy. In 2013, an assistant professor at King Saud University in Riyadh published an article praising Israel’s democracy and explaining that Arab youth was unaware that in Israel many young people “strongly believe that Israel’s stability is conditional upon its coexistence with the Arabs.” She also condemned Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians in the piece and condemned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet in a heavily-censored country like Saudi Arabia writing anything remotely praiseworthy about Israel is fraught with peril, so it condemning the “occupation” is pretty much essential if discussing the topic at all.

 

In December 2014 the Saudi Labor Ministry said Jews would be permitted to work in Saudi Arabia, provided they were not Israeli citizens. “We bar entry [into Saudi Arabia] only to those with Israeli citizenship. Other than that, we are open to most nationalities and religions,” an unnamed government source told Saudi daily Al-Watan in a report translated by MEMRI. “For example, if a worker is a citizen of Yemen but practices Judaism, the [Saudi] Embassy [in Yemen] would not object to issuing him a work visa for the kingdom.”

 

The Saudi Labor Ministry later issued an ambiguous statement denying the reports saying that while new forms do allow those applying for a visa to list Judaism as a faith, the government has not made an official decision to allow the employment of Jews in the country. This disconnect can perhaps be explained by the difference between the public and private dealings of the Saudi state. The July visit of the Saudi delegation to Israel was officially not coordinated with the royal family and participants did not visit any Israeli governmental institutions, rather, they conducted their meetings in hotels. Similarly media attention to the employment of Jews in Saudi Arabia may have prompted an official denial, while in practice some Jews are able to obtain visas to travel and work in Saudi Arabia with no problems.

 

Saudi Arabia is a long way from supporting equality for all faiths equally and becoming a liberal state instead of a theocratic monarchy. Yet any progress is to be welcomed and change takes time. In the aftermath of the Arab Spring it is worth considering that the violent overthrow of states has so far failed to bring liberalism to the Middle East. Perhaps supporting gradual change as fought for by liberals within Middle-Eastern societies is more likely to yield tangible and largely bloodless positive results.          

           

 

Contents                                                                                                                                                           

   

A JOYOUS HOLIDAY AND A SAD WORLD

Dr. Mordechai Kedar                                                   

Arutz Sheva, Sept. 20, 2016

 

Two million Muslims will be making the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca, known as the Hajj, this month, as mandated by the Islamic calendar. The Hajj is one of the five basic pillars of Islam, a commandment that every Muslim must fulfill at least once in his lifetime.  Muslims from all over the Islamic world come to the Hajj, differing in appearance, skin color, language, dress, culture and customs, but all take part in rituals performed according to the stringent dictates originating in the Hannibal code of law as interpreted by the Wahhabi Saudi regime.

 

The Hajj symbolizes the ingathering of all Muslims to “The House of Allah,” as well as the love and affection that are expected to reign between Muslims and the happiness that unites them in their joint dedication to the service of Allah. The robe worn by the pilgrims – the “ihram” – a white sheath without pockets – signifies the modesty that man must show when coming to the home of his Lord and the absence of pockets proves that all belongs to Allah, that man’s property is worth nothing,  is temporary and perishable at best. The fact that the robes are identical and worn by all symbolizes that all are equal before Allah, rich and poor, king and servant, honored and despised. The pristine color of the ihram expresses the forgiveness for transgressions that takes place at the Hajj where every man who repents is cleansed of his sins.

 

The Hajj is an wrenching emotional experience, the most massive assembly in the world.  The intensive and crowded meeting with Muslims from a myriad of different cultures, the religious rituals, the speeches and prayers, all turn the Hajj into an ecstatic experience that creates a feeling that believers cannot achieve in other places or occasions. Pilgrims return from the Hajj with glowing eyes, veins suffused with religious adrenaline, heightened religious fervor and renewed and intense loyalty to Allah.

 

For most of those who return from the Hajj, this heightened religious fervor is expressed in adherence to the behaviors that are central to Islam: five prayers a day, fasting during Ramadan charity to the poor, modest dress, proper behavior and speech, avoidance of sins and transgressions and better relations with family and surroundings. Some of those returning from the Hajj interpret their heightened religious intensity as a reason to turn to Jihad, not only against the evil inclination within man’s soul but against infidels as well. And thus, not a small number of the Jihadists fighting in various areas were drawn in by representatives of terror groups who come to the Hajj in order to meet those most vulnerable to their efforts.

 

A massive gathering in an average-sized city like Mecca causes acute safety dangers because of the extreme crowding due to the fact that everyone has to perform the same rites at the same time and on the same day. The Saudi royal household invests enormous sums to build an infrastructure that will allow the crowds to perform the rituals safely, and builds bridges, lanes, passages, sidewalks and roads that create a secure environment for the millions who come to the Hajj.

 

The Saudi king calls himself “Guardian of the Holy Sites” in order to bestow religious sanctity on himself and his regime. This is the reason he feels responsible for arranging the Hajj so that it is safe. The Saudis build thousands of air conditioned tents for the pilgrims, and provide them with tens of thousands of sheep so that they can celebrate “Id Al Adha” – the “festival of the offering” that follows the Hajj. Sometimes, however, there are slip-ups and misunderstandings, and when two groups, each consisting of tens of thousands of people march towards each other by mistake, the tragic result is that many of them lie trampled underfoot and that many lives are lost in the resulting stampede.

 

Last year a crane fell over and killed tens of people, but the worst part of the accident was the altercation between the Saudi police and the Iranian pilgrims which left many of the Iranians dead.  The pilgrims from Iran are Shiites and the Saudis suspect them of attempting to perform rituals according to Shiite tradition, in direct opposition to Sunni Islamic principles – and certainly to the Wahhabi version of those rites. In past years there were other altercations between Iranian pilgrims and Saudi police, so that this is nothing new.

 

This year the dispute between Iran and the Saudis started anew as they rehashed the arguments over the accidents that occurred in previous years until the anger of both sides reached such a frenzy that the Mufti of Saudi Arabia declared Khamenei – the Supreme Ayatollah of Shiite Iran – an “Amgushi,” that is, not a Muslim, a heretic, a follower of the pre-Islamic Persian religion disguised as a Muslim. There is no more insulting epithet in the Muslim dictionary than the word “Amgushi.” As a result, Khamenei decided to move the Hajj this year from Mecca to Karbala, the Iraqi city closest to Mecca. In the year 680 C.E., Hussein Ibn Ali the leader of the Shiite rebels, was murdered and beheaded there by a military unit of the Sunni Umayyad Caliph Yazid ibn Muawiyah…

 

This rift over the Hajj is just another aspect of the war between the Saudis and the Iranians in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, and in my estimation we are approaching the day when rockets are going to be flying through the air from Iran to Saudi Arabia and vice versa. This will be a disastrous development for the entire world because these two powers have both called on the ultimate player to help them, Allah, and both sides claim they are fighting for him and in his name. This kind of situation leads to a frenzy with which the world cannot cope, because no earthly or human considerations can put an end to a war that Allah wages against the infidel.

 

Economic considerations, oil infrastructure, loss of lives and damage to other countries do not have the slightest effect on Allah and his armies, and if – Heaven forfend – a real war breaks out between Saudi Arabia and Iran it will be a war to the bitter end using chemical and biological weapons. If one of the sides has atomic weapons, it is quite possible that they will be employed. I am stressing this point because both Saudi Arabia and Iran can get their hands on nuclear weapons, Iran has developed its own and the Saudis have acquired them from Pakistan. World leaders, especially those who gave their support to easing the sanctions on Iran and allowed that country to advance its military nuclear projects and continue to develop its missile arsenal, will have to answer for the decisions they made that may bring the Middle East and possibly other parts of the world to the point of no return on the road leading straight to hell.

 

And that is how the Hajj, the holiday that is meant to bring humankind closer to God and to a life spent under his protective shadow, may bring the Saudis, Iranians and perhaps other countries to their deaths under the shadow  of a horrendous mushroom cloud. A culture whose concepts range from “cursed tree” to “Amgushi” and which incorporates all-powerful Allah in its ranks, might find it perfectly acceptable to destroy a world that was built by mankind and for mankind, using concepts taken from the world of mankind. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.  

 

Contents                                                                                                                                   

                                                             

HOLY WAR OF WORDS: GROWING SAUDI-IRANIAN TENSIONS                                               

Simon Henderson                                                                                               

Washington Institute, Sept. 7, 2016

 

In the coming days, hundreds of thousands of Muslims will visit the Saudi city of Mecca to partake in the annual Hajj pilgrimage. Unlike last year, there will be no Iranians there. Tehran and Riyadh were unable to agree on visa allocations and security arrangements intended to avoid the type of tragic stampede that killed hundreds of pilgrims last time around — an incident in which Iran suffered more victims than any other country. Two days ago, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that Iranians who were injured last year and subsequently died were "murdered" by the kingdom's inadequate emergency response. He went on to suggest that Saudi Arabia was not a proper custodian of the holy places — effectively a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the kingdom's Sunni royal family, since the monarch has been styled "Custodian of the Two Holy Places of Mecca and Medina" since the 1980s.

 

Khamenei's words prompted a damning response yesterday from the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, the country's chief cleric, who described Iran's Shiite majority as "Zoroastrians" and "not Muslims." Anti-Shiite sentiment is common in Saudi Arabia, and the "Zoroastrian" jibe (meaning fire worshippers) is sometimes mentioned in the press. But the very public use of such words by a mainstream religious leader is extraordinary — though hardly surprising given Khamenei's comments.

 

The verbal escalation did not stop there: a few hours later, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif entered the fray, tweeting about the "bigoted extremism that Wahhabi top cleric & Saudi terror masters preach." This was no doubt a direct response to the Grand Mufti (since the Saudi brand of Islam is often labeled "Wahhabism"), and a reiteration of the longstanding Iranian claim that Riyadh supports the Islamic State terrorist group. The situation is arguably as bad as it was in 1987, when Iranian pilgrims in Mecca shouted political slogans that prompted trigger-happy Saudi National Guard forces to open fire, killing scores. Even without Iranians in Mecca this year, the risk of further escalation between the two countries is high.

 

In this regard, a key decisionmaker on the Saudi side will be Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, who will likely favor a resolute rather than conciliatory approach. As defense minister, he has been the main proponent of the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, which was prompted by Iranian support for the Houthi rebels. That campaign is now a proxy war between the two countries, as are the struggles in Iraq, Syria, and, to a more limited extent, Bahrain. Saudi Arabia's own Shiite minority, concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern Province adjacent to Bahrain and the headquarters of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, will likely be inflamed by the war of words, and miscalculation is possible, even direct military clashes. In light of this danger, the international community — collectively and individually — should urge both sides to calm the rhetoric.

 

At the very least, the tension represents a setback for U.S. policy, since the Obama administration had hoped that such animosity would be reduced at least somewhat by last year's nuclear agreement with Iran. In a January 2014 interview with the New Yorker, the president stated, "It would be profoundly in the interest of citizens throughout the region if Sunnis and Shias weren't intent on killing each other"; he also expressed his hope of "an equilibrium developing between Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there's competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare."

 

Part of the challenge of quieting the situation is coping with the apparent belief in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states that the Obama administration favors Iran. The president's April interview with the Atlantic caused considerable surprise in Riyadh and other capitals, particularly when he stated, "The competition between the Saudis and the Iranians…requires us to say to our friends as well as to the Iranians that they need to find an effective way to share the neighborhood and institute some sort of cold peace." Four months prior, Saudi Arabia had broken off diplomatic relations with Iran after its embassy in Tehran was gutted — an incident that followed the kingdom's execution of a leading Saudi Shiite preacher.

 

Given recent reports of aggressive maneuvering by Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval units in the Gulf, a confrontation with U.S. forces is also possible. Accordingly, Washington's response to the spike in tensions should combine diplomatic and military components — for example, dispatching Secretary of State Kerry or another senior official to the kingdom while visibly reinforcing the Fifth Fleet. America's allies in the region will be hoping for nothing less. Without a significant U.S. response, Saudi Arabia will likely be tempted to consider a more independent and perhaps dangerous course of action.

 

Contents           

                        YEMEN: THE WAR CANADA CAN’T AFFORD TO IGNORE

Elizabeth Renzetti

Globe & Mail, Aug. 26, 2016

 

Far from the watchful eye of the world’s media, war is ravaging Yemen, killing thousands of civilians, and starving and displacing millions more. This brutal conflict should be in the spotlight, especially in countries that supply arms to Saudi Arabia, which leads the coalition accused of causing most of the civilian deaths. Countries such as Canada.

 

This year, the Liberal government approved $15-billion in sales of light-armoured vehicles (LAVs) to the Saudi kingdom, a sale that gave this country the dubious honour of being the second-greatest exporter of arms to the Middle East, The Globe and Mail’s Steven Chase reported in June. Earlier versions of Canadian-made LAVS seem to have been used in the war against Houthi rebels in Yemen, The Globe reported in February. Human-rights groups protested against the sale, but otherwise there has been little public outcry.

 

The government’s argument for selling the combat vehicles to a country with an abysmal human-rights record boiled down to, “it creates jobs,” and “if we don’t, someone else will.” Those are lousy arguments for a country aiming to be a leader in global freedom and progress. The Saudi-led Arab coalition’s air strikes are responsible for the majority of the 3,800 civilian deaths in Yemen in the past 18 months, according to a new report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights released Thursday.

 

The Saudis’ enemies, the Shia Houthi rebels and their allies backing the deposed president Ali Abdullah Saleh, are also responsible for atrocities, possibly including the use of land mines. Cluster bombs are landing on civilian targets. Children are being recruited into militias. An entire country is running out of medication and food. The war in Yemen is said to be a proxy war that Saudi Arabia is waging with Iran through the Houthi militia, but there’s nothing proxy about a bomb landing on a wedding celebration. “The resilience of the Yemeni people has been stretched beyond human limits,” the UN report warns. It calls for an independent report into the civilian devastation, which may be cold comfort to the people who are being bombed in marketplaces, schools, factories and hospitals.

 

A ceasefire ended in early August, which has caused the destruction to increase again. Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) recently withdrew its staff from six hospitals in northern Yemen, after a devastating hospital bombing on Aug. 15 killed 19 and injured 24. MSF said it gave the GPS co-ordinates of its facilities to the warring parties. Announcing its pullout from the region, the medical aid group said: “MSF is neither satisfied nor reassured by the Saudi-led coalition’s statement that this attack was a mistake.” At the same time, it’s hard to know the exact scope of the destruction, considering how lethal it is for journalists to operate in Yemen. It’s extremely difficult for foreign reporters to gain access to the country, and local journalists have been killed, harassed, kidnapped and imprisoned.

 

John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, was in Jeddah this week for “peace talks” with Saudi officials, even as his government is selling billions of dollars worth of arms to Saudi Arabia. The most recent deal, $1.15-billion (U.S.) in tanks and other arms, was approved earlier this month, though a small group of U.S. lawmakers is trying to delay the sale until Congress can study it further. The Obama administration has approved $110-billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the past six years, New York University professor Mohamad Bazzi recently wrote in The Nation, part of a complicated geopolitical dance to balance interests in the region. “The United States is complicit in this carnage,” The New York Times wrote in an editorial about the war in Yemen this week.

 

If the United States is the No. 1 supplier of arms to the Middle East, Canada is now No.2, according to figures compiled by the defence-industry publisher IHS Jane’s…Canada is not in the same weapons-dealing class as the United States, which supplies Saudi Arabia with helicopters, missiles and arms. However, the Canadian government has diluted the language around arms-export controls to make them less sensitive to human-rights concerns and more attuned to commercial interests. All of this should raise alarm bells, or at least spark interest in knowing more about this country’s arms-export deals. Unfortunately, the war in Yemen is grinding and complicated and far, far away. An entire population will pay the price for the world looking the other way.

 

Contents                       

           

On Topic Links

 

No Saudi Money for American Mosques : Daniel Pipes, The Hill, Aug. 22, 2016 —Saudi Arabia may be the country in the world most different from the United States, especially where religion is concerned. An important new bill introduced by Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) aims to take a step toward fixing a monumental imbalance.

In Saudi Arabia, a Revolution Disguised as Reform: Dennis Ross, Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2016 —Today, it’s hard to be optimistic about anything in the Middle East. And yet having just visited Saudi Arabia, in which I led a small bipartisan group of former national security officials, I came away feeling hopeful about the kingdom’s future.

‘We Misled You’: How the Saudis Are Coming Clean on Funding Terrorism: Zalmay Khalilzad, Politico, Sept. 14, 2016 —On my most recent trip to Saudi Arabia, I was greeted with a startling confession. In the past, when we raised the issue of funding Islamic extremists with the Saudis, all we got were denials. This time, in the course of meetings with King Salman, Crown Prince Nayef, Deputy Crown Mohammad Bin Salman and several ministers, one top Saudi official admitted to me, “We misled you.”

Hajj Prep: Search Soul, Buy Sturdy Shoes, Pay the Dentist: Diaa Hadid, New York Times, Sept. 9, 2016 —My father was on the phone from Australia, giving gravely voiced advice on preparing for the hajj, the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca. “Have you paid the dentist?” he asked. “He ruined my teeth!” I shrieked. “No matter, Baba,” he said, using an Arabic endearment. “This is the hajj. You have to clear your debts, even if you don’t think they are fair.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

FRANCE HONOURS VICTIMS OF CHARLIE HEBDO & HYPER CACHER ATTACKS, BUT IGNORES ANTISEMITIC DANGER

Anti-Semitism in Europe: Jerusalem Post, Jan. 5, 2016 — This week France will mark the first anniversary of a double terrorist attack that targeted the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine and the Hyper Cacher, a kosher grocery store.

France: A Country, and Party, Shaken to its Core: Konrad Yakabuski, Globe & Mail, Dec. 31, 2015 — The French President’s traditional New Year’s Eve address to the country will be anything but festive this year.

The Real Danger: Dr. Ephraim Herrera, Israel Hayom, Jan. 5, 2016— British Prime Minister David Cameron recently wrote that "aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology and activities … run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs."

Why the Jews Left their Arab Lands: David Bensoussan, Asia Times, Dec. 11, 2013 — There has been a Jewish presence in Arab-Muslim countries since well before Islam was introduced and it dates back to before the 6th century before the current era.

 

On Topic Links

 

European Anti-Semitism Likely to Grow in 2016: Sam Sokol, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 5, 2016

Should Israel Prefer French Socialists or the National Front?: Manfred Gerstenfeld, Arutz Sheva, Dec. 22, 2015

Year After Attack, France’s Jews Learn to Live Under Armed Guard: Benoît Fauchet, Times of Israel, Jan. 5, 2015

Paris’s Eerily Familiar 1930s Immigrant Problem: Daniel Pipes, National Post, Jan. 3, 2016

 

           ANTI-SEMITISM IN EUROPE

Jerusalem Post, Jan. 5, 2016

 

This week France will mark the first anniversary of a double terrorist attack that targeted the offices of the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine and the Hyper Cacher, a kosher grocery store. Yet, while the two attacks took place within just two days and while the fanatics who carried out the respective massacres shared the same nihilistic Islamist ideology, responses in France and around the world to the two attacks have been strikingly different.

 

The assassination of editors, writers and artists of the satirical magazine awakened French pride in their robust freedom of speech – which includes the right to lampoon the sacred. However, precious little attention was paid to the dangers of Jew hatred fueling the wholesale murder of random shoppers whose only crime was being identified with Judaism.

 

In a special edition of the magazine marking the anniversary, editor-in-chief Gerard Biard made this point, noting that the murder of Jews simply because they are Jews has not been given the public attention it deserves. “We are so used to Jews being killed because they are Jewish,” Biard wrote, according to an AP report. “This is an error, and not just on a human level. Because it’s the executioner who decides who is Jewish.” Biard went on to say that the Paris terrorist attack of nearly two months ago on November 13 that left 130 dead was proof that “the executioner…had decided we were all Jewish.”

 

History has shown that, in times of crisis, Jews are often the first victims of discrimination or censure – or in extreme situations murderous violence. They are the canary in the coal mine that is uniquely susceptible to societal changes for the worse. But Jews are rarely the only victims. As a friend of Holocaust survivor and historian Victor Klemperer put it to him at a very dark time, the Jews have been both condemned and privileged to be “seismic people” – hyper sensitive to the vicissitudes of the human condition. This is the Jewish people’s lot, it can be no other way.

 

Numerous, often contradictory, justifications have been given over the ages. Religious Jews are hated for rejecting Christianity or adopting practices like kosher slaughter and circumcision. Secular Jews are accused, meanwhile, of being godless communists or purveyors of dangerous ideas. When Jews lacked a homeland they were ridiculed for their rootless cosmopolitanism. Now that they have a land of their own, Jews are said to be fascists and occupiers and warmongers. Whatever the stated reason, the existence of strong anti-Semitic sentiments in a particular country reveals more about that country than it does about the Jews against whom anti-Semitic violence is directed. Inevitably, this anti-Semitism metastasizes to other forms of violence, as has been the case in France.

 

France and other countries throughout Europe are facing major challenges. The Euro crisis has sparked another bout of skepticism about the entire European Union project, which has led to the rise of right-wing parties in a number of northern European countries, including France. Further buoying this right-wing surge are the waves of refugees from Syria, Libya and other Muslim countries pouring into Europe who are seen by many Europeans as a threat to their socioeconomic stability and culture.

 

While it is true that the vast majority of anti-Semitic attacks are associated with Europe’s Muslim population, it is difficult to imagine far-right political parties, some of which with neo-Nazi or fascist roots, seriously and aggressively combating Muslim Jew-hatred.

 

Unfortunately, as The Jerusalem Post’s Jewish world correspondent Sam Sokol pointed out in an analysis this week, European nations currently lack systematic methods of collecting data on anti-Semitism. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) noted in 2013 that this state of affairs was contributing to “gross underreporting of the nature and characteristics of anti-Semitic incidents that occur.”

 

Europeans have a moral obligation to take violent anti-Semitism seriously. An important first step should be to develop systematic methods for measuring the phenomenon. There is no better time for this than now, as millions commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo and Hyper Cacher attacks.

 

                                                                       

Contents

   

FRANCE: A COUNTRY, AND PARTY, SHAKEN TO ITS CORE                                                                 

Konrad Yakabuski                                                                                                                 

Globe & Mail, Dec. 31, 2015

 

The French President’s traditional New Year’s Eve address to the country will be anything but festive this year. It has been an annus horribilis in France. Two terrorist attacks that rocked the republic in 2015 continue to shake the country to its core. Nothing is as it was.

 

That includes the government of President François Hollande. A Socialist whose party has traditionally stood for republican values of equality, Mr. Hollande has turned into a national security hawk preaching safety over civil rights. Hanging heavily over his televised remarks from the Élysée Palace will be the constitutional reform package he tabled two days before Christmas that would allow the state to strip French citizenship from native-born dual nationals convicted of terrorism. It has pre-empted any chance of a holiday reprieve from acrid political debate.

 

It is a debate somewhat familiar to Canadians, who will recall controversial changes to the law made by former prime minister Stephen Harper’s government that empowered the immigration minister to revoke the Canadian passport of dual citizens convicted of terrorism. In September, the Tories moved to invoke the new power against a member of the so-called Toronto 18, who plotted terrorist attacks in 2006, prompting then-Liberal leader Justin Trudeau to stake his ground: “You devalue the citizenship of every Canadian in this place and in this country when you break down and make it conditional for anybody.” Now, Prime Minister Trudeau has vowed to repeal the provision.

 

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls mustn’t have received the memo. In posting on Facebook on Monday to defend his Socialist government’s plan, Mr. Valls cited Canada as one of the democratic countries “close to France” that can revoke the citizenship of dual nationals convicted of terrorism, provided such persons are not left stateless in contravention of international law.

 

The debate about revoking the citizenship of convicted terrorists has heated up almost everywhere in the West with most countries – including Australia just this month – taking a hard line against dual nationals who have travelled to Syria or Iraq to join the Islamic State and who would attack their home country in the name of radical Islam. But the debate has a particular resonance in France, where, until recently, Mr. Hollande and Mr. Valls stood steadfastly on the other side.

 

For the French left, the idea of stripping any French citizen of his or her passport is a violation of republican principles and reminiscent of the worst abuses of the Vichy regime that ruled parts of the country during the Nazi occupation. The Vichy government revoked the French citizenship of, among others, Algerian Jews and members of the resistance, including Charles de Gaulle.

 

Until now, the law has provided for the revocation of the French citizenship of immigrants who have been naturalized for less than 15 years who commit crimes contravening the “fundamental interests of the nation.” But the provision has strict limits and has not been invoked in years. When former centre-right president Nicolas Sarkozy tried to toughen the law in 2010, Mr. Hollande balked.

 

Back then, Mr. Hollande co-signed a letter in the left-leaning Libération newspaper calling Mr. Sarkozy’s proposal an “infringement of the constituting principles” of the republic, including the “decent and equal treatment of all.” One his co-signatories was Stéphane Charbonnier, the irreverent Charlie Hebdo cartoonist killed by French-born radicalized Muslims last January.

 

If the tables have turned it is because Mr. Hollande, the most unpopular president in the history of the Fifth Republic, is scrambling to respond to a sharp rightward shift in public opinion. Surveys show more than 80 per cent of French voters support the hard-line approach, amid reports that 1,000 French citizens have gone to join the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, while an estimated 250 have returned home.

 

Mr. Hollande’s proposal to strip dual nationals convicted of terrorism of their citizenship goes further than anything considered before in that it would apply to those born in France, not just naturalized citizens, and would be included in the French constitution, shielding it from legal challenges. But if public opinion seems largely on side, the move threatens to tear his Socialist Party apart. In the past week, many party officials and Socialist politicians have denounced Mr. Hollande and Mr. Valls as traitors.

 

Mr. Hollande’s moves have delighted one politician, however. National Front Leader Marine Le Pen tweeted that his reforms are “the first effect of the 6.8 million votes” her anti-immigration party won in this month’s regional elections.

                                                                                   

Contents

                           

THE REAL DANGER

Dr. Ephraim Herrera

Israel Hayom, Jan. 5, 2016

 

British Prime Minister David Cameron recently wrote that "aspects of the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology and activities … run counter to British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, equality and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs." He described the movement as fertile ground for growing violence and, based on research he commissioned, determined that membership in the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered a possible indicator of extremism.

 

Among the assertions raised by Cameron, his staunch opposition to Muslim Brotherhood members who support Palestinian sister group Hamas sticks out. This is a very important point that stands to benefit Israel: A Western leader views support for the Muslim Brotherhood's violence against Israel as evidence of the group's extremism.

 

The research upon which Cameron based his statements mentions the goal of some of the movement's members to turn Britain into an Islamic state. But it does not manage to prove that this is an official goal of the group as a whole. Really? As early as 2007, Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi declared: "The conquest of Rome — the conquest of Italy, and Europe — means that Islam will return to Europe once again. Must this conquest necessarily be though war? No. There is such a thing as peaceful conquest [through proselytizing]."

 

In an interview with a Norwegian journalist in 2011, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt until 2010, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said, "The Muslim Brotherhood's dream is to form a total Islamic state." Pressed for more details on this goal, he responded, "We Muslims are currently scattered all over. There is still a long way to go before we are able to take control in Europe."

 

Ahmed Jaballah, head of the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is also recognized by local authorities, has said that the union "is a two-stage rocket. The first stage is democratic; the second will put an Islamic society into orbit."

 

The hidden danger for Europe is less the terrorist attacks, which do not significantly alter the foundations of a society, and more this Muslim Brotherhood plan — which, for now, does not include violence or explicit threats. This plan for the occupation of Europe will succeed via the fertility rate among Muslim women, which is much higher than that of European women; through record-breaking immigration; and through calls to join Islam.

 

In addition to this, there is the orthodox Islamic education of the young generation, which is more religious than previous ones and is, for the most part, unwilling to accept the values of its host societies. There is also the issue of Islamic law creeping into society's daily life: Popular French fast-food chain Quick has recently decided to serve only halal meat at all its locations.

 

In both Israel and Europe, the only way to stop the vision of Islamic political takeover of the world from coming to be is to address the root of the problem and to outlaw Muslim education that preaches Islamic conquest — not just that which preaches Islamic violence.

 

                                                                        Contents                       

                 WHY THE JEWS LEFT THEIR ARAB LANDS

David Bensoussan

Asia Times, Dec. 11, 2013

 

There has been a Jewish presence in Arab-Muslim countries since well before Islam was introduced and it dates back to before the 6th century before the current era. These communities have disappeared or are in the process of disappearing in the majority of Arab-Muslim countries. In fact, 865,000 Jews found themselves excluded in the very countries they were born in and felt that they had to leave.

 

Non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries have the status of dhimmi, which means "tolerated" or "protected". This flows from the assertion that Jewish and Christian scripture was distorted by their unworthy depositories. It is legislated under the Pact of Umar which was amended several times with the addition of other discriminatory measures.

 

A dhimmi is in an inferior position within Muslim society: they have special taxes, wear recognizable clothing, are the subject of humiliating measures, and do not have legal status when they are involved in a legal matter involving Muslims. Shi'ite Islam considers Jews to be a source of impurity. While the conditions of Jews have differed between countries, some features overlap for Jews in Morocco, and in the Ottoman and Persian Empires.

 

In the 19th century, several travellers, consuls and educators, sent out by the Alliance Israelite Universelle, sent back alarming reports on the situation of Jews, including the following: daily humiliation, objects of scorn, submissive to the point of atrophy, constant insecurity, abductions, densely populated Jewish quarters, dramatic impoverishment and seriously unsanitary living conditions. They described nightmarish fanaticism on the one hand and resignation on the other. 

 

The difficult circumstances of Jews, who made up 0.5% to 3% of the population, depending on the country, was also raised by Muslim chroniclers. Jews automatically became the scapegoats whenever there was political instability, a military defeat or difficult economic conditions, as well as drought. Massacres and plundering happened on a regular basis.

 

Generally speaking, the rulers were benevolent to a certain degree – of course there were exceptions – and their decisions were not always applied accordingly. For example, the decree agreed to in 1864 by the Moroccan ruler and the philanthropist, Moses Montefiore, on the cessation of mistreatment of Jews, never actually changed anything.

 

Jews were accused of ritual murder in Damascus in 1840 and in Cairo in 1902. In the Ottoman Empire, there were reforms that ended the mandatory wearing of distinctive clothing and the special tax on non-Muslims, but once again, in the more remote areas of the Empire, this was never enforced.

 

Being on the fringes of the 19th century expansion of Europe, many Jews sought consular protection, and the parameters were set down at international conferences in Tangier, Madrid, Lausanne, and so on. Algerian Jews obtained the right to French nationality in 1870, Tunisian Jews obtained it at their request in 1923 and Moroccan Jews maintained their status of dhimmi when Morocco became a protectorate. 

 

A large number of Jews acquired Egyptian nationality but this was quietly withdrawn in 1940 which left about a quarter of Jews without a nationality. In Yemen, Sharia law was applied in 1948 and Jewish orphans were taken in order to be converted to Islam, a practice that had been in use since 1922.

 

It should be pointed out that improved legal status for Jews did not always translate into improved lives, because mentalities do not evolve as quickly as one might hope. Overall, the Westernization of Jews in countries where the majority is Muslim preceded that of Muslims by more than one generation because of, among other reasons, the reach of the school network of the Alliance Israelite Universelle.

 

Under the colonial regime, Jews were finally able to live outside the Jewish quarter, the mellah or hara, and they no longer had to wear distinctive clothing. Many Muslims saw this as changing the Jewish status that they felt had been carved in stone by Islamic law. The tradition of prosecuting Jews during difficult domestic times, as well as the resentment against colonial power and the emancipation of Jews, were all key factors in triggering anti-Jewish actions, as happened in Fez in 1912, in Cairo in 1945, and so on.

 

In order to avoid antagonizing the Muslim majority and even the anti-Semitic European colonists, the colonial authorities often turned a blind eye to the abuse of Jews, for example in Baghdad in 1941. No doubt Jews were considering leaving their country if they could not achieve equal rights. During the Second World War, a pro-Nazi regime came to power in Iraq and the sweeping pogrom, the Farhoud, was carried out in 1941. The Mufti in Jerusalem was the self-appointed voice of Nazi propaganda and he encouraged Bosnia Muslims to join the Waffen SS. As well, Jews in Libya were sent to death camps in Europe and a number in Jews in Tunisia were made to do forced labor.

 

After the war, there was growing insecurity in eastern Jewish communities. There had been a pogrom in Libya in 1945, anti-British and anti-Semitic riots within the same year in Egypt, in Syria, Yemen and Aden in 1947, and Jews were excluded from the Syrian and Lebanese administrations in 1947. The political committee of the Arab League, made up of seven countries, proposed in 1947, well before Israel's independence, that the assets of Jews be frozen.

 

Israel's independence and their surprise victory over invading Arab armies was a miracle in the eyes of Jews. Pressure was put on Jews who were told to prove their loyalty by opposing the Jewish state and the Arab press was full of invective against Israel and Jews. People left in a panic for Israel from several countries despite threats to destroy the newly formed state.  

 

There were multiple anti-Jewish measures: non-renewal of professional licenses in Iraq, a prohibition on leaving Iraq in 1948 and Yemen in 1949, the withdrawal of Egyptian nationality from Jews, who then became stateless in the 1950s, and the withdrawal of the right to vote for Jews in Libya in 1951.

 

Add to that the pogroms in Djerada, in Morocco in 1948, in Damascus and Aleppo in 1948, in Benghazi and Tripoli in 1948, in Bahrain in 1949, in Egypt in 1952, and in Libya and Tunisia in 1967. There were arrests and expulsions in Egypt in 1956, economic strangulation by spoliation in Iraq in 1951, in Syria in 1949, in Libya in 1970, or by exclusion in Syria and Lebanon in 1947, in Libya in 1958, in Iran in 2000, or by allowing Egyptian business only in Egypt in 1961.

 

Jewish heritage was destroyed in Oran in 1961 and in Libya in 1969 and 1978, there was police abuse and abductions of young girls with forced conversions in Morocco from 1961 to 1962, Jews were kidnapped in Lebanon in 1967, there were public hangings in Baghdad in 1969, anti-Semitic cliches were used in the Arab press, and campaigns were used to increase anti-Jewish sentiment and incite hatred, using Zionism as an excuse. After the Six-Day War, this rhetoric increased considerably…

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

 

N.B.: Sunday, Jan. 10, 12:30pm, CIJR presents a special screening of the film The Silent Exodus at Concordia University in Montreal. The film recounts the history of the Jews expelled from the Arab world after 1946. Prof. David Bensoussan, a CIJR Academic Fellow, will give a talk at the screening.

 

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!

 

 

On Topic

 

European Anti-Semitism Likely to Grow in 2016: Sam Sokol, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 5, 2016—There are very few sure bets in life and even fewer guarantees. But we can always count on the ever reliable triumvirate of death, taxes and anti-Semitism.

Should Israel Prefer French Socialists or the National Front?: Manfred Gerstenfeld, Arutz Sheva, Dec. 22, 2015—The recent regional elections in France have once again confirmed that the right wing Front National (FN) has become a major force in the country’s politics.

Year After Attack, France’s Jews Learn to Live Under Armed Guard: Benoît Fauchet, Times of Israel, Jan. 5, 2015—Ever since a jihadist attack on a kosher store left four people dead a year ago, France’s Jews have grown used to soldiers patrolling their neighborhoods and schools.

Paris’s Eerily Familiar 1930s Immigrant Problem: Daniel Pipes, National Post, Jan. 3, 2016 —The world’s most prolific author, the Belgian writer Georges Simenon, published a mock memoir in 1951, Les Mémoires de Maigret (English: Maigret’s Memoirs), which featured the ostensible recollections of his fictional character, Inspector Maigret. The sixth chapter, titled in the English translation “One Staircase after Another!” (and brought to my attention by C. Paul Barreira) describes the pro-fascist uprising in Paris on February 6, 1934. It reminds one eerily of today’s North African immigration and Islamist alienation.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                  

 

 

 

REMEMBERING ROBERT WISTRICH Z”L— PASSIONATE SCHOLAR & DEFENDER OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication.

 

A Tribute to Robert Wistrich: Revered Teacher and Ferocious Defender of ‘Klal Yisrael': Abraham Cooper, Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2015 — Today we accompany Professor Robert Wistrich to his final resting place on Jerusalem’s Har Hamenuchot, which literally means “the Mount of Those who are Resting.”

Anti-Semitism and Jewish Destiny: Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2015— There are few topics of more pressing concern today to Jewish communities around the world than the current resurgence of anti-Semitism.

Global Anti-Semitism Continues Escalating: Isi Leibler, Candidly Speaking, May 11, 2015 — This week, the Foreign Ministry and the Diaspora Affairs Ministry are jointly sponsoring the 5th Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Decades-Long — Perhaps Generations-Long — Islamic Reform Project: Jonathan Kay, National Post, May 14, 2015— Brandeis University in Massachusetts showed itself to be gutless and pharisaical this week by revoking an invitation to award the international advocate for women’s rights under Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an honorary degree.

 

On Topic Links

 

Anti-Zionism, the Left, and the Islamists in Britain: Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, JCPA, Nov. 1, 2015

'International Community Should Criminalize Double Standards Against Israel as Anti-Semitism': Sam Sokol, Jerusalem Post, May 12, 2015

Universities Have Become Factories For Reinforcing Opinion: Rex Murphy, National Post, Apr. 12, 2015

Checking Charlie Hebdo’s Privilege: Ross Douthat, New York Times, Apr. 18, 2015

 

          PROFESSOR ROBERT WISTRICH (1945-2015) Z”L

 

With deep sorrow CIJR announces the passing of one of the world’s leading authorities on the history of antisemitism, Professor Robert Wistrich.

 

Prof. Wistrich’s unique understanding of Jewish history, encyclopaedic knowledge and expertise made him a leading scholar of the history of antisemitism. His countless books and articles on the topic, including A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad (2010), From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, the Jews, and Israel (2012), Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred (1994) and The Jews of Vienna in the Age of Franz Joseph (2006) contributed greatly to the historiography of global antisemitism, a phenomenon he termed “the longest hatred.”  

 

CIJR and the Jewish community have lost a great teacher and friend. We will miss his tireless scholarship and dedication to the study of antisemitism and Jewish history. May his memory be blessed. 

 

                                     

A TRIBUTE TO ROBERT WISTRICH:

REVERED TEACHER AND FEROCIOUS DEFENDER OF ‘KLAL YISRAEL'                                                   

Abraham Cooper                                                 

Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2015

 

Today we accompany Professor Robert Wistrich to his final resting place on Jerusalem’s Har Hamenuchot, which literally means “the Mount of Those who are Resting.” But while Robert Wistrich lived there was no rest for this brilliant, kind and soft-spoken professor. He died of a heart attack in Rome earlier this week where he had been about to address the Italian Senate on the renewed scourge of European anti-Semitism.

 

Wistrich will long be remembered by academics for his prolific work on this issue. His colleagues and friends, myself included, were awed by his incredibly organized mind, brilliant writing, wry wit and especially by his menschlichkeit and openness.

 

But the Robert Wistrich I came to know and love was first and foremost a ferocious defender of his people. In an era when too many highly placed Jewish academics fail to speak up in defense of the State of Israel, Robert was always on the front line – even when it meant standing alone. He was not only a brilliant wordsmith but also a key strategic thinker whom Jewish activists like myself came to rely upon for guidance and inspiration. Robert, along with Natan Sharansky and Irwin Cotler, was among the key Jewish thinkers who helped formulate the response to vile new threats against Israel’s legitimacy presented at the infamous United Nations World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in 2001.

 

Wistrich was at his best last week when he delivered a passionate and powerful call to arms at the 5th Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism. The Jerusalem Post published his last speech, which confirms a remarkably organized mind. In it, he told 1,000 activists what they needed – not necessarily what they wanted – to hear. He outlined the threats from the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) campaigns, Islamist Terrorism and what Wistrich labeled the “religion” of “Palestinianism.”

 

In his final public speech Wistrich also referred to the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s new exhibition, The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People With the Holy Land. Professor Wistrich’s genius and human skills were on full display both as the author of the exhibition and as he helped my colleague Dr. Shimon Samuels and I succeed in gaining official UNESCO co-sponsorship. Robert patiently defended his narrative before no less than four “academic reviews” and helped us overcome the formal opposition of 22 Arab states.

 

The exhibition opened last June at UNESCO headquarters and a few weeks ago at UN headquarters in New York at the delegates’ entrance to the UN General Assembly. The exhibition will soon open at the US Congress and we hope to dedicate its presentation at the Knesset to Professor Wistrich’s memory.

 

Finally, the integrity and humanity of Robert Wistrich was often taken for granted by those who knew him well, but his impact on people could be profound. We received the following words of condolence and tribute from Irina Bokova, the director-general of UNESCO:

 

“Professor Wistrich was a man of absolute integrity, guided by deep and abiding belief in the human rights and dignity of every woman and man. His works on Zionism and anti-Semitism…stand, indeed, as powerful references, underpinned by unique lucidity and unparalleled research…Professor Wistrich brought all this to authoring the exhibition of the Simon Wiesenthal Center that was presented at UNESCO in June 2014…UNESCO is proud to have been the first UN agency to organize such an exhibition on the relationship between the Jewish People and the Holy Land, reaffirming the Organization’s role as a universal platform for intellectual cooperation and intercultural dialogue….

 

“You may rest assured that, inspired by the resounding example set by Professor Wistrich, I am determined that UNESCO redouble its efforts in these directions, at a time when mutual understanding and respect has never been so important.” Yehei Zichro Baruch!                                               

                                                                       

Contents                                                                                      

   

ANTI-SEMITISM AND JEWISH DESTINY                                                                      

Prof. Robert S. Wistrich                                                                                                

Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2015

 

There are few topics of more pressing concern today to Jewish communities around the world than the current resurgence of anti-Semitism. Thus, there could have been no more appropriate time for the 5th Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism to meet than last week in Jerusalem. It was a large and impressive gathering of participants from all over the world, initiated by the Foreign Ministry, together with its Diaspora Affairs Department.

 

In my own remarks to the conference I emphasized the need to free ourselves from certain outdated myths. My first point was that even today, Jews in Israel and the Diaspora are fixated on the dangers of far-right traditional anti-Semitism – whether racist, religious or nationalist. While neo-fascism has not altogether disappeared, it is in most cases a secondary threat.

 

Second, there is an illusory belief that more Holocaust education and memorialization can serve as an effective antidote to contemporary anti-Semitism. This notion, shared by many governments and well-meaning liberal gentiles, is quite unfounded. On the contrary, today “Holocaust inversion” (the perverse transformation of Jews into Nazis and Muslims into victimized “Jews”) all-too-often becomes a weapon with which to pillory Israel and denigrate the Jewish people. Hence the approach to this entire subject requires considerable rethinking, updating and fine-tuning.

 

Third, we must recognize much more clearly than before that since 1975 (with the passing of the scandalous UN resolution condemning Zionism as racism) hatred of Israel has increasingly mutated into the chief vector for the “new” anti-Semitism. By libeling the Jewish state as “racist,” “Nazi,” “apartheid” and founded from its inception on “ethnic cleansing,” its enemies have turned Zionism into a synonym for criminality and a term of pure opprobrium. Hence, every Jew (or non- Jew) who supports the totally “illegitimate” or immoral “Zionist entity” is thereby complicit in a cosmic evil.

 

Fourth, today’s anti-Semitism is a product of a new civic religion that could be termed “Palestinianism.” The official Palestinian narrative seeks to supplant Israel with a judenrein Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. In the case of Hamas, this intent is absolutely explicit. With Fatah, it is partly veiled for tactical reasons. But when it comes to the Palestinian ideology and the millions around the world who support it, virtually all actions of self-defense by Israel are instantly classified as “genocide,” demonized and treated as part of a sinister Jewish-imperialist conspiracy. Not surprisingly, then, pro-Palestine demonstrations, beginning in the summer of 2014, were often accompanied by ugly chants of “Death to the Jews” and anti-Semitic incidents.

 

My fifth point is closely related to this reality. Since the turn of the 21st century, anti-Semitism has undergone a process of growing “Islamicization,” linked to the terrorist holy war against Jews and other non-Muslims with its truly lethal consequences. Yet most debates skirt around the issues of Iran and radical Islam.

 

However, if we do not confront the prime danger posed by radical Islamist and genocidal anti-Semitism, how can our common struggle hope to succeed? One of the symptoms of this vain policy of appeasement pursued by America and Europe is the almost Pavlovian reflex after every terrorist, anti-Semitic outrage to immediately disconnect it from any link to Islam. Of course, Islamist is not identical with Islam, only a minority of Muslim believers support terrorism, and stigmatization is wrong. Equally, we must empower moderate Muslims wherever we can.

 

But denial does not work. Levels of anti-Semitism among Muslims clearly remain the highest in the world, and the horrific consequences of jihadi movements like Islamic State for all minorities are impossible to ignore. Nothing can be gained by sweeping this threat under the carpet. The Islamists are the spearhead of current anti-Semitism, aided and abetted by the moral relativism of all-too-many naive Western liberals.

 

My sixth observation relates to the need for Israelis and Diaspora Jews to rediscover, redefine and reassess their Jewish identity, core Jewish values and the depth of their own connection to the Land of Israel as well as to their historic heritage. I was privileged to have authored two years ago the exhibition “People, Book, Land – The 3,500-Year Relationship of the Jewish People to the Holy Land” for the bold project initiated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center together with UNESCO. Against all the odds and in the face of predictable opposition, it opened at UNESCO headquarters in Paris in June 2014.

 

In April 2015, the exhibit was even shown at UN Headquarters in New York, and it will soon come to Israel. This is not merely a historical exercise, for it shows the extraordinary tenacity, cultural vitality, spirituality, and metaphysical as well as physical bonds of Jews and Judaism to the Land of Israel. None of this was intended, it should be emphasized, to negate the historical presence and significance of Christianity and Islam in this land. But it sets the record straight.

 

My final reflection flows from this experience. I believe that in an age of Jewish empowerment, living in a sovereign and democratic Israeli state, we can and must first clarify for ourselves our vocation, raison d’être, moral priorities, and the deeper meaning of our near-miraculous return to the historic homeland. This is the other side of the coin in our essential and relentless fight against anti-Semitism. As we celebrate Jerusalem Day let us be worthy of the scriptural promise that “the Torah will come forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”

 

Here, in the beating heart of the Jewish nation, where its body and soul come together in the City of Peace, we must be true to the national and universal vision of our biblical prophets. Anti-Semitism, the long shadow which has for so long accompanied our bi-millennial Diasporic tribulations, and nearly 70 years of renewed statehood, is neither “eternal” nor must it prevent Jews from fulfilling their ultimate destiny to one day become a “light unto the nations.” 

 

Contents                                                                                      

   

GLOBAL ANTI-SEMITISM CONTINUES ESCALATING                                                                                     

Isi Leibler                                                                                                           

Candidly Speaking, May 11, 2015

 

This week, the Foreign Ministry and the Diaspora Affairs Ministry are jointly sponsoring the 5th Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism. It will be opened by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a host of prominent global leaders will participate and passionately condemn anti-Semitism. It will also be a gathering of activists from all over the world who will hear depressing reports of the growth of anti-Semitism in all countries and pleas for intensified action to curb the venomous hatred.

 

Unfortunately, aside from some limited media coverage and making participants “feel good,” this conference will be a mere talk fest with negligible impact. The world’s oldest hatred has reached surrealistic levels. Whereas most Western governments are inclined to condemn anti-Semitism, on a popular level the situation is terrifying and even worse than in the 1930s when at least liberals and the political Left spoke up for the Jews. Today they are frequently at the vanguard of the Jew-baiters.

 

The fusion of traditional anti-Semitism and its more current expression — demonization of the Jewish state — is rampant in most countries other than the U.S., Canada and Australia, although even there, it has emerged as a poisonous force on campuses. In most of Europe, the continent drenched with Jewish blood during the Holocaust, opinion polls indicate that almost half the population regard Israel as a greater threat to world peace than Iran and North Korea, equate Jews with Nazis, and believe that Israelis are seeking to commit genocide against the Palestinians. In this context, the upsurge of increasingly violent anti-Semitic incidents is hardly surprising. Jewish schools, synagogues and even kosher supermarkets require security protection, even the employment of military forces. Many Jews fear wearing kippot or Jewish symbols in public.

 

After returning from their murderous sprees in the killing fields of the Middle East, jihadists — who include second-generation homegrown Muslims and converts from comfortable middle class origins — view Jews as principal targets for assassination. Governments are loath to confront the issue of Islamic extremism or even identify the enemy because of the growing power of the Muslim vote. They seem more concerned to condemn “Islamophobia” rather than anti-Semitism, despite the fact that it is synagogues and Jewish schools rather than mosques and Islamic schools that are threatened by terrorists.

 

Despite the babble about an obligation for Jews to remain in Europe and fight anti-Semitism, the situation will only deteriorate. While understanding the discomfort of European leaders should there be a mass exodus of Jews from their countries, one must still ask why we should be encouraged to live in societies in which we are detested and considered pariahs? Especially so, recognizing the demographic increase of Muslims around them and knowing that public opinion is more hostile against the Jews than are governments.

 

We should challenge the absurdity of those who consider it inappropriate for Jews to make aliyah because of anti-Semitism. Of course, we would prefer to live in a world where Jews are accepted and respected and only come to Israel out of idealistic motivations. But surely it is common sense and incumbent on us to encourage Jews confronted with anti-Semitism to make aliyah. Jews will remain in Europe. But they will become a diminishing minority as many realize that they do not wish to raise their children in a society that makes them ashamed of being Jews. We should encourage those who can to make aliyah and must seek to provide them with livelihoods. Some may be unwilling to make the move but at least they should be encouraged to send their children.

 

Ironically, increased aliyah will strengthen the Jewish identity of those remaining and help them to retain their Jewish dignity and self-respect. None of this should detract from our obligation to combat anti-Semitism both because, as mankind’s oldest hatred, it is intrinsically evil and also because it impinges on the global foreign policies towards Israel.

 

While the most extreme manifestations of Jew-hatred now originate from Islamic sources, their efforts have coalesced with longstanding conventional anti-Semitic forces, which were dormant but have now been resurrected. We are thus confronted with a witch’s brew of the contemporary genocidal Islamic extremist anti-Semitism, the political Left and many liberals who project Israel as the new Satan, and traditional radical right-wing elements, all engaged in frenzied attacks on the Jewish state which is employed as a surrogate to demonic hatred of individual Jews…

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

                                                                       

Contents                                                                                      

                                          

AYAAN HIRSI ALI’S DECADES-LONG — PERHAPS                                 

GENERATIONS-LONG — ISLAMIC REFORM PROJECT

Jonathan Kay                                  

National Post, May 14, 2015

 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn’t one to wax sentimental about her mother. “She wanted us to live only according to ‘pure Islam,’ ” the famous Muslim apostate writes — “which to her meant no singing or dancing, no laughter or joy.” I highlighted that line in my copy of Ali’s new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now — not just because it’s a stinging thing for an author to say about her own mom, but because this single sentence neatly encapsulates everything the Somali-Dutch-American scholar hates about her childhood faith.

 

To Ali, the pathologies of Islamist societies aren’t just reflected in exhortations to jihadi violence and the excoriations of infidels. They also are manifest in the relentlessly dour, cloistered, stony-faced texture of day-to-day life. “Every punishment at school or at home seemed to be laced with threats of hellfire and pleas for death or destruction: may you suffer this disease or that, and may you burn in hell,” she writes. “When my mother spoke of ‘hellfire,’ she would point to the flaming brazier in our kitchen and tell me, ‘You think this fire is hot? Now think about hell, where the fire is far, far hotter and will devour you.’ ”

 

Since 9/11, Western intellectuals have put forward a variety of complex theories to explain the social backwardness and misogyny of the Muslim world. But by Ali’s account, a lot of it can be explained by the simple and relentless messaging that Muslims get as children: do right by Allah, or spend eternity roasting in his fire pits. This is Ali’s third book. In Infidel (2006), she detailed her upbringing in East Africa and Saudi Arabia, and her flight to The Netherlands, where she became a politician and activist. In Nomad: From Islam To America (2010), she struck the pose of militant anti-Islamist culture warrior, arguing that her old religion is beyond redemption.

 

Now, five years later, she believes that there may in fact be signs of hope. She calls Heretic an “optimistic” book — notwithstanding the depressing catalogue of Islamic-inspired violence it contains. “Seven months after I published Nomad came the start of the Arab Spring,” she writes. “I watched four national governments fall — Egypt’s twice — and protests or uprisings occur in 14 other nations, and I thought simply: I was wrong. Ordinary Muslims are ready for change.”

 

Ali’s analysis begins with the idea that conventionally minded Muslims typically can be divided into two groups — “Mecca Muslims” and “Medina Muslims.” These names correspond to the ancient cities (now in Saudi Arabia) where the Prophet Muhammad first rose to prominence. The teachings attributed to Muhammad during his time in Mecca generally are more peaceful in tone. But years later, after he had fled to Medina and become a ruthless desert warlord, his teachings increasingly became streaked with themes of violence and forcible submission. One example is the infamous Sword verse from Sura 9, which exhorts, in part: “Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war].”

 

Ali believes that Medina Muslims — who refer to Jews and Christians as “pigs and monkeys,” and applaud the mob-slaughter of children who accidentally deface the Koran — are largely immune to rational intellectual discourse. “They are not the intended audience for this book,” she writes. “They are the reason for writing it.” Rather, her argument is aimed at Mecca Muslims, who pray five times a day, perform the Hajj, give zakat, fast during Ramadan, and preach the oneness of Allah, but who are opposed to the nihilistic violence that the Islamic State and similar groups perform in Allah’s name.

 

Ali is not the first author to call for a Muslim “reformation.” But her manifesto is unusually detailed, identifying a group of specific precepts that must be “repudiated and nullified” before Islam can become a humane faith. These include: The conceptualization of Mohammed as a “semi-divine” superman; The obsession with the delights and torments of life beyond the grave; The encroachment of Islam into every aspect of human life through the institution of shariah; and The imperative to wage jihad…

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

 

Contents

                                                                                     

 

On Topic

 

Anti-Zionism, the Left, and the Islamists in Britain: Prof. Robert S. Wistrich, JCPA, Nov. 1, 2015—My topic concerns primarily the United Kingdom, and two important, even major facets of the contemporary incitement against Israel and the Jewish people, which are increasingly visible in British society.

'International Community Should Criminalize Double Standards Against Israel as Anti-Semitism': Sam Sokol, Jerusalem Post, May 12, 2015—The international community should criminalize anti-Semitism and establish a multilateral body to monitor it, former Ministry of Foreign Affairs legal adviser Amb. Alan Baker asserted on Monday in the text of a draft international convention being promoted by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Universities Have Become Factories For Reinforcing Opinion: Rex Murphy, National Post, Apr. 12, 2015—Brandeis University in Massachusetts showed itself to be gutless and pharisaical this week by revoking an invitation to award the international advocate for women’s rights under Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an honorary degree.

Checking Charlie Hebdo’s Privilege: Ross Douthat, New York Times, Apr. 18, 2015 —A living cartoonist lecturing his murdered peers makes for a curious spectacle, but that’s what transpired at journalism’s George Polk Awards a week ago.

              

              

IN U.K., RELATIVELY PRO-ISRAEL CAMERON RE-ELECTED, BUT EU FACES ONGOING ANTISEMITISM, ANTI-ZIONISM & ISLAMISM

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication.

 

 

UK Election Results: Another Term for Israel-Friendly Conservative Government: Alina Dain Sharon, Algemeiner, May 8, 2015 — U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party defeated its most formidable rival, Ed Miliband’s Labour Party, in the May 7 British election.

Will the EU’s Representative at the Global Forum on Combating Anti-Semitism Confess the Truth?: Manfred Gerstenfeld, CIJR, May 4, 2015— The fifth Global Forum on Combating Anti-Semitism will begin on May 12th in Jerusalem.

Taking Jihad to School – French Programs Emphasize Secularism: Abigail R. Esman, IPT, Apr. 22, 2015 — On a street in Paris's popular 6th Arrondissement, men in camouflage wielding Famas assault rifles patiently stand guard throughout the day.

From Buchenwald to Europe: Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2015— In the early spring of 1944 a political prisoner in the Buchenwald concentration camp penned a letter to his wife, Käthe, in Hamburg.  

 

On Topic Links

 

George Galloway and the "Vile Zionist Hyenas": IPT News, May 8, 2015

European Antisemitism Driving Jews Away From Jewish Life, Says Leading Rabbi (INTERVIEW): Eliezer Sherman, Algemeiner, May 12, 2015

Study Exposes the Ugly Depth of European Muslim Anti-Semitism: Abigail R. Esman, IPT, May 12, 2015

Russia’s Secret Army in Ukraine: Globe & Mail, May 12, 2015

         

                                     

UK ELECTION RESULTS:

ANOTHER TERM FOR ISRAEL-FRIENDLY CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT                                            

Alina Dain Sharon

Algemeiner, May 8, 2015

 

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party defeated its most formidable rival, Ed Miliband’s Labour Party, in the May 7 British election. The Conservative Party garnered 331 parliament seats, five more than what was needed for a majority in the House of Commons. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently established his own government coalition in the Jewish state, congratulated Cameron on his re-election, stating on Twitter that he looks forward to working with Cameron “on shared goals of peace & prosperity.”

 

Like the British electorate at large, British Jews likely overwhelmingly supported the Conservative Party, fulfilling the predictions of just one of many British election polls prior to May 7. The poll, conducted by London’s Jewish Chronicle newspaper last month, showed that 69 percent of Jewish voters planned to support the Conservative Party, compared to 22 percent for Labour.

 

While Miliband’s Jewish background might have created a sense of affinity for some Jewish voters, Miliband has also been heavily criticized for Labour’s stances on Israel, including introducing non-binding legislation last year calling on the U.K. to recognize Palestinian statehood. The British parliament then voted symbolically, 274-12, in favor of requesting that the U.K. recognize a unilaterally established Palestinian state. Miliband also said he would support the recognition of a Palestinian state. “Ed Miliband is not generally felt to be a reliable supporter of Israel by Jewish British voters we (the Anglo-Jewish Association) have spoken to. In contrast, the Conservatives have been solid supporters of Israel, though not blindly,” Jonathan Walker, president of the U.K.-based Anglo-Jewish Association, recently told JNS.org…

 

Since the results of the election have become known, Miliband resigned from his post as Labour leader, as did other party leaders, including the U.K. Independence Party’s (UKIP) Nigel Farage. UKIP, which advocates for the U.K. to leave the European Union and reduce immigration, and has been accused of racism, particularly against Muslims, has been left with only one seat in the parliament despite appearing to have support from 13 percent of U.K. voters, according to pre-election polls. UKIP also presents a conundrum for Jewish voters. A YouGov poll showed that UKIP voters were more likely to agree with antisemitic statements than Conservative and Labour voters, but UKIP voters also showed the highest proportion of pro-Israel views in a different YouGov survey that focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Many pundits predicted a major political upheaval in the U.K. given the growth in popularity of smaller political parties such as UKIP prior to the election. It has not turned out that way. Based on comments by Cameron, the prime minister and his party are likely to continue to be somewhat more supportive of Israel and more hostile to antisemitism in Britain than other parties and their leaders. The party is also likely to have a better relationship with Netanyahu’s right-leaning government coalition than Labour would have. One party that did receive a surge of seats in the parliament might express more opposition to Israel. The Scottish Independent Party (SNP) reportedly gained 50 seats. SNP is the third-largest party in the House of Commons. Its leader, Nicola Sturgeon, recently called for the next U.K. government “to pursue a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine and to support the formal recognition of a Palestinian state.”      

 

                                                                       

Contents                                                                                      

   

WILL THE EU’S REPRESENTATIVE AT THE GLOBAL FORUM ON               

COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM CONFESS THE TRUTH?                                                                                  

Manfred Gerstenfeld                                                                                                     

CIJR, May 4, 2015

 

The fifth Global Forum on Combating Anti-Semitism will begin on May 12th in Jerusalem. The Israeli government ministries who have organized the event have invited the First Vice President of the European Commission, Frans Timmermans – a Dutchman – to speak at its opening session. In view of the discriminatory attitudes Timmermans, the Dutch Labor party he belongs to and the EU hold toward Israel, I suggest that he includes the following in his lecture, in order to clear things up.

 

“I am very glad to have been invited to this Global Forum. It is a unique occasion to finally confess and declare the truth about European discrimination against Israel and about European anti-Semitism. I would also like to mention the indirect support my own party, the Dutch Labor Party, gives to the Islamo-Nazis of Hamas, and apologize for my prejudice regarding Israel…Europe has a horrible, murderous past concerning the Jewish people, which goes back many centuries. I recently mentioned that on Dutch television. It boils down to the fact that anti-Semitism is part of Europe’s history as well as part of its culture. After the Second World War, many naïve people thought that Europe had learned its lesson from the Holocaust. They were fools.

“Various studies show that more than 40% of Europeans believe that Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians. If so many Europeans have such extreme and hateful opinions about Israel, it means that a large part of the EU has a criminal mindset. When I speak here today, I represent the EU, and thus I also represent the EU’s many repulsive anti-Semites. In other words, I also speak here on behalf of at least 150 million Europeans, aged over 16 years, who hold criminal and anti-Semitic views, this time against Israel. This is so scandalous that it is hard to believe. I wonder how much the European Union, the politicians of our member countries, many media, trade unions, NGOs, churches and so on have contributed to the development of this criminal stereotyping.

 

“I have always prided myself in being more intelligent than most politicians. I am a suave diplomat and speak many languages. In order to maintain this image, I have often managed to manipulate the truth in such a manner that my motives aren’t too transparent. “That is why I admitted, during a recent interview, what many European politicians, who are not as smart, continue to deny. I said that behind anti-Zionism there is often anti-Semitism. I spoke also about Greek racism and mentioned that it comes from the extreme right. People did not notice that I purposely neglected to specify which part of the population generates a disproportionately large number of the worst anti-Semitic incidents in Europe. We all know who is responsible, but do not want to say it loudly: parts of the Muslim communities. The EU countries let in a vast number of immigrants without implementing much of a screening process, even though we knew that many came from the most anti-Semitic countries in the world.

 

“When I became an EU commissioner, I came across a letter from Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. He had written to the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Martin Schulz, about Europe’s anti-Israelism. The latter’s answer did not suggest any concrete actions and contained nothing but rhetoric. Mrs. Nina Rosenwald, president of The Gatestone Institute, wrote on the same subject to the previous president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso. The official who answered on his behalf the letter avoided addressing the issue, as well.

 

“Foreign ministers of eighteen EU countries want to label goods as originating from the West Bank to distinguish them from products originating within pre-1967 Israel. Among them is my successor as Dutch foreign minister, Bert Koenders, who is also a member of the Labor Party. The EU also says that it is forbidden for the EU to invest in occupied territories. We have never seriously debated with Israel why the West Bank is considered to be occupied, rather than disputed territory. One thing is sure, however: the EU invests in Turkish northern Cyprus, which is certainly occupied territory.

 

“That brings me to the notion of double standards, a manipulation which has been at the heart of anti-Semitism for centuries. In December 2013, I spoke at the University of Tel Aviv about Israeli-European relations. It is a touchy subject to handle, if you choose to speak truthfully about it. I thus preferred to speak at length about the grave of a Jewish soldier, lying in a military cemetery in the Netherlands, which my family has chosen to adopt. I also spoke for quite some time about Jews who had been hidden during the war in a house my family has acquired. It had nothing to do with Israeli-European relations, yet as long you focus sympathetically on dead Jews, you cannot go wrong with a Jewish audience.

 

“It would have been stupid to deny that Europe applies double standards with regard to Israel. According to the European definition of anti-Semitism, double standards are considered anti-Semitic. Therefore, we have now removed the European definition of anti-Semitism from our websites. We cannot afford to be anti-Semites as per our own definition.

 

“I admitted in that speech at Tel Aviv University that Europe does apply double standards against Israel. I tried to explain it away by claiming that we see Israelis as being like Europeans, and thus expect more from them than we do from the Palestinians and other Arabs. Them we don’t rate according to European standards. It might not have been the smartest thing to do, because afterwards people mentioned that I had spoken like the old colonialist racists, who claimed European superiority over other peoples. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights however, says that all people are endowed with reason and conscience. That means that they are equally responsible for their actions. Europe doesn’t believe this applies to the Palestinians, which is why we whitewash their criminality and genocidal intentions. I thus have to admit that my statement in Tel Aviv about double standards had a racist element.

 

“The aforementioned must be seen against the background of the policies held by my party, the Dutch Labor party. Our party program mentions the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We omit mentioning Hamas, however, and the fact that the Palestinians have preferred, as evident in their sole democratic parliamentary elections, these Islamo-Nazis above all others. Hamas wants to exterminate all Jews, as explicitly stated in its public charter, in order to please Allah. If you remain silent about a contemporary type of Nazism and attack the Israelis, you are an indirect supporter of these Nazis. That is exactly what my party does. We all know that one of the reasons we do so is because we are interested in obtaining more Muslim votes. Our party leader, Diederik Samsom, is a main inciter against Israel. ..

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

                                                                          

Contents                                                                                     

   

TAKING JIHAD TO SCHOOL –                                                                     

FRENCH PROGRAMS EMPHASIZE SECULARISM                                                                

Abigail R. Esman

IPT, Apr. 22, 2015

 

On a street in Paris's popular 6th Arrondissement, men in camouflage wielding Famas assault rifles patiently stand guard throughout the day. It is an unexpected sight amidst the chic designer boutiques and crowded restaurants, but one a hotel attendant nearby explains with a knowing glance: the building they guard houses an organization for Jews. This is life now in Paris after the terrorist attacks that took 17 lives in January – including four Jews, massacred at the kosher Hyper Cacher market in the hours before the Sabbath. And it isn't only here: in the Marais, long known for its Jewish population, a heavily-armed military presence has become commonplace, as France's government struggles to protect its Jews – and the rest of its population – from the murderous violence of Islamic terrorism in its streets.

 

Fear of impending terrorist attacks has gripped most of Europe since the outbreak of war in Syria, and particularly since the rise of the Islamic State (IS or ISIS). Of the several thousand European Muslims who have joined the IS and other jihadist groups there, hundreds have died in battle. But hundreds more have returned home, and of these, dozens have been arrested for planning to wage domestic attacks in Europe. (Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman in the Hyper Cacher attacks, did not join the jihad in Syria, but did pledge his allegiance to the Islamic State before the killings.)

 

In response, European officials have wrestled to find solutions to the threat, both punitive and preventive – from immediate imprisonment of those who return from Syria and Iraq to confiscating the passports of those suspected of planning to join the IS and its jihad. But France is now instituting an additional approach, recognizing that the "war on terror" – and especially the war against Islamic terrorism – is not merely a traditional fight about nations and territory and power. It is a war about ideology. And so it cannot be fought, or won, simply with bombs and armies, with Kalashnikovs and beheadings and the capturing of combatants, but with ideas and propaganda and the capturing of minds.

 

Since 2012, for instance, the Catholic University of Lyon has offered classes on secularism for imams and other Muslims working in the civic sphere. In the wake of the January attacks, according to recent reports by Elisabeth Bryant, France plans to make such education mandatory across the country, enrolling "hundreds of imams," along with "chaplains working in prisons or the military." Prisons are known to be hotbeds for radical Islam and recruiting for jihad; Coulibaly converted to radical Islam while serving time in Fleury-Mérogis Prison, as did Cherif Kouachi, one of the two brothers who carried out the Jan. 7 Charlie Hebdo attacks. Even more significant, France now is taking its war against radical Islam and racism to the schools, from teacher training to the addition of courses in secularism and ethics to the standard school curriculum. It is an initiative the rest of Europe – and the United States – would be well-advised to consider as well.

 

Such measures mark a major departure from the policies that European governments followed in dealing with their Muslim populations since the arrival of Muslim guest workers from the Middle East and North Africa in the 1970s. For the first several decades, the Muslim communities of Europe operated in something of their own universe, often ignoring European secular traditions as they established and pursued highly religious traditions of their own. In turn, Europe cast a blind eye on their activities, the mixed result of residual guilt over religious discrimination during the Holocaust and the belief – long-since abandoned – that Muslim guest workers would eventually return to their home countries anyway.

 

But they didn't; and as the European Muslim community grew, makeshift prayer spaces in vacant storefronts and cafes became too small to house their congregations. Mosques needed to be built. Yet the communities themselves could not afford to build them, and secular governments refused to provide funds, leaving the way open for (largely) Saudi-sponsored mosques across Europe, where Saudi-sponsored imams preaching a strict, fundamentalist and often violent version of Islam gained influence over Europe's rapidly-growing population of Muslim youth. Even in the past four years, according to Bryant, who cites figures from Le Figaro, "the number of mosques controlled by fundamentalist Salafi preachers [in France] has doubled from 44 to 89."

 

The result: radicalization. Coupled with this has been a similar approach in public schools, where Muslim students have been able to alter curricula to suit their own religious demands. Muslim girls frequently have been permitted to miss co-ed school field trips, for instance, or skip mixed-sex gym classes; and teachers are often threatened so severely by Muslim students when attempting to teach classes about the Holocaust that some have given up the lessons altogether. In such an environment, the powerful reach of recruiters for radical Islam – and for jihadist groups like the Islamic State – find easy prey. Essentially, Europe's current system has opened all the doors for them already. They only have to step through.

 

France's new initiative could begin to change all of this. While some accuse France of trying to replace Islamic fundamentalism with "secular fundamentalism," defenders of the program like Prime Minister Manuel Valls argue rightly that, "Secularism must be applied everywhere, because that is how everyone will be able to live in peace with one another." Whether this will work in the face of the vicious Hydra of Islamic terrorism remains to be seen. Certainly, any change will take time – perhaps as long as a generation, or even more. But if it is idealistic in its aims, it is no less an ideal worth striving for; it was no less a warrior than Napoleon who once observed, "There are but two forces in the world: the sword and the spirit. In the long run, the sword is always vanquished by the spirit."

                                                                       

Contents                                                                                      

                                                             

FROM BUCHENWALD TO EUROPE

Bret Stephens                                   

Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2015

 

In the early spring of 1944 a political prisoner in the Buchenwald concentration camp penned a letter to his wife, Käthe, in Hamburg. “It looks like we have to count on a long separation, but we must hope strongly for a reunion,” wrote the prisoner, a doctor named Hermann da Fonseca-Wollheim. “Today is Palm Sunday, a sunny, wintry day on our mountain. Tonight at six I will listen to Furtwängler’s concert on the radio. Why don’t you, too, tune in to the radio on Sundays and then we can think about each other fervently.”

 

It was the last letter Käthe would receive from Hermann. Six weeks later, on May 13, she was notified of his death, supposedly of disease. Hermann had been arrested by the Gestapo the previous August and held on charges of Ausländerfreundlichkeit, or xenophilia. He was suspected of being friendly to foreign workers, mostly forced laborers from Ukraine, whom he treated in his practice. He had also been overheard saying that sooner or later everybody would have to learn Russian, and was learning some Russian himself. It smacked of defeatism. After the July 1943 firebombing of Hamburg, the Gestapo were keen to make examples of would-be dissenters.

 

In a sense, the Nazis knew their man. Hermann was fluent in English, Spanish, French and Farsi, the first three picked up as a ship’s doctor, the latter from a few years spent in the Persian city of Sultanabad (now known as Arak). His double-barreled surname—the “da Fonseca” being a Portuguese honorific acquired by an adventurous 19th-century ancestor, the “Wollheim” betraying more distant Jewish roots—suggested that xenophilia wasn’t just a political deviation. It ran in the family’s blood. Hermann and Käthe had two sons. Friedrich, the younger one, would grow up to become a doctor like his father. Hermann, the firstborn, would spend his career as a diplomat in the service of the European Commission. He is also my father-in-law. May 8, 1945, the day of the Third Reich’s downfall, was his 11th birthday.

 

At a distance of 70 years, living memories of Germany’s surrender are becoming rare and therefore valuable. Hermann remembers nights in air raid shelters, and the bombs that narrowly missed his house on the Bahrenfelder Marktplatz. He remembers the town-hall wedding of a relative in April 1945, just days before surrender, in which the couple were handed a copy of “Mein Kampf” and instructed to produce sons for the Führer. He remembers walking out of the hall and feeling grateful the spring foliage might provide some cover in the event of an aerial attack. He remembers the endless columns of British armor, and of seeing fliers, distributed by Allied troops, with reports and photos from the liberation of Bergen-Belsen.

 

“The day after the capitulation,” he remembers, “the Hitler Youth organized a kind of farewell ceremony, with a ceremonial striking of the Reichsflagge. My mother said to me, ‘You are not going to that.’ But the mother of a friend said to me afterwards, ‘What a shame, Hermann, that you weren’t there; it was so beautiful.’ ” This was Germany in 1945. The great Wirtschaftswunder—the postwar economic miracle created by sound money, industrial genius and U.S. security—soon cleared out the material wreckage, at least in the West. But what about the moral wreckage?

 

The drama of postwar Germany has revolved around the effort to bury the Nazi corpse by constantly exhuming it for re-examination. The task haunts Germany at every turn, often to good effect but not always. Should Germany’s wartime sins be expiated by subsidizing the spendthrift habits of corrupt Greek governments? Should fear of being accused of xenophobia require Germans to turn a blind eye to Jew-hatred and violent misogyny when the source is Germany’s Muslim minority? It isn’t easy, or ultimately wise, to live life in a state of perpetual atonement.

 

For Hermann, atonement was not the issue: What was a 10-year-old boy, whose father had died at Nazi hands, supposed to atone for? The issue was what to do next. At the University of Hamburg in the 1950s he became a member of the Young European Federalists, just as the Treaty of Rome was ushering the European Economic Community into existence. The treaty ordained the free movement of persons, services and capital—the most xenophilic act in European history, and a posthumous vindication for a doctor who perished in Buchenwald.

 

Today, the EU is beset by massive problems, many of its own making. But not all of them. In France, Marine Le Pen inveighs against immigrants and “globalism” in all its sinister forms, including free trade, and speaks admiringly of Vladimir Putin. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban says his goal is to build an “illiberal new state based on national foundations,” citing China, Russia and Turkey as inspirations. This week’s election in Britain rests partly in the hands of the U.K. Independence Party, which imagines that cutting the country off from its largest trading partner is a good idea. Ausländerfreundlichkeit is becoming verboten again. Think of this column as a reminder of the distance Europe has traveled in 70 years, and why it must not slip back.

 

Contents

                                                                                     

 

On Topic

 

George Galloway and the "Vile Zionist Hyenas": IPT News, May 8, 2015—British MP George Galloway, friend to Hamas in Gaza, Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad and other dictators, lost his bid for re-election to Parliament representing Bradford West Thursday by a 2-1 margin.

European Antisemitism Driving Jews Away From Jewish Life, Says Leading Rabbi (INTERVIEW): Eliezer Sherman, Algemeiner, May 12, 2015—The recent string of attacks against Jews in Europe has driven many Jews away from an active Jewish life, said the president of one of Europe’s leading Orthodox Jewish networks on Tuesday.

Study Exposes the Ugly Depth of European Muslim Anti-Semitism: Abigail R. Esman, IPT, May 12, 2015—A new study published by the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy (ISGAP) confirms what many have long suspected: that the worst crimes against Jews in Europe are perpetrated by (European) Muslims, and that Muslims have been responsible for a "disproportionate" number of anti-Semitic attacks over the past 15 years.

Russia’s Secret Army in Ukraine: Globe & Mail, May 12, 2015 —‘Putin. War” is the bracing title of a report on the Russian military’s deep involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. The principal author is the late Russian dissident Boris Nemtsov, who was shot and killed in February, a short distance from the Kremlin.

 

O’S DANGEROUS POLICIES THREATEN ISRAELI SECURITY, WHILE EU CONFRONTS PAST, & PRESENT, ANTISEMITISM

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:

 

Israel Alone: Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, Apr. 20, 2015 — Recent conversations with senior Israeli officials are shot through with a sense of incredulity. They can’t understand what’s become of U.S. foreign policy.

In France, There’s No Hatred For Any Group Equivalent to That of Jew Hatred: Barbara Kay, National Post, Apr. 21, 2015 — France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls has announced an action plan that will make the battle against hatred into “a great national cause,”…

Former SS Member, on Trial in Germany, Says He Was ‘Morally Complicit’ at Auschwitz: Alison Smale, New York Times, Apr. 21, 2015— Seven decades after the liberation of Auschwitz, a 93-year-old former SS member at the Nazi death camp shuffled into a German court on Tuesday to answer charges of complicity in the murders of 300,000 mostly Hungarian Jews in two months during the summer of 1944.

An Open Letter to Cornel West: Judea Pearl, Jewish Journal, Apr. 21, 2015— Dear Professor West, This is a humble request sent to you from a rank-and-file Jewish professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, where you are scheduled to deliver a keynote address in honor of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, titled “Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity.”

 

On Topic Links

 

Charles Krauthammer on His Distinguished Career in Writing and Ideas: Youtube, Apr. 12, 2015

Washington-Lausanne-Munich?: Martin Sherman, Jerusalem Post, Apr. 23, 2015

Taking Jihad to School – French Programs Emphasize Secularism: Abigail R. Esman, IPT News, Apr. 22, 2015

Former SS Guard: ‘Couldn’t Imagine’ Jews Surviving Auschwitz: Times of Israel, Apr . 23, 2015

On College Campuses, Saving Democracy From Itself: Noah Beck, Algemeiner, Apr. 20, 2015

         

                                                

ISRAEL ALONE                                                                                                           

Bret Stephens                                                                                                                                          

Wall Street Journal, Apr. 20, 2015

 

Recent conversations with senior Israeli officials are shot through with a sense of incredulity. They can’t understand what’s become of U.S. foreign policy.

 

They don’t know how to square Barack Obama’s promises with his policies. They fail to grasp how a president who pledged to work toward the abolition of nuclear weapons is pushing an accord with Tehran that guarantees their proliferation. They are astonished by the nonchalance with which the administration acquiesces in Iran’s regional power plays, or in al Qaeda’s gains in Yemen, or in the Assad regime’s continued use of chemical weapons, or in the battlefield successes of ISIS, or in Russia’s decision to sell advanced missiles to Tehran. They wonder why the president has so much solicitude for Ali Khamenei’s political needs, and so little for Benjamin Netanyahu’s.

 

In a word, the Israelis haven’t yet figured out that what America is isn’t what America was. They need to start thinking about what comes next. The most tempting approach is to wait Mr. Obama out and hope for better days with his successor. Israel and the U.S. have gone through bad patches before—under Ford in the 1970s, Reagan in the early ’80s, Bush in the early ’90s, Clinton in the late ’90s. The partnership always survived the officeholders.

 

So why should it be different this time? Seventy percent of Americans see Israel in a favorable light, according to a February Gallup poll. The presidential candidates from both parties all profess unswerving friendship with the Jewish state, and the Republican candidates actually believe it. Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is broadly unpopular and likely to become more so as the fiascoes continue to roll in.

 

Yet it’s different this time. For two reasons, mainly. First, the administration’s Mideast abdications are creating a set of irreversible realities for which there are no ready U.S. answers. Maybe there were things an American president could have done to help rescue Libya in 2011, Syria in 2013, and Yemen last year. That was before it was too late. But what exactly can any president do about the chaos unfolding now? Shakespeare wrote that there was a tide in the affairs of men “which taken at the flood, leads men on to fortune.” Barack Obama always missed the flood.

 

Now the president is marching us past the point of no return on a nuclear Iran and thence a nuclear Middle East. When that happens, how many Americans will be eager to have their president intervene in somebody else’s nuclear duel? Americans may love Israel, but partly that’s because not a single U.S. soldier has ever died fighting on its behalf. In other words, Mr. Obama is bequeathing not just a more dangerous Middle East but also one the next president will want to touch only with a barge pole. That leaves Israel alone to deal as best as it can with a broadening array of threats: thousands more missiles for Hezbollah, paid for by sanctions relief for Tehran; ISIS on the Golan Heights; an Iran safe, thanks to Russian missiles, from any conceivable Israeli strike.

 

The second reason follows from the first. Previous quarrels between Washington and Jerusalem were mainly about differing Mideast perceptions. Now the main issue is how the U.S. perceives itself. Beginning with Franklin Roosevelt, every U.S. president took the view that strength abroad and strength at home were mutually reinforcing; that global security made us more prosperous, and that prosperity made us more secure.  Then along came Mr. Obama with his mantra of “nation building at home” and his notion that an activist foreign policy is a threat to the social democracy he seeks to build. Under his administration, domestic and foreign policy have been treated as a zero-sum game: If you want more of the former, do less of the latter. The result is a world of disorder, and an Israel that, for the first time in its history, must seek its security with an America that, say what it will, has nobody’s back but its own.

 

How does it do this? By recalling what it was able to do for the first 19 years of its existence, another period when the U.S. was an ambivalent and often suspicious friend and Israel was more upstart state than start-up nation. That was an Israel that was prepared to take strategic gambles because it knew it couldn’t afford to wait on events. It did not consider “international legitimacy” to be a prerequisite for action because it also knew how little such legitimacy was worth. It understood the value of territory and terrain, not least because it had so little of it. It built its deterrent power by constantly taking the military initiative, not constructing defensive wonder-weapons such as Iron Dome. It didn’t mind acting as a foreign policy freelancer, and sometimes even a rogue, as circumstances demanded. “Plucky little Israel” earned the world’s respect and didn’t care, much less beg, for its moral approval.

 

Perhaps the next American president will rescue Israel from having to learn again what it once knew. Israelis would be wise not to count on it.

                                                                       

Contents                                                                                      

   

IN FRANCE, THERE’S NO HATRED FOR ANY GROUP

EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF JEW HATRED                                                                                       

Barbara Kay                                                                                                        

National Post, Apr. 21, 2015

 

France’s Prime Minister Manuel Valls has announced an action plan that will make the battle against hatred into “a great national cause,” a plan that will include awareness programs and enhanced punishment for online hate speech, with stiffer prison sentences for hatred-based crimes. The superficially admirable plan springs from honest outrage on Valls’ part — but outrage that has undergone a disquieting sea change since it was first expressed.

 

After the Charlie Hebdo and kosher-supermarket massacres in January, you may recall, Valls delivered a passionate, widely circulated speech on anti-Semitism in France, declaring the problem of Jewish flight so serious the French Republic must be judged a failure if Jews left en masse. Then, Valls pulled no punches regarding the source of the crisis: “We are at war with terrorism, jihadism and Islamist radicalism.”

 

That January cri du coeur offered truths that were the gift of spontaneity. With time for second thoughts (and who knows what political pressure), the message Valls now delivers is quite different. Last week the prime minister told suburban high school students: “Racism, anti-Semitism, hatred of Muslims, of foreigners and homophobia are increasing in an unbearable manner in our country.” He added, “French Jews should no longer be afraid of being Jewish and French Muslims should no longer be ashamed of being Muslims. Valls’ capitulation to France’s pre-Hebdo default of moral relativism is sad to behold. Valls’ outrage now sees anti-Semitism not as a singular problem, rather as only one of multiple hatreds, and no more distressing than hatred of foreigners (who?), gays and — of course — Muslims.

 

The truth, which Valls understood very well in January, is that there is no hatred for any group in France equivalent to that of Jew hatred, routinely expressed in virulent hate speech, vandalism, beatings and murder. Foreigners, gays and Muslims are not fleeing France. The institutions of foreigners, gays and Muslims are not being guarded around the clock. Fifty-five per cent of hate-driven acts are not happening to foreigners, gays and Muslims, but to Jews (1% of the population). Social and employment-related discrimination are problems for French Muslims, but discrimination is not hatred, and has been historically overcome by many immigrant communities everywhere on the road to integration. Most disturbingly, Valls’ likening of actual Jewish victimhood and legitimate collective Jewish fear of Islamist terrorism to some Muslims’ feelings of shame regarding Islamist terrorism is an offensively false analogy.

 

The only true hate crisis in France is anti-Semitism. In November, 2014, a French poll revealed disturbing levels of anti-Semitism amongst French Muslims, as well as “tolerance for violence targeting Jews among a rather significant percent of the population.” According to Simone Rodan-Benzaquen, Paris-based head of the American Jewish Committee, most Muslims are anti-Semitic, a sentiment that rises in tandem with religious orthodoxy, but which crosses all lines of age, socio-economic status, levels of education and districts. In February, Rodan-Benzaquen confessed herself frankly pessimistic regarding Muslim Judeophobia in France: “It is possible that it is too late,” meaning too late for France to ensure Jewish safety.

 

Seven thousand Jews left France in 2014. France is reaping what she sowed. For many years, pro-Arab French politicians and media willfully misread the normative anti-Semitism of all Arab societies as a by-product of the Middle East conflict. Intent on relativizing what has always been a one-way hatred, French elites demoted Jews from their appropriate status of French nationals, as Ashkenazi Jews have been for more than 200 years, into a “community of immigration,” falsely accusing them of “communautarisme” (disloyalty to French republicanism), and shamelessly mischaracterizing Muslim anti-Semitism as a problem of “the two communities,” both in need of “inter-religious dialogue.”

 

Post-Second World War anti-Semitism has been a serious problem in France since the 1980s, when it was imported from North Africa, where it was endemic. Yet it was, until a few years ago, actually a government policy, in collaboration with France’s pusillanimous media, to ignore hundreds of acts of anti-Semitism so as not to “throw oil on the fire” of Muslim rage. Valls’ nuanced reframing tells us France is not prepared to tackle the root cause of its only existential hate crisis. So French Jews can choose: a continuing siege existence in a nation whose fear of its alienated Muslims trumps solidarity with its integrated Jews; or a new home in Israel, under external siege to be sure, but a nation where Jewish lives are privileged over political correctness. French Jews at least have a choice. The rulers who created the conditions that are forcing the choice don’t. They’re stuck in France. Who will be better off in the end?

                                             

   Barbara Kay is a CIJR Academic Fellow

 

                                                                       

Contents                                                                                      

                                                    

FORMER SS MEMBER, ON TRIAL IN GERMANY,

SAYS HE WAS ‘MORALLY COMPLICIT’ AT AUSCHWITZ                                                                                       

Alison Smale                                                                                            

New York Times, Apr. 21, 2015

 

Seven decades after the liberation of Auschwitz, a 93-year-old former SS member at the Nazi death camp shuffled into a German court on Tuesday to answer charges of complicity in the murders of 300,000 mostly Hungarian Jews in two months during the summer of 1944. With Holocaust survivors looking on, the former SS soldier, Oskar Gröning, certainly one of the last Nazis called to account, read a chilling but clear account of his life. It focused on the autumn of 1942 to the autumn of 1944, when he served in the SS at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

 

The tardiness of the case against Mr. Gröning, a widower who lives in this small town in northern Germany, did nothing to reduce the tension in the makeshift courtroom, normally an assembly hall. He and his accusers can expect to spend much of the next three months here, measuring the march of 20th-century history through the lives of Nazis and their victims.

 

Unlike those tried decades ago, Mr. Gröning does not deny that he was at Auschwitz and that he saw terrible things. The case turns on whether he is not only morally but also criminally responsible for what happened there. After the state prosecutor, Jens Lehmann, read the charges, Mr. Gröning spoke for an hour, then turned to Judge Franz Kompisch and said: “It is beyond question that I am morally complicit. This moral guilt I acknowledge here, before the victims, with regret and humility.” He asked for forgiveness. “As concerns guilt before the law,” he told the judge, “you must decide.”

 

His words riveted dozens of journalists, spectators, relatives of victims and some of the 65 plaintiffs who have joined state prosecutors in the case. After a break for lunch, the judge spent an hour questioning Mr. Gröning, who took his listeners back through decades to the rise and fall of Adolf Hitler. Mr. Gröning said he had been a bank accountant who was conscripted in the fall of 1940 and volunteered for the SS because it seemed “always to be out front” and came back “covered in glory” from the swift Nazi successes in Poland and France, sealing Hitler’s grip on Europe.

 

The defendant, who was lucid almost throughout, said his first doubts about Hitler arose with the invasion of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, which Mr. Gröning said he considered unwise, given Russian tenacity and might. He said that he was responsible for collecting cash belonging to arriving prisoners at Auschwitz, as state prosecutors have charged, but that he also witnessed atrocities. He suggested that his doubts grew almost immediately upon his arrival at Auschwitz, when drunken guards talked of “getting rid of” prisoners.

 

The atrocities he witnessed, he said, included one night in December 1942 when he was roused from bed to help hunt down fleeing prisoners. In the process, he told the court, he saw prisoners herded into a farmhouse and an SS superior tip gas out of a can into an opening. The screams of the prisoners inside “grew louder and more desperate, and after a short time became quieter and then stopped completely,” Mr. Gröning said. “That was the only time I saw a complete gassing,” he said, emphasizing, “I did not take part.”

 

Reading his account with occasional guidance from his two lawyers, Mr. Gröning recalled minute details of his life in the SS, down to the imposing marble and wood carving in the hall where he and his comrades learned of their assignment to Auschwitz. It was presented, he said, as “a duty that will demand more from you than the front” and that had to be kept secret, even from family, but that was vital “to achieving the Final Solution” of eliminating Jews.

 

In November 1942, he recalled, a crying baby was found amid trash discarded by arriving prisoners. The baby’s mother had evidently abandoned it in hopes that she would then be chosen for a work crew and not sent to the gas chamber. A fellow SS member, angered by the cries, beat the infant to death, Mr. Gröning said, adding that he complained to a superior but that no action was taken. The recollections of both the gassing and the dead baby figured prominently in the two lengthy interviews Mr. Gröning gave a decade ago to the BBC and the newsmagazine Der Spiegel. The events notably occurred outside the period in 1944 for which he is being prosecuted.

 

Mr. Gröning’s case not only revives searing questions about individual guilt for Nazi crimes but also highlights the decades of legal inaction over Auschwitz, where an estimated 1.1 million people were killed. About 6,500 members of the SS worked at the camp; only 49 have been convicted of war crimes. Mr. Gröning first started talking about Auschwitz with associates and his two sons after a fellow collector at his stamp club fiercely denied the Holocaust. His case also illustrates how perceptions of the Holocaust and Nazi crimes have shifted over the decades. In 1945, Lüneburg, then in the British Allied sector of Germany, was the site of one of the first trials of former guards at the Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz-Birkenau camps. Eleven of those on trial were executed in December of that year.

 

But retribution swiftly gave way to the need to rebuild Germany. The crimes committed at Auschwitz were at the heart of four big trials in Frankfurt in the 1960s. Then, for decades, little happened, as German prosecutors insisted that evidence had to tie those accused of war crimes directly to atrocities. Mr. Gröning’s prosecution became possible only through the trial of John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian who immigrated to the United States after World War II. He was eventually sentenced in 2011 in Munich to five years in prison for his involvement in the killing of 28,000 Jews at the Sobibor camp in Nazi-occupied Poland. He died in 2012, before his appeal could be heard.

 

For decades before that ruling, prosecutors in Germany had declined to charge anyone with complicity in the Holocaust. One of the people who helped pioneer the shift in German legal thinking was Thomas Walther, a former judge who went to work in 2006 for Germany’s central office for tracking Nazi war crimes, based in Ludwigsburg. He pursued the Demjanjuk case and is considered instrumental in the subsequent trial and sentencing of Mr. Demjanjuk, a former autoworker in Ohio. In Lüneburg, Mr. Walther is the leading lawyer of 11 who are representing the 65 co-plaintiffs, some of whom arrived in recent days, ready to testify.

 

Among them is Eva Fahidi, 90, of Budapest, who lost 49 relatives in the Holocaust, including her mother and sister, who were sent to the gas chambers upon arrival at Auschwitz. She was not satisfied with Mr. Gröning’s testimony and request for forgiveness. “After 70 years, he still behaves this way and is not capable of saying, ‘I am a sinner,’” Ms. Fahidi said. Another survivor, Eva Kor, 81, of Terre Haute, Ind., was also adamant that “feeling guilty doesn’t accomplish anything.” While Ms. Fahidi said she longed for a formal judgment on Mr. Gröning, Ms. Kor argued that he should go out to schools and show “how much Nazism destroyed everybody’s lives.”

 

Markus Goldbach, Ms. Kor’s lawyer, said he thought that the accused had gone further than ever before with his plea for forgiveness. “It is a surprise,” he said, and may throw a fresh light on Mr. Gröning’s claim that he made three requests to be transferred out of Auschwitz.  These perspectives will most likely be debated throughout the trial, which coincides with modern atrocities in the Middle East and the commemoration of the Armenian genocide 100 years ago. “It is an important point in looking at genocidal acts which happen today — that perpetrators perhaps do get taken to court,” Christoph Heubner, of the International Auschwitz Committee in Berlin, said in an interview before the trial. “Even when it is 70 years too late, it is a lingering, lasting signal.”  

 

            Thomas Walther Spoke about the Oskar Gröning case at the CIJR office in January—Ed.                                                                              

Contents                                                                                               

   

AN OPEN LETTER TO CORNEL WEST                                                                                            

Judea Pearl                                                                                                                    

Jewish Journal, Apr. 21, 2015

 

Dear Professor West, This is a humble request sent to you from a rank-and-file Jewish professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, where you are scheduled to deliver a keynote address in honor of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, titled “Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity.” My request may sound odd, perhaps even audacious, but it needs to be said as we are preparing to commemorate the life and legacy of Rabbi Heschel, his moral grandeur and his spiritual audacity.

 

I will be as blunt and straightforward as possible: You should excuse yourself from delivering this lecture. My reasons are also blunt and straightforward: No matter how eloquent your speech and how crafty your words, the audience you will face at UCLA will not be able to take them too seriously in light of your recent decision to become a leading propagandist for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. You have to forgive us for being pedantic in these matters, and perhaps not as flexible and nuanced as one might hope, but our history has taught us the importance of devising crisp and visible litmus tests to distinguish friends from foes. It so happened, and you know it as well as we do, that the term BDS has become our most reliable litmus test. In other words, we have come to equate promoters of BDS ideology with those who seek the destruction of Israel, hence the demise of the Jewish people.

 

Thus, as much as we might try to separate the words you would be saying in honor of Rabbi Heschel from those you uttered in a Feb. 25 interview with David Palumbo-Liu at Stanford (published in Salon), in which you took great pride in promoting cultural and academic boycotts of Israel, our minds will resist the separation. Our minds will be warning us, again and again, that the person speaking before us wants our destruction.

 

The human mind is a funny machine, Professor West, unlike for politicians and entertainers, our mind seeks consistency and coherence in everything that we see and hear. This stubborn mind will therefore not allow us to forget that in your Aug. 12, 2014, interview with Sean Hannity, you could not find even one historical link between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. None! Nada! Blank! Not one word of empathy for a multiethnic society of immigrants who’ve fought 67 years of besiegement and hostility. None! Nada! Blank! Thus, Professor West, you will have to forgive those stubborn minds if they remind your audience that the keynote speaker at the Heschel memorial conference does not represent the ecumenical legacy of Rabbi Heschel (1907-72), but the moral deformity of BDS.

 

I believe your UCLA hosts, and certainly your UCLA audience, will accept your apologies if you decide to cancel your engagement. They would understand.

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!

 

Contents

                                                                                     

 

On Topic

 

Charles Krauthammer on His Distinguished Career in Writing and Ideas: Youtube, Apr. 12, 2015

Washington-Lausanne-Munich?: Martin Sherman, Jerusalem Post, Apr. 23, 2015 —As more and more details emerge, one thing is chillingly clear. Only the dogmatic, the delusional or the disingenuous could deny the deadly dangers that pursuit of Barack Obama’s Iran initiative will almost certainly usher in.

Taking Jihad to School – French Programs Emphasize Secularism: Abigail R. Esman, IPT News, Apr. 22, 2015 —On a street in Paris's popular 6th Arrondissement, men in camouflage wielding Famas assault rifles patiently stand guard throughout the day.

Former SS Guard: ‘Couldn’t Imagine’ Jews Surviving Auschwitz: Times of Israel, Apr . 23, 2015 —A former Auschwitz guard being tried on 300,000 counts of accessory to murder has testified that it was clear to him Jews were not expected to leave the camp in Nazi-occupied Poland alive.

On College Campuses, Saving Democracy From Itself: Noah Beck, Algemeiner, Apr. 20, 2015 —Every democracy must defend itself against those who exploit its liberties to destroy it from within.

 

 

                                                                    

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 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

WEST NEEDS ANOTHER CHURCHILL TO TACKLE INCREASING ISLAMIST & ANTISEMITIC THREATS

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:

 

J’accuse la France: David M. Weinberg, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 15, 2015— Gérard Araud, the French ambassador to the United States, who was previously ambassador to Israel and to the United Nations, said this week that “what is happening in France right now, in a sense, has nothing to do with Israel and the Palestinians.

Paris Killings Aftermath: Symptoms of French Disease: Manfred Gerstenfeld, Arutz Sheva, Jan. 15, 2015— After the recent spate of killings in Paris, French President François Hollande said that, “these fanatics have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”

The Global War on Modernity: Garry Kasparov, Wall Street Journal,  Jan. 20, 2015— The recent terror attacks in Paris at the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, and at a kosher supermarket, leaving 17 people dead, represented the latest offensive in a struggle that most people, even many of its casualties, are unaware is even taking place.

The Last Lion Remembered: Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, Jan. 22, 2014 — Fifty years ago this Saturday, former British prime minister Winston Churchill died at age 90.

 

On Topic Links

 

Does Europe Have No-Go Zones?: Daniel Pipes, The Blaze, Jan. 20, 2014

France’s Moment of Truth: Michael Gurfinkiel, PJ Media, Jan. 16, 2015

The Answer to French Anti-Semitism: Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 15, 2015

In Israel, Debate Over Whether French Jews Should Come — Or Stay Home: William Booth and Ruth Eglash, Washington Post, Jan. 15, 2014

                   

                                       

J’ACCUSE LA FRANCE                                                                                              

David M. Weinberg                                                                                                                 

Jerusalem Post, Jan. 15, 2015

 

Gérard Araud, the French ambassador to the United States, who was previously ambassador to Israel and to the United Nations, said this week that “what is happening in France right now, in a sense, has nothing to do with Israel and the Palestinians. It’s a general trend within Islam toward radicalization that is not coming from the conflict.” He went on to suggest that anti-Semitism in France is isolated to its Muslim community, and that nothing in French policy imputes responsibility for the Hyper Cacher massacre. Wrong. The attacks on Jews in France cannot be viewed in isolation from broader, nefarious intellectual trends in French society toward Jews and Israel. The attacks on Jews in France cannot be considered except in the context of increasingly hostile attitudes in France toward Israel in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

When a discourse of delegitimization of Israel becomes mainstream, as it has in France; when Israel is portrayed as the enemy of all that is good and the repository of all that is evil, as it is in France; and when Paris raises its hand in favor of Palestinian pomposity and Israeli isolation, as it did at the UN Security Council last week – it’s no surprise that vestiges of anti-Semitism buried deep in French society come to the fore. Put another way: Sustained anti-Israel propaganda, with which France is flooded, encourages terrorism.

 

My late father, former MK Zvi (Henry) Weinberg, was a professor of French literature and a respected scholar of sociocultural trends in France. More than 30 years ago, he wrote a book called The Myth of the Jew in France 1967- 1982 in which he dissected the techniques by which highbrow publications such as Le Monde and the upper echelons of French literary society pursued a long campaign of psychological warfare against the Jewish state. Under the mask of high-minded objectivity and fealty to human rights, they adopted narratives fiercely hostile to Israel, ineluctably sliding into the murky waters of anti-Jewish prejudice. My father chronicled the lifting of taboos on public expression of anti-Semitism in France – from Voltaire and the Encyclopédistes of the 18th century; to the French laboratories for “scientific” racism and National Socialism of the 19th century; to French collaboration with the Nazis under the Vichy regime; to President Charles de Gaulle’s notorious “Sermon to the Hebrews” in 1967; to French policies of appeasement toward Palestinian terrorism under presidents Georges Pompidou and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in the 1970s and 1980s; to lingering far-right French preoccupation with Holocaust denial; to the rhetorical excesses, vehemence and consistency of French attacks on Israeli policy ever since the First Lebanon War; to the malicious depredation wrought by the fashionable antagonism to everything Israeli peddled by French intellectuals.

 

Since he wrote the book, the “myth,” or defamation, of the Jew and the Zionist in France has only darkened and deteriorated. “Progressive” circles in the West, which dominate the discourse in France, are deep into a campaign of vilification against Israel and Zionism. They define what Israel “is doing” to the Palestinians as genocide and crimes against humanity, and as a threat to world peace and security. They promote boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. All this, alongside total disregard for the genocidal threats against Israel and Jews by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, and deafness to willful distortions of history and current reality peddled by Mahmoud Abbas. Just last month, the UN General Assembly passed 20 resolutions targeting Israel (supported by France); the European Parliament rejected a working group on anti-Semitism; and the European Court of Justice removed Hamas from its list of terrorist organizations. None of these august bodies had anything to say about the urgent plight of political prisoners under repressive governments in Iran, Venezuela, Mauritania and Saudi Arabia; or the desperate situation of refuges in Syria; or escalating suffering of Christians in the Middle East at the hands of Muslim regimes and radicals.

 

“The preoccupation with Israel has the effect of sanitizing other evils,” Prof. Irwin Cotler of Canada points out. Worse still, says the preeminent international human rights jurist, the obsession with Israel and the exaggeration of Israel’s misdeeds has the effect of legitimizing anti-Semitism against supporters of Israel, such as French Jews. In a 2006 study, the European Jewish Congress demonstrated a clear correlation between one-sided media coverage of the Second Lebanon War, which emphasized the suffering inflicted by Israel on the Lebanese, and the anti-Semitic violence that ensued in France. Roger Cukierman, the former president of the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions (CRIF), wrote that “There is an incompatibility between France’s foreign policy and its internal struggle against anti-Semitism. It is not possible to fight effectively in France against anti-Semitism without doing all that can be done to seek to bring a greater balance in the appreciation of the situation in the Middle East among the general public.”

 

Dr. Tsilla Hershco, an expert on Franco-Israeli relations at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is even blunter. “France’s unbalanced approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict – as reflected in de rigueur Elysee condemnations of Israel’s legitimate wars of self-defense, in media coverage of the conflict, and in slavish and blind support for destructive Palestinian initiatives at the UN – has created an altogether too-comfortable environment for the resurgence of anti-Semitic violence in France,” she has written. "The Jewish question” has played a significant role in the cultural, social and political life of France in the modern era. French historian Patrice Higonnet has written that the fate of Jews in France is a touchstone for evaluation of French history and society as a whole. We can now add that the increasing hostility toward Israel in French Mideast policy is a benchmark for the (im)morality of France, and, alas, a direct cause of attacks in France against Jews.

          

Contents                                                                                      

                                     

 

PARIS KILLINGS AFTERMATH: SYMPTOMS OF FRENCH DISEASE                                                      

Manfred Gerstenfeld                                     

Arutz Sheva, Jan. 15, 2015

 

After the recent spate of killings in Paris, French President François Hollande said that, “these fanatics have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.” Hollande’s words whitewash rather than clarify the problem, but his statement was just one of the many events in the aftermath of the Paris murders which merit further attention. Among world leaders, Hollande is not alone in whitewashing the Muslim identity of criminals. In a speech about the Islamic State movement, President Barack Obama said it was “not ‘Islamic’” and added, “No religion condones the killing of innocents.” This sentiment about the extreme Muslim movement was shared by British Prime Minister David Cameron, who stated, “They boast of their brutality. They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters.”

 

The fact that the Paris murderers were very much Muslims was made even clearer when a variety of Muslim religious leaders and organizations in the Middle East identified with them. One does not even need to go that far. Many Muslim pupils in France refused to participate in the minute of silence, held at schools out of respect for the victims. The murderous events in Paris and the subsequent reactions are still too fresh to allow for a full-fledged assessment. Yet there are already a number of aspects which can be pointed out in the meantime, even if they merit further investigation. First of all, between the two main killing sprees, there were marked differences in motive. The Charlie Hebdo journalists were killed for what they wrote and drew; the Jews in the supermarket were killed for who they were.

 

There is great symbolism in the four Jewish victims having been buried in Israel, even though they are Frenchmen. France has deceived them. The betrayal started long ago. France gave entry to millions of immigrants from a culture hostile to Jews. Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco are among the ten most anti-Semitic countries in the world. These results are from a 2014 ADL study on classic anti-Semitism in the world. The situation in France would have been radically different had there been 500,000 Muslims in the country instead of the actual five million. The number of jihadis could then have been counted in the hundreds, rather than in the thousands, as is now the case. This unselective immigration policy of large anti-Semitic populations might be considered an unconscious form of state anti-Semitism. To make matters worse, only a part of these people have integrated into the general French population and thousands of them have become radicalized.

 

There were other acts over the past few days that carried symbolic meaning. It is understandable that on Friday afternoon the French authorities asked Jewish shop owners to close down their shops, because it wasn’t clear whether or not there were other Muslim killers on the loose. However, the closure of the Great Synagogue of Paris on Friday night by the authorities last happened during the German occupation. Many noticed its symbolism. The only vaguely similar precedent of synagogues closing on the Sabbath, due to threats, is a cancelled synagogue service in 2010 in the small Conservative synagogue of the town of Weesp, in the Netherlands. In this case, the decision was taken by the community leaders after they received a threat. In 2006, on one occasion, the Jewish community of Malmö, Sweden moved the service from the synagogue to a secret location. The Paris unity march, its positive message and the number of participants was impressive. Yet by inviting a variety of dictators who actively suppress freedom of the press, it became tainted. Reporters Without Borders mentions the participation of leaders from Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Algeria and the United Arab Emirates. These are all countries where freedom of the press, among a variety of other freedoms and human rights, are suppressed.

 

The invitation sent by Hollande to the chairman of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas was a direct offense to Israelis and to the Jewish people. Abbas has massively glorified the murder of civilians, Israelis, Jews, and others. Abbas should not have been invited by the French to begin with, and certainly should not have been put in the first row. It was a symptom of France’s recurrent duplicity. It has been said that Netanyahu was hurting the French by calling on all French Jews to immigrate to Israel. In referring to Jews who are native French citizens, the form in which it was initially done was tactless; the call for Aliya should have been phrased differently. Netanyahu could also have remarked to the French leaders that Israel has gone through a period where every restaurant has been obliged to have an armed guard. In the current French reality, police or soldiers are now guarding Jewish day schools so that children can go to class. It would not be an exaggeration to take such measures to protect Jewish restaurants and major shops in France, as well. When the hostage situation in the kosher supermarket became publicly known, French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, a socialist, came to the scene of the crime. This minister said during the past summer’s Protective Edge campaign that he would have participated in pro-Gaza demonstrations had he not been a member of the government. In other words, Cazeneuve would have supported the Islamo-Nazi Hamas movement.

 

Finally, France recently backed the Jordanian UN resolution for the establishment of a Palestinian state. France’s ambassador to the UN, Francois Delattre, claimed that there was an “urgent need to act”. He added, "Our efforts must not stop here. It is our responsibility to try again, before it's too late." It would have been far more truthful for Delattre to admit that France had voted for the resolution primarily to reward the Muslims who had voted massively for Hollande in the last presidential elections. As far as “an urgent need to act” is concerned, the French need to act urgently at home against the extreme violence perpetuated by criminal elements of its Muslim population. This need seems to be far more urgent than their involvement in the Middle East through messing up the Palestinian-Israeli conflict even further…                                        

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

 

Manfred Gerstenfeld is a CIJR Academic Fellow

                                                           

Contents                                                                                                

                                                   

THE GLOBAL WAR ON MODERNITY                                                                                       

Garry Kasparov                                                                                                   

Wall Street Journal, Jan. 20, 2015

 

The recent terror attacks in Paris at the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo, and at a kosher supermarket, leaving 17 people dead, represented the latest offensive in a struggle that most people, even many of its casualties, are unaware is even taking place. Globalization has effectively compressed the world in size, increasing the mobility of goods, capital and labor. Simultaneously this has led to globalization across time, as the 21st century collides with cultures and regimes intent on existing as in centuries past. It is less the famous clash of civilizations than an attempt by these “time travelers” to hold on to their waning authority by stopping the advance of the ideas essential to an open society.

 

Radical Islamists, from the Taliban and al Qaeda to Boko Haram and Islamic State, set the time machine to the Dark Ages and encourage the murder of all who oppose them, often supported by fatwas and funds from terror sponsors like Iran. The religious monarchies in the Middle East are guilty by association, creating favorable conditions for extremism by clamping down on any stirring of freedom. Vladimir Putin wants Russia to exist in the Great Power era of czars and monarchs, dominating its neighbors by force and undisturbed by elections and rights complaints. The post-Communist autocracies, led by Mr. Putin’s closest dictator allies in Belarus and Kazakhstan, exploit ideology only as a means of hanging on to power at any cost. In the East, Kim Jong Un ’s North Korea attempts to freeze time in a Stalinist prison-camp bubble. In the West, Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and the Castros in Cuba use anachronistic socialist propaganda to resist increasing pressure for human rights. What unites the time travelers is their rejection of modernity—or what we should instead call modern values, to replace the obsolete and condescending term “Western values.” With violence and with violent rhetoric, the time travelers’ natural target is often the traditional champion of the rights that threaten them: the United States. The guaranteed freedoms represented by the First Amendment frighten the radical mullahs and dictators more than any drone strike or economic sanction.

 

In addition to bringing these relics into contact and competition with the modern world that threatens their power, globalization provides the time travelers with markets for their natural resources and with the technology they use for murder and repression. Thus they cannot disengage from the modern world entirely. Since the time travelers cannot fight head-to-head with the ideas and prosperity of the Free World, they fall back on their arsenal of ideology, violence and disregard for human life. They combat the lure of free speech and free markets with irrationality: radical religion and nationalism, cults of personality and dogma, hatred and fear. Many politicians and pundits in the Free World seem to think that refusing to acknowledge you are in a fight means you can avoid losing it. But ignoring the reality of the conflict puts more innocents like the Paris victims—instead of trained soldiers and law enforcement—on the front lines. There are no easy ways to deter homegrown terrorists or nuclear-armed dictators, but this culture of denial must end before true progress can be made. We know that facing reality works because the Free World was willing to sacrifice to stop the advance of communism and to bring down the Berlin Wall. The 1990s were a honeymoon period with the peace dividend, the economic benefits of globalization and the miracle of the Internet shrinking the world even further. Yet when the 9/11 terror attacks ended the party, they didn’t dispel, for some, the belief that all we had to do was wait for the obvious advantages of liberal democracy and individual rights to spread on their own. Instead, the mullahs, monarchs and dictators are pushing back against the threat to their time-warped reigns. This is the common thread connecting the Putin attack on Ukraine and the murderous Islam-derived ideology that fuels jihadists like the Paris killers…

 

Although the modern world’s broader goal must be to bring those stuck in the past into the present, it cannot be achieved by force. Presenting an overwhelmingly appealing alternative, for instance, is the best way to blunt the jihadist appeal to young, susceptible Muslims. None of this means coddling or tolerating violent extremists or those who create them, at home or abroad. An open society that cannot defend its citizens will not be open for long. Symbols matter in this fight, symbols like Charlie Hebdo still publishing after the attack, and photographs of world leaders marching together for free speech (with the very notable absence of the supposed leader of the Free World). It is not enough to tell the billions of souls still living in the unfree world that these ideals matter; we also must show them. The terrorists and their teachers and the dictators and their enablers are quick to point out every hypocrisy, every double standard. We cannot compromise because, as Victor Hugo wrote in “ Les Travailleurs de la Mer,” “Men grow accustomed to poison by degrees.”…                                                                                                                                          

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

                                                           

Contents                                                                                                

                                                             

THE LAST LION REMEMBERED                                                                                              

Victor Davis Hanson                                                                                                    

National Review, Jan. 22, 2015

 

Fifty years ago this Saturday, former British prime minister Winston Churchill died at age 90. Churchill is remembered for his multiple nonstop careers as a statesman, cabinet minister, politician, journalist, Nobel laureate historian, and combat veteran. He began his career serving the British military as a Victorian-era mounted lancer and ended it as custodian of Britain’s nuclear deterrent. But he is most renowned for an astounding five-year-tenure as Britain’s wartime prime minister from May 10, 1940, to June 26, 1945, when he was voted out of office not long after the surrender of Nazi Germany.

 

Churchill took over the day Hitler invaded Western Europe. Within six weeks, an isolated Great Britain was left alone facing the Third Reich. What is now the European Union was then either under Nazi occupation, allied with Germany, or ostensibly neutral while favoring Hitler. The United States was not just neutral. It had no intention of entering another European war — at least not until after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor a year and half later. From August 1939 to June 1941, the Soviet Union was an accomplice of the Third Reich. Russian leader Joseph Stalin was supplying Hitler with critical resources to help finish off Great Britain, the last obstacle in Germany’s path of European domination. Some of the British elite wished to cut a peace deal with Hitler to save their empire and keep Britain from being bombed or invaded. They understandably argued that Britain could hardly hold out when Poland, Denmark, Norway the Netherlands, Belgium, and France all had not. Yet Churchill voiced defiance and vowed to keep on fighting. After the fall of France, Churchill readied Britain’s defenses against a Nazi bombing blitz, and then went on the offensive against Italy in the Mediterranean. As much of London went up in flames, Churchill never flinched, despite the deaths of more than 40,000 British civilians. By some estimates, the Soviet Red Army eventually killed three out of four German soldiers who died in World War II. The American economic colossus built more military ships, aircraft, vehicles, and tanks than did any other country during World War II.

 

In comparison with such later huge human and material sacrifices, the original, critical British role in winning World War II is often forgotten. But Britain was the only major power on either side of the war to fight continuously the entire six years, from September 3, 1939, to September 2, 1945. Britain was the only nation of the alliance to have fought Nazi Germany alone without allies. Churchill’s defiant wartime rhetoric anchored the entire moral case against the Third Reich. Unlike the Soviet Union or the United States, Britain entered the war without being attacked, on the principle of protecting independent Poland from Hitler. Unlike America, Britain fought Germany from the first day of the war to its surrender. Unlike Russia, it fought the Japanese from the moment Japan started the Pacific War to the Japanese general surrender.

 

Churchill’s Britain had a far smaller population and economy than either the Soviet Union or the United States. Its industry and army were smaller than Germany’s. Defeat would have meant the end of British civilization. But victory would ensure the end of the British Empire and a future world dominated by the victorious and all-powerful United States and Soviet Union. It was Churchill’s decision that Britain would fight on all fronts of both the European and Pacific theaters. He ordered strategic bombing over occupied Europe, a naval war against the German submarine and surface fleets, and a full-blown land campaign in Burma. He ensured that the Mediterranean stayed open from Gibraltar to Suez. Churchill partnered with America from North Africa to Normandy, and he helped to supply Russia — even as Britain was broke and its manpower exhausted.

 

In the mid-1930s, Churchill first — and loudest — had damned appeasement and warned Europe and the United States about the dangers of an aggressive Nazi Germany. For that prescience, he was labeled a warmonger who wished to revisit the horrors of World War I. After the end of World War II, the lone voice of Churchill cautioned the West that its former wartime ally, the Soviet Union, was creating an “Iron Curtain” and was as ruthless as Hitler’s Germany had been. Again, he was branded a paranoid who unfairly demonized Communists. The wisdom and spirit of Winston Churchill not only saved Britain from the Third Reich, but Western civilization from a Nazi dark age, when there was no other nation willing to take up that defense. Churchill was the greatest military, political, and spiritual leader of the 20th century. The United States has never owed more to a foreign citizen than to Winston Churchill, a monumental presence 50 years after his death.

 

CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!

 

 

Contents           

 

On Topic

 

Does Europe Have No-Go Zones?: Daniel Pipes, The Blaze, Jan. 20, 2014—Comments by Steven Emerson on Fox News have prompted a heated debate over whether predominantly Muslim “no-go zones” exist in Europe.

France’s Moment of Truth: Michael Gurfinkiel, PJ Media, Jan. 16, 2015—The jihadist killing spree in Paris last week (seventeen people murdered, twice as many wounded) has been described as ”France’s 9/11 by Le Monde, the French liberal daily newspaper.

The Answer to French Anti-Semitism: Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 15, 2015 —January 16 is the nine-year anniversary of the beginning of the Ilan Halimi disaster.

In Israel, Debate Over Whether French Jews Should Come — Or Stay Home: William Booth and Ruth Eglash, Washington Post, Jan. 15, 2014—Soon after four Jewish men were killed in a hostage-taking siege at a kosher market in Paris last week, the Israeli leadership leapt to offer refuge.

           

 

 

 

 

               

 

 

 

                      

                

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 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