|
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
| 
May 12 08:13 UTC 2002 |
n the maelstrom
European anti-Semitism reawakens
By Frida Ghitis
Frida Ghitis is a journalist
and author
Published April 7, 2002
The Israeli occupation of
Palestinian territories and
the country's strong-arm
response to the recent wave
of terrorist attacks are
profoundly troubling to
millions of people around
the world. Concern for the
well-being of Palestinians,
however, has provided a
nurturing environment for
an ominous new trend
among many intellectuals,
particularly in Europe, who
now find it safe to express
their once-hidden
anti-Semitism, couching it
in humanitarian expressions
of support for the
Palestinian cause.
On the first evening of Passover, when many
in the Israeli coastal city of Netanya had
gathered to celebrate the holiday, one of the
many difficult subjects discussed around
Israel, and perhaps at the religious services at
the Park Hotel in the center of Netanya, was
the piercingly painful remarks from
Portuguese Nobel laureate Jose Saramago on
a visit to the West Bank town of Ramallah.
All conversation at that Passover table came
to a shattered end when a bomber entered the
hotel and blew himself up. At least 26 Israelis
were killed and scores more were wounded.
Only a couple of days before, Saramago, a
leftist intellectual, had compared Israel to the
Third Reich, and Ramallah to Auschwitz.
The Jews, one could deduce from his
statement, had become today's Nazis.
Racist remarks from right-wing extremists
are nothing new. Among the left, however,
the racism and anti-Semitism that
characterized the first half of the 20th Century
had either faded away or been successfully
concealed. Now reaction to events in Israel
has brought about an explosion of
anti-Semitism from all sectors of European
society and among some of their U.S.
counterparts.
In London, the French ambassador caused a
minor uproar when he was overheard at a
party lamenting: "Why should we be in
danger of World War III because of these
people?" Then he made, and repeated, a
pejorative reference to Israel.
In Italy, on the anniversary of the day the
Allies entered the real Auschwitz--the
infamous factory of death--a local newspaper
released a poll showing 1 in 3 consider their
country's Jews "not real Italians."
The number was a sharp increase from the
previous year's poll, in line with other sharp
rises in anti-Semitism around Europe, like the
enormous jump in attacks against Jewish
institutions in France, which doesn't seem to
give the government much cause for alarm.
Much of the increase can be traced to a
poisoned environment brought on by people
like Saramago, whose inflammatory remarks
make other anti-Semites feel safe to express
their opinions. After all, isn't Israel
mistreating Palestinians?
There is no question that Israel's actions in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip are humiliating
and cruel to Palestinians. Beyond the
enormous death toll in recent months,
Palestinians' lives have become ever more
unbearable as the violence spirals into greater
and greater horror.
But even the most ardent supporter of the
Palestinian cause must see, if looking at the
situation honestly, that the matter is
extremely complicated for Israel, whose
people know terror will strike at any time, in
any place, and who believe--with good
reason--that what is at stake in the conflict is
the survival of their country.
(In a recent article Henry Kissinger argued
that the divisions between the Palestinians
are not between those who want peace and
those who don't, but between those who want
to destroy Israel now and those who want to
make peace to make it easier to destroy
Israel.)
The reality is that the Palestinians are living
miserable lives under an untenable Israeli
occupation, while Israelis are desperately
afraid their country will ultimately be
destroyed.
Still, many look at Israel's actions in a
vacuum, dismissing the complexity of the
situation in favor of a simplistic David versus
Goliath caricature. The Israelis are the
mighty, evil ones, while the downtrodden
Palestinians represent the forces of good.
Given Palestinian supporters' deep concern, it
is puzzling to hear such a deafening silence
from them when it comes to the travails of
Palestinian refugees living in Arab countries.
Palestinians living in Lebanon are not allowed
to work, have no access to social services and
are not permitted to attend Lebanese schools.
The writer Fareed Zakaria has noted that,
while Israel treats the Palestinians like
second-class citizens, it gives them more
rights than most Arab nations give their own
people.
And yet all the rage is focused on Israel.
To a large degree, that is understandable.
Israel is an occupying power. But the total
focus on Israel's actions betrays a troubling
trend. Half a century after "civilized" Europe
gave the world a new meaning for the word
Holocaust, the pangs of guilt have abated.
The very real troubles of the Palestinians
have awakened the dormant, even
unconscious, anti-Semitism of many.
Memo: The conflict in the Middle East fuels
fears stretching beyond the battle zone. On
the European left, anti-Semitism is revived,
sometimes wearing the mask of sympathy for
Palestinians. In Israel, suicide bombings
pound home the message that Jews are
surrounded by enemies. It's no surprise that
Isreal's response has been so determined.
Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune
|
| 42 responses total. |
aruba
|
|
response 1 of 42:
|
May 12 16:04 UTC 2002 |
I'm always troubled when somebody seems to be saying that anyone who
criticizes Israel is an anti-semite.
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 42:
|
May 12 20:22 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 3 of 42:
|
May 12 20:26 UTC 2002 |
I don't see that in this article. I see the statement that Israel is
providing opportunities for its own actions to be criticized, and that
that criticism is being accompanied by expressions of anti-semitic ideas.
Saramago's comparison of Israel to the Third Reich, and Ramallah to
Auschwitz is not an anti-Israeli remark. It isn't a political remark.
It is patently anti-semitic. It both undermines the horror of the
holocaust's extremes and dramatically exaggerates the actions of the IDF
(extreme though they may be, but then they don't have many options and
none of them are attractive) in the West Bank and Gaza.
And just to make it clear, I'm not siding with lk in this discussion,
because nobody in their right mind who wanted to convince people that
they were saying something worth hearing would argue the way he does.
|
aruba
|
|
response 4 of 42:
|
May 12 23:38 UTC 2002 |
See, I don't get that at all. Would it be anti-black people to say that
Idi Amin's actions were reminiscent of the Third Reich? It feels to me
like Israel's actions should stand on their own merit or failings, and
that criticism of them need not imply hatred of all Jews (which is what
anti-semitism is, unless I'm mistaken).
Note I haven't read Mr. Saramago's original remark; I only know what I
read in #0 and #3. If you've read it, Eric, and there is more to it than
what has been presented, please paste it into the item.
|
aruba
|
|
response 5 of 42:
|
May 14 20:18 UTC 2002 |
Eric?
|
other
|
|
response 6 of 42:
|
May 15 00:25 UTC 2002 |
To suggest that the people of Israel, the people Hitler targeted for
genocide, are doing anything remotely like what Hitler did is pure
historical revisionism of the sort that can only be motivated by the
desire to denigrate the Israeli people.
I am in no way saying that to criticize Israel is anti-semitic. I am
saying that to twist the truth of the actions of the Israeli government
and people so far beyond recognition as to suggest any comparison to the
Third Reich simply cannot be a legitimate criticism of Israel but can
only be an expression of anti-semitism.
You said: "I'm always troubled when somebody seems to be saying that
anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite." And I am saying that
Saramago's comment is NOT criticism of Israel, it is either an expression
of anti-semitism or a deranged remark by someone completely out of touch
with reality, or both. It is not a difference of degree, it is a
difference of kind. Can you not see that?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 7 of 42:
|
May 15 14:05 UTC 2002 |
(I can. I'm more inclined to compare Israel to South Africa during the era
of Apartheid. Including, for the sake of fairness, the point that the
Blacks in South Africa weren't much more native there than the whites were.)
|
aruba
|
|
response 8 of 42:
|
May 15 16:00 UTC 2002 |
I did some web searching to try to find the original quote from Saramago.
Unfortunately I couldn't find it in English, and I don't read Portuguese or
Spanish. The Washington Post, The NY Times, and CNN all had nothing on the
story.
Eric, you say that Saramago "can only be motivated by the desire to
denigrate the Israeli people". I don't know for sure, but my impression
is that he is motivated by a desire to publicize the plight of the
Palestinians, which in turn is motivated by a deire to improve their human
rights.
You say that any comparison of Israel's actions to those of the Nazis
"simply cannot be legitimate" and "can only be an expression of
anti-Semitism". Well, no, I don't buy it. That sounds to me like saying
"What you're saying is so outrageous and ridiculous that it can't possibly
be true", without saying *why* you think it's outrageous. In other words,
it's an emotional appeal which is sometimes used to avoid addressing actual
facts. It's also a good way to cover The Big Lie, hich was used by, well,
you know.
Now I really don't want to get bogged down in the specifics of who did
what to whom - I really have no stomach for fighting about this (I forget
Leeron's items as soon as they appear). But to me, as an observer without
a vested interest on either side (though I do have a lot of Jewish
friends, and I have some sense of the connection American Jews feel to
Israel), it does look like the nation of Israel is doing some pretty nasty
and repressive things to the Palestinians. Not without provocation, and
not with abandon, but horrifying nonetheless.
Hitler didn't start out by putting people in ovens. He started on a more
modest program of hate, and he mixed a lot of other things in with it.
It would have been much better if people had seen where this would lead
before they got there. If we wait until a country has committed genocide
before we allow them to be compared with the Nazis, haven't we waited too
long?
|
aruba
|
|
response 9 of 42:
|
May 15 16:30 UTC 2002 |
Note that I'm not saying Israel deserves to be compared to Nazi Germany, nor
that it doesn't. I'm saying that as an uncommitted observer, I read
something like what Saramago said and say, "Well, maybe he's right." Then
I read what Eric wrote, and I think "He's avoiding the question." So if you
think Saramago is off-base, and you care what uncommitted people like me
think, this is your opportunity to convince us. But blowing off the
question doesn't do it.
|
other
|
|
response 10 of 42:
|
May 15 17:29 UTC 2002 |
I've read enough acounts of events (not provided by lk or aaron) and
heard enough relevant history throughout my life to believe that although
Israel is far from blameless for the continuing state of affairs, its
actions in recent events have been targeted at eliminating the threat of
violent attacks on its civilian citizens and have been undertaken with
caution to minimize unnecessary civilian casualties.
The only group perpetuating hatred as a tool of social change here is the
Palestinians. They are in desperate circumstances, and have adopted
desperate measures. Contrast that with the Israeli situation, which is
that throughout its history there have been massed forces on its borders
with the sole intent of completely obliterating it, and only the military
support of the United States has allowed it to develop adequate defense
against that eventuality.
Each group is bent on survival, but Israel is not the one determined to
destroy the other in order to insure its own place. So what question am
I avoiding? The reason *why* I think Saramago's statements are
outrageous is that the whole philosophical spectrum exists between the
position of the Third Reich and that of Israel. And no amount of pro-
Palestinian sophistry can change that.
|
scott
|
|
response 11 of 42:
|
May 15 18:24 UTC 2002 |
There's a presumption that, having lived through Holocaust, the Israelis
couldn't possibly do anything like what the Nazis did. However, those
Israelis are now mostly dead or in nursing homes, and it's a generation or
two later. I hope the presumption is still true about Leeron's generation,
and that he's a lone crank.
|
slynne
|
|
response 12 of 42:
|
May 15 19:18 UTC 2002 |
Come on, I dont think Leeron would advocate genocide.
|
scott
|
|
response 13 of 42:
|
May 15 20:09 UTC 2002 |
Dunno. I don't know Leeron beyond what he posts here on Grex.
In the 1930s and into WWII plenty of otherwise nice people were happy enough
to blame the Jews for their economic woes and to be happy when the government
removed the Jews from their cities. Probably a great many of these Germans
were shocked when they eventually learned that the Jews were being killed
instead of just moved elsewhere. I doubt that a majority actually believed
all that goofy Ayran theology, even in those days when eugenics was popular.
That's why the Nazi propaganda also accused the Jews of plenty of social evils
as well as being "racially impure". Basically the Jews were accused of all
sorts of things, so that different people with different beliefs would each
be able to find something they hated about the Jews.
I haven't seen Leeron advocate genocide. Probably he wouldn't want it to
happen, given the choice. However, he's happy to tell us all about
Palestinian violence, Palestinian corruption, Palestinian lies, and how the
Palestinians are a threat to Israel's very existence.
Sound familiar? Again, I really hope this is just a possibility, and that
there's nobody quietly working behind the scenes for a "final solution" for
the Palestinians. Probably I'm being paranoid, but that doesn't excuse me
from the duty of making sure.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 14 of 42:
|
May 15 21:52 UTC 2002 |
Re #11: That presumption, even when that generation was running the country,
was made by people who don't understand the effects of stress on
the human psyche. Some Holocaust survivors became people of peace,
and many just got on with their lives. But others showed all the
symptoms of various stress disorders (like PTSD), and weren't
necessarily nice or safe people to be around -- and people like that
will do *anything* to protect the people they care about. I think
Holocaust survivors have had both a positive and negative effect
on Israel's culture.
|
senna
|
|
response 15 of 42:
|
May 15 22:44 UTC 2002 |
I don't buy the "comparing Israel to Nazi Germany cannot be anything BUT
anti-semitism" argument at all. I'm sure there can be some anti-semitism with
some of the people making the argument, but I'm much more inclined to think
that people forwarding that argument simply have a different (in my opinion,
an innaccurate) view of the facts. Calling it "automatic anti-semitism" is
just an excuse that allows one to overlook the real cause for such views, be
it a reflection on Israel or a reflection on the commentator. Do I think
Israel is a second incarnation of Nazi Germany? No. I don't think they're
capable of the same sort of genocide, if for no other reason that if they
started down that path, sooner or later a lot of it would start to look
hauntingly familiar and they'd realize what it was before it was too late.
Besides, there wasn't a real terrorism problem with Jews in Germany-there *is*
a problem in Israel.
But dismissing the argument as automatically racist is wrong and shortsighted,
in my opinion.
|
aruba
|
|
response 16 of 42:
|
May 15 23:24 UTC 2002 |
There *was* a problem with terrorism in Germany in the 20s and 30s - the
Nazis generally blamed it on the communists, and people began to believe
that they needed the Nazis to protect them from the communists.
The question, Eric, is "What separates what Israel is doing from what the
Nazis did?" Which is another way of saying, "How do we know they aren't
headed down the same path?"
Again, I'm not saying I know the answer. But it's a legitimate question,
and it should be asked. In fact, it should be asked about a lot of
things, if we want to make sure we never see a repetition of the
holocaust.
|
other
|
|
response 17 of 42:
|
May 16 00:02 UTC 2002 |
1) The German fight against communism was a political fight for the
predominance of one type of government (and perhaps one way of life)
against another, not a fight against those who would destroy the German
people and nation altogether.
2) Israel does not now and never will seek the absolute annhilation of
another people from the face of the Earth. Its sole goal has always been
to simply be allowed to live in peace with its neighbors.
3) The Palestinian people have historically been the hated outcasts of
the Arab nations of the Middle East, as were the Jews in Europe. The
difference is that the plight of the Palestinians was imposed on them by
the Arab nations, and subsequently, by themselves. Israel has ONLY
contributed to that reality by its unwillingness to accept or blindly
open itself to violent attacks against its people.
If ANYONE seriously thinks there are realistic parallels (as opposed to
surface similarities -- and if I have to explain the difference then my
efforts are wasted anyway) between what is going on in Israel and what
went on in the Germany of the 1920's and 1930's, then the only
explanation I can offer is ignorance of history and/or present events, or
the desire to see Israel fall. And there is little doubt that the desire
to see Israel fall is born out of anti-semitism, because Israel is a
Jewish nation. That is its defining characteristic and its sole raison
d'etre.
So yes, Mark, it is a legitimate question to ask, but the answer is
pretty plain to anyone who does a little looking at anything beyond the
headlines of the last few months. Frankly, I think we are all falling
victim to the notion that if something is oft enough repeated, it becomes
accepted as truth. And frankly, I believe that is the desperate strategy
upon which Palestinian hopes are being pinned.
|
scott
|
|
response 18 of 42:
|
May 16 01:29 UTC 2002 |
Re 17:
" Israel does not now and never will seek the absolute annhilation of
another people from the face of the Earth."
No, I don't buy that. I don't doubt it's your genuine sentiment, Eric, but
you're making a very serious promise for a goverment in another country. The
history I've learned as result of curiosity about this situation is that
things are not as cut-and-dried as you claim. Israel *has* taken land from
the Palestinians, and the only argument in favor seems to be that the
Palestinians are nasty people and therefore *deserve* to lose it.
I don't "the desire to see Israel fall", I sincerely hope they continue to
exist and protect a Jewish legacy. Rather, I'm upset that a country with such
noble aims can behave the way they appear to be behaving.
|
senna
|
|
response 19 of 42:
|
May 16 06:46 UTC 2002 |
The "never will seek" claim is only as valid as the same claim made for the
governments of Canada, the United States, Great Britain, France, *germany*,
etc. Right now neither Israel nor any of these other states has any intention
of committing genocide, either in their government or in their populace, but
we've clearly seen that things change and that humanity is capable of
unthinkable brutality. Heck, most Russians under the Communist government
were probably against all forms of Genocide, but that didn't stop it from
happening under Stalin.
I don't think there's anything particularly better or worse about Israel than
about any other country, but their situation is a lot more tense and people
react in interesting ways to such pressure. Is anyone prepared to say that
the United States, under difficult circumstances, is completely incapable of
such injustice? What if they only enslaved a population, would the United
States ever promote SLAVERY?
Nah, could never happen, our founding fathers would never allow it.
|
mdw
|
|
response 20 of 42:
|
May 16 06:49 UTC 2002 |
The USA had a bounty on Indians not much over a century ago.
|
slynne
|
|
response 21 of 42:
|
May 16 13:51 UTC 2002 |
Re#17 (#2) If Israel's goal is to simply live in peace with its
neighbors, why did they build all those settlements in Gaza and the
West Bank when it is pretty obvious that those settlements are one of
the biggest things preventing peace. I agree that there is no evidence
that Israel has a desire to annhilate the Palestinian people but they
dont exactly seem to want them to live in any way but under Israeli
control.
Anyhow, I think some comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany is fair but
ineffective. It kind of reminds me of when my sister and I fight and
one of us says "youre just like mom" We dont say it because it is true
(although we both are much more like our mother than Israel is like
Nazi Germany), we say it to be hurtful. I think a lot of time people do
compare Israel to the Nazis just to be hurtful and there is some anti-
semitism in that even if there is *some* truth to what they are saying.
Perhaps it is better to compare Israel to other regimes. e.g. Israel is
like Russia in the Russia/Chechnya conflict. Israel is like white South
Africa during apartheid. Or maybe we can avoid the comparisons
altogether since none are perfect and just focus on any human rights
violations there might be using some neutral guildline (maybe the one
in the ICC treaty?)
|
other
|
|
response 22 of 42:
|
May 16 15:05 UTC 2002 |
One of the greatest faults in the approach Israel takes (as far as I'm
concerned) is indeed the policy on settlements. I'm not sufficiently
knowledgeable on the subject to say what the exactly right policy should
be, but I'm certain that whatever it is, it is more limiting than the
current one.
I find legitimate arguments on both sides of the settlement question. It
is a very grey area.
|
klg
|
|
response 23 of 42:
|
May 18 03:22 UTC 2002 |
Perhaps slynne could explain for us how the settlements are
preventing peace in Gaza and Samaria/Judea, but did not prevent
the signing of a peace treaty with Egypt??
|
bdh3
|
|
response 24 of 42:
|
May 18 07:59 UTC 2002 |
Perhaps slynne cannot, or I got there first, doesn't matter.
The 'disputed land' between Egypt and Israel was a completely
different matter and doesn't matter no how with regard to
the current problem. (Not to mention that only a fool would
choose to live there.) The situation with regard to the nascient
'Palastinian State' is simply that you cannot be a sovereign
nation if you have 'enclaves' of foreign nation's citizens
strategically placed with fine regard to military theory
protected by such nation's military inside your own borders.
No matter how friendly (and the PLO and the IDF ain't exactly
best buds right about now) it just isn't how such things work.
New Mexico ain't part of the Republic of Mexico no matter how
much they have in common nor should the state of 'palestine'
or whatever it eventually calls itself (what a stupid name)
be forced to tolerate such any differently. Either you are an
'occupied territory' or you are a sovereign nation. Fish or
Fowl, Pregnant or not.
|