|
|
|
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.
I'm always troubled when somebody seems to be saying that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite.
This response has been erased.
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.
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.
Eric?
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?
(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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
Come on, I dont think Leeron would advocate genocide.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The USA had a bounty on Indians not much over a century ago.
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?)
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.
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??
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.
re: "you cannot be a sovereign nation if you have 'enclaves' of foreign nation's citizens strategically placed with fine regard to military theory" So that explains why the presence of W. Berlin kept E. Germany from being a "sovereign nation," I guess. That must be news to them.
re#23 There are Israeli settlements within Egypt's borders?
After the '67 war, Israel established settlements in land taken from Egypt (the Sinai). As has been mentioned here numerous times, those settlements were dismantled under the orders of none other than Ariel Sharon (despite strenuous protests) as a result of the peace negotiations that returned the Sinai to Egypt.
Right, and the settlers were compensated (mostly by the United States as I understand it) quite well. So they moved out of the settlements and peace was achieved. In other words, there currently are no Isreali settlements within Egypt's borders. Something similar will probably be necessary with the West Bank and Gaza.
Are the Arab villages in Israel an obstacle to peace, too? Or just the Jewish villages in Judea/Samaria? Please try to answer without invoking a double standard.
no, but teh *residents* of those villages sure are! no double standard.
Jewish villages under Israeli control would be the impediment, klg. Does Israel control the Arab villages within its borders? ARe the citizens of those villages Israeli citizens? Jewish villages in a Palestinian state where that state has control of those villages and where the occupants of those villages are citizens of the Palestinian state would not be an obstacle to peace, imho.
tsty is just being stupid, I guess. But slynne is asking questions that are subject for negotiation - in which Nobel Peace Prize laureate Yasser Arafat has so often demonstrated having little, if no interest.
Has the option of leaving the settlements (and any settlers who want to stay) under Palestinian control been presented to Arafat?
I don't know. Has he proposed it to the Israelis?
Beats me.
I'd guess that a Nobel Peace Prize laureate should at least have brought it up.
Re #10: The desperation of the Palestinians is self-imposed (or by their leadership, which is the same thing). They had things much better before they embarked on the most recent campaign of murder. The checkpoints would have been forced out of existence by international pressure if the bombers weren't enough to trump European hypocrisy. Re #13: Leeron has also posted how the groups actually doing the dirty work are very small (like Hamas, at perhaps 1500 members in the territories). It's really easy to view the Palestinian regime as grossly corrupt when their 30,000-strong "police" force doesn't arrest and detain a corps 1/20 their strength whose very presence violates the terms of the Oslo agreement under which the PA exists. If Leeron did start arguing for genocide, there would be no difficulty at all using his own posted facts and figures to refute him. For this reason alone I doubt that he thinks genocide is a solution; he's far too logical for that. I'm of the opinion that genocide is unlikely because the USA stands for restraint. This is true unless and until there is a general demand for jihad against the USA, and we have another event like 9/11 (or worse, such as an NBC attack). Then all bets are off, and I will vote for the candidate who promises to do the worst to them that we possibly can. Such an attack on us frees us to respond in kind. We have *how* many shell's worth of VX gas in Indiana? *How* fast could we whip up tons of weapons-grade anthrax? We have *how* many nukes in our inventory? Let Islam fear to awaken the sleeping giant, because there may not be an Islamic world left for long if they do. If Pakistan and India go toe-to-toe with nukes, it'll acquaint the Muslims with radioactive craters and REAL hell for the first time. If it happens, let's hope such an event sobers up the theology-drunk fanaatics enough to make them sane. I don't know what else will.
Lets hope India and Pakistan don't as we would likely feel the effects as well.
I wonder what it would take to sober russ up from his MIGHTY USA (basking in reflective glory) high and make him sane?
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss