The new Israelophobes

[JohnLocke]

The new Israelophobes
by Robert Wistrich -- Jerusalem Post
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
---------------
A recent Jewish Chronicle survey revealed a troubling rise in anti-Jewish prejudice in Britain. Nearly one in five people polled believed the Holocaust was "exaggerated." A similar number believed Jews have too much influence and do not want a Jewish prime minister.
(...)
But it is a different virus from the one that prevailed 60 years ago. The emerging multi-cultural society of Britain will not tolerate sieg heils and discredited racist mythology. Nor is this a replay of the traditional anti-Semitism with which I grew up in Britain, with its idiosyncratic mix of aristocratic hauteur, bourgeois snobbery and working-class dislike of "bloody foreigners."
The new-look prejudice is more in tune with the "anti-racist," progressive zeitgeist of the early 21st century.
One of the more distinctive manifestations of this pathology is the sudden convergence of militant Islamists and the hard Left. Islamists may fundamentally disagree with radical Trotskyists about feminism, homosexuality or secularism, but they share an anti-Western, anti-globalist and anti-Zionist agenda....
Anti-Semitism in Britain has also been fuelled by the one-sided reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the BBC and some of the quality British press.
In April 2002 the IDF's operations in Jenin produced mushrooming tales of mass murders, common graves, summary executions and war crimes. The Guardian authoritatively proclaimed that "Jenin already has that aura of infamy that attaches to a crime of especial notoriety." The Times spoke of "killing fields." The Evening Standard talked about "massacre and a cover-up of genocide."
(...)
The progressive mania of solidarity with the Palestinians has done much over the past 30 years to push the British Left into its chronic anti-imperialism of fools – one in which Israel becomes an ersatz America. As I discovered on a recent visit to Britain, it has become impossible in such circles to discuss an issue like Israel's security fence except as an "apartheid barrier" or a manifestation of the "racist" ideology of Zionism.
(...)
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to regard The Independent, The Guardian, the New Statesman or the BBC as deliberately anti-Semitic. The truth is more complex. Elite opinion in Britain subjectively sees itself as anti-anti-Semitic as long as the threat comes from the far Right.
It is genuinely enraged at some Israeli actions, and not always mistaken. But when the defamation of Zionism claims to be progressive or is Palestinian in origin, a strange schizophrenia emerges in which almost everything is permitted under the mask of criticizing Israel.
The new Israelophobes insist that they are true humanists and some even claim to love the Jews, but their compassion appears to be highly selective. Perhaps the time has come to bring a bombed-out Jerusalem bus to the streets of London to jolt the sleeping British conscience.

The writer is professor of European history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a senior research associate at the Shalem Center.
-----------------
Read the rest here.

[JohnLocke]

1. It's hard to be a pro-Israel progressive these days...

[Forkboy]

2. I can imagine

[Resistance]

9. LOL

:party:

[Jim Sagle]

20. But your sympathy is much appreciated.

:thumbsup:

[Forkboy]

21. Dont mention it

:thumbsup:

[kalian]

8. Contradiction in terms....

...no?

[Darranar]

12. It depends on how one defines "pro-Israel".

[Jim Sagle]

19. No.

[Herschel]

10. Indeed

-

[Darranar]

11. The author of this article is not a progressive...

Most posters here probably are, but few who write for JPost qualify, and certainly not this one.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JohnLocke]

5. You seem to think that the author was talking about all Muslims.

"Islamists may fundamentally disagree with radical Trotskyists about feminism, homosexuality or secularism, but they share an anti-Western, anti-globalist and anti-Zionist agenda..."
"Jews may fundamentally disagree with radical Trotskyists about feminism, homosexuality or secularism, but they share an anti-Eastern, anti-soveriegn and anti-Islamic agenda..."

You clearly don't understand what the author means by "Islamist."

[PsychoDad]

25. Islamist...

No such thing.

A Muslim is one who practices Islam. You are either a Muslim or you are not. If you are a Muslim you practice Islam.
If you pratcice Islam you follow the teachings embodied in the Quran and Hadith. If you do not, you have nothing to do with Islam.

Islamist- A term created by the west to furthrt demonize Islam.

Much like saying Jewist or Christist... Doesn't mean much of anything does it? Just confusing.

[JohnLocke]

27. Uh, no.

Unless one is either illiterate or unwilling to understand simple definitions, he or she can see that there is a fundamental difference in being a Muslim and being a Islamist...

Islamist (adj.) 1. Supporting or advocating Islamic fundamentalism
2. (noun) a supporter or advocate of Islamic fundamentalism.

Muslim (adj.) 1. Relating to the Islam. 2. (noun) A follower of the Islamic teachings according to the Koran.

[_Jumper_]

28. That is the PC term

In reality, Islamists support fascism with an Islamic veneer.

[PsychoDad]

30. Yes...

I agree, but many of these radicals have little or nothing to do with real Islam, aside from claiming that the evil they do is in the name of Islam.

The word is a western construct designed to associate Islam with the evil these men do. To insure that Islam is drilled into the minds of americans as being nothing but evil arabs hell bent on distruction.

I refuse to use the name of Islam in such a context, as that is not Islam amy more that what George bush does is Christian, or Aerial Sharon, Jewish.

When's the last time you heard a Palistinian child was murdered by Jewishist soldiers?

Or that Tim McVeygh was a Christianist bomber?

[_Jumper_]

33. Good points

I am anti-religion so I would refer to all religiously motivated violence with a name linking it to the religion. You correctly point out that it doesn't happen in the case of Christian and Jewish terrorists who act in the name of their religion(Eric Rudolph and Baruch Goldstein are just two examples)--with some justification from their religion's teachings. Each of the three Western religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) promote violence and intolerance. It is clearly written in their holy books. There are some teachings that teach peace and tolerance but there is absolutely no excuse for allegedly holy books written by "God" to have contradications on a matter of such importance.

[PsychoDad]

29. Then an Islamist...

By your definition above...

Is a Muslim. A Fundi Muslim, but still a muslim.

[JohnLocke]

31. Well, duh.

All right, let me see how simple I can make it:
All Islamists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Islamists.

[PsychoDad]

32. Be as condenscending as you wish.

In arabic, anyone who practices Islam is a Muslim, from Mu + Islam, meaning one who does or practices Islam.

There is no such thing as an Islamist any more than there is such a thing as a Jewist.

You practice Islam or you do not.
You pratcice Judism or you do not.
You practice Christanity or you do not.
etc...

Radical fundimentalists of any stripe are just that -Radical fundimentalists, and have often lost the message they claim to be operating in the name of. But let's call them for what they are - Radical Fundimentalists.

Words like Islamist are created by the likes of Danial Pipes for the express purpose of Identifying all of Islam (the primary root of the word) with the actions of the few. Demonization through the use of PC buzzwords that the unthinking can parrot and echo the words of their anti-Islamic masters with.

You may wish to allow othere to define the language for you, so as to frame the meaning of the debate to their ends.
Meanwhile Muslims know they are Muslims, and they embody Islam. There is no Islamistization beyond them. :silly:

peace

[Darranar]

4. Yes, of course...

the Left is the main source of anti-semitism... the usual junk.

Anyone remember Le Pen? Was he a "hard leftist"? Was he a "radical Muslim"? I seem to remember "hard leftists" and "radical Muslims" joining with the Jewish community in opposing the guy. Nevertheless, it is he, and Berlusconi, and the other all too popular far rightists and neofascists of Europe (some of whom pretending to be "pro-Israel") who pose the greatest threat to both the Jews and Muslims of Europe.

I don't really understand how leftists calling for multilateralism, respect for international law, and respect for the decisions of the UN are "anti-globalist". Opposing corporate imperialism disguised as "liberation", "free trade", and "globalization" is quite a different matter, and is neither anti-globalist nor anti-Western.

[bemildred]

6. A conspiracy, no doubt.

All them lefties like conspiracies, you know.
:tinfoilhat:

[Jack Rabbit]

16. Consider the source

One of the more distinctive manifestations of this pathology is the sudden convergence of militant Islamists and the hard Left. Islamists may fundamentally disagree with radical Trotskyists about feminism, homosexuality or secularism, but they share an anti-Western, anti-globalist and anti-Zionist agenda.

It came from Conrad Black's fish wrap.

[lefty_mcduff]

7. Great.

"Perhaps the time has come to bring a bombed-out Jerusalem bus to the streets of London to jolt the sleeping British conscience. "

Maybe the writer can look up a little history on the IRA and that pesky little trouble spot - Northern Ireland. The Brits have have had their 'fair share' of terrorism and things being blown up, both in the province and on the mainland. Lots of dead people too.

To think that bringing an burned out Israeli bus to London would somehow 'jolt' the British into 'understanding' terrorism borders on offensive...

[Gimel]

14. but the IRA

usually avoided casualties with their bombings, correct? At least they didn't try to optimize damage by including all the goodies inside their bombs to propel them into anyone close enough. The IRA generally called a warning to the news media or the offices where the bombs went off.

Maybe the British would think a bombed out bus was the only damage caused.

[Spentastic]

15. For crying out loud

The IRA did all kinds of disgusting things on the mainland. Google Tim Parry.

As for "generally" that cuts no ice at all. Often the "warnings" were designed to move fleeing innocents into explosions.

Nail bombs were also extensively used by the IRA. Harrods was one such example.

Undoubtedly the frequency of attacks were less as was the overall loss of life but plenty of the British publice know what terrorism is about.

[lefty_mcduff]

17. You're going to have a hard time believing this

But Israel is not the only country that has had to deal with terrorism. Not the only country that has suffered innocent victims as a result of terrorism. To think that Israeli suffering is somehow more valid, their terrorism more horrific and their suffering more acute than any other country is offensive.

I was raised in N. Ireland. I can assure you that the IRA *did not* 'usually' avoid casualties. in order to *maximize* causalities, they often issued warnings that would see panicking civilians run directly into the path of a waiting bomb and second explosion. They also gave incorrect times so that first responders would run right into buildings, seconds before it blew up, in attempts to clear out civllians. The IRA are certainly *not* a warm and fuzzy 'terrorist lite'.

The British do not need a lesson in terrorism thank you very much. On the other hand, the Israelis could use a lesson from the British on how to *end* terrorism.

[Gimel]

22. It's no surprise

to me that other countries have to deal with terrorism.

Your examples of the more lethal attacks by the IRA are all in Ireland where the conflict is between the two groups, I gather. The bombs set off in London and Manchester generally caused few casualties from what I have recalled.

I would have to really be stupid to think no terrorism exists outside of Israel. Think of Sept 11, 2001 and Moscow and Japan and African nations Tanzania and Kenya. I never said that terrorism exists only in Israel or that Israel alone has suffered in this regard. I only mentioned that the IRA warned in advance of impending terror strikes, which has never occurred in Israel.

Secondary bombs have been timed to go off when assistance to the injured is underway also in the attacks in Israel. That is not unique to your country either.

[_Jumper_]

13. The anti-Semitism card again?

Yeah, the British are pro-Palestinian because they hate Jews more than they hate Arabs. Good one!

[Fight_n_back]

34. Its not a "card"

its a tattoo.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[La_Serpiente]

23. Wholly shit

A recent Jewish Chronicle survey revealed a troubling rise in anti-Jewish prejudice in Britain. Nearly one in five people polled believed the Holocaust was "exaggerated."

I sure would like to see that poll. Do you have a link to it?

[JohnLocke]

24. Here you go.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1129316,00.html

[PsychoDad]

26. Distance and time

Do cloud the memory....

It has been over a generation since the Holocost. Even the Allied liberators knew that people in that time would find the tale of what happened there hard to believe. This is one of the reasons there was so much documentation of the horror.

Distance and time do cloud the memory, particullary of people who were never there. The revisionists know that the most repeated tale often becomes accepted as "history", regardless of truth.