In that coffee shop gutted by Gaza protesters, on the basis of rumour and prejudice, we can glimpse the emergence of cultural anti-Semitism.
For me, the most striking image from Saturday’s big London demo against Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip was the gutted Starbucks coffee shop. On Kensington High Street, opposite the Israeli Embassy, hardcore anti-Israel protesters clashed with police on the evening of 10 January. The violence escalated and some protesters turned their anger towards Starbucks. Other shops were slightly damaged, but the Starbucks was completely destroyed: metal railings were thrown through its windows; fittings were ripped out; coffee machines were smashed to pieces. A special fury was visited upon this little shop.
Why? Because Starbucks funds Israel’s war in Gaza. This Jewish-owned company (CEO: Howard Schultz) is ‘funding Israel’, said protesters; it is donating ‘all of its profits’ from the past two weeks ‘directly to the Israeli army’ (1). One protester against Israel says everyone should avoid Starbucks unless they ‘want to be involved in the slaughter of innocent people’. In the online discussion forum of the UK Muslim Public Affairs Committee, anti-Israel activists warn people to ‘avoid Starbucks like the plague’ (2). You certainly won’t be able to buy a frappuccino in Kensington any time soon, or in West Beirut, where a Starbucks was also forced to close by protesters angry that this corporation ‘donates money to the Israeli military’ (3).
There’s only one problem with these piques of rage over the global, Gazan-massacring coffee corporation: it isn’t true that Starbucks donates money to the Israeli army. It is a rumour, built on myth and misinformation, and even satire mistaken for fact, and spread through the ranks of the anti-Israel lobby by text message and email.
[...]
The Starbucks story also shows how susceptible the anti-Israel movement is to myth and misinformation. Because it is not grounded in any clear anti-imperialist ideas, or shared vision or argument on Israel/Palestine, this grouping can be easily invaded and energised by all sorts of myths, horror stories and hoaxes. Lacking a political anchor, it can be swayed by waves of conspiracy and speculation.
Finally, the destroyed Starbucks store provided a glimpse into the most worrying element of the anti-Israel surge, something which we will explore in more detail on spiked next week: the rise of a new form of anti-Semitism. When Israel is being widely attacked outside of any political context of anti-imperialism, and disconnected from any political understanding of its historic and its new relations with the West, there is a danger that it will come to be seen simply as wicked, as evil, as, at root, a collection of Zionists and Jews doing terrible things to other people. In the return of rumour-mongering, conspiracy theories, store-destroying, widespread demands to ‘boycott Israeli shops’ (most of which are actually Jewish-owned, not Israeli-owned) and in the depictions of Jews as uniquely bloodthirsty, we can see the return of some old prejudices in a new form. What we seem to be witnessing today is the rise, not of old-fashioned racist anti-Semitism, but of cultural anti-Semitism – the projection of disillusionment with Western culture and values on to Israel, also known, in our politically illiterate times, as ‘the Jews’.
"This week I have a very different report from the front line of the anti-Israel marches, which nightly take place near this office. Last Saturday, long before the moronic violence which took place later, I went out in the late afternoon to get some tea and stopped on my way back to speak to a marcher.
She had drawn my eye by carrying a placard comparing the Gaza assault to the German Holocaust against the Jews of Europe. "End the Gaza Holocaust", I think it said. I very politely asked her if she minded if I asked her a question. No, she didn't. What did she mean by the word "Holocaust"?
Now, I don't know if she saw what was coming next and wanted to avoid it, or was just like this anyway. But she didn't answer the question. Not remotely. In short, she blethered. The one thing she would not do was to discuss the precise meaning of the word. I tried again. She still didn't get it. I tried being more direct. Wasn't it misleading, I asked, to compare the one with the other? Other marchers had begun to gather round now, there being nothing more interesting going on just then in that small part of West London. Was I, they inquired, arguing about the numbers?
No, I replied, certainly not. It wasn't a question of numbers. The question was about the nature and intention of the events. Explaining ( repeatedly) that I opposed the Israeli bombing of Gaza, I asked if it wasn't important to use powerful words such as 'Holocaust' only when they were justified. A systematic industrialised extermination of an ethnic group on the basis of homicidal hatred was different from a bombing attack on a city, however bad.
Readers of my Mail on Sunday column will know roughly what my position is. But the interesting thing was that the growing little group simply didn't seem to be able to grasp that point, and regarded me - despite my criticism of Israel - as an enemy. So much for those who have suggested I swallow my scruples and march alongside these people. Round about then, I was -sort of - identified by a person who snapped "Why don't you get your paper to stop telling lies about the Middle East?". I rapidly established that a) he didn't know which paper I work for and b) didn't read it, or its stablemate, but just assumed without looking that anything we said on the subject was untrue. Such people always remind me of the small children who won't eat their breakfast cereal, even though they've never had it before, because they already know they don't like it.
Then I tried another tack. Turning to a second woman, a white-haired but spry person, I said that she looked to me as if she was a long-standing member of the demonstrating classes, so could she recall what she had been doing back in February 1982. She was sharp and -selectively - very well informed. Instantly, she pinpointed the year and recalled a protest against the massacres, in the Sabra and Chatila camps in Beirut, in September of that year. These massacres were perpetrated by Arabs - Lebanese Phalangist Christians - against Arabs - refugees from Israel. But they are of special significance to anti-Israel campaigners because Israeli troops, under the ultimate command of Ariel Sharon, controlled the area and could have prevented them. I agree with the view that this was an Israeli war crime, though one of omission rather than commission. But that wasn't the point. She knew about this because it had been a reason to demonstrate against the Israelis, 27 years ago. She didn't know about the events of February 1982 that concerned me, because Israel hadn't been , even indirectly, involved.
No, I said, I wasn't talking about Sabra and Chatila, but about another massacre, in February 1982. Now, it was plain that she and the other British people in our small debating group didn't know what I was referring to. But a couple of others, who spoke with strong Middle Eastern accents, clearly knew what I was about to say ( see Sunday's column for the item on the Hama massacre) and began howling 'Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame!' at the tops of their voices.
It was a bit like the moment in the remake of 'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers' where all the snatched bodies suddenly spot a surviving un-snatched human and turn on him, pointing, with their mouths open in silent screams. Not merely is it deeply unpleasant to be deliberately howled down by people who passionately want to silence you rather than argue with you. In a street full of hyped-up anti-Israel demonstrators there's a danger of it leading to much worse than that ( by the way, Melanie Phillips has reported alarming and shameful instances of identifiable Orthodox Jews, in the vicinity of these marches, being intimidated or even attacked by demonstrators).
If the others present took any steps to defend me from this aggressive barracking, or were ashamed of it, or angry at it, I didn't notice it. I also believed ( I should point out) that I could not expect any help from the hundreds of police nearby, if I were attacked. They weren't there for that purpose, and would probably blame me for bringing trouble on myself if they did intervene. So I smiled and slipped away quickly before things turned bad. Remember, in all this, that I had clearly stated my opposition to the bombing of Gaza in these conversations, in ways that left no doubt.
In justice, I should add that a little further down the street, I was again recognised, this time by an articulate and well-informed young Arab man, who engaged me in a civilised and useful argument (during which my tea went cold) which we are continuing by e-mail.
In a way, I think I can forgive my hecklers a bit. Arab passion on the subject is strong. It's their part of the world, and we've messed around with it quite a bit. Though I also think they should have the good manners to respect freedom of speech when they are in Britain, and the attitude of their calm and rational compatriot is more likely to advance their cause than yells of 'Shame!' (Shame for what, by the way?).
But what struck me most was that at least some of the British contingent on these demonstrations are in the grip of a wholly mythical and highly selective idea of what happens in the Middle East. They were completely versed in the case against Israel and equally completely unfamiliar with opposing arguments for the Jewish state
Such demonstrations are a sort of sacrament where they reaffirm their anti-Zionist faith. Not all of them have the excuse of youth, or having been educated too late to know any better. They draw strength for their one-sided position from being in the company of others and from not -usually - having their views questioned or challenged. But when they are questioned they are baffled at first, and hostile later.
You get the same thing with some other subjects - capital punishment, unmarried mothers, man-made global warming. For people hold their positions on such issues not out of reason but out of instinct and passion. And so they become confused and angry when they are challenged by anyone who knows more than they do about it, and dares to disagree with them. Views are held not because people have been argued into them, but because those views make them a member of a certain clan or tribe, where they feel comfortable."
Ok. Now this bullshit really has to stop. Now. I mean it.
Melanie Phillips, who goodness knows I have my disagreements with, has a very disturbing blog report on a series of disgusting anti-Semitic attacks in London:
A second Starbucks has been attacked in London by Islamist thugs. The first was smashed up during last weekend’s violent demonstration in Kensington near the Israel embassy. The second, in Whitechapel, was firebombed in the early hours of Tuesday morning. The East London Advertiser reports:
A fire bomb was hurled into the premises of a cafe and coffee bar in London’s East End in the early hours of this morning. It was one of a series of ‘hate’ incidents in Whitechapel which have included anti-Semitic graffiti, believed to be linked to protests over Israel’s operations in Gaza. The thugs hurled the petrol bomb through the front glass door of Starbucks in Whitechapel Road, 300 yards from Brick Lane, at 1am. The manager was trapped in the office at the back and saw the intruders smashing their way into the premises on the CCTV and had to stay hidden.
But why, you may well ask, should the Islamists target Starbucks? The ELA supplies the answer:
Starbucks, whose American chief executive Howard Schultz is Jewish...
Not Israeli, note. Just a Jew. Tesco, whose founder was also a Jew, is likewise being targeted:
Just four hours earlier, a gang of youths hurled a brick at a Tesco delivery van half-a-mile away, then attacked the driver as he drove through Canon Street Road. The 45-year-old driver was later treated for a head injury and needed seven stitches. Cops said the youths were Asian, who were wearing dark tops and may have been seen outside a fast food restaurant earlier. The new Tesco Metro supermarket in Stepney’s Commercial Road was targeted at the weekend when several windows were smashed and the words ‘kill Jews’ was daubed in paint.
Harry’s Place makes the obvious final observation:
Interesting piece from Frank Furedi from Spiked online:
"Giving voice to anti-Semitism In recent years, anti-Israeli sentiments often mutate into anti-Jewish ones.
I have always criticised the tendency of some Zionist commentators to dismiss all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.
Such a defensive knee-jerk reaction simply avoids confronting the issues and undermines the possibility of dialogue.
However, in recent years, especially since the eruption of the latest conflict in Gaza last month, anti-Israeli sentiments often mutate into anti-Jewish ones. Recent events indicate that in Europe the traditional distinction between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish feelings has become confusing and blurred.
During a demonstration earlier this month, the Dutch Socialist Party MP Harry van Bommel called for a new intifada against Israel. Of course he has every right to express this political standpoint. However, he became an accomplice of the anti-Semites by choosing to do nothing when he heard chants of “Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas” and similar anti-Jewish slogans. Many people who should know better prefer to keep quiet when they hear slogans such as “Kill the Jews” or “Jews to the oven” at protest demonstrations.
At a demonstration in London, such chants provoked little reaction from protesters who otherwise regard themselves as progressive anti-racists. Nor did they appear to be embarrassed by the sight of a man dressed up as a racist Jewish caricature - wearing a mask with a long, crooked nose - pretending to eat babies.
Increasingly, protesters are targeting Jews for being Jews. The demand to boycott Israeli goods in practice often means a call to boycott Jewish shops. That’s what George Galloway, British MP for the Respect Party, meant when he called on people to “shut down Israel’s shops”. In his language, that’s another way of saying Jewish-owned businesses. Galloway’s Italian mates don’t share his linguistic subtlety. In Italy, the trade union FLAICA-CUB’s spokesman Giancarlo Desiderati has called for a boycott of Jewish businesses in Rome. A leaflet issued by this outfit informed Romans that goods they purchase in Jewish-owned shops “are tainted by blood”.
European anti-Semitism is not simply a rhetorical act confined to a minority of Islamists or pro-Palestinian protesters. In Britain, Jewish schoolchildren have been castigated for belonging to a people with “blood on their hands”. Their elders sometimes encounter intimidation and regularly report having to face verbal abuse.
What’s truly disturbing about this development is the reluctance of European society to acknowledge and confront acts of anti-Semitism. Take the riots that broke out in Paris on the evening of January 3. If you relied on the European media, you would not have realised that groups of youngsters were shouting “Death to the Jews” while throwing stones at the police.
Probably the saddest example of this accommodation with anti-Semitism comes from Denmark. Historically, Denmark is one of the most enlightened societies in Europe. During World War II, it stood out as the one country were Nazis could find virtually no one who would collaborate with their anti-Jewish policies. That is why it is so sad to discover that a number of Danish school administrators have recommended that Jewish children should not enrol in their schools.
Olav Nielsen, headmaster of Humlehave School in Odense, last week publicly said he will “refuse to accept the wishes of Jewish parents” to place their children at his school because it would create tension with Muslim children. Other headmasters echoed this sentiment, claiming that they were putting children’s safety first. Whatever their intention, these pedagogues were signalling that in the interest of “health and safety” the ghettoisation of Jewish children was a sensible idea.
Outwardly, European societies are hostile to anti-Semitism, particularly in its traditional form. Many European nations have passed laws against Holocaust denial and proudly boast about their numerous Holocaust museums. However, at the same time, Europe is confused about how to deal with the recent outburst of anti-Jewish prejudice.
The official explanation is that the fault lies with Israel’s aggression against Palestinian people. It is frequently suggested that, understandably, anger directed at Israeli aggression sometimes loses its focus and becomes directed at Jews. I have lately been advised that raising concerns about instances of anti-Semitism plays into the hands of Israel and diverts attention from the plight of the people of Gaza.
There is no doubt that the conflict has intensified the frustration and anger of supporters of the Palestinian cause. But it is important to note that the rise of European anti-Semitism is not a direct outcome of the fighting between Israel and Palestinians.
There is considerable evidence that anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe has been on the rise for some time and that it is fuelled by cultural influences that have little to do with events in Gaza.
During the past two decades, and particularly since 2001, anti-Western feelings among European Muslims are often expressed through the language of anti-Semitism. Denunciations of the US are frequently accompanied by the targeting of the Jewish lobby’s alleged influence. Such attitudes have gained momentum throughout this century.
For example, one survey carried out in 2002 indicated that 25 per cent of German respondents took the view that “Jewish influence” on American politics was one important reason why the Bush administration invaded Iraq. The association of Jews with business, finance and the media has encouraged current anti-consumerist and anti-modernist sentiments to regard the influence of “these people” with concern. Is it any surprise that last year there was an explosion of conspiracy theories on the internet which blamed Jewish bankers for the financial crisis?
The most worrying development in Europe is not the visible signs of radical Muslim and far-Right vitriol directed at Jews but the new culture of accommodation.
What has emerged is a slightly embarrassed “see nothing, hear nothing” attitude that shows far too much understanding towards manifestations of anti-Semitism.
Typically the response to such acts is to claim that it is not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israeli. Sometimes even politically correct adherents of diversity and anti-racism manage to switch off when confronted with an anti-Jewish comment.
As a sociologist, I am a member of the online European-Sociologist discussion group. Last week, one of my Muslim colleagues warned us against reading “clever Jewish authors” and advised one of his co-religionists that “true believers should not trust these snakes”. To her credit, one American anti-Zionist sociologist objected to the depiction of Jewish authors as snakes. But European sociologists were far too busy poring over their latest training manual on diversity to express any objection.
That kind of sums up Europe’s cultural accommodation with such loathsome sentiments.
First published by The Australian , 15 January 2009"
"Europe’s Estrangement from Israel By distancing itself from the Jewish state, Europe seeks to deflect the anger of its Muslim population.
I am standing in a queue waiting to buy a train ticket from London to Canterbury. A well-dressed lady standing behind me informs her friend that she “can’t wait till Israel disappears off the face of the earth.” What struck me was not her intense hostility to Israel but the mild-mannered, matter-of-fact tone with which she announced her wish for the annihilation of a nation. It seems that it is okay to condemn and demonize Israel. All of a sudden Israel has become an all-purpose target for a variety of disparate and confused causes. When I ask a group of Pakistani waiters sitting around a table in their restaurant why they “hate” Israel, they casually tell me that it is because Jews are their “religion’s enemy.” Those who are highly educated have their own pet prejudice. One of my young colleagues who teaches media studies in a London-based university was taken aback during a seminar discussion when some of her students insisted that since all the banks are owned by Jews, Israel was responsible for the current global financial crisis.
Increasingly expressions of aversion towards Israel have assumed the status of a taken-for-granted sentiment in many sections of polite European society. Such attitudes are underwritten by powerful cultural forces that communicate the idea that Israel is a malevolent society sui generis. It alone faces regular demands for academic and commercial boycotts. In the media and popular culture it is often portrayed as an intensely racist and barbaric society. Once upon a time its opponents depicted Israel as a guard dog of the West; these days they are more likely to castigate it as the biggest threat to world peace and stability. For a variety of reasons, Israel has come to bear the cross of all of the West’s sins. In Europe in particular, there is a powerful sense of weariness towards Israel. “If only it would go away, then we would have a chance for peace in the Middle East” is the fantasy view of some European officials and writers. Europe’s population agrees. Islamic terrorism is often portrayed as the inevitable consequence of Israel’s policies.
In reality, many Western European officials are worried not just about peace in the Middle East, but also about managing the radicalization of their own Muslim population. Distancing Europe from Israel is seen as necessary for appeasing the anger of Europe’s Muslim population. From this perspective, the problem is not simply Israel but also Europe’s Jewish population. So in order to accommodate what are taken to be Muslim sensibilities, Jewish interests often become a negotiable commodity. For example, in England some teachers are reluctant to discuss the experience of the Holocaust in the classroom in case it alienates children from a Muslim background. An illustration of a similar dynamic at work is shown by the example of Denmark.
It is worth noting that historically Denmark is one of the most enlightened societies in Europe. During the Second World War it stood out as the one country where Nazis could find virtually no one who would collaborate with their anti-Jewish policies. That is why it is so sad to find out that a number of Danish school administrators have recently recommended that Jewish children should not enroll in their schools. It all began last week when Olav Nielsen, headmaster of Humlehave School in Odense, publicly stated that he will “refuse to accept the wishes of Jewish parents” to place their children at his school because it would create tension with the Muslim children. Other headmasters echoed this sentiment, claiming that they were putting children’s safety first. Apparently they are worried that the enrollment of Jewish pupils would upset those of Arab descent and that such tensions could provoke violence. Whatever their intention, these pedagogues were signaling the idea that in the interest of “health and safety” the ghettoization of Jewish children was a sensible idea.
Thankfully many Danes were horrified by this episode, as are many Italians who were shocked when they discovered that a group of trade unionists demanded the “boycott of all Jewish shops in central Rome linked to the Israelite community” on the grounds that these businesses “are tainted by blood.” And many decent people have felt more than a tinge of unease when confronted with the disturbing tendency for anti-Israeli protests to mutate into anti-Semitic ones. But European societies appear disoriented by events in the Middle East and unable to deal with their own problems, so they look for demons elsewhere."
Following the recent Galliano incident, a comparison with other similar anti-semitic outbursts (yes, Mel G gets a mention). A more suprising entrant to this undistinguished competition is Desmond Tutu, who has railed against "the Jewish Lobby," comparing its power to that of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin... has minimized the suffering of those murdered in the Holocaust by asserting that "the gas chambers" made for "a neater death" than did Apartheid. Classy touch, that.
8 comments:
Interesting piece from harry's place on anti-semitism in the independent.
Interesting article on anti-semitism in Spiked!:
Brendan O’Neill
Israel, Starbucks and the new irrationalism
In that coffee shop gutted by Gaza protesters, on the basis of rumour and prejudice, we can glimpse the emergence of cultural anti-Semitism.
For me, the most striking image from Saturday’s big London demo against Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip was the gutted Starbucks coffee shop. On Kensington High Street, opposite the Israeli Embassy, hardcore anti-Israel protesters clashed with police on the evening of 10 January. The violence escalated and some protesters turned their anger towards Starbucks. Other shops were slightly damaged, but the Starbucks was completely destroyed: metal railings were thrown through its windows; fittings were ripped out; coffee machines were smashed to pieces. A special fury was visited upon this little shop.
Why? Because Starbucks funds Israel’s war in Gaza. This Jewish-owned company (CEO: Howard Schultz) is ‘funding Israel’, said protesters; it is donating ‘all of its profits’ from the past two weeks ‘directly to the Israeli army’ (1). One protester against Israel says everyone should avoid Starbucks unless they ‘want to be involved in the slaughter of innocent people’. In the online discussion forum of the UK Muslim Public Affairs Committee, anti-Israel activists warn people to ‘avoid Starbucks like the plague’ (2). You certainly won’t be able to buy a frappuccino in Kensington any time soon, or in West Beirut, where a Starbucks was also forced to close by protesters angry that this corporation ‘donates money to the Israeli military’ (3).
There’s only one problem with these piques of rage over the global, Gazan-massacring coffee corporation: it isn’t true that Starbucks donates money to the Israeli army. It is a rumour, built on myth and misinformation, and even satire mistaken for fact, and spread through the ranks of the anti-Israel lobby by text message and email.
[...]
The Starbucks story also shows how susceptible the anti-Israel movement is to myth and misinformation. Because it is not grounded in any clear anti-imperialist ideas, or shared vision or argument on Israel/Palestine, this grouping can be easily invaded and energised by all sorts of myths, horror stories and hoaxes. Lacking a political anchor, it can be swayed by waves of conspiracy and speculation.
Finally, the destroyed Starbucks store provided a glimpse into the most worrying element of the anti-Israel surge, something which we will explore in more detail on spiked next week: the rise of a new form of anti-Semitism. When Israel is being widely attacked outside of any political context of anti-imperialism, and disconnected from any political understanding of its historic and its new relations with the West, there is a danger that it will come to be seen simply as wicked, as evil, as, at root, a collection of Zionists and Jews doing terrible things to other people. In the return of rumour-mongering, conspiracy theories, store-destroying, widespread demands to ‘boycott Israeli shops’ (most of which are actually Jewish-owned, not Israeli-owned) and in the depictions of Jews as uniquely bloodthirsty, we can see the return of some old prejudices in a new form. What we seem to be witnessing today is the rise, not of old-fashioned racist anti-Semitism, but of cultural anti-Semitism – the projection of disillusionment with Western culture and values on to Israel, also known, in our politically illiterate times, as ‘the Jews’.
I was torn about where best to put this piece; it could have just as easily gone in the Gaza thread.
Howled down by closed minds
Peter Hitchens
"This week I have a very different report from the front line of the anti-Israel marches, which nightly take place near this office. Last Saturday, long before the moronic violence which took place later, I went out in the late afternoon to get some tea and stopped on my way back to speak to a marcher.
She had drawn my eye by carrying a placard comparing the Gaza assault to the German Holocaust against the Jews of Europe. "End the Gaza Holocaust", I think it said. I very politely asked her if she minded if I asked her a question. No, she didn't. What did she mean by the word "Holocaust"?
Now, I don't know if she saw what was coming next and wanted to avoid it, or was just like this anyway. But she didn't answer the question. Not remotely. In short, she blethered. The one thing she would not do was to discuss the precise meaning of the word. I tried again. She still didn't get it. I tried being more direct. Wasn't it misleading, I asked, to compare the one with the other? Other marchers had begun to gather round now, there being nothing more interesting going on just then in that small part of West London. Was I, they inquired, arguing about the numbers?
No, I replied, certainly not. It wasn't a question of numbers. The question was about the nature and intention of the events. Explaining ( repeatedly) that I opposed the Israeli bombing of Gaza, I asked if it wasn't important to use powerful words such as 'Holocaust' only when they were justified. A systematic industrialised extermination of an ethnic group on the basis of homicidal hatred was different from a bombing attack on a city, however bad.
Readers of my Mail on Sunday column will know roughly what my position is. But the interesting thing was that the growing little group simply didn't seem to be able to grasp that point, and regarded me - despite my criticism of Israel - as an enemy. So much for those who have suggested I swallow my scruples and march alongside these people. Round about then, I was -sort of - identified by a person who snapped "Why don't you get your paper to stop telling lies about the Middle East?". I rapidly established that a) he didn't know which paper I work for and b) didn't read it, or its stablemate, but just assumed without looking that anything we said on the subject was untrue. Such people always remind me of the small children who won't eat their breakfast cereal, even though they've never had it before, because they already know they don't like it.
Then I tried another tack. Turning to a second woman, a white-haired but spry person, I said that she looked to me as if she was a long-standing member of the demonstrating classes, so could she recall what she had been doing back in February 1982. She was sharp and -selectively - very well informed. Instantly, she pinpointed the year and recalled a protest against the massacres, in the Sabra and Chatila camps in Beirut, in September of that year. These massacres were perpetrated by Arabs - Lebanese Phalangist Christians - against Arabs - refugees from Israel. But they are of special significance to anti-Israel campaigners because Israeli troops, under the ultimate command of Ariel Sharon, controlled the area and could have prevented them. I agree with the view that this was an Israeli war crime, though one of omission rather than commission. But that wasn't the point. She knew about this because it had been a reason to demonstrate against the Israelis, 27 years ago. She didn't know about the events of February 1982 that concerned me, because Israel hadn't been , even indirectly, involved.
No, I said, I wasn't talking about Sabra and Chatila, but about another massacre, in February 1982. Now, it was plain that she and the other British people in our small debating group didn't know what I was referring to. But a couple of others, who spoke with strong Middle Eastern accents, clearly knew what I was about to say ( see Sunday's column for the item on the Hama massacre) and began howling 'Shame! Shame! Shame! Shame!' at the tops of their voices.
It was a bit like the moment in the remake of 'Invasion of the Bodysnatchers' where all the snatched bodies suddenly spot a surviving un-snatched human and turn on him, pointing, with their mouths open in silent screams. Not merely is it deeply unpleasant to be deliberately howled down by people who passionately want to silence you rather than argue with you. In a street full of hyped-up anti-Israel demonstrators there's a danger of it leading to much worse than that ( by the way, Melanie Phillips has reported alarming and shameful instances of identifiable Orthodox Jews, in the vicinity of these marches, being intimidated or even attacked by demonstrators).
If the others present took any steps to defend me from this aggressive barracking, or were ashamed of it, or angry at it, I didn't notice it. I also believed ( I should point out) that I could not expect any help from the hundreds of police nearby, if I were attacked. They weren't there for that purpose, and would probably blame me for bringing trouble on myself if they did intervene. So I smiled and slipped away quickly before things turned bad. Remember, in all this, that I had clearly stated my opposition to the bombing of Gaza in these conversations, in ways that left no doubt.
In justice, I should add that a little further down the street, I was again recognised, this time by an articulate and well-informed young Arab man, who engaged me in a civilised and useful argument (during which my tea went cold) which we are continuing by e-mail.
In a way, I think I can forgive my hecklers a bit. Arab passion on the subject is strong. It's their part of the world, and we've messed around with it quite a bit. Though I also think they should have the good manners to respect freedom of speech when they are in Britain, and the attitude of their calm and rational compatriot is more likely to advance their cause than yells of 'Shame!' (Shame for what, by the way?).
But what struck me most was that at least some of the British contingent on these demonstrations are in the grip of a wholly mythical and highly selective idea of what happens in the Middle East. They were completely versed in the case against Israel and equally completely unfamiliar with opposing arguments for the Jewish state
Such demonstrations are a sort of sacrament where they reaffirm their anti-Zionist faith. Not all of them have the excuse of youth, or having been educated too late to know any better. They draw strength for their one-sided position from being in the company of others and from not -usually - having their views questioned or challenged. But when they are questioned they are baffled at first, and hostile later.
You get the same thing with some other subjects - capital punishment, unmarried mothers, man-made global warming. For people hold their positions on such issues not out of reason but out of instinct and passion. And so they become confused and angry when they are challenged by anyone who knows more than they do about it, and dares to disagree with them. Views are held not because people have been argued into them, but because those views make them a member of a certain clan or tribe, where they feel comfortable."
Just brilliant. Can't wait to see what he writes about about Hama.
Ok. Now this bullshit really has to stop. Now. I mean it.
Melanie Phillips, who goodness knows I have my disagreements with, has a very disturbing blog report on a series of disgusting anti-Semitic attacks in London:
Molotov Latte To Go, Please
A second Starbucks has been attacked in London by Islamist thugs. The first was smashed up during last weekend’s violent demonstration in Kensington near the Israel embassy. The second, in Whitechapel, was firebombed in the early hours of Tuesday morning. The East London Advertiser reports:
A fire bomb was hurled into the premises of a cafe and coffee bar in London’s East End in the early hours of this morning. It was one of a series of ‘hate’ incidents in Whitechapel which have included anti-Semitic graffiti, believed to be linked to protests over Israel’s operations in Gaza. The thugs hurled the petrol bomb through the front glass door of Starbucks in Whitechapel Road, 300 yards from Brick Lane, at 1am. The manager was trapped in the office at the back and saw the intruders smashing their way into the premises on the CCTV and had to stay hidden.
But why, you may well ask, should the Islamists target Starbucks? The ELA supplies the answer:
Starbucks, whose American chief executive Howard Schultz is Jewish...
Not Israeli, note. Just a Jew. Tesco, whose founder was also a Jew, is likewise being targeted:
Just four hours earlier, a gang of youths hurled a brick at a Tesco delivery van half-a-mile away, then attacked the driver as he drove through Canon Street Road. The 45-year-old driver was later treated for a head injury and needed seven stitches. Cops said the youths were Asian, who were wearing dark tops and may have been seen outside a fast food restaurant earlier. The new Tesco Metro supermarket in Stepney’s Commercial Road was targeted at the weekend when several windows were smashed and the words ‘kill Jews’ was daubed in paint.
Harry’s Place makes the obvious final observation:
And none of this is making the national media!"
Interesting piece from Frank Furedi from Spiked online:
"Giving voice to anti-Semitism
In recent years, anti-Israeli sentiments often mutate into anti-Jewish ones.
I have always criticised the tendency of some Zionist commentators to dismiss all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.
Such a defensive knee-jerk reaction simply avoids confronting the issues and undermines the possibility of dialogue.
However, in recent years, especially since the eruption of the latest conflict in Gaza last month, anti-Israeli sentiments often mutate into anti-Jewish ones. Recent events indicate that in Europe the traditional distinction between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish feelings has become confusing and blurred.
During a demonstration earlier this month, the Dutch Socialist Party MP Harry van Bommel called for a new intifada against Israel. Of course he has every right to express this political standpoint. However, he became an accomplice of the anti-Semites by choosing to do nothing when he heard chants of “Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas” and similar anti-Jewish slogans. Many people who should know better prefer to keep quiet when they hear slogans such as “Kill the Jews” or “Jews to the oven” at protest demonstrations.
At a demonstration in London, such chants provoked little reaction from protesters who otherwise regard themselves as progressive anti-racists. Nor did they appear to be embarrassed by the sight of a man dressed up as a racist Jewish caricature - wearing a mask with a long, crooked nose - pretending to eat babies.
Increasingly, protesters are targeting Jews for being Jews. The demand to boycott Israeli goods in practice often means a call to boycott Jewish shops. That’s what George Galloway, British MP for the Respect Party, meant when he called on people to “shut down Israel’s shops”. In his language, that’s another way of saying Jewish-owned businesses. Galloway’s Italian mates don’t share his linguistic subtlety. In Italy, the trade union FLAICA-CUB’s spokesman Giancarlo Desiderati has called for a boycott of Jewish businesses in Rome. A leaflet issued by this outfit informed Romans that goods they purchase in Jewish-owned shops “are tainted by blood”.
European anti-Semitism is not simply a rhetorical act confined to a minority of Islamists or pro-Palestinian protesters. In Britain, Jewish schoolchildren have been castigated for belonging to a people with “blood on their hands”. Their elders sometimes encounter intimidation and regularly report having to face verbal abuse.
What’s truly disturbing about this development is the reluctance of European society to acknowledge and confront acts of anti-Semitism. Take the riots that broke out in Paris on the evening of January 3. If you relied on the European media, you would not have realised that groups of youngsters were shouting “Death to the Jews” while throwing stones at the police.
Probably the saddest example of this accommodation with anti-Semitism comes from Denmark. Historically, Denmark is one of the most enlightened societies in Europe. During World War II, it stood out as the one country were Nazis could find virtually no one who would collaborate with their anti-Jewish policies. That is why it is so sad to discover that a number of Danish school administrators have recommended that Jewish children should not enrol in their schools.
Olav Nielsen, headmaster of Humlehave School in Odense, last week publicly said he will “refuse to accept the wishes of Jewish parents” to place their children at his school because it would create tension with Muslim children. Other headmasters echoed this sentiment, claiming that they were putting children’s safety first. Whatever their intention, these pedagogues were signalling that in the interest of “health and safety” the ghettoisation of Jewish children was a sensible idea.
Outwardly, European societies are hostile to anti-Semitism, particularly in its traditional form. Many European nations have passed laws against Holocaust denial and proudly boast about their numerous Holocaust museums. However, at the same time, Europe is confused about how to deal with the recent outburst of anti-Jewish prejudice.
The official explanation is that the fault lies with Israel’s aggression against Palestinian people. It is frequently suggested that, understandably, anger directed at Israeli aggression sometimes loses its focus and becomes directed at Jews. I have lately been advised that raising concerns about instances of anti-Semitism plays into the hands of Israel and diverts attention from the plight of the people of Gaza.
There is no doubt that the conflict has intensified the frustration and anger of supporters of the Palestinian cause. But it is important to note that the rise of European anti-Semitism is not a direct outcome of the fighting between Israel and Palestinians.
There is considerable evidence that anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe has been on the rise for some time and that it is fuelled by cultural influences that have little to do with events in Gaza.
During the past two decades, and particularly since 2001, anti-Western feelings among European Muslims are often expressed through the language of anti-Semitism. Denunciations of the US are frequently accompanied by the targeting of the Jewish lobby’s alleged influence. Such attitudes have gained momentum throughout this century.
For example, one survey carried out in 2002 indicated that 25 per cent of German respondents took the view that “Jewish influence” on American politics was one important reason why the Bush administration invaded Iraq. The association of Jews with business, finance and the media has encouraged current anti-consumerist and anti-modernist sentiments to regard the influence of “these people” with concern. Is it any surprise that last year there was an explosion of conspiracy theories on the internet which blamed Jewish bankers for the financial crisis?
The most worrying development in Europe is not the visible signs of radical Muslim and far-Right vitriol directed at Jews but the new culture of accommodation.
What has emerged is a slightly embarrassed “see nothing, hear nothing” attitude that shows far too much understanding towards manifestations of anti-Semitism.
Typically the response to such acts is to claim that it is not anti-Semitic, just anti-Israeli. Sometimes even politically correct adherents of diversity and anti-racism manage to switch off when confronted with an anti-Jewish comment.
As a sociologist, I am a member of the online European-Sociologist discussion group. Last week, one of my Muslim colleagues warned us against reading “clever Jewish authors” and advised one of his co-religionists that “true believers should not trust these snakes”. To her credit, one American anti-Zionist sociologist objected to the depiction of Jewish authors as snakes. But European sociologists were far too busy poring over their latest training manual on diversity to express any objection.
That kind of sums up Europe’s cultural accommodation with such loathsome sentiments.
First published by The Australian , 15 January 2009"
Excellent article from Spiked writer, Frank Furedi:
"Europe’s Estrangement from Israel
By distancing itself from the Jewish state, Europe seeks to deflect the anger of its Muslim population.
I am standing in a queue waiting to buy a train ticket from London to Canterbury. A well-dressed lady standing behind me informs her friend that she “can’t wait till Israel disappears off the face of the earth.” What struck me was not her intense hostility to Israel but the mild-mannered, matter-of-fact tone with which she announced her wish for the annihilation of a nation. It seems that it is okay to condemn and demonize Israel. All of a sudden Israel has become an all-purpose target for a variety of disparate and confused causes. When I ask a group of Pakistani waiters sitting around a table in their restaurant why they “hate” Israel, they casually tell me that it is because Jews are their “religion’s enemy.” Those who are highly educated have their own pet prejudice. One of my young colleagues who teaches media studies in a London-based university was taken aback during a seminar discussion when some of her students insisted that since all the banks are owned by Jews, Israel was responsible for the current global financial crisis.
Increasingly expressions of aversion towards Israel have assumed the status of a taken-for-granted sentiment in many sections of polite European society. Such attitudes are underwritten by powerful cultural forces that communicate the idea that Israel is a malevolent society sui generis. It alone faces regular demands for academic and commercial boycotts. In the media and popular culture it is often portrayed as an intensely racist and barbaric society. Once upon a time its opponents depicted Israel as a guard dog of the West; these days they are more likely to castigate it as the biggest threat to world peace and stability. For a variety of reasons, Israel has come to bear the cross of all of the West’s sins. In Europe in particular, there is a powerful sense of weariness towards Israel. “If only it would go away, then we would have a chance for peace in the Middle East” is the fantasy view of some European officials and writers. Europe’s population agrees. Islamic terrorism is often portrayed as the inevitable consequence of Israel’s policies.
In reality, many Western European officials are worried not just about peace in the Middle East, but also about managing the radicalization of their own Muslim population. Distancing Europe from Israel is seen as necessary for appeasing the anger of Europe’s Muslim population. From this perspective, the problem is not simply Israel but also Europe’s Jewish population. So in order to accommodate what are taken to be Muslim sensibilities, Jewish interests often become a negotiable commodity. For example, in England some teachers are reluctant to discuss the experience of the Holocaust in the classroom in case it alienates children from a Muslim background. An illustration of a similar dynamic at work is shown by the example of Denmark.
It is worth noting that historically Denmark is one of the most enlightened societies in Europe. During the Second World War it stood out as the one country where Nazis could find virtually no one who would collaborate with their anti-Jewish policies. That is why it is so sad to find out that a number of Danish school administrators have recently recommended that Jewish children should not enroll in their schools. It all began last week when Olav Nielsen, headmaster of Humlehave School in Odense, publicly stated that he will “refuse to accept the wishes of Jewish parents” to place their children at his school because it would create tension with the Muslim children. Other headmasters echoed this sentiment, claiming that they were putting children’s safety first. Apparently they are worried that the enrollment of Jewish pupils would upset those of Arab descent and that such tensions could provoke violence. Whatever their intention, these pedagogues were signaling the idea that in the interest of “health and safety” the ghettoization of Jewish children was a sensible idea.
Thankfully many Danes were horrified by this episode, as are many Italians who were shocked when they discovered that a group of trade unionists demanded the “boycott of all Jewish shops in central Rome linked to the Israelite community” on the grounds that these businesses “are tainted by blood.” And many decent people have felt more than a tinge of unease when confronted with the disturbing tendency for anti-Israeli protests to mutate into anti-Semitic ones. But European societies appear disoriented by events in the Middle East and unable to deal with their own problems, so they look for demons elsewhere."
Following the recent Galliano incident, a comparison with other similar anti-semitic outbursts (yes, Mel G gets a mention). A more suprising entrant to this undistinguished competition is Desmond Tutu, who has railed against "the Jewish Lobby," comparing its power to that of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin... has minimized the suffering of those murdered in the Holocaust by asserting that "the gas chambers" made for "a neater death" than did Apartheid. Classy touch, that.
Why Are So Many Public Figures Ranting Against "The Jews"?
by Alan M. Dershowitz
Hudson NY
March 6, 2011
Post a Comment