Hamas Presents Protocols of Elders of Zion

This disturbing news item from an Hamas run TV station broadcasting from a secret location in Gaza was sent to us by Felix Posen who comments, "Another rerason why one cannot do business with these people - except of course Jimmy Carter":

The following are excerpts from an interview with Hamas Culture Minister 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh. The interview aired on Al-Aqsa TV on April 9, 2008

The Protocols... is The Faith that Every Jew Harbors in His Heart: "I return to this book – The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – time and again. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the faith that every Jew harbors in his heart. This book was published by Al-Nafiza publishers in Cairo."

The Introduction to the Study Was Written by Egypt's Mufti: "The research was conducted by Ahmad Hijaz Al-Saqqa and Hisham Khadhr, and the introduction was written by Dr. 'Ali Gum'a, who later became, and still is, the Mufti of Egypt. Al-'Aqqad once called this [i.e. the Protocols] a 'hellish' book, in his introduction to the translation by Mahmoud Khalifa Al-Tunisi, which is the most famous translation, which fate had me read in 1971 or 1972.

TO VIEW FULL ITEM CLICK HERE

An extreme view?

This cartoon comes from a blog highlighted by Felix. It is almost too controversial to comment on. But some of you may have thoughts you wish to express. It certainly qualifies as thought provoking - and provokative. As does the blog it comes from which you can find if you click here. You may find it shocking. Your comments are welcome.

Forum for combating anti-Semitism in London

Jane writes: I note that "MP John Mann mentioned that the government of Britain proposes to host next year's conference of the Forum for combating anti-Semitism in London", and wondered if the Media Council might be able to do something as part of this? With so much of the pan-Arab press in London, it could be a useful event if pitched right - might possibly reach an audience who wouldn't pay attention to this year's event in Israel.

At the end of the annual conference of the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism, which was held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 24-25 February 2008, two delegates announced their intention to establish an international coalition for combating antisemitism. The announcement, made by Irwin Cotler, Canadian MP and former Minister of Justice, and John Mann, British MP, won the support of the conference's co-chairs, Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Minister Isaac Herzog, who is also Minister of Diaspora Affairs and the Fight Against Antisemitism.
MP Mann mentioned that the government of Britain proposes to host next year's conference of the Forum in London.

Holocaust Inversion

By MANFRED GERSTENFELD - The Wall Street Journal
January 28, 2008

Solemn ceremonies around Europe marked yesterday's Holocaust Memorial Day. But 63 years after the liberation of Auschwitz on Jan. 27, 1945, one of the most perfidious forms of contemporary anti-Semitism is Holocaust inversion -- the portrayal of Israelis and Jews as modern-day Nazis. The charge is that Israel supposedly behaves toward the Palestinians as Germany did to the Jews in World War II.

This distortion of history is particularly widespread in the Muslim world. But it is also gaining currency in the West, where it is no longer just the domain of the extreme Left. Last year, a German bishop visiting Israel compared Ramallah to the Warsaw Ghetto. Portuguese Nobel laureate for literature José Saramago in 2002 compared Ramallah even to Auschwitz.

Cartoons are a particularly popular medium to express such distortions. Portraying Jews as Nazis, Israeli prime ministers as Hitler and the Star of David as equal to the swastika is almost routine in the Arab world. This trend has also reached Europe, where during the anti-Iraq war protests, for instance, many demonstrators held placards depicting similar images. In the Netherlands you can now buy T-shirts and greeting cards showing Anne Frank wearing a kaffiyeh, the traditional Palestinian headdress, wrapped around her neck like a scarf. In other words, the Palestinians are the new Jews, which makes the Israelis the new Nazis.

Holocaust-inversion caricatures appear also occasionally in Western mainstream papers. In July 2006, the Norwegian daily Dagbladet carried a drawing showing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as SS Major Amon Göth, the commander of a Nazi death camp depicted in Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List." A 2002 cartoon in the Greek daily Ethnos showed two Jewish soldiers dressed as Nazis, with Stars of David on their helmets, thrusting knives into Arabs. Its caption reads: "Do not feel guilty, my brother. We were not in Auschwitz and Dachau to suffer, but to learn."

Many Western Holocaust inverters may simply aim to bolster the Arab and Palestinian cause by demonizing Israel. The most extreme, though, aim at the destruction of Israel by first undermining its moral legitimacy. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki explained it at a December 2006 conference in Tehran of Holocaust deniers and minimizers: "If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt."

Whatever the motives, Holocaust inversion has made major inroads in Europe. In a 2004 poll conducted by the University of Bielefeld, 51% of German respondents agreed with the statement that: "What the state of Israel does today to the Palestinians, is in principle not different from what the Nazis did in the Third Reich to the Jews."

Holocaust Memorial Day should not only be a day of commemoration. Its meaning is undone when at the same time new versions of the old anti-Semitic demonizations are gaining ground.

Mr. Gerstenfeld is chairman of the board of fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

On Antisemitism

An excellent essay on Antisemitism from the Chief Rabbi of the UK.  With thanks to Felix.

We face a new kind of hatred

15 November 2007

By By Sir Jonathan Sacks

On January 27, 2000, heads of state or senior representatives of 44 governments met in Stockholm to commit themselves to a continuing programme of Holocaust remembrance and the fight against antisemitism. Barely two years later, synagogues and Jewish schools in France and Belgium were being firebombed and Jews were being attacked in the streets.

The distinguished Chief Rabbi of France, Rabbi Joseph Sitruk, advised Jews not to wear yarmulkas in the street. The French Jewish intellectual Alain Finkielkraut wrote: “The hearts of the Jews are heavy. For the first time since the war, they are afraid.” Shmuel Trigano, professor of sociology at the University of Paris, openly questioned whether there was a future for Jews in France. Never again had become ever again.

On February 28, 2002, I gave my first speech on the new antisemitism. Never before had I spoken on the subject. I had grown up without a single experience of antisemitism. I believed, and still do, that the whole enterprise of basing Jewish identity on memories of persecution was a mistake. The distinguished Holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz reached the same conclusion at the end of her life. She warned of the danger of a whole generation of children growing up knowing about the Greeks and how they lived, the Romans and how they lived, the Jews and how they died. I wrote Radical Then, Radical Now, specifically to focus Jewish identity away from death to life, suffering to celebration, grief to joy.

The return of antisemitism, after 60 years of Holocaust education, interfaith dialogue and antiracist legislation, is a major event in the history of the world. Far-sighted historians like Bernard Lewis and Robert Wistrich had been sounding the warning since the 1980s. Already in the 1990s, Harvard literary scholar Ruth Wisse argued that antisemitism was the most successful ideology of the 20th century. German fascism, she said, came and went. Soviet communism came and went. Antisemitism came and stayed.

Click here to read on

J'accuse, Sort Of

Rafi Dajani of ATFP send this item in which "Slate" founder Michael Kinsley explores the paradox of how right-wing pro-Israel organizations in the U.S. perpetuate the very anti-Semitic stereotypes they object to by touting their own political influence publicly:

By Michael Kinsley, In Slate , Opinion October 3, 2007
Rep. James P. Moran of Virginia, already a locally famous foot-in-mouther, went national last week by declaring at an anti-war rally that "if it was not for the strong support of the Jewish community," the war against Iraq would not be happening. He said that Jewish "leaders" are "influential enough" to reverse the policy "and I think they should."

The thunderous rush of politicians of all stripes to denounce Moran's remarks as complete nonsense might suggest to the suspicious mind that they are not complete nonsense. Moran himself almost immediately denounced his own words as "insensitive." He said he was using the term "Jewish community" as a shorthand for all "organizations in this country," which would certainly be a first if it were at all plausible.

FOR FULL STORY CLICK HERE

Muslims and Anti-Semitsm

Davis has long been offended by the output of MPAC which he has regarded as quasi-racist. So for once they seem to be behaving better - anyhow, this piece dated 29 July seemed worthy of blogging:

The responsibility of the Muslims and the Jews in the West is tremendous: living together, both citizens of the same countries, they should raise their voices in the name of justice and mutual respect. In France, for example, one finds a unique situation; namely, the largest Jewish and Muslim communities in Europe living together. In America, we find the same situation with two important religious communities sharing the same citizenship. That itself should be an ideal opportunity for people to learn to live in harmony. However, the reality is that problems are on the rise. While tensions have been incidental in the past, the situation has been exacerbated during the second intifada, and more recently, during the upsurge of violence in the Middle East. The trend appears to be that the Muslim immigrants as well as native European and American Muslims are becoming extremely sensitive to the events occurring in Palestine and are demonstrating their frustration quite overtly.

TO VIEW FULL ITEM CLICK HERE

Littlejohn's documentary on antisemitism

This item, from a media circulation forwarded by Felix, is problematic, both in the sense that the BBC does indeed fail to take antisemitism seriously, and in the sense that Littlejohn has a point in content but is offensive in form.

A couple of years ago when the BBC approached me to make what they called an 'authored documentary' on any subject about which I felt passionate, I proposed an investigation into modern anti-Semitism to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Cable Street last October.

My thesis was that while the Far Right hasn't gone away, the motive force behind the recent increase in anti-Jewish activity comes from the Fascist Left and the Islamonazis.

It was an idea which vanished into the bowels of the commissioning process, never to return. Eventually the Beeb told me that they weren't making any more 'authored documentaries'.
I couldn't help wondering what might have happened if I'd put forward a programme on 'Islamophobia'. It would probably have become a six-part, primetime series and I'd have been up for a BAFTA by now.

But I persevered and Channel 4 picked up the project. You can see the results on Monday night.
When some people heard I was making the programme, their first reaction was: 'I didn't know you were Jewish.'

I'm not, but what's that got to do with the price of gefilte fish? They simply couldn't comprehend why a non-Jew would be in the slightest bit interested in investigating anti-Semitism.

If I had been making a film about Islamophobia, no one would have asked me if I was Muslim.

The Labour MP John Mann told me that he experienced exactly the same reaction when he instigated a parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism.

Full Article

UK Teachers Drop the Holocaust

Felix sends this disturbing item:

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offendingMuslim pupils, a government-backed study has revealed. It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear ofupsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial. There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - whereChristians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessonsoften contradict what is taught in local mosques. The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as avehicle for promoting political correctness.'

TO VIEW FULL ITEM CLICK HERE

Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism

Felix writes: This is extremely well articulated. You should certainly read it to understand what has been happening for many decades.

The false accusation of Holocaust inversion-the portraying of Israel, Israelis, and Jews as Nazis-is a major distortion of history. This anti-Semitic concept claims that Israel behaves against the Palestinians as Germany did to the Jews in World War II. "The victims have become perpetrators," is one major slogan of the inverters. By shifting the moral responsibility for genocide, Holocaust inversion also contains elements of Holocaust denial.

TO VIEW FULL ITEM CLICK HERE

"Bush = Hitler" in the BBC Newsroom

Outrageous and unexpected low, despite the fact we're talking about the BBC. I would not even expect this in my (notoriously lefty) university. Not by a long way.

From 18 Doughty Street:

(Video player requires Flash Player.)

Is it cos Levy is a Jew?

Daniel Finkelstein on the Times blog:

Now. Lord Levy.

Yesterday The Times ran this:

Lord Levy’s rabbi, Yitzchak Schochet, said Jews were scared that the inquiry would lead to “one Jew being hung out to dry”.

Firstly, is this true? Yes, I think it is. Michael Levy is respected in the Jewish community for his work for charity and his success in business and politics. And Jews (including me) are saddened that he is in trouble. There is also a feeling of community embarrassment that a prominent and successful Jew should end up as the one in the firing line.

Second, has there been anti-Semitism in coverage of Lord Levy's plight? Well, from time to time, there have been careless headlines (e.g. You've got to pick a pocket or two) and descriptions (bouffant hairdo and so on) that Jews are sensitive about and might have been better avoided.

But, third, is Lord Levy in the spotlight because he is a Jew? Has he been "hung out to dry" because he is the only Jew involved? Is anti-Semitism the cause of the position he finds himself in?

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Rabbi Schochet is making a terrible error. If you start hinting at anti-Semitism whenever a Jew is in trouble you undermine the very idea. You make people wary of real claims, ones justified by the evidence.

There's enough genuine anti-Semitism about. And it is difficult enough to make people take it seriously.

What's "new" about the New Anti-Semitism?

SENT ROUND BY AFIF: There is no New Anti-Semitism by Rabbi Michael Lerner

The N.Y. Times reported on January 31 about the most recent attempt by the American Jewish Community to conflate intense criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. In a neat little example of slippery slope, the report on "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld moves from exposing the actual anti-Semitism of those who deny Israel's right to exist—and hence deny to the Jewish people the same right to national self-determination that they grant to every other people on the planet (the anti-war group International Answer is a good example of that, though Rosenfeld doesn't cite them)—to those who powerfully and consistently attack Israel's policies toward Palestinians, see Israel as racist the way that it treats Israeli-Arabs (or even Sephardic Jews), or who analogize Israel's policies to those of apartheid as instituted by South Africa.

TO VIEW FULL ITEM CLICK HERE

Not for the first time she has a point...

November 24, 2006

The famed objectivity of the BBC - from Melanie Phillips' blog:

There has been a vicious racist and antisemitic attack in Paris after a football game in which the Israeli team Hapoel Tel Aviv beat Paris-Saint Germain. A black plainclothes police officer came to the defence of a French Jewish Hapoel supporter after he was attacked by PSG fans. The officer shot dead one PSG fan and wounded another.

Here is how the Associated Press reported the incident:

‘They were shouting “filthy Jew” and when they saw our colleague, who comes from the Caribbean, they also yelled, “filthy black, we’re going to get you,” said a police union official, Luc Poignant. Police said the two men who were shot were members of PSG’s far-right fan base that has a notorious violent and racist history. Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said some PSG fans shouted ‘Death to the Jew’ as they attacked the Hapoel fan, whom officials said was French. The police officer first responded with tear gas, but was knocked to the ground by a blow to the head and kick to the stomach, Sarkozy said. He then drew his gun and opened fire… Paris prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin said the PSG supporters had made Nazi salutes and shouted, ‘Le Pen, president,’ a reference to Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the extreme-right National Front party.The National Front later accused the prosecutor of ‘complicity in defamation’ and warned the party would sue anyone who links it with the events.

Here is how Agence France Presse reported it:

Five fans were in police custody Friday morning and face possible charges for ‘racist and anti-Semitic insults’, police said. ‘Four young people presumably from the Jewish community were rounded on by a group of supporters of PSG. They decided to separate, and one of them Yanniv Hazout was chased by attackers … The mob grew to some 100 people,’ said state prosecutor Jean-Claude Marin… A hard core of PSG supporters — dubbed the Boulogne Kop — is known for its far-right allegiance, and several have been banned from the club’s matches.

And now here is how the BBC reported it:

A French football fan has been shot dead by a plain-clothed police officer after a European football match. The officer reportedly fired tear gas, then live ammunition in an effort to disperse a fighting crowd near Paris’ Parc des Princes football stadium. The group of 150 Paris Saint Germain supporters were surrounding a fan of the Israeli team Hapoel Tel Aviv, who had beaten PSG 4-2 in the Uefa Cup. An investigation has been launched into the shooting, police said.

Paris Saint Germain fans have a reputation for violent incidents, with the club disciplined over their behaviour several times in the past. The skirmish broke out by the Parc des Princes in the aftermath of PSG’s defeat. The police officer, who has not been identified, threw tear gas to break up a group of Paris fans surrounding the Israeli.

The officer was then chased towards a McDonald’s restaurant nearby, holding the crowd at bay with his firearm before firing at least two shots, reports said. Police union official Luc Poignant told the AFP news agency that the officer ‘had no choice but to defend himself and protect another person’. There was an atmosphere of high tension among Paris fans immediately after the game, which continued a poor run of form for the team. AFP quoted witnesses describing a climate of ‘extreme confusion’ in the streets. Police reinforcements were sent to the area in an effort to calm the violence in the moments after the Paris fan was shot.

The BBC has excised all references to the anti-black and antisemitic nature of the attack, all references to the far right and all references to the racist pedigree of the PSG fans. Wrongly identifying the Hapoel supporter as an Israeli rather than a French Jew, it gives the impression this was merely a fight between rival supporters of two nations’ football teams.

Why?

Update from Melanie's blog:

Yesterday, I drew attention in this Diary to the fact that BBC News Online managed to report a vicious anti-black and antisemitic attack in Paris after a France/Israel football match without making any reference whatever to the racist and antisemitic nature of the attack, despite many such details having been reported by various news agencies. Subsequently, the BBC has updated its report with a new version, which contains the racist and antisemitic details it previously omitted. Whether it was shamed into doing so by my post is not known; it may simply have been forced to respond to President Chirac’s comments.

BBC calls in the Israel-haters to explain anti-semitism

From the Adloyada blog

Norm has done a very good job of fisking Professor Steven Rose's contribution to the BBC Today Programme's discussion of the report of the Parliamentary All-Party Enquiry into anti-semitism in Britain.

Poisonous stuff, says Norm. He can't see how any educated man comes to be able to speak as Rose does, blaming Israel and the Jews who support Israel for the existence of anti-semitism.

Personally, I've never had any difficulty in seeing how educated people, even professors, are able to speak as Rose does. It's been something of an old established art form, developed by stellar intellectuals from Voltaire, through a very large proportion of the professoriate of Wilhelmine and Weimar Germany to the equally large number of academics who stand alongside Steven Rose to this day in calling for an academic boycott of all Israeli universities.

No surprise there, then. What is worthy of the note is the way the Today Programme excelled even its already dubious record in framing its presentation of this key Parliamentary report. That was presented this morning through the perspectives and analysis of two ferociously anti-Israel activists who have a track record of blaming Jews for anti-semitism and accusing them of crying anti-semitism as a diversion from criticism of Israel.

The Today Programme's first discussion of the report was presented through a debate between Ian Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader and a member of the Parliamentary All Party Committee, and Inayat Bunglawala, leading member of the Muslim Council of Britain. Inayat Bunglawala has a track record of saying things which indicates that he sees "the Zionist lobby" as a conspiratorial power out to use accusations of anti-semitism as a diversionary tactic.

So that debate shifted away from being an explanation for listeners of what the PAPC report actually had to say about anti-semitism to being a discussion whether the Muslim Council of Britain was right or wrong to refuse to participate in UK Holocaust Memorial Day commemorations.

Then, right at the end of the programme, Professor Steven Rose was presented as the leader in a discussion, not of the report, but of whether Israeli actions are responsible for anti-semitism. Rose was invited to make a lead contribution, which he duly and totally predictably used as a platform to deliver a tirade that anti-semitism is indeed on the increase in Britain today, but that it is caused by Israel. Not just Israel's actions in the Lebanon war, or in the conflict with the Palestinians, but seemingly Israel's very existence, for most of Rose's tirade was a series of claims that Israel is racist, an apartheid state, etc. Professor Shalom Lappin was called on to respond, but I think he made a mistake in buying into the debate on Rose's terms rather than drawing attention to what the Today Programme had done in setting up such a debate in the first place. The usually faultlessly articulate Lappin seemed to me to be driven onto the back foot of stating that, yes, Israeli universities are open to Arabs, Druse, Muslims and Jews.

Where was the discussion of what the report actually had to say?

I find it very difficult to imagine the Today Programme choosing to present any Parliamentary report on Islamophobia and attacks on Muslims by inviting Irshad Manji and Nonie Darwish to lead the commentary.

Let alone having one or other of them argue that Islamic leaders and regimes are responsible for racist attacks on Muslims in Britain.

Guardian antisemitism?

Felix forwards this item from Academic and Media Watch on Antisemitism asking: "What should be done about this outrage?":

The Guardian has never made it a secret that it loathes Israel.

It was silent during the illegal 30 year occupation of the Lebanon by the Nazi inspired Baathist Syrian regime. Despite numerous assassinations, secret police and political violence.

This UK daily newspaper prefers to reserve it's bile for the democratic Jewish state of Israel.

This cartoon by Martin Rowson, was published in The Guardian this week. It is a contemptuous racist slur, aimed at insulting Jews worldwide by defaming their religious symbol and iconography. It makes no mention of Iran, Hamas or Syria. Or of the many Jewish children hurt, killed or maimed by a ceaseless campaign of hatred by terrorists and their extremist supporters.