Howard Gutman
US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman gave a speech last weekend saying that Israeli actions are fostering anti-Semitism in Muslim communities in Europe. Many rightwingers are now calling for his head, including Bill Kristol, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
Below are two great responses to the speech. First, Yossi Gurvitz, “Yes Israel is a source of anti-Semitism,” points out the old If it’s the Jewish state, then how can you then complain when people blame the Jews issue —
See, we have a problem with this deceptively simple logic. Israel is a country which claims most of its citizens-to-be to reside outside its borders. Israel claims that a. It is a “Jewish country,” b. That all Jews are its potential citizens, c. That it is OK for her to meddle in the affairs of other countries on behalf of what it thinks are Jewish interests, and, finally, d. That any opprobrium gained by its actions, resulting in hatred or actual violence directed at those it claims to represent, is derived from racial and irrational causes. This, alas, does not make sense.
This is without even without mentioning the hidden point e., rarely mentioned, which says that Israel thinks it is perfectly acceptable to use Jews living in other countries as its agents.
Then Justin Elliott at Salon says that there is rigorous research by a British org that studies anti-Semitism to back up what Gutman is saying:
As it turns out, there is rigorous research that backs up Gutman’s point – that of, in his words, “tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews … largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.”
The Community Service Trust is thoroughly mainstream British organization that specializes in the study of anti-Semitism and providing security for Jews. The group publishes an annual survey on anti-Semitic incidents in the UK, and its most recent study (.pdf) would seem to vindicate Gutman.
It notes what happened after the IDF killed nine pro-Palestinian activists on a flotilla to break the Gaza blockade in May 2010:
“The only significant trigger event in 2010 occurred when Israeli forces boarded a flotilla of ships bearing pro-Palestinian activists who were trying to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza; nine activists were killed during the subsequent on-board clashes. Reactions to this episode led to a monthly total of 81 antisemitic incidents in the UK in June 2010, compared to 49 in June 2009, when there was no comparable trigger event.”
And it also discusses the number of anti-Semitic incidents in 2009, the year of the Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza:
“The record total [of anti-Semitic incidents] in 2009 was triggered by reactions to the Gaza conflict in January of that year, which led to record numbers of incidents in January and February 2009.”
Those two points show a correlation between flare-ups in the Middle East and anti-Semitism. But what about causation?
The report explores this complicated question:
“Clearly, it would not be acceptable to define all anti-Israel activity as antisemitic; but it cannot be ignored that much contemporary antisemitism takes place in the context of, or is motivated by, extreme feelings over the Israel/Palestine issue. Drawing out these distinctions, and deciding on where the dividing lines lie, is one of the most difficult areas of CST’s work in recording and analysing hate crime.”
This point by Community Service Trust echoes Gutman’s sentiments almost exactly.
except that the problem with Justin Elliot’s comment is that it ignores legitimate criticism of the Trust as an advocate for israel, or as Mark Elf of JSF put it, its representatives have used the ‘the smear of anti-semitism’ as a way of defending the policies of the state of israel. The Trust is also a proponent of problematic interpretations of the EUMC working definition of anti-semitism, which incorporate examples of criticism of israel into that definition, so it may not be the best source of information that purports to record incidents of anti-semitism.
The Community Service Trust may be a thoroughly mainstream British organization that specializes in the study of anti-Semitism and providing security for Jews, etc., etc., but it has come under a fair amount of criticism for its positions. see again JSF, Lenin’s Tomb and others for a Brit perspective on the Trust and EUMC definition.
I don’t trust CST, not even if they help. In October, CST pushed UK Minister May to throw Sheikh Raed Salah in prison. Raed Salah was kept from speaking in Parliament building, for reasons still unclear (The Guardian).
Just 17 minutes after receiving a report on the activist, prepared by Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust, a UK charity monitoring antisemitism, Faye Johnson, private secretary to the home secretary, emailed about a parliamentary event Salah was due to attend.
So this is a European institute, crying anti-Semitism without substantiating, having someone jailed and thrown out of the country: same old pattern. Let’s not leave the definition of anti-Semitism to Zionists.
This is key- the Lobby goes to extraordinary lengths to tie Judaism to Zionism, which enables it to label any anti-Israeli sentiment as “anti-Semitism” which can then be used to justify the need for a special refuge for Jews in a Jewish State. It’s self-fulfilling and sick!
Same thing I put in Alex Kane’s post: If I said that Islamophobia is caused by the conduct of Muslim radicals, would you condemn me as an Islamophobe? Many here would. Hatred is hatred, and needs to be condemned as such whether there is a cited reason or not.
No, Phil, this time you’re wrong.
This is a position I must come against, just like I was against Helen Thomas being welcomed with open arms to the “stop AIPAC” event.
Israel, for all it’s warts, is not the equivalent of the Jewish people. Many Zionists will sadly conflate this, but that isn’t an excuse for other’s to do the same(even if can be understood why some ignorant people would do it, it shouldn’t be accepted in either case).
There is genuine anti-Semitism in the Arab world which is very deep. Mein Kampf is a best-seller even in the average Arab bazaars. So is the ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’.
I live in Europe. We have one orthodox rabbi, very serene, who came from the U.S. to a synagogue here. He gets spit upon, has been beaten several times. But he refuses to hide or shy away from his Jewish identity. He has never even spoken about Israel.
A reporter for one of the best, most read, newspapers followed him for a day a year ago or so(often behind him when in the public square in one of our major cities) in one of our cities and was absolutely shocked what he saw.
Many muslim immigrant, and this was not a fringe phenomenon, stopped their cars to specifically call him a dirty Jew, many threatned phsyical violence and many spat on him.
This situation is not isolated. The vast majority of Jews in this nation, and increasingly in Europe as a whole, are afraid to even wear a kippa in public or in any way identify themselves as Jews since both the muslim and the Jewish communities tend to live in the biggest cities.
Detailed statisitics over racial hatecrime show that anti-Semitic violence is far, far more common and most of it comes from muslim immigrants.
Israel is a catalyst for the deep, growing anti-Semitism that ructures in the Arab world, or their immigrant populations. A convenient cover. Israel, I would admit, has probably contributed lately in a very minor way. But a much more important reason, for this a long-term trend, is the rise of Islamism in the Arab world.
The rise of hatred of Jews has also co-incided with the rise of hatred of women, gays, Christians, even moderate and liberal muslims(especially liberal, muslim women who flee many of these nations if they can).
And even if they hate Israel(and even if you think that hatred of the Jewish state is somehow acceptable), that’s not an excuse – and can never be one – to hate Jews as a people. Ever.
Just like I could hate the way Iran is conducting itself, it doesn’t give me an excuse to be a violent racist against Iranians as a people. That would make me a bigot of extreme proportions.
The word ‘appeasement ‘ has been overrused and I tend to avoid it whenever I can.
But this piece reeks of it. I’m disappointed and frankly even a little disgusted by it.
You should know better, Phil.