The West’s lethal triple lock of Jewish hatred

Many think that antisemitism is a prejudice against Jews as people, whereas anti-Zionism and Israel-bashing are legitimate attacks on a political project.

by Melanie Phillips

In France, which is experiencing another surge of anti-Jewish attacks, the lower house of parliament has approved a draft resolution that calls hatred of Israel a form of anti-Semitism.

In Britain, after the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis made an unprecedented intervention into the general election campaign warning that “a new poison” of antisemitism “sanctioned from the top” had “taken root in the Labour Party,” support for Labour actually increased. In four out of five opinion polls taken over the following few days, the party’s rating rose by between two and five points.

Last week, two people were murdered and three others wounded in an Islamic terrorist attack in London. And over the past two weeks, there were four attacks on Jews in the streets of London.

These things are all linked.

The chief rabbi was right to say what he said because Jews have a duty to tell unpalatable truths and sound a cultural warning.

Yet it is a dismal fact that drawing attention to antisemitism these days tends to produce even more of it. Triggering the widespread resentment and guilt complex over the Jews’ perceived status as history’s supreme victims, it provokes yet more hostility.

So although some decent voices have been heard expressing concern over Labour’s attitude to the Jews, most reaction to comments by Mirvis has been either indifference or support for the party against a charge that many think is bogus.

One reason is that much of the verbal Jew-baiting takes the form of anti-Zionism or Israel-bashing. And many don’t recognize anti-Zionism as a form of Jew-hatred. They think antisemitism is a prejudice against Jews as people, whereas anti-Zionism and Israel-bashing are legitimate attacks on a political project.

Anti-Semitism, however, is not a prejudice like any other. It has unique characteristics applied to no other group, people or cause. It’s an obsessional and unhinged narrative based entirely on lies; it accuses Jews of crimes of which they are not only innocent but the victims; it holds them to standards expected of no one else; it depicts them as a global conspiracy of unique malice and power.

Anti-Zionism has exactly the same unique characteristics directed against the collective Jew in Israel. It is furthermore an attack on Judaism itself, because the land of Israel is an inseparable element.

Of course, Jews remain Jews even if Israel is irrelevant to their lives. But just as the Sabbath is a keystone of Jewish religious belief even though many Jews don’t observe it, the land of Israel is another such keystone.

Judaism is indivisibly composed of the people, the religion and the land. To attack the right of the people to the land is to attack Judaism itself.

The onslaught on Zionism and Israel has therefore legitimized and encouraged unambiguous antisemitism, with behavior of a malice and virulence directed at no other community.

When the Conservative health minister Matt Hancock tried at an election hustings to condemn Labour Party anti-Semitism, he was howled down with cries of “Oh my God!” and “Shame on you! Liar!”

The Labour Party put out an election video saying it would value people if they were Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, black, white, Asian, disabled, old, young, working-class or under 18. The one group it conspicuously failed to say it would value was the Jews.

Last week, a rabbi visiting London for a family wedding was badly beaten in the street by two men who shouted “kill the Jews.”

At the end of last month, three such incidents occurred in London within the same week. In the first, three Orthodox Jewish boys traveling on a London bus were assaulted by a passenger who punched one of them and threw their hats to the ground.

In the second, a man screamed “Jews don’t belong here!” at an Orthodox Jewish couple on another London bus and showed them his middle finger, before pulling the man by his hood and the woman by her sheitel (wig).

In the third, a Jewish family with two children on a London Tube train was harangued by a man with a stream of aggressive anti-Semitic abuse.

In that incident, captured on video, a hijab-clad Muslim passenger, Asma Shuweikh, remonstrated with the man. She was rightly praised for her courage, and it was indeed heartening to see such innate decency across the faiths.

Ms. Shuweikh said she herself had suffered bigoted abuse. All such prejudice is wrong and should be unreservedly condemned.

The fact is, though, that a disproportionate number of attacks on Jews in Britain are committed by Muslims. In 2018, a study by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research and the Community Security Trust revealed that anti-Jewish and anti-Israel attitudes were two to four times higher among Muslims than the population in general.

Yet such criticisms of the Muslim world are all but silenced by the claim that they are “Islamophobic.”

The term “Islamophobia” is a weapon of holy war. Prejudice against other groups like Hindus or Sikhs is not labeled a phobia. “Islamophobia” was invented to mimic anti-Semitism, which is falsely viewed by Jew-haters as a means of immunizing Jews from criticism.

So “Islamophobia” takes the unique core attribute of anti-Semitism—that it is truly deranged—and falsely labels any adverse comment about the Islamic world as a form of mental disorder in order to silence it.

Which is why the Islamic terrorist Usman Khan was able to carry out his murderous rampage last week in London.

For although he was a convicted terrorist who had been freed from jail under apparently strict terms of supervision, he had been allowed to attend a conference on prisoner rehabilitation (of all things) on the grounds that he had renounced his extremist Islamic views.

And that was largely because fear of “Islamophobia” has prevented the entire justice establishment from properly identifying the threat from fanatical Islamic belief.

Unfortunately, some Jewish leaders have themselves been slow to realize the threat posed by the term “Islamophobia.” In 2014, the Jewish Board of Deputies joined forces with the Muslim Council of Britain in condemning both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.

Recently, the Board of Deputies appears to have modified its vocabulary by pledging instead to fight “anti-Muslim hate.” Yet the dangerous equation with anti-Semitism is still being made.

In comments made on BBC radio about Asma Shuweikh’s welcome intervention, the former chief rabbi Lord Sacks said of such abuse that “Muslims suffer from this as much as Jews.”

That’s just untrue. Jews suffer proportionately vastly more abuse and attacks than Muslims. Synagogues and Jewish schools have to be under guard and behind barbed wire, not mosques and madrassahs.

Said Sacks: “That we in Britain should still be talking about anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or racism at all, is deeply shocking.”

But what’s also shocking is the false equation of anti-Semitism with anti-Muslim abuse. Jews equate them in a misguided attempt to prove they aren’t claiming any particular status as victims.

This is a bad mistake. What people can’t stand is the uniqueness of anti-Semitism—and that’s because they can’t stand the uniqueness of the Jewish people. The refusal to acknowledge the uniqueness of Jew-hatred merely demonstrates precisely that Jew-hatred.

While anti-Semitism fails to be understood for what it is—and while Islamophobia continues to intimidate—neither attacks on Jews nor Islamist attacks on everyone else will be reduced.

Rampant anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, Islamist attacks and the propaganda weapon of Islamophobia are all symptoms of a Western culture shuddering on the edge of self-destruction. And as ever in times of cultural turmoil, Jews find themselves the principal targets.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

December 7, 2019 | 3 Comments »

Leave a Reply

3 Comments / 3 Comments

  1. @ Buzz of the Orient:
    and “…Rabbi Wise despicably worked against all efforts of Jewish activists who did all they could to raise awareness of the millions being killed in Europe. Wise referred to Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky as “a ‘traitor” for preaching evacuation for over a million Eastern European Jews, and said that Bergson Group leader Peter Bergson was “worse than Hitler”. (Bergson worked tirelessly to raise awareness over the fate of Jews in Europe, while Wise claimed it would increase Anti-Semitism in America).

    Rabbi Ephraim Kestenbaum, son of Rabbi David Kestenbaum who was active in saving European Jews during the Holocaust recounted that Wise phoned his father on several occasions, telling him that he should stop putting so much pressure on the American government to save European Jews. Rabbi Kestenbaum told of how on one occasion, he took a message for his father from Wise who told him, “Tell your father that he has to be an American and not to fight hard for Jews in Europe. You have to be an American first….”

    https://www.algemeiner.com/2012/11/04/the-shameful-legacy-of-rabbi-stephen-wise/

  2. @ Buzz of the Orient:
    Indeed!

    “The Jews Should Keep Quiet
    An Interview with Rafael Medoff

    by Jerry Gordon and Rod Reuven Dovid Bryant (October 2019)

    On September 1, 2019, a new and important book by Dr. Rafael Medoff of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies was launched before a large and attentive audience at a Manhattan synagogue. The book is The Jews Should Keep Quiet: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and the Holocaust. Medoff’s book unveils new archival evidence on President Roosevelt’s abandonment of European Jews prior to and during the Holocaust and the relationship between FDR and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, especially the failure of the latter to confront the President on this issue. Wise was a leader of the American Jewish Congress and World Jewish Congress, a Reform Rabbi and an activist Zionist in his youth. As Rabbi Wise grew closer to power, he refrained from criticism of Roosevelt during World War II and was complicit in silencing Jewish criticism of President’s failure to aid in the rescue of European Jews during the Holocaust.

    One graphic example was the March 1943 protest march of 400 Orthodox Rabbis at the White House organized by the five Palestinian Revisionist Jews of the Bergson Group with a petition calling for rescue of Europe’s Jews. President FDR’s private assimilated Jewish advisers suggested ignoring, the protest while the President left via a back entrance avoiding meeting with the Rabbis. The Rabbis were outraged which led to others to express criticism. But not Rabbi Wise.

    The question of why Roosevelt dismissed Jews, can be found in FDR’s vision of America as white, Protestant and dismissive of immigrants. That view are evident in columns of FDR published in a Georgia newspaper in the early 1920’s opposing Japanese American immigration, intermarriage and inability to assimilate in the US. That view culminated in FDR’s Executive Order 9066 during WWII interning 120,000 American Japanese citizens. The new book finds parallelism in FDR views of Jews. FDR’s statement following the horrific Nazi Pogrom on November 9, 1938 simply called it “unbelievable”, without identifying the perpetrators and victims, Nazis and German Jews. Between 1933 and 1938, FDR maintained cordial relations with Germany not issuing one public statement critical of Hitler’s Nazi Regime. The book exposes the calumnies of the FDR Administration opposing and undermining the anti-Nazi boycott mounted by Jewish and other groups permitting evasion of labelling of German products to avoid country of origin.

    Following, the Kristallnacht pogrom, both the US Virgin Islands Assembly and the Dominican Republic offered safe havens for German Jewish Refugees. The Dominican Republic offered over 100,000 visas. FDR Administration blocked both the Virgin Islands and Dominican Republic offers because they were too close to the US which might provide access to enter America. The FDR White House followed that with lobbying against a Congressional bill in 1939 to let in 20,000 German Jewish youths below the age of 15. An act, which if passed, that would have saved both Ann and Margo Frank, who were eligible. The only gesture of FDR was to allow 5,000 German Jews with temporary travel visas in the US to remain here. By contrast, the British Government of Munich appeaser, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, allowed in 10,000 German Jewish children in the famed Kindertransports and 15,000 young Jewish women as nannies. This contrasts with the 1939 British White Paper denying European Jewish immigration to Palestine. FDR’s opposition to wartime European Jewish rescue came in the face of a major shift in US public opinion from the 1930’s to the 1940’s during WWII. With growing allied victories at Stalingrad, North Africa, Sicily and the surrender of Italy in 1943, public opinion in the US overwhelmingly favored unlimited numbers of Jews to temporarily reside in the US. In April 1944, the FDR White House commissioned a Gallup poll that found that 70 percent approved this policy. The reality was that FDR admitted less than 982 European and Jewish refugees in 1944 housed at an abandoned US Army Camp in Oswego, New York. As late as early 1944, 800,000 Hungarian Jews could have been rescued, before the country was occupied by the Nazis. The new book authored by Medoff suggests that this and other opportunities were squandered by FDR. When the question of why Auschwitz- Birkenau wasn’t bombed by the allies, Medoff points to excuses of critics who said that it would have resulted in casualties of killing center inmates and German resilience in repairing bombed rails. However, he noted that requests to bomb bridges betrayed that facts that Allied air forces had already bombed bridges, as they were difficult to repair, denying transit of troops and equipment. Bombing the bridges along the deportation route to Auschwitz might have saved tens of thousands of Jewish lives.

    Medoff is critical of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum exhibit, “Americans and the Holocaust” as it whitewashes the reputation of FDR given prevailing anti-immigration and anti-Semitism and priority of air bombing to destroy Nazi forces. He contends that the US Holocaust Memorial exhibit skims over the historical record rather than revealing the facts of FDR’s dismal record. Those are documented in the late Professor David S. Wyman’s 1984 landmark book: FDR and the Abandonment of the Jews. The Jews Should Keep Quiet: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and the Holocaust, was published by The Jewish Publication Society and the University of Nebraska Press, both available on Amazon. For more on the David S. Wyman Institute, see: http://www.wymaninstitute.org.

    https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189853&sec_id=189853

  3. Yet it is a dismal fact that drawing attention to antisemitism these days tends to produce even more of it. Triggering the widespread resentment and guilt complex over the Jews’ perceived status as history’s supreme victims, it provokes yet more hostility.

    Would that mean that the Jewish head of a major Hollywood movie studio was right to have said that “Gentleman’s Agreement” should not be released because it was just going to “stir the pot”?