General Antisemitism

The upheaval in Egypt, and the media’s negligence in failing to report on anti-Semitism in the Arab world


Anti-Semitism in the Arab world has been described by professor Robert Wistrich as comparable to that of Nazi Germany at its worst, and yet it is a subject that is rarely covered by the Guardian and the rest of the mainstream media.  The following excerpt of a recent essay by Caroline Glick, as well as the subsequent commentary by Fresno Zionism, is especially relevant in the context of Rachel Shabi’s recent Guardian piece, where, as I noted yesterday, she not only whitewashed anti-Semitism of the Muslim Brotherhood, but actually claimed that Israeli fears of the Brotherhood was indicative of Israeli racism.

This is cross posted at Fresno Zionism:

Caroline Glick:

“Israelis are indifferent [to the current upheavals in the Middle East] because we realize that whether under authoritarian rule or democracy, anti-Semitism is the unifying sentiment of the Arab world. Fractured along socioeconomic, tribal, religious, political, ethnic and other lines, the glue that binds Arab societies is hatred of Jews.

A Pew Research Center opinion survey of Arab attitudes towards Jews from June 2009 makes this clear. Ninety-five percent of Egyptians, 97% of Jordanians and Palestinians and 98% of Lebanese expressed unfavorable opinions of Jews. Three quarters of Turks, Pakistanis and Indonesians also expressed hostile views of Jews…

That is why for most Israelis, the issue of how Arabs are governed is as irrelevant as the results of the 1852 US presidential elections were for American blacks. Since both parties excluded them, they were indifferent to who was in power.

What these numbers, and the anti-Semitic behavior of Arabs, show Israelis is that it makes no difference which regime rules where. As long as the Arab peoples hate Jews, there will be no peace between their countries and Israel. No one will be better for Israel than Mubarak. They can only be the same or worse…

One of the more troubling aspects of the Western media coverage of the tumult in Egypt over the past two weeks has been the media’s move to airbrush out all evidence of the protesters’ anti- Semitism…

Given the Western media’s obsessive coverage of the Arab-Israel conflict, at first blush it seems odd that they would ignore the prevalence of anti-Semitism among the presumably pro-democracy protesters. But on second thought, it isn’t that surprising.

If the media reported on the overwhelming Jew hatred in the Arab world generally and in Egypt specifically, it would ruin the narrative of the Arab conflict with Israel.That narrative explains the roots of the conflict as frustrated Arab-Palestinian nationalism. It steadfastly denies any more deeply seated antipathy of Jews that is projected onto the Jewish state. The fact that the one Jewish state stands alone against 23 Arab states and 57 Muslim states whose populations are united in their hatred of Jews necessarily requires a revision of the narrative. And so their hatred is ignored.”

The problem is not that the media are antisemitic. Most aren’t. As Glick points out, there is an accepted narrative which argues that the reason for the conflict is that Israel hasn’t allowed the Palestinian Arabs to realize their national aspirations. This could be solved, therefore, by pressuring Israel to give them what they want. But if the cause is simply Arab racism, then it’s the Arabs that have to change. And that is not what the NY Times and the Obama Administration want to hear.

But there is more to it than this. Arab antisemitism is so blatant, so obvious, so much part of what makes them who they are, that it is hard to understand how any but the most cynically dishonest journalist could miss it. And yet they do.

It’s remarkable that the slightest whiff of racism in any other context often becomes a cause célèbre. There were Shirley Sherrod’s remarks that  got her fired from the Department of Agriculture, Trent Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond that led to his resignation as Senate Minority leader, the police officer’s treatment of Henry Louis Gates that brought about the absurd ‘beer summit’ with President Obama, and the use of the word ‘Macaca’  (which doubtless very few Virginians had ever heard before) that caused Virgina Senator George Allen to lose his bid for re-election.

It seems to be a hair trigger reaction in most cases — except for Arab antisemitism. Here it’s entirely unexceptional. Because they are Arabs, it’s expected and accepted. Even in Europe, where a person can be jailed for denying the Holocaust, it’s business as usual when an Arab calls for another one.

Even many Israelis are desensitized. “What do you expect?” they say. Everyone, media, politicians, ordinary people, have gotten used to it.

But Arab racism is no more acceptable than western racism. Blood libels, demonization, vilification, Hitlerian imagery, scapegoating and all the rest are not acceptable, regardless of the source. No automatic exemption from the values of the civilized world should be given just because the racists happen to be Arabs or Muslims.

The Israeli leadership must understand this as well. How is it possible to negotiate with such as Yasser Arafat, Marwan Barghouti, Mahmoud Abbas, et al? Shouldn’t it be a requirement that the Palestinian authority agree that there is a Jewish people and it is not descended from monkeys and pigs before Israel agrees to talk about giving up part of the Jewish homeland to them?

It’s enough. We, the Jewish people, do not need to take this abuse. And the media, which are so ready to accuse and condemn westerners for racist speech, have a responsibility to call out Arabs and Muslims when they hear it from them.

22 replies »

  1. One “argument ” used by whitwashers of the widespread lunatic antisemitism in that it is used only as rethorical weapons for internal consumption, as if this was an acceptable excuse.

    And there´s plain idioticyl. The other day I watched a TV interview with historian Richard Evans, author of a three-volume history of the Third Reich. Asked about holocaust denialism in the muslim world, e.g., in Iran, he says it´s just a minority extreme view and that it´s a bad tool to delegitimize Israel, ie., there are other, “better” ways to delegitimize Israel!!

    Surely, one´s got to be british to produce such paramount example of disjuntive thinking and anti-zionism as a normal thing.

  2. The problem the British have with Israel is that when the British retreated from Israel in 1947, just two years after the end of WW2 and the Holocaust, the Israeli Jews were not defeated by the Arab nazis.

    The Israelis had the audacity to defy the expectations of the British.

  3. Yep and there is Anthony Beevor another acclaimed British historian as best I know intimately familiar with the 3rd Reich who wrote in a review this:

    But in 1920 riots broke out in Jerusalem when 60,000 Arabs protested against the Balfour Declaration. Shooting broke out when a secretly raised Jewish defence force tried to protect the Jewish quarter. A cycle of mutual fear and violence was bound to develop.

    read it slowly and carefully and savour what it implies to the innocent mind i.e. had the Jews not come up with a defence force no shooting would have happened and a few window panes would have been it

    – I wonder when Arabs will get tired of getting presented as saccharine innocence and nothing else. I would consider that to be a bit patronizing. What I can’t be evil to reach my goal? What an insult!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jan/29/jerusalem-biography-simon-sebag-montefiore-review

  4. Let me put this as simple as can be: No reason not to oppose antisemitism in the Arab world and the Zionist segregation state at the same time.

    “Fractured along socioeconomic, tribal, religious, political, ethnic and other lines, the glue that binds Arab societies is hatred of Jews.”

    If Caroline needs to assure herself of this everytime an Israeli or western soldier kills a Muslim, she’s just a mouthpiece for military killing of civilians. This is outright genocidal language no less than Nazi antisemitism itself.

  5. andrew racist, You would make your mother proud if you were outraged everytime a Muslim killed a Muslim, killed a woman, killed a gay, killed an Infidel, hijacked a plane, beheaded an Infidel, hijacked a country (the UK is being hijacked by islamofascism-philia) like Lebanon.

    andrew racist, are you “hezbullah” too?

  6. andrew r, what’s a “Zionist segregation state”?

    If you’re referring to Israel, you’ve been quite seriously misled.

  7. oh howdy andrew r

    long time no meet

    why don’t you go and visit your buddy Gert?

    – as best I know he is posting like mad and sorely lacks in commenters

    – I’m sure you’d be very welcome there

  8. The case of this andrew is not of disjunctive thinking nor is he misled. It´s just conscious perversion and hypocrisy, to put it as simple as can be.

  9. Serjew
    this andrew is or was an ardent admirer of your and my beloved Alberto

    btw I think andrew racist is a really great idea

  10. CBPH, scum like andrew racist are sparring partners who help sharpen our anti-islamofascist talking points.

  11. Let me straighten a few things out:

    1. I’m not “outraged” by anything. Having grown up in US public education, I’ve been spoonfed the good guy view of the US military. That view wore off so gradually as to be barely noticeable. At this point, outrage is just the flipside of feigning ignorance.

    2a. There’s nothing hypocritical about noticing your own military that is financed by your income tax regularly kills civilians. To be a fully-functioning member of the society I live in, you have to pretend not to notice. In certain contexts, I do. In other interactions, I don’t. The real hypocrisy is not yelling it out every chance I get.

    2b. Europeans and Americans don’t have any leeway to talk about Muslims killing other Muslims. Senseless slaughter is senseless slaughter. Some of it is done by individuals, groups or a whole system of many groups working in tandem like, surprise, the US govt. Opposing something isn’t the same as doing something about it. Working against US imperialism will effectively kill many birds with one stone.

    2c. The USA will sometimes oppose religious extremism and sometimes encourage it. Fanatical allies of the USA include the Egyptian brotherhood when Nasser was around, Saudi Arabia, the March 14 movement in Lebanon, the Afghan Mujahadeen and the ruling parties of Iraq which came back from exile in none other than Iran. Also, Halliburton operated a subsidiary in Iran until 2007. You might ask yourself if fighting Muslim extremism is really the agenda behind our invasions.

    To be sure, the US army has done less than zero to oppose the outrages listed by TGIF. Yes, that includes overthrowing the Taliban. Northern Alliance = Not secular, not feminist.

    3. Hezbollah as hijacking Lebanon is laughable. Lebanon will still be a sectarian country where Shiite, Sunni and Christian clergy have undemocratic influence (e.g. the Maronite patriarch is for gender segregation, Rafik Hariri was against civil marriage) even if Hezbollah drop dead tomorrow.

    4. Israel was hijacking planes before any Palestinian got the idea.
    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20F12FB3959177B93C1A81789D95F408585F9

    “TEL AVIV, Israel, Dec. 12 -A Syrian Airways Dakota was intercepted by Israeli fighter planes this morning and escorted to Lydda Airport. Four passengers’ and five crew members were detained, but one passenger, an American citizen, was released. “

  12. andrew racist lost all claim on all credibility when he sucked up to the guy known to many of us the guy who for a short while conned Yaacov Lozowick.

    also he is not good material for honing one’s skills at argumenting. All he is good for is to be ridiculed.

    andrew go visiting Gert the nutter who likes to inform the world that he enjoys peeing all over himself

    the more you’ll give him a chance to argue the longer he’ll be a pest on this blog.

  13. P.S. Nothing I write should be taken as support of honor killings, killings of homosexuals, fgm, arranged marriages, or anything you find wrong with Muslim societies. You can’t help them by waging war on them. The war on terror liberates Iraqi and Afghani women like Operation Barbarossa liberated Latvia from Bolshevism.

  14. ain’t he sweet this guy andrew

    I love the PS saying nothing should be taken as support of – it is so elegant, so truthful, so slippery

  15. Ignore Andrew R., as his Jew baiting is nothing but an online game to him.

    motion seconded !!!

    I guess he does it when he doesn’t have the cash to pay a domina to get beaten up professionally.

  16. Serjew, you realise that this is the Professor Evans who made David Irving cry?

    I hope he’s Welsh so that not all of us are tarred with that brush.

    My bête noire for today is William Hague. There’s a very wise comment from “Hyder Ali”. Hague also mentioned Israel’s building as the barrier to peace! What a monstrous “friend”.

    The BBC made things worse than this by also dragging up an ex-ambassador to say Israel has to go back to 1937.

  17. OK, thanks for the advise about andrew moron, yet another moral masturbator in need of boredom relief.

    Ariadne,

    The inverview (in the brazilian network “O globo”, that once interviewed that crackpot Papé) briefly mentioned the episode about Irving.

    But, in any case, this adds to the disjunctive thinking syndrome of modern european intellectuals. At least, as a Third Reich historian he´s able to be objective (but not that original, as say, Michael Burleigh). But so say that holocaust denialism is only a “fringe” phenomenon in the muslim world is extremely ignorance, while saying “there are other ways to delegitimize Israel” is preposterous and, for me, destroys his credibility as a competent thinker.

  18. Serjew, I just wonder if he might have links with Tehran. But it’s very sad when he was such a mighty warrior for truth in the failed Irving libel case.

  19. Ariadne,

    I guess not. He´s probably just parroting the successful palestinianist propaganda, widespread in european academic circles, namely: Israel (or zionism or Jews)= colonialist, imperialist, powerful, exploitative, thieve, violent, opressor, genocidal, western, in suem *evil*; Palestinians= opressed, underdeveloped, innocent, victims, pure at heart, just frustrated, vulnerable, underdog, poor, starving, etc, in sum, *good*.

    No serious honest person can swallow this pile of lies. So, he´s either a fool, dishonets or a non-person🙂