Toxic Anti-Semitism in the Muslim World





Mr. Pipes is the director of the Middle East Forum. His website address is http://www.danielpipes.org.

The prime minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, informed the world this month, among other things, that "Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them." Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. national security adviser, described Mahathir's comments as "hateful, they are outrageous."

But she then added, "I don't think they are emblematic of the Muslim world." If only she were right about that.

In fact, Mahathir's views are precisely emblematic of current Muslim discourse about Jews - symbolized by the standing ovation his speech received from an all-Muslim audience of leaders representing 57 states. Then, a Saudi newspaper reports, when Western leaders criticized Mahathir, "Muslim leaders closed ranks" around him with words of praise ("very correct," "a very, very wise assessment").

Although anti-Jewish sentiments among Muslims go back centuries, today's hostility results from two main developments: Jewish success in modern times and the establishment of Israel. Until about 1970, however, Muslim resentment remained relatively quiet.

Mahathir Mohamad

But in the 1970s, political radicalization combined with an oil boom gave states like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Libya the will and the means to sponsor anti-Jewish ideas worldwide. With barely a Muslim voice to counter ever-more-outlandish theories, these multiplied and deepened. For the first time, the Muslim world became the main locus of anti-Jewish theories.

By now, notes Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America, "Hatred of Jews is widespread throughout the Muslim world. It is taught in the schools and preached in the mosques. Cartoons in Muslim newspapers routinely portray Jews in blatantly anti-Semitic terms."

Indeed, Mahathir is hardly the only Muslim ruler to make anti-Jewish statements. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria said in 2001 that Israelis try "to kill the principles of all religions with the same mentality in which they betrayed Jesus Christ." The Iranian ayatollahs and Saudi princes have a rich history of anti-Jewish venom, as of course do Egyptian television and Palestinian textbooks.

Of the myriad examples, one stands out for me: a June 2002 interview on Saudi TV with a 3-year-old girl named Basmallah, made available by the Middle East Media and Research Institute:

Anchor: Basmallah, are you familiar with the Jews?
Basmallah: Yes.
Anchor: Do you like them?
Basmallah: No.
Anchor: Why don't you like them?
Basmallah: Because . . .
Anchor: Because they are what?
Basmallah: They're apes and pigs.
Anchor: Because they are apes and pigs. Who said they are so?
Basmallah: Our God.
Anchor: Where did he say this?
Basmallah: In the Koran.

The little girl is wrong about the Koran, but her words show that, contrary to Rice's analysis, Muslim anti-Semitism extends even to the youngest children. That Mahathir himself is no Islamist but (in the words of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman) "about as forward-looking a Muslim leader as we're likely to find" also points to the pervasiveness of anti-Jewish bias.

In its attitudes toward Jews, the Muslim world today resembles Germany of the 1930s - a time when state-sponsored insults, caricatures, conspiracy theories and sporadic violence prepared Germans for the mass murder that followed.

The same might be happening today. Wild accusatory comments like Mahathir's have become banal. Against Israelis, violence has already reached a rate approaching one death per day over the past three years. Outside Israel, violence against Jews is also persistent: a Jewish building blown up in Argentina, Daniel Pearl's murder in Pakistan, stabbings in France, the Brooklyn Bridge and LAX killings in the United States.

These episodes, plus calling Jews "apes and pigs," could serve as the psychological preparation that one day leads to assaulting Israel with weapons of mass destruction. Armaments chemical, biological and nuclear would be the successors of Auschwitz, Buchenwald and Dachau. Millions of Jews would perish in another Holocaust.

As in the 1930s, the world at large - including the U.S. government - again seems not to note the deadliness of processes now underway. Anti-Jewish rhetoric and violence are decried, to be sure, but with little sense of urgency and even less of their cumulative impact.

Condoleezza Rice and other top-ranking officials need to recognize the power and reach of the anti-Jewish ideology inculcated among Muslims, then develop active ways to fight it. This evil has already taken innocent lives; unless combated it could take many more.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Charles Barton - 11/12/2003

The Term anti-Semitism was coined by the 19th century German Judaophobe, Marr. Since Marr first used the term, it has always been used to refer to an anti-Jewish idiology. I suspect that only an anti-Semite would quible about the meaning of the term anti-Semite. The Palestinian, and indeed the Arab and moslem media his full of classic anti-Semetic slanders aginst Jews. This attack has been seconded by individuals who profess to be liberals. Such individuals are really facist. It is little wonder that i found a link in David Duke's web page to an artical written by Robert Fisk, The anti-Semitism of the left and the right join in their desire to destroy Israel.


non Anti-Zionist - 11/12/2003

I have one further question I'd like to pose to the self-proclaimed member of a "New Generation of nothing."

How do you *take* land from a nomad?

Further, do you honestly think it is possible be a citizen of a government in the absence of a reasonable method for establishing something so crucial as *residence*? I'd really like to hear an explanation for your revised definition of property rights. Really, is King Fahd is a citizen of the U.S.? He doesn't reside here, but he wanders through from time to time, and it looks like that's good enough for Gus. It must be *his* land.


Liberty 4 U and Me - 11/11/2003

Dear Gus,

I don't know which country you post from, but I'll assume it is not a repressive dictatorship. Hopefully that will facilitate any attempt on your part that you might make to understand some fundamental American values. Values which trump, I might add, anyone's one-sided, agenda-driven accusations of a "conflict of interest."

Many of those values are enshrined not only into law in the U.S. and many other liberal democracies, but Constitutional law in the course of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution - the Bill of Rights. For the purposes of this discussion, the most pertinent rights which I will address are the following: 1. Freedom of religion. 2. Freedom of association. 3. Freedom of Speech. 4. Freedom of the Press.

Now, unless you believe that Jews should explicitly be excluded from ANY government position, I want to hear you come right out and say just that. That's right, have the guts to come out and provide the sorely lacking CLEAR evidence that you actually value freedom of religious belief or conscience. If you do, that is great. You have just satisfied requirement #1.

Assuming you can bring yourself to doing that, we will move on to requirement #2. Do you believe in freedom of association? Do you not believe that an individual can freely associate with others, American or otherwise, for purposes associated with another government or not (for it does not make a difference), or do you not? You cannot claim that associating with an Israeli organization (governmental in nature or otherwise) conflicts with American interests when the Israeli government has NEVER been considered by the U.S. to constitute a threat, hostile to its interests, or as a democracy (the preponderance of which many administrations find to PROMOTE and CONTRIBUTE to global stability), a government which requires severe diplomatic or political pressure in order to fundamentally change its structure. There is not one person in the States outside of anyone affiliated with fringe groups who will consider association with Israeli organizations to be equivalent to TREASON, as you seem to imply, in your own clumsy way. The U.S. has never been at war with Israel. If you persist in pushing it as a "conflict of interest" issue to associate with Israeli organizations, I believe you do it for the purpose of promoting your OWN *narrow* political agenda, which many in America would find as at least as unrealistic, and therefore perhaps at least as much a potential conflict of interest, as well. Isolating the Israeli government has never been considered seriously by American administrations to be a reasonable way to advance American interests or the cause of Middle East stability and peace for that matter, or the interests of the Palestinians, either.

Let's proceed to your assertion that Israel's primary geopolitical interests do indeed constitute nothing more than a narrow religious fundamentalist ideology. There are indeed political parties in Israel that espouse a religious agenda(s), perhaps even some that could be charged by some to be ideological. Further, it is true that these parties form coalitions with the government, including the current government. But that is where any opportunity in reality to further your demonization ends. Israeli society considers itself predominantly secular, and religious "law" is only allowed inroads into births, deaths, marriages, conversions, and divorces. Jewish law is not forced on others for their own religious courts have jurisdiction over the exact same matters within their own communities. Israel is NOT considered a theocracy by most serious political scientists and the religious parties must operate within the confines of the same secular body of law that governs all other behavior, political or otherwise. Neither Israel, nor its Jewish citizens are interested in converting Arab Muslims, or absorbing millions of Palestinian Arabs from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, and regardless of any political rhetoric, the politicians and society by and large understand that the Palestinian Arabs will require their own, separate political future. Very few in the government or society think that it would be tenable to hold on to much of the West Bank or Gaza Strip or the settlements there when a final settlement becomes possible.

To believe otherwise from anything which I have just stated does not constitute a credible or serious analysis of the situation in the Middle East. However, certain governments, which shall remain nameless, publish stories in state-supported media (i.e. propaganda) that implies otherwise. Most states that lack freedom of press also lack freedom of speech. It is difficult to oppose the state-supported line that Israel "has territorial ambitions that stretch from the Nile to the Euphrates," for instance, unless you lack the freedom to speak out and deny the offical government line or its mouthpiece (on that or any other issue). If it is news to the Muslim world that Israel's primary geopolitical interests do no largely reflect a narrow ideologically religious agenda, then I would suggest that they take up freedom of the press, and maybe the propaganda that "informs" them of such ridiculous charges will largely change, and so will their opinion. (The U.N. is interested in this occuring as well, as a lack of freedom of speech is often referred to as one of the denied freedoms that contribute predominantly to their lack of advancement in a report on human development). From previous postings it is not clear to me that you value freedom of speech or the press or the propensity of the above freedoms to contribute to reasonable and ideas and clear thoughts. I think if you did you would require less exposure from opposing viewpoints to the facts that you force me and others to state, since it's clear you have either ignored or discarded them for the sake of ideological purposes. I'll leave it at that.

As for politicians speaking of "God," or "religion" in the general sense, that is not considered by Americans or by constitutional law to constitute religious preaching or necessarily a breach of the separation of church and state. Whether it is done out of conviction or the attempt to appeal politically to religious society, it does not favor a particular religion and is not considered coercive. It is often argued as appealing to a sense by Americans and their founders that their rights were not granted by a king or any human, for that matter, and that their laws are above people. Atheists are largely the only group that would take even remote issue against the assertion that America is not a religiously coercive society, and when they make credible cases to that effect, they are largely backed by the courts.

Also, I will state, one final time, that a whole heck of a lot of states, democratic and otherwise, if they don't have an official state religion, *have* had so for a significant period of their development. I believe that is hyperbolic to imply that Israel is committing any grievous error in making it clear that it will stand and speak for the human rights interests of its people, who are of course primarily Jews, and there is no reason why it should make any apologies for that. It has also allowed in refugee Arabs who escape persecution for their status as homosexual, refugees (non-Jewish) from the former Yugoslavia, provided logistical assistance to either Turks or Armenians (I can't remember which) following earthquakes. It is not short on providing and offering humanitarian assistance within its borders and outside when feasible and your attempts to blacklist its interests and activities because of the religion of many of its citizens is shameful. Your deceptively cloudy linguistic crap of how things would be different "if the religion were any other with an official state,” is not something I care to even attempt to interpret. It sounds just as ignorant as I assume you are, and I am done responding to your weak attempts to justify what clearly sound like proposals to further a double-standard.

If you believe your rights and freedoms extend to prolonging a sad display of ignorance, go ahead. Until you have something factual and well-analysed to respond to, however, I'm done reading about it. Exposing what your thoughts for what they don't contain has become more boring than watching a dog chase its own tail.


Cram - 11/11/2003

Well put, Liberty!


Liberty - 11/11/2003

I, for one, would like to thank HNN for providing a forum with which to help identify anti-Semites, and detract from the illusion that they don't continue to contribute to this recurring problem. Posters such as Gus, for instance, would have others believe that he is interested in the Palestinians out of nothing more than a passionate sense of idealism. However, through debate, we have exposed his bigoted beliefs that Jews should not be allowed to purchase land or serve in the government that represents them. Were it not for such a forum, the ensuing debate, and the tenacious attendance by opposing viewpoints, the arguments would have been much less revealing and informative.

It would hardly be palatable under most instances in a liberal democracy to come right out and make such assertions as he does in a vaccuum. But by peeling through the peripheral topics which he uses as a cover, we have attempted to enlighten him to a degree when it comes to the details which he has blatantly exagerated or the facts over which he has admittedly claimed ignorance outright. But more importantly, we have shown that an indefensible bias either forms the basis of many of his ideas, or results from them.

I would like to thank him (and HNN) for providing us with an example and a reminder of the dark nature that still exists in the minds of many.


Liberty 4 U and Me - 11/11/2003

If Gus had been living in the U.S. in 1960 he probably would have voiced political solidarity with all the bigots who said that JFK, being a Catholic, shouldn't have received any votes for president because he would have just been a front for the Pope.


Cram - 11/10/2003

Gus:
I would like to answer your question: "Is anything I said untrue? Are there not a number of people working on behalf of one government, Israel, and then taking positions in another, the USA’s trying to merge the policies as one? Are they proportionate to their number in the general population?"

I am going to have to ask you to name names. Who exactly are these people who work on behalf of Israel. Do you mean President Bush (since his policies benefit Israel)? VP Cheney (Ditto)? Rumsfield (see Bush comment)? Since the general population seems to support the State of Israel, I find it hard to imagine how the number of people in government who support Israel could be disproportionate. And since when do we base government service on quotas based on population? I thought we were a nation that relied on merit, not on some numerical quota system.

But of course, you don’t mean those people at all, and we all know it… you mean Jews who work in government, as you say pointblank in the statement:
"Many of the Jews in US government have actively worked on behalf of the Israeli government"
While I try to avoid downright insults, I simply cannot avoid the reality that you are, in fact, an Ant-Semite sir, who believes that Jews are not to be trusted in government positions. Any suggestion that your comment is not Anti-Semitic in any way not only insults our intelligence, but severely calls into question your own.

Why are Jews not to be trusted? Why are they the one’s with a dual loyalty? Question: Since you are not "advocating any quotas or restrictions," and yet Jews can’t be trusted in government positions, what exactly are you saying?

You go on to say:
"I also clearly stated that if that were the case with other religions, that they had states, then the same caution would have to be exercised, given that conflicts of interests arise. For example, judges often recuse themselves from cases when the matter is sensitive to them or presents a conflict of interest with a belief, business, etc."
Don’t Muslims have states? Don’t Catholics have states? Should Colin Powell and Condolizza Rice have recussed themselves, saying that since the entire Continent of Africa is mostly people like them, they are incapable of being loyal to America. Then again, they are not Jews, and therefore do not fit into your formula.


non Anti-Zionist - 11/10/2003

"I am against the Zionist idea of returning and taking the land from..."

Deceptive. If you oppose the idea of Jews being able to *purchase* land then you should say that.

"It was carried out at the expense, death and misery of millions and they ought to..."

Again, your numbers are hyperbolic. Check the facts, Sherlock.


Gus Moner - 11/10/2003

Did anyone get a load of the unidentified person, appearing to try and whip up hate, who wrote the following comments?

“Did anyone get a load of this bigot's prescription for U.S. Government?” Then, unidentified man or woman quoted a previous post of mine and incredibly, proceeded to misquote it. Finally, the anonymous individual made veiled threats, saying: “I don't know if the previous example (of my post) constitutes hate-speech, but I believe this individual has crossed a serious line.”

What and where is the serious line crossed, sir or madam? Where is the hate? Where is the line? I knew not that we had restrictions on the expression of opinion here. You are free to disagree, and I’ll be happy to debate the points, even anonymously, and if and when proven wrong will so say. Notwithstanding the former, your freedom stops when you threaten mine or misquote me anonymously and make ethereal or veiled threats.

Is anything I said untrue? Are there not a number of people working on behalf of one government, Israel, and then taking positions in another, the USA’s trying to merge the policies as one? Are they proportionate to their number in the general population?

If I am wrong, show me where, for nowhere were you able to refute one single point I made factually, causing you thus to resort to slander, attacking and crying ‘this bigot's prescription for U.S. Government’ ‘religious quotas’ and other propaganda. Show me, factually, where I am wrong and I shall retract. Your shrieking does not scare me.

I’ll also say the number of black and Hispanic prisoners is disproportionate to their numbers in the general population, another fact many bring up without anyone accusing them of demanding quotas for prisoners. Nor are we accused of ‘crossing a serious line’ for so saying. Your overreaction outright lies, insinuation and virulence indicate a lot more about who you are than your pseudonym. At least I spoke clearly.

I also clearly stated that if that were the case with other religions, that they had states, then the same caution would have to be exercised, given that conflicts of interests arise. For example, judges often recuse themselves from cases when the matter is sensitive to them or presents a conflict of interest with a belief, business, etc.

In the same way, if you work for the state department and have a predilection for one nation, you ought not to be involved with matters that affect that nation’s relations with the state department, for you could not possibly be objective. That is a long, far way from your accusation that I am advocating practising discrimination based on religion. I gave the case of the Chinese man accused of treason as an example of where this can go.

In fact, there is supposed to be a clear and distinct separation between church and state that is regularly being crossed by Judeo-Christian fundamentalists and has often been winked at in the nation’s history, such as placing In God We Trust on the coinage and bank notes, references to God in official buildings and parks, school prayer, etc. It is aggressively being promoted further by people trying to make the state base its laws and decisions on their particular perception of their God. Constant mentions of God by politicians cross that separation between church and state as well. One may or may not agree, but that is what debate is about, sharing opinions and perceptions and trying to get them right.

I have made no proposal such as “Practicing discrimination in filling government positions based on religious affiliation is a shockingly outrageous proposal in America.” You are outright lying, I believe from your shrill tone on purpose, when you write that.

I have, however, said that “Without advocating any quotas or restrictions, our leaders ought to be more sensitive to this conflict of interest and to make every effort to avoid having them in such sensitive areas as defence and foreign relations. It is one thing to coordinate, but to work for both the US government and on behalf of another used to be called treason, and a Chinese man was unjustly accused of that very charge because he was Chinese and worked in sensitive defence areas that had been subject to Chinese spying.”

How is that for interpreting what I said correctly. All you have to do is read the FIRST line!

I added: “I believe that this conflict of interest would be the same if the religion were any other with an official state.”

You say, sir or madam, “Many states have an official religion, and Israel's primary geopolitical interests have hardly anything to do with furthering some kind of narrow fundamentalist religious agenda”.

Really? That’s news to the Muslim world, Palestinians in particular. The entire Zionist concept is a religious based agenda. Who are you trying to kid or befuddle with that disinformation?

“If that was his intended point he is obviously in serious error, which is not uncharacteristic for him given his previous postings. However, I think the implications of what he has advocated on this post have gone way too far”.

It was not my intent, so according to your condition, I am obviously not in serious error here, as wrong as I may be on occasion.

But let me ask you, who shall determine when an “implication” has “gone too far”, you, who are but an anonymous individual? It’s OK for Mr Pipes to slam Muslims, you raised not a peep about that; but don’t say anything you, anonymous, do not like about Jews, true as it may be. Is that your implication?

“Practicing discrimination in filling government positions based on religious affiliation is a shockingly outrageous proposal in America and I wonder how serious a forum this would be to believe that tolerating such horrific displays of bigotry in any way elevates the level of discussion”.

No one made such a proposal, so calm down and re-read the post without trying to practise censorship. I am advocating that in cases where a potential conflict of interest lies, people recuse themselves or be assigned to another area. I’ll discuss the merits of that. But not with false accusations anonymously made in the spirit and style befitting the KKK. Finally, if you dot believe this is a serious forum, you know your rights and freedoms; exercise them.


Gus Moner - 11/10/2003

Thanks for looking up the speech by MLK, it was a reminder. However, I disagree with MLK. Is there a law that says I have to agree with everything he said?

I am against the Zionist idea of returning and taking the land from Arabs who were tribal, nomadic in some cases and in all cases practically unincorporated in organised villages or counties into a state in the Ottoman Empire merely because a third country without suzerainty over Palestine decides it is OK. It’s a done deal and I accept it, however I repeat: it was wrong, immoral and has brought calamity to millions.

Not for that disagreement am I anti-Jewish nor do I hate Jews. I wish them well and success. So, no new generation of anti Semites includes yours truly and the Zionist colonisation of Palestine was wrong, immoral and a debacle for the inhabitants, quite opposed to the original intent of Mr Balfour’s declaration.

Sorry, I shed no crocodile tears for Jews in this debate about Zionism. It was carried out at the expense, death and misery of millions and they ought to be ashamed, in my view.

Now, let the parties sign the peace negotiated in Geneva and get on with building peace, resettling the refugees made so by the goodness of Zionism and turn the page of this ugly chapter in human history with the hope of a better page to follow in time.


Cram - 11/10/2003

Another double standard I would like to point out is not targeted towards anyone nor is it meant to offend. However, as an andicdotal matter, I do notice how those people who critizise Jews for being too sensitive to Anti-Semitism often come from the Left, and are often the same group that cries "racism" and "McCarthyism" every time they see their interests effected. Again, this is not directed against anyone here, but I do think any reading of some of these Left-wing web-sites that advocate Anti-Zionist sentiments bears me out.


Liberty 4 U and Me - 11/10/2003

Posted By: Gus Moner
Date Posted: November 8, 2003, 1:28 PM

"Talk about sterotyping. One European man makes a comment, the entire continent of Europe is out to lunch."

"Hogwash"



If only it weren't for the huge upsurge in synagogue bombings and anti-Jewish violence and intimidation, especially in France. Given the muted reaction of the authorities to this phenomenon, especially given its magnitude, you know something's awry.

Apparently Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.


Anti-Bigot - 11/10/2003

Yeah. I think it's important to point out. Even some Jews have become overly sensitive about not wanting to point out anti-Semitism where it might not exist, and intentions do matter. But we can't read minds and intentions do not matter to the same degree as words and the implications of the positions that people advocate.

So if you single out specifically the Jews as not having the same right to self-determination, or self-defense, or to serve in the government that represents them, or to freely associate with whom they choose, then you have crossed the line into what the President of Harvard University recently referred to as "anti-Semitism in effect, if not in intent."


Cram - 11/10/2003

Thank you for your post Anti-Bigot.
The statement about dual loyalty is nothing new. It was used against the Jews throughout history long before the State is Israel was created. The idea, of course, is that Jews are coniving, sneaky, and "stick to their own" and therfore can't possibly be trusted. We hear these same critisms today. Why? Because there are a few high level Jews in an administration that went to war in Iraq.

Who cares that the vast majority of Jews are Democrats? Who cares that Jews were more likey to oppose the Iraq war then were the general population? Who cares that out of all of the heavy pushers for going to war and supporting Israel, only 2 or 3 were Jewish while the rest were Chritstian? Who cares that the Christian Right support some of the most fervently PRO-Israel policies anywhere, because they believe the Bible says so? And who cares about the fact that between Israel and its Arab neighbors, one of them repeatedly calls for the complete extermination of the other in the name of God, and the other is Israel? None of it matters to Anti-Semites, as it never will.

All Gus's statement and the many like it, as well as Mr. Pipes article, remind me of is why Israel needs to exist in the first place. All these things tell me how urgent it is that the Jewish people as a whole must never again le left without a homeland, to the mercy of people who will always hate them.


Anti-Bigot - 11/10/2003

Did anyone get a load of this bigot's prescription for U.S. Government?

On November 8, 2003 @ 1:46 PM, Gus Moner wrote the following:

In fact, I have to partially agree as I believe that the Defence Department is now being run by a Judeo-Christian cabal, having inordinate numbers of Jews and Christian fundamentalists in key positions. I would say, for example, that the number of Jews there is proportionately far superior to those of the general population.

Normally, this would not be a problem; Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Buddhists, etc. can all work without having a conflict of interest with another state. However, many of the Jews in US government have actively worked on behalf of the Israeli government, for Israeli ‘think tanks’ or lobbying groups and have signed policy documents now being implemented by the Likud party now running government in Israel.

We do not see Anglicans setting policy for the UK and then coming here to implement it from the State or Defence Departments. I believe there is a conflict of interest here that does not arise with people of other religions, for other religions do not have states.

There is ample research evidence available on these people’s activities on behalf of a foreign government. That’s fine. What cannot happen is that they set policy in both, often policy that many think is against the US national interest yet favours Israeli interests.

Without advocating any quotas or restrictions, our leaders ought to be more sensitive to this conflict of interest and to make every effort to avoid having them in such sensitive areas as defence and foreign relations. It is one thing to coordinate, but to work for both the US government and on behalf of another used to be called treason, and a Chinese man was unjustly accused of that very charge because he was Chinese and worked in sensitive defence areas that had been subject to Chinese spying.

I believe that this conflict of interest would be the same if the religion were any other with an official state.



I don't know if the previous example constitutes hate-speech, but I believe this individual has crossed a serious line. Many states have an official religion, and Israel's primary geopolitical interests have hardly anything to do with furthering some kind of narrow fundamentalist religious agenda. If that was his intended point, he is obviously in serious error, which is not uncharacteristic for him given his previous postings. However, I think the implications of what he has advocated on this post have gone way too far. Practicing discrimination in filling government positions based on religious affiliation is a shockingly outrageous proposal in America and I wonder how serious a forum this would be to believe that tolerating such horrific displays of bigotry in any way elevates the level of discussion.


Non Anti-Zionist - 11/10/2003

I'll let MLK's idea speak for itself.

- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.

This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.

Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.
Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."


Cram - 11/10/2003

I would like to apologize if I am repeating myself or anyone else on this site, but I thought I would point out a few faulty assumptions on this page that I would like to address:
1) Israel stole land from the Palestinians.
I will not repeat some of my previous arguments against this erroneous claim, but sufficed to say, annexing land from enemy territory that has been used to launch a war against you as Israel did in 1948 is perfectly consistent with standard practices of that time (see Germany after WWI and WWII).

2) "Israel always has had an excuse to halt the transfer of statehood to Palestinians."
If you consider being attacked, threatened with extermination, and subject to repeated terrorist strikes against civilians to be all "excuses," then I agree wholeheartedly. All this talk about how Israel "stole" all this land from "Palestine" ignores the fact that they were not the belligerents in 1948, nor were they in 1967 (although it was Israel who fired the first shot, it was clear through Nasser’s actions that war was indeed imminent).

3) Anti-Zionism is NOT Anti-Semitism:
Even if Israel was everything its critics call it (which it is not), that still should not merit condemning Zionism or Zionists. I don’t recall Theodore Hertzle ever advocating the destruction of the Palestinian people, merely the desire for a Jewish homeland. This later developed into a desire for a homeland in Palestine. The philosophy goes not further, even if those who embrace it do. Thus to say, I hate Zionists and "the Zionist entity," but hey, got nothing against Jews, is indeed Anti-Semitic, as Dr. Martin Luther King himself attested to.

4) Jews think any criticism of Israel is Anti-Semetic
This charge is particularly amazing given the fact that some of Israel’s fiercest critics are Israeli liberals themselves! There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israeli policies any more then there is anything wrong with criticizing any country’s policies. You may think Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is out of proportion, too harsh, a crime, etc. However, to suggest (as many often do) that Israel is responsible for genocide, Nazi crimes, Apartheid, and the numerous other ridiculous charges that have no basis in fact or history is indeed Anti-Semitic. As is the more traditional Anti-Semitism that we still hear today, such as "the Jews control the world," "the Jewish lobby determines American foreign policy," and the new classic, "The Jews are responsible for the attacks on 9/11." And what do we hear when this reality is pointed out? The same thing we hear racists say when their racism is pointed out in America: Oh, those Jews are being too sensitive and calling everything Anti-Semitism when it is not.

By comparing Israel alone to the worst charges that can be leveled against any country, it demonizes, not just Israel, but everyone who supports it. The Congo, Sri Lanka, China, Libya, Iran, Sudan, none of these countries has ever come close to being charged with the kinds of crimes that Israel is charged with, despite the higher rate of murders, and more sinister motives of some of these places.

Question: If Israel is such a monstrous state with imperial objectives, why not simply execute, or expel all Arabs from the territory that they want? Can anyone deny that they have the capacity to do so? If Israel is so against peace, why are their conditions for it so relatively benign (i.e. do what you can to stop terrorism)? Even Sharon, that most hated of international leaders, has said that terrorism does not need to stop for there to be peace, merely some effort by the Palestinians to TRY and stop it. Somehow, this is too unreasonable for some people.


Steve Brody - 11/10/2003

“In fact, I have to partially agree as I believe that the Defence Department is now being run by a Judeo-Christian cabal, having inordinate numbers of Jews and Christian fundamentalists in key positions. I would say, for example, that the number of Jews there is proportionately far superior to those of the general population.”

It now appears that Jews and Christians are the only groups for which bigotry can be openly expressed. Without embarrassment. Without fear of ostracism. Just openly expressed, grade “A”, unadulterated bigotry. And I didn’t even have to go to Malaysia to find it.

“Without advocating any quotas or restrictions, our leaders ought to be more sensitive to this conflict of interest and to make every effort to avoid having them in such sensitive areas as defence and foreign relations.”

Gus, this is antithetical to the American values. Are you really suggesting that Christians and Jews “need not apply”? Maybe you could run for office in Malaysia. It sounds like you would be a shoe-in.

Incidentally, Wen Ho Lee was investigated because he admitted downloading top-secret data unto recording tape and removing it from a top-secret weapons lab. He claims to have destroyed the tapes. But that leaves the question: Why did he make the tapes in the first place?


Concerned Global Citizen - 11/9/2003

Your other examples of linguistic backtracking have started to sound sensible enough, and deserve recognition as such.

However, with the use of the present tense *oppose,* in reference to a past action, a fait accompli, what you say is confusing. It is strange to hear someone persist in raising their present opposition to something that occured over 50 years ago, unless they mean that they would oppose something similar in the future.

"I thought I had been more than clear that I oppose the usurpation by illegal settlement of a land given to a second group (Zionists) by a third (British) neither of which had any right to do so.

I hope that is clear enough. As to the provocative insinuation that I “advocate the reversal of this occurence, and favor somehow convincing its citizens to dismantle the democratic government it established”, I have said nothing of the sort."

You made one other statement that needs to be addressed:

It seems to me their chief accomplishment, if it can be called that, to date, has been the creation of the world’s fourth most powerful armed forces and the displacement of millions to secure land that was not theirs, while waging war and developing an economic base.


"Millions" sounds like a deliberate exageration. The highest documented number of refugees took flight in 1948, and if you propose that the Jewish militias at that time constituted the "world's fourth most powerful armed forces," I have no other explanation for the advancement of this extremely sloppy glaring error than some kind of cowardly deception.

You're starting to make more sense on the other points. In America I should point out that our libel laws place the burden of proof on the individual making the original statement. I would hope that if you believe in a cause strongly enough you would have the gumption to check your facts first. Otherwise you do a disservice to your point of view. Thanks for the spirited debate and good luck.


Gus Moner - 11/9/2003

Regarding this comment:
“If you oppose the rights of Palestinians being infringed, then you should say that”.

I thought I had been more than clear that I oppose the usurpation by illegal settlement of a land given to a second group (Zionists) by a third (British) neither of which had any right to do so.

I hope that is clear enough. As to the provocative insinuation that I “advocate the reversal of this occurence, and favor somehow convincing its citizens to dismantle the democratic government it established”, I have said nothing of the sort.

I disagree that Zionism’s “chief political accomplishment was in fact the "development of the modern State of Israel." It seems to me their chief accomplishment, if it can be called that, to date, has been the creation of the world’s fourth most powerful armed forces and the displacement of millions to secure land that was not theirs, while waging war and developing an economic base. The closet thing to this is the US conquest of the natives, usurpation of their lands and the settlement and economic development of the US west.

I have repeatedly stated that Israel is a reality and its existence is not even questioned except by a few die-hard groups, who will eventually melt away when and if peace is achieved. I believe most Arab states cannot wait to have peace, get this spine of Palestine out of their throat and begin reaping the potential rewards of trading with Israeli for technological and agrarian improvements for their economies.


Gus Moner - 11/9/2003

Point taken, thanks. I meant it humorously, but obviously failed.


Jonathan Dresner - 11/9/2003

Mr. Moner,

Your offhand dismissal of Mr. Markell's comments with a slur on his psychiatric stability is offensive and unhelpful. If you have a point to make, make it (preferably without resort to personal attacks). If not, please don't clutter up the board with juvenile one-liners.


Concerned U.S. Citizen - 11/9/2003

"Without advocating any quotas or restrictions, our leaders ought to be more sensitive to this conflict of interest and to make every effort to avoid having (Jews and Christian fundamentalists - sic) in such sensitive areas as defence and foreign relations."

I bet the French would love to hear what you could teach them about the Dreyfuss affair. Too bad for you, the U.S. has freedom of speech and association. As far as anyone knows, the individuals of whom you speak were born in the U.S., and Israel has never been considered a hostile country since its recognition by President Truman, and for the majority of the relationship has been considered a staunch ally. Their associations with Israeli think tanks are no less benign than if they served on a think tank that favors protecting democracy in any other region of the world.
You might as well remove Paul Bremer from the government for working with the Iraqi Governing Council.

As for the degree to which religion informs public policy, I highly doubt that an organization as formidable as the U.S. Department of Defense favors democracy in the Middle East (not only for the Israelis, but for the Palestinians, Iraqis, and the entire Middle East in general - read Bush's recent comments) as a way to prepare for an impending Biblically predicted apocalypse.
The very notion that defense policy would be shaped according to the divine scenarios envisioned by Christian fundamentalist constituencies is so absurd that your ignorance could not be clearer.

Seeing as how the U.S. constitution is distinct from those of many other nation states in the world (including those in Europe which you seem to ignore) in expressly lacking a state religion, your noted display of ignorance is even further compounded. Israel is not a theocracy, and only blind bigotry would make one believe that U.S. assistance to them is somehow just a "Jewish thing." We will never block someone out of the government out of a religious bias (not without a severe public backlash and congressional and judicial challenge). Freedom of religion in America is much more important than someone as uninformed as you could ever know.

Come to this country sometime and learn about it if you need to that badly. There are more lessons of 1776 that you and some of your fellow subjects could badly stand to re-learn.


No name, no ad hominem - 11/8/2003

Any map of the globe will show that nation-states develop boundaries between them largely in conjunction with 2 quite discernable ethno-cultural traits: language and/or religion. The Jews speak Hebrew, they practice Judaism. They are a culturally distinct people, capable of governing their own affairs, and are no more "required" to politically merge with the Palestinians as the Croatians should be expected to merge politically with the Serbs.

The last 10 years, oh wait, no - 1000 years of history in the Balkans throws your wishful thinking about the "private matter" of religion out the window, regardless of how much you would "hope" otherwise. I think given 2000 years of religious persecution, the Jews can be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to deciding which nations can protect their interests, and to what degree, and for how long. So go ahead and criticize any policy or government action all you want. But should you continue to question the right to self-determination then the "ghost" that still haunts Europe and is openly welcomed throughout the Middle East is on your conscience.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Phew! I hope you get regular treatment sessions.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

A spirited and largely well directed, pro-active comment on a better approach.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Thanks for the lead on the article, I have begunb to read it. Could you give more details on the other magazine and story you referred to?
Thanks in advance!


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Person Cram,

you said …” Zionism is Jewish nationalism which tries to "create a state of, by, and for Jews." The problem as I see it is that disdain for this sense is reserved only for Jews”.

Disdain is not reserved solely for the Jews. This victimisation is shallow. Many pan national movements are failures and have been criticised, as was the Egyptian-Syrian-Iraqi pan Arab failure.

It is the Jews’ method, manner and strategy used to usurp Palestine that has put Jews in the centre of this storm. First, the movements of which you speak are voluntary efforts by sovereign nations, not religions, to cooperate. This is the first real difference between what you try to compare forming Israel to and pan-national movements. Jews came from all continents and nations to form Israel. It was and remains a religion in search of a state. Despite constant marriage within the confession they remained natives of scores of lands since they were expelled by the Romans. This is not the same as say Greeks, Serbians or Koreans, associated by race, culture and religion.

You say “it is worth remembering that the Jews received very little help from the British. While Britain did offer the Balfour Declaration, they also made a deal with the Arabs AND then with the French for the same thing”

This is apples and oranges. The deal with the French was a conflict only in terms of territorial delineation. The deals with the principal Arab tribes resulted in territorial conflicts as well. They had not agreed the Palestinian home for Jews and vehemently protested at the Versailles Conference, in letters and other communications.

The Jews were given the land to settle in before Britain controlled it. Then, Britain got a UN mandate to assist them in the quest, allowing all manner of settlement. When Britain finally realised that the Jews were not living up to the part of the agreement that said “(the settlement process) being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. You would do well to recall that Palestine was the ONLY League of Nations mandate to “ignore the rights of the native people”. That is no coincidence. (Source http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm)

Thus, your claims are groundless.

You claim that polls demonstrate that “If … the Palestinians discontinue terror as a political tactic, they will achieve independence”. No matter what polls say, the governments there, with a trio of notable exceptions have mostly been an obstacle to peace. It’s just not happening, after 40+ years, it’s still to happen properly. The idea was to settle and live there, not create a state. However, they caused so many troubles all around that the idea became an option for cut and run Britain. Through cycles of peace, guerrilla war, full-blown war or negotiations, Israel always has had an excuse to halt the transfer of statehood to Palestinians.


Cowboy - 11/8/2003

If you oppose the rights of Palestinians being infringed, then you should say that. But seeing as how Zionism's chief political accomplishment was in fact the "development of the modern State of Israel," one wonders if as an "anti-Zionist," you advocate the reversal of this occurence, and favor somehow convincing its citizens to dismantle the democratic government it established 55 years ago.

You should read what Martin Luther King had to say about "anti-Zionism."


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

I want to thank you for a thoughtful response, of which we are in dire need recently.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Sally Dean raises a point often raised here by others and I would like to support the question and ask that the imbalance be corrected. Moreover, different sources other than Carpenter and Pipes would be welcome by all.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Well, the vitriol is getting deep and nasty. There is no need to call anyone full of anything to get a point across. The idea here is to debate ideas.

David, Sir, I would recommend you read the entire speech. Most of the criticism was directed at Muslims for letting their place in the world of art, medicine, science and the like fall abysmally sink since they brought culture to a European world engulfed in a dark age.

To say “a speech about Jews that could have been written in 1933 Nazi Germany” is to show total ignorance of what was said or the speech as a whole. He slammed Muslims a whole lot more. Moreover, the standing ovation was for the entire speech.

Get your facts right, before you start getting insulted.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

It is getting harder to address people on this site as they are increasingly using odd forms of identification.

So, person, you “think it's certainly anti-Semitic to single out the Jews as somehow constituting the only nation unworthy or undeserving of self-determination.”

One has to study the history of the creation of Israel to comment on it. Frankly, speaking, I ask you since when is a religion a nation? Shall we create a nation for each religion? Hardly logical, is it? Religious faith is a private matter, not something to take land away from people for. This is not the Medieval Age, when conversions by the sword, or death, were the options. At least I would hope so.

Jews have got their nation. The gripe is they keep trying to expand it at the expense of Palestinians. In the process they use barbarous and heinous methods of conquest and control that their history would indicate ought not to be performed. We all know the Palestinian’s desperate and brutal acts in response to their situation, and one can but condemn all forms of violence. But Jews do not like their behaviour critiqued, it seems, and they call out the old ghost of anti-Semitism to deflect it. There is more anti-Gaul feeling in the US today than anti-Semitism.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

David, Sir.
Your analogy is sloppy too, as is your thinking. It’s a fallacious argument you pose.

This comparison you make can be interpreted many ways; it all depends on how and why the right of the US to exist was attacked. For example, people often say the forefathers of the current nation stole the continent from the natives. It was their land to roam and live as they wished till we came and partitioned it and murdered nearly the lot of them.

Is that anti-US demagoguery or is it a valid reading of history? Is it anti Christian (most were Christian pilgrims)? Is it anti white? Is it anti American? Sorry, to me none of the above. When you hold a people or nation above criticism you establish a barrier, and elitism. Canada, Australia and New Zealand’s policies towards their remaining natives have taken a dramatic shift since they recognised the wrongs done unto the natives and began trying to ameliorate the effects therefrom.

It would be ever so soothing to hear the same sort of epiphany from the invading Zionist settlers, who at the invitation and with the permission of only a third country which at the time did not even control Palestine, went into Palestine and reduced the people there to subservient status. Later, in 1939, realising the mistake the British closed the immigration floodgates, but that ran into another problem, WWII and the displaced people.

So, it all depends, I do not question Israel’s right to exist for that time has passed, probably since 1948 or just thereafter. Nonetheless, I shall forever condemn Israel’s tactics, behaviour and treatment of the Palestinians. I refuse to consider myself anti-Jewish, and will not go into any justification for my reading of history.

I believe the white Christian people from various European lands stole the entire Americas from their native people, murdering, raping, pillaging, looting and engaging them in warfare as well as (admittedly unwittingly) using viruses to annihilate them. I am white. I believe my forefathers destroyed entire cultures, nations, peoples. Am I anti-Caucasian? Hardly.



Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Hold it there cowboy.
Zionism is the political movement for the establishment and support of a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, now concerned chiefly with the development of the modern state of Israel and it is a policy for the movement for Jews from their existing countries to return to Palestine from the Diaspora.

Your definition, even with ample leeway for “broadly speaking” has not one whit to do with Zionism. Being anti-Zionist is to oppose this movement, infringing on the rights of Palestinian natives. It is not a form of address used to attack Jews.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Mr Brown makes a good point. This is what happens when we generalise, and I too am guilty of it. There are exceptions. However, in this case, they confirm the rule.

Yet, not all the people everywhere are the same just because they share a religion, race or state. And the point about the Israeli state doing these awful deeds must be asterisked with the fact that nearly half the Israeli Jews oppose these violent inhuman acts by their state.

I believe person Cram was referring to a semantic argument, not lumping anti-Semites, Zionists and Jews as one group of people, but rather as one form of address for Jews and those who may dislike them.

Still, Mr Brown makes a good point in saying that the “equation is, unfortunately, a pretty effective way that Zionists stifle criticism of the morally vile, unapologetically civilian-murdering, apartheid state of Israel”. It is unfortunately used that way.

Semantics and generalisations give us a lot of headaches. I have often railed against the Israeli practices of collective punishment, tattooing young men with numbers in their arms and selective assassinations. Finally, I would answer that it is not anti Jewish to oppose those barbaric policies any more than it is anti-Russian to oppose their barbaric treatment of Chechens or anti US to oppose their barbaric treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Person Cram makes a valid point about Arab or Muslim nations’ institutionalisation of anti Jewish feeling. This is not, however, a new development or unique, as I interpreted was the implication in the post. Whether my interpretation is right or wrong, the following anyway applies.

Anti Soviet feeling was institutionalised here for decades, as was anti-Saddam/Iraq feeling after 1990. Not to mention anti-Japanese feeling, to the point of putting them in concentration camps.

The list can be endless, so let’s go beyond the oceans and avoid being ethnocentric. The Japanese were inculcated with superiority in their upbringing leading them to treat Chinese as pigs. Pigs seem to be the most common insult to people in humanity.

‘Heretic’ Cathars were considered devils and burnt at the stakes of giant bonfires because they were such, according to the Catholic church in Rome. As the French king who accepted the surrender (after a five year Medieval siege with all the barbaric trimmings) (at Montfort, I believe), said when asked what to do with the prisoners: Burn them and let God judge them. Barbarism and hatred, even between people of the same race but not religion, are common threads in human history.

Those are enough examples of hatred. Thus, let’s not victimise the Jews as being the only people not loved in history.

Finally, I agree with your perception of the semantic nature of the use of anti-Semitic and find it an incredibly shallow line of argument.



Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Thank you for your frank comment.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

David Sir,
Clearly the example used was ‘childish, if you don’t mind the pun. However, the concept is on target. The hatred runs two ways between each side’s fundamentalists. Moreover, the history of the state and official pronouncements from Jewish institutions are full of bias towards the people whose land the Jews took.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

About time someone said it.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Mr Maher,
I have thought further on your quote and would like to expand on the comment.

It may have been that the German man, right or wrong, has anyway hit a soft spot here.
In fact, I have to partially agree as I believe that the Defence Department is now being run by a Judeo-Christian cabal, having inordinate numbers of Jews and Christian fundamentalists in key positions. I would say, for example, that the number of Jews there is proportionately far superior to those of the general population.

Normally, this would not be a problem; Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Buddhists, etc. can all work without having a conflict of interest with another state. However, many of the Jews in US government have actively worked on behalf of the Israeli government, for Israeli ‘think tanks’ or lobbying groups and have signed policy documents now being implemented by the Likud party now running government in Israel.

We do not see Anglicans setting policy for the UK and then coming here to implement it from the State or Defence Departments. I believe there is a conflict of interest here that does not arise with people of other religions, for other religions do not have states.

There is ample research evidence available on these people’s activities on behalf of a foreign government. That’s fine. What cannot happen is that they set policy in both, often policy that many think is against the US national interest yet favours Israeli interests.

Without advocating any quotas or restrictions, our leaders ought to be more sensitive to this conflict of interest and to make every effort to avoid having them in such sensitive areas as defence and foreign relations. It is one thing to coordinate, but to work for both the US government and on behalf of another used to be called treason, and a Chinese man was unjustly accused of that very charge because he was Chinese and worked in sensitive defence areas that had been subject to Chinese spying.

I believe that this conflict of interest would be the same if the religion were any other with an official state.


Gus Moner - 11/8/2003

Talk about sterotyping. One European man makes a comment, the entire continent of Europe is out to lunch.

Hogwash.


Josh Narins - 11/8/2003

My father, a devout Jew and arently pro-Israel, told me that Arabs were "dogs, who could be killed" without it bothering the conscience, because of their sub-human stature.

Pipes is the one "Team B" nutcake from the Ford years that doesn't have a job in the current adminstration. Other "Team B" players (who all dramatically overstated the Soviet threat, far worse than even the CIA, as a political effort) include Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.

Poor Mr. Pipes.


Self-determination not a bad thing - 11/8/2003

"Zionism" broadly means the right of the Jews to self-determination in their land. It does not pertain to any particular policy or action taken by a government. The fact is that certain media and political groups have demonized and misused the term so often and for so long that their sympathizers no longer understand what it means to oppose "Zionism." This speaks to how successful such groups have become at getting people to unwittingly denigrate Jewish self-determination.

Being "anti-Zionist" is a politically directed form of attacking Jews. Whatever political rights you think they should have, it implies that self-determination is not one of them. "Religious" settlers in the West Bank are considered no more "Zionist" than citizens who would hold on to their statehood, terrorism-free, in the areas that don't become part of the Palestinian state, regardless of its size.


Liberty 4 U and Me - 11/7/2003

I think it's certainly anti-Semitic to single out the Jews as somehow constituting the only nation unworthy or undeserving of self-determination.


Cram - 11/7/2003

Well put Elia.


David - 11/7/2003

Don't you have a bullozer to get flattened by? Run along now.


Elia Markell - 11/7/2003

Jesse makes this point, which deserves to be addressed:

I constantly hear hand-wringing from Israel's backers over this Arab politician or that magazine "denying Israel's right to exist". But so what? Israel does exist. It has a flag, and a government, and an Olympic team, and a monetary unit- and a military. Israel's existence is a fact."

And, yes, Israel has its nuclear weapons program. However, the Palestinian cry of "From the River to the Sea" is the entire region's dream. Five million Jews stand in its way, and they would be destroyed gleefully if this policy were undertaken. Given the attitudes in Europe (59% believe Israel to be the greatest threat to world peace), Europe could be counted on to be "reasonable" in the face of this new Holocaust. Israel might launch its nukes, but at whom? And what real confidence can anyone have that the Arab world would always have the prgmatism to care? After all, this is a culture now so warped as to celebrate when children blow themselves up to kill a few Jewish babies. How far is this from the mentality it takes to absorbs some nukes to kill five million Jews?

No, all that stand right now between Jews and a new Holocaust is the USA. It takes no victim mentality to see this and act on it. What it takes is cold, hard realism and a determination never again to be a victim.


F.H. Thomas - 11/7/2003


Thank you for a straightforward and humorous post, which points the inquiry in the right direction.

Given the reception which Pipes receives here, and assuming that he is favored by HNN management, surely they must realize that they are doing their cause harm, by constantly publishing him.


Fred Ferrel - 11/7/2003

Guess what, David, I am an American too and not an Arab terrorist. What a coincidence. But, whatever my religion, if I wanted America to turn its Treasury over to Yassir Sharon or Ariel Arafat, I would have the decency to leave here and go to my hero in the fabulous West Bank of the Jordan, and eat my milk (however that is done) and honey there, and then try to convince Americans to send bundles of money to me, so that I could afford to always be well armed against any neighbors who might dare to try and take some of my milk and honey.


Sally Dean - 11/7/2003


You are hacking at a small shrub and missing the forest, John. "David" Scaredofhislastname has shown his arrogance in many recent posts, and his kneejerking in calling Jesse Lamovksy a "leftist" in this thread. (By that definition Dennis Kucinich is a rightwinger !). Run of the mill uninformed websurfers are abundant here and merit no attention.

No, the real issue should be: why has HNN, which claims to be a serious and balanced effort to put current events into historical perspective, run some 40 articles by Pipes and many more articles by others of that genre over the two and half years, vs maybe 4 or 5 total by the likes of Edward Said ?


Cram - 11/6/2003

Israel’s nuclear arsenal does not protect it from terrorist attacks on its civilians. It did not protect it from scud missiles launched at it from Iraq in 1991. The only thing that protects Israel from its neighbors is a vastly superior military and the willingness to use it. There are no deterring terrorists, either with a nuclear weapon or any other weapon.

I am sorry that pointing out discrimination and racism is "victim talk." I am sorry that some people are "so tired" of people who have their own state and yet for some reason, they insist on pointing out the reality that DOES jibe with the facts, that much of the world despises them and prays for their annihilation.

When blacks complain about racism, do you simply yawn and tell them to go to Africa, where they have states and militaries? When Americans of Arab dissent complain that they are the targets of discrimination, do you dismiss them and simply tell them to go to some country in the Middle East? If you do, good for you! How dare anyone point out injustice somewhere! I certainly hope that your discontent is not reserved for Jews, but to all people who rightfully or not, point out discrimination.


John Brown - 11/6/2003

That's rich. Sticks and stones, Dave.


David - 11/6/2003

YOU SAID: "Are you calling Arabs cockroaches now, Mr. Self-Appointed Ambassador of Zionist Self-Righteousness? Why not pigs and apes?"

Don't you wish. That way you could avoid discussing the merits of the argument, and instead launch into a tangent about Racism™, or some other such nonsense. Is your small mind able to understand the concept of reasoning by ANALOGY?

So no, arabs are not cockroaches, but they fear Pipes for exposing them to the light of day, just as a cockroach does (that's called an analogy).

Having said that, you're obviously confused. "Apes and Pigs" are what arab muslims call the Jews, and NOT by analogy. Just listen to the preaching at a local Saudi mosque. Or just re-read Pipe's article.


John Brown - 11/6/2003

No, Dave, I can certainly be anti-Zionist and in no way anti-Semitic. Thank God neither you nor Daniel Pipes nor Ariel Sharon nor David Ben Gurion speak for Jews.


David - 11/6/2003

Again, you accuse me of "vitriol", but you started out by calling people "hate mongers". Besides being a hypocrite, you are obviously powerless to respond with facts and reasoning.

Case closed.


John Brown - 11/6/2003

Are you calling Arabs cockroaches now, Mr. Self-Appointed Ambassador of Zionist Self-Righteousness? Why not pigs and apes?


John Brown - 11/6/2003

You certainly don't disappoint, David -- I can always count on you to descend into irrational, gutter-level, quasi-religious vitriol. It's people like you who make peaceful negotiations impossible.


Jesse Lamovsky - 11/6/2003

Mr. Maher,

I've read Andrew Sullivan, thank you very much. I do know that European anti-semitism is largely a phenomenon that exists among the Arab immigrants to those countries (particularly France). Not to sound pessimistic, but there's nothing we can do about Europe. That continent is dying. The only way to stop the rot of European civilization is for the EU to ban the suicidal birth control and abortion policies it has adopted, and shut the door on continued immigration from the Arab states. Neither will happen. The best we can do is airlift the Jews out of there, a la the Ethiopian airlift, if and when things get intolerable for them there. What else can we do? Either way, anti-semitism in Europe is a poor excuse for Israeli government policies that are always reactive- never proactive.

I constantly hear hand-wringing from Israel's backers over this Arab politician or that magazine "denying Israel's right to exist". But so what? Israel does exist. It has a flag, and a government, and an Olympic team, and a monetary unit- and a military. Israel's existence is a fact. Nothing Counterpunch or the Nation (or whatever magazine you were referring to) changes this fact.

And what are the Arabs "preparing fertile soil (for) in the future"? A second Holocaust? A WMD strike on Israel, as Mr. Pipes feverishly asserts? Okay, let me explain something. There's this place in the Negev Desert, a place called Dimona. At Dimona the Israelis have stored these things called nuclear weapons. These nuclear weapons can turn the entire Arab Middle East into a radioactive crater within a couple of minutes. The Arabs are well aware of the existence of these weapons, and of the willingness of the Israelis to use them. Don't you think this awareness just might override any feelings of anti-semitism on the part of the Arabs, no matter how strong they are?

I'm so, so tired of this victim talk. We are not victims. We are not the Russian shtetl Jews of 1905. We are wealthy, we are powerful, we have our own state which is armed to the teeth. We have the strength to be proactive, to make bold moves for peace. Yet men like Pipes would convince us that we are the quivering, helpless Jew of memory. This is a terrible, self-destructive, stance to take, and moreover, it doesn't jibe with the facts.


David - 11/6/2003

YOU SAY: "Pipes's citation of the famous "Palestinian textbooks" issue ignores the fact that the offensive texts were produced in Egypt and Jordan, both countries staunch allies of the USA, and that the few texts produced under the Palestinian Authority have no such comparable filth."

And tell me, what friggin difference does it make where the books are printed? Do you think little Pali child reading and being indoctrinated in the books gives one stick of dynamite where the book was PRINTED??? What CLAPTRAP you speak.

And then you dig yourself further into your hole by saying that Egypt and Jordan are "staunch" U.S. allies, therefore who cares that they publish this filth. Let me ask you this, if "staunch" allies of the U.S. can get away with this filth, imagine what countries like Syria are getting away with!!!!

Oh, but let's not forget, Daniel Pipes is a "hate monger"!!!!

buahaha!

I know why the arab world hates Pipes so much, for the same reasons a cockroach hates it when the lights go on in the kitchen in the middle of the night.


Cram - 11/6/2003

Joe,
I really don’t understand your point about the post from "FactsofIsrael," especially since your excerpt comes, not from the creator of the site, who seems to be simply a private individual, but from a blog on the site similar to this one. If your point was to show that some people are racist against Arabs, I don’t think anyone (including Mr. Pipes) has ever challenged that reality. Just as there are people racist against blacks, Asians, Roma, etc.

The important distinction between the 2 is this: would you hear such language from the Prime Minister of Israel? Would you read it in a children’s textbook? Are you likely to hear it from a popular Rabbi anywhere?

The point of Pipes article, as well as the cover story of U.S. News and World Report last week (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031103/usnews/3anti.htm) is not that some people hate Jews, but that this hatred is State-sanctioned by much of the Arab world. It is preached in mosques, read in official newspapers, and advertised by political leaders.

In other words, racist attitudes in Israel are private beliefs, supported by fringe elements in society in private forums. In parts of the Arab world, Anti-Semitism is institutionalized and are just as dangerous as sticks and stoned. Racism didn’t persist so long in the United States because a some people hold racist beliefs, it persisted because that racism was completely institutionalized, taught to children at schools, and reinforced by all levels of society. Try telling one of the thousands of blacks whose family was lynched in this country before the 1960’s that government-endorsed hate doesn’t hurt anyone.


David - 11/6/2003

YOU SAID: "When I say, "regardless of what the Malaysian PM said," it is not to excuse what he said, but to emphasize that Pipes was a hate-monger before the Malaysian PM said anything, is now, and to all indications will continue to be a hate-monger."

That's rich. You freely sling the term "hatemonger", but when it comes back that YOU are evil and warped, you take offense and try to jump on a highhorse. Sorry guy, too late. You got some of your own medicine. More evidence of your warped thinking that you would take offense at it---you don't even see your own hypocrisy. YOU are a hatemonger.

You say that Pipes was a "hate monger" BEFORE Mahathir's Manifesto, which proves Pipes is a "hate monger". But the opposite is actually true because Mahathir's Manifesto only PROVES that Mr. Pipes has been right this whole time. It PROVES that Pipes wasn't a "hate monger" after all, but a voice in the wilderness, and that Mahathir did him a great favor by PROVING HIM RIGHT.

Of course, you initial dismissal of Mahathir's Manifesto doesn't not go unnoticed, believe you me. As a lawyer, we are taught that a witness's first answer is usually the closest to the truth.


David - 11/6/2003

YOU SAID: "The Zionists' Big Lie -- equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Sorry, Rifkin, but "delegitimizing the foundation of Israel" doesn't make me any more anti-Semitic than calling Columbus a murderer of Indians makes me anti-Italian."

Your analogy is sloppy, like your thinking. Forget "Columbus". How about if you attack the validity of the U.S. as a country, and ONLY the U.S., to the exclusion of all other countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc.

Would we be wrong to assume you are anti-American for singling out America for vilification? No, we wouldn't. And neither is Israel wrong to believe that your singling her out, to the exclusion of all others, anti-semitic, anti-jewish. It's logical.


Joe - 11/6/2003

Let's just dispose of the notion that Arabs and Muslims have a monopoly on toxic rhetoric; see this recent post on "FactsofIsrael.com"

Then, once we've decided that sticks and stones break more bones than names, let's remember who has the nuclear sticks and the American-tax-payer-funded stones.

To the RAG HEADS:-

You stupid pathetic inbread (yes consanguineous) Arabs
http://www.consang.net/global_prevalence/map.html

cant stand to see an exposed ankle in the street. Yet you want to shag multiple virgins in the after life as "martyrs" (read gullible peasants). Are you sick of rooting your cousins? Your culture is in it's death throws just as your hopeless economies and piss pot regimes hang on by the skin of their teeth and the rate of birth defects rises.
You are lining up to lose the 5th war in a row with the usual abandon and strategic bankruptcy




Bill Maher - 11/6/2003


Since most of it comes from Europe, perhaps everyone should read "Anti-Semitism and Ethnicity in Europe" in the current issue of Policy Review. Jesse Lamovsky, furthermore, might spend a little time going through Andrew Sullivan's anti-Semitism watch. Granted, the barbarians have not broken through the gates. They are, however, preparing fertile soil for the future. And did my eyes deceive me when, in a major American intellectual magazine, the idea was floated that Israel did not even have the right to exist?


John Brown - 11/6/2003

Of course Pipes's "Second Holocaust" rhetoric is overblown and, like most of what he says, completely disingenuous. It's a cheap ploy to justify the murderous policies of the state of Israel by invoking the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. So is the so-called evidence he enlists in support of this baseless theory. How can Muslim anti-Semitism be the cause of attacks against Jews in Argentina, France, or LAX? One might point out that sporadic anti-Semitic incidents against Jews have occurred in all of these places (except maybe LAX, but who knows?) for the last half-century, and although obviously deplorable, they have yet to usher in any Second Holocaust. Likewise, Pipes's citation of the famous "Palestinian textbooks" issue ignores the fact that the offensive texts were produced in Egypt and Jordan, both countries staunch allies of the USA, and that the few texts produced under the Palestinian Authority have no such comparable filth. Anyone can read an article on this by an Israeli journalist at http://www.nad-plo.org Pipes is allowed to spew his hatred because of the tenuous assumption that the interests of the USA and Israel are identical. Fortunately, fewer people take that for granted these days, thus the need to rely on an incendiary extremist like Pipes.


John Brown - 11/6/2003

When I say, "regardless of what the Malaysian PM said," it is not to excuse what he said, but to emphasize that Pipes was a hate-monger before the Malaysian PM said anything, is now, and to all indications will continue to be a hate-monger.

Calling me "warped" and "evil" just underlines your total inability to discuss the issues rationally. You're in good company with Pipes, who somehow seems to think attacks on Jews in Argentina or LAX can be attributed to Muslims.

If you just want to call me more names, please don't waste my time.


David - 11/6/2003

YOU SAID: "Regardless of what the prime minister of Malaysia says, Pipes is a professional hate-monger and Zionist hatchet man."

That's interesting how you're willing to ignore Mahathir's Manifesto, and the standing ovation he received from the muslim world, but instantly turn to demonizing Pipes as a "hate monger". You don't even see how warped you are, do you?

You're hopeless, but I hope that people who read your posts can see the evil you represent.


Jesse Lamovsky - 11/6/2003

So I'm a leftist, huh? Read some of my other posts, if you care to. If I'm a leftist, I have a funny way of showing it.

I'm not impugning Mr. Pipes's patriotism here. I'm simply saying he doesn't have any, because to him (and to not a few other neoconservative policymakers), the United States exists only as a paymaster and an armorer for the State of Israel. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But can you deny that Pipes, Pearle, Ledeen, and a lot of the other neocons have, shall we say, an attachment to Israel? And remember, these men have been and are in the employee of the United States Government. Their jobs are to look out for the best interests of the United States- not Israel which is, after all, a foreign country.

As for Jews currently living in Arab countries- agreed, there are few left, since the mass expulsions of the 1950s and 60s. But there are still venerable Jewish communities in places like Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Morocco. At any rate, these communities don't even rate a mention from Pipes, which is a bit odd, since it stands to reason that they would bear the brunt of the acknowledged) increase in Arab anti-semitism. But the Jews of Arab countries apparently aren't part of Pipes's agenda.

And honestly, David- don't you think this "second Holocaust" talk from Pipes is way, way, overblown?


Cram - 11/6/2003

Joe,
First of all, I appreciated your response and thought your counterexample about Mendela and Indians were well put.

Certainly, Zionism is Jewish nationalism which tries to "create a state of, by, and for Jews." The problem as I see it is that disdain for this sense is reserved only for Jews. While I don’t know your thoughts on the subject, I have never heard anyone coplain about similar goals for other groups, such as Pan-Africanism, Pan-Arabism, or Pan-Islam, all nationalistic goals with the same aim.

As far as Zionism only being viable "because it was carried out under the protection of an invading, occupying colonial power" it is worth remembering that the Jews received very little help from the British. While Britain did offer the Balfour Declaration, they also made a deal with the Arabs AND then with the French for the same thing. When the time came when Jews truly needed the help of an "occupying colonial power," strict quotas and restrictions were placed on immigration for Jews. To the bitter end, the British provided ZERO help in settling the dispute, choosing instead to simply leave and let the UN deal with it.

If I am not mistaken, I believe you are trying to accuse the Israelis of the same tactics of the Nazis. If the Jews were "content to continue to be persecuted by the Europeans," they would all be dead. If, on the other hand, the Palestinians discontinue terror as a political tactic, they will achieve independence (poll after poll within Israel demonstrates this).

"The urge to say nasty things about people who are ruining your life is kind of hard to resist." I don’t deny it just as Israelis whose children or grandparents were blown up while praying or going to school would think the same of the other side. The issue is not how people feel in the passion of losing a love one, but the actions of their leaders, their teachers, their parents. Dehumanizing Jews (ALL Jews) as monsters to make it more acceptable to murder them will never achieve peace any more then teaching children that blacks are all inferior will promote racial harmony.

Writing about how Jews murder Muslim children to drink their blood (as a Saudi Arabian government-run paper said) or how the Jews plan on taking over the world (as an Egyptian TV show said) or teaching young Palestinian children to think of ALL of Israel as occupied territory will never solve the problem. It will only raise a new generation of Palestinians who refuse to concede that targeting children is a bad thing, EVEN if those children are Jews.

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR01102

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP13800


John Brown - 11/6/2003

The Zionists' Big Lie -- equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Sorry, Rifkin, but "delegitimizing the foundation of Israel" doesn't make me any more anti-Semitic than calling Columbus a murderer of Indians makes me anti-Italian.


John Brown - 11/6/2003

Regardless of what the prime minister of Malaysia says, Pipes is a professional hate-monger and Zionist hatchet man. To the extent that people believe that all Jews believe what Pipes writes, then yes, he is a danger to Jews. Pipes and other Zionists, claiming to speak for Jews, claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. If people are told that to oppose the vile policies and practices of the State of Israel is to be anti-Semitic, many will see no reason to make a distinction. That's why Jews who oppose state terror and apartheid need to loudly and visibly repudiate Pipes and his ilk.

Mr. Beres makes a serious argument. "David" makes no argument, just tries to intimidate with insults and expletives. It certainly looks as if he'd be comfortable building a "security wall" somewhere.


John Brown - 11/6/2003

Cram says, "Whether you call it anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism, or anti-Jewish, it is all the same thing."

No Cram, it is precisely NOT the same to be anti-Zionist as to be anti-Semitic. As you are certainly aware, there are a number of anti-Zionist ultra-orthodox Jews who can hardly be accused of Jew-hating. Your dishonest equation is, unfortunately, a pretty effective way that Zionists stifle criticism of the morally vile, unapologetically civilian-murdering, apartheid state of Israel. If Israel had been founded as a Buddhist state its policies and actions would be just as repugnant and just as deserving of scorn by decent people everywhere. Where else in the "free world" is it considered legitimate to bulldoze the homes of alleged "terrorists'" _families_? Is it anti-Semitic to oppose such a barbaric practice? Any self-respecting Jew would be ashamed to imply as much.


Joe - 11/6/2003

Oh -- were to begin, indeed. No doubt immigrating 19th century Jews purchased land legally from absentee landlords, most of whom had only recently become owners of the land themselves, as the Ottoman Empire switched from a communal land-holding system in the provinces to a "modern" system of private land ownership. But the real objection to Zionism was never that individual Jews came in and bought land. Jews had entered into Palestine and other Muslim-controlled territories throughout the Middle Ages and early modern periods, every time they were thrown out of Europe. The real problem was and remains the avowedly nationalist program to create a state of, by, and for Jews. Had Zionism simply advocated a return to Palestine and creation of a truly democratic state with equal political rights for all, there would have been a completely different history of this territory. The secondary problem was that Zionism was only politically viable because it was carried out under the protection of an invading, occupying colonial power. That sort of discredited it in the eyes of the locals, as you can perhaps understand.

Had Arabs in Palestine never enjoyed national or individual political rights before? Not in the modern sense, no. But then, neither had the Jews of Europe. Shouldn't they, also, then have been content to continue to be persecuted by the Europeans?

Are the West Bank and the Gaza Strip functionally internment camps? Try driving from one end to another dressed as an Arab. Try getting into, or out of, a village surrounded by razor wire or a a security fence.

How can a population of 6 million hold a population of millions as prisoner? Ask Nelson Mandella. The odds were even higher against the Afrikaaners, and they held out for a good long time.

Why would the Palestinians want a state in this prison? Why did the Indians want to take over Alcatraz? The point is to get rid of the jailors and remake the prison into what it was before: a peaceful home to people who just want to get on to their lives.

Is all racism wrong? Sure. But conflating the anti-semitism of Europe with its immitation Muslim counterpart ignores the completely different histories of the phenomena. Europeans had the most fantastic, paranoid delusions about Jews. Some of the kind of rhetoric has, unfortunately, been adopted by Arabs and other Muslims. But having your house bulldozed or your farmland confiscated or your village emptied out to make room for more settlers is no delusion, and the urge to say nasty things about people who are ruining your life is kind of hard to resist.


Cram - 11/5/2003

Joe wrote:
"Even though it was European Jews who came to take over Palestine and set up a state that exluded the natives from power; and even though this state continues to imprison millions in what amounts to two giant internment camps for the enemies of the "only democracy in the Middle East;" Arabs are not allowed to say insulting things about their enemies, because that would be "anti-Semitic."

Where do I begin?
1) European Jews purchased land in Palestine legally, not in some military invasion based out of some imaginary Jew-ville
2) Historical note: The "natives" never had power: the land was controlled by the Romans, then the Ottomans, then the British. The first time a "native" Arab from that areas had the opportunity to have any political power, it was as an Arab Israeli citizen, who can vote, hold office, and form political parties (which they have, 2 of them). Nowhere else in the Middle East does an Arab hold this power.
3) How can a state with a population of 6 million imprison millions? If you consider the West Bank and Gaza internment camps, why would the Palestinians want to build a state on them?
4) Unlike in any other country in the region, Israel has freedom of speech and anyone can say what like about Israelis and Jews alike.

I am sorry that you consider racist remarks about Jews to be legitimate because historically, "people have insulted their enemies." For myself, I would sooner say that all racism is wrong in the past and the present rather then accept your policy that no racism is wrong, either in the past or the present.
(If I have misunderstood what you were suggesting, my apologies).


David - 11/5/2003

"...tragically, by extreme tactics of Pipes to label all who criticize or question Israel as anti-Semitic."

What a load crap. Pipes criticizes Mahathir for a speech about Jews that could have been written in 1933 Nazi Germany, to a standing ovation from the world's muslim leaders, and you say that Pipes is toxic?

You're so full of s%$#t your eyes are brown.


george beres - 11/5/2003

"Toxic Anti-Semitism" was a logical phrase for the headline on the Daniel Pipes article about prejudice in the Muslim world. But it is equally apt for what he creates in Western society, where resentment toward innocent Jews is fomented, tragically, by extreme tactics of Pipes to label all who criticize or question Israel as anti-Semitic. It is the progressive Jews of the United States who must move to calm down Pipes before his continued vitriol infects attitudes toward Jews, as well as those whom he irresponsibly attacks as anti-Jew. - George Beres


David - 11/5/2003

"Pipes is not only a ghoul. He is also a fifth columnist, an American only by accident of birth."

I thought Lefties such as yourself believed that questioning someone's patriotism was beyond the pale? Not anymore? Fine. You've just described 99% of the "peace at all costs" crowd, america haters through and through.

Regarding jews currently in Arab lands, you mean all 6 of them?


Joe - 11/5/2003

Let me get this straight. Throughout all of human history, people have insulted their enemies. Call 'em gooks, slopes, japs, krauts, huns, commies, injuns, lobster-backs, rag-heads, whatever. Accuse them of bayoneting babies, raping white women, brain-washing our POW's, flouridating our water -- you name it. But even though Israel has shown itself to be an aggressive enemy to Arabs and Muslims; even though it was European Jews who came to take over Palestine and set up a state that exluded the natives from power; and even though this state continues to imprison millions in what amounts to two giant internment camps for the enemies of the "only democracy in the Middle East;" Arabs are not allowed to say insulting things about their enemies, because that would be "anti-Semitic."


Jesse Lamovsky - 11/5/2003

If Pipes were really concerned about Arab anti-semitism, why doesn't he even mention the situation of Jewish communities in Arab countries- the people who, it stands to reason, would be most affected by this phenomenon?

The reason is that he isn't all that concerned. All he's concerned about is the flow of money from U.S. taxpayers to fund the settlements and the Israeli war machine, and all this talk about "anti-semitism" is simply an excuse for the Israelis to keep their boots on the necks of the Palestinians in perpetuity.

We need to repudiate Pipes, and people like him. The man is a ghoul, obsessed with digging up the bodies of our murdered ancestors- victims of real anti-semitism, a kind most of us can't even imagine. It's disgusting, indecent, and most of all, it doesn't solve any of our problems. Hitler is dead. He shot himself in the mouth sixty years ago. We are not victims, and those, like Pipes, who try and force us into a ghetto of victimhood, should be thrust to the margins.

Oh, and by the way- just what the hell can Condi Rice do to "actively... fight" anti-semitism in the Arab world? And how is this her job, or the job of the American government in general? Pipes is not only a ghoul. He is also a fifth columnist, an American only by accident of birth.


David - 11/5/2003

Sorry to dissapoint you. I'm American, living in America. Oh, and guess what, I'm not even jewish!!!

But why aren't you blowing up Israeli school buses? The Brutal™ Occupation™, remember?


Stephen Rifkin - 11/5/2003

One wonders what the good kind of antisemitism is? One wonders from posters like Mr. Ferrel What an acceptable level of hate should be?

How it goes is thus: First you deny the existance of antisemitism then you deny the consequences of it. Then you cover up your complicity in it.

A greal of middle eastern antisemitic hatred is focused at delegitimizing the foundation of Israel. An attempt to de-invent it. Once you can claim that any country 'really doesn't exist' then you are free to give full vent to whatever exterminationism you feel is an appropriate remedy.


Fred Ferrel - 11/5/2003


Isn't there a "security fence" overseas that you should be busy working on ?


David - 11/5/2003

"After all, one Jew of acquaintance is married to a Korean, not a Korean/American, a Korean. The couple has a child. Is the child Jewish? Will the child when grown practice the faith? If so, then perhaps the child will be Jewish when grown. If not, how then could the child be considered Jewish? Thayt is another ever so tiny shrinking of the American Jewish population, no?"

You sound as if you've analyzed yourself into knots. You poor fellow.

The term "anti-semitic" was coined in reference to the hatred of jews. It's a very simple concept and does not need further clarification.

To now claim that "arabs also are semites" is nothing but an attempt to minimize anti-semitism (jew hatred).


David - 11/5/2003

"3 year olds on settlements" don't voice their beliefs on official government newspapers, radio stations, tv stations. Yet that is exactly what you see everywhere in the arab world.

Your casual efforts to compare an Israeli "3 year old on a settlement" to the vile hatred spewed from mosques, official arab newspapers, official arab television and radio, shows just how warped your thinking is.

And it basically confirms Mr. Pipe's thesis that the cancer of anti-semitism is so part of your culture it doesn't even register with you.

Oh, but let me guess, you too are a "semite", so how can you be an anti-semite? buahaha!


David - 11/5/2003

Bill, I loved your work on Politically Incorrect.


Cram - 11/5/2003

While I am sure that "There are plenty of three year olds in the Jewish settlements on the West Bank who think all Arabs are beasts" just as there are racist Americans, and racist Europeans, the principle difference seems to me to be the complete institutionalization of racism in the Arab world, from the educational system to government-run television. This is all similar to the situation of America in the post-Reconstruction South, where films like "Birth of a Nation" and textbooks ignoring slavery were embraced. So too in parts of the Arab world are films made of "The Protocols on the Elders of Zion," and books like Mein Kampf freely and commonly distributed.

As far as Anti-Semitism goes, it means hating Jews. The argument that Arabs are also Semites (which is true) and therefore cannot be Anti-Semitic is a semantic argument. It is like saying White people can’t be racist because they too belong to a race. The term has always meant being against Jews and whether you call it anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism, or anti-Jewish, it is all the same thing.

To answer the question about the Korean Jewish child, the answer is this:
If the mother is Jewish, then Judaism considers that child to be Jewish. If the Father is Jewish and the mother is not, then the child is not Jewish UNLESS the child decides to practice Judaism, in which case he/she may be considered Jewish (although the Orthodox would make them go through an official conversion).


Dave Livingston - 11/5/2003

IMHO Bill Maher is correct in his assessment of Europeans.

That said, I remain puzzled why the term anti-semitism has morphed into including the Arab, who IS a semite. In fact, a Middle Eastern Arab is far more likely to be semitic, in race and in culture than is an American or European Jew. Jews in America & in Europe have intermarried with gentiles for centuries. Evidently, intermarriage is a major cause that the American Jewish population has shrunk from 5,500,000 to 5,200,000 over the past decade.

After all, one Jew of acquaintance is married to a Korean, not a Korean/American, a Korean. The couple has a child. Is the child Jewish? Will the child when grown practice the faith? If so, then perhaps the child will be Jewish when grown. If not, how then could the child be considered Jewish? Thayt is another ever so tiny shrinking of the American Jewish population, no?


Ho Hum - 11/5/2003

Courtesy of Pipes. Week after week, year after year.

There are plenty of three year olds in the Jewish settlements on the West Bank who think all Arabs are beasts, because everybody they hear says so.

Big deal.


Bill Maher - 11/4/2003



The capital of Sudan was recently in somewhat of a panic when it was believed that those who shook hands with foreigners somehow lost their penises. That the longest hatred should find fertile ground in such an environment cannot come as a surprise. Otto von Habsburg, however, is a long-time member of the European Parliament representing Bavaria's Christian Social Union. Note his recent observations: "If we consider America's internal politics, then we find that it is split in two halves. On the one hand, the Defense Department, in which the key positions are held by Jews; the Pentagon is today a Jewish institution. On the other hand, the blacks are in the State Department: for instance, Colin Powell or especially Condoleezza Rice. It is an internal conflict between hawks and doves. Currently, the Anglo-Saxons, that's to say the white Americans, are playing a relatively minor role."

If the Arabs are out to lunch, their European counterparts are certainly not far behind.

Subscribe to our mailing list