Posts Tagged ‘anti semitism’

This analysis from one of Europe’s most distinguished anti-Semitism researchers. 

Cover picture, portraying the basic premise of this post, is from June 17, 2002.

‘In the past 10 years, anti-Semitic comments on the internet and in letters to editors have almost tripled’

Scientific measures indicate a massive upsurge of Jew-hatred on the internet, as anti-Semitism reestablishes itself as an increasingly visible element in European mainstream discourse.

There is less and less resistance to anti-Semitic utterances

[…there is] global Israelization of anti-Semitic discourse. The articulation of traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes by projecting them onto Israel is by now the most dominant manifestation of modern Jew hatred. 

Scientifically we can draw a very clear distinction between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. We give many examples for both types in our book. Those who claim that criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism cannot be distinguished do so in order to excuse or marginalize anti-Semitic views.

Full quote from source below:

European anti-Semites increasingly playing victim in classic ‘perpetrator inversion,’ says expert

If you thought you noticed increasing Jew-hatred online and in mainstream European media, you were right — and Professor Monika Schwarz-Friesel can quantify that scientifically
By Marc NeugroschelOctober 5, 2016, 3:17 am

Monika Schwarz-Friesel, professor and author of ‘Inside the anti-Semitic Mind,’ whose English translation will be released this upcoming November. (Marc Neugröschel/Times of Israel)

Monika Schwarz-Friesel, professor and author of ‘Inside the anti-Semitic Mind,’ whose English translation will be released this upcoming November. (Marc Neugröschel/Times of Israel)
‘In the past 10 years, anti-Semitic comments on the internet and in letters to editors have almost tripled’
JERUSALEM — One of Europe’s most distinguished anti-Semitism researchers, Monika Schwarz-Friesel has an alarming message: scientific measures indicate a massive upsurge of Jew-hatred on the internet, as anti-Semitism reestablishes itself as an increasingly visible element in European mainstream discourse.
A psychologist, linguist and professor of cognitive science at the Technical University of Berlin, Schwarz-Friesel is one of the most quoted experts on anti-Semitism in both international academic literature and the German media.
In her numerous publications she analyzes and exposes new manifestations of old anti-Semitic sentiments — disguised though they might be — employing much of the same Jew-hatred that has been shaping European discourse throughout the years, even when officially outlawed.
These analyses are evidence that recent anti-Israeli tropes demonizing the Jewish state are actually work-arounds of old anti-Semitic sentiments that have been with us for two millennia.
As the go-to scholar on anti-Semitism in Europe, in March 2016, Schwarz-Friesel delivered a keynote speech at the Berlin Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism in the Bundestag (the German federal parliament) which was attended by 100 lawmakers from 40 countries. In 2015 she wrote a much noted expertise that was part of the testimony against German journalist Jürgen Elsässer in a court case, in which the latter sued the publicist and former politician Jutta Ditfurth for calling him a “glowing anti-Semite.”
And now, to further amplify her research outside of Europe, an English translation of her much celebrated study titled “Inside the anti-Semitic Mind” (co-authored with former Brandeis University president, Jehuda Reinharz), will be available this upcoming November.
Currently, Schwarz-Friesel, is spending the last part of her sabbatical in Jerusalem, where she met with The Times of Israel on Hebrew University’s Mount Scopus Campus to share some insight into the truly disturbing results of her research.
Your book “Inside the anti-Semitic Mind” reviews over 15,000 letters, emails and other correspondence that have been addressed to Israeli embassies and Jewish institutions all over Europe. What do these correspondences reveal?
Many of these letters employ classical anti-Semitic stereotypes in order to abuse their addressees, while demonizing the state of Israel and Jews. Jews in general are blamed for alleged crimes by the State of Israel that is slurred as “a hypocritical terror regime, living of the blood of Palestinians,” or a nation of “child-eaters.” Zionism is being equated with racism and Israel is being called an “apartheid regime,” posing the greatest danger to world peace. Such ideas have nothing to do with the reality on the ground. Instead they reflect classic anti-Semitic stereotypes that have been with us for 2,000 years and that brand Jews as murderers and an omnipresent evil force in the world.

It is hard to believe that such views are prevalent in contemporary European mainstream discourse. Aren’t they just characteristic of uneducated, radical subgroups?
Unfortunately, no. The authors of the anti-Semitic letters that we reviewed included students, lawyers, journalists, doctors, priests, self-employed entrepreneurs, politicians and even university professors.
‘Israel and Jews are being portrayed as overly powerful and vengeful child murderers’
But still, people who address letters to Jewish institutions in order to condemn the State of Israel are not necessarily a representative sample of society.
True. However, other inquiries reveal the same anti-Semitic patterns as well in other domains, such as the social media and even in the quality press. In the framework of a new research project on anti-Semitism in the world wide web, supported by the German Research Foundation, I am currently reviewing Facebook posts and reader comments on articles in the quality media. What I am finding so far is a replication of the same anti-Semitic stereotypes. Israel and Jews are being portrayed as overly powerful and vengeful child murderers. Indeed, speaking for Germany, throughout the past 10 years, anti-Semitic content in comments on the internet and in letters to editors has almost tripled.
Is this upsurge of anti-Semitism on the internet paralleled by a similar development in the quality media?
There are ongoing investigations, the intermediate findings of which raise the suspicion that this could be the case indeed, though it’s too early yet to draw such conclusions with certainty. However, we don’t even have to wait for the definite results of these studies in order to establish that anti-Semitism has resurfaced as an evident element in mainstream European discourse. Just think about the utterances of writer Günter Grass or of the journalist Jakob Augstein that portray Israel in terms of classic anti-Semitic clichés, according to which Jews are a menace to mankind and control world politics.
Monika Schwarz-Friesel is currently on sabbatical in Jerusalem. (Marc Neugröschel/Times of Israel)

Monika Schwarz-Friesel is currently on sabbatical in Jerusalem. (Marc Neugröschel/Times of Israel)
In addition, there is less and less resistance to anti-Semitic utterances. A case in point is the lack of objection upon the conclusion of the speech by Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas to the European Parliament last June, which raised the false accusation that rabbis asked the Israeli government to poison the water of Palestinians. Abbas even received standing ovations after this speech, which promoted the classic anti-Semitic slur that Jews are well-poisoners.
Most of the examples that you mention involve anti-Semitic demonizations of the State of Israel…
There is a global Israelization of anti-Semitic discourse. The articulation of traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes by projecting them onto Israel is by now the most dominant manifestation of modern Jew hatred.
But isn’t it difficult to distinguish such Israel-focused anti-Semitism without being liable to declaring all criticism of Israel per se to be anti-Semitic?
Not at all! Scientifically we can draw a very clear distinction between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. We give many examples for both types in our book. Those who claim that criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism cannot be distinguished do so in order to excuse or marginalize anti-Semitic views.
A lot of people express concerns that they would not be allowed to criticize Israel without being labeled as anti-Semites…
‘None of the authors of the letters that criticized Israel without being anti-Semitic voiced any concerns that they could falsely be accused of Jew-hatred’
Yes. And remarkably, in the material that we reviewed, this concern is expressed exclusively by authors of letters that are actually anti-Semitic. None of the authors of the letters that criticized Israel without being anti-Semitic voiced any concerns that they could falsely be accused of Jew-hatred. It is the anti-Semites who actually commit the kind of false accusation which they claim to be a victim of, in order to deny their hatred of Jews. This implies a victim-perpetrator-inversion, which is a historically deep-rooted pattern in the standard repertoire of anti-Semitic constructions. Already in the 19th century anti-Semites accused Jews to use their alleged control over the media to censor and delegitimize anti-Jewish criticism.
Let’s discuss another concrete example of Israel-focused anti-Semitism. A German author called Christian Ebener recently published a travelogue of a road trip through the Middle East that also brought him to Israel about which he writes:
“Our short stopover in this […] state and the three days on the boat [from Haifa to Lavrio, Greece, which involved an encounter with a Palestinian passenger] have revolutionized our idea of the Jews. I used to think that this religious community is one of the most persecuted and suffering groups of mankind, which was abused over and over again throughout history up to point of annihilation. But today, I have to recognize that this is only one side of the coin. The other side is that Jews, in spite of their bitter experience are no better, as they persecute and kill people of different nationality and faith with the same kind of brutality.”
‘Equating Jews with Nazis invokes the victim-perpetrator-inversion’
Slurring Jews collectively as a people of culprits, this statement is clearly anti-Semitic. Equating Jews with Nazis, it also invokes the victim-perpetrator-inversion. A baseless vilification of Israel, which, without giving any evidence, except for the narrative of a random Palestinian on a boat, is slandered as a regime that conducts Nazi-like persecution and killings of national and religious minorities, is taken as a justification to condemn all Jews, be they Israeli or not. In addition to the quotation that you just mentioned, there is another paragraph in the same book, where Ebener questions the legitimacy of Israel’s very existence. This is another typical trope of contemporary anti-Semitism.
It would be absurd to suggest that such slander cannot be separated from founded criticism of particular Israeli policies.
Many people are concerned that anti-Semitism in Europe could further be aggravated by the massive influx of refugees from the Middle East.
Many of the refugees that have been pouring into Europe recently come from societies that are deeply anti-Semitic. It would be foolish to assume that their anti-Semitism can be educated away in a few years and that it won’t leave its mark on European societies.

20130706-190345.jpg
If you haven’t heard of this famous piece by Mark Twain, give it a read and/or a listen. Why are Jews so notable in society given their minuscule numbers globally & through the ages? Why did they survive and still thrive after thousands of years – unlike other peoples & cultures that came & went?

(Click image for zoomed in view)20130706-190206.jpg

20130706-190241.jpg

Did you know that there is a specific view on the seven years before the Messiah comes? The audio continues a bit further discussing the Torah portion that was the main content of the teaching.

Wikipedia states the following to summarize the Jewish view of the end times.

The main tenets of Jewish eschatology are the following, in no particular order, elaborated in the Books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel:

  • God redeems Israel (i.e. the Jewish people) from the captivity that began during the Babylonian Exile, in a new Exodus
  • God returns all the Jews to the Land of Israel and resettles them in the Land
  • God restores the House of David and the Temple in Jerusalem
  • God creates a regent from the House of David (i.e. the Messiah) to lead the Jewish people and the world and usher in an age of justice and peace
  • All nations recognize that the God of Israel is the only true God
  • God resurrects the dead
  • God creates a new heaven and a new earth
  • It is also believed that history will complete itself and the ultimate destination will be reached when all mankind returns to the Garden of Eden.

Check out Jewisheyes.org for full audio. The source site for the full content requires registration, but its free, quick & should be worth it if you liked this snippet. 🙂 This is the 10th teaching (Miketz / “At the end”) in the Genesis series under ‘archives’.

Blood libel (also blood accusation) is a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in certain aspects of their religious rituals and holidays. Historically, these claims—alongside those of well poisoning and host desecration—have been a major theme in European persecution of Jews. (Wikipedia)

A note on ‘Palestine’. Consider the continued Jewish presence in Palestine & the quotes below. Who can lay claim to Palestine is its “original inhabitants”? Surely the Jews cannot be excluded, at least.

In 1888, Professor Sir John William Dawson wrote: Immigration took place from Europe, from North Africa (mainly to Jaffa) and from the Yemen.

“Until today (1888), no people has succeeded in establishing national dominion in the Land of Israel. No national unity, in the spirit of nationalism, has acquired any hold there. The mixed multitude of itinerant tribes that managed to settle there did so on lease, as temporary residents. It seems that they await the return of the permanent residents of the land.” (Wikipedia)

Prior to the Ottoman Empire’s dismemberment, the population of the area comprising modern Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip was not exclusively Muslim. Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire in the mid-16th century, there were [?no more than?] 10,000 Jews in Palestine, (Wikipedia)

Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.

Someone called in later mentioning that this guy that called in is actually Jewish – who knows. Just amazing how irrational antisemitism is.

Listen to full audio here.

Statehood is based on sovereignty of a nation. How were nations formed & accepted before the UN existed? Listen to the legal challenges brought up in the following audio segment. Extract from Wall Street Journal article also posted below.

Quote:
The U.N.—General Assembly or Security Council—has no power to create states or to grant all-important formal ‘recognition’ to state aspirants. The right to recognize statehood is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty and the United Nations is not a sovereign. Those who cite as precedent the General Assembly’s 1947 resolution providing for the partition of Palestine misread that instrument and its legal significance.

Resolution 181 outlined a detailed (and rigorous) process whereby the British Mandate in Palestine was to end and two new states, one Jewish and one Arab, were to be established. It recommended that process to Great Britain (as the mandate-holder) and to other U.N. members. It did not create or recognize these states, nor were the proposed states granted automatic admission to the United Nations. Rather, once the two states were established as states, the resolution provided that “sympathetic consideration” should be given to their membership applications.

In the event, the Arab countries rejected partition and Israel declared (and successfully defended) its independence. Israel’s statehood was recognized, in accordance with international law, by other states—including the United States and the Soviet Union.

The Palestinian Authority, by contrast, does not meet the basic characteristics of a state necessary for such recognition. These requirements have been refined through centuries of custom and practice, and were authoritatively articulated in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. As that treaty provides, to be a state an entity must have (1) a permanent population, (2) a defined territory, (3) a government, and (4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

As of today, the PA has neither a permanent population nor defined territory (both being the subject of ongoing if currently desultory negotiations), nor does it have a government with the capacity to enter into relations with other states. This pivotal requirement involves the ability to enter and keep international accords, which in turn posits that the “government” actually controls—exclusive of other sovereigns—at least some part of its population and territory. The PA does not control any part of the West Bank to the exclusion of Israeli authority, and it exercises no control at all in the Gaza Strip.

The PA does not, therefore, qualify for recognition as a state and, concomitantly, it does not qualify for U.N. membership, which is open only to states. All of this is surely understood by the PA and its backers, and is also why the administration has correctly labeled this effort as a distraction—”stunt” being a less diplomatic but even more accurate term in these circumstances. What is unfortunate is that the Obama administration has failed to present the case against a Palestinian statehood resolution in legal rather than tactical terms, even though these arguments are obvious and would greatly reinforce the U.S. position, also providing a thoroughly neutral basis for many of our allies, particularly in Europe, to oppose Mr. Abbas’s statehood bid.

The stakes in this battle are high. The PA’s effort to achieve recognition by the U.N., even if legally meaningless, is not without serious consequences. To the extent that state supporters of that measure may themselves have irredentist populations or active border disputes with their neighbors—as do Russia, China, Britain and Turkey—they will certainly store up future trouble for themselves.

Source: Wall Street Journal

Listen to full audio here.

Should a documentary that apparently tries to promote reconciliation demonize one of parties among which reconciliation is attempted? Note the many inaccuracies in this video.

Check out Line of Fire Radio. Listen to full audio here.