Firebird wrote:Reading some kind of love affair with Hitler is quite jawdropping on a Russian forum.
27 MILLION Russians/Soviets were murdered. Most of them women and kids. Vast numbers of other Slavs, West Europeans, Jews and other groups, the same fate. Despite what some crackpots might claim.
the anglozionist powers are pushing for the extermination of 140 millions of Russians today.. and 90% with the world population with their De-population programs and world government /world police non sense.. Germany/HItler was provoked into a war.. this cannot be ignored .
Go an see again at min 4:00 in the previously posted video..
How Poland , (similar to how kiev is doing in eastern ukraine) began massacres against German civilians minorities. Something they just like today kiev war crimes.. they denied.
Once a majo war start. the outcome cannot be predicted.. Today if a world war 3 start.. Putin will be in a risk of having to kill much more than hitler did. . Because no only they will need to attack USA.. but also any strategic place where americans have a military base in the world. That is all NATO. to make sure its military power can never again be threatening to them.
In world war , unintended consequences happens and many innocent civilians die.. Had soviets surrender (glad they didn’t ) ,probably will have been like France ,that was not destroyed. But Hitler only way to survive Germany the war with the west , at least he though was to have the oil fields of Russia.. to continue maintaining the war with the west ,why he don’t bother to enter in moscow.
Most of the people who died in Soviet union and concentratin camps in world war 2 ,died consequences of food..there was no people working in farms.. all were fighting, there was not enough food and they starved to death.
Im not a hitler supporter.. neither a war supporter ,but i can understand why he did what he did in europe . and i will understand if Russia is forced one day to use nuclear weapons against NATO major powers that right now are attacking Russia economy and fuel the violence in Ukraine and the violence in Syria ,kidnapping their people around the world and fueling unrest in their own country through NGOs.. In fact is impressive how tolerant is Putin today by all the things anglozionist powers do against their country. Not many leaders can sit down and watch their people to be massacred day and night in the thousands and NATO countries providing weapons for that violence to continue ,while at the same time blaming the victims of their attacks for the violence they provoke. Is quite admirable Putin patience with the west.. and still not sure if his policy can stop the aggression on their nation. time only can answer that.
See original here:
The Situation in the Ukraine. #10 – Page 51
To the editor: Your editorial about the proposed definitions of anti-Semitic actions and speech on University of California campuses raises a more important question: What is it about the societies of California, the United States and even the whole world that makes it necessary for the UC system to have a policy on anti-Semitism? (“How far should UC go with an anti-Semitism policy?,” editorial, July 16)
The United Nations has equated Zionism with racism (U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3379, passed in 1975). Why?
Anti-Semitism seems to be a cultural given in our society. Why?
Stephen M. Baird,San Diego
To the editor: I’m a proud, Israel-loving American Jew. I’ve been to Israel, and I fully support it. But its current government? As we say in my family, Feh!
By the way, I love my own country too. But the George W. Bush administration? Again, Feh!
Governments come and go, but the nation and the people outlive their current administrations and life goes on.
Oh, and those American members of Congress who say they vote with an eye toward what’s best for Israel? What would the Israelis call a Knesset member who said she or he would vote first for what’s best for America? A traitor.
Barry Davis,Agoura Hills
Go here to read the rest:
A world in which UC needs a policy on anti-Semitism – LA Times
Sometimes its better not to talk too much about one’s blessings to others. Sometimes others do not have what you do and it is important to be sensitive to that. I do not mean that one should never speak about the bounty that one does have but maybe don’t speak about it all day long. Its nice to know when a friend or relative is engaged. I want to know and I am genuinely happy for them. Do I want to hear about it constantly night and day? Absolutely not. On the other hand I have had stable employment all of my adult life (no I am not rich) . I talk about work but I would not constantly tell this to my friends who do not have mazel in retaining employment. Its really not fair. Often someone does not hold back when talking about the joys of parenthood because they think that just because someone is single that the idea of parenthood is not on their radar . If they had a friend who had been married for many years and did not have children they might not spend all day and night talking about their kids. Its not that someone who does not have children resents someone who does has kids or wishes that their friend was in their boat, they just don’t want that to be their only topic of conversation. Once I was at work and someone who should have known better was going on about how once she had children she then knew why women were created This woman was a first time mother at forty. She should have shared this with her mommy and me group instead of in a place full of people she did not know who may or may not ever have kids. Of course being a parent is a beautiful experience but being a single woman without children I may not be the person to share such an epiphany with. There are all sorts of situations in life where one is more fortunate than another person. These just are a few that are foremost in my mind at the moment. I try hard not to make others feel envy when I am successful or have something someone else does not. There is no need to brag , just to have appreciation. Married people get divorced. People lose jobs. Children are fought over in brutal custody battles or chas v’shalom pass away. When you have a bracha just appreciate it because as easily as someone has mazel, they could also not have it.
Read the original post:
“Forget You Not”: Holocaust S urviv ors a nd R eme mbr a n c e Proj e ct – Part IV – TABLE OF CONTENTS . .
On December 7, 1970, while in Warsaw for a commemorative service honoring the participants of the WarsawGhettoUprising, the German Chancellor Willy Brandt kneels in front of the Monument, in an apparent gesture of apology, repentance, and reconciliation.
1. Pre-Holocaust Studies
The Israeli Coat of Arms features the Menorah, the candelabra used in the ancient Temple in Jerusalem. It, along with other Temple artifacts, was captured almost two millennia ago by the Romans during their siege of Jerusalem. According to the historian Flavius Josephus, a Jew who lived at the time of the Romans, “Most of the spoils that were carried were heaped up indiscriminately, but more prominent than all the rest were those captured in the Temple at Jerusalem – a golden table weighing several hundred weight, and a lampstand similarly made of gold but differently constructed from those we normally use. The central shaft was fixed to a base, and from it extended slender branches placed like the prongs of a trident, and with the end of each one forged into a lamp: these numbered seven, signifying the honour paid to that number by the Jews.” (Josephus, The Jewish War, G.A. Williamson, translator, Penguin, 1959.) The Arch of Titus in Rome has on it a carving depicting the spoils of the Temple – including the Menorah – being carried triumphantly through Rome.
Courtesy of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Originally posted here:
Part IV – Holocaust Studies, Anti-Semitism and Related Topics
Happy St. Patrick’s Day. I guess. . .
I’d like to be more celebratory today and somehow honor Irish immigration to my country, but what can I say? I don’t have Irish blood, for one thing. And more to the point of this blog — I can’t overlook how the U.S. descendants of Irish people, who often put on and take off being “Irish” like a hat or raincoat, tend to forget what it really means for their ancestors to have traded in their Irish-ness for whiteness. Yes, Irish immigrants used to be oppressed, but their descendants have basically joined the ranks of the oppressors, and thereby gained white privilege, and those benefits still come at the expense of the racially oppressed.
It is true that, as sociologist Jessie Daniels writes,
Once in the U.S., the Irish were [subjected] to negative stereotyping that was very similar to that of enslaved Africans and African Americans. The comic Irishman happy, lazy, stupid, with a gift for music and dance was a stock character in American theater. Drunkenness and criminality were major themes of Irish stereotypes, and the term “paddy wagon” has its etymological roots in the racist term paddy, a shortening of the name Patrick, which was used to refer to the Irish. However, this is also a gendered image and refers to Irish men, specifically. The masculine imagery of paddy hid the existence of Irish women, but did not protect Irish women from racism as they were often more exposed to such racism through domestic jobs. Women typically played a key role in maintaining Catholic adherence, which resonates closely with Irishness and difference. The model minority (if you will) stereotype of Irish-American women is of a Bridget, recognized for her hard work and contribution to Irish upward class mobility.
Simian, or ape-like caricature of the Irish immigrant was also a common one among the mainstream news publications of the day. . . For example, in 1867 American cartoonist Thomas Nast drew “The Day We Celebrate” a cartoon depicting the Irish on St. Patricks Day as violent, drunken apes. And, in 1899, Harpers Weekly featured a drawing of three mens heads in profile: Irish, Anglo-Teutonic and Negro, in order to illustrate the similarity between the Irish and the Negro (and, the supposed superiority of the Anglo-Teutonic). In northern states, blacks and Irish immigrants were forced into overlapping often integrated slum neighborhoods. Although leaders of the Irish liberation struggle (in Ireland) saw slavery as an evil, their Irish-American cousins largely aligned with the slaveholders.
And, following the end of slavery, the Irish and African Americans were forced to compete for the same low-wage, low-status jobs. So, the white negroes of the U.K. came to the United States and, though not enslaved, faced a status almost as low as that of recently-freed blacks.
So yeah, I get that. And I don’t mean to downplay or disregard what amounts to racist (and religious) oppression that people from Ireland once faced, nor the hard work that helped Irish immigrants to step up into the ranks of white Americans.
However, I sometimes encounter citizens of the U.S. who claim to be “Irish” instead of white, when anyone looking at them would clearly see them as “white” instead of “Irish.” I mean, just how many generations does this sort of “Kiss me, I’m Irish! Don’t worry, I’m not white!” card last?
White people still routinely complain about people of color who supposedly “play the race card,” but they rarely blame other whites for playing what amounts to the ethnicity card. That card is routinely used to dismiss discussions of today’s racism — “Yeah yeah yeah, my ancestors had it bad too! They were the ‘blacks’ of Europe, and they even got called black in the U.S.!” And that kind of talk usually leads to this kind of talk: “If my people could do it, why can’t they too?” Never mind that those Irish who were called “black” and other slurs didn’t have to stay black, and thus didn’t have to struggle with all that black and other non-white Americans still have to face.
Do you encounter white people who make these kinds of selective, derailing appeals to the sufferings and hard work of their ancestors?
stuff white people do: play the ethnicity card
“Va, Pensiero” (“Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves”) from Giuseppe Verdi’s Nabucco: Act III.
This is sung beautifully by the Westminster Choir, directed by John Finlay with the NBC Symphony Orchestra and conducted by Arturo Toscanini. It was recorded for a broadcast on NBC Radio on January 31, 1943, in the midst of the Second World War.
************* Nabucco (short for Nabucodonosor in Italian, or Nebuchadnezzar in English) is an 1842 opera in four acts by Giuseppe Verdi [1813-1901]. The lyrics of the famous choir chorus were written in Italian by Temistocle Solera , who took inspiration from Psalm 137 of the Hebrew Bible.
It is Verdis third opera and the one which is considered to have permanently established his reputation as a composer. Verdi composed Nabucco at a time when much sadness and grief engulfed his life. having personal losses in successive years, all before he turned thirty. First Verdi’s two children had died in infancy: Virginia Maria in 1838, and Icilio Romano in 1839; and then his wife,Margherita, had died of encephalitis at age twenty-six in 1840.
Such might explain the haunting power and beauty behind this opera, and in particular the Chorus, “Va, Pensiero,” of Act III, which resonates with humanitya call for freedom in the face of captivity. A freedom that is both corporeal and spiritual.
The setting is 587 BCE in Jerusalem and the defeat of the Israelites and the destruction of the First Temple, by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar. The Isrealites are taken captive, with the result that they have been removed from their centre of gravity, the Temple and Jerusalem.
Despite all this, in the famous Chorus, the Hebrew slaves look forward in their despair to a better future, the hope of all people during a time of crisis. Below are the original Italian lyrics. I know there are various other versions, particularly to suit modern sensibilities. But it’s always good to view the original. Va’ Pensiero
Va, pensiero Va, pensiero, sull’ali dorate; Va, ti posa sui clivi, sui colli, ove olezzano tepide e molli l’aure dolci del suolo natal! Del Giordano le rive saluta, di Sionne le torri atterrate Oh mia Patria s bella e perduta! O membranza s cara e fatal! Arpa d’or dei fatidici vati, perch muta dal salice pendi? Le memorie nel petto raccendi, ci favella del tempo che fu! O simile di Solima ai fati, traggi un suono di crudo lamento; o t’ispiri il Signore un concento che ne infonda al patire virt!
Fly, thoughts, on wings of gold; go settle upon the slopes and the hills, where, soft and mild, the sweet air of our native land smells fragrant! Greet the banks of the Jordan and Zion’s toppled towers. Oh, my country so lovely and lost! Oh, memory so dear and despairing! Golden harp of the prophetic seers, why do you hang mute upon the willow? Rekindle our heart’s memories and speak of times gone by! Mindful of the fate of Jerusalem, either sound a song of sad lamentation, or else let the Lord give us the strength to bear our sufferings!
Continue reading here:
Perry J Greenbaum: Verdi’s Nabucco: Chorus Of The Hebrew …
Trinity Test: July 16, 1945, at5:29:45 a.m. (Mountain War Time)
Trinity Site: Alamogordo Test Range, Jornada del Muerto (Journey of Death)desert.
Yield: 1921 Kilotons
Image Credit:Berlyn Brixner, LANL.
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
Only one nation has used atomic weapons; the United States of America; and only one nation has been the recipient of an atomic attack: Japan. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima, on August 6, 1945 (15-kiloton), and on Nagasaki (21-kiloton), on August 9, 1945. The result was 200,000 dead and injured, although precise figures are hard to obtain, given the ensuing chaos. Five days later, Japan surrenders, and the Second World War is over.
Looking at events from the past, it is easy to second-guess or criticize the decisions made. notably if they led to destructive consequencesthis can be a type of chronological snobbery, a kind of moral superiority, or a kind of rare wisdom. Yet, sometimes it is necessary to do so, if only to see how humanity thinks today, to see, given similar circumstances, if political leaders would arrive at similar or different decisions. These thought experiments remain such; and in the heat of real and genuine battle, the actions might differ from abstract thoughts. Such are the arguments, often valid, of realists.
We do know that there were little public expression of moral concerns then; President Truman and his generals deemed it necessary to end a war that was causing so many deaths to American soldiers. The atomic bomb was only another step in a horrible war, as somebody once put it. It is only later, after the act, that moral concerns come into light, and understandably so. Truman, the devout Christian, saw the only use of atomic weapons as morally justified, saying as much in a radio report on the Potsdam Conference to the American people on August 9, 1945:
Go here to see the original:
Perry J. Greenbaum
The state Assembly on Monday unanimously approved a measure urging the University of California to condemn all forms of anti-Semitism.
UC, meanwhile, said it will not tackle any possible new policies regarding anti-Jewish bias on its 10 campuses at next weeks meeting of the regents. Instead, officials said that the UC regents will discuss various forms of intolerance, including anti-Semitism, and issues of free speech at the following meeting, in September.
The Assembly resolution was introduced in response to several troubling incidents at UC, including the defacing of a Jewish fraternity house at UC Davis with swastikas in January.
It is imperative that the California Legislature continues its strong tradition of standing up to hatred and ignorance, said Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica) on the Assembly floor before Mondays vote.
The state Senate voted in favor of the measure in June, and the resolution received the support of former Assembly Speaker John Prez (D-Los Angeles), a University of California regent, who testified in its favor at an Assembly committee hearing later that month.
Some Jewish and pro-Israel groups have been pressing UC to adopt the U.S. State Departments definition of anti-Semitism. That definition defines more general ethnic and religious hatred against Jews but also declares that it is anti-Semitic to demonize Israel, deny Israels right to exist, liken Israeli policy to that of the Nazis and blame Israel for all inter-religious tensions.
In contrast, organizations that have protested Israels occupation of the West Bank have said that such a definition would limit free speech and conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
The Assembly resolution includes a reference to part of the U.S. Department of States definition but does include it in full; the resolution does not mention the parts about Israel at all. The measure, which would not have the force of law, will now head back to the state Senate for a concurrence vote, where its prospects appear good.
In a statement released Monday, the UC system officials noted that UC President Janet Napolitano and former regents Chairman Bruce Varner have publicly condemned anti-Semitic incidents.
UC has long held itself to the highest standards of inclusion, tolerance and the free flow of ideas and expression, according to the statement.
Originally posted here:
State legislators urge University of California to act …
Power, Ignorance, and Anti-Semitism: Henry Ford and His War on Jews by Jonathan R. Logsdon
This paper traces the anti-Semitic activities of automobile manufacturer Henry Ford. Ford first voiced his anti-Semitic leanings in 1915, around the time of his “Peace Ship” episode. Eventually, his belief that the “International Jew” was the source of the world’s problems led him to conduct a campaign against them in the pages of his newspaper; The Dearborn Independent. The articles in Ford’s newspaper blamed the Jews for everything from the Bolshevik Revolution and the First World War to bootlegged liquor and cheap movies. They also accused the Jews of conspiring to enslave Christianity and destroy the “Anglo-Saxon” way of life. The articles were later gathered into book form and published under the title: The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. This book was translated into 16 languages, and was to have a profound influence upon the growing Nazi movement in Germany. Eventually, Ford publicly apologized for the articles in light of a legal suit. However; he continued to express his anti-Semitic beliefs in his private circles. In the 1930’s, he hired many fascist sympathizers, accepted an award from Hitler; and engaged in business ventures in Nazi Germany. In the 1940’s, the Ford Motor Company was transformed into a more tolerant organization through the efforts of Ford’s son and grandson. However; Ford himself never abandoned his deep-rooted anti-Semitism. His anti-Semitic literature can still be found in great abundance, more than fifty years after his death. While Ford is considered to be a great man by many Americans, he spawned an ugly legacy of hatred and bigotry that still has ramifications today.
Anti-Semitism has been described as being a disease of the soul. It is a prejudice that has gained particular notoriety in the 20th Century– the century of Treblinka and Auschwitz. However; this phenomenon of hate has not just been confined to the continent of Europe. In 1920, a small newspaper in Dearborn, Michigan began publishing a series of articles entitled: “The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem.” The newspaper was owned by the famous automobile manufacturer; Henry Ford. Through a combination of influence, power; and ignorance, he was able to unleash the largest and most damaging campaign against Jews ever waged in the United States.
By 1915, the Great War had been going on for well over a year. Henry Ford’s attitude towards the conflict was well known to the public. He had told the Detroit Free Press that he would give all of his money to stop it and that the building of armaments by the U.S. was “wasteful and war breeding.”1 At the time, the 52 year old Ford was one of the richest and most popular men in America. More than half of the automobiles in the nation came from the Ford Motor Company. Many Americans saw him as a champion of the working class; the previous year; he had made national headlines by raising the minimum wage for his workers to $5 a day. It came as no surprise when a steady stream of pacifists soon began courting Ford, hoping to utilize his finances and his prestige. One such hopeful was a Jewish Hungarian named Rosika Schwimmer; who called upon Ford in November of 1915. Mine. Schwimmer proposed to Ford her plan to stop the war by sending a delegation of pacifists to Europe on a chartered “Peace Ship.” Ford was enchanted with the idea, and organized a group to book passage on a Scandinavian-American vessel, the Oscar II. Before he set sail, Ford granted an interview in which he proudly boasted, “We’re going to stop the war… We’re going to get the boys out of the trenches by Christmas.”2 At the same time, however; Ford admitted that that he did not exactly know where the ship was going. Nor did Ford reveal any specific plans of the operation. The ship eventually docked in Oslo, Norway on December 18, 1915. No one greeted the ship in the freezing temperatures of –12 E Ford gave his first, and only, press conference of the “campaign” four days later. It was a confusing speech in which Ford mainly talked about a new tractor he had on the market. He expressed his belief that it would be wiser for the munitions factories of Europe to produce tractors instead of weapons. One newsman sarcastically noted that Ford “must be a very great man indeed who permits himself to utter such foolishness.”3 Ford then booked passage on the first steamer returning to New York and returned the next morning, weakened by a nasty cold. The ill-conceived Peace Ship venture, which accomplished nothing, soon ended in disaster and embarrassment.
One of those who came to Ford’s defense in the aftermath was Philadelphia rabbi, Joseph Krawkopf, who declared that it was better “a thousand times Lto] be branded a fool in the service of humanity than be hailed a hero for having shed rivers of blood.”4 Ironically, Ford had made a strange statement to Mine. Schwimmer before their Peace Ship departure– a statement that she found “cheap and vulgar.” “I know who caused the war– the German-Jewish bankers. I have the evidence here,” Ford declared, slapping his pocket. “Facts. I can’t give them out yet because I haven’t got them all. But I’ll have them soon.”5
Ford found himself in the press spotlight again in 1919, when a $1 million libel suit he had filed against the Chicago Tribune went to court. A June 23, 1916 editorial, entitled “Ford is an Anarchist,” had characterized Ford as an “ignorant idealist,” an “anarchist enemy of the nation,” and as being “so incapable of thought that he cannot see the ignominy of his own performance.”6 In Ford’s defense, the article was based on a false report that Ford would not guarantee the jobs of workers who were called away for military operations. However; this did not prevent Ford from enduring one of the most embarrassing episodes of his career. When Ford took the stand, Tribune lawyer Elliott Stevenson took issue with his influence on the public. “You call yourself an educator;” he noted to Ford. “Now I shall inquire whether you were a well informed man, competent to educate people.”7 Stevenson then launched into a series of questions which Ford’s lawyer; Alfred Lucking, had been dreading: “Have there ever been any revolutions in this country?” “There was, I understand.” “When?” ‘In 1812.” “Did you ever hear of Benedict Arnold?” “I have heard the name.” “Who was he?” “I have forgotten just who he is. He is a writer; I think.”8
Eventually, Ford was forced to admit to Stevenson that he was “ignorant about most things.”9 After enduring the cross-examination for a grueling six days, Ford left the witness stand, vowing, “Never again.” The jury eventually ruled in favor of Ford, but awarded him, as damages, the insulting sum of $.06. The press had a field day over the trial’s outcome. One paper described Ford as “a man with a vision distorted and limited by his lack of information,” while The Nation commented that “the unveiling of Mr. Ford has much of the pitiful about it, if not the tragic.”10 Most brutal of all had been Stevenson’s closing remarks to the jury, in which he declared that he had never been so shocked as he was in this case “when Henry Ford disclosed the pitiable condition of his mind.”11
Ford, however; was not in court to hear Stevenson’s comments. He had departed on a camping trip with his good friends Thomas Edison, Harvey Firestone, and naturalist John Burroughs, their third such outing together. During this particular trip, Burroughs noted in his diary that: “Mr. Ford attributes all evil to the Jews or Jewish capitalists– the Jews caused the war; the Jews caused the outbreak of thieving and robbing all over the country, the Jews caused the inefficiency of the navy which Edison talked about last night.12
By now, it was not just close acquaintances to whom Ford was expressing such anti-Semitic beliefs. An executive at the Ford Company was up late one night and decided to tide himself over with a candy bar. Ford walked up to the man, started some small talk, and took a bite of the man’s snack. A look of dissatisfaction came over his face. “This stuff isn’t as good as it used to be, is it?” The executive replied that he had not noticed any change. “The Jews have taken hold of it,” Ford replied. “They’re cheapening it to make more money out of it.” Since it happened to be the fourth anniversary of the ill-fated Peace Ship expedition, the subject came up in their ensuing conversation. “What did you get out of that trip, Mr. Ford?” the executive enquired. “I know who makes the wars,” Ford responded. “The international Jewish bankers arrange them so they can make money out of them.” He then cryptically added, “I know it’s true because a Jew on the Peace Ship told me.. .That man knew what he was talking about– gave me the whole story. We’re going to tell the whole story one of these days and show them up!”13
By this time, Ford had been in possession of The Dearborn Independent for several months. A typical small country newspaper of the time, it was Ford’s intention to use it as his public mouthpiece. He had “practical” ideas that he wanted to give to the public “without having them garbled, distorted, or misrepresented. ” 14 In order to promote its absolute purity against outside influences, Ford refused to accept advertising among its pages. He hired as Editor-in-Chief E.G. Pipp, who had served for 12 years as manager and editor of the Detroit News. Pipp shared Ford’s outspoken liberalism and was quite pleased with the chance to work with him.
See original here:
Power, Ignorance, and Anti-Semitism: Henry Ford and His …
The Deep Roots of Anti-Semitism in European Society*1
The resurgence of European anti-Semitism after the Holocaust suggests that it has deep roots in society. It has been fostered in a great variety of ways by so many, for such a long time, in all European countries that one might consider this form of hate and discrimination as inherent to European culture and a part of European “values.” New European anti-Semitism often originates from a young age, which indicates that it is an anti-Semitism of the future rather than of the past.
The European Union’s attitude toward anti-Semitism is double-handed. Through its discriminatory declarations and votes in international bodies the EU acts as an arsonist, fanning the flames of anti-Semitism in its anti-Israeli disguise. Simultaneously it also serves as fireman, trying to quench the flames of classic religious and ethnic anti-Semitism. France is paradigmatic of this approach. Although European anti-Semitism cannot be eradicated, certain steps can be taken to mitigate it. This requires a major change in discriminatory EU policies toward Israel. In the meantime there are increasing indications that the European battle against anti-Semitism may be used, to the contrary, to facilitate attacks on Israel.
A substantial number of Europeans hold anti-Semitic opinions. The widespread resurgence of European anti-Semitism after the Holocaust suggests it is inherent in European culture and values. This does not imply that all or most Europeans are anti-Semites. In a similar manner, a significant number of Europeans like ballet, while many others find it boring, decadent, or disgusting. Yet dancing is part of European culture and has been practiced as a performing art for a long time. It originated in Europe, developed over many years, and is widely taught as well as frequently discussed by the cultural elite and shown in the major media.
European anti-Semitism can be said to have similar characteristics. That many Europeans condemn, dislike, or are indifferent to anti-Semitism does not contradict its role in European culture, as statements of European politicians, the mainstream media, and leading intellectuals prove. Also, various types of anti-Semitic sentiments are expressed in polls. The statistics would probably reveal that the number of European anti-Semites far exceeds those who like ballet.
A phenomenon that develops intensely in an entire continent over a period of many centuries becomes deeply embedded in the societal mindset and behavior. The anti-Semitic wave of the past few years seems to prove that it is impossible to eradicate such a deep-seated irrational attitude.
In the words of UK Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks:
Let me state the point as simply as I can: anti-Semitism is alive, active and virulent in the year 2002, after more than half a century of Holocaust education, interfaith dialogue, United Nations’ declarations, dozens of museums and memorials, hundreds of films, thousands of courses, and tens of thousands of books dedicated to exposing its evils; after the Stockholm Conference, after the creation of a National Holocaust Memorial Day, after 2,000 religious leaders came together in the United Nations in August 2000 to commit themselves to fight hatred and engender mutual respect. . . .What more could have been done? What more could and can we do to fight anti-Semitism?2
Two years later, Sacks’s ideas had evolved. He asserted that when civilizations clash, Jews die. In his view, in certain European circles, revenge is being taken against the Jews because “nobody will ever forgive the Jews for the Holocaust.” Sacks drew attention to the manipulation of words, like genocide and ethnic cleansing, by Israel’s adversaries. He added that what should have been learned from the Holocaust is: “one, that bad things are preceded by demonization – and right now Israelis are being demonized – and, two, the early warning sign in culture is when words lose their meaning.”3
The often-heard argument that postwar European anti-Semitism parallels developments in the Middle East conflict is untrue. It appears in waves, which may, but do not necessarily, correspond to developments in the Israeli-Arab conflict, with each wave being higher than the previous one.4 In the Arab world, anti-Jewish incitement continued in parallel with the Oslo process.
The Deep Roots of Anti-Semitism in European Society …