Back home after a long day in university (4 hours) I saw the footage of the Israeli forces, showing a mob that tried to lynch Israeli soldiers (or how should I call it when 5 to 10 people beat a person lying on the ground with iron rods?). By the way: what where these rods doing there in the first place? On the ship of “peace/humanitarian/human rights activists”?

The little general did not stop to see the news report. On 4 of 5 Israeli public channels, non-stop. I had enough. I was rebuked, that this is important and that the world needs to know, that this was not Israel’s fault. I insisted that this is what people want to hear and that the truth will not convince them.

Eventually I watched “The Fugitive”. 1993′s blockbuster. And Dr. Kimble still made it. Everybody thought he was guilty and he was sentenced to death. But there were some that did care about the truth and in the end the truth came out of the darkness in which it hides and the one everybody blamed for murder was proven innocent, chaf mipesha.

Between one and 27 individuals were involved in killing a Hamas terrorist in his hotel room in Dubai, according to the police of the Dubai regime. None of them got caught so far. And they used fake passports, of course.

Still – without any proof at all – the Dubai police accuses Israel for the killing and even asks Israel to help them to identify those involved. But who would expect else from Dubai.

What is striking is the adaption by European journalist. They all take it as taken, that the Hamas terrorist was killed by Israel. Without any proof.

Lewis, Bernard. “Semites and anti-Semites,” in Bernard Lewis,”Islam in History.”

Sivan, Emmanuel. “Islamic Fundamentalism and Antisemitism.”

A symposium on antisemitism and Anti-Zionism: held at the van leer Institute, Jerusalem, November 1st, 1982 / chairman: Yehuda Bauer ; lecturers: Shlomo Avineri, Robert Wistrich.

Yet, people in Sudan are murdered every day but he doesn’t talk about it. Is it really worse to build a house on land that – as many argue – belongs to the Palestinians than killing 300 000 Africans?

Does this bigotery have anyuthing to do with the fact that in one action Jews are involved?

One of the challenging phenomena of Antisemitism is Antisemitism without Jews. Apparently Antisemitism can emerge, exist without Jews. This is not a new phenomenon. Even Herzl wrote about that in Der Judenstaat. Arguing for the need of a Jewish State, stating that emigration to other countries is no solution. Since – even if there are no Jews living yet – the Antisemites are already living there.

Today large areas of the world are judenrein. And in the most other areas Jews are a very very small minority. That applies at least for most countries in the Middle East. The Arabian Peninsula is basically judenrein. With the exception of less than 200 Jews still living in Yemen where they are persecuted by the majority society and have to live isolated and with protection of the government that is also not well-disposed to them. Iraq, Jordan are judenrein. In Syria and Egypt there are still around 100 Jews living which means less than 0.05% of the population are Jews. Most of the Arabs that live today and do not live in Israel have never met and will probably never in their life meet a Jew. But Antisemitism is alive and kicking there. One can even get the impression that Antisemitism is the more present the less the Jews are.

Antisemitism is a vital part of the Arab societies throughout the Middle East. Every day the people there are being fed with Antisemitic ressentiments of all kinds by the media, the government, the cleric. Traditional Islamic Antisemitism gets “enriched” with Antisemitic topoi that usually are found in Europe. But the people here usually do not know Jews.

Israel the Judenstaat is here, that is true. But that does not explain Antisemitism. Because Antisemitism was here before Israel. And if Israel would be the cause, why would anybody besides the Palestinians be Antisemitic.

But even if you look at Europe. Take Germany. Most Germans do not know any Jew. Yet Antisemitic resentments are widely spread. Often you can find people who would tell you, that they are open minded, liberal and so on that would reject having any Antisemitic tendency. They remember the murdered Jews of the Shoa, attend demonstrations against Racism and Antisemitism. Yet the murdered Jews of the Shoa seem to be the only Jews they know and care about. If it comes to living Jews, if it comes to Israel they will show some other opinions. Suddenly there are the Jews who kill women and children. There are the Jews who steal the land of others. There are the Jews who think they are something special. There are the Jews who are now doing to others what was done to them. And if you would tell them, that they do not reflect the realty but rather transpire Antisemitism you get the allegation that it is apparently not allowed to criticize Israel. And that is just another Antisemitic topos.

Islam used to do be a civilization that does not persecute religious minorities of the monotheistic religions. Whereas Christianity persecuted just everybody. Under Islam Jews and Christians were second class citizens, but they were in some way protected, although acts of violents were not uncommon, and they had to pay a special tex. I really wonder what happened, that all that changed. Why is Islam declining and declining and no end in sight?

What went wrong?

Violence toward the country’s small remaining Jewish community began to intensify last year, when one of its most prominent members was gunned down outside his house. But the mission also hastens the demise of one of the oldest remaining Jewish communities in the Arab world.

Jews are believed to have reached what is now Yemen more than 2,500 years ago as traders for King Solomon. They survived — and at times thrived — over centuries of change, including the spread of Islam across the Arabian Peninsula.

“They were one of the oldest exiled groups out of Israel,” says Hayim Tawil, a Yeshiva University professor who is an expert on Yemeni Jewry. “This is the end of the Jewish Diaspora of Yemen. That’s it.”

The second map shows something that never existed in reality. It shows the political landscape according to the UN partition plan. The very plan that the Arabs did not accept and the Jews did accept. Two states. An Arab state for Arabs and a Jewish state for Jews and Arabs.

Here is another map, where the land is not indicated with the terms “Jewish land” and “Palestinian land” but “Jewish state” and “Arab state”.

However the third map shows Israel and “Palestine” after the War of Independence. BUT: It shows “Palestinian land”. And – you might know or not – that is just wrong. These areas where under Jordanian and Egyptian control and not under Palestinian.

The last map shows the West Bank and Gaza under Israeli control. It shows who is where in charge.

Now take a look at the first map of 1946. Looking at it, you might think: ‘The Palestinians owned most of the land.’ That is basically what this map is trying to make you think. It shows land that was privatly owned by Jews, the Jewish settlements. Land that Jews bought from the previous owner, private or state. And all the other land was – according to this map – in Palestinian hands. But there was not Palestinian state, there was not even a Palestinian legal entity. So how can you talk of Palestinian/Arab land?

In 1917 the Ottomans lost Palestine to the British. The land of Palestine was Ottoman land. However it was not organized as one legal entity.

Now it came under British authority. And the British drew the boarders of Palestine. Of course there was land owned by Arabs/Palestinians. But also by Druzes and by Bedouins. Why does the maps not show this to you? It only shows the land privately owned by Jews. All the rest is affiliated with the Palestinians/Arabs. The vast areas owned by the state is not indicated, everything is indicated als Palestinian land. So why does someone want you to believe, that most of the land was owned by the Arabs?

But that is not even all. Why do they show only less than 30% of Palestine in the map of 1917?

Here is a map of the British Mandate of Palestine (the British ruled Palestine from 1920 to 1948. In 1922 the League of Nations approved the British Mandate of Palestine):

Israel was built up out of the bigger part of the land west of the Jordan river than the West Bank and Gaza. But that does not mean that Israel was built up out of the bigger part of Palestine. In 1921 the British devided the Mandate of Palestine in two parts: The land west of the Jordan which was referred to as Palestine, 23% of the Mandate of Palestine. And the land east of the Jordan, reffering to as Transjordan, 77% of the Mandate of Palestine.

But this crooked use of the term Palestine might have a totally different reason. The Palestinian cause, the cause of several terrorist organisations, is to free Palestine. So they refer to the land controlled by Israel as Palestine. And they do not intend to free Jordan from the Hashemite regime. Only because Israel is Jewish and the Hashemite regime is Muslim.

It is quite intriguing that Arafat in 1964 refered to Israel as Palestine and not to the Jordanian controlled West Bank or the Egyptian controlled Gaza. Than – with the Israeli victory in the 1967 war and the following rule Israel rule over the West Bank and Gaza – these lands suddenly became Palestine.

And untill today the Palestinians only call those lands Palestine that are or once where under Israeli control.

A fundraising group of HRW went to Saudi Arabia to meet state officials in order to make them become donors. Quite insane, isn’t it? A Human Rights Organisation meets with officials to one of the severe Human Rights violaters to get money from them to protect Human Rights. And what do they do there?

The delegation arrived to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW’s demonization of Israel. An HRW spokesperson, Sarah Leah Whitson, highlighted HRW’s battles with “pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations.” (…)

Finally, some would defend HRW by pointing it that it has criticized Saudi Arabia’s human rights record rather severely in the past. The point of my post, though, is not that HRW is pro-Saudi, but that it is maniacally anti-Israel. The most recent manifestation is that its officers see nothing unseemly about raising funds among the elite of one of the most totalitarian nations on earth, with a pitch about how the money is needed to fight “pro-Israel forces,” without the felt need to discuss any of the Saudis’ manifold human rights violations, and without apparent concern that becoming dependent on funds emanating from a brutal dictatorship leaves you vulnerable to that brutal dictatorship later cutting off the flow of funds, if you don’t “behave.”

Jeffrey Goldberg – who says about himself, that he is “not one of the people who believes that Human Rights Watch is reflexively anti-Israel” – couldn’t believe that and so he asked the executive director of Human Rights Watch. And after a lot of back and forth he evantually came to the conclusion:

In other words, yes, the director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division is attempting to raise funds from Saudis, including a member of the Shura Council (which oversees, on behalf of the Saudi monarchy, the imposition in the Kingdom of the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islamic law) in part by highlighting her organization’s investigations of Israel, and its war with Israel’s “supporters,” who are liars and deceivers. It appears as if Human Rights Watch, in the pursuit of dollars, has compromised its integrity.

Human Rights with guardians of that ilk, do not need enemies no longer.

(Found on Yaacov Lozowick’s blog.)

She reiterated her support of boycotting Israel explaining that

“Boycott is a tactic (…) we’re trying to create a dynamic which was the dynamic that ultimately ended apartheid in South Africa.”

Well, is that really what a boycott of Israel is about?

Israel is not an Apartheid state. Every Israeli citizen – Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Arab – has the same rights (Arabs ony do not have the obligation – they do not have to but can – to do military service.
So if this protest would not aim on bringing down a Apartheid that does not exist, on what does it aim?
It is aming on Israel. Israels existence is what the Antisemites cannot stand.
One question remains: If Klein supports a boycott of Israel, why does she publish and sell her book in Israel?!

There was Antisemitism long before Auschwitz and among all Antisemitic actions the Shoa is an exception, the anthropogenic catastrophe.
Whether someone condems the Shoa or not does not say anything about his state of mind concerning Antisemitism. On the contrary: The fact that someone unasked has the need to condemn the Shoa, has the need to do this very obvious act and condemn the Shoa, is very close to a proof of his Antisemitism.
Would anybody think that a chauvinist, who argues that a man is allowed to beat his wife but assures everybody that he condemn rape, is not a chauvinist?

But Auschwitz does not only force the Antisemites of today to condemn what goes without saying for every sane persone, it also makes them insist on not being Antisemites, as well something given for everybody who actually is not. They do not want to be called what they are and feel the urge do dissociate themselves from it.

Recently I discovered, that my university’s library has subscribed to a Nazi newspaper from Germany. You would not expect that in Israel, would you? (I wonder what the guy’s from Deutsche Stimme – that is the newspaper, affiliated with the NPD – think about that.)
In the last issue they wrote about a leading representative of NPD (a MoP in the parliament of a federal state) who is prosecuted by the authorities for calling Germany a “Judenrepublik” (sounds like Judenstaat, huh?!), a republic of Jews.
The fact that he is now being prosecuted for calling Germany a “Judenrepublik” made him comment on that. He said the prosecution shows, that it is not allowed to criticize “diese Bevölkerungsgruppe” (this population group) and insisted instantly that criticizing Jews is not Antisemitism.
What is the point of his “critic” against the Jews by calling Germany a Judenrepublik? Would he call it a banana republic and afterwards say that he criticized bananas? It is very obvious that he meant to say that Germany is controlled by the Jews one of the most classical Antisemitic notions – the Jews that controll everythink. Part of the Perpetomobile of Antisemitism. Because the very fact that he is prosecuted for his stupidity will just make him say, that it proofs what he said.

This is a common notion among Antisemites, but no serious person ever said that criticizing one Jew or a group of Jews or Israel or Judaism is Antisemitism (more about this soon). This Antisemite tried to disguise his Antisemitism as a usual critic and foremost needed to say that his critic cannot be qualified as Antisemitism. But why is he so keen to dissociate himself from Antisemitism? Because he was caught with the pants down. It is as if a young boy is caught with the hand in the candy box tells his mother who caught him, that he just wanted to see if there all candies are still in the box.

It is not surprising. Also Antisemites have a conscience. And their conscience tells them when they misbehaved. But instead of admitting misbehaviour, they writhe and try to squirm out of the situation and just get deeper into the mess.

Before Auschwitz Antisemites were not embarrassed of presenting themselves openly as what they are. They proudly called themselves Antisemites, they established Antisemitic parties, councils, meetings, published books and newspapers and named themselves and their products according to what they were: Antisemitic.
Today Antisemites have gone underground, theoretically and only for themselves. They believe – and I think many of them really believe it – that they are not Antisemites.
Thence we face the era of “Antisemitism without Antisemites” today.