Some suggestions:

(of course Coca Cola is also perceived as part of a war waged by the West)

Peace is very easily possible, when just one think is accepted: This is Israel, a country founded by Jews and this will stay Israel, a country founded by Jews.

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.

But with the end of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of Nationalism in the Muslim world and the subsequent forming of modern national states this Islamic order ended. Now the ruler was not longer the highest religious representative. Islamic law, that – although not solely – used to be the law, was exchanged or at least overruled by modern laws or applied through human made laws. A system that used to influence every aspect of daily life – Islam – was reduced to a matter of individual choice. In Syria under the Bath regime this went so far that female Bath members harassed Muslim women and took of their veils by force.

Radical Islam, Islamists want to get back to a state where Islamic order is the order of society. They even go so far that they discredit the long periods of Ottoman rule and want to return to the order of the very early period of Islam. They do not want to life like the early Muslims if it comes to technology. But they want the social order of that time. But they are still very modern. They are very much influenced by the West (what they would deny). By saying that, I do not mean thath they use cell phones or the internet. I mean that their way of thinking how to get Islamic order in play is modern. The very idea of a group taking over power and installing an order they claim is Islamic is contradictiong classical Islam. Islam as a culture is something that has do be lived by Muslims and not impossed on them. In a western democracy where a body decides what is the law this might work. But Islamic law is not a set of rules decided by a governmental body but a tradition.

That is why the Islamists – in other words – are doing this:

They digitalized an old movie, they consider to be a classic everybody should see, and burned it on a DVD. And now they try to push this DVD in a VCR.

They use very modern means to transport an old way of life. But by doing this they make it incompatible.

I mention this mosque because in Israel – which suffers from Islamic terrorism for quite somee time – it is no question that mosques are part of public live. Vandalism againsty mosques is a serious crime wich is persecuted.

The Swiss population voted against minarets on mosques in a direct democratic decision. I doubt that it is the minarets on mosques the Swiss have a problem with. Probably they fear Islam as a political power. This might be exaggerated – or not.  But they do, the majority does.

Astonishing is the reaction of the Swiss Green party. They plan to address the European Court of Human Rights and expect him to turn down the vote. You can see that as a desperate move to turn down a decision they do not like at all and which they qualify as a violation of the freedom of believe (are the minarets really part of the believe?). But it is also an attack on the Swiss democracy.

Can a court turn down the decision of the sovereign?

In addition many Swiss politicans recommended to vote against banning minarets and argued that it would harm economical interests. That is Western Europe in the 21st. Human rights, relations with totalitarian regimes, the behavior towards Readical Islam are not a question of principel, but of money.

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.

It shows how little they understand of Islam and even of Christianity and the Reformation.

There is non -political Islam. Islam is politics. All the theological differences you can find in Islam – like the split between the Sunna and the Shi’a – goes back to a political conflict. In detail there was a dissent who should follow as a leader of the Islamic community. But it is important to note: First was a political dissent than with time came the theological differences. The split was not about theological but about political differences. 

The leader of the Islamic community was also its religious leader. Division between religion and state are alien to Islam. From the times of Muhammad to the end of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent abolishment of the Caliphate by Ataturk the leader was the leader, was the leader was the leader, in all aspects religious and non religious.

On the other hand splits – Schisms – in Christianity were about theological issues. Luther did not rebell about who became Pope but because of dislike of the actions of the Church that he critizised from a theological point of view. (On the other hand the Shi’a did not like that it was not ‘Ali or his descendants that became Caliph. There was no dissent about how people should practice Islam or how the clerics should behave.)
The division of Religion and State comes much easier to Christians. For hundreds of years Christians were persecuted. Christianity was founded as a persecuted creed. Persecuted by the very powers, the rulers. That did not prevent Christianity to just the same after they gained power. On the other hand Islam after it had established itself expanded and was ruling but was not ruled by non-Muslims. In addition in Christianity there was usually a division between the clerics and the rulers. The Church might have sometimes be a very powerfull political player and sometimes a ruler would have made his subordinates to accept his believe. But a division between state and religion is not alien to Chrisitanity.

Christians are from the very beginning used to the fact, that there is a cleric and a political leadership. Would this divison be not there, it would seem alien to Christians. That does however not mean, that the rulers are not Christians and that Christian morals can be found in legal norms after passing through a specific process.
For Muslims it is totally the opposite. They are historically used to the fact that there is no division between political and religious leadership. A division would be alien to them. In addition Islam has a set of rules – the Shari’a, the Islamic law - that deals with very daily matters. Form a Islamic perspective man-made law cannot rule out this divine law.

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.

The common notion about Antisemitism is that it was an exclusive European phenomenon that from there made its way to the Muslim world. However, that might not be true.

I am currently conducting research about Antisemitism in the Middle East. Since I am at the stage of looking for literature and sources I stumble over a lot of stuff.

Today I found a book (The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, edited by Andrew Bostom, p. 468) with maps that point out antisemitic incidences in the Middle East under Muslim rule between 750 AD and 1900 AD.

Here are the incidences in North Africa (chronological):

800 AD, Tunis, Jews forced to pay an annual tax which consituted a substantial income for the state

1016, Kairawan, the Jews of the city persecuted and forced to leave, returning later they were again forced to leave

1033, Fez, more than 6000 Jews massacred

1066, Granada, More than 5000 Jews murdered during Arab riots

1145, Tunis, Jews forced to convert or to leave

1150s & 1270s, Tunisia, fierce anti-Jewish persecutions

1232, Marakesh, Jews were massacred, anti-Jewish persecutions throughout Morocco

1250, Tunis, Jews forced to wear distinguishing marks on clothes

1588, Libya, forcible conversions of many Jews to Islam

1785, Libya, Ali Gurzi Pasha persecutes Jews, many hundreds murdered

1805, Algiers, 40 Jews murdered

1860, Libya, harsh anti-Jewish measures, all Jews leaving forced to pay a heavy exit fine (except those going to Palestine (sic!)

1865, Jerba, Arab bands pillage the Jewish communities, burn and loot synagogues, and rape the women

1864-1880, Morocco, more than 500 Jews murdered, often in broad daylight in the main streets

1869, Tunis, 18 Jews murdered by Muslim within a few months

1875, Demnat, 20 Jews murdered

1884, Demnat, several Jews murdered amid much persecution

1890, Sefrou, Jewish quarter pillaged by Muslims, after a flood in which 54 Jews died

1897, Tripolitania, synagogues plundered throughout Tripolitania, several Jews murdered