The Politics of Anti-Semitism - Part I

According to popular belief, the EU, the US government and the Muslim states have three distinct positions on the hottest issues of the day, the Arab-Jewish conflict and anti-Semitism. But do they?

Jared Israel,

OpEds לבן ריק
לבן ריק
צילום: ערוץ 7
Summary: According to popular belief, the EU, the US government and the Muslim states have three distinct positions on the hottest issues of the day, the Arab-Jewish conflict and anti-Semitism. But do they? In hidden and open ways, the public in Muslim countries and the West is being sold political anti-Semitism. The central idea in this political philosophy is that a supposed conspiracy of Jews dominates the world - or at least the US and Europe - causing all problems. This idea isn't new; it's all in the Protocols of Zion and Mein Kampf. As in the past, the goal is to leverage already existing prejudice against Jews to create movements indoctrinated in the false belief that ?The Jews? are causing world problems, thus protecting the Establishments in North America, Europe and the Muslim countries. And now we see George Bush openly fomenting hatred of Jews.

According to the Financial Times of November 22, the European Union (EU) has suppressed a report it had commissioned on the epidemic of anti-Semitic violence in Europe.

If you are wondering, 'Is anti-Semitic violence really a problem in Europe in 2003?' the answer is unfortunately 'yes'. As Leah Vitale wrote in the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) student newspaper, regarding the situation in France:

"My flat mate described having to turn her 'Steve's Packs' (Israeli bag/luggage company) bag around, label against her body, so as to safeguard herself from assault. She also recounted that Jewish boys are unable to wear kippahs [headpiece worn by religious Jews] openly on the street without being attacked. Jews have been stabbed, and elderly women are now frisked upon entering synagogues, as a precaution. Despite nearly 400 incidents against Jews just last April alone, French President Chirac denied there is anti-Semitism in France." [1]

Given the widespread evidence of rampant anti-Semitism in Europe, why did the EU suppress its own report on this problem?

According to the Times, the report came to a conclusion that was deemed politically incorrect: Attacks on European Jews are mainly carried out by Muslims.

"The focus on Muslim and pro-Palestinian perpetrators... was judged inflammatory."

Notice that the word they use is "inflammatory ", not "false ".

Such things as murdering innocent people in the street or in their places of worship because they are Jews constitute racist gangsterism. Like every political force, racist gangsters are sensitive to public opinion. If the media and official bodies suppress the information that it is Muslims who are carrying out violent attacks on Jews in Europe, then the gangsters don't pay a political price for their terror. Thus, by suppressing the report, the European Union empowered murderers.

Based on everything I have heard and read, the upsurge in hatred towards Jews in Europe goes far beyond the Muslim population. Moreover, it is escalating rapidly, and not only in Europe. It reminds me of the situation in the 1930s.

The most obvious mechanism for mobilizing hatred of Jews in the West at this time is the dissemination of fabricated horror stories about the Middle East conflict. In earlier times, anti-Semitism was mobilized in the West by means of horror stories of a slightly different type, such as the nightmare tale that Jewish people murder Gentile children and use their blood in Matzos (the 'blood libel'). Unbelievable though it may seem, this 'blood libel' is widely taught in the Muslim world today. For example, I have posted the link to a video clip from a program on Al-Manar TV, which operates out of Lebanon with Syrian government funding. In this program, one episode in a TV series broadcast every night, actors depicting rabbis murder a child for his blood. It is quite horrible. I imagine it is something a child would never forget.[2]

In the West, TV stations are not (yet) broadcasting programs depicting rabbis slitting Gentile children's throats. Instead, the vehicle of demonization is mainly the misrepresentation of the Middle East conflict. Up until now, when people have falsely claimed that Israel is an apartheid state, the greatest oppressor on earth, and so on, the polite fiction was that the target was Israel, not Jews as a group. But of course, it is hard to maintain that fiction in the face of the EU report. If Muslims are not opposed to Jews as Jews then why are they knifing Orthodox Jews on the streets of France? What do French Jews have to do with opposition to Israeli policies, real or imagined? Unless, of course, the opposition to Israel is rooted in its being a Jewish state and unless, in turn, the media coverage that mobilizes opposition to Israel encourages hatred of Jews everywhere.

Alongside the demonization of Israel, there is another process at work, fanning anti-Semitism in the West. This involves the idea that a secret cabal of Jews is dominating US policy. The 'Jews-are-in-control' myth is being pushed in the mass media and, I believe, deliberately encouraged by the Bush administration. While this is done in a relatively subtle way in the West, it is much more openly proclaimed in the Muslim world. A few weeks ago, it was broadcast worldwide by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mr. Mahathir. Let us consider what Mahathir said and how Western leaders responded.

Mahathir tests the waters

Several weeks ago, Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia gave a speech that was taken right out of the Protocols of Zion. In it, he claimed Muslims are being humiliated everywhere. Mahathir delivered this speech at a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference. 58 leaders of Muslim states were present and when Mahathir finished, he got a standing ovation. [3]

Mahathir accused Jews of having "invented democracy, communism, socialism and human rights", as if, assuming this were true, it would prove something bad about Jews. But he also said Jews constitute a conspiracy that runs the world with the express goal of humiliating certain Gentiles, namely Muslims.

He claimed Muslims are being humiliated worldwide as part of a global attack on Islam and, to complete the imaginary picture, the culprits are 'The Jews.'

Here's Mahathir:

"Is it true that 1.3 billion people can exert no power to save themselves from the humiliation and oppression inflicted upon them by a much smaller enemy? Can they only lash back blindly in anger? Is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people? It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews." [4]

Note that Mahathir does not fault Palestinian or other suicide bombers for attacking innocent people. Why? Because in Mahathir's bizarre world, Jews are not innocent and they're really not people. Mahathir objects to suicide bombing because he considers it an act of weakness. Muslims, he argues, must create effective armed forces with modern weapons and unite against the imaginary Jewish attack. This is what he means by "defense":

"We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defence. But because we discouraged the learning of science and mathematics, etc., as giving no merit for the akhirat [i.e., the hereafter], today we have no capacity to produce our own weapons for our defence." [5]

Notice that Mahathir does not encourage Muslims to enrich their societies by studying a broad range of ideas - e.g., democracy, socialism, communism, human rights, or even world literature. No, just science and math, because Muslims need them... to make bombs. Am I alone in finding this mind boggling?

Many imams (that is, Muslim religious teachers) hold to the view that the humiliation of Islam - real or imagined - justifies jihad, which in practice means holy war. Thus, by accusing Jews of humiliating Muslims worldwide, Mahathir was inciting violence against Jews, worldwide.

Two thoughts:

1) While Mahathir did talk about Israel, his target was clearly Jews in general. He did not attack Israel because of this or that supposed tactic of the Israeli government. Rather, he opposed Israel because it was Jewish. His only criticism of the 50-year Muslim obsession with destroying Israel was that it had not worked:

"Over the past 50 years of fighting in Palestine we have not achieved any result. We have in fact worsened our situation... [We must] think. We are up against a people who think. They survived 2,000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking."

You see? The man is mono-obsessed. He doesn't even bother to deny that Jews have been fiercely persecuted; rather, he warns that they "survive" because they are smart, just as one would warn of the cleverness of some vermin one wished to exterminate.

2) By accusing Jews collectively of humiliating Muslims everywhere, Mahathir was obviously inciting hatred and holy war against all Jews by Muslims, as well as lending credence to the anti-Semitism of people in the West - i.e., what is often called 'the Christian world.' Why those people, too? Because anti-Semitic ideas are already planted in the minds of people in Western countries, planted there because these ideas are part of Western culture. Mahathir's accusations, which are taken right out of The Protocols of Zion, will remind millions of people of prejudices they learned as children, absorbed in a hundred ways from their environment, even if they were not taught to believe these things by their own parents - indeed, even if their parents taught them not to believe anti-Semitic ideas. Moreover, as I will discuss more in a moment, what Mahathir said in a direct way is being pushed in subtle ways by the media and leaders in the West.

It is therefore most significant that the European Union issued no statement regarding Mahathir's speech. The way it apparently happened was this: Italy, which presently presides over the EU, announced that a statement of criticism would be issued at an upcoming meeting of European heads of state. But then came the meeting, and the criticism was reportedly "fiercely" opposed by French President Chirac. Having gone through the motions of preparing to criticize, the EU surrendered to France: a rout. Nobody has seen anything quite like it since the French surrendered to Nazi Germany in 1940.

According to the Malaysian paper, the Strait Times, Dr. Mahathir thanked France:

"PUTRAJAYA, Sat. - Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad [i.e., Mahathir] today expressed his gratitude to French President Jacques Chirac for his 'understanding' of the OIC chairman's speech at the opening of the 10th Organisation of the Islamic Conference Summit here." [6]

According to the Associated Press:

"A French diplomat, who asked not to be named, said while Chirac disagreed with Mahathir's strident views, he argued that an EU summit declaration 'would not have been appropriate.'" [7]

When Muslims burn down synagogues, one may not report it. And when Muslim leaders give a standing ovation to a prime minister who calls for holy war against Jews, thus empowering those who firebomb synagogues, this may be "strident", but it is "not appropriate" to criticize him.

So much for the claim by European leaders that they are motivated only by opposition to specific supposed Israeli policies, not by anti-Semitism. The EU's silence was of course a statement, and Muslims heard it, loud and clear. And so did ordinary people in the West. The hidden message was: Mahathir shouldn't have said such a thing, but of course it's true, so we will not issue even a formal criticism.

[Originally posted on Part 1 of 2]

Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] November 17, 2003, Monday; ?A Call For A Jewish State?; Leah Vitale, Massachusetts Daily Collegian; Source: U. Massachusetts-Amherst; Amherst, Mass.

[2] You can access the Realplayer clip of Al-Manar TV's video, which accuses Jewish people of killing Gentiles for their blood (!) at

[3] To find out about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the book Hitler used to justify the slaughter of the Jews and also World War II, go to

[3A] Given the immense influence of The Protocols of Zion, it is amazingly badly done. See "The Protocols of Zion - Illogical, Sloppy, and Incoherent..." at

[3B] Why does The Protocols have appeal? The appeal stems from the two works of fiction from which its theme and texts were taken. One book was a work of anti-Jewish fear-mongering. The other book was a very serious satire written to attack Napoleon III, the Emperor of France, a despot who used demagoguery to mobilize mass support. For more on this, see "Reader Comments: 'I am no anti-Semite. Why do some parts of The Protocols Ring True?' (

[4] Mahathir's speech is at

[5] ibid.

[6] New Straits Times (Malaysia); October 19, 2003, Sunday; Section: Nation; Pg. 3; ?Dr M. expresses gratitude to Chirac for his ?understanding??

[7] Associated Press ?Worldstream?; October 19, 2003 Sunday; Section: International News; Distribution: Asia; England; Europe; Britain; Scandinavia; Middle East; Africa; Length: 326 Words; ?Malaysian Leader Says France's Chirac 'Understands' His Remarks About Jews?; Dateline: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia