An opinion piece in the Jordan Times last week declared, in its headline, that ?Being critical of Israel and being anti-Semitic are not identical?. The spur for the article was the recent criticism leveled at the Arab world for producing anti-Semitic television programs such as Egypt?s Protocols of the Elders of Zion passion play, ?Horseman Without a Horse?. The author reports to his Jordanian readers that the Ramadan serial featured in an editorial in ?the Israeli most liberal daily Haaretz? that was entitled ?Galloping anti-Semitism?. According to the author, such attention by Israelis and Americans to the series ?have not only backfired but have led to a marked increase in viewers.?
Commenting on the content of the Israeli protest against the Egyptian drama, the Jordan Times article says, ?the programme is, to a great extent, based on the fundamentals of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book which, rightly or wrongly, exposes a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Interestingly enough, this book was not written by an Arab writer but by a Russian.? With that non-committal, even supportive, view of the anti-Semitic tract, the Jordanian columnist goes on to say, ?From an Israeli standpoint, the mere allegation that this series depends on this book justifies the Israeli claim that anti-Semitism is but an endemic feature of the Arab cultural life... It is rather pathetic to claim that this series is anti-Semitic when the focus of the story is Egyptian nationalism. Indeed, it is chutzpah to place Egyptian nationalism on a par with anti-Semitism.?
?Implicit in the Israeli statements regarding the Arabs' stance vis-a-vis the Israelis,? according to the Times opinion piece, ?are the claim that the Arab world has become the breeding ground for anti-Semitism. However, this contention cannot stand historical scrutiny.? The author then goes on to make a series of historical claims: ?[A]nti-Semitism swept Europe in the nineteenth century when the process of assimilating Jews in European countries failed. At that time, Jews living in the Arab world enjoyed a far better status than their counterparts in Europe. Hence, the phenomenon of anti-Semitism evolved in Europe and has nothing to do with the Arabs. Evidently, the Sephardi Jewish community in Israel, now more than half of the Israeli Jews in Israel, has not experienced anti-Semitism in the Arab world. Indeed, it was the dominant Ashkenazi elite who in the 1950s was in complete control of the state apparatus that started underscoring that anti-Semitism was the destiny of Jews regardless of their whereabouts.?
Thus, the Israeli criticism of Arab anti-Semitism is not authentic, the Jordanian column implies, concluding, ?Israelis have a vested interest in enforcing the image that anti-Semitism is widespread in the Arab world, in order to warrant ruthless policies against the Palestinians or to account for inaction regarding the peace process.? Particularly egregious in this regard, according to the Jordanian writer, was former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who ?never held back from reminding European leaders of their continent's history of anti-Semitism, including of course the Holocaust. It has become difficult (if not impossible), and here is the crux of the issue, to criticise Israel's aggressive policies or to fundamentally disagree with it over the peace process without running the risk of being branded as anti-Semitic. However, the fact remains that being critical of Israel and being anti-Semite are not identical and, therefore, should not be used interchangeably.? Rather than ?raising the issue of Arab anti-Semitism... to divert our attention from what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza...? the article says, ?[Israelis] could have saved the region from many of the tragic events in which they interfered.?
As an example of Israeli failure to ?save the region?, the Jordan Times op-ed cites, confusedly, ?the role of Merkaz Harav in Jerusalem or the Yeshivot (religious schools) in teaching about Arabs. The jingoism coming from these two institutions has produced the most uncompromising, anti-peace generation and indeed has contributed significantly to the impasse of the peace process.?
In conclusion, the Jordanian writer declares that Israelis ?cannot maintain their colonial occupation of the Palestinian lands and at the same time be embraced by the Arabs. It is no secret that anti-Israeli attitudes, which should not be conflated with anti-Semitism, have been bubbling in the region, and that for Israel to ward it off, putting an end to occupation is a prerequisite. Otherwise, acrimony will dominate the Arab-Israeli relations for years to come.?
Commenting on the content of the Israeli protest against the Egyptian drama, the Jordan Times article says, ?the programme is, to a great extent, based on the fundamentals of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book which, rightly or wrongly, exposes a Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Interestingly enough, this book was not written by an Arab writer but by a Russian.? With that non-committal, even supportive, view of the anti-Semitic tract, the Jordanian columnist goes on to say, ?From an Israeli standpoint, the mere allegation that this series depends on this book justifies the Israeli claim that anti-Semitism is but an endemic feature of the Arab cultural life... It is rather pathetic to claim that this series is anti-Semitic when the focus of the story is Egyptian nationalism. Indeed, it is chutzpah to place Egyptian nationalism on a par with anti-Semitism.?
?Implicit in the Israeli statements regarding the Arabs' stance vis-a-vis the Israelis,? according to the Times opinion piece, ?are the claim that the Arab world has become the breeding ground for anti-Semitism. However, this contention cannot stand historical scrutiny.? The author then goes on to make a series of historical claims: ?[A]nti-Semitism swept Europe in the nineteenth century when the process of assimilating Jews in European countries failed. At that time, Jews living in the Arab world enjoyed a far better status than their counterparts in Europe. Hence, the phenomenon of anti-Semitism evolved in Europe and has nothing to do with the Arabs. Evidently, the Sephardi Jewish community in Israel, now more than half of the Israeli Jews in Israel, has not experienced anti-Semitism in the Arab world. Indeed, it was the dominant Ashkenazi elite who in the 1950s was in complete control of the state apparatus that started underscoring that anti-Semitism was the destiny of Jews regardless of their whereabouts.?
Thus, the Israeli criticism of Arab anti-Semitism is not authentic, the Jordanian column implies, concluding, ?Israelis have a vested interest in enforcing the image that anti-Semitism is widespread in the Arab world, in order to warrant ruthless policies against the Palestinians or to account for inaction regarding the peace process.? Particularly egregious in this regard, according to the Jordanian writer, was former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who ?never held back from reminding European leaders of their continent's history of anti-Semitism, including of course the Holocaust. It has become difficult (if not impossible), and here is the crux of the issue, to criticise Israel's aggressive policies or to fundamentally disagree with it over the peace process without running the risk of being branded as anti-Semitic. However, the fact remains that being critical of Israel and being anti-Semite are not identical and, therefore, should not be used interchangeably.? Rather than ?raising the issue of Arab anti-Semitism... to divert our attention from what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza...? the article says, ?[Israelis] could have saved the region from many of the tragic events in which they interfered.?
As an example of Israeli failure to ?save the region?, the Jordan Times op-ed cites, confusedly, ?the role of Merkaz Harav in Jerusalem or the Yeshivot (religious schools) in teaching about Arabs. The jingoism coming from these two institutions has produced the most uncompromising, anti-peace generation and indeed has contributed significantly to the impasse of the peace process.?
In conclusion, the Jordanian writer declares that Israelis ?cannot maintain their colonial occupation of the Palestinian lands and at the same time be embraced by the Arabs. It is no secret that anti-Israeli attitudes, which should not be conflated with anti-Semitism, have been bubbling in the region, and that for Israel to ward it off, putting an end to occupation is a prerequisite. Otherwise, acrimony will dominate the Arab-Israeli relations for years to come.?