Whoever is President There: France Fries While Its Leaders Avert Eyes

In the tiny town of Barr, France—population 6000—in Alsace near the German and Swiss borders, there is a tiny parking lot near the main street. You pull into it, take one of the dozen or so spaces, and then notice the sign, “Parking de Synagogue.”

For a moment one thinks that this is the parking lot of a synagogue. But then you see the small sign saying that in 1882 a synagogue was built on this spot and in 1985 it was torn down to make the parking lot.  It isn’t the parking lot for the synagogue but the Synagogue Parking Lot, the only one in town.

The next village down the road, Bergheim, population 1500, is far tinier and even more charming, about the closest thing to a perfectly preserved Medieval place I've ever seen. There, too, is a sign where a synagogue once stood. In both places, I visited the well-organized tourist information bureaus but they could find no picture of the synagogue and knew nothing of their village’s Jewish history....

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,023. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------

These communities disappeared and we are now seeing a new version of this story being enacted due to the physical and psychological insecurity of the remaining Jewish community, now focused in France’s big cities.

On the streets of the larger towns in eastern France, there were the small placards for selling magazines which featured a photo of a little girl with the headline, “The girl who made all of France cry,” one of the children murdered by an Islamist terrorist in Toulouse a few days earlier.

Yet the media in France and internationally largely spun the Toulouse story as the tale of troubled young man, perhaps himself a victim, despite the fact that the French police arrested 20 other psalmists, the killer trained at a camp in Afghanistan, his father was a member of an Islamist terror cell in Toulouse, his brother was a known and possibly violent extremist, and the killer who was unemployed had access to a fund of 20,000 Euros.

So the killings allegedly made France cry, but did they make France think? 

Click here to read the entire article.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

  

What Is Sweden's Biggest Problem? Just Guess!

By Barry Rubin

The New York Times recently ran an article on Sweden, much of it on the city of Malmo. That place has a high proportion of Muslim residents some of whom have become so militant that the city’s Jews have reportedly fled due to harassment. The Swedish mayor said that he didn’t want racist movements like Zionism in the city.

There have been many reports of increased lawlessness as areas of Swedish cities where immigrants from the Middle East live have become no-go areas for the authorities. Sweden is also facing an epidemic of rapes, anti-Jewish incidents (including a mob attack on an Israel-Sweden tennis game and an assault by a Muslim on a Jewish youth soccer team), violent leftist attacks on conservatives, and official crackdowns on freedom of speech.

So the Times interviewed a couple of people including the mayor of Malmo—no mention of his anti-Jewish activities—and an anti-Israel professor from the Social Democratic party.

And what did the article conclude? Why, of course, that the big problem in Sweden is Islamophobia!

What's Happening in Europe: Holland As A Case Study on Islam and Israel

Please be subscriber 18,263 (and daily reader 20,263.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

One should not generalize in describing European states. Still, the case of the Netherlands shows interesting points regarding attitudes toward both Israel and Islam.

Let's start with the Israel issue. I've been closely following the new Dutch government, formed after an election in which 55 percent of the voters supported explicitly pro-Israel parties.

When the new foreign minister Uri Rosenthal was asked about the country's policy toward Israel by the extremist (and virulently hostile) Green Left party, he replied that he thinks it's necessary to develop further the relationship with Israel because the right to exist of Israel, the only democracy in the region, is still put in doubt by some nations and groups. "The Netherlands want to push back against attempts of delegitimizing Israel. Israel's right to exist must be very clear and Israel should should feel supported in this by the international community."

If the Netherlands wants to support the peace process, even in pushing for Israeli compromises, this can only be done, he explains, if the country engages in more intensive cooperation with Israel.

We should remember that in most countries there is a strong--and party partisan--debate on these issues. Government policy often depends on who wins the elections. The clearest differences exist in Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands; to a real if somewhat lesser extent in France and the United Kingdom, but this point is true everywhere in Europe.

Another development in Europe, however, is rising antisemitism. Here's an article providing examples of both sympathetic and unsympathetic reactions on the issue by various Dutch figures.

Having reliable statistics at last regarding the number of Muslims in Europe also makes it timely to discuss that issue. The European left often argues that Muslims face imminent persecution and even massive repression. One of the more sophisticated versions of this theme comes from the Dutch Labor Party journalist and intellectual Geert Mak in one of the country's leading newspapers:

"No, in the comparison between Jews and Muslims it's not about deportation and mass-murder. It's about the beginning, about the 1930s, when Jews felt themselves excluded and when it was spoken about them as it is now about Muslims."

Yet how can one deal with this issue without noting the fact that Islamists who are Muslim have committed more than 10,000 terrorist attacks in the last two decades? Or the fact that in many mosques in the West, preachers systematically incite hatred for Jews and Christians? Or that a whole series of special privileges are demanded by local Muslim leaders that break the Western democratic tradition of equal treatment under law? Or that the overwhelmingly main cause of growing antisemitism in Europe comes from the Muslim sector of the population?

Needless to say, Jews in the 1930s weren't doing any of these things. There was not a single incident of violence by Jews against the Christian majority. While Jews were sometimes accused of religiously preaching hatred against Christians, those claims were always false. And far from asking for special privileges, most Jews were trying desperately to assimilate culturally while the rest only wanted to be left alone. If one ignores these differences it is impossible to understand the situation today.

Here's one little detail reported by the French press agency, AFP that provides an ironic example of the problem. A Lebanon-born Swedish citizen named Munir Awad was arrested in Somalia in 2007 and again in 2009 in Pakistan on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. The Swedish foreign ministry helped get him freed on both occasions. Awad expressed his gratitude. Now Awad has been again arrested--in Sweden--after participating in a plot to "kill as many people as possible" in an attack on a Danish newspaper that published cartoons he found objectionable.

There is a real problem here and--as the Awad case indicates--neither generosity nor appeasement will make it go away.

But let's go back to what Mak said: "It's about the beginning, about the 1930s, when Jews felt themselves excluded and when it was spoken about them as it is now about Muslims."

In the 1930s though, when "Jews felt themselves excluded" the next step was that Jews were attacked by Nazis, fascists, and extreme nationalists. Isn't there, however, something hidden behind Mak's words? There's the implication that if Muslims feel "excluded" they will attack Christians and Jews. In other words, the situation is exactly the opposite of the Jews in the 1930s case.

From Indonesia through Thailand and India and through the Middle East and Europe and into the Americas, by the end of 2010 there had not been a single large-scale attack, much less any massacre, of people targeted as Muslims by Jews, Christians (with the exceptions of Lebanon, Kosovo, and Bosnia during civil wars in those countries), Hindus, or Buddhists.

Of course, Islamists and many Muslims portrays such things as the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or Israeli policies as wars against Muslims. But we know that this is not true. There is no deliberate desire to kill people as a goal; no targeting of Islam itself. Instead of incitement, there is a kneejerk stress in the West and Israel to avoid offense to Muslims at almost any cost.

In contrast, there have been plenty of such incidents the other way around. Indeed, in the last week there were major terrorist attacks against Christian churches in Baghdad and Cairo, with dozens of people murdered.

What is the response? Christian priests and ministers are not giving sermons telling on their flock to hate and kill or even to be rude to Muslims. There are no calls for revenge, no reprisal attacks on Muslims, and no real comprehension in many political, media, and academic circles of what is happening in the world.

Oh, and by the way, the Jews in Europe are also again feeling "excluded" to the point that some are leaving and more are thinking seriously about getting out.

Might these facts have something to do with reality?  After all, "Islamophobia" means fear of Islam. This is quite different from hatred of Islam or wanting to kill Muslims.  A Greek friend informs me that the word for hate in Greek is "misos." Thus, "Islamophobia" is not the same as "Islamomisos."

In fact, what we are seeing is a rational fear in the West based on events (Islamofovos, to use the Greek word) alongside the hatred of the West (Occidentomisos) in much of the Muslim-majority world.

The real concern in Europe, then, is that making Muslims feel "excluded" (that is, unhappy) is more likely the prelude to them killing you than it is to you killing them.

In literal terms, then, it is the appeasers and Multiculturalists who are "Islamophobic." They fear Islam so much that they are eager to make concessions to avoid being attacked verbally or with violence.

What we are seeing today in the West is a definitional struggle: Is the principal danger to European society  "Islamophobia" or radical Islamism?  If it is "Islamophobia" then it is possible to rationalize a policy ignoring the roots of terrorist attacks and radical forces in the Muslim community while tending to appease demands for more power, funding, and privileges. Otherwise, it is claimed, Muslims will be tortured, murdered, expelled, and mistreated.

Even a refusal to limit immigration, promote assimilation, deny special privileges, or ban polygamy can be justified as ways to avoid making Muslims feel "excluded."

Indeed, this is largely what's happening in Europe: almost is anything is justified to ensure that Muslims are happy.

Yet if the main threat is revolutionary Islamism and the collapse of national identity, stability, and democracy, then Europe is in a lot of trouble.

There is also a different way to look at the situation: By following these policies European governments are likely to increase not only the threat to their own stability, culture, and society from Islamism but also to increase the likelihood of antagonism toward Muslims. After all, increasing power, demands, extremism, and violence from Islamists is going to echo on the other side far more than would a more moderate strategy in dealing with these immigrants and citizens.

Of course, the radicals, militants, and activists cannot be made happy by being given money, privileges, and flattery since their goal is to control their communities and seize more and more power.  By making these people look successful by giving them concessions, Western societies ensure that the Muslims (or, more correctly, the leaders who give the mosque sermons, teach in the schools, and represent the community to the government) will continue to shout out new grievances.

In other words, the Multicultural, Political Correct, criticism-of-Islam-equals-hate-crime approach is the worst possible policy, undermining the host country, radicalizing the Muslim community, and simultaneously stirring up mutual hatreds. There is nothing more likely to create something that might be called "Islamophobia" in the future than  kowtowing to fear of this largely non-existent phenomenon in the present.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Dutch Treat: How Holland's New Government May Set Europe's New Direction

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Please be subscriber 19,140. Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/
Note: From today on we are counting average daily individual visitors to the site as part of our circulation--since these people are also reading the articles--rather than just subscriptions.

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

The Netherlands is about to  be Europe's great experiment: Can a center-right government manage an overblown welfare state, nationally suicidal multiculturalism, and virtually open-door immigration policies in a way that can maintain popular support and solve problems?

After months of negotiations failed to bring about a broad cross-spectrum coalition a new government has finally been formed. The partners are the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), a European liberal (that is, conservative) party, and the Christian Democratic Party, (CDA). While the VVD has been growing, the CDA has been in decline. Together they have 52 seats.

To be sure of a majority, the government will be supported from the outside by the Party for Freedom, (PVV) led by Geert Wilders, giving a grand total of 76 seats, a razor-thin majority. Another small Christian party with two seats might offer support when needed. 

What makes this arrangement controversial is the role of Wilders, often described as “anti-Islam” and made into something of a bogey-man in Dutch politics. While Wilders is harderline than the two coalition parties, there is a basis for consensus among them. For example, he is tougher on regulating mosques generally and reducing immigration especially from Muslim-majority countries, but the new ruling parties support closing radical mosques and reducing immigration in general.

Yet Wilders' role has arguably undermined the conservative side since if he hadn’t run, the two other main conservative parties would have gained almost all of his votes and had a big majority.

And so Wilders is something of a distraction here, who will be used by the left to call the new government various names. But the real power resides with establishment figures, the leaders of the VVD, Mark Rutte, and of the CDA, Maxime Verhagen. Conservative and center parties received 55 percent in the elections.

Both of these parties support lower-taxes, the free market, smaller government, less government regulation, limited immigration, and friendship toward the United States and Israel, along with a tougher stance on radical Islamist groups. So while the international media is going to be focused on Wilders, the Dutch majority supports a program that might be called Wilders without the most controversial bits.

Among the key points in the new government’s program:

--Heavier punishments for repeat criminals and the hiring of more police, including a special increase in those dealing with animal-cruelty crimes (a big issue in Holland).

- Immigrants will receive Dutch citizenship for a five-year trial period during which it would be revoked and they would be deported for being convicted of any crime requiring twelve years’ imprisonment.

--A ban on the burqa, with no headscarves permitted for judges, prosecutors, or police.

--"Substantial" reductions in legal immigration.

--First-cousin marriage, common among Islamic immigrants, will be banned.

--Spending cutbacks including for the minister of defense, including a withdrawal of the Dutch forces from Afghanistan.

Will this program be implemented and will it lead to more social peace and economic stability in the Netherlands? All of Europe will be watching.

The leader of the small Christian Union party, which didn't enter the coalition, has just written an op-ed proclaiming:

"We shouldn't be silent about the dark side of Islam. Large parts of Islam still have non-negotiable objections against the most fundamental political and religious liberties. An example is that apostasy in Islam is forbidden. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have peace with Islam but it demands dialogue, debate, and even sometimes confrontation."

Even the leader of the left-wing Green (Groenlinks) party, Femke Halsema, has been emboldened to say that hardline views have broad support among Dutch Muslims and are forcibly imposed on many women and homosexuals, whose rights should be protected. Whether she thought this would help her politically in the new climate, was genuinely moved for the first time to extend her views to Muslim, as well as Christian, communities, or some combination of these factors is not clear.

What is clear is that many Dutch leaders understand that the majority finds the current situation intolerable and that some response must be made to these complaints. But will anything change?

Rock Band Symbollizes View that Syrian Dictatorship is Preferable to Israeli Democracy

By Barry Rubin

My daughter will gladly tell you that I don’t know a huge amount about contemporary music, though she was impressed that I knew who Kurt Cobain was. Yet you don’t have to know about this specific band to realize what a perfect example this story is of contemporary thinking.

Gorillaz, a major British band, cancelled its concert in Israel during June and then played in Syria during July. “For us it’s just a wonderful experience,” said one member, Damon Albarn. Their theme was pollution, he explained: “I think the world is becoming like a plastic beach. It’s not a prediction, it’s something that exists now. We’ve got to accept that it’s got to be cool to recycle.”

Syria, of course, is a dictatorship where dissidents are arrested and tortured, where no freedom of speech or assembly exists, where Kurds are massacred. The regime killed an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 civilians in its own city of Hama in 1982. Syria supports terrorist groups attacking in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and for many years Turkey. Syria has imposed an imperialist yoke on Lebanon, a country that never threatened it. Its media feature the most vicious anti-Western and antisemitic propaganda. You can read more about this in my book, The Truth About Syria.

Yet Syria and its support for murderous guerrillas is regarded by these gorillas of Gorillaz as superior to democratic Israel. Indeed, Israel even has a better recycling program than Syria, a regime whose main act of recycling has been with Stalinist and fascist principles and institutions.

What better symbol of the topsy-turvy nature of Western values and thinking nowadays.

Europe: Evaluating Changing Demographics/Worst Antisemitism Since 1945

Please be subscriber 16,768. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

The always brilliant Walter Laqueur (a praise in no way exaggerated) has written a review essay about the question of Muslim immigration in Europe and how that continent is changing. Sound, sober, and balanced. Well worth reading. Laqueur rejects excessive predictions about what's happening but points to the dramatic transformations that are taking place. German-speakers can hear an interview with him here.

Incidentally, Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, has just stated that the situation for Jews in Europe is the worst it’s been since World War II:

"Jews are afraid to walk the streets in Europe with [anything showing them to be Jewish]. Synagogues, Jewish schools and kindergartens require barbed-wire fences and security and Jewish men, women and children are beaten up in broad daylight," he said in a message to the European Parliament. "Most worryingly, Jews are being forced out of many European cities, like Malmo [in Sweden], because of the atmosphere of hostility and violence."

There might be some connection between these factors but it has not yet been recognized by European governments or the European Union.

After an attack by German-Arabs on a local Jewish dance troupe in Hanover and an assault by a German-Palestinian on two Israelis in a Berlin nightclub, Juliane Wetzel, of the German Parliament's panel on anti-Semitism, told a newspaper that the issue of antisemitism from young Muslims in Germany had not been thoroughly examined. You think?

And guess what? It gets better. Wetzel has reportedly played down antisemitism even though she works for a center researching antisemitism, insisting the real problem is Islamophobia and attacking those who are really telling the truth about the issue.

But for me the absolute best symbol of all this is what happened at the Berlin nightclub. Apparently, a Palestinian attacked the two Israelis, and as they tried to run out the exit (following proper European procedure for dealing with aggression--running away), the German bouncer spotted them and thinking they had started a fight, sprayed them with some kind of teargas.

Get it? Palestinian attacks Israeli, European decides Israeli was at fault and attacks him instead of the real aggressor. Could you possibly ask for a better example of contemporary European policy?

Oh and check out the truly shocking Hove trial in which a British judge directed an acquittal for saboteurs who vandalized a factory. The reason? The factory was supposedly making military goods for Israel.

When a British judge cheers people for commiting a criminal act for a democratic ally on behalf of a revolutionary Islamist enemy, that says something about the state of justice in Britain today, though it should be added that this judge is known for being soft on extremists. This reminds me of a column I wrote warning that in trying to damage or destroy Israel, various people and institutions were doing even more harm to their own countries.

At the same time, however, I should add once again that government policies should not be judged by the media, academia, or individual anecdotes. European states are generally not so terrible on the Israel issue as many think, though they could of course be much better. As for sanctions on Iran, many of them are ahead of the United States.

Europe Battles Over Its Future: A Dutch Case Study

The following article was published in PajamasMedia here. If you forward or reprint it please give them the link and credit. Please note that they chose a title different from the one I preferred and have put into this text. I include the full article below for your convenience.

Please be subscriber 16,708. Put your email address in the box, upper right-hand of the page.

We depend on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation through PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, upper-right hand corner of this page. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

The political situation in Europe today is quite different from the stereotype of a continent hostile to the United States (even if Obama is personally popular) and Israel; appeasement-oriented toward Iran and revolutionary Islamism; and eagerly multicultural and Politically Correct. True, it is more oriented in that direction than North America, but there is a real struggle afoot.

In many countries—notably the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Germany, Norway, and to a slightly lesser extent the United Kingdom and France—the partisan gap between the left and center-right marks a boundary of much greater significance than a decade or two ago. Although each situation is different, the parties of the left tend to be more anti-American and anti-Israel and less alert to the threat of revolutionary Islamism as well as favoring continued large-scale immigration and big-state, big-spending policies.

Take the Netherlands as a case study. After elections last month, the parties of the center-right hold 83 seats while those of the left have 67. Since there are ten parties in parliament, talks to form a coalition government will last for weeks, especially since the two largest have only twenty percent each. In the elections, only three seats changed hands between blocs.

But the big news was the shift within the center-right, the rise of the People's Party for Freedom (PVV) led by the controversial Geert Wilders, which almost tripled its vote, going from 9 to 24 seats. To his enemies, almost no epithet is too extreme to throw against him. The flamboyant Wilders has been outspoken in opposing immigration and especially that of Muslims, making a sharp critique of political Islamism and sometimes Islam itself.

The power of the Dutch state was turned on Wilders, who is currently on trial for making statements which in America would fall well within Constitutional protection. State television ran documentaries during the election designed to show he was a virtual Nazi.

What is Wilders’ program? First, a sharp limitation on asylum seekers admitted into the country and none from Muslim-majority states. No dual nationality; new mosques; separate Islamic schools; wearing of burqas; or government subsidies for Islamic media. Mosques where violence is propagated will be closed and there would be heavy punishment for female circumcision. For their first ten years in Holland, immigrants receive no social benefits or citizenship. At the end of that period, those with no criminal record will receive full citizenship.

The rise in support for Wilders’ party is in large part a response to serious concern over the domestic situation in the country. Aside from the assassination of a filmmaker by a radical Islamist, there has been a steep increase in crime and social welfare spending. Amsterdam, not long ago the most gay-friendly city in the world, is a place where homosexuals might be attacked in the streets by Muslim immigrant youth, while a recent television program that followed three Jews wearing identifiable garb as such in a stroll around the city showed them being harassed and insulted. Twenty percent of Dutch teachers report that attempts to teach about the Holocaust, in the country of Anne Frank, were rejected or disrupted by immigrant children.

While Muslims still comprise only a bit more than 5 percent of the population, whole areas of Dutch cities have a majority of people who are recent immigrants and whose commitment to assimilation into the country's norms is questionable. For example, polls show that much of the country’s Muslim population sympathizes with the September 11 attacks. Certainly, they disagree with the Netherlands' rather libertarian views on women's rights and homosexuality.

One of the main arguments against mass immigration is that it is incredibly costly to Dutch taxpayers. A report was written by the country’s most respected independent think tank said the bill came to 7.2 billion Euros a year for a country of only about 16 million people. This is not much higher than the government’s own estimate of 6 billion Euros a year.

And here’s where it gets interesting. For while the focus was on Wilders’ VVD, the second biggest winner was the mainstream conservative (in European terminology, liberal) People's party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which went from 22 to 31 seats. The VVD favors lower taxes, smaller government, less government regulation. While Wilders often focuses his criticism on Islam itself, the VVD is quite critical of radical Islamism.

And though the VVD’s positions are less extreme than Wilders, it also favors serious reductions in immigration, the closing of mosques where radical doctrines are preached, and the denial of social welfare payments for immigrants during their first decade in the country. These two parties received one-third of the vote and three Christian parties, from whose voters Wilders and the VVD obtained their increased support have somewhat similar stances.

For instance, here’s what the platform of the Christian Union, the most liberal—in the American sense of that word—of these parties:

”Every Dutchman has the right to assembly, to religion and to express his opinion. But financial support of Dutch political, cultural and religious institutes from demonstrably non-free countries (such as Saudi-Arabia and Iran) is not permitted. It's allowed to protect a free society from the importation of bondage." It also supports banning the burqa from public buildings, public transport, and schools.

A similar pattern emerges regarding stances toward Israel. Wilders is an outspoken supporter but the other parties are also sympathetic, though there is an anti-Israel minority in the VVD. The foreign minister, for example, a Christian Democrat, said that Israel was entitled to stop Gaza flotilla ships in international waters, refused to condemn Israel’s actions, and supports tough sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program. While the four non-Wilders center-right parties are more nuanced in their attitude than decades ago, they are certainly not kneejerk anti-Israel in their positions.

Thus, about 55 percent of Dutch voters backed parties that want a real change in key policies.
Why is nothing dramatic likely to happen? Because 45 percent endorsed parties on the left and given the Dutch passion for consensus, the existence of so many parties, and the reluctance of several parties to bring Wilders’ party into government some kind of broad coalition will likely emerge.

On the left, the largest party, Labour, led by former Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen, got less than half of the overall vote. It can be described now as the party of the Dutch status quo, that is, continuation of existing policies. Despite being led by a nominal Jew, it is very critical of Israel and totally uncritical of Hamas. The left favors increases in taxes and government regulations.

Outsiders would view this situation of deadlock between two sides with such different visions of Dutch politics and society as a big problem. In contrast, the Dutch believe they thrive on this kind of paradox, finding some compromise to ease them through. Yet can a major crisis be long avoided given the economic and social issues faced by the Netherlands and so many other European states today?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (PalgraveMacmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; The West and the Middle East (four volumes); and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

The Direction of Europe: Netherlands: Opposition to Holocaust Education; UK: Voting Trends

The Dutch magazine Elsevier has published on its website its findings on the current teaching about the Holocaust in the Netherlands. Of the  high school history teachers surveyed in the four largest cities, twenty percent say they have encountered hostility, mainly from Muslim students, which made conducting the lesson difficult or even impossible. The magazine also noted that this problem was made public as early as 2003 but nothing has been done.

In the run-up to the United Kingdom parliamentary elections, Islamic organizations have been trying to organize a bloc vote to support anti-Israel candidates, with a strategy of gaining influence in the small Liberal Democratic party which may hold the balance of power in forming a government. However, close election observers discount this strategy saying that in the last election it only affected one or two seats. Islamists do not control the "Muslim vote" to the extent they claim.

Iran Rejects Deal on Nuclear Weapons’ Issue: Engagement is Dead but the Obama Administration Won't Admit It

[Please subscribe. The news in the Middle East and with U.S. foreign policy changes dramatically every day and you will have advanced, inside information on developments. I note we are scooping the mass media on many stories by days and even weeks.]

By Barry Rubin

The great experiment of engaging Iran seems to be over but the Obama Administration refuses to admit it.

This shouldn't be a surprise. As the Iranian regime's record shows, it stalls, maneuvers, gives vague promises and then doesn’t deliver, but only after they’ve taken your concessions. Do you know how many years the talks with Iran have gone on without yielding fruit and letting Tehran develop nuclear weapons every day? Answer: Seven.

Do you know when the “deadline” originally was for Iran to stop its nuclear program “or else”? Answer: Approximately September 2007.

But the Obama Administration doesn't want to admit that the new Iranian counter-offer is unacceptable because it would have to give up its dreams of a deal and actually do something in response.

Even the New York Times headlines its story: Iran Rejects Nuclear Accord, Officials Report

Here’s the best article on the subject of the current deal/no deal from the sober Financial Times. The headline is “Tehran seeks big changes to nuclear deal.”

It concerns Iran’s response to questions about whether it would transfer two-thirds of its enriched uranium outside the country to make into a special non-weapons material that can only be used for medical purposes. (Note: it can be changed back into weapons-usable uranium in about four months or so.)

After interviewing officials, the newspaper concludes that the Europeans are ready to reject Iran’s demands now as “unacceptable” but the United States isn’t. It writes:

“The comments indicate the US remains more willing to show patience than either Britain and [sic] France. While London and Paris have at times made known their reservations about the agreement, it is seen in the US as a test of President Barack Obama's policy of engagement.”

In other words, the U.S. government is now lagging behind Britain, France, and presumably Germany on this issue. So who is the United States trying to keep on board if the key European allies are all saying: forget this nonsense, we have to put on more pressure!

I suggest there are three answers:

--President Barack Obama’s world view which insists that all problems are resolvable by talking and making concessions, and which fears confrontation.

--The president’s domestic constituency and colleagues (not all of them) who simply don’t comprehend that Iran and radical Islamism are threats.

I am positive, given some of her public statements, that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton knows this is all sheer nonsense. And just as the U.S. government has fallen behind its European counterparts, the White House has fallen behind the State Department.

--Someone else. Here’s the hint:

"We remain unified with our Russian and French partners in support of the IAEA draft agreement - it is a good and balanced agreement," said the US, signaling Washington's hope that Iran could yet agree to the original deal.”

That’s right, Russia. But we know that Russia won’t ever agree to sanctions and serious pressure on Iran. For one thing, everyone in the world but the Obama Administration knows that the Russian leadership wants America to fail internationally. And for another thing, Russia is Iran’s ally.

So America’s policy is being held hostage by a president with no experience or understanding of international affairs, a set of ideas that makes failure inevitable, trying to please a country which is an ally of the adversary, and a dictatorial regime whose president believes that his country is going to conquer the whole Middle East (and on some days, the world).

And here’s a good joke: It was only--what?--four years ago that U.S. officials under the Bush Administration were making fun of Europe as wimpy and incapable of taking a tough stance on international issues. Now the goo is on the other foot!

What a mess. BUT how long into 2010 can they spin this before Washington is going to have to recognize the talks are going nowhere?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

The West’s Choice of Strategy: Defending Itself From Terror Attacks or Combatting A Radical Strategic Threat?

By Barry Rubin

There are two basic strategies being put forth in the West and particularly the United States today in regard to the challenge from radical and Islamist forces. The narrower, terror-only strategy is a far more tempting one to follow. It is less expensive, less risky, and makes it far easier to claim success. That’s why it has such enormous appeal and is generally the one being adopted.

--The Terror-Only Strategy

In this approach, the problem is defined as direct terror attacks on Western territory and facilities elsewhere like embassies. The enemy is those groups which directly target the West, meaning al-Qaida and its allies plus various independent local self-made terrorists (who are influenced, of course, by Jihadist propaganda).

Since these groups have no major state sponsor, this is a narrow counterterrorism strategy which does not require confrontation or conflict with any other country. It can be handled largely as a police and criminal matter. Success is measured by an ability to keep such attacks to an absolute minimum.

Moreover, it permits the luxury of ignoring attacks on or in other countries—including Israel especially—as not being a matter of much concern. [Even the United States has increasingly taken this stance. After the massive terror attack on Mumbai, India, Pakistan's policy of sponsoring anti-Indian terrorism has been for all practical purposes ignored. U.S. aid to Pakistan climbs steeply with no conditionality about stopping attacks despite the fact that Pakistan has done nothing to punish the terrorists involved, much less the Pakistani intelligence officers who direct them. The Administration has conducted engagement of Syria with no serious reference to Syria's sponsorship of terrorism against Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, or Israel. When Iraq protested Syrian involvement in a bloody recent attack the U.S. government declared its neutrality.

Thus, a whole category of terrorist revolutionary groups and their state sponsors can be ignored. If you don’t bother them, it is hoped, they won’t bother you. (This is not without exception, though, as Western states have been willing to put sanctions on Hamas, though these are under some challenge.)

This strategy also has an internal aspect. Since only those small groups which want to attack on their territory are the problem, it can be argued that the best defense is to work with Islamist groups which, no matter how extreme their ideology and their support for terrorism abroad, don’t engage in violence on your own territory.

While there is a sharp debate over the domestic aspect of the strategy--some countries like Britain and France are ready to work with "moderate" Islamists, others aren't—it has clearly won out on the international front and has been adopted by the Obama Administration.

--The Anti-Islamist Strategy

This seems closer to the Bush Administration’s view and is thus considered discredited in most Western policymaking circles. The concept here is that radical Islamist forces threaten Western strategic interests and pose the principal threat of this era.

The other side here consists, of several different forces: an Iran-led alliance (Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah, Iraqi insurgents); Jihadist terrorist groups (al-Qaida and its various affiliates and the Taliban); the Muslim Brotherhoods; and some countries with radical regimes (Sudan, Libya). The key problem is not whether these forces are engaged in direct violence against Western targets, they are at war with Western interests which they seek to destroy.

In this context, they may well engage in anti-Western violence in future. But more important, they are capable of seizing control of countries or regions thus wielding enormous assets. If they succeed—or are perceived by millions of Muslims as succeeding—the entire strategic balance in the Middle East would shift. Western interests would suffer a huge setback and the imbalance could escalate over time.

Obviously, this latter strategy is far less attractive to policymakers. Why get into a possible confrontation with powerful forces and large countries if that can be avoided? Why set the standard of success so high that you probably cannot reach it?

Of course, the problem is that the larger threat is by far the more serious threat. A shift in the balance of forces in such a strategic region, leading inevitably to the encouragement of subversive and violent forces in one’s own countries, is a far more dangerous situation than the occasional bombing or shooting.

But if you believe that it is adequate to deal only with direct violence against you, it can be argued that the best solution is to engage the radical forces at home and abroad, appease them, and avoid trouble. As President Barack Obama put it, he doesn’t seek victory over Iran but a solution to the problem, which is defined as Iran developing nuclear weapons without some agreement or at all.

Iranian involvement in subverting Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and other countries, or fighting Israel, for example, becomes part of the background which you take for granted. But then so is Tehran’s sponsorship of terrorism against U.S. forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, too.
At home, the problem is three-fold. First, if you strengthen Islamist forces, since their goal is to transform the state and society there is a likelihood that they will be a far bigger problem in future, including involvement in violence.

Second, there are always violent spin-offs from these groups, based on the people they indoctrinate even if the main group refrains from violence. Where do Jihadi terrorists come from except through the ranks of such organizations?

Third, by empowering an Islamist leadership, such individuals and groups are more likely to emerge at the head of all, or most, of the Muslim community. This will defeat assimilationist and moderate tendencies and thus greatly magnify the power of the Islamists. In effect, the government tells Muslims: these groups are your leaders so follow them and their ideology. By doing this, massive damage is being inflicted on the host society.

Terrorism is not a movement or a doctrine or a goal but only a tactic used by revolutionary groups. Their ultimate goal is to seize state power and terrorism is merely one way of trying to do so. The question, then, is whether the problem is the use of a tactic or the goal of destroying existing governments and societies to replace them with a totalitarian regime.

Understandably, this limited terrorism-only strategy is tempting as a policy since it is so hard to do anything to solve the bigger Islamist threat. But doesn’t this choice also put the West in great long-term jeopardy, discourage more moderate Third World clients, and guarantee a far higher level of anti-Western violence in future?

That’s something most Western policymakers prefer not to think about, far less do anything about.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books here. See or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports, here.

Crisis in Israel-Europe Relations?

By Barry Rubin

The AP reporter’s voice shows she’s very young and her choice of words show she’s very inexperienced. “What do you think,” she asks me, “about the crisis between Europe and Israel.”

Crisis? Well most immediately this is the kind of “crisis” you want, over a very narrow issue—construction on settlements—which can be easily resolved. The Europeans are supporting U.S. efforts, U.S. policy has become a lot more positive on this issue in recent weeks, and some resolution will soon be found.

The resolution will soon be found because President Barack Obama needs one. In the pattern so often repeated by this administration he has put himself in a corner. If he is going to look “good” at the UN session, feel he has a basis for raising sanctions on Iran, and broker an Israel-Palestinian Authority meeting he has to solve this issue of construction. Right now, he needs a resolution far more than does Israel.

This administration has a genius for putting itself into the weaker position on any international issue.

It’s funny, though, how European governments always find some reason to be annoyed and threatening pressure on Israel but never ever on the Palestinians. Have you noticed that? Massive corruption, incitement to violence, letting terrorists go or never arresting them in the first place, violating commitments, none of its seems to matter.

So European governments have an interesting choice: Is their main goal to be “pro-Palestinian” (if condemning a people to decades of conflict by supporting their intransigence can be called supporting them) or seeking Israel-Palestinian peace?

The answer in most cases—all countries are different—is the former. Being “pro-Palestinian” makes them look “progressive” and “humanitarian,” supposedly scores points in the Arab and Muslim world, theoretically promotes trade and investment with the aforementioned places, and so on.

Also, if European leaders believe—some do, some don’t—that there isn’t going to be peace (even if they privately blame the Palestinians) this policy can seem to make sense for their interests.
Israel’s problem is not predominantly with the European masses or even, to a lesser extent, with governments, but with the European intellectual elites. After all, take the four main countries of Europe: France, Germany, Italy, and the UK.

Relations with France have increased sharply with President Francois Sarkozy, despite his silliness over Lebanon and Syria. Links with Germany remain quite good, and with Italy excellent. The UK has the most problems—the Foreign Ministry often seems incapable of concealing its loathing of Israel—but the fall of the Labour government can’t be too far off and the Tories will be better, not hugely better but enough to put London in line with the others.

Where are the big problem spots? Spain, Sweden, Norway, and Belgium, basically, not exactly the continent’s great powers.

So, a crisis? After more than 30 years analyzing the Middle East, I explain, one has a certain skepticism about crises. In the region, they are like buses—one is along every few minutes—but more frequent.

Oh, and if you want proof of this from 30 years ago--and a real treat of an inside story--read Yehuda Avner on Golda Meir and the crises with Europe of the 1970s.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Let’s Pretend We’re Making Arab-Israeli, Israel-Palestinian Peace

By Barry Rubin

Here’s one of my favorite stories explaining how the Middle East works. It was told by Muhammad Hussanein Heikal, the famed Egyptian journalist. Like all Heikal’s stories, it may or may not be true, which is also part of the lesson being taught.

When Muammar Qadhafi first became Libya’s dictator, Heikal was dispatched to meet and evaluate him by Egypt’s ruler, Gamal Abdel Nasser. After returning to Cairo, Heikal was quickly ushered into the president’s office.

“Well,” said Egypt’s president, “what do you think of Qadhafi?”

“He’s a disaster! A catastrophe!”

“Why,” asked the president, “is he against us?”

“Oh no, far worse than that,” Heikal claims to have replied. “He’s for us and he really believes all the stuff we are saying!”

The point was that the Egyptian regime took the propaganda line out of self-interest that all Arabs should be united into one state under its leadership, all the Arab monarchies overthrown, Israel wiped off the map immediately, and Western influence expelled, but it knew itself incapable of achieving these goals and to try to do so would bring disaster. Indeed, when Nasser had tried to implement part of this program in 1967, he provoked Israel into attacking and suffered his worst disaster.

Come to think of it, Arab regimes are still playing this game of systematically purveying radicalism, hatred, and unachievable goals to distract their populace, excuse their own failings, focus antagonism against foreign scapegoats and seek regional ambitions.

Western governments do this kind of thing a bit differently.

In this regard, recent statements by a number of leaders including President Barack Obama, prime ministers Gordon Brown and Benjamin Netanyahu, and others, establish an important principle:

Actually achieving Middle East peace is of no importance. The only thing that is important is saying that progress is being made and that peace will come soon.

I don’t mean that as a statement of cynicism but as an accurate analysis of what goes on in international affairs at present. What’s achieved by pretending there is progress and there will be success? Some very real and—in their way—important things:

--World leaders are saying that they are doing a great job, doing the right things, remaining active and achieving success.

--By saying peace is near, the issue is defused. Why fight if you are about to make a deal?

--Israel (and anyone else from the region who joins in—see below) shows that it is cooperating so others should be patient and not put on pressure.

--Since the West is taking care of business, Arab states supposedly will feel comfortable working with it on other issues, like Iran for example.

I want to stress that this behavior is not as silly as it might seem. Often this is how indeed politics do work. Moreover, pretending is better than a sense of desperation which would lead to very bad mistakes being made by energetically doing stupid and dangerous things. Certainly, it inhibits strong pressure or sanctions against Israel.

The freeze on construction within settlements is a scam. If Israel gives something on this issue, the Western governments declare victory and go home, so to speak. That doesn’t mean there aren’t reasons for not doing so, but the virtually open cynicism of the U.S. and European strategy is striking.

When the U.S. president portrays the possibility of two tiny states, Oman and Qatar, letting one-man Israeli trade offices re-open as a major triumph in confidence-building , despite being his sole achievement after months of top-level diplomacy, what can one do but snicker?

Finally, since Israel-Palestinian peace is not within reach, pretending it is while knowing the truth is not such a bad alternative. It is certainly progress since the Obama administration came into office and originally pursued a policy based on the idea that it could achieve peace in a matter of months.

What is the downside here?

There are three problems. The first is if Western leaders believe their own propaganda. Because if peace is “within reach” but isn’t actually grasped, then someone must be blamed. That someone will, of course, be Israel.

Why? Because if the West blames the Palestinians, leaders presume that Arabs and Muslims will be angry and not cooperate on other matters. There could be more terrorism and fewer profitable deals and investments. They gain nothing.

But if they insist that everything is going well there is no need to blame anyone. This is the phase we are now entering.

The second problem, however, is that neither the Palestinians nor Arab regimes will join in the optimism. Their line is: The Palestinians are suffering! The situation is intolerable! Something must be done! And since we will make no concessions or compromises, the only solution is for the West to pressure Israel to give more and more while getting nothing in return.

Since this is not going to happen too much if Israel resists, they fall back on their alternative approach. Ok, so since you aren’t forcing Israel to give us what we want you have to give us other things, like money and you cannot demand we help you.

The best outcome is that certain Arab states, since they have other interests at stake, will downplay the conflict altogether and focus on more pragmatic needs. The radicals—principally Iran and Syria—will never do so, of course, and will claim that the situation shows how the West cannot be trusted and must be defeated.

What’s the third problem? That certain actions which might promote regional stability, or even Arab-Israeli peace, are not taken. These include two especially important tactics:

--More energetic efforts to overthrow the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip. As long as Hamas is running about half the Palestinian territories and outflanking Fatah in militancy, there won’t be any peace. Keeping Hamas from taking over the West Bank, isolating it, and maintaining sanctions against it is a good policy and can preserve the status quo. It is not, however, the best policy and the pressure on Hamas could erode over time.

--More pressure on the Palestinian Authority (PA) to moderate and compromise. The PA and its positions are the main barriers to peace. As the PA possibly becomes more radical, the likelihood of violence increases. Thus, while in the short- to medium-run the “feel good” and status quo policy may work, it also has risks and limits.

Still, it is the best that can be expected at present.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Understanding "progressive" Antisemitism: The West's New Israelophobia and Judeophobia

By Barry Rubin


The largest Swedish newspaper publishes an article accusing Israel of murdering Palestinians so it can sell their body parts. The largest Dutch newspaper publishes an article accusing Satan-worshipping Jews of creating swine flu and other diseases to murder large numbers of people. The newspaper of the British elite publishes an article by a well-known philosopher calling Israel a Nazi state.

How does the Swedish newspaper’s editor respond to complaints about this sort of thing? Jan Helin complains:

"It's deeply unpleasant and sad to see such a strong propaganda machine using centuries-old anti-Semitic images in an apparent attempt to get an obviously topical issue off the table."

But what is the “strong propaganda machine” that is manipulating antisemitic images as an excuse to get “obviously topical” issues off the table?

The answer is not, as Helin would have it, an Israeli-Jewish propaganda machine. Since media coverage is so extremely anti-Israel--often breaking the rules of proper journalism to smite that country--it couldn’t be all that powerful.

In fact, the propaganda machine is that of the other side: both Middle Eastern Arab nationalists and Islamists or their European leftist allies. These forces produce a constant barrage of anti-Israel stories which make big headlines and then are never proven to be accurate. During the last decade, there has been not a single proven case of any war crime by Israeli forces. Yet how many millions of people are convinced otherwise by irresponsible and propagandistic media coverage?

Actually, Helin himself reveals this situation. The first question he should ask is: Are the facts in this story correct and are the claims reasonable? But instead his response is to choose sides. The fact that both the article’s author and the editor who published it are anti-Israel activists should make him wary of whether this story was a reasonable thing to publish.

Moreover, Helin’s justification for why the story is legitimate is in itself antisemitic. Let me explain. Helin points out that an American Jewish man has been arrested in New York and is charged with illegal organ sales. There is no hint of Israeli involvement or of murder.

Helin’s chain of reasoning is this: since a Jew has been arrested, Israel can be accused of involvement without proof. If a Jew anywhere in the world has been arrested, Israel’s government can be accused of official involvement in murdering people without any evidence.

And this is also how antisemitism always worked. A Jew is accused of a crime, falsely or otherwise, and all Jews are guilty. A Jew is accused of an illegal commercial transaction and this justifies accusing what amounts to the whole Jewish community anywhere in the world of systematic murder. This is how antisemitism has worked going back to the Middle Ages.

If a Swede, or a Muslim, or an African person was accused of a crime would that justify, without evidence, accusing an entire country or people of an even worse crime? There’s a popular word for that today: it’s called “racism.”

This story is particularly personal for me because 120 years ago one of my ancestors was accused of ritual murder in Dolhinov, Russia, and a mob set out, unsuccessfully, to lynch him. A young Russian boy was found killed. My ancestor was said to have done it, using a “Jewish tool,” a barrel stuck through with nails for draining the blood to make matzoh.

Similarly, the Dutch story is an update of the Jews poisoning wells, worshipping money, and seeking world domination.

And the British story is an update of the idea that the Jews pose as victims but should be denied sympathy are really criminals equivalent to the worst evil people in the world.

Anyone who cannot see the relationship of that historical ritual murder charge of a people supposedly obsessed with money to its modern-day version is either not paying attention or is seeking the historical goal of antisemites: slandering the Jewish people in order to destroy them.

Some years ago, I did a study of the PLO and antisemitism, The PLO between Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism, which demonstrated how that group handled the issue. It simply took traditional antisemitic themes and changed the word “Jews” to “Israel.” The Islamists of Hamas didn’t even do that.

http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/1rubin.htm

For years, the main themes of Palestinian propaganda may be described generally as: the Jews are inferior; we will never make peace with them. We must defeat them and drive them into the sea.

Not surprisingly, this never had much appeal in the West. At some point, though, this was altered to the following framework:

The Israelis say we are inferior and that they will never make peace with us. They oppress our human rights and want to drive us into the sea.

This worked better.

A massive number of stories and tales are generated daily by this, to borrow Helin’s phrase, “powerful propaganda machine” aimed through a cooperative media to Western governments and public opinion. Some of its stories are not so successful in the West, perhaps in part because they are more directed at the local audience: Israel distributing poison candy or aphrodisiac chewing gum, for example.

Many are more on theme: Jenin massacre; Gaza war crimes, the deliberate murder of Muhammad al-Dura, and so on, which succeed better.

We hear about it when one of the visibly crazy stories—Israel’s government orders Palestinian killed so it can profit on their organs—gets attention. But it’s really the more “credible” stories that do the most harm. Read the Associated Press, Reuters, or Agence-France Presse any day and you get these productions or at least the associated slant.

What should the media, governments, and human rights’ groups look for? Simply what it is supposed to look for in every story: evidence. Until there is some proof, stories shouldn’t be reported.

Here’s a little example. In Gaza, Palestinians charged Israel used white phosphorus weapons. Amnesty International had a report about the horrendous consequences. The problem is that while Palestinians claimed to have seen strange wounds, there were no medical records, no photographs, and no interviews with those who were so wounded.

The Jenin massacre, which became a huge story, was pretty much based on the claims of one hitherto unknown (and afterward never seen again) ordinary Palestinian. That was enough to set the world howling about murderous Israelis.

Why not have simple fact-checking and balance?

Of course, what fuels this kind of thing is a double standard. Not a double standard of demanding more of Israel than other countries—though that also exists—but a double standard about proof.

There are two underlying assumptions here by media, human rights’ groups, and governments. First, Israelis are capable of anything so you can believe any evil of them. This is an old staple of antisemitism. Would any other democratic government be accused of murder to obtain organs? Is it credible that instead of seeking to win a war Israeli soldiers were fixated on killing civilians for fun?

Second, due to hatred of Israel, leftist ideology, and plain old antisemitism (which has been defined out of existence when it comes to Israel), a lot of people are prone to believe things which are either unproven, illogical, or obviously propaganda plants. Thus, if you are a crackpot—like the authors of the Swedish and Dutch articles—you can get published on Israel saying things that would get you thrown out the door regarding any other subject.

Actually, its worse. A lot of the reporters on the scene, or UN officials, or supposed experts have become collaborators in fabricating and distributing such lies.

In regard to this, of course, Jews and Israelis in particular are the only people not covered in the worldwide campaign against racism, discrimination against any group, acceptance of the “other,” self-censorship to avoid offending anyone, and all the other blessings of Political Correctness.

And if you want a nice little illustration, here’s an appropriate one. The Swedish government, which now claims to be a defender of free speech when it comes to the blood libel in his country’s leading newspaper, shut down the Internet servers and tried to repress anyone in Sweden daring to publish the Danish cartoons about Islam’s founder.

Again, though, what is so horrifying is not just these extreme cases of obvious antisemitism but the daily slanders and conveying of anti-Israel propaganda that is done a bit more carefully. To put it another way, they might laugh at the forged “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as they gleefully churn out the new version of the Protocols of the Crimes of Zionism.

Note: A version of this article was published in Pajamas Media, August 23, 2009
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/accuse-first-ask-questions-never-mainstreaming-anti-semitism/ under the title "Accuse First, Ask Questions Never: Mainstreaming Anti-Semitism"

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog.