nationalreview.com
An old story indeed.
Mr. Schwartz starts off on a high tone.
"Every age begets the *anti-Semitism best suited to it. And while the key emotion driving it may be a visceral hatred of Jews, the critical intellectual aim is to delegitimize them."
By laying claim to Semitism as a Jewish Only affair, he de-legitimitizes the majority of Semites that are not Jewish.
He goes on:
"In a spiritual age, the Jews are delegitimized spiritually."
In this spiritual age, you can yet be a Jew and not be observant, de-legitimitizing those that are.
"More recently, as faith gave way to materialism, anti-Semitism assumed a correspondingly secular mode, harnessing itself to the dominant ideologies of both the Left and the Right. The wave of nationalism that swept over Europe from the late-19th to the mid-20th centuries held as a tenet that the Jew was a priori an outsider, exploitive and subversive — a belief that ultimately led to their systematic exclusion and destruction.
The Left practiced its own brand of anti-Semitism. By simply turning xenophobia on its head — Socialist Nationalism — the Communists were able to attack their Jewish subjects as rootless cosmopolitans and class enemies. The terms of opprobrium were based on Marxism rather than fascism, but the intent was the
same: to eradicate the Jews. "
So it came from everywhere, the right and the left. What Mr. Schwartz fails to mention is that a good portion of those on the "left" were Jews themselves, but why quibble? As it concerns being an outsider, many Jews wanted to be an outsiders, but how do account for the strength of the Jewish community in countries such as Germany? Was that an abberation or is he only using examples to fit his need?
"Now, in the era of post-colonialism, anti-Semitism has been cast in correspondingly post-colonial terms. A bracing example is the recent World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa, which was commandeered by the Arab states and their allies as an occasion to both vilify Israel and dust off the old canard equating Zionism with racism — the sanitized, politically acceptable version of the ancient blood libel. Putatively a forum to encourage tolerance, the meeting devolved into little more than a latter-day Nuremberg rally, with scurrilous attacks replacing torch-lit parades. Egyptian delegates, for instance, distributed booklets with swastikas, and pictures of Jews with hooked noses and fangs dripping blood — items that would not have been out of place in Julius Streicher's Nazi party organ Der Sturmer."
I agree with Mr. Schwartz here, there is plenty of opportunities to find Racism, Xenophobia and related intolerance, but lets not try to divert our attention from Israel's form of xenophobia and colonialism. Blood-libel? Talk about old canards, he would not want this term to slip away from his arsenal, would he? Without the concept of blood-libel, what would he use to argue?
The Arab delegation focused on Palestine and Zionism because the UN passed a Resolution equating Zionism with racism and after cajoling those who voted for the resolution, the United States threatened trade sanctions against anyone who voted for it again. When it came back up for a re-vote. The Arabs felt the issue was not resolved because it was not resolved after the first vote according to US and Israeli interests.
Israel and it's financier, the United States, in effect de-legitimitized the concerns of the Arabs. De-legitimitization only goes one way?
"The critical tactic in carrying out an anti-Semitic agenda is to attack the Jewish people at its strong point — where, ironically, it is both most exposed and most vulnerable. In the Middle Ages and beyond, the target was the Court Jew who had the ear of the ruler; during the Inquisition it was the Cristianos Nuevos — the Spanish Jews who had thrived after their conversion to Christianity. Under Hitler it was the entrepreneurial and professional classes who were the first victims of Nazi boycotts and exclusion. And today it is Israel, the most powerful symbol of Jewish national resurgence in two millennia."
Mr. Schwatrz seems to say here that it is not permissible to criticise Israel because it is ONLY about anti-semitism and has no basis in the political world. In other words, Israel should have a free pass to do whatever the want to do and everyone should shut their mouth.
"The most striking analogy between the current Arab onslaught and its fascist precedents is the use of propaganda. Like Goebbels, its practitioners have learned the efficacy of 1) the Big Lie (the more outrageous the better), brazenly repeated so that people will ultimately accept it as at least part of the truth; 2) hijacking the language and symbols of the enemy so that you tar them with your vices; 3) trivializing and muddling the very meaning of words, so that your transgressions can be blurred and your opponent's responses magnified. Two
key tactics in advancing this agenda are moral equivalence — for instance, equating the prevention of terror with terror itself, so that interdiction is seen as reprisal — and a distorted-numbers game, in which the only deaths that count in a violent conflict are one side's "martyrdoms" — since the other side's deaths are deserved. "
"If Israel and it's Zionist supporters, use a BIG LIE, it does not count? Is it even permissible to question Zionism's BIG LIES without being tarnished as a anti-semite? So Mr. Schwartz permits others to expose Arab fallacies, but to question Zionist/Israeli lies is bigotry and blood libel? That is a convienent construct; hog-tieing open discussion and resorting to name-calling in the event it happens. In Mr. Schwartz mind, it is not trivialization to monopolize human genocides by excluding other victims of the Holocaust, the Inquisition and Russian pogroms?" He wants to talk about hijacking the language, muddling the use of terms? Let him start with the term which is his subject here: "anti-semitism". Terrorist or Freedom-fighter?
"Turning the history of the Jews against them is another commonplace of anti-Semitism. If the Jews were victims in an actual genocide, what better way to transfer sympathy from them to their rivals than by painting them as modern Nazis, and their policies as a new holocaust? Genocide is an attempt to exterminate a people, not to alter their behavior. The Israelis — who employed a third of the Palestinian population, armed the Palestinian Authority and offered Yasser Arafat a state consisting of 95 percent of the West Bank — were hardly
practicing genocide. Israel, however, is now sustaining a war for its own existence. A nation defending its citizens against terrorist bombings, mortar assaults, sniper attacks, and a military and diplomatic onslaught by an array of Arab foes is practicing survival, not genocide."
Since the Zionists marketed the term "Holocaust" and Nazism, it is convienent for the Arabs to poach off the powerful terms. It is for this very reason that the Holocaust has become a "Jewish Only" affair as has the "Inquisition". According to Mr. Schawrtz, "we developed the story, so it is ours to exploit, go get your own."
A nation (Palestine is not a nation) defending it's citizens against foreigners taking over your culture is not terrorism, nor genocide either.
"Equally damning is the collateral charge of "apartheid," which tars Israel with the brush of the truly racist former regime in South Africa, and further equates Palestinians with the blacks suffering white colonial domination. Since apartheid — keeping people apart — can only be practiced within a sovereign state, the only analogy would have to be made not with the Palestinians, but with the Israeli Arabs. And what is their condition? Yes, there is still some degree of discrimination, but Israeli Arabs have more political rights than any other Arabs in the Middle East — including their compatriots in the Palestinian Authority. And, whatever their grievances, they are still economically better off than the majority of their fellows in virtually every other Arab country. If they still face inequality it is because of the mutual hostility and mistrust between both communities, not because of race.
Beyond Israel's borders, the situation in the West Bank and Gaza involves a military occupation amid urban guerrilla warfare, analogous to the British security measures in Northern Island, that hopefully will end with a cease-fire and a Palestinian state. This is unfortunate, it is tragic, but it is not apartheid — and to call it so is to deliberately distort language for political advantage."
If you compare the similarities between South Africa and Israel, you will see a re-occurring theme. People, not indigenous to the land, come and set up an operation and come to dominate the economy. That in itself is not a crime, except to do so, they needed to repress the natives. In South Africa, prior to Apartheid, at least it was a gradual affair. In the case of Palestine, the Zionists initially started off on a civil course, but then later, using the Holocaust and refugees from it, sprung onto the Palestinian people a rapid escalation of immigration and state-making. Co-incidentally, both Apartheid and the State of Israel came to fruitation in 1948. Perhaps it is no co-incidence that Israel and South Africa were close trading partners, moving diamonds and gold out of the mines in SA, to Israel for preparation to be sold in Europe, America and Asia. The Blacks in South Africa were the work-horses and provided cheap labor. Later when Apartheid was about to fall, the principles left Johannesburg and moved their operations to Switizerland. Many of these mining owners were Jewish; is that permitted to be said? Like South Africa, Israel needs cheap labor. That could come from recent immigrants or it can come from Palestinians, or it can come from overseas (Thai, Philipinas, Korean etc)."
The same argument was made by White South Africans concerning the better living standards of their Black and Coloured subjects to justify their system. The White Southern Americans said the same during the times of slavery. Although that fact may be true, IMHO, it is not enough of a justification to continue such practice.
Is Mr. Schwartz de-legitimitzing the Palestinan people by saying that their life-style is better than the wider Arab world and permissible, or just an unfortunate mis-understanding? What about their need to be in control of their own destiny without Western domiantion in the form of economics and military?
"Two other word distortions often used together are "colonial" and "settler," conjuring up images of whites exploiting indigenous populations in Africa. But the truth is that Jews are not part of a European ruling class imposed on helpless natives, but are caught up in a tragedy in which two peoples are struggling for the same piece of land."
Mr.Schwartz skates over the obvious fact that nobody invited them, nor approved their creation of a State and financing of it by a European and American ruling class. Just caught in a tragedy? Who created the tragedy?
Blame the victim, no better yet, sympathize with the victim and turn the event around to paint an image of co-sufferering. How nice of him! If only the Holocaust and Inquisiton stories were so generous!
"As noted at the outset, every age begets the anti-Semitism that most suits it; and in this era of anti-racist enthusiasm, it is anti-Zionism. In all ages, the goal of the anti-Semitic project is to delegitimize Jews. In this one, it's to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state, as a prelude to its ultimate destruction. The "fairness" that Palestinian supporters advocate has the ultimate goal of sufficiently weakening Israel that it will be unable to defend itself. And without a Jewish state, the iron truth of history is that the Jewish people sooner or later
become even more vulnerable to the next wave of anti-Semitism. The metaphor of Exodus is one that has dogged the Jews from the outset. Their very success attracts resentment —as they learned in Egypt where, according to Scripture, a new king arose "who did not know Joseph." The issue is no longer, Will there be a Palestinian state — that is inevitable —but rather, Will there be a Jewish one? The disappearance of the Jewish state will not mean the disappearance of anti-Semitism — quite the opposite."
The most important part is to keep anti-semitism alive, so it must be re-defined and used accordingly. How is Israel going to defend itself just by its actions? Anti-semitism adds another dimension to the equation and should not be neglected. If there is no anti-semitism, it must be created.
Remember the movies "Batman"? There was some talk and editorials that one of the characters in it was a disguised stereo-typical Jew. Now, I ask myself, what is the purpose of this? Is it relevant? The only answer I could come up with is that it is another boogeyman that needs to be ever-present as a tool to shield Israels and Zionism from being held to the same standards as eveyone else is. Anti-semitism (sic), is a smoke-screen and a shield to be exploited and nurtured, through numerous political times, to be drawn out of it's sheath and applied as and when needed.
Mr. Schwartz's editorial, is the latest update.
Note: *anti-semitism is an inaccurate term coined by a German bigot. |
