Britain's Long, Sad Journey of Jew Hatred

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145285
Sivan 27, 5771, 29 June 11 03:59m by David Lev

(Israelnationalnews.com) Slogans like “Zionism is Nazism” and “Israelis are fascists” are most likely to be shouted by far-left radicals, of the type that perform the “weekly hajj” to throw stones and bricks at IDF soldiers at Bil'in. But they didn't invent those slogans – and neither did anyone else on the left, says Professor Robert Wistrich of the Hebrew University.
“Those slogans – and that world view – was the stock in trade of the British elites, who spread stories about Zionism being totalitarian and Nazi during the 1930s and 40s.”

It's just one aspect of a long and rich history of Jew-hatred in Britain, says Wistrich, considered one of the world's leading experts on anti-Semitism. Britain, he says, has historically been one of the most anti-Semitic countries in Western Europe; not quite Germany, but far worse than France, for example. “Certainly today Britain is at the forefront of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism,” he says.
“For example, it's where the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel was first developed, and has been the most successful.” The headlines – British labor unions and universities banning Israeli products and academics, the British government's obsession with arresting IDF officers for “war crimes,” - are well known to Israelis.
Britain is also the world's fountain of disinformation and lies about Israel and Jews, says Wistrich, with the British media - “the quality press, like the Independent and Guardian, the BBC and other media outlets, the churches, etc. - spreading the worst caricatures and falsehoods about Israelis, how they treat Arabs, and the like.”

Wistrich, himself born in England – “this gives me greater insight into the nuances and meanings of press reports and attitudes,” he says – presented this history at a recent symposium hosted by Hebrew University's Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA), titled “From Blood Libel to Boycott: The Changing Face of British anti-Semitism,” an historic evaluation of British anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism over the years.

And there is indeed much history to evaluate. Britain is not usually thought of as anti-Semitic country; it hasn't had a history of pogroms, for example. Although Jews were forbidden from living in the country for hundreds of years, it's very striking that Britain has had such an extensive history of anti-Semitism.
Britain was where the blood libel – which persisted in Europe for centuries and has had a revival in the Muslim world today (there was even one in upstate New York in 1928) was invented, Wistrich says. “William of Norwich was allegedly crucified by the Jews, to duplicate the crucifixion of Jesus. This was the first time in European history that such a charge was made, and it quickly spread throughout England, and then to France.”
Britain was also responsible for the first expulsion of Jews, in 1290, another “innovation” that was later copied by other European countries. And although Jews were not allowed to return for at least 350 years, British literature – from Chaucer to Shakespeare, who may never have met a Jew – was rife with Jew-hatred. “Most people see Britain as the birthplace of tolerance and democracy, which it may have been – but not for the Jews,” Wistrich says.

In modern times, British attempts to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel are well known. Although the British government issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the “Arabists” in the Foreign Office – who were the vast majority and set British foreign policy – very quickly worked to drop their obligations of setting up a Jewish state in mandatory Palestine. They had no problem lopping off three quarters of the Mandate to establish the Arab mandatory state, Transjordan.
And as the Nazis closed in on European Jewry, British officials went out of their way to prevent Jews from escaping to the one place where they had a chance of survival – the Jewish communities of the Land of Israel.

The attitude of the British elites, both in the Land of Israel and in London, is striking. “There are many communications between Colonial Office officials in London and Mandatory officials in Palestine discussing the evils of Zionism and Zionists,” says Wistrich. “The Zionists were accused of being Nazi-like, mistreating Arabs and considering themselves to be the 'master race' of Palestine; the youth movements were compared to Nazi Youth; and the Jews were seen to be at the heart of a cabal that sought to take over the world.”
Among the worst offenders was John Bagot Glubb, known as Pasha Glubb, who took command of Jordan's Arab Legion during Israel's War of Independence. Glubb's hatred for Israel and Jews extended to his advocacy of the theory that modern Jewry is descended from the Khazars – another “gem” that was also embraced by British elites, and eventually the Arabs, as well.

Many Israelis attribute Britain's anti-Israel stances today to the large number of Muslims in the country – and the fear among ordinary Britons of what could happen to them if they don't toe the “Muslim line.”
But that influence is a bit overblown, Wistrich says. “Most demographers believe that there are between 2.5 million and 3 million Muslims in Britain – a substantial number, but less than the 6 million in France, whose official institutions and elites are far less hostile to Jews and Israel.”
No, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is something the British themselves have to take responsibility for. “Since 1945 – and especially since 1967 – Israel can do no right in the eyes of England,” Wistrich says. “Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism may not be official British government policy anymore, but among the elites and those with the most influence in society, it's all too common.”

S. Carolina Legislature Unanimously Endorses 'United IsraelS. Carolina Legislature Unanimously Endorses 'United Israel

(http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145184
Sivan 24, 5771, 26 June 11 08:57, by Samuel Sokol
Israelnationalnews.com) The South Carolina state legislature has unanimously passed a bill calling onmutually beneficial relations" enjoyed by Is the state of Israel to retain control over the West Bank and highlighting what it terms the "cordial and rael and South Carolina since 1948.
The bill, which was authored by Representative Alan Clemmons (R), was adopted on June 2 and was intended as an indictment of President Obama's Middle East policy, Rep. Clemmons told Israel National News.
The state lawmaker took issue with the President's belief that Jerusalem must be divided and that Israel return to the 1967 lines, he said.
Obama "said that that was what the American people wanted. I remember that I said to my wife when I heard this on Fox News, 'that's not what the American people who I know want!' The next day I started drafting the Resolution."
Clemmons "visited personally with each of the 124 members of the South Carolina House of Representatives to invite their support," he said. "Many chose to cosponsor the bill, which later passed unanimously."
According to the bill, Israel's enemies are also those of the United States and "the State of South Carolina and the nation of Israel have enjoyed cordial and mutually beneficial relations since 1948, a friendship that continues to strengthen with each passing year."
 
The resolution is entitled, "To commend the nation of Israel for its relations with the United States of America and with the state of South Carolina." It states, “Whereas, Israel has been granted her lands under and through the oldest recorded deed as reported in the Old Testament, a tome of scripture held sacred and reverenced by Jew and Christian, alike, as the acts and words of God; and
"Whereas, as the Grantor of said lands, God stated to the Jewish people in the Old Testament; in Leviticus, Chapter 20, Verse 24: ‘Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey’; and
"Whereas, God has never rescinded his grant of said lands; and…
"Whereas, those same haters of Israel also hate, and seek to destroy, the United States of America;…
"Be it resolved by the House of Representatives: That the members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, by this resolution, commend the nation of Israel for its relations with the United States of America and with the State of South Carolina….
"Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of each of South Carolina's sister states within the United States of America with the request and recommendation of this body that a similar resolution to that stated herein be proposed within their respective bodies."

The resolution resolved that "the members of this body support Israel in their natural and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon their own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others, and that peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people."
While local legislatures do not enjoy any control over foreign policy in the United States, the measure is a harsh indictment of the President's current handling of affairs in the region.
Clemmons stated that he has sent copies of the bill to neighboring states and that "while I have not yet heard back from other states, I'm hopeful that my resolution will encourage others to speak out to show American solidarity with the people of Israel."
A copy of the bill was also sent to Settlement Council head Danny Dayan, who read from it publically on Monday at a symposium in Jerusalem promoting Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
"My hope was to show the people of Israel that while South Carolina is a small state, with an even smaller Jewish population, they were not alone in their struggles," Clemmons told Israel National News. "That average hot-dog-and-apple-pie-eating-Americans recognize that Israel's hero-settlers are settling and defending the lands inherited from their forefathers, who received it from G-d, and that we support them in their efforts.
"The residents of Israel's settlements have long reminded me of the American Pioneers of the Western United States in the latter half of the 19th Century."
Peace "cannot come through division," Clemmons told Israel National News, explaining that he and his constituents "believe that peace in the region can only come to a united Israel with one law for all of her citizens."
The Palestinian Authority did not respond to requests for comment

Liberal American Jewish Suckers

This week we have been witness to two transparent attempts to sell liberal American Jews a bill of goods. And from the looks of things, both were successful.

The first instance of liberal American Jewish credulity this week unfolded Monday night in Washington. At a five-star hotel, eighty Jewish donors shelled out between $25,000-35,800 to attend a fundraiser with US President Barack Obama.

RELATED:
Yale University launches new program on anti-Semitism
Jews decry Yale closing anti-Semitism study center

As has become his habit, Obama opened his remarks by talking about his commitment to Israel’s security. And as has become his habit, Obama went on to say that it is his job to force Israelis to bow to his demands because he knows what is best for Israel.

Speaking of his ongoing efforts to force Israel to concede its right to defensible borders before entering into negotiations with the Hamas-Fatah unity government, Obama said, “There are going to be moments over the course of the next six months or the next 12 months or the next 24 months in which there may be tactical disagreements [between the US and Israel] in terms of how we approach these difficult problems.”

Obama went on to say that he expects his American Jewish supporters to take his side in his attacks on Israel.

As he put it, the quest for peace between Israel and the Hamas-Fatah government is “going to require that not only this administration employs all of its creative powers to try to bring about peace in the region, but it’s also going to require all of you as engaged citizens of the United States who are friends of Israel making sure…that you’re helping to shape how both Americans and Israelis think about the opportunities and challenges.”

And how did the Jewish donors respond to Obama’s presentation? They loved it. They were, in the words of Obama donor Marilyn Victor, “reassured.”

Speaking with Politico, New York businessman Jack Bendheim said, “I think he nailed and renailed his commitment to the security of the State of Israel.” Other attendees interviewed in the article echoed his sentiments.

Imagine how they would have swooned if Obama had confessed a secret love for bagels and lox.

What does Obama have to do for these liberal American Jews to accept that he is no friend of Israel’s? Apparently the answer is that there is nothing Obama can do that will convince his many American Jewish supporters that he is not Israel’s friend.

They will never believe such a thing because doing so will require them to choose between two unacceptable options. The first option is to admit to themselves that in voting for Obama, they are voting against Israel.

The self-righteousness shared by many of Obama’s Jewish supporters makes this option unacceptable. These are people who demonstrate their goodness by embracing every politically correct liberal cause as their own. From abortion to socialized medicine to free passes for illegal immigrants, to opposition to the Iraq war, liberal American Jews are ready to go out on a limb for every cause the liberal media supports.

But ask them to support anything that in any way compromises their self-image as do gooders and liberals and they will shut you out. Consider their willingness to turn a blind eye to Obama’s 20-year association with his anti-Semitic preacher Jeremiah Wright. Just this week Wright was back in the news when he delighted a crowd of thousands of African American worshippers in Baltimore by libeling Israel saying, “The State of Israel is an illegal, genocidal … place. To equate Judaism with the State of Israel is to equate Christianity with [rapper] Flavor Flav.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign liberal American Jews attacked critics of Obama’s longstanding devotion to his Jew-hating preacher as McCarthyites who were spreading allegations of guilt by association.

And now, when Obama has made supporting Israel a socially costly thing for his supporters to do, rather than pay the price, his self-righteous American Jewish supporters refuse to admit that Obama is not pro-Israel. They attack as a liar anyone who points out that his policies are deeply hostile to Israel.

For instance, Monday National Jewish Democratic Council Chairman Marc Stanley told reporters, “Key donors are much more savvy than Republicans would have you believe and have taken a much more critical eye towards Republican attempts to lie about the president’s record.”

Aside from being morally inconvenient, the other problem with admitting that Obama is anti-Israel is that it requires his Jewish supporters who are unwilling to consciously abandon Israel to contemplate the unattractive option of voting for the Republican nominee for president. And this is something that their liberal conceit cannot abide.

The inability of many liberal American Jews to abide by the notion of supporting someone who isn’t part of their fancy liberal clique was on display in their responses to another event that occurred this week.

Just hours before Obama snowballed his Jewish donors in Washington, Yale University engaged in a similarly transparent bid to romance its willfully gullible Jewish supporters.

Yale University’s announcement two weeks ago that it was shutting down the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) unleashed a storm of protest. Students, faculty, alumni and major Jewish organizations all expressed anger and disappointment with Yale’s surprise move.

Yale justified its decision on the basis of two falsehoods. First it claimed that YIISA had failed to undertake sufficient top quality scholarship. Yet in the wake of the announcement dozens of leading scholars of anti-Semitism co-signed a letter authored by Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld, who directs Indiana University’s Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism, praising the YIISA as “a pioneer in advancing research on contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism.”

The second reason that Yale claimed it was closing YIISA was because there was insufficient faculty and student interest in its programs. This falsehood was ridiculous on its face since several dozen Yale faculty members served on YIISA’s various academic committees and boards of advisers.

And in the wake of the university’s announcement that it was shuttering YIISA, several faculty members and students protested the move angrily.

The main suspicion provoked by Yale’s decision to close YIISA was that it was doing so to appease Islamic critics. YIISA’s Director Prof. Charles Small focused its attention on contemporary forms of anti-Semitism. Since the most dangerous form of contemporary anti-Semitism is Islamic anti-Semitism, Small made Islamic anti-Semitism a focus of YIISA’s research activities. The concern arose that Yale closed YIISA in order to end campus research and discourse on the topic.

Monday Yale tried to quell the controversy surrounding its decision to close YIISA by announcing that it was forming a new institute called the Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism. Yale announced that its tenured professor Maurice Samuels will serve as director of the program.

Samuels is a scholar of French literature.

In his acceptance announcement Samuels addressed Yale’s critics promising that “YPSA will discuss both contemporary anti-Semitism and historical anti-Semitism.”

He also said that in the coming year YPSA will hold a major conference on the topic of French anti-Semitism.

Samuels’ statement is notable for two reasons.

First, if it is true, then the only difference between YPSA and YIISA is the director. And the only thing Yale was really interested in doing was firing Small. The question is why would they want to fire him? The answer to that question appears to be found in the second notable aspect of Samuels’ announcement: his planned conference. At a time when millions in post-Mubarak Egypt assembled in Tahrir Square and cheered as the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader Yusuf Qaradawi called for the invasion of Jerusalem, and with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the brink of nuclear weapons, why would YPSA want to place its focus on France? Following Yale’s announcement that it is launching YPSA, Small released a statement in which he said, among other things, “It appears that Yale, unlike YIISA, is not willing to engage in a comprehensive examination of the current crisis facing living Jews, but instead is comfortable with reexamining the plight of Jews who perished at the hands of anti-Semites. The role of a true scholar and intellectual is to shed light where there is darkness, which is why we at YIISA, are committed to critical engaged scholarship with a broader approach to the complex, and at times controversial context of contemporary global anti-Semitism.”

As Small hints, it appears that by forming YPSA, Yale proved its critics right. It closed YIISA because it found Small’s concentration on Muslim Jewhatred ideologically problematic. And it opened YPSA because Yale’s administrators’ trust Samuels to keep researchers and students focused on historic forms of anti-Semitism.

To offset criticism of its transparent move, Yale has been waging a whispering campaign against Small. Yale administrators have been insinuating that because the university did not hire him as a regular member of the Yale faculty that Small is not an academic, or somehow not good enough for Yale.

This campaign brought Holocaust scholar Prof Deborah Lipstadt from Emory University to pen a column in the Forward attacking Small. As she put it, “Part of Yale’s discomfort might have come from the fact that a Yale-based scholarly entity was administered by an individual who, while a successful institution builder, was not a Yale faculty member and who had no official position at the university.”

But Small was in fact on the Yale faculty. He was a lecturer in the Political Science department and ran one of Yale’s post-doctorate and graduate studies fellowship programs. Despite his intensive work building YIISA, Small taught a heavy course load.

But while its actions vindicate its critics’ greatest concerns, just as Obama was able to win over his Jewish supporters with empty platitudes so Yale’s decision to open YPSA has satisfied its most powerful critics. The ADL released a statement applauding the move. Yale’s Rabbi James Ponet emailed his colleagues and friends and urged them to email Yale’s president and provost expressing their support for the move.

Their willingness to support Yale’s bid to curtail research and discussion of Islamic Jew-hatred and allow Yale to scapegoat Small demonstrates an affliction common to liberal American Jews today. It is the same affliction that makes them unable to countenance voting for a Republican.

That affliction is class snobbery. By insinuating that Small is not up to Yale’s academic standards, Yale was able to rally the Jewish members of its larger community by appealing to their snobbery. The fact that Yale didn’t mind Small serving as a dissertation advisor to its doctoral candidates is immaterial. The facts be damned.

The same Ivy League snobbery that makes it socially unacceptable to vote for a Republican – and certainly not for a Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann despite their deep-seated and consistent support for Israel – is what allowed Yale to get away with ending its study of Islamic anti-Semitism by besmirching Small’s academic achievements and good name. Remove him from the club, and you end opposition to his academically unjustifiable firing.

The great circus master P.T. Barnum said famously that there is a sucker born every minute.

Liberal American Jews aren’t born suckers. They become suckers out of their own free will.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Jewish Lobby? US Jews Help Save Pro-Hamas Flotilla

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/145084
Sivan 19, 5771, 21 June 11 03:14, by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

(Israelnationalnews.com) American Jews comprise more than 25 percent of the pro-Hamas flotilla that aims to challenge the IDF on the high seas and reach Hamas-backed Gaza, throwing cold water on the allegation of a unified pro-Israel “Jewish lobby” in the United States.

"It's important that Jews are in this boat... The Jewish lobby in this country is so powerful," New York Jewish labor attorney Richard Levy told media agencies.
Comments by the Jews reflect mis-information that is omnipresent in mainstream media, particularly when referring to the supposed “blockade” on Gaza in order to prevent the smuggling of advanced weapons, explosives and terrorists whose aim is to attack Israel civilians and soldiers.

Israel imposed a partial blockade after Hamas’ terrorist militia ousted the rival Fatah faction in a bloody war more than four years ago. Thousands of tons of humanitarian aid were allowed through land crossings, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last year canceled the blockade on all goods except for material that can be used for the Hamas terrorist infrastructure.

The maritime embargo remains in effect because of the ease with which Hamas can use fishing boats to bring into Gaza weapons from Iran and Syria.
The American Jews on the flotilla, like millions of other people, still refer to the “Israel blockade,” which Levy said is “morally and juridically unsupportable.” He then made an inexplicable connection to “slaughter,” stating that “no more people should be slaughtered in the name of the Jews."

The Americans hope to sale from Greece on "The Audacity of Hope” (this is the title of Senator B. Obama's book) this week with the announced intention of breaking the maritime embargo, but Israeli military commanders have said that the goal of the pro-Hamas organizers behind the flotilla is to try  to force the IDF into a clash, similar to last year's confrontation with Turkish-based IHH terror activists.
The Americans undoubtedly are not looking for a fight but are part of a larger community of American Jews who are unfamiliar with Israel but whose idea of the Jewish state is one that adopts Christian values of “turning the other cheek.”
Jewish activist Leslie Cogan told the French news agency AFP, the flotilla is "a cargo of friendship, a cargo of peace."

Last week, Jewish anti-Zionists in London rallied in memory of the nine IHH members who were killed by Israeli Navy commandos last year after brutally attacking the soldiers, who reached the deck of the Mavi Mamara ship virtually unarmed except for paint guns and small revolvers.

After last year’s clash on the high seas, the leader of the German-Jewish organization Jewish Voice for Peace in the Middle East said the group actually wants to “preserve” Israel.

"Some see what we are doing as a betrayal. But the question is what do they really know about the whole thing. Some people don't want to be educated," Kate Katzenstein-Leiterer told the German news agency DPA.

In contrast to the American Jews’ efforts for the flotilla, pressure from French Jews prevented the departure of a ship to Gaza, according to the Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman.