The New Antisemitism

A radical change has occurred in the nature of the political conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbors. A dispute over land and historic justice is now being transformed by many on the Arab side into an existential battle of identity, with the complete denial of the legitimacy of Jewish existence as a central component of this campaign.

Since the start of the so-called "Al-Aqsa Intifada", the Palestinian resort to violence in the wake of last summer's failed Camp David peace summit, a new antisemitism has arisen, the strength of which has not been seen since Nazism dominated Europe.

When the Mufti of Jerusalem states at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, as he did recently, that the negation of Jewish existence is an existential need of Islam, he is saying that either we exist, or they do.

In an article by Dr. Mustafa Mahmud, published on 23 June 2001 in the official Egyptian newspaper "Al-Ahram", the author asked rhetorically, "What exactly do the Jews want?", answering in chilling terms, "The Jews share boundless hatred of the gentiles, they kill women and children and sow destruction." This hostility to Jews in general is then compounded by the denial of any Jewish connection to the Holy Land: "Israel is today populated by people who are not descendants of the Children of Israel, but rather a mixture of slaves, Aryans and the remnants of the Khazars, and they are not Semites. In other words, people without an identity, whose only purpose is blackmails, theft and control over property and land, with the assistance of the Western countries."

These examples illustrate the rise of a new, radical Arab nationalism which derives from Islamic fundamentalism and feeds off new satellite capacities to give the conflict a completely new intensity and impact, from Marrakech to Bangladesh.

Rare today is the Arab leader who dares to counter the extremist, rejectionist public opinion which is being fomented daily against Israel. Many prefer instead to ride the tiger, thus helping drag the entire region towards a new age of horror and destruction.

The devastating impact on genuine peacemakers from both sides is palpable: they are being sidelined. A conflict over territory can be resolved through sharing the disputed land. A conflict over matters of faith leaves little room for compromise of any sort.

The fashion of linking this virulent religious hostility with Nazism - whether through Holocaust denial or the willful depiction of Israelis as Nazis - is also gaining currency.

On 29 April this year, just before the visit of Shimon Peres to Cairo, the Nasserist newspaper "Al-Arabi" printed a swastika and a photomontage of Peres in a Nazi uniform on the front page. On 18 April, Ahmad Regev, a journalist, wrote in the Egyptian newspaper "Al-Akhbar": "Our thanks go the late Hitler who wrought, in advance, the vengeance of the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth. However, we rebuke Hitler for the fact that the vengeance was insufficient."

It is also no coincidence that, a few months ago, the biggest conference of Holocaust deniers was due to be convened in Beirut. What does Beirut have to do with the Holocaust? Beirut has become a symbol of the expulsion of Israel from its territory. In this Arab perception, if it is possible to negate the Holocaust, or to diminish its importance, the moral basis for the establishment of the State of Israel is seemingly diminished.

Of greatest concern is the state-sanctioned nature of these trends. When President Assad of Syria declares that Israelis are worse than the Nazis, why should any Syrian doubt that such slanders are true? And why would he ever want to make peace?

The most important forum of recent years on the issue of human rights is due to take place in Durban, South Africa, at the end of August. All world leaders will participate, and regional meetings to lay the groundwork have already begun. One of the clauses proposed by Arab, Islamic and non-aligned states include a demand that the Holocaust and antisemitism not be referred to as absolute evil. After this proposal was not accepted, an effort was launched to redefine antisemitism as "the ethnic cleansing by the Zionists of the Semitic Palestinians".

This is no less than a government-sponsored offensive against Israel and the Jewish People. A distinction must be made here, and I am happy to lead the way. Criticism of Israel has its place. Israel is not perfect nor does it claim to be. But all fair-minded people must be vigilant in drawing the line between legitimate criticism and the manifestations of antisemitism now parading as such.

The State of Israel is a central component of Jewish identity. When Israel is attacked in intentionally inflammatory terms, no one should kid themselves who the real target is.

When Israeli occupation is likened to the wholesale Nazi extermination of Jews, this is not legitimate criticism; it is antisemitism. When every Israeli act is characterized in popular Arab caricatures and music as the bloodthirsty lustings of hook-nosed, bearded Hasidim, the seeds of anti-Jewish hatred and violence are being sown daily.

These issues should exercise all who share a concern for human rights, tolerance and decency in human relations. If the world is against racism, then it must stand firm in the face of the bigots who would deny Israelis their own national and religious expression, and who would abuse international concern for human rights to advance rejectionist and anti-Semitic political agendas.

If fair-minded people seek tolerance and justice for all, they must not allow such high ideals to be hijacked by those who daily and hourly reject Jews and their own historic truths and memories.

The true liberal agenda is one which allows for all peoples and all truths to find expression. To acquiesce in the campaign of negation of Israel and Judaism currently running rampant in the Arab world is to surrender the arena to the destructive extremists and all they stand for.