This suggests that there is really nothing that the Israeli government can do to get on the right side of history, or on the right side of European public opinion.

It seems that the they’re not just similar but connected. After all, they share a common enemy — Muslims. I remember that, when the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation’s report about the Srebrenica massacre came out, it mentioned among other things that Israel had supplied arms to the Bosnian Serbs in return for assurances that the Jewish community of Sarajevo would not be harmed. (Unfortunately the website won’t let me access the whole report.)

Meanwhile, apparently, the US was channeling arms to the Bosnian government through networks of mujahadin who had fought in Afghanistan, thereby helping to bring radical Islamic forces and ideas into the country and playing into the hands of the Serbian nationalists, who were thundering that Bosnia would become an Islamic state that would pose a grave threat to the whole of Europe (the Serbs’ bravery in confronting the Islamic menace going unrecognised by those they were protecting, who once again manifested their eternal hatred of the Serbs, etc., etc.).

Anyway, Serbian and Israeli nationalism boil down to pretty much the same thing, namely “This is our land, not yours, and you [Palestinians or Bosnians] aren’t even a real nation anyway so just disappear from the face of the earth already”.

“With the Israel Defense Forces in the fourth year of battle with the Palestinians, the most dominant institution in Israeli society is also embroiled in a struggle over its own character, according to dozens of interviews with soldiers, officers, reservists and some of the nation’s preeminent military analysts. . . Nearly 600 members of the armed forces have signed statements refusing to serve in the Palestinian territories. Active-duty and reserve personnel are criticizing the military in public. Parents of soldiers are speaking out as well, complaining that the protection of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not worth the loss of their sons and daughters.”
- from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54448-2003Nov17?language=printer

Nuff said.

Firstly, please tell us in what ways she was being misinformed.

Secondly, please prove that she was being “lied to” by mass media, as opposed to being informed by mistaken mass media.

Secondly,

Quite frankly, increasingly Jewish nationalists are sounding more and more like Greater Serbian nationalists in the 1990s. There certainly are differences, but the rhetoric is identical, right down to the condemnation of the West (or selected portions thereof) as inherently bigoted against Our Nation and Its Rightful Goals (whether a Serbian Bosnia or an Israeli West Bank).

Herzl must be turning over in his grave.

>Singling out Israel and holding it to standards
>you don’t hold other countries to is anti-
>Semitism.

Is it really? If it’s true - and let’s assume for a moment that it is, wouldn’t this simply be a - possibly inadvertent - sign that Israel is considered part of a club of “civilised” nations that has established a certain set of rules of behavior for itself? So I suppose, pointing at Israel for not adhering to these standards could be partly interpreted as ignorance regarding some facts of life that lead such non-adherence on the part of a “civilised” country, but it is hardly anti-semitic per se. Just as pointing out that the US are on the verge of non-adherence to some standards is not anti-American per se. Perception is a different thing, of course, as is public exploitation of perception for political reasons. I suppose that we agree to differentiate one from the other. The kind of language used is paramount in this sensitive area.

>Making such spurious claims that Israel is an
>apartheid state or that Zionism is Racism is
>anti-Semitism.

It can be. But I don’t think that pointing out obvious difficulties in the relationship between the Jewish majority and the non Jewish minority of a Jewish state that is also democracy should be confined to Jewish commentators - who by the way do discuss these questions extensively for they are of existential importance for Israel. Off the top of my head I remember two recent articles published in German by Fania Oz-Salzberger, a professor of history at the University of Haifa, and one by a former president of the Knesset, Avraham Burg -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4753390-103677,00.html

Again, language is extremely important here. But it is not helpful to discredit possibly important arguments per se as anti-Semitic - while it is obviously possible to disagree with them.

I’m thankful that, since I’ve lived in Europe for the past six years, I was here to see what happened. Those I know in the States have no idea.

I’ve seen and heard the new antisemitism here in Europe first-hand, and I’ve also witnessed the epiphany of a Belgian at the moment when she learned that she was being systematically lied to by the media here about the reality of the Israeli/Palestinian Isreali/Arab conflicts.

Those who are beginners in trying to come to grips with the new antisemitism might try some of the lectures at a recent conference on the subject. I especially recommend those by Finkielkraut, Berman, Caldwell, Joffe, and Lilla.

Also, Thomas von der Osten-Sacken speaks of the ideology in which the new antisemitism is manifested in this interview.

Todd Gitlin reminds us that it’s not just in Europe.

Maybe he’s in denial, maybe he’s lying, maybe he has no idea about what he’s saying, but I would personally take his word for it.

It does mean that he understands that criticism of Israel is not the same thing as anti-Semitism. And no, it is not true that Israel is being held to higher standards than other countries. Ask Turkey.

As you say, Denial ain’t a river in Africa. What comments have you on this, from the report by a US-based group, in November 2000?

“Physicians for Human Rights USA (PHR) finds that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has used live ammunition and rubber bullets excessively and inappropriately to control demonstrators, and that based on the high number of documented injuries to the head and thighs, Israeli soldiers appear to be shooting to inflict harm, rather than solely in self-defense. . .” - from: http://www.phrusa.org/research/forensics/israel/Israel_force.html

hmmmmm…

Here’s an article that ran in Vanity Fair last spring in the US on hate crime toward Jews in France. It also addresses bias in the European press and the apathy of France’s elites.

Here’s some more interesting as well as uncontested information on Mohammed al-Dura from The Atlantic article:

“What is known about the rest of the day is fragmentary and additionally confusing. A report from a nearby hospital says that a dead boy was admitted on September 30, with two gun wounds to the left side of his torso. But according to the photocopy I saw, the report also says that the boy was admitted at 1:00 P.M.; the tape shows that Mohammed was shot later in the afternoon. The doctor’s report also notes, without further explanation, that the dead boy had a cut down his belly about eight inches long. A boy’s body, wrapped in a Palestinian flag but with his face exposed, was later carried through the streets to a burial site (the exact timing is in dispute). The face looks very much like Mohammed’s in the video footage. Thousands of mourners lined the route. A BBC TV report on the funeral began, “A Palestinian boy has been martyred.” Many of the major U.S. news organizations reported that the funeral was held on the evening of September 30, a few hours after the shooting. Oddly, on film the procession appears to take place in full sunlight, with shadows indicative of midday.”

You cannot deny that something’s fishy.

In fact, Fallows does not “retreat significantly” from his claims. Perhaps you should read the entire article. Doesn’t this strike you as being contradictory? Indeed, on that page there are letters to the editor who back his claims and others that don’t. But one is very interesting. It is from France 2 and they admit to cutting the scene.

“Furthermore, Fallows is the only source of the claim that France 2 is sitting on footage that might clear the IDF.

She [Schapira] claims that the cameraman said he took six minutes of film, while France 2 claims to have 52 seconds. This is quite different from claiming that France 2 is unwilling to release footage.”

If they claim there is more footage, but France 2 denies its existence. (Assuming France 2 is lying) then this would mean they are unwilling to release footage.

Schapira even wrote a letter to The Atlantic. From her letter:

“My film does not conclude that I know the answer to the question “Who shot Mohammed al-Dura?” I’ve always said that I see more significant hints (but no proof) that he was shot by Palestinians. The film doesn’t present a final conclusion. It presents the findings of my own research and no speculations.”

I have not heard that the Bush administration is claiming that any and all criticism of them is anti-Americanism. I do believe that quite a bit of the criticism is based on distortion, lies and willful misrepresentation (Bush is easy to criticize and deserves criticism but let’s make sure it’s criticism based in reality) and the more hysterical criticism is about anti-Americanism. For the opinion of some Europeans: “Today, Anti-Americanism is the closest we come to a common ideology in Europe.” There are a couple other French intellectuals like Jean Francois Revel who’ve addressed this topic.

Regarding the Financial Times article you cited from Nov. 14, here is some commentary that essentially rolls its eyes at these people.

“(by the way, try calling them “Arabs” - slang terms for ethnic groups quickly become demeaning outside of their original context)”
I don’t understand. I never called anyone a “beur”. Could you be any more condescending?

“He offers nothing to explain why Arab sympathy with Palestinians under occupation is somehow worse, or even different, than Jewish sympathy with Israelis living with ethnic and sectarian violence.”
Hmmm…maybe it’s worse because Arab sympathy is manifesting itself in serious violence toward Jews in Europe, but this would require that you admit anti-Semitic violence in Europe is increasing. I don’t see Jews attacking mosques in Europe.

As for your comments about “scare quotes”, I believe there’s just one “scare quote” in the f*cking paragraph. The others seem more like y’know quotes.

“If this was the worst anti-semitic attack in postwar European history, it only killed one Jew.”

Yes, this just makes it alllll better.

“Why does Rosenthal imply that this was an anti-semitic incident? The people on the train weren’t especially Jews and no one has claimed responsibility. Does every act of violence that encompasses anyone Jewish have to be classed as anti-semitic? Even when it was likely more general xenophobia? ”

Possibly because the bomb was clearly timed to go off in order to kill a number of Jews who were on that train at a specific time every day. If a bomb goes off in a black church while a large number of black Americans are there, is it logical to assume it’s a hate crime? Yes.

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.