First from Jonathon Narvey: A History of Violence. But What’s the Motive?

The real reasons for these plots and attacks are much simpler, actually: Racism. Supremacist ideology. Xenophobia. Fanaticism. The ugly aspects of human nature allowed to run wild. If the attackers were members of the KKK, we would not bother looking too deeply into the “root causes” of their hatred, because we would know that these are simply red herrings. But when Al Queda and it’s allies target our airplanes, subways, hotels, churches and synagogues, media organizations like the CBC, BBC and CNN go into full-scale disinformation mode.

…

The point is to shut down air travel, period. Disrupt cities. Create chaos and violence in once-peaceful communities. Brutalize populations.

Once civil society has broken down or withdrawn, the Islamists can seize power. We’ve seen this play out in Afghanistan, Somalia, Gaza, Lebanon parts of the Philipines, and elsewhere in the far corners of the world. We’ve also seen it to a lesser extent in British and French towns and suburbs.

That is their goal. They don’t want to just bring down a few airplanes. They want to bring down everything. And then be there to pick up the pieces.

The other from Rand Simberg  Some Thoughts on the Latest Man-Caused Disaster Attempt

4. This is the most depressing thought. It’s a hell of a lot easier to blow something up than to build it, because it’s always been and always will be easier to increase than to decrease entropy. There are an infinite number of ways to arrange matter in ways that are worthless, and many fewer to do so to create value. So statistically, without active effort, there will be more crud than cream. As long as there are people who revel in destruction, it is going to be impossible to prevent them from doing so. We can at best minimize it, and we are in a vicious technological arms race in which the offense in that regard will probably always be ahead of the defense. The only thing that has kept terrorists from killing many more of us is their rank incompetence, as exemplified by Richard Reid. We have been fortunate in our enemies so far, but as technology continues to advance, even people with sub-room-temperature IQs may get the capacity to do real damage.

We are not at war with bombs of any particular design, or guns, or rusty knives for the hacking off of heads, or even “terror” itself. We are at war with a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion. Its adherents want to subjugate all who are not of them to their will, or kill them. That is, us. And as long as that belief system has many millions of adherents (and it does), even if only a small percentage of them have sufficient competence to kill the millions that they hope to in order to achieve their goals, they will, as technology continues to advance, succeed.

The world does not fear Nazis today, not because we destroyed their weapons, but because we broke the back of their belief system. And this new totalitarian enemy is much more dangerous, because it doesn’t just worship power. It revels in death and destruction, even its own. We are at war with jihad, and that war will not end until radical Islam has no more adherents. How to achieve that end is unknown, but few of the possibilities seem very palatable.

All you have to do is read what the Islamists are saying in their own words.

From http://www.jmcc.org via IMRA

Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Full Text Of Fatah Political Program After It Was Ratified By Fatah Conference

FULL TEXT OF FATAH POLITICAL PROGRAM AFTER IT WAS RATIFIED BY FATAH
CONFERENCE

As published in al-Ayyam Translation provided by The Jerusalem Media &
Communications Center

The political program said the continuation of negotiations without
achieving real progress within a set time ceiling constitutes a danger on
our rights and becomes foul play that allows Israel to use the negotiations
as cover up for the continuation of settlements and consolidation of the
occupation. The program defines eleven rules in order to engage in
negotiations with Israel and outlined five options in case of the failure of
the current dialogue with Hamas and ratified four steps to confront the
siege imposed on Gaza and talked about seven forms of struggle.

Fatah Movement rejected the alternative homeland in Jordan and refuses to
sign any agreement that does not lead to the release of all prisoners. Fatah
stressed on rejecting the principle of forceful resettlement or the calls
for the alternative homeland: there wont be resettlement in Lebanon and
there wont be an alternative homeland in Jordan.

Fatah stressed on serious work towards the release of all prisoners and we
will not sign any peace agreement until all prisoners are released. Fatah
stressed on the independence of the movement in the context of the PLO and
the PNA.

The political program of Fatah pointed out that in order to avoid a
situation where the negotiations become foul play and waste of time; we have
to make sure that the PLO abides by the following rules in order to engage
in the negotiations:

1- To link the negotiations process with real progress on the ground
according to clear and concrete indicators, mainly the complete halt of
settlements especially in Jerusalem and to stop changing the features of
Jerusalem and to stop the Judaization process of Jerusalem and these are two
conditions that must be met in order for resumption of any peace
negotiations; we need to ensure also that Israel end its incursions,
arrests, assassinations, and the end of the siege imposed on our people in
Gaza, and the removal of the checkpoints in the West Bank, and the
withdrawal until the September 28, 2000 borders as a first step towards
withdrawal until the borders of June 4, 1967; these are clear and concrete
indicators that must be seen on real grounds and to link progress in
negotiations with achieving the above mentioned steps and measures.

2- Negotiations will be on the basis of international legitimacy and its
main resolutions (181, 194, 242 and 338) and in the context of the Arab
Peace Initiative, as long as the continuation of negotiations meet our
interim and strategic goals.

3- To continue work towards holding a new international peace conference
that consolidates our rights and pushes towards quick negotiations that
result in a peace agreement that achieves our goals.

4- To insist on setting up a clear and binding time table and a time ceiling
for the negotiations.

5- To reject delaying negotiations over Jerusalem and the refugees cause or
any of the final solution issues.

6- To reject the idea of the state with temporary borders.

7- To totally reject recognizing Israel as a Jewish state in order to
protect the rights of the refugees and the rights of our people inside the
Green Line.

8- To insist on international participation during the negotiations and on a
mechanism for arbitration upon the eruption of a dispute when implementing
the agreements and this mechanism should be binding for both sides.

9- To insist on international monitoring and an international peace keeping
mechanism to guarantee the implementation of the agreement.

10- Our success in achieving our goals through negotiations requires a
national professional committee capable of negotiations that will remain
under the PLO supervision and to be monitored by a higher committee which
should include the factions and Palestinian competent figures and another
Fatah Committee to follow up the negotiations and to submit its reports to
Fatah Central Committee and Fatah Revolutionary Council.

11- We must head to popular referendum to adopt the peace agreement that
will be reached through the final status negotiations.

Fatah defined five options that it will adopt in case the current dialogue
with Hamas fails. Fatah said that the continuation of the split between the
two parts of the homeland constitutes a threat to the fate of the national
cause of the Palestinian people and Hamas bears responsibility for the
continuation of the split; we have to move forward to achieve success in
comprehensive national dialogue, mainly with Hamas, on the basis of ending
the split in Gaza and the establishment of a national reconciliation
government that organizes concurrent presidential and legislative elections
and unify the security services as national services that protect the
security of the homeland and the citizen and to handle the traces of the
split and achieve national reconciliation and release of the detainees.
Fatah stressed that the failure of the dialogue because of Hamas
intransigence does not downplay the importance and priority of the dialogue
and its continuation, but forces Fatah to adopt alternative options:

First: To restructure Fatah Movement in Gaza as deemed by the current
situation and provide full support to our organization in Gaza to confront
the split.

Second: To push the cadres and members of Fatah in Gaza to reinforce popular
action and mobilize the Palestinian masses to confront the split and
dictatorship.

Third: To expose the measures of Hamas; these measures which are not part of
our Palestinian traditions and norms, and the crimes committed against the
Palestinian people.

Fourth: To demand Arab security support in Gaza Strip during the interim
phase.

Fifth: To reinforce media action in the Arab and Islamic street to expose
the policies and measures of Hamas.

With regards to ending the siege imposed on Gaza, Fatah outlined four steps:

1- to reinforce the steadfastness of Gaza in face of the siege and grant it
priority in national support through the finances of the PNA and
international; grants and to solve the urgent problems of Gazans who reside
abroad (students and patients).

2- To launch an international humanitarian campaign against the siege and
the attempts to cause famine in Gaza and to inform the world about the
crimes against humanity that Israel commits against the citizens in Gaza and
to link the negotiations with Israel with the condition of ending the siege.

3- To start a process of gradual dismantling of the linkage of the
Palestinian economy with the Israeli market, especially in electricity,
fuel, gas, basic food items and replace them with Egyptian, Jordanian and
Arab markets.

4- to work on implementing the international agreement on Rafah Crossing and
try to develop the agreement in a manner that does not give Israel the
chance to control the crossing or the chance to close this important
crossing.

Fatah adopts all legitimate forms of struggle along with clinging to the
option of peace without limiting the options to negotiations to achieve
peace. Among the forms of struggle that can be exercised with success in the
current phase to support and activate the negotiations or to act as
alternative to the negotiations if the negotiations don’t achieve their
goals:

a- To mobilize popular struggle against settlements and its successful
modern form is the continuous confrontation in Bil’in and Ni’lin against
settlements and the wall, and to save Jerusalem and reject its Judaization.
We have the task to mobilize all citizens to engage in the activities and to
achieve Arab and foreign popular participation and offer all support from
the PNA apparatuses in order to make them succeed and Fatah popular and
official leaders need to lead the most important activities.

b- To be creative in finding new forms of struggle and resistance through
popular initiatives and other initiatives by the cadres of the movement and
to stress on the determination of our people to remain steadfast and resist
in accordance with the legitimate norms and laws.

c- To boycott the Israeli products inside the territories and abroad through
popular moves, in particular commodities that have a local alternative and
exercise new forms of civil disobedience against the occupation and work to
escalate an international campaign towards boycotting Israel and its
products and its institutions through making use of the experience of South
Africa.

d- To pose and discuss Palestinian strategic alternatives if it is not
possible to achieve progress through the current negotiations, including
poising the idea of the unified democratic state that rejects racism,
hegemony and occupation, and to develop struggle against Israeli Apartheid
and Racism or return to the idea of declaring the state on the 1967 borders
and other strategic alternatives.

e- To continue tireless work towards the release of the prisoners and
detainees and end the external siege and the internal checkpoints and
achieve freedom of movement.

f- To return to the UN and the Security Council and demand that they assume
their responsibilities in ending the conflict and ending the occupation and
to continue work towards the issuance of Security Council resolutions on the
basis of the Seventh Chapter of the UN Charter which carry the binding
character.

g- To regain our direct and strong relations with the Israeli peace camp and
reactive it to work for the sake of a just peace without confusing this with
normalization which is rejected as a policy under the occupation.

by Mordechai Kedar EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation-state, or as the rightful homeland of the Jewish People, is a necessary condition of any future Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Arab and Islamic leaders have rejected this demand. The reason for Arab inability and unwillingness to consider Netanyahu’s demand is the fact that the Islamic world is ideologically incapable of according legitimacy to the State of Israel, for deep-seated religious, nationalistic and historical reasons.

This says it all. Pay attention to reality, not propaganda.

Ideological Realities

Thus, according to Islam, the State of Israel is not legitimate. From a religious point of view, Judaism is void. The Jewish nation is an invention of the Zionist movement. The land called “Israel” is considered Islamic Waqf land, consecrated for Muslims.

Netanyahu’s insistence on recognition of the state as a Jewish nation-state contradicts the Islamic faith, and questions the very essence of Islam, whose relevance is based on the invalidity of Judaism (and Christianity as well).

Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that Israel’s struggle for survival is religiously based, even if externally it assumes the form of a territorial struggle. It does not matter what its size, Israel will never gain recognition by the Arab and Muslim world as a legitimate state. Similarly, international documents which legitimize the “Jewish State,” such as United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, are viewed by Muslims as illegitimate.

Many say: “You are turning a territorial conflict into a religious one,” when they mean to say that territorial concessions would facilitate the recognition of the Arabs and Muslims in the legitimacy of the State of Israel. Such a statement assumes that the Arab and Muslim world is as secular as our own, and shares our concepts, values and priorities. This is the result of Israeli and Western ignorance of all that is related to Islam and the Arab world, derived from the fact that Westerners do not understand Arabic and Arab and Islamic culture. Israelis and Westerners alike are not exposed to the harsh truths which are expressed in the local tongues, and are well-concealed by spokesmen of “inter-religious dialogue.”

Recognition of Israel as a legitimate Jewish nation-state has no hope or chance as long as Islam perceives itself “and itself alone” as “the true religion with Allah.”

Hamas Charter:

Article Eleven:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

 

Article Thirteen:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. “Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.”

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

…

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.

Go ahead. Prove us wrong.

Hamas dress code aims to make Gaza more Islamic

Rights groups slam Hamas decision on female dress code

It is very telling that the Palestinian Constitution explicitly fails to mention Judaism: “Christianity and all other monotheistic religions shall be equally revered and respected.”

 IMRA – Monday, July 27, 2009 PLO news agency: Jewish state means violating Palestinian right to flood Israel with refugees

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: The Political Editor of WAFA declined to mention,
of course:
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF PALESTINE
Third Draft,
7 March 2003, revised in March 25,2003
http://www.jmcc.org/documents/palestineconstitution-eng.pdf
...
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE STATE
...

Article (5) Arabic and Islam are the official Palestinian language and
religion. Christianity and all other monotheistic religions shall be
equally revered and respected. The Constitution guarantees equality in
rights and duties to all citizens irrespective of their religious belief. ]

WAFA’s Political Editor: Judaism of State, Judaism of Land, Judaism of People

Date : 27/7/2009 Time : 14:40
http://english.wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=12856

RAMALLAH, July 27, 2009 (WAFA- PLO news agency)- WAFA News Agency’s Political Editor wrote, today:

“The Judaism of State, or People, or Land is a synonym of the black nightmare of Racism. It is a war waged on us; a new war aimed at eradicating Palestinians, with slogans first, then by practice. Such a practice is the most dangerous in this land’s history; Exile, or ‘Transfer’ and eliminating everything related to Arabism of this homeland, which has witnesses years of
organized transfer of its people.”

“We are still under occupation; we are still ruled, in every aspect of life: livelihoods, sovereignty, and decision.”

“Judaism of State is clear in its objectives, even implementation and application. It means eliminating 20% of the Jewish entity’s citizens; Arabs and Palestinians. It probably means forcing them out; transferring them.”

“In terms of all this, should we expect that they are deliberately trying to violate the inalienable right of return, considered a priority on the negotiations agenda, by the United Nations and its Security Council?”

“Judaism of State endangers not only Palestinians, but also the Arab World, and the global security. It is a call for legitimizing a racist entity, built on pure ethnic and theocratic criteria. Would the world allow a theocratic entity to inherit obsolete racist values?” [emphasis mine]

How ironic.

For the record: I would not endorse or support a Jewish theocratic State of Israel. I want a secular, democratic peace. See A peace proposal

[Many Palestinian justice and liberation supporters don't like the "Ten tips..." because they "do descend into anti-Semitic reasoning."]

Translation from De Fabel van de illegaal 52/53, summer 2002

Authors: Eric Krebbers and Jan Tas

Ten tips against anti-Semitism

Activists wishing to criticise the Israeli state must be careful not to descend into anti-Semitic reasoning. Here are 10 tips to avoid anti-Semitism in discussions, articles, leaflets and demonstrations.

1. Always also criticise moslim fundamentalists and never justify the suicide bombers.

Hamas, Jihad and Hezbollah are not liberation organisations, but religious fascists. Historically, anti-Semitism is a central element of the Islam, just as it is of Christianity. Moslim fundamentalists call for all Jews to be killed, and are thus extremely anti-Semitic. Anyone who refuses to categorically distance themselves from these fascists and their opportunist methods, whether for anti-imperialist or other reasons, legitimises anti-Semitism. Anyone who ignores the attacks on random Israeli citizens, considers them in some way understandable or justified, is underwriting the anti-Semitic logic behind them, namely that Israeli Jews are always guilty – regardless of whether they agree with their government – just because they are Jewish.

2. Oppose anti-Zionism

Anti-Zionists wrongly claim that Jewish nationalism, Zionism, is per definition on the extreme Right. In reality, Zionism has many different currents, some of which are progressive. Anti-Zionism only opposes Jewish nationalism. Palestinian or Arab nationalism is embraced. However, all forms of nationalism have the same reactionary function. They all produce myths to emphasise the unity of “nations” and to hide the oppression of workers, women and people who do not fit into the nationalist scheme. Elites use nationalism to harness the population for their fight against other elites. In this sense, Jewish nationalism is not fundamentally different from Arab or Dutch nationalism. It is important to combat nationalism at home, and not to do the elites a favour by fighting nationalism in other countries. In addition to this, it is anti-Semitic to, from a European perspective, declare Jewish nationalism to be the main problem. The solution lies in the principle of anti-nationalism and in the support for joint Israeli-Palestinian initiatives for resistance from below.

3. Do not use the term genocide and do not call Israel the biggest abuser of human rights

Israel is one of the many countries which gravely abuses human rights. Many of the national “liberation movements”, such as the PLO also abuse human rights, and will continue to do so once they have their own state. Various states in the Middle East, including Syria, Iran and Iraq, also abuse human rights on a massive scale. The much more limited scope of the Israeli abuses of human rights do not justify the title of the biggest abuser of human rights. One sided criticism of Israel smacks of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, the term genocide is exaggerated with regard to Israeli violence. Jenin can not be compared to Rwanda or Yugoslavia. What is more, Israel does not seek the systematic eradication of the other side; unlike the muslim fundamentalist organisations. If for example Hamas had its way, all Jews would be driven into the sea or gassed. Incidentally, more criticism in the direction of human rights abuses on the part of the Dutch government would not go amiss either.

4. Never compare Israel to Nazi Germany

Mercifully, the Shoah is a unique event in human history. In Nazi Germany 6 million Jews were systematically slaughtered. Comparisons between this and other mass murders do no justice to the unimaginable and horrific dimensions of this crime against the Jews. European claims that the Shoah was just like the current Israeli policies of occupation in effect rehabilitate the Nazi’s. This could create a space in the future for the re-emergence of the extreme right. And the suggestion that the Israeli’s are no better than Hitler can also provide a retrospective justification for the Shoah. “Hitler forgot one: Sharon”, was one of the slogans chanted at a pro-Palestine demo in Amsterdam in April 2002.

5. Do not hold “the Jews” accountable for the actions of the Israeli state

It is nonsense to hold “the Jews”, “the Palestinians” or ‘the Dutch” collectively responsible for anything. There are always huge contradictions inside any “nation”. Many Jews in Israel and in other parts of the world deplore the Israeli state violence. Generally, they have little influence over it. Those who claim that people in Israel do not protest enough against the state violence should realise that the Israeli Left, like the Left in other parts of the world, is in a crisis. It is anti-Semitic to demand specifically of the Jews that they adhere to higher political and moral standards. Those who nevertheless hold all Jews responsible for the Israeli state violence, open the way for anti-Semites to attack random Jews and Jewish targets.

6. Do not use anti-Semitic stereotypes

Throughout history, Jews have been portrayed as baby killers and rapists, as demons who poison water supplies, as greedy bankers and speculators and as spineless intellectuals. When the Palestinian solidarity movement employs such stereotypes against Israel, the mobilising effect will be enormous, because of the fact that anti-Semitism everywhere has deep roots. But if a movement does this, it no longer has a place in the Left.

7. Condemn ideas of a pro-Israeli conspiracy

Oft heard suggestion of a pro-Israeli conspiracy in politics, culture, the economy and the media are classic elements of anti-Semitism. Regardless of whether they concern the Dutch or the global context, such allegations lie in the tradition of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, a fraudulent text dating from 1900, claiming that Jews were conspiring to gain world domination. In cartoons the conspiracy was depicted as a giant octopus, holding the world in its deadly tentacles. Today there is much talk of the so called “mighty Jewish lobby” which is alleged to control the media and keep criticism of Israel off the agenda.

8. Do not call Israel an unnatural state

Since nationalism gained ground in Europe and humanity was suddenly divided into “nations”, “the Jews” have been regarded as the opposite of a “nation”. As such, anti-Semitism is a fixed part of nationalism. In nationalist mythology, “the Jews” represent the evil nemesis of all the good characteristics of the “own nation”. Whilst the “own people” were supposedly rooted in the soil of an “own land”, the Jews would roam the earth forever and never belong anywhere. According to this logic, a Jewish state would be “unnatural” by definition. For this reason, it is anti-Semitic to pretend that the Palestinians per definition have a real link to their land, whilst the Israeli’s per definition do not. The Israeli state is just as “natural” or “unnatural” as any other state.

9. Do not challenge the right of existence of Israel

It is logical for the radical Left to challenge the existence of states and it is equally logical to criticise ones own state. However, Europeans who wish to abolish the state Israel first are caught up in anti-Semitic reasoning. After all, Israel is the state where the European Jews who survived the Shoah sought a safe haven. Now that anti-Semitism internationally is on the increase, many Jews consider Israel the only place on earth where they can flee to in the last resort. By challenging the very right of existence of the state Israel, the feelings of insecurity amongst Jews will only increase. Instead, the Left in Europe should counter anti-Semitism in this continent, so that Jews can feel safe here at home.

10. Never blame Israel for anti Semitism

Anti-Semitism is obviously the responsibility of the anti-Semites. Anti-Semitic thought is deeply rooted in both Europe and the Arabic world. Attacks on Jewish targets have occurred for centuries, also in the Middle East. Anti-Semitic ideas and attacks can therefore not be caused by the existence of the state Israel or by the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel is at best the latest excuse for anti-Semites. Holding Israel responsible for anti-Semitic beliefs is a version of the old idea that “the Jews” are to blame for everything. The same goes for blaming the Jewish secret service, the Mossad, for attacks on Jewish targets in the Middle East and in Europe.

This week, the Spanish Foreign Minister felt compelled to defend Prime Minister Zapatero from charges of anti-Semitism.

Zapatero had donned the black-checked keffiyeh that is the symbol of Palestinian determination to destroy the Jewish State and criticized Israel for using “abusive force that does not protect innocent human beings.”1

It was all too familiar.

On any given day one can find some eminent European – a university professor, high-ranking churchman, a parliamentarian – gravely explaining to reporters that harsh and disproportionate criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic.

And their protestations sound plausible. After all, this is not your grandfather’s anti-Semitism. Israel’s highly-educated critics do not refuse to dine in restaurants that serve Jews, use epithets like “kike,” or believe that Jews control the international financial markets and are more likely than others to engage in shady business practices.

At least that is what I assumed until someone did the study.

Two Connecticut professors got curious about the constant denials that extremely harsh critics of Israel were anti-Semitic. Edward H. Kaplan, the William N. and Marie A. Beach Professor of Management Sciences at Yale, and Charles A. Small, Director of Urban Studies, Southern Connecticut State University, decided to examine the issue in formal way. Their paper, “Anti-Israel Sentiment Predicts Anti-Semitism in Europe,” appears in the August issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2

Kaplan and Small ask whether individuals expressing strong anti-Israel sentiments, such as the statement by Ted Honderich, Emeritus Grote Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic at University College London, that “those Palestinians who have resorted to necessary killing have been right to try to free their people, and those who have killed themselves in the cause of their people have indeed sanctified themselves,” are more likely than the general population to also support in such old-style anti-Semitic slurs as “Jews have too much power in our country today.”

The correlation was almost perfect. In a survey of 5,000 Europeans in ten countries, people who believed that the Israeli soldiers “intentionally target Palestinian civilians,” and that “Palestinian suicide bombers who target Israeli civilians” are justified, also believed that “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind,” “Jews have a lot of irritating faults,” and “Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want.”

The study’s other interesting finding was that only a small fraction of Europeans believe any of these things. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism flourish among the few, but those few are over-represented in Europe’s newspapers, its universities, and its left-wing political parties.

For Americans who do not read the European press, the level of raw anti-Semitism in European intellectual circles [and the people in the street - p18] can be shocking.

A couple of years ago the French Ambassador at the Court of St. James, Daniel Bernard, told his companions at a London dinner party that Israel is a “shitty little country,” “Why,” he asked, “should the world be in danger of World War Three because of those people?”3

Read it all Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism: The Link

20090521 19:32 Jerusalem Day

The comment:

will will take it back enshalla .. in the sword not in the words

Corrected translation: “we will take it back Insha’Allah [God willing] by the sword, not by words”

What is there for Israel to negotiate when, to the ‘man on the street’, the option of peace and co-existence isn’t even on the table?

I wonder what the one in Arabic says.

On Holocaust Memorial Day 2008, a group of just under 100 people—Londoners and a few visitors —took a guided tour of the old Jewish East End. They visited, among other sites of interest, the birthplace of my old chum Lionel Bart, the author of Oliver! Three generations of schoolchildren have grown up singing Bart’s lyric:

    Consider yourself

    At ‘ome!

    Consider yourself

    One of the family!

Those few dozen London Jews considered themselves at ‘ome. But they weren’t. Not any more. The tour was abruptly terminated when the group was pelted with stones, thrown by “youths”—or to be slightly less evasive, in the current euphemism of Fleet Street, “Asian” youths. “If you go any further, you’ll die,” they shouted, in between the flying rubble.

A New Yorker who had just moved to Britain to start a job at the Metropolitan University had her head cut open and had to be taken to the Royal London Hospital at Whitechapel, causing her to miss the Holocaust Day “interfaith memorial service” at the East London Central Synagogue. Her friend, Eric Litwack from Canada, was also struck but did not require stitches. But if you hadn’t recently landed at Heathrow, it wasn’t that big a deal, not these days: Nobody was killed or permanently disfigured. And given the number of Jewish community events that now require security, perhaps Her Majesty’s Constabulary was right and these Londoners walking the streets of their own city would have been better advised to do so behind a police escort.

Read the whole article….