Terrorist Plot in New York against Synagogues

June 2, 2009

Four New York residents have been arrested for an alleged plot to attack two synagogues in the Bronx and to shoot down planes at a military base in Newburgh, New York.

The men, who were fuelled by their hatred of America and the Jews, reportedly began surveillance of several synagogues and a Jewish Community Center in the Bronx in April. The plot is one of several terrorist plots in the U.S. in recent years motivated by anti-Semitism and radical interpretations of Islam.

Several terrorist plots in New York were also motivated by a hatred of Jews or Israel.  These include:

  • A group of men plotted to attack New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in 2007, in part because they wanted to take revenge on the U.S. for its diplomatic relationship with Israel.
  • James Elshafay and Shawar Matin Siraj plotted to bomb New York’s Herald Square subway station in 2004 to show solidarity with the Palestinians because of their hatred of the “Zionists.”
  • In July 1997, Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer plotted to blow up a subway station in Brooklyn in order to “kill as many Jews as possible.”  He testified that he chose the Atlantic Avenue station as a target because there are “a lot of Jews who ride that train.”
  • Ali Abu Kamal, a Palestinian man who went on a shooting spree atop the Empire State Building in 1997, carried a note in his pocket indicating the attack was meant to vent his anger at the U.S. for using Israel as an “instrument” against the Palestinian people.
  • In 1993, five Islamic extremists detonated a car bomb below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing 6 people and wounding more than 1,000 others. Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the attack, first planned to bomb Jewish neighborhoods in Brooklyn, but settled on the World Trade Center because “the majority of people who work in the World Trade Center are Jews,” according to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a co-conspirator in the attack.
  • Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, an Egyptian cleric and alleged leader of the terrorist group Gama’a al-Islamiyya, plotted to bomb five major landmarks in New York in 1993, including the United Nations Headquarters, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge and the FBI office in New York.  In addition, he plotted to attack New York’s diamond district, an area largely populated by Jews, which according to one of his co-defendants would be like “hitting Israel itself.”
  • In 1973, Khalid Al-Jawary plotted to blow up cars parked out of three Israeli targets in Manhattan to coincide with a scheduled visit to New York by then-Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.  The targets included El Al air terminal at John F. Kennedy International airport, the First Israel Bank and Trust Company, and the Israel Discount Bank in New York City.

Read full story.


Austrian Jewish community concerned over anti-Semitic rhetoric of Jörg Haider’s followers

May 26, 2009

The head of the Austrian Jewish community, Ariel Muzicant, has accused extreme-right politicians in his country of stoking hate in the run up to elections for the European Parliament in June 2009. Muzicant said in an interview that the tone of the campaign by the far-right Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) was directly responsible for a recent series of anti-Semitic incidents in the country.

The FPÖ encouraged “right-wing extremism in their own ranks and systematically want to make it socially respectable,” Muzicant said. He also likened the agitation of the party’s general secretary, Herbert Kickl, to those of Nazi Germany’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

FPÖ leader Norbert Hofer demanded in a statement released Saturday that Austrian president Heinz Fischer and Parliament speaker Barbara Prammer condemn Muzicant’s words, but there has been no official response.

While most Austrians are likely to support the governing Social Democrats (SPÖ) and Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) in the elections, far-right parties won nearly 29 percent of the vote in last year’s national elections. Recent incidents in Austria include an attack by four right-wing youth on Holocaust survivors in the town of Ebensee; anti-Semitic statements made by Austrian students visiting the Auschwitz memorial; the refusal of a hotel in Tyrol to accept Jewish guests; and an Austrian far-right columnist blaming Jews for the current world financial crisis. An FPÖ campaign ad suggested that not only Turkey but also Israel, which is not a candidate for accession, should be prevented from joining the European Union.

Meanwhile, the Simon Wiesenthal Center warned that voter indifference across Europe could empower anti-Semitic parties in the upcoming European Parliament elections. “In the past, low voter turnout has played into the hands” of European parties and their allies which “are openly anti-Semitic and some include convicted Holocaust deniers,” said a statement released by the center. The Wiesenthal Center is arguing that votes can influence the Israel-Europe relationship and Jewish life in Europe because the EU Parliament will address issues such as anti-Semitism, the Iranian nuclear threat, dialogue with Hamas and Hezbollah, and trade agreements with Israel. Some 736 members of the European Parliament will be elected by proportional representation to represent 500 million Europeans in the 27 member states.


Prozessauftakt in Paris um den antisemitischen Mord an Ilan Halimi

April 29, 2009

077707707777

Fotos: Gottesdienst am 23. Februar 2006 mit Frankreichs Staatspräsident Jacques Chirac, Ehefrau Bernadette Chirac und Premier Ministre Dominique de Villepin in der Pariser Grossen Synagoge de la Victoire zum Andenken an Ilan Halimi (© Fotos von A. Roiné, Pressestelle des Elysee-Palastes)

Ilan Halimi war ein 23-jähriger französischer Jude marokkanischer Herkunft, der am 21. Januar 2006 von einer Gang muslimischer Einwanderer, genannt die “Barbaren”, entführt und anschließend über einen Zeitraum von 24 Tagen zu Tode gefoltert wurde. Hauptmotiv des Verbrechens war Antisemitismus.

Die Tageszeitung Die Welt berichtet über den ersten Verhandlungstag im Pariser Schwurgericht im Prozess um den Mord an Ilan Halimi, der am 9. Februar 2007  in Jerusalem beerdigt wurde.

Zum Artikel.


U.N. Durban Review Conference Final Declaration is biased

April 22, 2009

It is highly disappointing, but not surprising, that more than 100 nations attending the Durban II Racism Conference in Geneva overwhelmingly voted to approve a final declaration that is biased. In a replay of the 2001 original United Nations World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Israel is again the only nation singled out.

The conference, which is a follow-up to the 2001 United Nations World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, was meant to address those human rights issues and their violators. However, both the Durban Review Conference and its predecessor degenerated into anti-Israel summits. The 2009 declaration reaffirms the conclusions from the original Durban conference. That document asserted that Palestinians are subject to Israeli “racism.”

The expectation that this anti-Israel declaration would again be the outcome prompted Israel, Canada, the United States of America, Italy, Germany, Australia, Holland, New Zealand, Czech Republic, and Poland to withdraw.

Libya helped to seal the negative outcome of the conference. Chosen as the chair of the conference, despite a long history of supporting terrorism and violating human rights, Libya yesterday engineered the swift movement of the declaration from the drafting committee and adoption of the preparatory document of last week.

Any hope for a better outcome document was dashed with an address to the conference by one who calls for the destruction of and supports terrorism against the State of Israel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Many nations walked out in protest on April 20, 2009, in the face of his hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel tirade.

The 23 European Union nations delegates walked out during Ahmadinejad speech, in which he said that the foundation of the State of Israel rendered “an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering” in order “to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine.”

***

Quotes from Ahmadinejad’s speech in Geneva [source: BBC News]

“The victorious powers [of the world wars] call themselves the conquerors of the world, while ignoring or down-treading the rights of other nations by the imposition of oppressive laws and international arrangements.”

“Following World War II, they resorted to making an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish suffering. They sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine. In compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.”

“It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide, whilst the awakened consciences and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutality and the bombardment of civilians of Gaza.”

“[Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were] a clear example of egocentrism, racism, discrimination or infringement upon the dignity and independence of nations. Today, the human community is facing a kind of racism which has tarnished the image of humanity. In the beginning of the third millennium, the word Zionism personifies racism. [It] falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide hatred.”

“Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their supporters of political and international means…Governments must be encouraged and supported in the fight aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and moving towards reforming the current international mechanisms.”

“You are all aware of the conspiracy of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference… It should be recognized that boycotting such a session is a true indication of supporting the blatant example of racism.”


Durban II Hatefest

April 17, 2009

A statement by Anne Bayefsky at the Third Substantive Preparatory Meeting of the Durban Review Conference.

April 17, 2009
United Nations, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

The eyes of millions of victims of racism, xenophobia and intolerance are upon YOU, the representatives of states and the United Nations. And instead of hope you have given them despair. Instead of truth you have handed them diplomatic double-talk. Instead of combating anti-Semitism you have handed them a reason for Jews to fear UN-driven hatemongering on a global scale.

The Durban conference – allegedly dedicated to combating racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance – will open April 20th on the anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler without agreement on even so much as remembering the Holocaust and the war against the Jews. Your draft words on the Holocaust – the very foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – have been narrowed to the barest mention from previous versions. And if the minor reference survives at all – it will be a testament to your interest in Jews that died 60 years ago, while tolerating and encouraging the murder of Jews in the here and now.

Furthermore, the draft before you demonizes the Jewish state of Israel and then has the audacity to pretend to care about anti-Semitism in a single word buried among 17 pages. Anti-Semitism means discrimination against the Jewish people. Since it is evident that almost none of you have the courage to say it, the face of modern anti-Semitism IS the UN – your – discrimination against Israel, the embodiment of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.

Over and over again we have heard a massive misinformation campaign about the content of these proceedings and the draft before you. We have heard the tale that this draft does not single out Israel, that the hate has been removed, that the fault of the anti-Semitism at Durban I was that of NGOs while states and the UN were blameless.

Perhaps you think that journalists and victims will not bother to read for themselves the Durban Declaration adopted by some governments. There is only one state mentioned in it – Israel. There is only one state associated with racist practices in it – Israel. And yet the very first thing that this draft before you does is to reaffirm that abomination, abomination for Jews and Arabs living in Israel’s free and democratic society, and for all the victims of racism ignored therein. Lawyers call it incorporation by reference when they hope nobody reads the small print. The propaganda stops here. We have read it. We understand the game. And we decry the ugly effort to repeat the Durban agenda to isolate and defeat Israel politically, as every effort to do so militarily for decades has failed.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Chair of this Preparatory Committee also told us this week that the Durban Declaration in all its aspects is a consensus text. Perhaps they are unfamiliar with the Canadian reservations made in Durban in 2001 which state categorically that the Middle East language was outside the conference’s jurisdiction and not agreed. Perhaps they failed to notice that one of the world’s greatest democracies, the United States, voted with its feet and walked out of the Durban I hatefest. The Durban Declaration has never represented a global consensus among free and democratic nations. When the head of the Islamic conference treats Durban as a bible, in their words, it is more accurately a defamation of religions.

This week you decided which states ought to serve in a leadership role at next week’s conference. Among them are some of the world’s leading practitioners of racism, not those interested in ending it. You have also decided to hand a global megaphone to the President of a state which advocates genocide and denies the Holocaust.

So in a state of shock and dismay we address ourselves not to the human rights abusers that glorify the Durban Declaration or its next incarnation, but to democracies – and we ask: Will Germany sit on Hitler’s birthday and listen to the speech of an advocate of genocide against the Jewish people and grant legitimacy to the forum which tolerates his presence? What about the United Kingdom, the birthplace of the Magna Carta? Or France that helped to ship last generation’s Jews to crematoriums?

You could have fought racism. You chose instead to fight Jews. You could have promoted the universal standards against racism already in existence. You chose instead to diminish their importance in the name of alleged cultural preferences. You could have protected freedom of expression. You chose instead to undermine it by twisted concepts of incitement. You could have brought victims of racism together in a common cause. You chose instead to pit victims against each other in an ugly struggle for meager recognition.

For those democracies that remain under these circumstances you are ultimately responsible for what can only be called an appalling disservice to real victims of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance around the world.

About the author: Anne Bayefsky holds a B.A., M.A. and LL.B. from the University of Toronto and an M.Litt. from Oxford University. She is a barrister and solicitor of the Ontario Bar, and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute as well as professor at Columbia University Law School in New York, where her areas of expertise include international human rights law, equality rights, and constitutional human rights law. Visit her website here.


The Myths of U.N. Durban Review Conference

April 10, 2009

hamasunhumanrightscouncil

The Algerian-chaired United Nations committee is seeking to rewrite international human rights law by definining any criticism of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, and is endorsed by Article 30 of the current Durban II draft; see UN Watch speech below.

Click also here for New York Times video documenting racist treatment of two million black African migrants by Libyan government of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, chair of Durban II conference planning committee.

***

Testimony by Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director, before the United Nations Human Rights Council

10th session of the Human Rights Council (Geneva, March 2009)

Thank you, Mr. President.

Racism is evil. How can we truly fight it?

For starters, by clearing up three myths about next month’s conference.

Myth Number One: that the new draft removes all pernicious provisions.

The truth is that many were removed – thanks only to the credible threat of an E.U. walk-out – but red lines continue to be breached:

  • Articles 10, 30 and 132 encourage the Islamic states’ campaign to ban any criticism of religion.
  • Articles 60 to 62 demonize the West, addressing only its sins of slavery, yet saying nothing of the massive Arab trade in African slaves, thereby politicizing that which should never be politicized.
  • Article 1 breaches President Obama’s red line by reaffirming what his government called the quote, “flawed 2001 Durban Declaration”, a text that stigmatized Israel with false accusations.

Myth Number Two: that going to the conference means dialogue.

In truth, we’ve been negotiating non-stop since August 2007. Going to the conference means endorsing a particular text, and risks legitimizing the greatest perpetrators of racism.

Ironically, many who now claim to support dialogue, are Mideast states belonging to the Arab Boycott Office in Damascus, or radical left campaigners who call for equally bigoted boycotts in the West.

Myth Number Three: that Durban 2 will help millions of victims.

But can anyone name a single victim of racism who was helped by the 2001 conference and countless follow-up committees?

Did Durban help a single victim of Sudan’s racist campaign of mass killing, rape and displacement against millions in Darfur?

Did it help the women of Saudi Arabia subjected to systematic discrimination?

Did it help gays executed by Iran, even as President Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran?

Did it help the 2 million black African migrants in Libya, who, as we read in last week’s International Herald Tribune, say they are treated like slaves and animals?

To truly fight racism, we need to hold perpetrators to account. Tragically, Durban 2 does the opposite.

Thank you, Mr. President.


Obama Administration to Join anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights Council

March 31, 2009

The Obama administration has revoked a decision by the Bush administration to boycott the Geneva-based United Nations’ premier rights body to protest the influence of repressive and racist states, according to The Washington Post.

The U.N. Human Rights Council is wholly owned and operated by Islamic states that legitimize Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism, supported by an automatic majority from China, Cuba, and other repressive regimes. Canada, now the true America,  is the only country in the world that has been willing to stand up and resist Orwellian resolutions that are destroying the true principles of human rights.

The resolutions of the U.N. Human Rights Council failed to address human rights violations of Muslim countries, notably Iran’s persecution of Baha’is, Saudi Arabia’s banning of all religious practice aside from Islam, and the persecution of Christian communities in Egypt, Pakistan and Iraq. Instead of this, the U.N. Human Rights Council recommended to criminalize the defamation of Islam.


Anti-Semitism: The Ugliest Backlash in Our Lifetime

March 31, 2009

This Pesach, Jews around the world have experienced the ugliest backlash of blatant anti-Semitism many of us have witnessed in our lifetime. We shouldn’t be surprised. When the world faces crisis, Jews are often the scapegoat.

How dangerous is the threat?

  • Dozens of synagogues around the world have been attacked and targeted by extremists
  • Hundreds of demonstrations around the world have heard crowds chant phrases like: Jews “go back to the ovens”
  • Anti-Semites continue to exploit financial Web sites to spread their hate online

Our ability to respond depends on the commitment of people like you. We need your support.

HIRAM7 REVIEW is the only European online magazine specifically dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, to identifying and exposing extremists and their hate groups.

Now more than ever, we need your support. In these difficult economic times, our ability to respond to these new dangers depends on the commitment from the entire community.

Can we count on you?


David Harris Remarks at Gorbachev-Shultz Reunion

March 26, 2009

ajcevent

AJC Executive Director David Harris was invited to give substantive opening remarks at this afternoon’s historic reunion between former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, moderated by Charlie Rose. Below is the text of what Gorbachev publicly praised as an outstanding speech that, he said, helped him to gain a new understanding of the Jewish community’s view of Russian and Soviet Jewish history.

Opening Remarks by David Harris
Executive Director, American Jewish Committee (AJC)

A the reunion between former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz

American Jewish Historical Society
New York, March 26, 2009

I am grateful to the American Jewish Historical Society for organizing today’s historic lunch and for giving me the privilege to speak.

In 1974, I traveled to the USSR for the first time, part of a U.S.-Soviet teacher’s exchange program. I was sent to School No. 185 in Leningrad.

Shortly after arriving, I was walking in the hallway when a young girl passed by and quietly put a piece of paper in my hand. When I was alone, I read the note. It said: “David Harris, I feel you are a Jew. If I’m right, please know that my family are refuseniks. Won’t you come visit us?”

I did. It was one of several such families I eventually met. Why did they want to leave? Her father, an engineer, explained that his children had no future in the Soviet Union. The barriers were too high, anti-Semitism too endemic.

So why were they denied the right to emigrate?

The father told me a joke which was then making the rounds:

Shapiro was called into KGB headquarters and told he would never be allowed to leave. “But why, comrade major? he pleaded. Because you know state secrets. What state secrets, comrade major? In my field, the Americans are at least ten years ahead of us. Well, said the KGB major, that’s the state secret.”

I asked the girl, who was about 14 at the time, why she thought I was Jewish and risked approaching me.

She told me that in the USSR no one in their right mind would give a boy the first name David unless he was Jewish, or else they had cripple him for life. She assumed it was probably the same in other countries.

It’s why she and other students insisted that Abraham Lincoln was the first Jewish president. Nothing I said could convince them otherwise.

The plight of the engineer’s family was but one episode in a difficult history, involving millions and spanning centuries.

It’s hard to know where the story begins.

Perhaps in 1648, when the Ukrainian Cossacks, led by Bogdan Khmelnitsky, went on a murderous rampage and killed as many as 100,000 Jews.

Or in 1791, when Catherine the Great created the Pale of Settlement, forcing Jews to live in this confined space for well over a century.

Or in 1827, when Czar Nicholas I began conscripting Jewish boys into the army for a 25-year tour, during which every effort was made to convert them to Christianity.

Or in 1881, when the assassination of Czar Alexander II triggered a deadly wave of pogroms, which would recur in the ensuing decades, often led by the Black Hundreds, whose slogan was, “Kill the Yids and save Mother Russia!”

Or that same year, when Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the Procurator of the Holy Synod, argued that the Jewish problem could be solved only if one third of Russia’s Jews emigrated, one third converted, and one third perished.

Or in 1903, when the czarist secret police fabricated the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which claimed that Jews plotted to control the world.

Or in 1911, when Mendel Beilis was arrested in Kiev and put on trial for the supposed ritual murder of a Christian child’s blood libel.

Or in 1917, when Jews were accorded equal rights, creating the short-lived hope that better times were ahead.

Or in 1918, when that hope was proven illusory, as the Civil War resulted in an estimated 2,000 pogroms and tens of thousands of Jewish deaths.

Or in the 1920s, when emigration was no longer possible, and it became clear that Jewish religious life in the Soviet Union would be proscribed.

Or in the 1930s, the decade of the Great Terror, when many Jews were among the millions purged by Stalin.

Or in the 1940s, when Soviet Jews fought valiantly in the Red Army, losing hundreds of thousands of lives and winning a disproportionate share of medals of valor, only to return home to taunts that they had sat out the war in Tashkent.

Or in 1948, when Solomon Mikhoels, the legendary actor and chair of the wartime Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, was killed on Stalin’s orders in a feigned traffic accident.

Or the same year, when Golda Meir, as Israel’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union, came to Moscow’s only remaining synagogue, alarming the Kremlin when 50,000 Jews took to the streets to welcome her.

Or in 1952, when Mikhoel’s colleagues, having been charged with “treason, bourgeois nationalism, or other crimes against the state,” were executed in the night of the murdered poets.

Or in those years when the first copies of Leon Uris’s Exodus, the story of Israel’s birth, began circulating in Russian in samizdat, or self-publication, awakening kinship with the Jewish state.

Or in 1967, when Israel, faced with extinction by enemies armed with Soviet weaponry, vanquished the threat in just six days, electrifying Soviet Jews.

Or in 1970, when, to dramatize their plight, nine Jews and two non-Jews sought to hijack a plane in Leningrad and leave the country.

Or perhaps, perhaps, there wasn’t a precise date at all, just a sense for many that, despite Jews’ deep roots and love of Russian culture, something wasn’t right here, and time alone wouldn’t make it any better.

Maybe it was the knowledge that the Soviet internal passport, with its pyataya grafa, fifth line nationality” was a lifelong handicap for any Jew.

Maybe it was the recognition that prestigious universities and institutes were too frequently off-limits to Jews.

Maybe it was the awareness that certain jobs were denied to Jews, and that Jews who had jobs had to work harder to prove that they deserved them.

Maybe it was the fear that Jewish children would be subjected to taunts and jeers in school, and that school officials wouldn’t necessarily defend them.

Maybe it was the anguish that, as Yevgeny Yevtushenko, the legendary poet, reminded us when he spoke of Babi Yar, there were no memorials to the countless Jews slain by the Nazis on Soviet territory during the Holocaust.

Maybe it was the reality that Jews could not satisfy their most basic curiosity about being Jewish history, religion, tradition, language without endangering their families.

Maybe it was the relentless demonization of Israel and vilification of Zionism in Soviet officialdom.

Or maybe it was the recognition that Maxim Gorky’s words in Russian Fairy Tales were applicable for all time: “Once upon a time, in some czardom, in some state, there were Jews, simple Jews” for pogroms, for slander, and for other state needs.

Whatever the cause, by 1971, there was a full-fledged Soviet Jewry movement in the USSR and a growing support network around the world.

For the next two decades, history was written.

Soviet Jews cried out in Russian: “Otpusti narod moy.”

They cried out in the Hebrew they were beginning to learn clandestinely, “Shelach et ami.”

And they cried out in English for the world to hear the famous Biblical words, “Let my people go.”

These Soviet Jews, few in number at first, were extraordinarily brave.

They challenged the power of the state not just of any state, but the might of the Soviet Union.

Couldn’t the Kremlin simply crush them, make examples of them? And hadn’t the word emigration been missing from the Soviet lexicon for decades?

Repatriation to Israel, as the first activists demanded, seemed absurd. After 1967, there weren’t even diplomatic ties.

And yet, and yet, they weren’t crushed. Their numbers grew. The word emigration surfaced. And Israel became the overwhelmingly preferred destination for those who began leaving in 1971.

Many paid a heavy price.

Thousands were not fortunate enough to get permission to leave. Either they ended up in limbo, often for many years, as refuseniks. Or they became Prisoners of Zion, jailed for their activism and beliefs.

But nothing deterred them. And they knew they were not alone.

Jews from around the world, unwilling to sit silently while millions were once again targeted, organized, rallied, petitioned, fasted, lobbied, advocated, and traveled.

Governments responded, most notably the United States and Israel, but others as well.

For our country, the plight of Soviet Jews became a central item on our bilateral agenda and for the Congress.

Israel, despite the absence of direct links with the USSR, found many ways to give hope and support to Jews in the Soviet Union.

The Helsinki Final Act, signed in 1975 by 35 nations, including the USSR and all of Europe, gave the Soviet Jewry movement an additional lever by calling for the protection of human rights.

And countless non-Jews responded.

From Martin Luther King, Jr. to Bayard Rustin, from Sister Ann Gillen to Father Robert Drinan, they represented many races, religions and creeds.

They stood up, their voices were heard, and their message was clear, “Let them live freely as Jews in the Soviet Union, or let them go.”

Try as the Soviet Union might, it could not quell the growing storm of protest.

If the Kremlin relaxed its stance on emigration, as it did in 1973 and 1979, more Jews rushed to seek permission to leave.

If it tightened its stance, as it did after the Moscow Olympics in 1980, then the global outcry intensified.

And so we come at last to the Reagan-Gorbachev era. Few could have predicted its auspicious outcome.

Certainly, when we were asked to organize a mass rally in Washington, on the eve of President Gorbachev’s first visit in 1987, little could we have foreseen the extraordinary events of the next four years.

And little could I have imagined, as the chief organizer for that rally, as the son of one of the last emigrants from the Soviet Union in the Stalin era, and as a person who was expelled from the USSR in 1974 because of my contact with Jews, that I would be here today in the presence of Mikhail Gorbachev.

We had about five weeks to organize the rally from scratch. The largest Jewish rally in Washington till then had only drawn 12-14,000 people, which didn’t give us much hope. Plus, it was slated for December, with its notoriously tricky weather. And, not for the first time, it wasn’t easy to get Jewish groups to put aside differences and unite around a shared goal.

But Natan Sharansky, released from the Gulag the previous year, kept pushing our sights higher. We set a goal of 250,000 people, never really believing we’d reach it. In fact, we exceeded it.

People from all walks of life came. They felt they had to be there. They understood that silence or indifference to human suffering is never an answer.

And they were joined by Vice President Bush and a parade of Washington dignitaries.

Not too long afterwards, President Gorbachev opened the gates, and the Jews came streaming out.

Of course, only President Gorbachev knows the degree to which this and other rallies and protests affected the decision-making of the Kremlin.

I do know that, for the mood and morale of Soviet Jews, they were vitally important.

The knowledge that the United States stood with them in their struggle was extraordinarily powerful. And there are few American officials who embody that support more than George Shultz.

No words are sufficient to describe the central role he played, or the message he sent, when, as secretary of state, he hosted a Passover Seder for Soviet Jewish activists at the American Embassy in Moscow in 1987.

At a moment when the world needs symbols of hope and possibility, today’s lunch couldn’t be better timed.

It’s a perfect reminder of the power of individuals to dream dreams and fulfill them, as Soviet Jews did.

And of the capacity of true statesmen to chart a brighter future and achieve it, as our two distinguished guests did so magnificently


Durban UN-Conference 2009: Show event of bigots and anti-Semites

March 18, 2009

Ronald S. Lauder: Show event of bigots and anti-Semites

German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 14, 2009

The United Nations are inviting to a conference which only serves as a platform for those who hate Israel – and all that on Hitler’s birthday.

April 20th this year will be the 120th anniversary of the birth of Hitler, the most notorious mass murderer and racist in the history of mankind. Coincidentally, this year April 20th will also be the opening day of a United Nations conference on racism in Geneva, Switzerland. Its task will be to review the conclusions of the World Conference on Anti-Racism held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001, and their implementation. It would normally be a positive sign to hold an event like this on such a symbolic day. Alas, the history of the Durban process weighs against this.

Many diplomats and human rights activists will remember with horror the events that occurred in Durban in September 2001. It was turned into a grand show of unity of bigots, despots, anti-Semites and declared enemies of Israel. The Jewish state was denounced as racist and its right to exist – once guaranteed by the United Nations – questioned.

The Durban Review Process has shown that may participating states are not there to discuss ways of combating racism and intolerance but to cover up own failings by launching unfair attacks against Israel and the Jews. Repeatedly, resolutions have been tabled which do not address issues of racism but demonize Israel as racist. Israel is the only country to be singled out for criticism – a unique form of cynicism! If Israel really were the main sponsor of racism and intolerance, wouldn’t we all live in a near-perfect world?

The Durban Review Conference in Geneva will be under the motto ‘Dignity and Justice for All’. One could ask ironically if countries such as Iran, Cuba, Libya, or Pakistan have signed up to this motto. However, irony is lost once you come to realize that it is these very countries that play crucial roles in the run-up to the event. Libya chairs the Preparatory Committee, and the rapporteur is from Cuba.

Given the human rights situation in these countries that makes a mockery of the event. In Pakistan, the Taliban were recently granted the right to introduce Islamic Sharia law in the Swat Valley, which they brought under their control. Once again, women there risk their lives when striving for better education or personal freedom.

Iran’s role is a particularly bad one: the event will provide the preachers of hate in Tehran with another international platform. In Iran, ethnic and religious minorities such as the Bahai suffer from discrimination, and human rights abuses are rife. Iran even executes minors because of their homosexuality, and women are regularly stoned to death for allegedly having committed adultery.

The genocide in Rwanda took place only 15 years ago, and yet there are ominous signs that it could again happen elsewhere in Africa. In Darfur, hundreds of thousands of people were killed in ethnic violence because Sudan’s dictatorial president and the neighboring countries simply didn’t give a damn. The Libyan ruler Kaddafi recently blamed the mass killing in Darfur on Israel. Yet the African Union, whose current president Kaddafi is, doing precious little to solve the conflict.

The country reports on human rights recently published by the US State Department make it crystal clear: the very countries which at the United Nations are supposed act as fighters for human rights and against racism have the worst record when it comes to state-sponsored violations of human rights at home.

The bodies of the United Nations – especially the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council – have been become popular forums for those bigots who like to denounce others in order to deflect from their own failings. In the less than three years of its existence the Human Rights Council has already condemned Israel 15 times. Worse conflicts were not dealt with at all, or diplomatically and discretely dealt with.

There is a danger that the UN anti-racism conference will once again be exploited to pursue aims that have nothing to do with the fight against racism and intolerance. Some Muslim countries event want draconian restrictions of freedom of speech pretending a “defamation of religion.”

Lately, even UN Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay, who acts as the review conference’s organizer, felt obliged to call on the participating states to be objective and focus on the real aims of the conference. This is honorable, but it also speaks volumes about what to expect from the forum.

As things currently stand, the objectives of the Durban Review Conference cannot be achieved. Before more damage is done, Mrs. Pillay should therefore cancel the event. Otherwise, Western governments must stay away. More than a year ago, the Canadian government announced its boycott. Lately, the US administration and Italy joined them. Unfortunately, others – including the German government – are still hesitant.

Last year, the EU presidency defined clear “red lines”, which, once crossed, would trigger the withdrawal of European governments from the Geneva conference. Although the red lines have been crossed the European governments, except the Italian, are still reluctant to take a decision.

Diplomats always seek to make small progress and find a compromise. However, there are moments when we need political leadership in order to avoid one’s agenda being hijacked by disingenuous actors. Diplomacy is not an end in itself, and the ambition to get some form of consensus on a final declaration must not compromise the respect for liberty and human rights.

This is a test for Europe. It is not too late yet to avoid a repeat of the Durban disaster of 2001. One can only hope that Europe’s leaders do not naively walk into the same trap that was already laid out for them by the self-appointed fighters for human rights. German in particular should make a stand and not attend the Geneva conference on April 20th. Such a decision would be a strong signal.

Ronald S. Lauder, 65, is president of the World Jewish Congress
.


Durban UN-Konferenz 2009: Schaulaufen der Heuchler und Antisemiten

March 18, 2009

Außenansicht – Ronald S. Lauder: Schaulaufen der Heuchler und Antisemiten

Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14.03.2009

Die Vereinten Nationen laden zu einer Konferenz, die nur als Bühne der Israel-Hasser dient – und das am Geburtstag Hitlers.

Am 20. April jährt sich zum 120. Mal die Geburt Hitlers, des schlimmsten Massenmörders und Rassisten der Menschheitsgeschichte. Und ausgerechnet am 20. April beginnt nun in Genf eine Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen, bei der die Ergebnisse der Antirassismuskonferenz aus dem Jahr 2001 im südafrikanischen Durban und ihre Umsetzung überprüft werden sollen. Die Veranstaltung an einem symbolträchtigen Datum wie diesem abzuhalten, wäre eigentlich zu begrüßen, wenn nicht die Vorgeschichte dagegen spräche.

An die erste UN-Konferenz gegen Rassismus in Durban, Südafrika, im September 2001 erinnern sich Diplomaten und Menschenrechtsorganisationen mit Grauen. Denn sie entwickelte sich zu einem Schaulaufen der Heuchler, Despoten, der Antisemiten und der Israel-Feinde. Der jüdische Staat wurde als rassistisch gebrandmarkt und sein – von den Vereinten Nationen verbrieftes – Existenzrecht in Frage gestellt.

Es zeigt sich in der Vorbereitung der Konferenz fast täglich aufs Neue, dass es vielen teilnehmenden Staaten nicht um die Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Intoleranz geht, sondern darum, eigene Verfehlungen durch unfaire Attacken auf Israel und die Juden zu kaschieren. Israel wird als Apartheid-Staat diffamiert, in dem Juden angeblich Andersgläubige unterdrücken. Mehrfach sind Resolutionen und Anträge eingebracht worden, die nicht Rassismus bekämpfen, sondern Israel als rassistisch verleumden. Israel ist das einzige Land, das namentlich kritisiert wird – ein Zynismus sondergleichen, denn wäre Israel in puncto Rassismus und Intoleranz wirklich das Hauptproblem, dann würden wir in einer fast perfekten Welt leben.

Die Konferenz in Genf steht unter dem Motto “Würde und Gerechtigkeit für alle”. Man kann ironisch fragen, ob sich auch Länder wie Iran, Libyen, Kuba oder Pakistan dem verpflichtet fühlen. Die Ironie bleibt einem jedoch im Halse stecken, weil man erkennen muss, dass diese Länder bei der Veranstaltung das Wort führen. Libyen sitzt dem Vorbereitungsausschuss vor, der Berichterstatter des Organisationskomitees kommt aus Kuba, und auch Iran spielt eine tragende Rolle. Angesichts der Zustände in diesen Ländern ist dies eine Verhöhnung der Konferenz. In Pakistan wurde unlängst den Taliban in dem von ihnen beanspruchten Swat-Tal zugestanden, die Scharia einzuführen. Frauen riskieren nun wieder viel, wenn sie nach Bildung oder persönlicher Freiheit streben. Irans Rolle ist besonders schlimm: Mit der Veranstaltung erhalten die Hassprediger in Teheran erneut eine internationale Bühne. In Iran werden Minderheiten wie die Bahai diskriminiert und Menschenrechte aufs schlimmste verletzt. Iran lässt sogar homosexuelle Minderjährige öffentlich hinrichten, und Frauen droht bei Ehebruch die Steinigung.

Der Völkermord in Ruanda ist erst 15 Jahre her, und doch gibt es wieder bedrohliche Anzeichen, dass er sich anderswo in Afrika wiederholen könnte. In der Region Darfur mussten Hunderttausende sterben, weil das dem diktatorischen Präsidenten des Sudan und den Nachbarstaaten schlicht gleichgültig war. Der libysche Staatschef Gaddafi macht Israel für Darfur verantwortlich, und die Afrikanische Union, welcher Gaddafi vorsteht, unternimmt recht wenig gegen den Konflikt.

Der jüngste Menschenrechtsbericht des amerikanischen Außenministeriums spricht eine deutliche Sprache: Gerade jene Länder, die sich bei den Vereinten Nationen als Kämpfer gegen Rassismus aufschwingen, sind die größten Sünder, wenn es um die Missachtung der Menschenrechte im eigenen Land geht. Die Gremien der UN – insbesondere die Vollversammlung und der Menschenrechtsrat – sind zu beliebten Foren jener Heuchler geworden, die Verfehlungen anderer anprangern, um von eigenen abzulenken. In den zweieinhalb Jahren seines Bestehens wurde Israel durch den UN-Menschenrechtsrat bereits 15 Mal verurteilt. Andere, wesentlich schlimmere Konflikte wurden dagegen gar nicht behandelt oder mittels diplomatischer Formeln diskret ad acta gelegt.

Es besteht die Gefahr, dass auch die UN-Antirassismuskonferenz erneut instrumentalisiert wird, um ganz andere Ziele zu verfolgen als die Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Intoleranz. Manche islamische Länder wollen eine drakonische Beschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit unter dem Vorwand der “Beleidigung der Religion”.

Zuletzt sah sich sogar UN-Menschenrechtskommissarin Navanethem Pillay, die Ausrichterin der Rassismuskonferenz, genötigt, die teilnehmenden Staaten zur Objektivität aufzufordern und sich auf die eigentlichen Ziele der Konferenz zu konzentrieren. Das ist ehrenwert, lässt aber nichts Gutes erahnen.

Klar ist: Die Ziele der Veranstaltung können nach derzeitigem Stand nicht erreicht werden. Bevor nun noch mehr Schaden angerichtet wird, sollte Frau Pillay die Konferenz absagen. Andernfalls müssen die westlichen Regierungen ihr fernbleiben. Bereits vor gut einem Jahr erklärte die kanadische Regierung ihren Boykott, dieser Tage schlossen sich die US-Regierung und Italien an. Andere, darunter auch die Bundesregierung, zögern leider noch.

Die EU-Ratspräsidentschaft hat im vergangenen Jahr vier “rote Linien” definiert, deren Überschreitung nach sich ziehen würde, dass die europäischen Regierungen bei der Genfer Konferenz nicht teilnehmen. Obwohl diese Linien eindeutig überschritten wurden, zögern die europäischen Regierungen, ausgenommen eben Italien, leider noch.

Diplomaten streben nach kleinen Fortschritten und Kompromissen. Es gibt aber auch Momente, die nach politischer Führung verlangen. Diplomatie ist kein Selbstzweck, und das Streben nach einem Abschlussdokument, auf das sich die Staaten einigen können, darf nicht dazu führen, dass Freiheit und Menschenrechte relativiert werden.

Europa ist gefordert. Noch ist es nicht zu spät, eine Wiederholung des Desasters von 2001 zu verhindern. Die Europäer sollten nicht noch einmal gutmütig in die Falle tappen, die ihnen selbst ernannte Streiter für Menschenrechte gestellt haben. Gerade Deutschland müsste am 20. April der Konferenz in Genf demonstrativ fernbleiben. Noch ist es für die Bundesregierung nicht zu spät, ein starkes Zeichen zu setzen.

Ronald S. Lauder, 65, ist Präsident des Jüdischen Weltkongresses.


Telling Lies About Israel

March 12, 2009

ajcvideo

Watch Vilified: Telling Lies About Israel

AJC’s hard-hitting, 5-minute video about the lies and libels targeting Israel.


Deutschland soll sich dem Boykott der antisemitischen UN-Propaganda-Konferenz „Durban II“ durch Kanada, die USA und Italien anschließen

March 10, 2009

Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung des Koordinierungsrats deutscher Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen gegen Antisemitismus, der Jüdischen Gemeinde zu Berlin und des Jüdischen Forums für Demokratie und gegen Antisemitismus

Pressemitteilung lesen.


Stop Swiss Bid to Elect Anti-American and Anti-Israel Extremist Jean Ziegler to U.N.

March 5, 2009

ziegler

Hillary Rodham Clinton in Geneva tomorrow: Will she stop Swiss nomination of U.N.’s leading anti-American and anti-Israel official?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets in Geneva tomorrow with Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, whose government has just nominated Jean Ziegler – a former Swiss politician notorious for his anti-American books, giving a prize to a French Holocaust denier, and apologetics for Libyan’s Qaddafi regime – to a U.N. human rights post. Jean Ziegler is a longtime Socialist party confidante of Ms. Calmy-Rey.

Calmy-Rey’s government nominated Ziegler for re-election to the advisory committee of the UN Human Rights Council, as the only candidate of the council’s Western group. When Western states elect a notorious apologist of dictators and one of the world’s most virulent promoters of hatred against their own embattled civilization, they signal defeatism in the wrong place and at the worst time. Ziegler’s latest French-language best-seller is entitled Hatred of the West. The U.N. vote is scheduled for March 25, 2009.

Who is Jean Ziegler?

As documented in a essay by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, Jean Ziegler is:

  • Apologist for some of the worst human rights criminals of our time. 
  • After Fidel Castro imprisoned 70 journalists, Ziegler proclaimed “total support for the Cuban revolution.”  During an official visit to the Communist island in October 2008, Ziegler hailed the virtues of Castro regime even while he refused to meet Cuban dissidents.

Only pressure from U.S. Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, supported by other voices of reason, can stop Swiss Foreign Minister Calmy-Rey from pursing this outrageous nomination.

Click Here to Take Action!


Canada, Italy and U.S. withdraw from Durban II

March 5, 2009

durban

Italy and the United States joined Canada and Israel as the only countries to date to have withdrawn from the upcoming Durban Review Conference, a follow-up to the infamous 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism in South Africa that was marred by anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing.

Italy must be praised for this admirable leadership in becoming the first European Union member state to withdraw, and similarly the Obama administration must be lauded for showing that the U.S. speaks with a consistent moral voice against the singling out of Israel for condemnation in the United Nations.

More in the News:
Reuters
The Washington Post


Deutsch-Israelische Gesellschaft (DIG) fordert Boykott von Durban II

March 5, 2009

Die Deutsch-Israelische Gesellschaft (DIG) ruft die Bundesregierung zur Nichtteilnahme an der Durban II-Konferenz auf.

In einer heute dazu veröffentlichten Pressemitteilung heißt es:

“Der Präsident der Deutsch-Israelischen Gesellschaft Dr. h.c. Johannes Gerster hat die Bundesregierung erneut aufgefordert, die Durban Review Conference im April in Genf (Durban II) jetzt endgültig zu boykottieren.

Gerster: Bereits am 15. Dezember 2008 hat die DIG darauf hingewiesen, dass auch Durban II die Ziele der UN missbraucht und die Hasstiraden gegen Israel eine Neuauflage erfahren. Obwohl sich Antirassismus – eines der vorgegebenen Ziele dieser UN-Konferenz – und Hasstiraden eigentlich ausschließen müssten, wird wiederum Hass gegen Israel geschürt und Israel stigmatisiert. Alle Warnungen konnten die Bundesregierung noch nicht veranlassen, ihre Teilnahme am bevorstehenden Tribunal gegen Israel abzusagen.

Wer es zulässt, dass sich Staaten – wie die Islamische Republik Iran – in denen die Verletzung der Menschenrechte zum Alltag gehören, zu Richtern über demokratische Staaten – wie Israel – auf internationaler Bühne aufschwingen, verhöhnt die religiösen Minderheiten und unterdrückte Frauen im Iran und ermuntert  diejenigen, für die Menschenrechtsverletzungen Routine sind, ihr mieses Handwerk weiter auszuüben. Alle, denen die überstaatlichen und überparteilichen Menschenrechte am Herzen liegen, müssen dem Missbrauch der Menschenrechte zur Durchsetzung eigener politischer und ideologischer Ziele laut und deutlich widersprechen. Sie dürfen sich nicht zu Handlangern machen lassen.

Die deutsche Bundesregierung ist mehr noch als die bisher boykottierenden Regierungen Kanadas, der USA und Israels aus historischen, politischen  und moralischen Gründen verpflichtet, das sich abzeichnende üble Schauspiel Durban II zu boykottieren.

Wenn das Existenzrecht Israels Teil der deutschen Staatraison ist, dürfte die Zeit der Prüfung, des Nachdenkens und der Entscheidung ausgereicht haben, um zu einer klaren Absage zu kommen.”


British Premier Gordon Brown First World Leader to Sign Anti-Semitism Declaration

February 27, 2009

24539

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown became the first head of government to sign the London Declaration against anti-Semitism, while encouraging other heads of government to add their names to the document.

The London Declaration, adopted on February 19, 2009, called for various practical measures to combat manifestations of anti-Jewish bigotry around the world. The London conference, hosted by the Interparliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism (ICCA), the British Foreign Office and the Department of Communities and Local Government, which brought together more than 120 lawmakers from over 40 countries, devised an effective framework and forged new strategies to confront anti-Semitism on a global scale.

Among its recommendations, the London Declaration calls for the creation of an international task force of Internet experts to develop metrics for online anti-Semitism and policy recommendations for governments to combat it, the establishment of parliamentary inquiries to determine the state of anti-Semitism domestically and to develop policy recommendations, and a commitment to oppose discrimination against Israel in international organizations such as at the U.N.’s Durban II conference.


Press Conference – Boycott Durban II!

February 21, 2009

Thursday, March 12, 2009 at 11am in Berlin

Location: Presse- und Besucherzentrum, Room 4, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Entrance Reichstagufer 14, 10117 Berlin

In 2001, the “UN World Conference against Racism” took place in Durban, South Africa. This event turned into a platform of hateful agitation against Israel and the jews while the world’s dictatorships attested each other clean records.

The “Durban Review Conference”, announced for April 2009, will do justice to its name. This time we shall not only witness the usual demonization of Israel (”apartheid”) but also more and more attacks on the freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of expression. Human rights are twisted step by step to work as a means of oppression in the name of religion.

Democratic states are seriously challenged by these dangerous reinterpretations. The foundations of an open society must not be put up for negotiations! In the light of this new push, an unambiguous reaction is more than necessary. The initiators and the subscribers of the petition call Germay and other states of the European Union to boycott the “Durban 2″ conference and to push forward a comprehensive reform of the United Nation’s Human Rights Council.

The initiative “Boycott Durban II”

Last year, French novelist and essayist Pascal Bruckner with his call to boycott “Durban II” gave the idea to this initiative. More than 30 journalists, authors, scientists and artists, In Europe, the United States and the Middle East have joined Bruckner’s petition, among them Lars Gustafsson, Jeffrey Herf, Benny Morris, Peter Schneider, Seyran Ates, Necla Kelek, Matthias Küntzel, Sharon Adler, Prof. Arno Lustiger and Ralph Giordano. More than 1,000 people signed the petition which will be handed over to the German Federal Government and to other EU member state governments.

To mark the end of the campaign, a press conference will be held at with Caroline Fourest and other speakers will reaffirm the necessity of a boycott.

Participants of the press conference:
- Caroline Fourest, Author/Publisher, Paris
- Nasrin Amirsedghi; Publisher, Mainz
- Alex Feuerherdt; Journalist, Bonn
- Klaus Faber; Secretary of State (ret.), Potsdam
- Anetta Kahane; Chair of the Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung, Berlin

Moderation: Thierry Chervel; Chief Editor of the online cultural magazine Perlentaucher, Berlin

Cooperation partners: Koordinierungsrat deutscher Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen gegen Antisemitismus; Group of 25th of November u. Föderation unabh. NGOs, Suleymaniya, Kurdistan/Nordirak; Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin e.V. (MFFB)

Contact: Arvid Vormann - Phone: +49 30 50595388 – E-Mail: avmail@web.de


Pressekonferenz – Boycott DurbanII!

February 21, 2009

Donnerstag, 12. März 2009, 11 Uhr in Berlin

Ort: Presse- und Besucherzentrum, Raum 4, im Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Eingang Reichstagufer 14, 10117 Berlin
 
Im Jahre 2001 fand im südafrikanischen Durban die „UN-Weltkonferenz gegen Rassismus” statt. Die Veranstaltung entwickelte sich zu einer Plattform hasserfüllter Agitation gegen Israel und die Juden, während die Diktaturen dieser Welt sich gegenseitig blütenreine Westen attestierten.

Die für April 2009 angekündigte „Durban Review Conference” wird ihrem Namen als Folgekonferenz leider mehr als gerecht werden. Neben der üblichen Dämonisierung Israels („Apartheid”) werden nunmehr auch Angriffe auf die Presse-, Meinungs- und Redefreiheit an Bedeutung gewinnen. Unter dem Vorwand des Kampfes gegen religiöse Intoleranz (und zwar nur gegenüber dem Islam) werden die Menschenrechte Schritt für Schritt pervertiert und in ein Unterdrückungsinstrumentarium im Namen der Religion umfunktioniert.

Diese gefährlichen Umdeutungen stellen demokratische Staaten vor große Herausforderungen. Die Grundlagen der offenen Gesellschaft dürfen nicht zur Disposition stehen! Angesichts des neuen Vorstoßes von Durban II wäre eine unmissverständliche Reaktion überfällig. Daher fordern die Initiator/inn/en und Unterzeicher/innen des Aufrufs die Bundesregierung und Regierungen anderer EU-Staaten auf, Durban II zu boykottieren.

Zur Initiative „Boykottiert Durban II!”

Der französische Schriftsteller Pascal Bruckner gab im Sommer letzten Jahres mit seiner Forderung nach einem Boykott der Durban II Konferenz den Anstoß für diese Initiative, der sich mehr als 30 Journalist/inn/en, Publizist/inn/en, Wissenschaftler/innen und Künstler/innen aus Europa, den USA und dem Nahen Osten anschlossen, darunter Lars Gustafsson, Jeffrey Herf, Benny Morris, Peter Schneider, Seyran Ates, Necla Kelek, Matthias Küntzel, Sharon Adler, Prof. Arno Lustiger und Ralph Giordano. Der Boykott-Appell hat weit über 1000 Unterschriften erhalten. Er wird am 12. März der Bundesregierung und den Regierungen anderer EU-Staaten übergeben werden.

Zum Abschluss der Kampagne findet eine Pressekonferenz statt, auf der Caroline Fourest und weitere Referent/inn/en für die Notwendigkeit des Boykotts einer solchen Veranstaltung argumentieren werden.

Teilnehmer/innen der Konferenz:
- Caroline Fourest, Autorin und Publizistin, Paris
- Nasrin Amirsedghi; Publizistin, Mainz
- Alex Feuerherdt; Journalist, Bonn
- Klaus Faber; Staatssekretär a. D., Potsdam
- Anetta Kahane; Stiftungsvorstandvorsitzende (Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung), Berlin

Moderation: Thierry Chervel; Chefredakteur des Online-Kulturmagazins Perlentaucher, Berlin

Kooperationspartner: Koordinierungsrat deutscher Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen gegen Antisemitismus; Group of 25th of November u. Föderation unabh. NGOs, Suleymaniya, Kurdistan/Nordirak; Mideast Freedom Forum Berlin e.V. (MFFB).

Rückfragen: Arvid Vormann – Telefon: 030-50595388 – E-Mail: avmail@web.de


Addressing the Problem of Global Anti-Semitism

February 19, 2009

In the aftermath of Israel’s Gaza offensive and the global economic crisis, a pandemic of anti-Semitism has erupted around the globe, the national director of the Jewish think tank Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Abraham H. Foxman told a group of lawmakers from 40 countries.

“Since World War Two we have not seen so many attacks on Jews, Jewish institutions, synagogues,” said Mr. Foxman.

The parliamentarians were part of a London international conference organized to devise practical solutions to counter and combat global anti-Semitism.

In the News:
Reuters
The Philadelphia Inquirer


Daniel Pearl and the Normalization of Evil

February 15, 2009

danielpearl

My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, USA. (February 21, 2002, Daniel Pearl forced to state his identity in the video produced by his murderers, before being slain.)

In The Wall Street Journal, Professor Judea Pearl wrote an op-ed in memory of his son Daniel, who was brutally murdered seven years ago by Pakistani Islamists, only because he was Jew.

By Judea Pearl

The Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2009

When will our luminaries stop making excuses for terror?

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the murder of our son, former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. My wife Ruth and I wonder: Would Danny have believed that today’s world emerged after his tragedy?

The answer does not come easily. Danny was an optimist, a true believer in the goodness of mankind. Yet he was also a realist, and would not let idealism bend the harshness of facts.

Neither he, nor the millions who were shocked by his murder, could have possibly predicted that seven years later his abductor, Omar Saeed Sheikh, according to several South Asian reports, would be planning terror acts from the safety of a Pakistani jail.

Or that his murderer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now in Guantanamo, would proudly boast of his murder in a military tribunal in March 2007 to the cheers of sympathetic jihadi supporters. Or that this ideology of barbarism would be celebrated in European and American universities, fueling rally after rally for Hamas, Hezbollah and other heroes of “the resistance.”

Or that another kidnapped young man, Israeli Gilad Shalit, would spend his 950th day of captivity with no Red Cross visitation while world leaders seriously debate whether his kidnappers deserve international recognition.

No. Those around the world who mourned for Danny in 2002 genuinely hoped that Danny’s murder would be a turning point in the history of man’s inhumanity to man, and that the targeting of innocents to transmit political messages would quickly become, like slavery and human sacrifice, an embarrassing relic of a bygone era.

But somehow, barbarism, often cloaked in the language of “resistance,” has gained acceptance in the most elite circles of our society. The words “war on terror” cannot be uttered today without fear of offense. Civilized society, so it seems, is so numbed by violence that it has lost its gift to be disgusted by evil.

I believe it all started with well-meaning analysts, who in their zeal to find creative solutions to terror decided that terror is not a real enemy, but a tactic. Thus the basic engine that propels acts of terrorism – the ideological license to elevate one’s grievances above the norms of civilized society – was wished away in favor of seemingly more manageable “tactical” considerations.

This mentality of surrender then worked its way through politicians like the former mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. In July 2005 he told Sky News that suicide bombing is almost man’s second nature. “In an unfair balance, that’s what people use,” explained Mr. Livingstone.

But the clearest endorsement of terror as a legitimate instrument of political bargaining came from former President Jimmy Carter. In his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Mr. Carter appeals to the sponsors of suicide bombing. “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Road-map for Peace are accepted by Israel.” Acts of terror, according to Mr. Carter, are no longer taboo, but effective tools for terrorists to address perceived injustices.

Mr. Carter’s logic has become the dominant paradigm in rationalizing terror. When asked what Israel should do to stop Hamas’s rockets aimed at innocent civilians, the Syrian first lady, Asma Al-Assad, did not hesitate for a moment in her response: “They should end the occupation.” In other words, terror must earn a dividend before it is stopped.

The media have played a major role in handing terrorism this victory of acceptability. Qatari-based Al Jazeera television, for example, is still providing Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi hours of free air time each week to spew his hateful interpretation of the Koran, authorize suicide bombing, and call for jihad against Jews and Americans.

Then came the August 2008 birthday of Samir Kuntar, the unrepentant killer who, in 1979, smashed the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl with his rifle after killing her father before her eyes. Al Jazeera elevated Kuntar to heroic heights with orchestras, fireworks and sword dances, presenting him to 50 million viewers as Arab society’s role model. No mainstream Western media outlet dared to expose Al Jazeera efforts to warp its young viewers into the likes of Kuntar. Al Jazeera’s management continues to receive royal treatment in all major press clubs.

Some American pundits and TV anchors didn’t seem much different from Al Jazeera in their analysis of the recent war in Gaza. Bill Moyers was quick to lend Hamas legitimacy as a “resistance” movement, together with honorary membership in PBS’s imaginary “cycle of violence.” In his Jan. 9 TV show, Mr. Moyers explained to his viewers that “each [side] greases the cycle of violence, as one man’s terrorism becomes another’s resistance to oppression.” He then stated — without blushing — that for readers of the Hebrew Bible “God-soaked violence became genetically coded.” The “cycle of violence” platitude allows analysts to empower terror with the guise of reciprocity, and, amazingly, indict terror’s victims for violence as immutable as DNA.

When we ask ourselves what it is about the American psyche that enables genocidal organizations like Hamas – the charter of which would offend every neuron in our brains – to become tolerated in public discourse, we should take a hard look at our universities and the way they are currently being manipulated by terrorist sympathizers.

At my own university, UCLA, a symposium last week on human rights turned into a Hamas recruitment rally by a clever academic gimmick. The director of the Center for Near East Studies carefully selected only Israel bashers for the panel, each of whom concluded that the Jewish state is the greatest criminal in human history.

The primary purpose of the event was evident the morning after, when unsuspecting, uninvolved students read an article in the campus newspaper titled, “Scholars say: Israel is in violation of human rights in Gaza,” to which the good name of the University of California was attached. This is where Hamas scored its main triumph – another inch of academic respectability, another inroad into Western minds.

Danny’s picture is hanging just in front of me, his warm smile as reassuring as ever. But I find it hard to look him straight in the eyes and say: You did not die in vain.

Author Biography: Judea Pearl is president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, an organization committed to interfaith dialogue, and co-editor of I am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl.


Verfassungsschutzpräsident Heinz Fromm über die Bedrohung durch Islamisten, Nazis und rotlackierte Faschisten

February 8, 2009

Antiamerikanische, antisemitische und verfassungsfeindliche Kampfzone Deutschland im Jahre 7 nach dem 11. September 2001

Wie Deutschland zum weltweiten Hochburg der unheiligen Allianz zwischen Islamisten, Nazis und Linksextremen – geeint im Anti-Amerikanismus und Judenhass – geworden ist und wie dieses Gesindelpack von Verbrechern versucht, den Rechtsstaat einzuschüchtern (wie einst die Versager-Truppe Tote Armee Fraktion), erläutert Heinz Fromm, Präsident des Bundesamts für Verfassungsschutz, in den folgenden Interviews.

02.02.2009 – Gespräch mit dem Hamburger Abendblatt

30.01.2009 – Gespräch mit der Tageszeitung Die Welt


Falsche Toleranz am Beispiel der Kapitulation der europäischen Aufklärung vor dem Islamismus

February 7, 2009
outrage

Jede Niederlage beginnt damit, dass man den Standpunkt des Gegners anerkennt. (Winston Churchill)

Und noch etwas passierte, nämlich, dass die Israelis sich selber geholfen haben, ohne die Hilfe der deutschen Linken oder der französischen Linken. Und da erkennen Sie das Wesen der Sorte Gutmenschen: Die sind nur dann für jemanden da, wenn Du ganz tief in der Scheiße sitzt oder wenn sie glauben, dass Du tief drin sitzt und sie glauben, man müsse Dir helfen. Aber jemand, der sich selber helfen kann, für den interessiert sich dieser Typ Gutmensch nicht mehr. [...] Und da haben sie die armen Palästinenser entdeckt. (Ignatz Bubis im Gespräch mit Bettina Röhl)

20 Jahre nach der vom iranischen Ayatollah Khomeini ausgesprochenen Fatwa bzw. Mordaufruf gegen den britischen Schriftsteller muslimischen Glaubens Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie, zieht Thierry Chervel – Mitbegründer des Kulturmagazins perlentaucher – eine düstere Bilanz über die Unterwerfung Europas vor der islamistischen Reaktion (Islam bedeutet Unterwerfung auf Arabisch, sprich Aufgabe der Individualität, und nicht Friede wie Multikulti-Apostel bzw. Grüne Opportunisten à la Cem Özdemir uns perfiderweise weis machen wollen) und über die Frage, was der Islamismus im Westen und der Linken seitdem angerichtet hat:

“Die Linke hat in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Islamismus ihre Prinzipien aufgegeben. Sie stand für Loslösung von Sitte und Tradition, aber im Islam setzt sie sie im Namen von Multikulti wieder ins Recht. Sie ist stolz, die Frauenrechte erkämpft zu haben, aber im Islam toleriert sie Kopftücher, arrangierte Ehen und prügelnde Männer. Sie stand für Gleichheit der Rechte, nun plädiert sie für ein Recht auf Differenz – und damit für eine Differenz der Rechte. Sie proklamierte die Freiheit des Worts und gerät beim Islam in hüstelnde Verlegenheit. Sie unterstützte die Emanzipation der Schwulen und beschweigt das Tabu im Islam. Die fällige Selbstrelativierung des Westens nach der kolonialen Ära, die von postmodernen und strukturalistischen Ideen vorangetrieben wurde, führte zu Kulturrelativismus und Kriterienverlust.”

Zum Artikel.


Anti-Semitism on Rise in Venezuela

February 5, 2009

anti-semitism-venezuela

The violent anti-Semitic attack on a Caracas synagogue on the Jewish Sabbath did not happen in a vacuum. It was the latest manifestation of anti-Semitism in Venezuela, a country whose president, government officials, media commentators and others foster an atmosphere of intimidation against the Jewish community, according to a new report from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

In the weeks since Israel launched its operation against Hamas in Gaza, Venezuela’s Jewish community of approximately 15,000 has been the repeated target of hateful rhetoric, intimidation, vandalism of property and threats of organized boycotts, according to the ADL report, Chavez’s Venezuela: The Jewish Community Under Threat.

“The anti-Semites in Venezuela feel emboldened and empowered by the rhetoric and actions of President Hugo Chavez and his government,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

“What is troubling about Venezuela is that anti-Semitism is being used as a political tool,” Mr. Foxman said. “Anti-Semitism is fostered by those at the highest levels of government, trickled down the government apparatus and left unchallenged by officials in the Chavez regime, the government-controlled media, and civic and religious leaders who support the regime in Venezuela.

Among the ADL’s findings:

  • President Chavez engaged in a series of statements and actions in response to Israel’s operation in Gaza which were anti-Israel to the extreme, and even bordered on anti-Semitism.  In response to the conflict, Chavez expelled Israel’s ambassador to Venezuela along with six other Israeli diplomats and officially severed relations with the State of Israel. He made statements calling in the Venezuelan Jewish community to speak out against the actions of Israel, and promoted a conspiracy theory that the Israeli Mossad and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency were responsible for poisoning former Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat.  In other statements, Chavez trivialized the Holocaust and equated Nazi efforts to exterminate Jews with the military actions of Israel against Hamas.
  • The political machine built by Chavez echoed his statements in the press, on radio and television, in the streets of Caracas and in cities across Venezuela.  During the Gaza crisis, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements were made by the foreign minister, interior minister, the president of the national assembly, a number of congress members, and governors across the country who support Chavez.
  • A number of anti-Israel rallies were held in Venezuela, with many rallies co-sponsored by government officials.  Nearly all of the rallies contained anti-Semitic references comparing Israel’s military actions to those of the Nazis during the Holocaust and used Nazi imagery to portray Israel’s policies.  These rallies typically left behind anti-Semitic graffiti on synagogue walls, city plazas, Jewish owned businesses and the Israeli embassy.
  • Opinion articles appearing in official government media and Web sites echoed anti-Semitic canards and promoted conspiracy theories and myths of Jewish financial influence, Jewish control of U.S. foreign policy, Jewish “responsibility” for the death of Jesus, and claimed Jews are “double agents” of Israel.  Some openly called for the boycott of Jewish-owned businesses in Venezuela as well as multinational companies believed to be owned by Jews.
  • A raft of anti-Semitic comments appeared on mainstream and government-related Web sites.  The posts spread age-old myths about Jewish control of finances and economic interests and conspiracy theories about the Jewish lobby controlling the United States and its policies.  Holocaust references abounded, with some comparing Israel to the Nazis, and others sending the message that “Hitler did not finish the job.”

Check out also this article in The New York Times.


U.N. Accusations of “Israeli Attack on School” Were False

February 4, 2009

At last month’s emergency session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, ambassadors from the world’s dictatorships – and even some democracies – lined up to attack Israel for “targeting a U.N. school.” Canada alone voted in opposition to the grossly one-sided text. 

Now a new report by Patrick Martin of Canada’s Globe and Mail reveals that, contrary to what was reported worldwide:

  1. No Israeli shells landed in the UNRWA school compound;
  2. No one taking refuge in the U.N. schoolyard was killed;
  3. None of these facts prevented a U.N. agency from falsely reporting that “Israeli shelling directly hit two UNRWA schools …”

Will the Human Rights Council now apologize for having falsely condemned Israel for the targeting of facilities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East in Gaza, including schools?

As usual when it comes to Israel, the Council was little concerned with actual facts. Egyptian representative Hisham Badr, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that Israel did not distinguish between combatants and civilians, targeting United Nations schools. According to Yemen, “The attacks against schools. . . were grave crimes against humanity. Sudan spoke of the the mad attacks by Israel in Gaza, including against United Nations schools. Syria said UN schools have turned into mass graves. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Djibouti joined the fray – as did even several Western countries. Argentina demanded an independent international investigation on the attacks on UNRWA schools. Slovenia condemned Israeli attacks on schools. Switzerland said that at least 46 civilians seeking shelter in UNRWA school were killed.

Will any of these countries issue an apology, or seek to correct the resolution’s false assertions and faulty premises? Don’t bet on it.

For the full story, see the article below.

***

Account of Israeli attack doesn’t hold up to scrutiny

PATRICK MARTIN
The Globe and Mail, January 29, 2009

Jabalya, Gaza Strip – Most people remember the headlines: “Massacre Of Innocents As UN School Is Shelled; Israeli Strike Kills Dozens At UN School.”

They heralded the tragic news of January 6, 2009, when mortar shells fired by advancing Israeli forces killed 43 civilians in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. The victims, it was reported, had taken refuge inside the Ibn Rushd Preparatory School for Boys, a facility run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

The news shocked the world and was compared to the 1996 Israeli attack on a UN compound in Qana, Lebanon, in which more than 100 people seeking refuge were killed. It was certain to hasten the end of Israel’s attack on Gaza, and would undoubtedly lead the list of allegations of war crimes committed by Israel.

There was just one problem: The story, as etched in people’s minds, was not quite accurate.

unbenannt1

Physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses, including a teacher who was in the schoolyard at the time of the shelling, make it clear: While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed. The 43 people who died in the incident were all outside, on the street, where all three mortar shells landed.

Stories of one or more shells landing inside the schoolyard were inaccurate.

While the killing of 43 civilians on the street may itself be grounds for investigation, it falls short of the act of shooting into a schoolyard crowded with refuge-seekers.

The teacher who was in the compound at the time of the shelling says he heard three loud blasts, one after the other, then a lot of screaming. “I ran in the direction of the screaming [inside the compound],” he said. “I could see some of the people had been injured, cut. I picked up one girl who was bleeding by her eye, and ran out on the street to get help.”But when I got outside, it was crazy hell. There were bodies everywhere, people dead, injured, flesh everywhere.”

The teacher, who refused to give his name because he said UNRWA had told the staff not to talk to the news media, was adamant: “Inside [the compound] there were 12 injured, but there were no dead.”

“Three of my students were killed,” he said. “But they were all outside.”

Hazem Balousha, who runs an auto-body shop across the road from the UNRWA school, was down the street, just out of range of the shrapnel, when the three shells hit. He showed a reporter where they landed: one to the right of his shop, one to the left, and one right in front.

“There were only three,” he said. “They were all out here on the road.”

News of the tragedy travelled fast, with aid workers and medical staff quoted as saying the incident happened at the school, the UNRWA facility where people had sought refuge.

Soon it was presented that people in the school compound had been killed. Before long, there was worldwide outrage.

Sensing a public-relations nightmare, Israeli spokespeople quickly asserted that their forces had only returned fire from gunmen inside the school. (They even named two militants.) It was a statement from which they would later retreat, saying there were gunmen in the vicinity of the school.

No witnesses said they saw any gunmen. (If people had seen anyone firing a mortar from the middle of the street outside the school, they likely would not have continued to mill around.)

John Ging, UNRWA’s operations director in Gaza, acknowledged in an interview this week that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that “no one was killed in the school.”

“I told the Israelis that none of the shells landed in the school,” he said.

Why would he do that?

“Because they had told everyone they had returned fire from gunmen in the school. That wasn’t true.”

Mr. Ging blames the Israelis for the confusion over where the victims were killed. “They even came out with a video that purported to show gunmen in the schoolyard. But we had seen it before,” he said, “in 2007.”

The Israelis are the ones, he said, who got everyone thinking the deaths occurred inside the school.

“Look at my statements,” he said. “I never said anyone was killed in the school. Our officials never made any such allegation.”

Speaking from Shifa Hospital in Gaza City as the bodies were being brought in that night, an emotional Mr. Ging did say: “Those in the school were all families seeking refuge. … There’s nowhere safe in Gaza.”

And in its daily bulletin, the World Health Organization reported: “On 6 January, 42 people were killed following an attack on a UNRWA school …”

The UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs got the location right, for a short while. Its daily bulletin cited “early reports” that “three artillery shells landed outside the UNRWA Jabalia Prep. C Girls School …” However, its more comprehensive weekly report, published three days later, stated that “Israeli shelling directly hit two UNRWA schools …” including the one at issue.

Such official wording helps explain the widespread news reports of the deaths in the school, but not why the UN agencies allowed the misconception to linger.

“I know no one was killed in the school,” Mr. Ging said. “But 41 innocent people were killed in the street outside the school. Many of those people had taken refuge in the school and wandered out onto the street.

“The state of Israel still has to answer for that. What did they know and what care did they take?”

© Copyright CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Pope Benedict XVI under pressure

February 2, 2009

Pope Benedict XVI is under increasing pressure following his decision to revoke the excommunication of several leaders of the ultra-conservative Society of Pius X, among them a Holocaust denier.

Several Catholic bishops expressed their unease over Benedict’s decision ten days ago to allow back in Richard Williamson and others into the Catholic Church. Williamson recently denied that the Holocaust occurred and said that Nazi Germany had never used gas chambers.

Israel’s minister for religious affairs, Yitzhak Cohen, has threatened to suspend relations with the Vatican, the German news magazine ‘Der Spiegel’ reports. Cohen said he recommended “completely cutting off connections to a body in which Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites are members.” The Chief Rabbinate of Israel last week broke off official ties with the Vatican to protest the Pope’s decision.

British-born Richard Williamson is one of four bishops who are members of the Society of Pius X, a traditionalist Catholic order, whose excommunication was lifted a week ago. Williamson, who now lives in Argentina, had claimed in a television interview that historical evidence was “hugely against six million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler … I believe there were no gas chambers”. Williamson was excommunicated 20 years ago after being ordained a bishop by the French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without papal consent.

The Vatican said it had been unaware of Williamson’s views on the Holocaust when the decision was made to readmit the group, and the Pope quickly distanced himself from the comments and expressed “full and indisputable solidarity” with Jews. However, condemnation from Jewish groups was widespread.


Londonistan – Britain’s Surrender

January 25, 2009

londonistan

Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war. (1938, Winston Churchill to Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons, after the Munich accords)

by Melanie Phillips

Years of demonizing Israel and appeasing Islamist extremism have coalesced in an unprecedented wave of hatred against Israel and a sharp rise in attacks on British Jews.

In Britain, the war in Gaza has revealed the extent to which the media, intelligentsia and political class have simply crumbled in the face of the global jihad.

The U.K. is a major player in European and world politics and is America’s most significant strategic ally. Until now, it has been considered one of Israel’s firm supporters and a linchpin of the Western defense against the world-wide Islamist onslaught. With the reaction to Gaza, however, that reputation is no longer sustainable.

Years of demonizing Israel and appeasing Islamist extremism within Britain have now coalesced, as a result of the media misrepresentation of the Gaza war as an atrocity against civilians, in an unprecedented wave of hatred against Israel and a sharp rise in attacks on British Jews.

Throughout the war, London’s streets have witnessed a hallucinatory level of violent and explicit support for Hamas from Muslims, members of the far left and supposedly progressive individuals.

Night after night, Israel’s embassy in well-to-do Kensington found itself under violent siege. Demonstrators attempted to storm the building, howling their support for the terrorist body whose genocidal intentions toward Israel and the Jews necessarily includes killing every one of the occupants inside.

Certainly, there have been anti-Israel protests around the world. But in Britain, not only have these been particularly violent but the authorities have done nothing to stop such incitement of hatred.

The police told pro-Israel demonstrators on at least one occasion to put away their Israel flags because they were “inflammatory.” Yet officers allowed some anti-Israel demonstrators to scream support for Hamas – and even to dress up as hook-nosed Jews pretending to drink the blood of Palestinian babies.

In general, the police have reacted passively to the violence. One recent video clip captured the astonishing spectacle of Muslims stampeding through London’s West End hurling traffic cones and other missiles at the police, all the time shrieking “Allahu akbar” and “cowards.” The police ran and stumbled backward rather than standing their ground and stopping the rampage.

Not only has such violence barely been reported. There has also been no acknowledgment of the explicitly Islamist nature of these demonstrations. Keffiyeh-clad demonstrators prostrated themselves in prayer or shouted “Allahu akbar” as they attacked Jewish-owned or -founded stores, such as Starbucks and Tesco, on numerous occasions.

Instead, the political class has simply regurgitated Hamas propaganda. In a debate in the House of Commons last week, one MP after another expressed horror at Israel’s supposed crimes against humanity in Gaza.

More serious still, Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell cited as fact the Hamas claim that 300 children had been killed in Gaza, even though Israel has given a much lower figure, and said the Israeli action was “disproportionate” and the bombing was “indefensible and unacceptable.”

Similarly, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, commenting after this weekend’s cease-fire that “too many innocent people” had been killed, made no mention of Israel’s strenuous attempts to minimize civilian casualties, nor Hamas’s responsibility for holding Gaza’s civilians hostage.

In fact, the British government has effectively taken the view that Israel should not be allowed to defend itself by military means against the Hamas rockets that ministers have taken care to condemn.

From the second day of the war, Foreign Secretary David Miliband was calling for an immediate cease-fire by both sides. Since Hamas would take no notice, this in practice amounted to pressure upon Israel to stop defending itself.

It was Britain which took the lead in framing the United Nations resolution calling upon Israel to withdraw all its forces from Gaza while making no mention whatever of Hamas. And it was Britain which also drew a disquieting moral equivalence between Hamas terrorism and Israeli self-defense.

Certainly, neither Mr. Miliband nor Mr. Brown – a reputed supporter of Israel – can be unaware that it was Tony Blair’s refusal to call for an immediate cease-fire by Israel in the 2006 Lebanon war that finally led his MPs, already enraged by his support for the war in Iraq, to force him prematurely out of office.

But Britain’s new coolness toward Israel is due to much more than this. The government’s failure to support Israel’s war against Hamas as the front line of the West’s defense against the global Islamic jihad reflects its failure in turn to acknowledge the nature of that world-wide phenomenon.

Last Thursday, Mr. Miliband wrote in the Guardian that there was no single, unified Islamist threat but merely a set of various local grievances, such as Kashmir or the Golan Heights. Such startling ignorance of the goals and ideological antecedents of the Islamic jihad, from Hamas to Hezbollah to Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba, is of a piece with the British government’s stubborn refusal to accept that the West is under assault from a war of religion.

The government denies this fact because it does not want to face up to the unpalatable realities of fighting such a war. So although “middle Britain” is beginning to grasp that the Islamists in Gaza are the same as those rampaging through the streets of London, ministers are intent on appeasing Muslim extremism and intimidation both at home and abroad.

Accordingly, while Britain’s security services have had significant success in smashing Islamic terrorism plots, government strategy for combating Islamist extremism rests upon seeking to mollify Britain’s two million or so Muslims by avoiding confrontation – which means turning a blind eye to threatening statements.

Recently, prominent British Muslims who advise ministers against Islamist extremism wrote an open letter making the veiled threat that unless the government condemned Israel there would be a rise in violence in Britain.

Ministers’ openly stated fear that this will indeed happen as a result of the war in Gaza makes them anxious to show Britain’s Muslims that they oppose Israel’s actions. They don’t understand that, by showing such weakness in the face of intimidation, they are not just betraying their Israeli ally but also undermining the Western defense against the jihad.

Across the spectrum, Britain’s elites are terrified of dealing with militant Islamism. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, in a pattern which goes back to the foundational Christian blood libel against the Jews, they are concealing their fearful inability to deal with Islamist aggression by displacing the blame onto its Israeli victims instead.

This article originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal.