ISRAEL and the Return of Anti-Semitism

The historic Jewish homeland has been variously called Canaan, Israel, Judea and Samaria, and Palestine. The Jews trace their history there to 2085 BC when Abraham followed “the Voice” into the promised land of Canaan. God promises that this would be the land of Abraham’s descendants “forever.” About 1406 BC, after a 430-year exile in Egypt, Moses led the Hebrew people back to the Promised Land. Punctuated by periods of exile, the land of Judah and Samaria has been the home of the Jews, en masse and in remnant, for about 3,500 years.

During the first half of the twentieth century, under the British Mandate agreement, Muslims, Jews, and Christian Arabs lived side by side in relative peace. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into two states, Israel and Palestine. This move changed everything in the modern era. It led to the first Israeli-Arab war which was lost by the combined army of five Arab states. Two of those states—Egypt and Jordan—have since made peace with Israel. Three have not. In addition to these national enemies, the Jewish people live under the threat of Islamists–militant Muslims–who are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.

The modern home of the Jews is very small, 290 miles long, 35-85 miles wide. Its 8,019 square miles are roughly the size of the state of New Jersey. Israel is dwarfed by the Arab/Muslim world around it, 640 times its size.

Israel’s population of 8 million is composed of 6.1 million Jews, 1.3 million Muslim Arabs and about 300,000 Christians and people of other faiths. The Jewish state is religiously pluralistic, in contrast to the ethnic cleansing now underway in Muslim nations, countries which have also included Jews, Christians and people of other faiths. If Israel were inclined toward ethnic purity, 25 percent of her people would not be Muslim. Imagine Saudi Arabia allowing even one synagogue in their country, much less a quarter of her population Yahweh worshippers! The Jewish people of Israel live in an Arab-Muslim neighborhood of 260 million people.

Israel is the only nation in the world marked for extinction

Here’s the reality in a sentence: The world has 50 Muslim[1] states and one Jewish state, and that one Jewish state is the only country in the world targeted for extinction.

The Jewish people were hated long before the founding of Israel. In fact, hatred of the Jews has played a major part in their history and identity. In the Middle Ages, Christians were anti-Semitic, holding the Jews responsible for killing Christ. Some people still function from this mentality today.

Muslims have considered the Jews enemies since 622 AD when the prophet Mohammad moved to Medina. While still in Mecca, Mohammad had sought to persuade Christians and Jews to follow him. Failing that, he moved to Medina and began to convert through the sword.

In Russia, anti-Semitism blossomed during the pogroms of 1881-1884 and again in 1903–1906. The greatest wave of anti-Semitism occurred in Europe under the guise of the fascism of Hitler and the German Third Reich. The German Holocaust led to the extermination of 6,000,000 Jews, roughly the same number of Jews in Israel today.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin el-Husseini, allied with the Axis powers during World War II to participate in the final “solution”: the utter annihilation of Jews worldwide. The Germans failed; the Islamists (not all Muslims) want to finish the job.

Today we are seeing a growing animus against Jews in the US and Europe. It is as if the fever of anti-Semitism that grew in Europe prior to World War II is now growing in the West again.

The ancient hatred of the Jews is being rekindled by a number of forces. First is what might be called the European Intifada sparked by various Islamist groups in support of Hamas in Gaza and the advancing ISIS in Syria and Iraq; second, the fear by Europeans of their growing Muslim minorities; third, the same kind of deep-seated animosity of some Europeans against Jews that led to the first Holocaust.

In France, the verbal and physical violence against Jews is forcing Jews to flee to Israel in fear of their lives as anti-Semitism grows. Where is the outcry from European citizens? They should be raising their voices against the anti-Semitism and on behalf of the humanity of the Jews. Has the world learned nothing from the Holocaust?

But it is not just Europe: protests and even violent demonstrations are happening in the US as well. As George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

There’s no nice war. War is hell! Those in the West who have been so critical of Israel as they responded to 3,000+ rocket attacks … what would they have Israel do? Is Israel to simply wait for the next barrage of rockets and hope for the best? Are the Israelis expected to simply surrender – become dhimma, and pay the jizya tax? Are they to abandon their ancient homeland? When the adversary gives them the choice of surrendering to Allah, fleeing or dying, how are they supposed to respond?

Some of the rhetoric stoking the anti-Semitism violence is coming from the entertainment industry. Dozens of Spanish film stars and singers signed an open letter to the European Union calling Israel’s bombing in Gaza “genocide” and challenging the EU to “condemn the bombing by land, sea and air against the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip.” Academy Award winner Jon Voight penned a letter to some of his Hollywood peers who, either knowingly or in ignorance, have fueled the fires of anti-Semitism. At the beginning of his letter, published in the Hollywood Reporter, Voight laments: “I am more than angry, I am heartsick that people like Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem could incite anti-Semitism all over the world and are oblivious to the damage they have caused.” The four-time Academy Award nominee goes on to challenges his colleagues.

You have been able to become famous and have all your monetary gains because you are in a democratic country: America. Do you think you would have been able to accomplish this in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, et cetera? You had a great responsibility to use your celebrity for good. Instead, you have defamed the only democratic country of goodwill in the Middle East: Israel.

Voight concludes his letter with a sobering question:

I am asking all my peers who signed that poison letter against Israel to examine their motives. Can you take back the fire of anti-Semitism that is raging all over the world now?

While clearly the growing worldwide fire of anti-Semitism has multiple causes, Hollywood celebrities can use their influence either to fan the flames or cool the rhetoric of anti-Semitism. That is the heart of Voight’s concern.

Why is there so much animus against Israel?

Another pubic figure who recently weighed in on this matter is Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. In his witty, sarcastic yet brilliant style, Sowell reflects on the war between Hamas and Israel by raising the question, “Is Thinking Obsolete?”

Some have said that we are living in a post-industrial era, while others have said that we are living in a post-racial era. But growing evidence suggests that we are living in a post-thinking era.

Many people in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are staging angry protests against Israel’s military action in Gaza. One of the talking points against Israel is that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military attacks than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel that started this latest military conflict.

Are these protesters aware that vastly more German civilians were killed by American bombers attacking Nazi Germany during World War II than American civilians killed in the United States by Hitler’s forces?

Has any other country, in any other war, been expected to keep the enemy’s civilian casualties no higher than its own civilian casualties? The idea that Israel should do so did not originate among the masses but among the educated intelligentsia.

In an age when scientists are creating artificial intelligence, too many of our educational institutions seem to be creating artificial stupidity.

Why is there so much animus against Israel? As we have already said, the history of the Jewish people is one of exile, dispersion, and persecution. Suffering is the underlying theme of the story of the Jews. Many factors explain the hostility against them.

Adolph Hitler identified the ultimate target of his hatred: Yahweh himself.

The God of the deserts, that crazed, stupid, vengeful, Asiatic despot, with the power to make laws! … that poison with which both Jews and Christians have spoiled and soiled the free, wonderful instincts of man… .

Hitler’s is the hatred of many secularists. If God exists there is a moral universe. Men who want to “be as god” are challenged by the God of the Jews.

Through much of history the hatred has come from misguided Christians who regarded the Jewish people as Christ killers. A 2013 study by the Anti-Defamation League found that 26% of Americans believe that “the Jews killed Jesus.”

Another reason, no doubt, is envy of Jewish prosperity. God promised Abraham that his children would be a blessing to the nations (Genesis 12:2-3). Subsequently, Jewish people have been successful in many fields: business, banking, motion pictures, education, medicine, and science. While Jews represent just 0.3- 0.5 percent of the world’s population, they have received 18 percent of all Nobel prizes (130 out of 720 since 1901). Israel has more engineers and scientists per capita than any other country in the world. The nation grants 2,500 patents a year. In 2013, Israelis registered 1,917 patents in the USA. This is comparable to the number produced by Italy, with 10 times the population, and far in excess of the number from neighboring countries: Saudi Arabia (58 patents) Turkey (45) Egypt (20) Kuwait (14) UAE (9) Iran (8) Lebanon (5) Jordan (1) and Syria (0).

Behind this contribution is the Judeo-Christian worldview which comports with reality as God has made it. Could it be that a society’s worldview really does matter? Could the success of the Jewish people spring from the biblical worldview in which their history and very existence is steeped, and the virtues derived from it?

And perhaps those cultures where such a worldview is absent reflects, as Thomas Sowell suggests, human ignorance – “artificial stupidity.”

Whatever the reasons, the Jews have been a despised people who have been scattered and threatened with extinction.

– Darrow Miller

[1] Muslim as opposed to Arab

NOTE: We rarely solicit funds at Darrow Miller and Friends. However, if you have been moved by the plight of ethnic cleansing among Christians and Yezidis in Northern Iraq, and want a way to help, here are a couple of worthy avenues. My friends, Dr. George Grant and Dave Dillard, have been working in northern Iraq for some 15 years and have contacts with the church in Kurdistan. If you would like to help, see the links below. These will provide you, or your church, a way to get resources to those who are suffering. Please pass this information on to your friends. And please pray.

George Grant’s Fund for Kurdistan

Dave Dillard’s (founder of Servant Group International) Fund

Print this page

Randy Uthe

August 22, 2014 - 1:09 am

The situation in Israel and the Arab world is indeed complex. It spurs emotions on both sides and so many want to take sides by picking what they either consider the better side or the lessor of two evils. Some do it for ideological reasons, some do it for theological reasons and some for political reasons. Many a rationale is then given to justify their ends. The thrust of their argument then is always justification. In some form or fashion justification is never left out of any argument for we all wish to be justified in our reasoning and our positions. But, justification shouldn’t be the motivating factor in our decisions or arguments. With this in mind, just like the argument of rationalism and equivalency, the argument of anti-Semitism seeks to justify one side while vilifying the other. Again, this is a wrong argument in the current debate on Israel and its neighbors. The argument of anti-Semitism being behind the protests against Israel’s current and past actions is wrong for a few reasons: 1) Even though ant-Semitism may be more readily recognized during times of heightened conflict in Israel, the numbers don’t always match the feelings, 2) there are many Jews who are also publically protesting the actions of Israel, 3) and finally, many of the protests themselves are not against Jews or the Jewish religion but against the formal actions taken by the State of Israel and the Zionist policies and therefore recognizing and demarcating the two. The failure to properly demarcate the various issues and instead overlapping different issues and different groups has been a major flaw in the current discussion and will be pointed to later, but for now; the anti-Semitism issue needs further discussion.

First, there are conflicting reports on the rise in anti-Semitism. The issue has been in the public eyes and papers more, especially in the UK. Some studies have even reported a rise based on national polls. For instance, a 2012 ADL survey had shown a slight increase in anti-Semitic attitudes from roughly 20% of the US in 1992, down to 12% in 1998 and then back up to 17% in 2012 [i.]. Those numbers may be fairly accurate but the study may not be revealing actual formal anti-Semitic beliefs and/or attitudes. Refuting some of this is a recent article in the UK that showed FBI reports during a similar time period via number of actual incidents. This table points out that although there were slight increases of anti-Semitic incidents in Sweden and the UK between 2002 & 2012; the US, Germany and France were all down. The difference is also between formal reported incidents and underlying attitudes and comments. In the same article, the BBC did note that over-all there did seem to be some rise between the 1990’s and now, although they also stated the same issues of how certain surveys, including the ADL’s, are carried out can vary the results. With this in mind, the BBC stated:

“They don’t necessarily reflect the type of way we would try to measure attitudes in social science surveys now because people could have different interpretations of what the responses to these questions mean,” he says. That’s one of the biggest issues of all when trying to measure attitudes – there are some things that are clearly anti-Semitic, but there are also a number of areas and issues, such as criticism of Israeli government policy, where there’s debate.”[ii.]

There may or may not be some slight increases in anti-Semitic feelings in some people in the west, but much of it has to do with growing tired of the conflicts the State of Israel is involved in and official policies as much, if not more, than personal feelings against the Jews. This is not to say that there aren’t some jealous feelings involved by some. The current protests and discussions in 2014 certainly reflect the actions of the State as a whole more so than the Jewish people and/or religion.

The second point brings up the issue that not only are non-Jews speaking out against Israel’s official policies and actions, but also fellow Jews. Besides having personal Jewish friends against the State of Israel’s actions, there are other formal Jewish groups with similar sentiments and publically renounce Israel’s actions. One such group is the Torah Jews. They have formed a formal group, “True Torah Jews Against Zionism”. This group has various publications and makes official statements and positions. In a formal response on July 27th, 2014 to open demonstrations taking place in Europe with some clear anti-Semitic overtones, TTJAJ publically wrote:

“Zionism was originally proposed as a “solution to the Jewish problem” and today we see more than ever just what a solution it was. Zionism today has become the central cause of anti-Semitism around the world.

Blurring the boundaries between Jews and Zionists, anti-Israel demonstrations quickly turn into anti-Jewish demonstrations, with violent attacks on purely Jewish targets like synagogues and kosher shops.

By calling themselves “Israel” and “the Jewish state” the Zionists encourage this confusion. And then they reap the benefits by absorbing hundreds of new immigrants. They capitalize on these incidents to hammer home their lesson that their state is an “insurance policy” for world Jewry – a place to run when anti-Semitism breaks out again.

The Zionist visionary Theodor Herzl was the first to realize that anti-Semitism would benefit Zionism, as he wrote, “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.” Anti-Semites would provide the push necessary to get Jews to move to the Zionist state….

In contrast, true Judaism teaches us to live peacefully in exile until the messiah comes. We are to be loyal citizens of our home countries, as the prophet Jeremiah says, “Seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray on its behalf to G-d, for with its peace will you have peace.”

Furthermore, we must make it clear to our neighbors everywhere that not all Jews are Zionists, not all Jews support the State of Israel and not all Jews support Israeli army operations like the current one.”[iii.]

Can Jews be anti-Semitic? That is certainly a legit but funny question to have to ask. Were the whites that were against slavery of the black or pro equal rights for the blacks during the Civil War and Civil Rights eras anti-white? Certainly they were not. They simply recognized what they considered to be immoral and unjust behavior and fought to have it corrected. The same way, were they anti-American for their stance and fight? Again, they most certainly were not. This again reminds us that protesting a certain country’s official policies and actions doesn’t equate to being against that people group, religion or country. It simply helps to demarcate those practices or behavior and correct them. Zionist Jews must be separated from Rabbinic Jews and from other forms of Orthodox Judaism.

Thirdly, this brings up the distinct demarcation between Israel, her right to exist and her official policies and subsequent actions today and throughout history. In doing so, we have already to begin differentiating between Jews, Israel and Zionism. This is very important. This counter argument, regardless of others, is against Zionism and specifically the socio-political and military Zionism that has emerged beginning primarily in the very early 1900’s and escalating in the 1920’s and ‘30’s. In a broader argument, I am against fundamentalism in general; to which I will return. For now, the discussion will remain on Zionism. Is Zionism truly different than radical fundamentalist Muslims who become militant in their quest? This was the primary issue brought up in the relativism and equivalency arguments. My point was that the end result was the same: brutality, imprisonment, socio-economic/legal and geographical discrimination, torture and death. The charges by some groups has been that Israel does the same thing they do, just in “suits”. This argument is hard to deny regardless of its percentage of being fact. The fact isn’t the argument, but the end results of both sides. Are they equally justified? Are they equally at fault? It was during this that the “ends justify the means” argument was labelled against the militant terrorist groups. I brought up Zalman’s article for clarification on the subject, not justification. Zalman herself certainly wasn’t intending to justify the terrorist’s actions. She simply meant to bring clarity to the reasoning behind it and why it even exists so that better proactive action and discussion can take place [iv.]. Zalman is certainly not alone in her arguments. Most scholars worldwide agree on the basic reasons for the emergence and rise of terrorism. They all stem around repression of some sort. If some people do not wish to accept those internationally recognized facts that is another issue.

One thing is for certain, if the terrorists seek to justify their actions based on repression and/or religious convictions; the same can be said of the Israeli Zionists. What makes one more justified than the other? The answer is nothing. The Judeo-Christian worldview has also been brought into the discussion. I have already addressed this with my Abrahamic discussions in relation to the OT prophets rebuke of Israel’s behavior and subsequent punishments, especially Ezekiel; fellow Israelites I would add. Ezekiel, Paul and even Jesus himself stated that the Israelites continued to be hypocrites and follow traditions of men rather than the action requirements of the covenant. Ezekiel specifically points out that the issue of time and generational connection do not automatically keep the Covenant promises intact. For Ezekiel states, “If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right….such a one is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord. If he has a son who is… shall he then live? He shall not. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall blood shall be upon himself (Ez. 18:5-13). It is no accident these words came immediately after the rebuke of Israel, being called worse than Sodom. Jesus himself said, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vein they do worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’ You abandon the commandment of God and hold on to human tradition.” (Mk 7:6-8). With this in mind, even the argument that some people are using secular or human arguments/worldviews against Israel and not holding to Judeo-Christian biblical arguments/worldviews can’t be upheld either. In this argument the fact that Jews were in fact blessing the nations they are a part of and doing very well financially. Is this because of the Abrahamic Covenant or have they learned to be as good as they are over a long period? I myself am not willing to solely credit it biblically as the Chinese have had an equal or even greater global economic impact than the Jews and have certainly not been considered biblically. There is no jealousy there, just simple recognition. Both worldviews still hold all peoples and individuals accountable for their actions; whether under secular human international law or biblical Covenantal law. Again, in this area Israel can’t be justified for being the better side or the lessor of two evils as again, their actions have resulted in the same ends as the Arabs and Muslim militants.

Finally, we have to return to the issue of not properly recognizing the differences between the various players involved. Israel has already been discussed. But, I will add another clarification on a factual evidence I produced earlier that was rejected. That was the open discrimination of Arabs by Zionists and official Israel policy. The fact that 25% of the Israeli territory is made up of Arabs is not proof that the State of Israel isn’t seeking an ethnically pure hegemonic State. The reality that Jews live under civil law that gives them privilege above anyone else juxtaposed to the fact that non-Jews and Arabs live under military law and are constantly discriminated against with less rights shows this. The fact that many of these people live in occupied territory, walled off and unable to leave also points against the argument Israel is not similarly as discriminatory as many Muslim groups. I admit that just this year Israel has begun to implement new laws that recognize Arab Christians as citizens, but not Arab Muslims [v.]. These laws in fact describe Arab Christians as non-Arab. What they point to is that Israel is trying to be more politically correct with the Pope and its Western Allies, not that they are more tolerant and accommodating than their Muslim neighbors. Such laws can easily be seen as further proof of the Zionists determination to distinguish themselves from Arabs and rid the Arabs of the area.
Also, it has been argued that Israel is so small and surrounded by many who want to wipe it off the face of the map. The statements were brought forth to say that the Jews are the only ones specifically targeted to be destroyed. As the case that Israel’s non-hegemony isn’t fact, this is also not fact. Israeli leaders have indeed made the same types of statements:

“We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village.” Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, quoted in Ha’aretz, April 4, 1969.

“”The Palestinians” would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” ” Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988.

“”When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

“How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.

“The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.” Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha’aretz, 19 March 1972.

Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : “We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return.” Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. “The old will die and the young will forget.”

“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel… Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces – Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983. [vi.]

Indeed the Zionists have been brutally honest in their quest to stamp out Arabs from land they consider rightly theirs. They make now absurd quarrels about denying their intentions just like the militant Muslims.

To this I now return my attention back to the Islamic side of the story. Indeed, the fundamentalist Muslims do wish to force the submission of everyone else to an International Islamic State. This is because the ultimate aim of Islam is submission to Allah and the perfect community, called the Ummah. For fundamentalist Muslims force is the only means. For other Muslims, this is not the case. Is this any different than the Christian mandate to evangelize the world? No it isn’t. Even though Christians haven’t recently engaged in physical violence for it, they have in the past. Many US policies, such as neo-conservatism, do indeed come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds in some form or fashion and have been used to justify military action; even if ultimate aims were socio-economically motivated. To this end, the Muslims are not without any merit in their anger against Western powers. First, there are major differences between Hamas and their plight against Israel and ISIS and their determinism to brutally create an Islamic State. Hamas has at one time declared their purpose is to create an Islamic State in the area of Israel. They have also said that if Israel would return to its per-1967 borders and return land and property to Arabs that was confiscated it would agree to a 10 year ceasefire. This is different than what ISIS is and is doing. Hezbollah is another issue with Israel, yet must be distinguished from Hamas and ISIS and is in fact fighting against ISIS in Syria. The example of Amin al Husseini aligning with Hitler given twice must also be separated for he was eventually over taken by the PLO, which is different than Hamas, which is different than ISIS, which is different than Hezbollah. Hamas wasn’t even around until 1987 and long after much of the damage by Israel had already been done. Again, agreeing with their stance is not relevant to this discussion because although each of their issues overlap; they can’t be taken into one single discussion and certainly not into justifying Israel over and above them. Yes, there are Arab groups that want to destroy Israel. That was never an issue. It is also not an excuse as Israel has openly expressed similar statements against Arabs.

Lastly, concerning the size and extent of Israel against that of the Arabs and Muslim militants and Israel’s own behavior; we need to look at South Africa. The argument that Israel is only fighting for a small area of land verses Muslims that are fighting for world domination doesn’t hold up. The behavior is equally unjustifiable. South Africa was internationally deemed wrong in their Apartheid policies and actions over many years. The reality is that Israel is doing similar things, even with its recent laws for Arab Christians. It is systematically drawing lines between ethnicities and religious groups and determining who gets what rights. This is again against international law as set forth by the UN. Israel is not exempt. Many Muslims have come out in direct statements against militant Islamic groups, including ISIS and even Hamas. We must be willing to demarcate fundamentalism from both religion and ethnicity in these types of discussions. Relativism doesn’t help. The call of anti-Semitism doesn’t help. Zionist are guilty of genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and even terrorism to some degree; whether State sanctioned or not, suit or no suit. Saying that people need to hold Israel accountable and shouldn’t stand behind them for ideological or theological reasons is not anti-Semitic, it isn’t anti-Christian, anti-American or even anti-Israel. It is simply holding a group of people accountable for their actions morally, ethically, lawfully and publically.

i. Anti-Semitism on the Rise in America — ADL Survey on Anti-Semitic Attitudes Reveals 17 Percent of Americans Hold “Hardcore” Beliefs. A 2012 US national survey available electronically at: http://archive.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/4109_12.html#.U_bTME3lrIU.
ii. James Fletcher, “Is there a ‘rising tide’ of anti-Semitism in the West?”, in BBC News Magazine (Aug. 20th, 2014). Available electronically at: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28853221.
iii. TTJAZ, “Zionism: The Solution or the Problem for World Jewry?” Available electronically at: http://www.truetorahjews.org/issues/paris.
iv. Amy Zalman, “The Two Causes of Terrism”, terrorism.about.com. (May 24th, 2014). Available electronically at: http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/a/causes_terror.htm.
v. http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.576247.
vi. http://www.rense.com/general77/disturb.htm.

6 Comments

Randy Uthe
August 22, 2014 - 1:09 am

The situation in Israel and the Arab world is indeed complex. It spurs emotions on both sides and so many want to take sides by picking what they either consider the better side or the lessor of two evils. Some do it for ideological reasons, some do it for theological reasons and some for political reasons. Many a rationale is then given to justify their ends. The thrust of their argument then is always justification. In some form or fashion justification is never left out of any argument for we all wish to be justified in our reasoning and our positions. But, justification shouldn’t be the motivating factor in our decisions or arguments. With this in mind, just like the argument of rationalism and equivalency, the argument of anti-Semitism seeks to justify one side while vilifying the other. Again, this is a wrong argument in the current debate on Israel and its neighbors. The argument of anti-Semitism being behind the protests against Israel’s current and past actions is wrong for a few reasons: 1) Even though ant-Semitism may be more readily recognized during times of heightened conflict in Israel, the numbers don’t always match the feelings, 2) there are many Jews who are also publically protesting the actions of Israel, 3) and finally, many of the protests themselves are not against Jews or the Jewish religion but against the formal actions taken by the State of Israel and the Zionist policies and therefore recognizing and demarcating the two. The failure to properly demarcate the various issues and instead overlapping different issues and different groups has been a major flaw in the current discussion and will be pointed to later, but for now; the anti-Semitism issue needs further discussion.

First, there are conflicting reports on the rise in anti-Semitism. The issue has been in the public eyes and papers more, especially in the UK. Some studies have even reported a rise based on national polls. For instance, a 2012 ADL survey had shown a slight increase in anti-Semitic attitudes from roughly 20% of the US in 1992, down to 12% in 1998 and then back up to 17% in 2012 [i.]. Those numbers may be fairly accurate but the study may not be revealing actual formal anti-Semitic beliefs and/or attitudes. Refuting some of this is a recent article in the UK that showed FBI reports during a similar time period via number of actual incidents. This table points out that although there were slight increases of anti-Semitic incidents in Sweden and the UK between 2002 & 2012; the US, Germany and France were all down. The difference is also between formal reported incidents and underlying attitudes and comments. In the same article, the BBC did note that over-all there did seem to be some rise between the 1990’s and now, although they also stated the same issues of how certain surveys, including the ADL’s, are carried out can vary the results. With this in mind, the BBC stated:

“They don’t necessarily reflect the type of way we would try to measure attitudes in social science surveys now because people could have different interpretations of what the responses to these questions mean,” he says. That’s one of the biggest issues of all when trying to measure attitudes – there are some things that are clearly anti-Semitic, but there are also a number of areas and issues, such as criticism of Israeli government policy, where there’s debate.”[ii.]

There may or may not be some slight increases in anti-Semitic feelings in some people in the west, but much of it has to do with growing tired of the conflicts the State of Israel is involved in and official policies as much, if not more, than personal feelings against the Jews. This is not to say that there aren’t some jealous feelings involved by some. The current protests and discussions in 2014 certainly reflect the actions of the State as a whole more so than the Jewish people and/or religion.

The second point brings up the issue that not only are non-Jews speaking out against Israel’s official policies and actions, but also fellow Jews. Besides having personal Jewish friends against the State of Israel’s actions, there are other formal Jewish groups with similar sentiments and publically renounce Israel’s actions. One such group is the Torah Jews. They have formed a formal group, “True Torah Jews Against Zionism”. This group has various publications and makes official statements and positions. In a formal response on July 27th, 2014 to open demonstrations taking place in Europe with some clear anti-Semitic overtones, TTJAJ publically wrote:

“Zionism was originally proposed as a “solution to the Jewish problem” and today we see more than ever just what a solution it was. Zionism today has become the central cause of anti-Semitism around the world.

Blurring the boundaries between Jews and Zionists, anti-Israel demonstrations quickly turn into anti-Jewish demonstrations, with violent attacks on purely Jewish targets like synagogues and kosher shops.

By calling themselves “Israel” and “the Jewish state” the Zionists encourage this confusion. And then they reap the benefits by absorbing hundreds of new immigrants. They capitalize on these incidents to hammer home their lesson that their state is an “insurance policy” for world Jewry – a place to run when anti-Semitism breaks out again.

The Zionist visionary Theodor Herzl was the first to realize that anti-Semitism would benefit Zionism, as he wrote, “The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.” Anti-Semites would provide the push necessary to get Jews to move to the Zionist state….

In contrast, true Judaism teaches us to live peacefully in exile until the messiah comes. We are to be loyal citizens of our home countries, as the prophet Jeremiah says, “Seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray on its behalf to G-d, for with its peace will you have peace.”

Furthermore, we must make it clear to our neighbors everywhere that not all Jews are Zionists, not all Jews support the State of Israel and not all Jews support Israeli army operations like the current one.”[iii.]

Can Jews be anti-Semitic? That is certainly a legit but funny question to have to ask. Were the whites that were against slavery of the black or pro equal rights for the blacks during the Civil War and Civil Rights eras anti-white? Certainly they were not. They simply recognized what they considered to be immoral and unjust behavior and fought to have it corrected. The same way, were they anti-American for their stance and fight? Again, they most certainly were not. This again reminds us that protesting a certain country’s official policies and actions doesn’t equate to being against that people group, religion or country. It simply helps to demarcate those practices or behavior and correct them. Zionist Jews must be separated from Rabbinic Jews and from other forms of Orthodox Judaism.

Thirdly, this brings up the distinct demarcation between Israel, her right to exist and her official policies and subsequent actions today and throughout history. In doing so, we have already to begin differentiating between Jews, Israel and Zionism. This is very important. This counter argument, regardless of others, is against Zionism and specifically the socio-political and military Zionism that has emerged beginning primarily in the very early 1900’s and escalating in the 1920’s and ‘30’s. In a broader argument, I am against fundamentalism in general; to which I will return. For now, the discussion will remain on Zionism. Is Zionism truly different than radical fundamentalist Muslims who become militant in their quest? This was the primary issue brought up in the relativism and equivalency arguments. My point was that the end result was the same: brutality, imprisonment, socio-economic/legal and geographical discrimination, torture and death. The charges by some groups has been that Israel does the same thing they do, just in “suits”. This argument is hard to deny regardless of its percentage of being fact. The fact isn’t the argument, but the end results of both sides. Are they equally justified? Are they equally at fault? It was during this that the “ends justify the means” argument was labelled against the militant terrorist groups. I brought up Zalman’s article for clarification on the subject, not justification. Zalman herself certainly wasn’t intending to justify the terrorist’s actions. She simply meant to bring clarity to the reasoning behind it and why it even exists so that better proactive action and discussion can take place [iv.]. Zalman is certainly not alone in her arguments. Most scholars worldwide agree on the basic reasons for the emergence and rise of terrorism. They all stem around repression of some sort. If some people do not wish to accept those internationally recognized facts that is another issue.

One thing is for certain, if the terrorists seek to justify their actions based on repression and/or religious convictions; the same can be said of the Israeli Zionists. What makes one more justified than the other? The answer is nothing. The Judeo-Christian worldview has also been brought into the discussion. I have already addressed this with my Abrahamic discussions in relation to the OT prophets rebuke of Israel’s behavior and subsequent punishments, especially Ezekiel; fellow Israelites I would add. Ezekiel, Paul and even Jesus himself stated that the Israelites continued to be hypocrites and follow traditions of men rather than the action requirements of the covenant. Ezekiel specifically points out that the issue of time and generational connection do not automatically keep the Covenant promises intact. For Ezekiel states, “If a man is righteous and does what is lawful and right….such a one is righteous, he shall surely live, says the Lord. If he has a son who is… shall he then live? He shall not. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall blood shall be upon himself (Ez. 18:5-13). It is no accident these words came immediately after the rebuke of Israel, being called worse than Sodom. Jesus himself said, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vein they do worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’ You abandon the commandment of God and hold on to human tradition.” (Mk 7:6-8). With this in mind, even the argument that some people are using secular or human arguments/worldviews against Israel and not holding to Judeo-Christian biblical arguments/worldviews can’t be upheld either. In this argument the fact that Jews were in fact blessing the nations they are a part of and doing very well financially. Is this because of the Abrahamic Covenant or have they learned to be as good as they are over a long period? I myself am not willing to solely credit it biblically as the Chinese have had an equal or even greater global economic impact than the Jews and have certainly not been considered biblically. There is no jealousy there, just simple recognition. Both worldviews still hold all peoples and individuals accountable for their actions; whether under secular human international law or biblical Covenantal law. Again, in this area Israel can’t be justified for being the better side or the lessor of two evils as again, their actions have resulted in the same ends as the Arabs and Muslim militants.

Finally, we have to return to the issue of not properly recognizing the differences between the various players involved. Israel has already been discussed. But, I will add another clarification on a factual evidence I produced earlier that was rejected. That was the open discrimination of Arabs by Zionists and official Israel policy. The fact that 25% of the Israeli territory is made up of Arabs is not proof that the State of Israel isn’t seeking an ethnically pure hegemonic State. The reality that Jews live under civil law that gives them privilege above anyone else juxtaposed to the fact that non-Jews and Arabs live under military law and are constantly discriminated against with less rights shows this. The fact that many of these people live in occupied territory, walled off and unable to leave also points against the argument Israel is not similarly as discriminatory as many Muslim groups. I admit that just this year Israel has begun to implement new laws that recognize Arab Christians as citizens, but not Arab Muslims [v.]. These laws in fact describe Arab Christians as non-Arab. What they point to is that Israel is trying to be more politically correct with the Pope and its Western Allies, not that they are more tolerant and accommodating than their Muslim neighbors. Such laws can easily be seen as further proof of the Zionists determination to distinguish themselves from Arabs and rid the Arabs of the area.
Also, it has been argued that Israel is so small and surrounded by many who want to wipe it off the face of the map. The statements were brought forth to say that the Jews are the only ones specifically targeted to be destroyed. As the case that Israel’s non-hegemony isn’t fact, this is also not fact. Israeli leaders have indeed made the same types of statements:

“We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village.” Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, quoted in Ha’aretz, April 4, 1969.

“”The Palestinians” would be crushed like grasshoppers … heads smashed against the boulders and walls.” ” Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988.

“”When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

“How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.” Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.

“The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war.” Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha’aretz, 19 March 1972.

Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : “We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return.” Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. “The old will die and the young will forget.”

“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel… Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces – Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983. [vi.]

Indeed the Zionists have been brutally honest in their quest to stamp out Arabs from land they consider rightly theirs. They make now absurd quarrels about denying their intentions just like the militant Muslims.

To this I now return my attention back to the Islamic side of the story. Indeed, the fundamentalist Muslims do wish to force the submission of everyone else to an International Islamic State. This is because the ultimate aim of Islam is submission to Allah and the perfect community, called the Ummah. For fundamentalist Muslims force is the only means. For other Muslims, this is not the case. Is this any different than the Christian mandate to evangelize the world? No it isn’t. Even though Christians haven’t recently engaged in physical violence for it, they have in the past. Many US policies, such as neo-conservatism, do indeed come from Judeo-Christian backgrounds in some form or fashion and have been used to justify military action; even if ultimate aims were socio-economically motivated. To this end, the Muslims are not without any merit in their anger against Western powers. First, there are major differences between Hamas and their plight against Israel and ISIS and their determinism to brutally create an Islamic State. Hamas has at one time declared their purpose is to create an Islamic State in the area of Israel. They have also said that if Israel would return to its per-1967 borders and return land and property to Arabs that was confiscated it would agree to a 10 year ceasefire. This is different than what ISIS is and is doing. Hezbollah is another issue with Israel, yet must be distinguished from Hamas and ISIS and is in fact fighting against ISIS in Syria. The example of Amin al Husseini aligning with Hitler given twice must also be separated for he was eventually over taken by the PLO, which is different than Hamas, which is different than ISIS, which is different than Hezbollah. Hamas wasn’t even around until 1987 and long after much of the damage by Israel had already been done. Again, agreeing with their stance is not relevant to this discussion because although each of their issues overlap; they can’t be taken into one single discussion and certainly not into justifying Israel over and above them. Yes, there are Arab groups that want to destroy Israel. That was never an issue. It is also not an excuse as Israel has openly expressed similar statements against Arabs.

Lastly, concerning the size and extent of Israel against that of the Arabs and Muslim militants and Israel’s own behavior; we need to look at South Africa. The argument that Israel is only fighting for a small area of land verses Muslims that are fighting for world domination doesn’t hold up. The behavior is equally unjustifiable. South Africa was internationally deemed wrong in their Apartheid policies and actions over many years. The reality is that Israel is doing similar things, even with its recent laws for Arab Christians. It is systematically drawing lines between ethnicities and religious groups and determining who gets what rights. This is again against international law as set forth by the UN. Israel is not exempt. Many Muslims have come out in direct statements against militant Islamic groups, including ISIS and even Hamas. We must be willing to demarcate fundamentalism from both religion and ethnicity in these types of discussions. Relativism doesn’t help. The call of anti-Semitism doesn’t help. Zionist are guilty of genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and even terrorism to some degree; whether State sanctioned or not, suit or no suit. Saying that people need to hold Israel accountable and shouldn’t stand behind them for ideological or theological reasons is not anti-Semitic, it isn’t anti-Christian, anti-American or even anti-Israel. It is simply holding a group of people accountable for their actions morally, ethically, lawfully and publically.

i. Anti-Semitism on the Rise in America — ADL Survey on Anti-Semitic Attitudes Reveals 17 Percent of Americans Hold “Hardcore” Beliefs. A 2012 US national survey available electronically at: http://archive.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/4109_12.html#.U_bTME3lrIU.
ii. James Fletcher, “Is there a ‘rising tide’ of anti-Semitism in the West?”, in BBC News Magazine (Aug. 20th, 2014). Available electronically at: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28853221.
iii. TTJAZ, “Zionism: The Solution or the Problem for World Jewry?” Available electronically at: http://www.truetorahjews.org/issues/paris.
iv. Amy Zalman, “The Two Causes of Terrism”, terrorism.about.com. (May 24th, 2014). Available electronically at: http://terrorism.about.com/od/causes/a/causes_terror.htm.
v. http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.576247.
vi. http://www.rense.com/general77/disturb.htm.
Randy Uthe
August 22, 2014 - 1:11 am

Darrow, indeed I would love a cup of coffee with you. The reality of me affording a ticket home back to the US is still a dream though….

admin
August 22, 2014 - 5:07 am

Randy Where do you live. I will be in Thailand in December and likely in Asia twice in 2015. If my trips take me anywhere near where you live, I would like to try and route through for a visit.

darrow

Randy Uthe
August 22, 2014 - 8:55 am

I’m in the KL area.

admin
August 22, 2014 - 2:29 pm

Thanks Randy

I was in KL about a year and a half ago. And in Singapore about a year ago. So perhaps we can meet sometime.

darrow

Randy Uthe
August 23, 2014 - 6:36 am

You are welcome any time Darrow. There is always plenty of coffee here in KL.