A virulent intolerance from British academia

[Ralph]

The friend of my enemy, he is my enemy;
The enemy of my friend, he is my enemy;
But the enemy of my enemy, he is my friend.
Old Azeri proverb.....

[Ralph]

From the Anti-Defamation League website:


Arthur Butz
Noted for his 1976 book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century-an early effort to portray Holocaust denial as objective scholarly research-Arthur Butz has steadily promoted Holocaust denial on the Internet, in articles and in public speeches for almost thirty years.


Arthur Butz
Origins: 1970s
Born: 1945
Education: B.S., M.S., MIT; Ph.D., U. Minn.
Occupation: Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering, Northwestern University
Ideology: Holocaust denial
Extremist Affiliations: Institute for Historical Review Works: The Hoax of the 20th Century (1976)

Updates

Arthur Butz's place among the purveyors of Holocaust denial is secured by his 1976 book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, one of the first major works of Holocaust denial in the English language. Though not as active as Ernst Zündel or David Irving, Butz has continued to play a role in the Holocaust denial movement by writing articles for the now-defunct Journal of Historical Review (on whose editorial advisory board he served from 1980 through 2001) and occasionally speaking at Holocaust denial conferences.

Butz is an associate professor of electrical engineering at Northwestern University. Fellow deniers cite Butz's academic credentials in an attempt to cast his Holocaust writings as respectable works of scholarship. The publication of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century brought controversy to the Northwestern campus; Jewish groups protested Butz's continued presence on the staff while the university administration attempted to balance its stated abhorrence of Butz's views with its commitment to academic freedom. Because Butz did not introduce Holocaust denial in his classes, Northwestern President Robert Strotz allowed him to continue teaching. Strotz asked Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, to help design new classes on the Holocaust for Northwestern's curriculum. The university also sponsored a conference for high school teachers that explored ways of conveying the lessons of the Holocaust.

Many of Butz's Holocaust writings are available on the Internet. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century was recently reprinted by another Holocaust denier, a German fugitive from justice named Germar Rudolf, who has offered the book as a free download from his Web site. Many of the articles Butz contributed to the Journal of Historical Review are archived on the Web site of the Journal's publisher, the Institute for Historical Review. Butz also maintains his own Web site, though it is infrequently updated.

Some Holocaust deniers argue that Butz's book has never been refuted by mainstream scholars, but in fact many of his arguments have been thoroughly debunked in John C. Zimmerman, Holocaust Denial: Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies (University Press of America, 2000), and in Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust (The Free Press, 1993). Online refutations have been posted by sites such as www.Nizkor.org and www.anti-rev.org.

[pizza]

You can make whatever silly excuses you want. If they're demonstrating with the Palestinians against Israel as far as I'm concerned they are, in this matter, pro-Palestinian.

You can draw whatever uninformed and silly conclusions you want. Satmar Hassidim couldn't care less about the Palestinians as long as Medina Israel doesn't run the show in Jerusalem. You won't find them as members or active in any Palestinian support group anywhere. They just show up at various times to vent their collective spleen at Zionism. They've been doing it for the last 57 years.

[Ralph]

You can make whatever silly excuses you want. If they're demonstrating with the Palestinians against Israel as far as I'm concerned they are, in this matter, pro-Palestinian.

You can draw whatever uninformed and silly conclusions you want. Satmar Hassidim couldn't care less about the Palestinians as long as Medina Israel doesn't run the show in Jerusalem. You won't find them as members or active in any Palestinian support group anywhere. They just show up at various times to vent their collective spleen at Zionism.

*****

Query: Are those people the same as "Neturei Karta" (phonetic) on whose mailing list I somehow landed? They ask for money to campaign against the "illegal" state of Israel.

[pizza]

You can make whatever silly excuses you want. If they're demonstrating with the Palestinians against Israel as far as I'm concerned they are, in this matter, pro-Palestinian.

You can draw whatever uninformed and silly conclusions you want. Satmar Hassidim couldn't care less about the Palestinians as long as Medina Israel doesn't run the show in Jerusalem. You won't find them as members or active in any Palestinian support group anywhere. They just show up at various times to vent their collective spleen at Zionism.

*****

Query: Are those people the same as "Neturei Karta" (phonetic) on whose mailing list I somehow landed? They ask for money to campaign against the "illegal" state of Israel.

Nope. The Neturei Karta are a completely different kettle of fish, having nothing to do with mainstream Judaism at all. The Satmars are genuine Hassidic Jews who follow the Torah but who believe that only God will redeem Israel without any help from human political sources and oppose the existence of the Israeli Government as a creation of man.

The NKs consider themselves the "real" Jews but they do not follow mainstream religious Judaism. They are a very small lunatic fringe group who also demonstrate against the State of Israel. No one in Israel takes them seriously, except insofar as they have been found to be on the PA's payroll; whereas the Satmars are the center of much religious controversy among religious Jews.

[Donald Isler]

I don't think I'm any more uninformed than you are, Pizza. I've seen them do that in New York, too. I know perfectly well the rationale behind their action. But I don't like to see Jews taking part in anti-Israel demonstrations together with Palestinians, which is what I saw.

[Ralph]

You can make whatever silly excuses you want. If they're demonstrating with the Palestinians against Israel as far as I'm concerned they are, in this matter, pro-Palestinian.

You can draw whatever uninformed and silly conclusions you want. Satmar Hassidim couldn't care less about the Palestinians as long as Medina Israel doesn't run the show in Jerusalem. You won't find them as members or active in any Palestinian support group anywhere. They just show up at various times to vent their collective spleen at Zionism.

*****

Query: Are those people the same as "Neturei Karta" (phonetic) on whose mailing list I somehow landed? They ask for money to campaign against the "illegal" state of Israel.

Nope. The Neturei Karta are a completely different kettle of fish, having nothing to do with mainstream Judaism at all. The Satmars are genuine Hassidic Jews who follow the Torah but who believe that only God will redeem Israel without any help from human political sources and oppose the existence of the Israeli Government as a creation of man.

The NKs consider themselves the "real" Jews but they do not follow mainstream religious Judaism. They are a very small lunatic fringe group who also demonstrate against the State of Israel. No one in Israel takes them seriously, except insofar as they have been found to be on the PA's payroll; whereas the Satmars are the center of much religious controversy among religious Jews.

*****

Thanks much for the information.

[pizza]

I don't think I'm any more uninformed than you are, Pizza. I've seen them do that in New York, too. I know perfectly well the rationale behind their action. But I don't like to see Jews taking part in anti-Israel demonstrations together with Palestinians, which is what I saw.

Neither do I, but that's a far cry from claiming Satmar Hassidim are "pro-Palestinian". They are not.

[Donald Isler]

Last update - 07:34 22/05/2005


Palestinian university president denounces UK boycott of Israeli academia

By Tamara Traubman and Arnon Regular, Haaretz Correspondent

Prof. Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem, last Thursday joined Prof. Menachem Magidor, president of Hebrew University, to denounce the academic boycott of Israeli universities.

Nusseibeh and Magidor issued a joint declaration urging the end of the boycott declared by Britain's Association of University Teachers (AUT) and signed a cooperation agreement.

"Our position is based upon the belief that it is through cooperation based on mutual respect, rather than boycotts or discrimination, that our common goals can be achieved," the statement says.

"Our disaffection with, and condemnation of, acts of academic boycotts is predicated on the principles of academic freedom, human rights and equality between nations and among individuals."

The AUT's plans to meet this week to reconsider its controversial decision to bar Israeli faculty members of Bar-Ilan and Haifa universities from taking part in academic conferences and joint research.

Nusseibeh said the calls of Palestinian intellectuals for a boycott reflected the deterioration of the situation between Israeli and the Palestinians. "I don't believe the boycott is the way to go . I believe peace must be built on the bridge between two civil societies," he said.

© Copyright 2005 Haaretz. All rights reserved

[pizza]

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Calls for Israel's destruction in London
Yaakov Lappin, THE JERUSALEM POST May. 22, 2005

A central London rally organized by the British Palestine Solidarity Campaign on Saturday heard Respect Party MP George Galloway advocate a general boycott of Israel, as well as other speeches calling for Israel's destruction.

Dark gray clouds poured heavy rain on London's Trafalgar Square, as a crowd waving Palestine flags and anti-Israel banners filled the square to hear speakers shout vitriolic anti-Israel speeches. Demonstrators chanted Islamic slogans and flags calling for "victory to the intifada" were waved. Leading figures in Britain's anti-Israel coalition also lined up to attack Israel.

Andrew Birgin, of the Stop the War Coalition, urged the destruction of the State of Israel. "Israel is a racist state! It is an apartheid state! With its Apache helicopters and its F-16 fighter jets! The South African apartheid state never inflicted the sort of repression that Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians," he said to loud applause. "When there is real democracy, there will be no more Israel!" concluded Birgin. "Allahu Akbar!" yelled several men repeatedly in response.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Birgin said he was referring to Israel "in the sense that it exists now," and said he wanted to see a "democratic secular state in which peace can move forward."

The Palestinian representative to the UK, Husam Zomlot, also addressed the rally.

"As we speak today, the Israelis are continuing the ethnic cleansing campaign they started in 1948," he said. "To the Israelis, I say that there will absolutely be no peace without the right of return." "The right of return is non-negotiable! Apartheid no more!" exclaimed Zomlot.

"We urge our government to cease all trade with Israel," said Jeremy Corbyn, a backbench Labor MP, who went on to express support for nuclear spy Mordechai Vanunu.

Former Labor MP Tony Benn said that "the apartheid wall should be removed," referring to the security fence built by Israel to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israeli cities.

Calling American president George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon the "two most dangerous men in the world," Benn condemned America's military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel's anti-terrorism measures.

"My dear friends, if this process continues, there will be possibly some sort of a world war," said Benn. "We are talking about respect for international law," he added.

Paul Mackney, president of Britain's second largest university teachers' union, NATPHE, also spoke to the rally. "We stand in solidarity with our Palestinian brothers and sisters. Palestinian refugee camps are like open air prisons," said Mackney. "The Israeli army frequently invades them. There will be no peace in the Middle East until there is justice for the Palestinian people.

"We are calling on all unions to join us," he added. There has been speculation that NATPHE may hold a vote in its upcoming meeting to join the AUT's boycott of Israeli universities.

Galloway, the newly elected MP for the anti-Iraq war Respect Party, used the rally as an attempt to launch an international boycott of Israel.

"It's about time that the British government made some reparations for the Balfour declaration," said Galloway. "Instead, Tony Blair said that Israel has no better friend than the British government. We say to Mr. Blair: You should be ashamed by that.

"The Palestinian people are like the 300 Spartans holding the pass of Thermopylae, until the others can arrive and come to their side. We will join them, by boycotting Israel. By boycotting Israeli goods. By picketing the stores that are selling Israeli goods," he said to cheers and applause.

Azzam Tamimi, head of the Muslim Association of Britain, delivered an Islamist speech, guided by an ideology that rejects nation states in favor of a global Islamic state. "There are 22 stupid Arab states, why have another stupid Palestinian state?" he asked. "I don't want another Palestinian state, I want Jaffa free, I want Haifa free, I want every inch of Palestine free!

"I don't want to see any form of racist nationalism. And the most racist form of nationalism is Zionism. The problem is with a nationalist ideology that is the most racist on the face of the earth."

Stuart Pexley, a former Catholic bishop, and a member of Pax Christi, said: "Jesus Christ attempted to create a new humanity without divisions. As a Christian I am opposed to the apartheid wall."

"This morning we've had a message from the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions, saying they support the AUT boycott, and call for the May 26 AUT conference to boycott Haifa and Bar-Ilan University," said Corbyn, before introducing Sue Blackwell, the Birmingham lecturer who presented anti-Israel boycott motions passed by the Association of University Teachers last month.

Blackwell attacked opponents to the boycott of Israeli universities, listing the Board of Deputies, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress.

"We can't expel anyone from the union for breaking the boycott, so why is it that the whole world has gone completely hysterical?" she asked.

She bitterly criticized the upcoming emergency May 26 AUT meeting which will vote on a motion to overturn the boycotts. "When the issue is Israel, suddenly the procedures of the union are undemocratic, and a special meeting of the council has to be called, in over to overturn the motion. Comrades, it's not us who are making a special case for Israel, it's the people who lost the vote who are," said Blackwell.

"I'm not very optimistic about the outcome," she added "We are up against a backlash, being promoted by a well-organized, well-funded pro-Israeli lobby." Blackwell also attacked the University of Haifa, and accused it of holding a "racist conference on Arab demographics."

"I stand absolutely by every word in the motion. What we said about Haifa is an understatement. This is a university, which just hosted a conference, two days after the anniversary of the Nakba, entitled 'The demographic problem.' Brothers and sisters, a university which organizes a racist conference as Haifa has just done deserves every bit of trouble it gets from trade unionists in the UK."

"We did not defame Haifa, but what is defamatory is attacks in the press calling us anti-Semitic," said Blackwell.

Speaking to the Post about links on her personal homepage to neo-Nazi Web sites, she described as "defamatory rubbish" the article that exposed them. Blackwell promised to "make a statement" to the Post about the links, which she has since removed, in the near future.

The rally was also attended by members of the fringe anti-Zionist haredi Natorei Karta sect, who held signs which read: "Palestine from the Jordan River to the Sea." "We are abiding by the Torah," said one member. "They [the Israelis] have no right to exist. Israel will fail. Before Israel, Jews were living well in Arab countries," he added.

[Ralph]

I find much of this totally astonishing. Not the anti-Israel parade which smacks of blatant racism and virulent anti-Semitism but the involvement of some segment of the British academic community.

My law school has a semester program with London Univerisity, the only one of its kind. Their professors teach with ours and every year some of them visit us and deliver formal or informal lectures.

Certainly the London University law faculty whom I've met don't harbor the vicious views adopted by the AUT. But then law faculty are usually different in one way or another from their academic colleagues in other disciplines.

As I said before this is very weird.

[pizza]

I find much of this totally astonishing. Not the anti-Israel parade which smacks of blatant racism and virulent anti-Semitism but the involvement of some segment of the British academic community.

My law school has a semester program with London Univerisity, the only one of its kind. Their professors teach with ours and every year some of them visit us and deliver formal or informal lectures.

Certainly the London University law faculty whom I've met don't harbor the vicious views adopted by the AUT. But then law faculty are usually different in one way or another from their academic colleagues in other disciplines.

As I said before this is very weird.

The British academic community reflects the attitudes of the country itself. Why wouldn't it? Where do you think British academics come from -- Mars? Anti-Semitism throughout GB is presently at epidemic levels.

[Ralph]

I find much of this totally astonishing. Not the anti-Israel parade which smacks of blatant racism and virulent anti-Semitism but the involvement of some segment of the British academic community.

My law school has a semester program with London Univerisity, the only one of its kind. Their professors teach with ours and every year some of them visit us and deliver formal or informal lectures.

Certainly the London University law faculty whom I've met don't harbor the vicious views adopted by the AUT. But then law faculty are usually different in one way or another from their academic colleagues in other disciplines.

As I said before this is very weird.

The British academic community reflects the attitudes of the country itself. Why wouldn't it? Where do you think British academics come from -- Mars? Anti-Semitism throughout GB is presently at epidemic levels.

*****

No, academics don't come from Outer Space although often some of us give that impression. And I don't know about the current level of British anti-Semitism. Certainly there is stronger and more centralized support for the Palestinians than in the U.S.

[Corlyss_D]

I'm late coming to this thread after not reading it for some time. Apologies if this duplicates another post. I couldn't pull it off the EMCU's website. The whole report is available at http://haganah.us/hmedia/euasr-01.html

From the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia's 2003 report on anti-Semitism. The study singles out Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Britain, where it says the rise in anti-Semitism has been of particular concern.


6o. United Kingdom

The Jewish population in the United Kingdom numbers 280,000, two-thirds of whom live in London; other large communities are located in Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow.

The Muslim population is 500,000, most of whom have an Asian background. Between 1990 and 2001 an average of 282 anti-Semitic incidents per year were counted. During the period 1998 to 2001, the average yearly total rose to 305 incidents.

In comparison to the preceding year, in 2000 the UK (total population 58.4 million) witnessed 405 anti-Semitic incidents, a rise of 50.

One third of these occurred in the months of October and November, "reflecting the upsurge in tensions between Palestinians and Israelis".

The rise in 2000 was also accompanied by an even greater increase in racist incidents. The number of incidents decreased in 2001 to 305, but the Community Security Trust states that "October 2000 proved to be a watershed with regard to incidents.

There appears to have been a genuine change, both qualitative and quantitative after this point": there were 22 synagogue desecrations in the 22 months before October 2000, but 78 in the same time period since, and assaults on Jews since October 2000 "have often been sustained beating leading to hospitalisation, compared with the `roughing up` by neo-Nazis that more typically occurred before."

The data of the CST show that an increasing number of incidents are "caused by Muslims or Palestinian sympathisers, whether or not they are Muslims". This indicates a change of direction from which anti-Semitism comes, which is closely connected to the tensions in the Middle East conflict.


1. Physical acts of violence

The climax of the violence was reached in the weeks between the beginning of April and the start of May 2002. There were 51 incidents nationwide in April, "most of them assaults on individuals", compared with 12 in March and seven in February. Some of the assaults resulted in the hospitalisation of the victims with serious injuries.

Reportedly, the victims were mainly orthodox and Hassidic Jews. In London, Manchester and Glasgow the windows of synagogues or the Hebrew Congregation were smashed; in London a further synagogue was desecrated.

On 6 May, following a rally in support of Israel, a boy wearing a shirt with the Star of David was attacked by three youths.

On 11 July the synagogue in Swansea (Wales) was desecrated by vandals with graffiti (swastika, and the phrase "T4 Jewish c*** from Hitler") and Torah rolls were damaged and burned. The attempt to burn down the building failed.

The CST counted 20 incidents of extreme violence (attacks potentially causing loss of life) and assaults during the first five months of 2002. Then perpetrators were described as follows: five white, five Arab, three Asian, seven unknown.


2. Verbal aggression/hate speech

In Edinburgh an Episcopalian clergyman was forced to defend a mural showing a crucified Jesus flanked by Roman soldiers - and modern-day Israeli troops. It was not anti-Semitic, he insisted, but designed to make his congregation think about current conflicts.

The Anti-Defamation League criticised that Christian clerics are using anti-Jewish rhetoric in proclaiming the old, destructive 'replacement theology' – the notion that Judaism has been replaced as religion".

Media

Many British Jews are of the opinion that the press reporting on Israeli policy is spiced with a tone of animosity, "as to smell of anti-Semitism" as The Economist put it.

In their opinion this is above all the case with the two quality papers, the Guardian and the Independent. After the attack on the Finsbury Park synagogue Jeremy Newmark, official spokesman for Chief Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks, said that "anti-Semitic incidents have been rising over the past year, but have shown a marked upturn in the past six weeks as the conflict in the Middle East has reached a furious pitch." He says that "the anti-Israeli bias of much media coverage here has made British Jews more vulnerable" without though naming any examples.


3. Research studies

Between 16 May and 4 June and between 9 and 29 September surveys commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) New York were conducted on "European Attitudes towards Jews, Israel and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict" in ten European countries.

Compared to most of the other EU countries agreement with anti-Semitic statements in the United Kingdom was clearly lower: from the four stereotypical statements presented, only 9% of the respondents agreed to at least three (see Table: Report on Belgium).

Only with the statement "Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country" did one third of the respondents agree; at the same time though this number is well below the European average of 51%. A third of the British respondents feel that anti-Jewish sentiments will increase in the coming years.

To the question "Thinking specifically of the current conflict (...) – are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?", 30% of the British respondents sympathised with the Palestinian side, the second highest rate after the Danes, while only 16% sympathised with Israel.

Here the social contact with Muslims appears to have played an important role: 32% of the British in contact with Muslims "fairly often" sympathised with the Palestinians. In all states surveyed the individual use of media exerted a certain influence: of those British respondents who followed the news coverage "a great deal" or "a good amount", 41% sympathised with the Palestinian side, while the proportion for Israel was 11%.

A survey already conducted in April, "The plague on both houses. British attitudes to Israel and Palestine", had reached similar conclusions: 14% said that they were more sympathetic to Israel than to the Palestinians, while 28% sympathised more with the latter.

Both Prime Minister Sharon and Palestinian leader Arafat were mainly disapproved of (50% and 54% respectively); and 38% and 33% respectively were for sanctions against both sides (cutting off aid and blocking military exports). The Economist spoke of a "steady shift of sympathy away from Israel, especially on the left".


4. Good Practice for reducing prejudice, violence and aggression

After the desecration of the synagogue at Finsbury Park, on 2 May the Muslim Jewish Forum of North London, a group committed to improving relations between the two faiths, condemned the attack as "a terrible violation of a sacred place of worship". Some days after the attack on the Finsbury Park synagogue, a petition to "Stop Anti-Semitism in the UK" was placed on the Internet and to be personally presented to the Prime Minister Tony Blair.


5. Reactions by politicians and other opinion leaders

In a demonstration of mainstream political solidarity against racism, two senior Labour and Conservative politicians united on 2 May 2002, to condemn the desecration of the synagogue of Finsbury Park. The Local Government Secretary, Stephen Byers, and the opposition home affairs spokesman, Oliver Letwin, supported the Chief Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, as volunteers began scraping away spattered paint, repairing broken seats and replacing vandalised equipment.

After surveying the damage, Mr Byers said he wanted to demonstrate the government's support for the Jewish community. "The people of this country will defend their right to practice their religion." "In the year 2002 this kind of destruction is not what I had expected to see.

Any right-thinking member of the community will condemn this as barbaric. We have to ensure that those people who are intolerant, who are prejudiced, don't have the opportunity of committing this again." Mr Letwin regarded it as particularly important "that every mainstream political party in Britain shows the solidarity we feel about this attack. It was deliberately intended to inflame relationships in the local community."

The Chief Rabbi warned of the upsurge in anti-Semitic attacks, emphasising though at the same time that the "support from political parties and local communities has been tremendous. Britain must reject racist politics and I'm confident it will. There will certainly be greater vigilance in the community."

On 4 March 2002, the MP Jim Murphy had submitted a parliamentary question to the Home Secretary, calling for him to make a statement on anti-Semitism in the UK and asking what action he has taken to combat it.

In reply the government emphasised that it is "fully committed to tackling racism and anti-Semitism wherever it occurs. We have continued to strengthen our anti-discrimination laws and our criminal law to ensure that it continues to offer some of the most comprehensive protection against racism and anti-Semitism in Europe.

In that regard we have introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; we are looking at ways to implement the European Union directives on race and discrimination in employment; strengthen the law on incitement to racial hatred by raising the maximum penalty to seven years' imprisonment and extending the scope to hatred directed against racial groups outside the United Kingdom and introduced religiously aggravated offences to add to the racially aggravated offences we introduced in 1998.

We have asked the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to work together to pool knowledge and experience in the investigation and prosecution of race hate material. We have also made significant changes to our laws countering the threat of terrorism, including the Terrorism Act 2000 and, in response to the events of September 11, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

The Government and the police continue to have a good working relationship with the Jewish community in Britain."

On 19 April, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary presented, together with his colleagues from France, Belgium, Spain and Germany, a joint declaration on "Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism" which aims at establishing preventive measures and a European-wide coordination of the responsible offices and agencies.

In response to a question posed by the MP Dismore as to the number of anti-Semitic offences in the last weeks and months, on 14 May 2002 the government declared that the number of anti-Semitic crimes is not collected separately by the Home Office.

"The Government condemns all acts of anti-Semitism in this country. The Government and the police are aware of the concerns of the Jewish community and we have received reports from both the police and community organisations such as the Community Security Trust. We will continue to monitor the situation carefully in co-operation with community organisations."


6g. France

Jews in France (total population: 60 million) – the biggest such community in Western Europe (600,000-700,000, half of them living in the Paris area) – are generally well respected, socially assimilated and well represented in politics.

Anti-Semitic prejudices in France were already virulent during the Six Day War and the anti-Zionist campaign of the 1970s and 1980s.

With the successes achieved by the extreme right-wing Front National and an increasing denial of the Holocaust in the 1990s such stereotypes once again received strong acceptance.

At the same time, in the mid-1990s began the critical engagement with National Socialism, collaboration and the responsibility of the Vichy Regime.

As the second Intifada began, the number of anti-Semitic criminal offences rose drastically; out of 216 racist acts recorded in 2000 146 were motivated by anti-Semitism. The peak was reached during the Jewish High Holidays in October 2000; one third of the anti-Semitic attacks committed worldwide took place in France (between 1 September 2000 and 31 January 2002 405 anti-Semitic incidents were documented).

The perpetrators were only seldom from the extreme right milieu, coming instead mainly from non-organised Maghrebian and North African youths.

After interrogating 42 suspects, the police concluded that these are "predominantly delinquents without ideology, motivated by a diffuse hostility to Israel, exacerbated by the media representation of the Middle East conflict (...) a conflict which, they see, reproduces the picture of exclusion and failure of which they feel victims in France".

Beginning in January 2002, but mainly from the end of March till the middle of April 2002 , there was a wave of anti-Semitic attacks. In the first half of April attacks against Jews and Jewish institutions in Paris and surrounding areas were daily occurrences.

This was a repeat of the situation of October 2000.

In reaction to the anti-Semitic mood the number of the French Jews who immigrated to Israel in 2002 doubled to 2,566, the highest number since 1972.

In addition, there was an almost polemical debate on the nature as well as the denunciation of anti-Semitism linked to the situation in the Middle East and to Islam, a debate, which led to divisions between prominent participants and anti-racist groups.

Anti-Semitism and security questions specific to the Jewish community were almost absent from public debate during this period.

In fact, the main ideological themes in the public debate at a time of both Presidential (12 April and 5 May 2002) and national (9 and 16 June 2002) elections were law and order and the unexpectedly strong support for the Front National and its leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, who played on anti-Semitic resentments.

Viewed from a later perspective, there is an obvious connection with anti-Semitism. During that same period there was a renewed outbreak of anti-Muslim acts and speech attributed to the far right.


1. Physical acts of violence

Indications are that there was a significant decrease in May and June 2002 in observed acts in relation to the period from 29 March to 17 April 2002, a period in which police sources recorded 395 events, ranging from graffiti to assaults. Sixty-three percent of these events involved anti-Semitic graffiti, while 16 cases of assault and 14 of arson or attempted arson against synagogues were reported to the police.

These acts principally took place in large urban areas (Ile-de-France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur and Alsace).

Many of the violent incidents occurred around the pro-Palestinian demonstrations at the end of March in Lyon, Strasbourg, Marseille and Toulouse.

While the hypothesis of a detente needs to be confirmed by time, it is true that hostility displayed towards Jews was still observed, in particular by new Jewish victim support groups.

The people in charge of the help lines estimated an average of 8 to 12 reports of this kind every day.

On 10 May eight Arabs who studied with him in the same school attacked a 16-year-old Jewish youth in Bordeaux.

The attack was accompanied by curses and threats.

On 12 May 2002 in Saint-Maur des Fossés (a Paris suburb), three young Jews who were playing football stated that they were insulted and attacked by about fifteen young people "of North African origin".

They lodged a complaint against them for assault and racist remarks.


2. Verbal aggression/hate speech

Indirect threats

On 18 May 2002 at a demonstration organised in the XIXth district of Paris by the Parti des Musulmans de France against the "Naqba", hostile slogans towards Jews were shouted without any attempt from the organisers to intervene.

On 26 May 2002 during a demonstration organised in Paris against George W. Bush's trip to France by groups such as the French Communist Party, the Green party "Les Verts", the Revolutionary Communist League ("Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire", LCR) and others such as the MRAP ("Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amiti entre les peuples" - Movement against racism and for friendship between peoples) and the Human Rights League, about thirty teenagers chanted anti-Jewish and pro-Bin Laden slogans.

The organisers expelled them.

Ethnic minority activists were then forced to intervene to prevent some youths from attacking a young couple on a scooter in the belief that they were Jewish.

The anti-Semitic atmosphere also found expression in verbal attacks at schools and universities.

Graffiti

On 21 May 2002 the police questioned an 18-year-old female student who was suspected of drawing anti-Semitic slogans and symbols on a kosher butcher's shop front in Pré Saint-Gervais (Seine-Saint-Denis, Paris suburb).

In June 2002 advertising posters in various metro stations as well as election posters were defaced by graffiti showing the Star of David and the swastika connected by an "=" sign.

It should be noted that many Front National and RPF (Rassemblement pour la France) election posters were also defaced by graffiti with such terms as "racist" or "Fascist".

Media

In the edition of the daily Le Figaro from 7 June 2002, Oriana Fallaci, who is the Italian author of a polemical book entitled "La rage et l'orgueil" (Rage and Pride), wrote a similarly polemical article entitled "Sur l'antisémitisme" ("On anti-Semitism").

On 10 June 2002 the MRAP (Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amiti entre les peuples) lodged a complaint against Oriana Fallaci's book, calling it "a despicable work where slander, vulgarity and confusion intermingle with contempt.

This book is an 'asserted call' to racist hatred and violence against all Muslims."

The request for it to be banned proved unsuccessful.

Internet

On 7 June 2002, the publication on the website Indymedia-France of a text in which the "Israeli concentration camps" were compared to the Nazi camps in Germany during the Second World War provoked the resignation of two editorial team members.

One of the founding members of this anti-globalisation site, which was created after the Seattle summit, demanded the expulsion of the author of the article, "to prevent Indymedia-France from falling under revisionist influence".

The incriminated article also pondered whether Israel might be equated with Nazi Germany.

On the other hand, another website contributor stated that, "in parallel, there is a debate on the website to determine whether the [Israeli] government is a Nazi government or not."


3. Research studies

Between 28 January and 1 February 2002, the Sofres Institute surveyed 400 people aged between 15 and 24 living in France.

A massive majority rejected anti-Semitic acts:

87% of the respondents considered that "anti-Semitic acts against synagogues in France" are "scandalous; the state must punish the culprits very severely";

11% of them considered that "if the Jews did not support Israel as much, these attacks would not take place";

88% of the respondents considered that "the Jews should be allowed to follow their usual customs without risking to get into a fight";

in contrast, 11% considered that "if the Jews did not seek to make themselves conspicuous in wearing the kipah, this kind of fight would not take place";

99% of respondents judged that defacing synagogues is "very serious" or "rather serious" (against 1% of them who consider this is "not very serious or not serious at all");

97% of respondents judged that writing anti-Semitic graffiti is "very serious" or "rather serious" (against 3%);

91% of respondents judged that joking about gas chambers is "very serious" or "rather serious" (against 9%);

but 11% allocate "a share of responsibility for these acts to the Jewish community, because of its support to Israel".

To the question "do the Jews have too much influence ?" in France, 77% answered that they "rather disagree" or "do not agree at all"; specifically in the media, 79% responded that they "rather disagree" or "do not agree at all"; and in politics, 80% answered that they "rather disagree" or "do not agree at all".

These figures are much weaker than those collected by Sofres during a previous survey, which covered the whole population, conducted in May 2000 for the Nouveau Mensuel magazine.

Then 45% of the respondents had agreed with the statement that Jews have "too much influence".

To the question "regarding people who say that the Holocaust and the gas chambers did not exist, what is your position?", 51% estimated that "these people should not be condemned because everyone is free to think whatever they want"; against which 48% said "these people must be condemned because they deny a serious historical fact".

The figures suggest that the Holocaust is to some extent trivialised, in so far as "freedom of thought" (and expression) is often placed above the other issues at stake.

Several observers believe that far-right anti-Semitic violence has shifted towards anti-Semitism of the suburbs. In this respect, the survey provided new information on the state of mind of the youth of North African origin "towards the Jews and anti-Semitism".

As a matter of fact, they were asked the same questions as above.

Thus, 86% of them judged that "defacing synagogues" is "very serious" or "rather serious";

95% of them thought that the Jews have the "right to follow their usual habits without risking to get into a fight";

and only 5% of them thought that "if the Jews did not seek to make themselves conspicuous in wearing the kipah, this kind of fight would not take place".

In the end, 54% of them underlined the seriousness of "insulting the Jews, even if it is a joke". Compared with the overall group of people between 15 and 24, such answers tend to show that the youth of North African origin is more tolerant than the average, an attitude that can undoubtedly be explained by the fact that anti-Semitic acts or attitudes remind them more or less directly of how they themselves have suffered from racial or cultural discrimination as Muslims or children of North African parents.

On the other hand, according to this survey the tendency is reversed concerning traditional anti-Semitic prejudices.

The question relating to the Jews' alleged influence shows that "respectively 35%, 38% and 24% of the youth of North African origin (against only 22%, 21% and 18% of the whole group of young people) completely or rather think that the Jews have too much influence in the economic and political fields and in the media".

Strangely enough, the poll did not say anything about their answers to the questions concerning the Holocaust.

According to an exclusive survey carried out on 3 and 4 April 2002 by the CSA poll institute and the weekly Marianne of a 1000 people aged over 18, 10% of the French dislike the Jews (while 23% of them dislike North Africans and 24% of them dislike young French people of North African origin), which is the case with 52% of far-right voters (whether for Le Pen or Mégret).

The surveys commissioned by the ADL conducted between 16 May and 4 June 2002 and between 9 and 29 September concerning "European Attitudes towards Jews, Israel and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict" (see Table: Report on Belgium) established that 17% of respondents agreed to at least three of the four anti-Semitic statements presented.

Forty-two percent agreed to the statements that "Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country" and "Jews have too much power in the business world", whereby amongst youths the agreement was far higher with 61% and 64%, respectively. With regard to the current conflict in the Middle East, 29% expressed that they sympathised with the Palestinians and only 10% sympathised with Israel. 37% had no preference for one side or the other.


4. Good practices for reducing prejudice, violence and aggression

The publishing of documents such as the Sofres public opinion poll entitled "Youth and the Jewish Image", as well as the public meetings organised to accompany them, maintain a feeling of hope with regard to both the growing tolerance towards the Jews and to their "normalisation" in French society.

The situation also seems to be encouraging concerning the attitude of children of North African parents towards the Jews, in a time when the global geopolitical situation remains very shaky.

The educational information campaigns within Muslim groups, such as on the theme "to burn a synagogue is like burning a mosque", have encouraged people to talk again and have improved solidarity between the different communities in this field.

Thus, the gesture of a local Muslim group in Aubervilliers (northern suburb of Paris) is particularly symbolic: it lent its school bus to a Jewish school of the same area as its buses were destroyed during an attack.

Beyond inter-religious dialogue, the spontaneous or organised mobilisation of civil society against the far right has reaffirmed the Republic's common values. Such reactions have at least reminded us that the fight against racism, xenophobia and discrimination remains a common struggle.

The fact that anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish acts in France are presently being committed mainly by youngsters from North African immigration, apparently acting in an isolated manner, brought many observers to the conclusion that a far right anti-Semitism has been superseded by a form of anti-Semitism rooted in urban decay and social deprivation.

The French term for this combination of urban decay and social deprivation is "banlieue", literally "suburb", which functions in roughly the same way as "inner city" in English.

Beyond the local character of this observation, some, like the philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff – during his highly publicised book launch in spring 2002 –, spoke of a "new planetary judeophobia" ("nouvelle judéophobie planétaire") that explains "all world problems by the existence of Israel".

This "new judeophobia", which he sees as initially brought about by radical Islamic activists, by the heirs of "third-worldism" and by far-left anti-globalisation activists, accuse the Jews of being themselves racist.

Thus, according to Taguieff, there seems to be an "anti-Jewish anti-racism". In this way, it can appear that "the fight against racism and the fight against anti-Semitism have been dissociated from one another", as Shmuel Trigano wrote in the weekly newspaper Actualit Juive (25 April 2002), adding that "suburb anti-Semitism has indeed broken the "united front" strategy, revealing that the victims of racism (Arab Muslims) could be anti-Semites".

This point of view, which is shared by some Jewish personalities and groups, can extend to an exclusively Jewish conception of the fight against anti-Semitism and a tendency to link it to support for Israel and its current government.


5. Reactions by politicians and other opinion leaders

The current political climate, which has been dominated by the growth of the far right and the renewed Republican mobilisation since 21 April 2002, eclipsed anti-Semitism and tensions between Jews and Muslims in France and removed them from the political agenda.

It resulted in the abandonment of the large demonstration against racism and anti-Semitism, for peace in the Middle East and for the union of all communities, planned for Sunday, 12 May 2002, to run parallel to the "Peace Now" demonstration in Israel.

Many trade unions, politicians of both left and right organisations and numerous personalities had organised this demonstration.

Representatives from Jewish organisations criticised the French Government for being inactive. President Chirac, who was re-elected on 5 May 2002, reacted officially to the accusations that he had denied the gravity of the threats against Jews coming mainly from abroad, in particular from Israel and the United States, on several occasions.

He stated that he "has protested against the 'anti-French campaign', which took place in Israel and which aimed at presenting France as an anti-Semitic country".

"France is not an anti-Semitic country", he repeated the day before the 55th Cannes Film Festival, in response to the American Jewish Congress, which had sought to dissuade Jewish celebrities from participating in the film festival.

During his discussions with President George W. Bush, who was in France on 26 and 27 May 2002, President Chirac "protested strongly" against the idea conveyed in the United States that France is seized by a kind of anti-Semitic fever.

On 19 April the French Interior Minister Daniel Viallant, together with his colleagues from Belgium, Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom, issued a joint declaration on "Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism" that appealed for an undertaking of preventive measures and a European-wide coordination of the responsible agencies and offices.

On 29 May 2002, Nicolas Sarkozy, the new Interior Minister, went to the synagogue of Clichy-sous-Bois, which was attacked with a petrol bomb on 10 August 2000, and launched the slogan "zero tolerance for anti-Semitism".

On 2 June 2002, he welcomed representatives from the Jewish community at the Ministry of the Interior.

The Minister promised to improve the coordination of the suitable preventive or educational safety measures and to follow up regularly the files indexing complaints, particularly those submitted by "SOS Vérit et Sécurit".

The participants agreed that similar meetings would take place periodically in Ile de France and in the provinces.

Moreover, the Minister is said to have committed himself to work in partnership with the Ministries of Justice and of Education.

On 21 July 2002 French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin declared at a meeting held on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the roundup of French Jews for deportation: "to harm the Jewish community is to harm France, harm the values of our republic."

A new government's hard line on crime and North African juvenile gangs in the second half of 2002 led to a remarkable decrease of anti-Semitic incidents.

Besides the conspicuous presence of police protecting Jewish institutions the initiatives of the new Minister of Interior Nicolas Sarkozy promoting an active dialogue with different sections of the Muslim community changed the situation in a positive way.


6c. Germany

Since 1989 the Jewish community has more than doubled and now numbers about 100,000 in a total population of 82 million. Since the early 1990s waves of racist violence were frequently directed against migrant minorities among which the Turks form the majority group (2 million; total Muslim population: 3.2 million).

The number of anti-Semitic incidents since the early 1990s also clearly exceeds those of earlier decades. This is mainly due to an active far-right scene. After a fall in the number of incidents between 1996 and 1999, there has been an increase since 2000, when it tripled in the last three months of the year.

This dramatic increase is "due in large part to the "al-Aqsa Intifada" which inspired radical Islamists to anti-Jewish acts and served as a catalyst for extreme right-wing anti-Semites". In 2001 anti-Semitic incidents, numbering 1,629 cases, reached an historical high, although the great majority were propaganda offences.

Like other EU countries, Germany suffered anti-Semitic incidents in early 2002. During the first three months 127 cases were registered: 77 of which were incitement of hatred; 26 were propaganda and five were violent offences; in addition, there were four cases of damage to property, three cases of desecration of graves, and twelve other offences.

But the main problem in Germany is not an increase in physical attacks on Jews or their organisations, but a more subtle form of anti-Semitism, which is mainly expressed in anti-Jewish attitudes and statements.

From the beginning, the debate about anti-Semitism was closely linked to the question of how far criticism of Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict can go.

Leading representatives of the Jewish community continuously expressed their view that criticising Israel has never been a taboo subject, but allusions to or comparisons with the behaviour of the Nazi regime would be unacceptable and unjustified.

Nevertheless, the basic question, regarding what kind of criticism is justifiable without running the risk of being called anti-Semitic, remains unanswered.

Since the escalation of the Middle East conflict and the increase of anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Germany, the Jewish communities have been expressing growing concern. Anti-Semitism became one of the main topics in the German media from mid May till the end of June – mainly because of two interconnected incidents: the Karsli and the Müllemann cases (see below)


1.Physical acts of violence

No incident of physical violence was reported between 15 May and 15 June in Germany. In the previous month (April) four cases were registered:

14 April: in Berlin two Jewish women wearing a Star of David necklace were attacked. 15 April: graffiti was found on the synagogue in Herford reading: "Six million is not enough."

20 April: in Dachau the monument near the site of the concentration camp was desecrated and gravestones in the nearby Jewish cemetery were damaged.

28 April: in Berlin a bottle with flammable liquids was thrown at the synagogue on the Kreuzberger Fraenkelufer without causing any damage.

Physical threat

There was one case of a bomb scare that was possibly committed for anti-Semitic reasons. On 28 May, an unidentified man called the Hessischen Rundfunk (Hessian Broadcasting Corporation) in Frankfurt and asked whether the live programme "Achtung Friedman!" (showmaster Michel Friedman, vice-chairman of the Central Council of the Jews in Germany, was currently in the news because of a heated argument with Jürgen Müllemann, see below) was to be broadcast that evening.

After a corporation employee confirmed this, the man said that a bomb would blow up the main tower, the building where the talk show takes place. Police evacuated the building, the search was called off without any results, and the talk show took place with a 45-minute delay.


2. Verbal aggression/hate speech

Indirect threats

Since early April the Jewish communities and the Central Council of the Jews in Germany have received a huge amount of anti-Semitic letters, e-mails and phone calls with an increasingly aggressive tone. Representatives of the organisations, e.g. the chairman of the Jewish Community in Berlin, Alexander Brenner, noted that the writers of these agitation letters no longer even shy away from signing the letters with their complete name and address.

In Brenner's opinion many writers disguise their anti-Jewish aggression as criticism of Israel. The weekly Jewish newspaper Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung released a sample of these letters. On 3 June 2002, the offices of the Munich Jewish Community received, for the third time, a letter with threats of murder involving the heads of the umbrella organisation of the Jewish communities in Germany and against the President of the Jewish Community in Munich. The letter contained a specific threat to plant an explosive charge near a kosher butcher shop in Munich.

On 21 May the German branch of the anti-globalisation organisation "attac" invited to an anti-Bush demonstration in Berlin. The leaflet for the demonstration used the well-known picture of "Uncle Sam" but with a Stürmer-style portrait with a "typical Jewish nose". This implied the supposed Jewish world conspiracy because on the forefinger of "Uncle Sam" hangs the world on a thread. Portraying "Uncle Sam" as Jewish refers to the supposed Jewish influence on the United States policy and connects anti-Jewish and anti-American feelings.

Politics

The former member of the Green Party (Bündnis90/Die Grünen) Jamal Karsli, a German with an immigrant background (Syria) who applied for admission in the liberal-democratic party FDP on 30 April, launched a public debate about criticizing Israel's policy and anti-Semitism with an interview given to the weekly right-wing newspaper Junge Freiheit on 3 May.

Karsli said that the "very big Zionistic lobby" was controlling the major part of worldwide media and, therefore, would be capable of "getting down on every person no matter how important".

Michel Friedman, vice-chairman of the Central Council of the Jews in Germany, indirectly accused Karsli of being an "anti-Semite, and Paul Spiegel, chairman of the Central Council, demanded that the FDP should refuse Karsli's admission to the party.

The deputy-chairman of the FDP and party leader in North Rhine-Westphalia, Jürgen Müllemann, rejected this demand, although other leading FDP politicians, including chairman Westerwelle, supported it.

Nearly all public opinion leaders distanced themselves from Karsli's statements, except Müllemann. On 22 May, Karsli withdrew his application for admission to the FDP due to "public hounding".

Müllemann launched another debate closely linked to the "Karsli case" in early April, when he commented on the Palestinian suicidal attacks on Israelis with the words: "I would also defend myself, (...) and I would also do it in the land of the aggressor".

Expressing understanding or even sympathy with the Palestinian people was interpreted by German media and politicians as legitimising suicidal attacks and brought him the reproach of anti-Semitism from, amongst others, Michel Friedman.

In the course of the debate about Karsli's statements, Müllemann accused Friedman of himself being partly responsible for anti-Semitism in Germany. He said that he feared that hardly anyone else would make anti-Semitism more popular than Prime Minister Sharon in Israel and Michel Friedman "with his intolerant and spiteful way" in Germany.

A few days later Müllemann called Friedman "obviously megalomaniac" and renewed his accusation that Friedman would provoke "anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic resentments" with his "unbearable, aggressive, arrogant way of treating" people who criticise Sharon. Müllemann said that he had received more than 11,000 approving letters.

The discussion about Müllemann's statements in particular and the attitude of the FDP in general dominated the media for weeks. Politicians of all democratic parties in Germany blamed Müllemann for using this debate to get more votes for the Liberal Party in the federal election in September, and Westerwelle, leader of the FDP, even admitted that he is seeking to win votes from people who had voted for right-wing parties in the previous federal election. After Karsli had left the parliamentary group of the FDP in North Rhine-Westfalia, Müllemann declared publicly: "If I have hurt the feelings of Jewish people, I want to apologise to them".

However, he renewed his attacks on Friedman and excluded him deliberately from his apology. A few days before the Federal election (22 September) Müllemann spread a flyer repeating the accusation against Sharon and Friedman. The chairman of the FDP forced him to resign as a vice chairman a few days later, arguing that his playing with anti-Semitism has caused a considerable loss of votes for the FDP. Finally on 20 October Müllemann resigned also as party leader in North Rhine-Westfalia.

Reaction and public debate about Müllemann and Karsli

The "Karsli case" and the argument between Müllemann and Friedman have evoked anti-Semitic and hate reactions in Germany.

On the Internet website of the FDP parliamentary group (http://www.fdp-fraktion.de) the discussion forum "Speaker's corner" has been used to for all kinds of anti-Semitic statements, such as: Germany has to free itself from "the chains of bondage of Israel"; "The Jews themselves propagate the so-called 'anti-Semitism' in order to punish everyone who contradicts them". Statements which praised Müllemann for his comments about Israel and Friedman can be found on several discussion fora of the Liberal Party.

Countless racial and anti-Semitic statements were also sent to Müllemann's own website before it had to be shut down because of a hacker attack. The online discussion forum of the weekly magazine Der Spiegel (www.forum.spiegel.de) was also used for anti-Semitic hate speech.

Public discourse

The broad discussion about a novel by Martin Walser, which had not yet been published, led to a further escalation in the anti-Semitism debate. The author Walser, who was accused of serving anti-Semitic tendencies by the former chairman of the Central Council of the Jews, Ignatz Bubis, four years ago, because he described Auschwitz as a "moral cudgel" in Germany, was attacked by parts of the media.

The editor of the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), Frank Schirrmacher, said that his latest novel Tod eines Kritikers ("Death of a Critic") would serve anti-Semitic resentments. He thus refused the planned pre-release serial publication in his newspaper.

Walser himself rejected any accusations of being anti-Semitic. He claimed that the novel is about "power in the world of culture", not about Jewry. This statement was doubted in parts of the media, but even assuming that Walser had not intended to play with anti-Semitic resentments, he should have been able to anticipate how his novel might be (mis)read and interpreted by others.

The argument between Walser and Schirrmacher was linked to the heated debate about anti-Semitism in Müllemann's statements and was dealt with in numerous articles in German newspapers.

Internet

On 31 March the radical Muslim organisation "Hizb-ut-tahrir" (Liberation Party) published a leaflet on its German homepage containing the following statements: "The Jews are a people of slander. They are a treacherous people who violate oaths and covenants (...). Allah has forbidden us from allying ourselves with them. (...) Indeed, that you should destroy the monstrous Jewish entity. (...) Kill all Jews (...) wherever you find them."

The organisation has been observed for a longer time by the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) but did not receive public attention before they organised a public lecture on "The Iraq – a new war and its consequences" at the Berlin Technical University in October 2002 where also representatives of the German extreme right-wing party NPD (National Democratic Party) participated.


3. Research studies

On 31 May, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) released a study in Berlin about how the German print media reported four major incidents in the Middle East during the second Intifada between September 2000 and August 2001. The study, conducted by the Linguistic and Social Research Institute in Duisburg (Institut fur Sprach- und Sozialforschung), came to the conclusion that the reporting of the Middle East conflict in the newspapers and magazines examined was biased and showed anti-Semitic elements which would often be liable to (re)produce existing anti-Semitic and racial prejudice.

The reporting also used terms to describe the behaviour of the Israeli troops, which make the reader associate their actions with genocide and suggest similarities to fascism (e.g. "massacre").

Generally speaking, the media was criticised for its anti-Semitic allusions and stereotypes. According to the study, there are deeply latent anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist prejudices in the German public, usually hidden behind "concealed" and "vague allusions".

The study was criticised by the weekly newspaper Die Zeit because it refused to provide proof as to whether and how the way of reporting affects reception in Germany. Another study on reporting of the Middle East conflict showed that, in comparison to some other countries (USA, South Africa, the UK), TV reporting in Germany encompassed a broader spectrum of neutral presentations of events.

In the monitoring period three surveys were conducted which posed questions concerning anti-Semitism. According to the study "Political Attitudes in Germany", conducted by the Sigmund-Freud-Institut in Frankfurt in April 2002, anti-Semitic tendencies have increased since 1999.

The statement "I can understand well that some people feel unpleasant about Jews" was confirmed by 36% (1999: 20%). The second statement offered by the study, that the Jews are responsible for the problems in the world, showed in contrast a reduction in anti-Semitic attitudes.

A further study from April 2002, "Extreme Right Attitudes in Germany", included three statements on anti-Semitism: "Even today Jews have too much influence"; "The Jews simply have something particular and peculiar about them and are not so suited to us"; "More than others, the Jews use dirty tricks to achieve what they want".

The study showed that in comparison to 1994 and 2000 there was a strong increase in the number of negative answers; surprisingly, however, these came from those questioned from West Germany. This indicates an effect determined by current events: many West Germans reacted to Israeli policy and the heated debate about the bounds of legitimate criticism of this policy, whereas these issues found obviously less resonance amongst East Germans.

A poll conducted by NfO Infratest in June had different results: generally speaking, the given answers lead to the conclusion that anti-Semitic resentments have been slightly decreasing in Germany over the past 11 years.

In June 2002, 68% of those polled rejected the statement "The Jews are partly responsible for being hated and persecuted", while 29% confirmed the statement (in 1991 confirmation was 32%).

The question "How many Germans have an anti-Jewish attitude?" was answered as follows: 2% believed "most of the Germans", 13% "a high number of Germans", 57% "a small number of Germans", and 26% said "hardly anyone".

Nevertheless, 29% confirmed the statement that "Jews have too much influence on the world". This number is lower than in the 1991 poll, when it was agreed by 36%. Between 16 May and 4 June respectively between 9 and 29 September surveys commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in New York, "European Attitudes towards Jews, Israel and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict", were conducted in ten European countries, including Germany (see Table: Report on Belgium). Here the agreement with anti-Semitic stereotypes was on similar levels as in France and Belgium%). From the four stereotypical statements presented, 19% of respondents agreed to at least three. With 55% the Germans agreed on an average with the statement "Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country" (average 51%).


4. Good practices for reducing prejudice, violence, and aggression

In the period from 15 May to 15 June, 2002 there were many appeals for solidarity with the Jewish communities and calls for promoting an inter-religious dialogue.

Appeals were made by the chairman of the Central Council of the Jews, Paul Spiegel, but also from representatives of the Christian churches, for example by the chairman of the German Conference of Bishops (Deutsche Bischofskonferenz), Karl Lehmann, the Bavarian bishop Dr. Johannes Friedrich or the chairman of the Council of the Protestant Church, Manfred Kock.

Beside calls for solidarity with the Jews, there have also been efforts to improve the inter-religious dialogue. The German Coordinating Council of Societies for Christian-Jewish Cooperation (Deutscher Koordinierungsrat der Gesellschaften für Christlich-Jüdische Zusammenarbeit; member of the International Council of Christians and Jews) organised a meeting in June in which the importance of an inter-religious dialogue was discussed.

An inter-religious discussion group was recently also established in the city of Bremen. A few weeks prior, the Muslims had invited the Jewish community in order to foster a dialogue and to promote a peaceful way of living together.

This started a process of setting up a discussion group which is presently not only made up of Muslims and Jews, but also of non-Muslim Palestinians, Protestants, Catholics, peace campaigners, politicians and trade unionists. They are attempting to maintain positive inter-cultural relations in Bremen as an example for other towns.

In Germany there are some non-governmental programmes and initiatives, which aim to combat anti-Semitism, although no further initiatives were started in the relevant period. The Turkish Association Berlin-Brandenburg, the Turkish Community Association of Germany as well as the Central Council of Muslims all sharply criticised the FDP's vice-chairman Müllemann at the beginning of June. "To employ an anti-Semitic climate for political purposes must be taboo", declared the chairmen.

The Turkish Association Berlin-Brandenburg called upon its members to protest together with the Jewish community in front of the FDP headquarters in Berlin against "playing with anti-Semitism".


5. Reactions by politicians and other opinion leaders

Almost all public leaders distanced themselves from Jürgen Müllemann's statements in relation to the current debate about anti-Semitism and pronounced (Chancellor Gerhard Schröder) their fear of negative consequences for Germany's reputation abroad which might arise from the ongoing debate. Müllemann's statements received positive reactions from some right-wing parties such as "Die Republikaner", the NPD (National Democratic Party Germany) and the DVU. But the vice-chairman also had to face criticism from within his own party as well.

With regard to the parties, the Liberal Democrats as well as the Social Democrats/the Greens have submitted separate but identical applications to the German Bundestag (lower house of the German parliament) demanding that anti-Semitic tendencies be eradicated and that anti-Semitism may not be exploited for election campaigns.

The Bundespresident (Head of State of the Federal Republic of Germany), Johannes Rau, had already entered into the discussion in May by meeting representatives of the Central Council of Jews in order to express his solidarity with the Jewish communities.

In an interview with the Jewish newspaper Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung he remarked on his fear of a decreasing level of inhibition for making anti-Semitic statements, although he pointed out that criticism of Israel is not tantamount to anti-Semitism. Even a trade union reacted directly in relation to the anti-Semitism debate. The "IG Bauern-Agrar-Umwelt" split from their member Jürgen Müllemann by "mutual agreement" as a result of the politician's statements.

On 19 April the German Interior Minister Otto Schily, together with his colleagues from France, Belgium, Spain and Great Britain, presented a joint declaration on "Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism" which appealed for preventive measures and a European-wide coordination of all responsible agencies and offices.

From 29 September 2002 the Jewish Museum in Berlin opened a short three-week exhibition that showed letters written during the Müllemann campaign to the Jewish journalist Henryk M. Broder and to the "Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung" under the title "Ich bin kein Antisemit" (I am not an anti-Semite).

In early July a panel Forum on Anti-Semitism as concerted action to stem escalating violence in conjunction with the 11th annual Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was held in Berlin. This session was followed up on the initiative of German Bundestag Member Gert Weisskirchen and United States Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman Christopher H. Smith by a meeting of members of the Commission and a German Bundestag delegation in Washington DC in December.

The Forum heard experts on Anti-Semitism in Europe and the United States and a "letter of intent" was signed by Gert Weisskirchen and Christopher H. Smith.

[Donald Isler]

Last update - 10:16 24/05/2005


Twenty-one Nobel Prize laureates urge end to British academic boycott

By Tamara Traubman, Haaretz Correspondent

Twenty-one Nobel Prize laureates will send a letter to the British Association of University Teachers (AUT) urging it to cancel the decision to impose an academic boycott on the Haifa and Bar-Ilan universities.

"Mixing science with politics, and limiting academic freedom by boycotts is essentially wrong and should be strongly and promptly rejected," the letter says.

The move comes two days before a special conference of the AUT to reconsider the boycott decision, which was made about a month ago. Sources from Jewish organizations in London, who have been exerting pressure to revoke the boycott, said the AUT is expected to revoke its decision at the meeting.

The writers describe the boycott as "dangerous" and say "there is nothing more intrinsic to the academic spirit than the free exchange of ideas. This fundamental enables us to share our views, advance our thinking, challenge our premises and bridge our disagreements."

Not private property

"Academic freedom has never been the private property of the few and must not be manipulated by them," the letter says.

The group includes two Israeli Nobel Prize winners Professors Avram Hershko and Aaron Ciechanover, Vice Premier Shimon Peres, Elie Wiesel, Professor Daniel Kahneman, Professor David Gross, Physics Professor Steven Weinberg, Professor Aaron Klug and biologist Guenther Blobel.

Sue Blackwell, of the University of Birmingham, who is a central figure pushing for the boycott decision, said a few days ago that one could not speak of the "free exchange of ideas" and ignore the fact that "the Palestinians have no freedom under the occupation."

The AUT decided on the boycott last month, a decision which has caused a rebellion within the AUT.

A special conference which could overturn the decision is being held next week.

Haaretz - 24 May, 2005

[Ralph]

Were I a Nobel laureate, my name would be up there with the others. You can be sure of that.

[Corlyss_D]

"Mixing science with politics, and limiting academic freedom by boycotts is essentially wrong and should be strongly and promptly rejected," the letter says.

I wonder how many of them are globaloney hacks for man-made global warming?

[Werner]

Corlyss: "Globaloney" - how much behind the tinmes can one be? That was Clare Booth Luce's song - a long time ago. Wasn't very relevant then.

And what genius invented that "man-made global warming" buzznote?

[Corlyss_D]

Corlyss: "Globaloney" - how much behind the tinmes can one be? That was Clare Booth Luce's song - a long time ago. Wasn't very relevant then.

Oh, good. It's an ancient insult. It is highly relevant today.

And what genius invented that "man-made global warming" buzznote?

Translate, please? Are you saying you never heard of the man-made global warming debate? It's all there is to the global warming coverage. It takes one sentence to say 'Yes, there's documented global warming." It take tomes to sort out the political BS conclusions that most liberals want people to draw from the simple sentence.

[Werner]

No "Globaloney" - but I've just skimmed that big piece re China - that's global without the baloney.

A bit less rigidity and more plasticity, please, to fit those pending changes. And perhaps someone there will find that global warming truth, although with our religio-polemical influence on intellectual advances the discoveries may come not from our veenerated sources but that Pacific basin which has been mentioned.

Tine to wake up and smell the coffee?

[Ted]

CD Wrote

The whole report is available at http://haganah.us/hmedia/euasr-01.html

Uh huh

So am I to assume the 650,000 words you posted are just the key points?

[Corlyss_D]

CD Wrote

The whole report is available at http://haganah.us/hmedia/euasr-01.html

Uh huh

So am I to assume the 650,000 words you posted are just the key points?

No, they are the entire country reports for the 3 countries. No editing. The Executive Summary, Introduction, and analysis are all very interesting but I wanted the country reports for the 3 countries of most interest here. Barry and I have done research into France for posts elsewhere. Ralph said he was unfamiliar with the state of things in Britain and British academic anti-Semitism was the subject of the thread. And John said it didn't seem to be very important in Germany.

The thing that links the 3, and the reason why I didn't post the country analyses for Spain or Netherlands, even tho' Michael is in Spain and Herman is in Netherlands, is that Britain, France, and Germany were among the 6 or so countries sited in the executive summary as presenting alarming increases in the incidents of anti-Semitism.

The data's power is in it's accuracy and completeness.

[Donald Isler]

Apparently when anti-semites lose it's "anti-democratic!"



Last update - 17:57 26/05/2005

British group cancels boycott of two Israeli universities

By Tamara Traubman, Haaretz Correspondent

LONDON - The British Association of University Teachers (AUT) decided Thursday to cancel its controversial decision to boycott Haifa and Bar-Ilan universities. The group initiated the boycott in April due to what it called the universities' participation in the occupation.

The association adopted three proposals to cancel the boycott and rejected a proposal to allow all AUT members to vote on the issue.

Dr. Shalom Lapin, an Israeli citizen who lectures at Kings College in London, said Thursday he would renew his membership in the association, which he had canceled after the original boycott vote. He called on others who had also quit the group to rejoin as well.

"We will return to the association to participate in creating a professional, democratic association that reflects the opinions of its members and not of a group of extremists," said Lapin.

Jewish organizations and opponents of the boycott were feverishly busy before the vote in last-minute preparations for Thursday's meeting.

Dr. Sue Blackwell of Birmingham University, one of the driving forces behind the boycott, said ahead of the vote that the outcome seemed to be "fixed." She said many people who had never participated in the AUT would come with the specific aim of stopping the boycott.

"I have never heard of such a thing in the 14 years I have been active in the AUT," she said, noting that special sessions are convened only when there have been changes. "There is something anti-democratic in this," she said. Even when a vote was taken and she lost, Blackwell said, she had never tried to get signatures for a new vote.

The AUT said in April that it would boycott Haifa University until it "committed itself to support academic freedom, and in particularly to stop harassing academic staff and students who want to research and discuss the history of the establishment of the State of Israel."

The Bar-Ilan boycott was imposed because of the university's connections with the Judea and Samaria College in Ariel.

© Copyright 2005 Haaretz. All rights reserved

[Corlyss_D]

Apparently when anti-semites lose it's "anti-democratic!"

Naturally, since they know there are more of them than there are of the Jews and their supporters. The mind boggles at how these people could feign rationality long enough to get tenure and all the perks and protections of academic life, only to allow their insanity to blossom full flower when they cannot be disciplined or refused access to the protections.

And before Ralph pounces on me, it's not what they say so much as who says it that scares the bejeebers out of me. If some knot-head neo-Nazi cracker in Montana said it, I wouldn't be troubled. It's the fact that these morons are supposed to be training the next generation of academics and decisionmakers that troubles me greatly.

[Ralph]

I'm not going to pounce on you but there's no necessary nexus between the disciplines of the tenured professors who supported this obscene boycott and the AUT action. Many who despise Ezra Pound for his anti-Semitism respect and appreciate his poetry. Many of the minority of anti-Semitic professors are surely in the sciences and technology.

It's because such people often are significant contributors to society that they are dangerous: they have platforms and agendas. So responding to them is vital.

[Corlyss_D]

Many of the minority of anti-Semitic professors are surely in the sciences and technology.

What's your evidence of this? It's certainly not the case in the US. All of this trouble comes from the anti-intellectuals in the humanities deparments, you know, where there are no firm standards for anything.

[Ralph]

Many of the minority of anti-Semitic professors are surely in the sciences and technology.

What's your evidence of this? It's certainly not the case in the US. All of this trouble comes from the anti-intellectuals in the humanities deparments, you know, where there are no firm standards for anything.

*****

I don't see that. More to the point I see very little evidence of faculty anti-Semites on American campuses. Individual cases are well reported but if, in fact, there was a significant cohort of such folks we'd know about. Not even the Anti-Defamation League beats that drum.

Once upon a time anti-Semitism was an official fact of life at many schools, especially the Ivies. Today? No. Not unofficial either.

[Corlyss_D]

You're saying you don't have any evidence? I mean, I'd settle for a newspaper article. My evidence is the recent unpleasantness at Columbia combined with the reports on CampusWatch.com. The science faculties are not involved. It's the humanities faculties that are implicated.

[Ralph]

You're saying you don't have any evidence? I mean, I'd settle for a newspaper article. My evidence is the recent unpleasantness at Columbia combined with the reports on CampusWatch.com. The science faculties are not involved. It's the humanities faculties that are implicated.

*****

Yes, that's true but it's a very small number of faculty on very few campuses. With regard to Columbia, the total number of professors involved appears to be around five and I'm not sure if a department called "Midle Eastern Studies" is considered to be part of the "Humanities." I just don't know where these departments fit in taxonomically.

[Corlyss_D]

Yes, that's true but it's a very small number of faculty on very few campuses. With regard to Columbia, the total number of professors involved appears to be around five and I'm not sure if a department called "Midle Eastern Studies" is considered to be part of the "Humanities." I just don't know where these departments fit in taxonomically.

Yes, it's part of the humanities department, taxonomically speaking, as opposed to the social sciences and the natural sciences. The number of activist profs might be small at any single campus, but they are unopposed within their departments, indeed, they are defended by other members of the deparment. That's why the professor of medicine was the only one Batchelor could get to come on his show to talk critically about the situation at Columbia. He stated, and I have at this point no reason to dispute him, that the only professors on campus who were not too frightened to speak out against the gang of 5 from the Middle East and Asian Languages Studies department and their defenders from the liberal arts college were the profs from the law school and the hard sciences department because these profs didn't place their professional advancement at risk in so doing.

Here's an annotated article from Haaretz. I use the annotated version because it inserts interesting tidbits reinforcing the author's points based on personal experience. The original is posted on Campus-Watch.org's website

Israel Hasbara Committee

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

`Demon Israel' and the Ivory Tower

By Noga Tarnopolsky


This article deals with the demonization of Israel in academia or what might be called, academentia. It has a particular relevance for those in Berkeley because this is probably the center of both anti-Israel and anti-American sentiment in the country.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dr. Shira Wolosky, a lecturer in literature at the department of American studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, found it hard to understand why no one present got up and protested and why such silence prevailed at a conference held a few months ago at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "It was a conference on "The Narrative of Identity," relates Wolosky, "and there was a young woman from academia there who spoke about censorship in the media. She said that they deal with the Twin Towers all the time and play down the attack on the Pentagon, because they do not want bin Laden to be perceived as a military commander who attacks justified military targets. Then she added that the brutal Israeli occupation is what is responsible for attacks in the United States [sic]. I sat there in total shock. Never mind the attack on Israel, but why didn't any of the people present get up to defend the United States? Afterward, when I asked my colleagues why they hadn't reacted, they answered me that anyone who holds those opinions can expect a brilliant career in American academia."

Last vestige of colonialism

While support for Israel among the general public in America has only increased during the past year - according to most of the public opinion surveys that have been conducted there - in the leftist circles of the intelligentsia in the United States a campaign of hatred and delegitimization is being conducted against it. This campaign, which gained momentum after September 11, in fact began after the Gulf War. Israel was perceived as the major cause of suffering in the Arab states, and therefore as the factor behind their desperate behavior.

Recently in the humanities faculties in the United States anti-Israeli and anti-American theories and basic assumptions have been disseminated, which are usually attributed to intellectual circles in Europe. "The post-colonialist vision has prevailed for many years now in academia as a means of understanding texts," says Professor Robert (Uri) Alter, a lecturer in Hebrew literature at the University of California at Berkeley. According to the standard bearers of post-colonialism, "The Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular are perceived as people of the Third World and as victims of colonialism. According to their mistaken concepts on race, the Arabs are perceived as dark-skinned and the Israelis as white - the last offshoot of Western colonialism."

Academics with marginal status.

This position has generally not attracted a following outside the universities. "People in academia in the United States have very, very marginal status," says Wolosky. "Their only way to feel politically relevant is through ephemeral pseudo-political rhetoric, which though it is harmful is very far from real political involvement."

In contrast to Europe, where the intellectuals are afforded public status, the positions of professors in the United States do not reach the ears of the people in positions of power. Even in the corridors of prestigious universities like Harvard and Stanford, no one believes that the president of the United States takes an interest in the debate between Edward Said, the important post-colonialist thinker at Columbia University in New
York, and Professor Fuad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University in Washington, who calls for Western democracy in the Arab states.

Those who come in contact with these theories are mostly young students who are easily influenced. A first-year student, a boy of 18 from a traditional Jewish home, showed up one day at Professor Alter's office at Berkeley, in a state of shock after the class in which he was studying had accepted calmly the section man's comparison between Israel and the Nazis. Nevertheless, thus far most students have not been swept up into anti-Israeli activities. At Columbia University, lecturers have cancelled classes to participate in pro-Palestinian demonstrations, but the students did not follow them. Marjorie Perloff, a lecturer at Stanford University, argues that most of the attacks on Israel in academia stem from the fact that "the students who demonstrated against the Vietnam War are now about 50, and they dream of a return to the glory days when anti-American positions were considered bon ton. In my opinion, these same academics tend to attack Israel because of the similarity between the two countries. The universities are similar and the curricula are similar and they look like us - and therefore every anti-Israeli demonstration is in fact and anti-American demonstration."

Never mind the facts Israeli academics who taught this past year at American universities were surprised at the strength of the anti-Israeli propaganda. For Dr. Liora Brosh, who teaches comparative literature at a college that is part of the New York State University system, since September 11, the academic year was "a nightmare. An entire year of attacks, even in the corridors, even in staff meetings and conferences. There are posters hanging calling for action against Israel, courses on the `narrative' of the Palestinian struggle. In fact, there is an unquestioned assumption apparently that Israel and the
Israelis are the bad guys. Of course, it is all presented in academic language that is neutral and supposedly free of political positions. But what comes out of this neutrality is that the state of Israel is a classic colonial project, and according to the post-colonialist approach, it has no right to exist."

Literature Professor Dan Meron has been lecturing for many years at the Hebrew University and at Columbia University in New York. "It is very difficult for Israelis in the American academic arena," he says. "To understand this you have to distinguish between the public and the media, which more or less are sympathetic to Israel, and the very harsh anti-Israeli propaganda that is disseminated in academia. This is propaganda that comes wrapped in an academic hue, as an intellectual attack against Zionism and against the state of Israel." This year Meron offered his students a course on the history of Zionism to counter "all the courses that condemn it." Professor Moshe Idel, a lecturer in Jewish thought at the Hebrew University, taught at a number of American universities during the past year. "In American academia there is a demonization of Israel. At lunch they would talk about the 500 killed in Jenin as if it were a fact. Editor’s Note: First it was declared that 5,000 Palestinians had been massacred in Jenin and then this was reduced to 500. The actual number of Palestinians killed (including combatants) was 52.At least 50 percent of the people bought the Arab propaganda, and even when the facts became known, no one retracted anything he had said."

Marjorie Perloff also argues: "They aren't looking for facts. They just want to express firm and self-righteous geo-political opinions, and hope to influence someone. There is a large degree of ignorance about the subject. Most of the professors who attack do not know anything about the history of the state of Israel, but they are big experts on theories like Marxism or post-colonialism. There is quite a lot of anti-Semitism here."

Sympathy in the social sciences

It is hard to understand what the comprehensive practical suggestion is to counter the anti-Israeli propaganda in American academia, if there is any such suggestion. A look at the many pamphlets that were distributed there this year - including those that called for a boycott of Israeli academics (it must be noted that among the signatories to them were Israeli academics) - and a survey of the Internet chat rooms devoted to the subject have come up with nothing. In almost every chat and every pamphlet there is a sentence - polite, distant, academic - that compares Israel to the Nazis in Germany or to the whites who ruled South Africa. It is not clear whether Israeli democracy or its multi-cultural make-up is known to the writers. The word "occupation" is repeated in them many times, but it is not exactly clear what they mean by it and it is apparent that most of the writers are not familiar with the geographical dimensions of the state of Israel or with the history of the conflict. "The occupation of a native people" - this has been Israel's main policy aim throughout its history, according to these texts. And if the problem is an occupation, the solution is clear: Leave. "The extremists among those who hold these ideas don't care where the Israelis will go," explains Alter. "They see us as a demographic mistake - Europeans mixed with Americans who settled on Arab lands that don't belong to them. When a state of Palestine arises from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, the Jews will be able to stay there as a minority or get visas to someplace else."

The anti-Israeli spirit at humanities faculties in the United States is especially evident in comparison with social science faculties. There, after the terror attacks of September 11, the Israelis were perceived in a different way, among other things as experts on terror and dealing with it.

Akiva Cohen, a professor of communications at Tel Aviv University, taught at Columbia University last year alongside Professor Dan Meron. According to him, "I did not feel any expression of anti-Israeli sentiment there, at least not at the journalism school. "

His wife, Dr. Esther Cohen, a clinical psychologist who worked at New York University, found herself becoming overnight the local expert on traumatic states in children. "Anyone who has worked in Israel is apparently an expert on trauma," she says. "There was astonishment at our experience. The principal of one school told me that I come from a different planet, when I advised him to hold a discussion in the classroom after the death of the father of one of the children in the terror attack. `But it's a personal thing,' he said to me. They didn't understand much, but they were very open."

According to Professor Avraham Balaban, who has been teaching for 15 years at the University of Florida, the difference between the humanities and the social sciences stems from "the nature of their methods. In the social sciences they like to work with measurable and quantifiable data. The method is focused and systematic. In the humanities, the post-colonial theory is not linked to data or facts, but to gut feeling. The interest is in the narratives and the processes and it is very easy these days to adopt the Palestinian narrative."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Contributed by an IHC member. Ha’aretz, 19 August 2002. www.haaretzdaily.com

[Ralph]

You simply have no idea, Corlyss, how few students and professors give a rat's ass about either Israel or the Palestinians.

[Corlyss_D]

Okay.

[pizza]

You simply have no idea, Corlyss, how few students and professors give a rat's ass about either Israel or the Palestinians.

You apparently have no idea about how many do. It may not be a problem in your ivory tower, but I've heard many students, especially in various California institutions, particularly in the Bay Area complain that life as a Jewish student on campus can be hell.

[Ralph]

You simply have no idea, Corlyss, how few students and professors give a rat's ass about either Israel or the Palestinians.

You apparently have no idea about how many do. It may not be a problem in your ivory tower, but I've heard many students, especially in various California institutions, particularly in the Bay Area complain that life as a Jewish student on campus can be hell.

*****

Get real, Pizza. If there's one part of the academy where faculty don't even know what the Ivory Tower looks like, it's law schools. I've tried five cases in the last few weeks with students sitting in on four of them. And I'm not unique at my school nor would I be anywhere else.

But my question is: whats a frum guy like you doing posting on shabbos?

[pizza]

You simply have no idea, Corlyss, how few students and professors give a rat's ass about either Israel or the Palestinians.

You apparently have no idea about how many do. It may not be a problem in your ivory tower, but I've heard many students, especially in various California institutions, particularly in the Bay Area complain that life as a Jewish student on campus can be hell.

*****

Get real, Pizza. If there's one part of the academy where faculty don't even know what the Ivory Tower looks like, it's law schools. I've tried five cases in the last few weeks with students sitting in on four of them. And I'm not unique at my school nor would I be anywhere else.

But my question is: whats a frum guy like you doing posting on shabbos?

I'm posting from Israel, Ralph. Shabbat went out at 8:21 pm local time. Shavua tov!

I'm as real as they come. I don't spend all my time in the same town among the same people. When was the last time you were on a West Coast campus, or spoke at length with a West Coast law professor? Try it for a change. You may surprise yourself at what you'll learn.

[Ralph]

I'm on national ABA and AALS committees and I deal with West Coast law professors almost weekly (as I do with those elsewhere). ProfNet, the ListServ for law professors, also brings me in daily contact with colleagues everywhere including Israel. Justice Barak has been a frequent visitor to my school but not recently. On his last visit, maybe ten years ago, I was his designated host and spent much time with him.

Last week I accepted an invitation from Stanford to author an article for a symposium law review issue on National Security and Intelligence.

I visit San Francisco about once a year for a week although it didn't work out last year. I try for a long four-day weekend in Chicago each year and visits to Washington, D.C. are at the rate of four-five a year.

Lastly, my law school hosts national and international conferences each year, especially in the areas of International Law and Environmental law. Since free banquets accompany these events I try to attend as many as possible.

[Corlyss_D]

Alas, Pizza, as long as Ralph thinks the only thing that matters is his personal experiences, our silly ol' inconclusive data will mean nothing.

[Ralph]

Alas, Pizza, as long as Ralph thinks the only thing that matters is his personal experiences, our silly ol' inconclusive data will mean nothing.

*****

It's not the only thing that matters but I responded to Pizza's comment and, let's face it, I'm about the only poster here who actually deals with these issues and institutions.

What data did Pizza offer? Anecdotes, second-hand, about Jewish students on the West Coast. Or the East Coast. Or wherever. Sometimes I think that the old "Lo, the Poor Indian" has been supplanted by "Lo, the Poor Jew(ish college student)." But even my Modern Orthodox law students who are recent grads from very prestigious universities don't seem to have had the experiences regularly reported here, second-hand (as my reports are too).

Of course I'll be very apologetic if pogroms actually break out at Columbia or on the West Coast campuses.

Corlyss, the only data that seems to impress you is that which supports your views.

[Corlyss_D]

Corlyss, the only data that seems to impress you is that which supports your views.

Not true, but it's hard to prove when I'm usually the only one that does come up with data. Most everyone else has only their opinions and their personal experiences, all of which have their place, but when you are discussing manifest social phenomena, data are usually available to put opinion and personal experience in perspective. And you know I'm usually the only one who does bother to produce data of any kind.

[Ralph]

Corlyss, the only data that seems to impress you is that which supports your views.

Not true, but it's hard to prove when I'm usually the only one that does come up with data. Most everyone else has only their opinions and their personal experiences, all of which have their place, but when you are discussing manefest social phenomena, data are usually available to put opinion and personal experience in perspective. And you know I'm usually the only one who does bother to produce data of any kind.

*****

I post data, even when it doesn't follow my argument. I just responded to YOUR request for polls on creationism and American public opinion.

[Corlyss_D]

I post data, even when it doesn't follow my argument.

Oh? When? What was the issue? I'd love to go back and read them.

[Ralph]

I post data, even when it doesn't follow my argument.

Oh? When? What was the issue? I'd love to go back and read them.

*****

I don't keep copies and I'm certainly not going to search if you don't remember.

[Corlyss_D]

I don't keep copies and I'm certainly not going to search if you don't remember.

No rush. You be sure and let me know if you think of any or find any.

Well, back to the nuclear North Korea and Cost Accounting Standards. I've laid around and played around long enough . . . .

[pizza]

Alas, Pizza, as long as Ralph thinks the only thing that matters is his personal experiences, our silly ol' inconclusive data will mean nothing.

*****

It's not the only thing that matters but I responded to Pizza's comment and, let's face it, I'm about the only poster here who actually deals with these issues and institutions.

What data did Pizza offer? Anecdotes, second-hand, about Jewish students on the West Coast. Or the East Coast. Or wherever. Sometimes I think that the old "Lo, the Poor Indian" has been supplanted by "Lo, the Poor Jew(ish college student)." But even my Modern Orthodox law students who are recent grads from very prestigious universities don't seem to have had the experiences regularly reported here, second-hand (as my reports are too).

Of course I'll be very apologetic if pogroms actually break out at Columbia or on the West Coast campuses.

Corlyss, the only data that seems to impress you is that which supports your views.

You want literature and data? Here are some representative examples going back to shortly after 9/11; sources include the Wiesenthal Center, World Jewish Congress and Campus Watch. If that isn't sufficient, let me know and I'll supply more. The first URL should be of particular interest to you notwithstanding that the source of the item is (gasp!) a Christian newswire.

The problem of rampant anti-Semitism on campus has existed long enough for anyone even casually interested in the subject to have noticed it. As for personal anecdote, look at your own posts. What's wrong if I offer it as well? If you mean by second-hand that I didn't experience it myself, that's true of course, but I have no reason to doubt the veracity of those with whom I've spoken. Odd that for a guy who gets around as much as you do, these matters, as widely reported and discussed as they are have escaped your attention. I hope it doesn't require a pogrom to open your eyes.

http://jcpa.org/campus/archive/2004-03/2004-03-07.html

http://www.campus-watch.org/

http://www.think-israel.org/winston.campus.html

http://www.emunah.org/magazine_comments ... 79_0_4_0_C

http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/publ ... atch84.cfm

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/002741.php

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=15855

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=15779

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewish ... attle$.asp

http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/publ ... atch84.cfm

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.o ... 112304.htm

[Ralph]

Thanks much for the online cites. I will read all of them later this weekend. At the moment two street festivals beckon.

Don't misunderstand me: I appreciate your knowledge and interest in this issue and I wasn't on the Civil Rights Committee of the Anti-Defamation League for many years for nothing. I'm simply suspicious of myriad reports of anti-Semitism on campuses that seem to have little support apart from the organs and media that appear expecially invested in the matter. And I'm not a very trusting person to start with.

[pizza]

Academics Against Israel
By Alexander H. Joffe
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 1, 2005

The latest news from Britain is that the Association of University Teachers (AUT) boycott of two Israeli universities has been overturned. The boycott, rammed through by a virulently anti-Israel faction on a Friday afternoon before Passover almost without discussion, put Britain’s university faculty union into universal disrepute. But the threat to academic integrity is not over; in fact, there are disturbing signs of faculty-led boycotts and other activities in the United States.

Though largely ignored in the United States, a number of British newspapers came out strongly against the AUT boycott, and fair-minded faculty members across Europe, and indeed the world, came together with resignations, declarations, and strongly worded petitions. Israel is not South Africa, boycotts and antithetical the university life, and Zionism is not racism. Even Sari Nusseibeh of Al-Quds University spoke out against the boycott, a stance for which he was condemned by many Palestinian academics.

Many details of the AUT boycott remain unknown in the US, especially the instrumental role played by leading anti-Zionist academic Ilan Pappe of Haifa University. If nothing else it has proven once again that simply being born Israeli not make an academic sympathetic to Jewish nationalism, or even, in a larger sense, Israeli. Parties concerned about the new Israel Studies chair at Columbia University would be well advised to keep this in mind, given that key members of the search committee are hostile to the very concept of Israel, as are several of the leading Israeli candidates for the position.

But more importantly, the type of anti-Israeli activism represented by the AUT boycott is already present in North America. Motivated not simply by advocacy for Palestinians but by deep hostility to the idea of Israel, and supported by a wide variety of groups outside academia, the next threats to academic integrity are better established than many realize.

There are already numerous American academic signatories to boycott petitions, including many who are well known from the crisis surrounding Middle East Studies at Columbia, such as Joseph Massad, Hamid Dabashi and Mahmood Mamdani, as well as lesser known figures, such as Ammiel Alcalay of Queens College, Ella Shohat of New York University, May Seikaly of Wayne State, and dozens of others. While the American Association of University Professors spoke out weakly against the AUT boycott, a wide network of anti-Israel organizations were energized. They are moving ahead on a number of fronts.

Best known of these is divestment. Individual efforts to force universities to divest from Israel have been unsuccessful, thanks in part to forceful statements from academic leaders such as Harvard president Lawrence Summers. But at lesser known institutions there has been some movement. On April 27, 2005 the Association of University of Wisconsin Professionals (TAUWP) adopted a resolution that calls on the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents to divest from companies that invest in Israel. The UW-Platteville faculty body became the first in the United States to adopt a resolution calling for divestment from companies working with Israel.

The resolution was part of the University of Wisconsin Divest from Israel Campaign, a project led by Al-Awda Wisconsin (The Palestine Right to Return Coalition) and Alternative Palestinian Agenda, along with several local social justice, student, and community organizations. The campaign gained momentum when the Faculty Senate of the University of Wisconsin-Platteville passed a similar resolution on January 25th 2005, but it failed with the Faculty senate at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater on February 1st, 2005. A similar resolution was adopted by the University of Wisconsin Teaching Assistant Association on April 29 after it was broadened to include military contractors in general.

The involvement of faculty unions is an ominous development that gives added weight to the more than two dozen individual divestment campaigns underway at different universities. The leading groups sponsoring divestment campaigns, such as Al-Awda, are strong advocates of the “one state solution,” that is to say, the extinction of Israel and the submergence of Jews into an Islamic Middle East. The successful divestment campaign in the Presbyterian Church, and those pending in the United Church of Christ and the World Council of Churches, and being considered by the United Methodist Church, are also new fronts in the continuing assault on Israel. That there is a subtle theological dimension to these can scarcely be doubted given the utterly one-sided nature of their self-righteous declarations.

The transformation of Israel into a pariah state has reached levels in Europe that most American are unaware of, and academics have been at the forefront. That Israel has been singled out as the most egregious of the world’s problems suggests that support for Palestinians is merely a means to an end. That end, the abolition of Israel, has been given increasing intellectual legitimacy by faculty members advocating one state, such as NYU’s Tony Judt, who invoke the illogic of nationalism and the violence of Israel’s birth, as if any nation-state could reach a passing grade according to these criteria.

For some intellectuals opposition to Israel is opposition to nationalism, but curiously only Jewish nationalism has been singled out. For others it is a self-admitted double standard of demanding higher ethical behavior from Jews than anyone else, their own states included. And for still others, we may suspect, it is opposition to Jewish “separatism,” that, is, Jewish identity and survival. All these rationales constitute grave threats not merely to Israel, but to the intellectual enterprise, as they seek to reengineer the world to accommodate their own theories, and to edit out that which does not fit.

The violence implicit in an academic boycott, however polite and genteel, as the AUT’s no doubt is, cannot be escaped. And neither can the violence the boycotters perpetrate against any remaining claims to moral standing as intellectuals.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=18251