Israeli Super-Emetics, Part II

If last week’s “pro-Israel” demonstration was not a powerful enough demonstration of Israel’s latest-generation emetics, Elizabeth Wurtzel has graced the pages of Britain’s Guardian newspaper with an embarrassing display guaranteed to propel your most recent meal out of you at speeds approaching the sound barrier.

It appears that the Guardian, which once appeared to be a quality paper – has deemed it appropriate to offset the attack on the defenceless civilian population of Gaza with one of the more mawkish expressions of American Jewish self-pity in our young millennium.

The headline to Wurtzel’s piece reads: “It is not Israel's action, but the vitriolic reaction to it that has been disproportionate. There's only one explanation: antisemitism [sic]”. Certainly, writers do not always have the last word on the headlines that accompany their work, so it would be unfair to assume that Wurtzel herself feels that this is an accurate summary of either the situation or of her piece (or, come to that, that she is unable to spell anti-Semitism correctly). It is neither. Wurtzel’s piece is long on emoting, but short on anything else, and does not even attempt to show that the worldwide response to Israel’s attack on Gaza is due to anti-Semitism.

Her argument, to the extent that one is discernable, is as follows: It is “artificial” to distinguish between opposition to Zionism and anti-Semitism:

[W]hen there is more than one Jewish state, the world's hatred of Israel might become no different from its exasperation with any other country, but since Israel is the only homeland, and really it is nothing more than six million Jews living together in an area the size of New Jersey, I can't pretend that the problem with Israel is that it's a poorly located country that happens to be at odds with its neighbours and only coincidentally happens to be Jewish. The trouble with Israel is the trouble with Jews. (emphasis supplied)

Never mind that Zionism, as an ideology, has never garnered unanimous Jewish support (which would seem to me a reasonable prerequisite for equating Zionism with Jewry). Never mind that one does not even need to be anti-Zionist to oppose the idea of a Jewish state (a matter that remains contentious amongst the various political tendencies that make up what we know collectively as Zionism). Never mind that (as Wurtzel herself points out later on) it is in fact entirely possible to be Jewish and Zionist and be utterly disgusted with Israel’s policies toward the indigenous Palestinian population. Never mind that Israel is indeed more than “six million Jews living together in an area the size of New Jersey” – 20% more, to be precise, as fully one fifth of Israel’s citizens are not Jewish. Israel is the only state that defines itself as Jewish, and thus “the trouble with Israel is the trouble with Jews”. QED.

Iceland is the only Icelandic state. I think Iceland’s policy of requiring naturalised Icelandic citizens to adopt Icelandic names is absurd. Therefore, I must have a problem with the entire Icelandic people, rather than merely with a law made by people claiming to represent them.

Lest one think this novel idiocy, it is worth recalling that Wurtzel is essentially reiterating the positions taken by both Hitler and Stalin. (1) There is no distinction between the people and the state, (2) National Socialism/Stalinist “Communism” is the national will of the people, as expressed by the policy of the state, (3) THEREFORE, criticism of Nazi/Stalinist policies is an attack on the people. Dr. Freisler would approve.

Wurtzel, it turns out, is “profoundly uncomfortable”. Any attempt to discuss the issue of Israel with anyone “rightminded (and left-leaning)”, we are told, lays bare “the purest antisemitism [sic] since the Nazi era”. Instead of providing examples of such interactions, she goes on to lament that comparisons of Israeli policy with (often strikingly similar) Nazi policies are “de rigueur” (she might add that they are quite commonplace in Israel, particularly amongst proponents of those very Israeli policies).

She is also quite upset that Europeans see “the experience of the Palestinians as a form of ethnic cleansing”. She might have added that the Europeans might have got the idea that the Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed from the fact that leading Israeli historians and policymakers throughout the political spectrum say so quite openly, with Benny Morris, for example, lamenting only that the ethnic cleansing was not seen through to the end.

“Hamas and Hezbollah”, she continues, shunning any supporting evidence, “are thought by the French and British to be social welfare organisations, and Israel is viewed as a terrorist state.” While it would be nice to see some actual figures on how many of “the French” and “the British” hold these views, it is worth noting that those who do see Hamas and Hezbollah as social welfare organisations likely do so because both Hamas and Hezbollah are known for providing schools, sanitation, health care, social assistance, nursing homes, and other much needed social services. Nor would she need to go as far as Europe to hear people say that Israel is a terrorist state. Thomas Friedman just recently praised Israel for using what constitute terrorist tactics under the standard legal definitions (attacks directed at the civilian population in order to achieve political goals). If a terrorist state is a state that routinely engages in terrorism (as defined by applicable law), then Israel certainly qualifies, and the assault on the people of Gaza is a perfect example.

Credulity is further stretched by her bizarre pronouncement that “Here, we honor the linguistic discoveries of Noam Chomsky and otherwise experience him as a quaintly brilliant crank, but in the bookstores in London there are entire sections devoted to his political thought – and he is read as if the distinctions between Leninist and Trotskyite philosophy had genuine consequence in today's world.” There are two possible explanations. Either she has never read Chomsky’s work, and is too lazy to read even a synopsis of one or two of his recent works, in which case she is at best unqualified to comment, or, she is sufficiently familiar with Chomsky’s work to know that most of it concerns US foreign policy and the US corporate media and intellectual culture, with scarcely a single word devoted to distinguishing between Leninism and Trotskyism, in which case she is a liar. In any case, it is interesting to note that she considers political ideologies that were at the centre of much of the history of the twentieth century to be of no contemporary interest.

For those who remain only mildly queasy after the shameful display Wurtzel has treated us to thus far, she decides to shift into high-gear, transitioning seamlessly from American Jewish self-pity to American Jewish self-adulation:

But I think it is this very fact – my attempt to understand both sides – that disturbs me the most. Because trying to see all sides, such an instinct is particularly Jewish. The most vehement critics of Israel and champions of the Palestinians – hello, Professor Chomsky; greetings, Norman Finkelstein – are always Jews: we are always trying in our even, level, thoughtful way to see reason in the behaviour of those who are lobbing rocket grenades at us. As a people, we are hopeless Talmudists, we examine all the arguments and try to sort out an answer. What is both strange and difficult for Jews to watch in the case of Israel is that, as a nation surrounded by enemies, it does not make such calculations; it does not have the luxury of rationality that is eventually irrational. Israel fights back, which is very much at odds with the Jewish instinct to discuss and deconstruct everything until action itself seems senseless. Israel, hell-bent on survival, has learned to shoot first – or, at least, second – and blow away the consequences. Whereas it actually hurts my feelings when someone says something nasty about Israel, or even the United States, for Israelis, this is just the way of the world: they probably manufacture their flags to be flammable. (emphasis supplied)

One might note that there is little evidence in Wurtzel’s piece of any “attempt to understand both sides”, and that, after her shamefully dishonest non-treatment of the assault on Gaza, she attempts to take credit for Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, one of whom she has already completely misrepresented, and both of whom have written things that she has already called “the purest form of antisemitism [sic] since the Nazi era”. One might also note that Israel’s survival has not been in question for decades. The only true danger to Israel’s survival is the lethal combination of Israeli militarism and U.S. enablement. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been pushed ever closer to the brink of subsistence, in hopes that they might realize, in the words of Moshe Dayan, that “we have no solution. You will live like dogs, and those who wish to leave, can leave.” We are no longer, as the old Jewish partisan song goes, a volk zwischn falendige wend (a people standing between walls caving in); the Palestinians are.

I recently mused that the most anti-Semitic slogan in the world today would have to be “Israel is the state of the Jewish people”. Wurtzel’s piece, which seeks to erode justifiable distinctions between our people and those who commit crimes in our name, is a strong runner-up.

Don't be ashamed you're Jewish - Be ashamed THEY are!

Concert pianist Anton Kuerti recently said that “Israel’s behaviour makes me ashamed of being a Jew.”

I personally don’t think much of being proud (or, come to that, ashamed) of being something that one is by birth. I am neither proud nor ashamed of being Jewish or a U.S. citizen; neither fact is due to any achievement or failure of my own. Both are merely accidents of birth.

But Kuerti’s comment reminded me of an oft-quoted line from Wallace Markfield’s novel You Could Live if They Let You: “Never, never, never be ashamed you’re Jewish, because it’s enough if I’m ashamed you’re Jewish.” The behaviour – which I personally had as little to do with as with the fact of my being Jewish – does not make me ashamed that I am Jewish; it does, however, make me ashamed, or perhaps rather disgusted, that I share that background with the likes of Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Alan Dershowitz, Joe Lieberman, Thomas Friedman, and the rest of Israel’s criminals and their apologists in the media and academia.

It is hard to escape the fact that we Jews - though certainly not only us - are in some pretty unenviable company. We’re reminded of it every time we turn on the TV to see ourselves represented by yet another another thug (Peres, Olmert, Livni, Sharon, Kissinger), sycophant (Friedman), goniff (Madoff), liar (Foxman), or all-round schmuck (Dershowitz, Lieberman). Let’s admit – even if it’s just to ourselves – that it is not a pretty sight. In fact, it’s damned depressing to see some of the most prominent products of the culture that once brought forth (to name just a few) Viktor Frankl, Hannah Arendt, Kurt Tucholsky, Heinrich Heine, Albert Einstein, Maimonides, and Noam Chomsky (even if - alas! – it will take some of us another fifty years to realise why he belongs on the list). Anyone wishing to theorise about vast anti-Semitic conspiracies could have a field day just looking at the people who claim to speak for us all!

And yet, for the most part, we put up with being represented by these people. Some of us even go so far as to jump down the throat of anyone who criticises them even mildly. The rest of us hear the likes of Foxman and Dershowitz and the Israeli government claiming to be our representatives – even going so far as to claim occasionally that it is anti-Semitic to distinguish between us and our purported representatives – and wonder why we always end up being held responsible for what Israel and our other avowed representatives say and do.

In response to criticisms that his many brilliant essays on the German judiciary took the worst judges as representative of the entire group, the Weimar-era essayist and satirist Kurt Tucholsky had the following to say:

My work does not say that the basest member of a group is its representative; he is no more a representative of the group than the most elevated member that the gentlemen would want to have mentioned to their credit. I said that the basest member is characteristic for the standard of a group: the member that the group just barely tolerates. For example:

If a German physician rapes an under-age female patient, and these facts and the perpetrator’s criminal liability are proven beyond doubt, the entire medical profession will distance itself from the man. Even more – they will remove him from their ranks. Thus, the group cannot be judged based on this member. The group cannot help that he was once one of them. They do not tolerate him, they throw him out.

If a German judge takes a bribe, the group will react immediately – all members will want the man kicked out; the ethics hearing would be a mere formality in this case. Thus, the judge who takes bribes is not a prototype of the German judge.

[…]

And as long as the group of judges do not demonstrate against this type of judge, even if it is merely in the form of serious opposition, as long „the“ judiciary, out of a false sense of collegiality, takes the side of the overrated expert against the “layman” – I will continue to call a German judge a German judge. And I would like that to be understood in the way that a proletarian would understand it – remembering the reports of the Nazi trials [here: trials of Nazis in the 20s and early 30s for political murders and coup attempts, for which they were either acquitted or received absurdly lenient sentences] – when he stands before these judges.

Put differently, as long as members of a group do not clearly shun fellow group members for engaging in a particular sort of conduct, it is reasonable for a person standing on the outside to assume that the group as a whole condones - or, at the very least, does not condemn - that conduct. Unless followed by immediate and public condemnation, a Palestinian might reasonably assume, for example, that Alan Dershowitz is speaking for us all when he calls the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians "a fifth-rate moral issue", or that Tzipi Livni speaks with our overall approval when she threatens Palestinian citizens of Israel with expulsion ("You should seek your future elsewhere."). Nor can the hypothetical Palestinian be blamed for assuming group approval when he sees Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League launch a campaign on behalf of the Turkish government to deny the Armenian genocide, eliciting no condemnation (or even notice). Unless we truly wish such behaviour to be taken as representative of our community, we must act immediately to make it clear that the offending party is acting on his or her own and does not speak for us.

Recent events suggest that at least some of us have begun taking Tucholsky’s words to heart. We are not eternally bound and indebted to the Israeli government and its apologists, nor should we, in a false sense of “ethnic solidarity”, feel obliged to waste our breath defending the indefensible. When we defend – or deny – Israeli crimes and Palestinian suffering, we are doing ourselves no favours. Ultimately, we are merely telling the world that this – be it the assault on the defenceless population of Gaza, the ethnic cleansing of 1948, the use of torture, the various attacks on Lebanon and other countries – is the sort of behaviour we tolerate in members of our community. By defending such crimes, we are in reality telling the world that they meet our minimum standards of acceptable conduct.

Open repudiation of the indefensible conduct of our avowed representatives is the only way to avoid being held personally responsible for it. It is also the only way that justice – without which any “peace” is merely violence by other means – will ever be achieved in the Middle East.

"Pro-"Israel demonstrators demonstrate the latest weapon in the Israeli arsenal - the ability to cause vomiting on command

Jewish demonstrators in New York at a rally in favour of Israel’s eventual self-destruction (what is known, absurdly, as the “pro-Israel” camp) were interviewed for today’s edition of Democracy Now by journalist Max Blumenthal. The views expressed by the demonstrators are nothing short of nauseating.

In my Jewish education as a child, I remember hearing quite a bit about the values held dear by Jewish tradition, among them justice (tsedek) and acts of kindness (gemilut hasadim). As far as I can recall, mindless, proto-fascist jingoism was not amongst them. Alas, this latter value was quite heavily on display at this week’s “pro-Israel” demonstration, which was awash in bluster about Israel’s (US-provided) arsenal and considered declarations of principle such as “Jews kick butt”.

If this had been the only view expressed by the demonstrators, dayenu. Sadly, there was more. One woman described Palestinians as a “cancer” to be excised, while another declared that “the fighting must go on until we’ve wiped them all out.” Others expressed agreement with these re-cast Nazi slogans; if any of the participants dissented, they kept quiet about it. Clearly, "Never Again" means different things to different people.

Another, younger, demonstrator opined that we are witnessing a “repeat of the Holocaust” (I should note, for clarity’s sake, that she was calling the actions of the Palestinians a new holocaust). While I have studied the Nazi holocaust in great detail, I seem to have missed the part where the ZOB fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto were armed with white phosphorus, cluster bombs, Apache attack helicopters, tanks, and F-16 fighters and the SS fought desperately with nothing but ineffectual improvised explosive devices. I’m sure the likes of David Irving and Ernst Zündel will happily sign on to such a declaration.

Our young friend was not given pause, in her invocation of the Nazi holocaust, by the openly genocidal rantings of her comrades. The capacity to recognise irony, it would seem, is not equally distributed throughout the population.

If this is a remake of the Nazi holocaust, it would seem that Central Casting has decided to switch up the roles a bit.

Fortunately, these are no longer the only Jewish voices being heard on the matter. There appears to be a rebellion of sorts afoot in the Jewish community in Israel and throughout the world. Statements are appearing on almost a daily basis, from the US to South Africa, from Jews who are no longer willing to let “Jewish” organisations that have become little more than Israeli PR agencies create the false impression that all Jews are united, Kim Il Sung-style, in support of every atrocity the Israeli government has committed in our name.

More on the Gaza attacks:

Highlights include Israel's unilateral violation of the cease-fire in preparation for the Gaza attacks and the exploitation of the ceasefire to lay the groundwork for the assault. From the major Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

"Disinformation, secrecy and lies: How the Gaza offensive came about"

"Delusions of victory in Gaza"
("Six months ago Israel asked and received a cease-fire from Hamas. It unilaterally violated it when it blew up a tunnel, while still asking Egypt to get the Islamic group to hold its fire.")

"Little Baghdad in Gaza - bombs, fear and rage"

"The Neighborhood Bully Strikes Again"
("Within the span of a few hours on a Saturday afternoon, the IDF sowed death and destruction on a scale that the Qassam rockets never approached in all their years, and Operation "Cast Lead" is only in its infancy."; "Once again, Israel's violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom.")

Response to the statement of the Cincinnati Jewish Community Relations Council

Cincinnati’s Jewish Community Relations Council issued a public statement today condoning the ongoing Israeli attacks on the civilian population of Gaza. Framing Israel’s most recent attacks as Israel’s “military response”, the JCRC goes on to claim that “a record number of more then 2,900 rockets and mortar shells [were] aimed at Israeli civilians” in 2008. Alas, readers will search in vain for an accounting of the number of Israeli bullets, bombs, rockets, mortar shells and other munitions fired at the population of Gaza in the past few days, not to mention over the entire year of 2008. Similarly, readers will find no discussion whatsoever of the recent history of Gaza, apart from a vague reference to the “Disengagement” (the standard euphemism for the seige of Gaza) and the peculiar claim that

Despite the ongoing threat from Hamas, Israel has demonstrated ample willingness to help avoid a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Over the past several months Israel has risked the opening of key border crossings – which have often come under attack – to allow shipments of food and medical supplies to the residents of Gaza.

The reader is left to infer what the JCRC prefers to omit: namely, that Israel has, with few and minor exceptions, systematically blocked the entry of food and medicine to Gaza, thus creating the humanitarian crisis that Israel is supposedly “ampl[y] willing[]” to help avoid. Likewise, the JCRC wastes no words on the widespread condemnation of Israel’s economic strangulation of Gaza, including by the United Nations, to which Israel has responded by imprisoning and expelling UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Prof. Richard Falk in order to prevent him visiting Gaza in order to be able to report in detail on the conditions there. The UNRWA, the UN agency in charge of ensuring that the population of Gaza and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, has been forced by the Israeli blockade to stop providing food and medicine to Gaza, but, again, not a word from the JCRC.

The JCRC does, however, see fit to boast that Israel’s attacks have received the seal of approval of the Bush Administration. As Boston Legal’s Alan Shore once quipped: “When such an obvious straight line is lobbed at me, I cannot be held responsible for my actions.”

Much of the remainder of the JCRC statement is a litany of the standard, long-discredited clichés. No such litany would be complete without a few bars of Hamas’ avowed goal of Israel’s destruction, or that oldie-but-a-goodie: Whenever Israel’s military is called into action, it consistently seeks to minimize civilian casualties. Those of us who prefer a sentimental tune will be happy to hear Israel is still committed to peace, but there can be no peace while an entire population is subject to terrorist attacks. For the grand finale, we are treated to Israel’s right to exist.

This charming medley is not spoiled by pointing out such inconvenient facts as Hamas’s formal recognition of the two-state settlement based on the international consensus as the basis for negotiations. Similarly, the authors of the statement do not point out that even Alan Dershowitz has tacitly admitted that the only way one can speak with a straight face of the IDF’s efforts to minimize civilian casualties is to redefine the term civilian (by concocting a “continuum of civilianality [sic]”). The invocation of “Israel’s commitment to peace” could stand to be qualified by reference to Israel’s consistent record of rejecting diplomatic settlements in favour of expanding illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories, or its consistent use of violence to avoid the danger of serious negotiations. And when even Ehud Olmert is forced to describe settler violence (with near-complete impunity) against Palestinian civilians as a “pogrom”, one might be forgiven for asking which “entire population” is subject to terrorist attacks (at least if we accept standard legal definitions of terrorism). Furthermore, it just wouldn’t do to point out that no state has a right to exist, apart from the right to exist in peace within recognised borders, a right that also applies to the Palestinians, who have repeatedly offered over the past few decades to recognise just that right for Israel.

One wonders why the JCRC bothered to issue such a statement at all when the virtually identical press releases of the Israeli government would fully suffice!

In a time when Jewish opinion is increasingly moving in the direction of disgust at the behaviour of the Israeli government, statements like these by mainstream Jewish organisations raise an uncomfortable, but urgent, question: Do these organisations see themselves as representatives of the interests of our Jewish community in the US, or those of the Israeli government? Some might think that those interests are one and the same. Certainly, this is what we are led to believe by such groups as the Antidefamation League.

However, if there ever was a time in which the interests of Jews here coincided with those of the Israeli government, that time is long since past. By issuing uncritical statements of support for criminal Israeli policies whilst claiming to represent the Jewish community, groups like the JCRC paint us all as advocates of and accessories to criminal actions that more and more of us condemn. It cannot be in our interest for Jews to be portrayed in the media as unquestioning supporters of some of the worst international thuggery of our time.

This certainly is in the interest of the Israeli government, which depends on the appearance of international (and especially US) Jewish support to insulate its conduct from criticism. However, it is most certainly not in the interests of the Jewish community as a whole. As long as mainstream Jewish organisations such as the JCRC seek to create the impression of unity between Jews in the US and the Israeli government, they virtually guarantee that Israel’s crimes will result in an increase in anti-Semitic sentiment (which Israel then uses to encourage immigration in order to solve the “demographic problem”).

As long as “our” organisations continue to blur the line between Israeli conduct and Jewish opinion, it is incumbent upon us to make it clear that these organisations do not represent us. If groups like the ADL and JCRC will not clearly and unmistakably draw the line, it is up to us to draw it ourselves by unequivocally and publicly stating that we do not condone the crimes that Israel commits in our name.

Obama Without Illusions

The Single Issue: Shutting Up the Fundamentalists

We are getting ready to vote in what will hopefully be the first unsuccessfully manipulated presidential election this century, and it’s important to do so without illusions.

We hear that Obama is a socialist. If only! He’s not, and he in fact agrees with McCain on most issues. Let’s not deceive ourselves about what’s at stake here.

There is one issue – and one alone – that makes it worthwhile, perhaps even vital, to ensure that John McCain and his witchcraft-vaccinated sidekick do not make it into the White House: It is high time that we finally kicked these fundamentalist clerics out of the White House.

Domestically, the last eight years have been an all-out war on women, gays, lesbians, transpeople, non-fundamentalists, and anyone who fits in more than one of these categories. We have seen a rapist put in charge of reproductive health at the FDA, seen a judge appointed to the Supreme Court who believes that a man should have the same power over his wife that the law gives him over his minor children, seen the beginning of an offensive against birth control, and we have heard the words “homosexual agenda” so often that we GLBT folks have to wonder whether it isn’t time to actually create one. We have seen the forces of ignorance, superstition, and bigotry attack every facet of our national life, while trying to convince us that it’s the Muslims (the Jews of our time) we should be afraid of.

Is there a single honest, self-respecting person in this country who isn’t sick of this shit? Is there any woman in this country who doesn’t look with dread on the possibility that Justice Stevens’ replacement may be chosen based on the jurisprudential philosophy of Ms “Pay for your own rape kit” Palin? Is there anyone who thinks of the chance that foreign policy will continue to be determined by people seeking to fulfil the prophesy of exterminating Jews and Muslims without being overcome by nausea?

Obama won’t end the murderous wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least he’ll give us some respite from the fundamentalist Christian war against the people of this country. We’ll have four years in which the White House isn’t issuing the press releases of clinic bombers and Christian Dominionist militias.

Those of us who are distracted from fighting against the war and insurance industries will have four years in which we don’t be fully consumed by defending shit we thought we already had. Four years in which women’s chief worry doesn’t have to be whether we’re headed for the 1950s or the 1850s. Obama won’t be handing us what we want, but his election will allow us to focus our energies on our ultimate goals.

As the late Georgie Carlin said 20 years ago, “I have just about had it with these fucking church people!” After eight ears of watching them define the domestic agenda, haven’t we all? Who among us doesn’t feel just a little joy at the thought of the crestfallen faces of our homegrown Taliban? Who doesn’t want to see Ted Haggard, James Dobson, and the Southern Baptist Conference shitting themselves with rage rather than coming in their pants with glee?

Let’s deal these fundamentalist motherfuckers a blow that doesn’t come from their teenage meth connections!

Der eigentliche "neue Antisemitismus"

Ein Gutes hatte der sog. Antiislamisierungskongreß vergangener Woche: Die Herren Entislamisierer haben nämlich unmißverständlich deutlich gemacht, was jeder halbwegs vernünftige Betrachter bereits seit Langem weiß. Seit 1945 hat sich freilich vieles geändert. Das Land, in dem es einst alles zu „arisieren“ galt, hat jetzt eine erstaunlich vielfältige und multikulturelle Gesellschaft vorzuweisen. Selbst der braune Restbestand holt sich erst mal Döner oder Schawarma vor dem allnächtlichen Klatschgang. In einem Land, in dem einst der häßlichste Antisemitismus der Geschichte zum Vorschein kam, blüht jüdisches Leben allmählich wieder auf (in manchen Germanistikstudiengängen kann man inzwischen sogar Jiddischkurse belegen).

Doch eins ist im euroamerikanischen Kulturkreis beim Alten geblieben: die ethnisch-kulturell-religiös definierte Zielscheibe. Gestern hat man gegen die „Verjudung“ Europas gewittert; heute hetzt man gegen eine erfundene „Islamisierung“ (daß Juden hierbei nicht mehr als Zielscheibe, sondern als politisches Schutzschild, verwendet werden, ist ein weiteres Zeichen gesellschaftlichen Wandels). Die Rechte ist dieselbe geblieben; nur das Feindbild hat sie gegen ein neues ausgetauscht.

Interessant ist hierbei zu bemerken, daß eigentlich nur die Namen ausgetauscht worden sind. Sogar die Stereotypen, sowie die Ängste, die es zu schüren gilt, sind 2008 dieselben wie 1930. Damals galt die gesellschaftlich-politische Ausgrenzung vor allem den sog. Ostjuden (auch „Galizier“ genannt). Die Ostjuden kamen v.a. aus Polen und Rußland, lebten erst in der 1. oder 2. Generation in Deutschland, waren größtenteils arm, und hingen sehr an ihren heimischen Bräuchen und Traditionen. Sie sprachen eher Jiddisch als Deutsch, und blieben – nicht zuletzt wegen der sozialen Ausgrenzung – lieber unter sich. Nach dem heutigen Sprachgebrauch würde man ihnen „mangelnden Integrationswillen“ bescheinigen. Häufig wurden sie den heimischen, assimilierten, eher gutbürgerlichen deutschen Juden gegenübergestellt, die sich ebenfalls von ihnen distanzierten. Eine der ersten großangelegten antisemitischen Maßnahmen nach der sog. „Machtergreifung“ war die Massenabschiebung sämtlicher Ostjuden. Die Ostjuden galten als dreckig, hinterlistig und kriminell, sowie als die Träger fremder Einflüsse. Sie waren, so die gängigen rechten Parolen, an allem schuld, woran man nur schuld sein konnte: Arbeitslosigkeit, Armut, gesellschaftlichen Unruhen, usw.

So hat z.B. ein preußischer Polizeipräsident 1920 geschrieben: „Die Ostjudenplage wird, da es sich hier nicht nur um lästige, sondern um höchst gefährliche Ausländer handelt, in ihrer jetzigen Duldung und wohlwollenden Behandlung künftig politisch, wirtschaftlich und gesundheitlich die furchtbarsten Gefahren zeitigen[1]“. Ihnen wurde in antisemitischen Postkarten eine „Freifahrkarte nach Jerusalem… hin und nicht wieder zurück“ angeboten[2].

„Die Physiognomie des jüdischen ‚Schmarotzers’, der als dunkelhaariger Mann mit langem Haar und Bart, mit hagerem Gesicht, Schirmmütze und Peies dargestellt wurde, diente zur Visualisierung des unmaskierten ‚wahren’ Juden, der allerdings aufgrund seiner Assimilationsfähigkeit in die Rolle des zivilisierten Westeuropäers schlüpfen könne; doch ‚die äußerliche Erscheinung ändere nichts an der rassischen Andersartigkeit und ihrem parasitären Charakter[3]’.“

Ein Grundzug der Propaganda war also, daß (Ost-)Juden absolut, unnahbar anders seien, so daß eine rationale Auseinandersetzung oder ein friedliches Zusammenleben mit ihnen schlichtweg undenkbar sei. Nur als Gegner könne man sie verstehen.

Der Vergleich zum heutigen Zustand liegt wohl auf der Hand. Nur das Feindbild hat sich geändert. Ostjuden sind kein geeignetes Feindbild mehr, und zwar nicht zuletzt deshalb, weil sie größtenteils ermordet worden sind. Der nationalsozialistische Massenmord hat such die Einstellungen im euroamerikanischen Kulturkreis zum Judentum, und deshalb auch zum traditionellen Antisemitismus, grundlegend geändert. Heute werden alte NS-Sprüche wie „Juden raus“ nicht nur allgemein verachtet, sondern auch noch strafrechtlich geahndet (anders aber „Türken raus“ o.ä.). An die Stelle des traditionellen, wie auch des nationalsozialistisch verschärften Antisemitismus ist ein Philosemitismus getreten, der aber in manchen Hinsichten – wie z.B. die häufig unkritische Einstellung zur israelischen Politik – den Juden eher schadet als nützt. An die Stelle der Ostjuden als Gegenstand nationalistischer Hetze – das bestätigt erneut der „Antiislamisierungskongreß“ – sind die Muslime getreten.

Schon am Sprachgebrauch ist das zu erkennen. Nicht umsonst nennt die Rechte das Zusammenleben mit Menschen islamischen Glaubens und nahöstlicher Kultur „Islamisierung“. Damit soll nämlich zum Ausdruck gebracht werden, daß es sich nicht um Menschen wie dich und mich handele, sondern um gefährliche Unterwanderer, vor denen die „abendländisch-christliche“ Kultur hermetisch abzuriegeln sei. Daß die heutigen Inhaber der Ostjudenrolle sich nicht nur sprachlich, kulturell und religiös, sondern auch noch häufig aufgrund der Hautfarbe, von „uns“ unterscheiden, ist hierbei ein kleiner Pluspunkt (die Herstellungskosten gelber Halbmonde o.ä. kann man sich nämlich sparen).

Wenden wir uns den heutigen Propagandisten einer vermeintlichen „Islamisierung“ zu, sehen wir einen Umgang mit dem „Gegnervolk“, der dem damaligen politischen Umgang mit den (Ost-)Juden verblüffend ähnlich sieht. Der Bau von Moscheen – wie einst der Bau von Synagogen – wird als „Drohung“ bezeichnet, der man sich entgegensetzen müsse. Als typische Beispiele der islamischen Ausländer, die die deutsche Gesellschaft bevölkern, und die die Mehrheitsverhältnisse in der Bundesrepublik „[u]m[zu]kippen“ drohen, führt ein sog. Minority Report über die „Islamisierung“ an:

„Muslime, die ihren deutschen Hausfrauen drohen, ihnen ‚die Hand abzuhacken’, wenn sie einen anderen Mann auch nur anschauen (...). Oder analphabetische Patriarchen, die ihre Familienangelegenheiten mitten in Berlin nach dem Hausbrauch afghanischer Bergvölker regeln. Die Symptome (!) sind so unterschiedlich wie auch die Ansichten darüber, was schon eine Parallelgesellschaft ist und was noch nicht.“[4]

Derselbe Report betont eine vermeintliche muslimische „Geheimniskrämerei“, und fragt rhetorisch, „Was denken diese Leute wirklich von uns, wenn sie unter sich sind?“[5] „Hoffentlich sind wir diesen Verbreiter von Haß und Gewalt bald los! Doch wenn Staat beziehungsweise Land schon einmal Härte zeigen, folgt gleich die Beschwichtigung, er sei ja nur eine Ausnahme, alle anderen seien doch lieb und nett. Sind sie das wirklich? Was wissen wir denn, was in den Moscheen gesprochen und verkündigt wird?“ (Hervorhebung von mir) heißt es in einem von demselben Report zitierten Leserbrief im Berliner Morgenpost. Einzelheiten zur angedeuteten „muslimischen Weltverschwörung“ werden wir sicherlich demnächst in den Protokollen der Weisen von Arabien erfahren.

Gewalt, Kriminalität, Verschwörungen und Frauenschändung gehören also schon zum neuen Feindbild (wie auch in etwas anderer Form zur alten). Es bleibt dann nur noch das unnahbare Anderssein übrig. Doch auch das stellt uns der Verfasser des Report gern zur Verfügung. „Hinzu kommt,“ zitiert der Report einen Artikel des rechtsradikalen Blatts Junge Freiheit, „daß die Zuwanderung statt aus modernen und bildungsorientierten aus archaischen Gesellschaften erfolgt, und zwar aus deren Unterschichten. So weisen die migrantischen Jugendlichen in Kreuzberg einen durchschnittlichen Intelligenzquotienten von 86 auf, ein alarmierendes Unterschichtenindiz, denn erst ab 105 beginnt die höhere Gesellschaftsfähigkeit[6].“ Ein Dialog sei also undenkbar, weil die „gesellschaftsunfähigen“ Muslime rein geistig nicht in der Lage seien, einen zu führen[7].

In beiden Fällen werden also völkisch, sprachlich, religiös und kulturell definierte Feindbilder heraufbeschworen, die Europa angeblich unterwandern und erobern werden. Wie die Ostjuden wegen ihrer jiddisch- und hebräischsprachigen Gottesdienste werden die Muslime wegen der Führung von Gottesdiensten in ihren jeweiligen Muttersprachen verdächtigt. Die Gebetsstätten selbst werden als geheimnisvolle Verschwörungsstandorte beschrieben, in denen „die“ alles mögliche über „uns“ sagen, ohne daß „wir“ es mitbekommen.

Der im Titel dieses Aufsatzes verwendete Begriff des „neuen Antisemitismus“ ist freilich ein unpräziser. Zwar sind viele Muslime Araber, und damit auch semitischer Herkunft; dies trifft jedoch nicht z.B. auf Türken und Afghanen zu. Vielmehr soll mit dem Begriff zweierlei verdeutlicht werden. Zum einen soll dem als Schimpfwort für (auch jüdische) Israelkritiker verwendeten „neuen Antisemitismus“ eine weniger realtitätsfremde Bedeutung entgegengesetzt werden. Zum anderen soll durch die Verwendung des Antisemitismusbegriffs betont werden, daß beide Feindbilder dieselbe gesellschaftliche Funktion ausüben. So wie der Antisemitismus als „Sozialismus der dummen Kerle“ die Angst und Wut der weniger begüterten Schichten auf eine Zielscheibe lenkte, die eine Fundamentalkritik am Kapitalismus verhinderte, lenkt der heutige Islamisierungswahn von den ökonomisch-politischen Prozessen ab, denen man Massenarbeitslosigkeit, sozialen Abstieg und Hoffnungslosigkeit wirklich zu verdanken hat.

---

[1] Zit. n. http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/bsz/516/516lager.htm

[2] Zit. n. Judith Kessler, Ausstellung: „Gruß aus Bad Kissingen“: Eine Ausstellung im Kommunikationsmuseum befaßt sich mit judenfeindlichen Postkarten, http://www.berlin-judentum.de/news/2004/01/postkarten.htm

[3] Zit. n. Diana Carmen Albu, „Der ewige Jude“ – Geschichte und Hintergründe eines NS-Propagandafilmes, http://david.juden.at/kulturzeitschrift/50-54/Main%20frame_Artikel54_Albu.htm

[4] Minority Report, S. 20, erhältlich unter: http://www.islamisierung.info/file/Minority_Report.pdf

[5] Ebenda, S. 22

[6] Ebenda, S. 30, Hervorhebung im zit. Werk.

[7] An diesem Zitat erkennt man auch einen der wichtigsten Unterschiede zwischen dem traditionellen europäischen Antisemitismus und dem heutigen Islamisierungswahn. Den (weißen) europäischen Juden bescheinigte man nämlich meist eine überdurchschnittliche Intelligenz und eine vermeintlich damit einhergehende „Gerissenheit“, die einen ehrlichen Dialog unmöglich machte. Den größtenteils nichtweißen Muslimen hingegen spricht man die Dialogfähigkeit wegen ihrer vermeintlich unterdurchschnittlichen Intelligenz ab.

Post Scriptum: Seit dem gescheiterten Antiislamisierungskongreß werden von rechter Seite die Antifa- und sonstigen Gegendemonstranten als "Nazis" und "Faschisten" beschimpft. Das ist an und für sich nicht überraschend. Aber es drängt sich da eine Frage auf: Was wäre eigentlich gewesen, wenn den Gesinnungsgenossen der heutigen Herren Entislamisierer 1932 eine ähnliche Begrüßung begegnet wäre wie letzte Woche in Köln?