Friday, May 13, 2016
From Ian:
Anti-Semitism Is Not Like Other Forms of Prejudice
Why Political Prisoners Matter
Anti-Semitism Is Not Like Other Forms of Prejudice
Reviewing an exhibit on anti-Semitism between the world wars at the New-York Historical Society, and another at the Center for Jewish History on the Nazis’ despoliation of Jewish property in Berlin, Edward Rothstein considers what makes hatred of Jews different from other hatreds:
Nazi analogies are too regularly invoked to simplify argument; and anti-Semitism is too often generalized, treated as another variety of racism. [But] I am struck by how singular anti-Semitism is, how cunning the Nazi use of it was, and how different it is from racism, with which it is often confused.
Of course, the Nazis calculatedly turned Judaism into a racial matter. . . . But if race can be an element of anti-Semitism, it is not the main point. For the Nazis it was an indicator of connection and collusion. Is there any other form of group hatred so preoccupied with conspiracy? The Jew, in this view, has hidden powers. The Jew is capable of imposing the Versailles treaty, devaluing currency, and manipulating commerce. . . .
These beliefs might seem beyond contemporary imagining. Yet today similar assertions have attached themselves to Israel—a Jew among nations. Arab media regularly invoke Nazi caricatures and references. Recently, the former mayor of London Ken Livingstone also suggested that Zionism and Nazism shared support from Hitler—adding to a string of comments by Labor leaders caricaturing Israel as uniquely satanic.
But there is no need to look so far afield. At Oberlin College, . . . [a] professor . . . accused “Rothschild-led banksters” of “implementing the World War III option” by shooting down a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine; and she attacked Jews and the Mossad for funding Islamic State. Such accusations are taken from Der Stürmer’s play book. . . . The Oberlin professor, unrepentant, has treated accusations of anti-Semitism as attempts to silence her by the very conspiracy she was drawing attention to.
Clearly, the virus thrives. No exaggerated Nazi analogies are needed to reveal the similarities.
Today, May 12, marks the 40th anniversary of the Moscow Helsinki Group, a human rights organization created to monitor the Soviet Union’s compliance with the Helsinki Accords. In marking this milestone we can do no better than to remind ourselves and the world of the group’s ongoing relevance to those fighting for human rights today.Melanie Phillips: From zero to hero in Londonistan
At the time of their signing, the Helsinki Accords met with quite a bit of skepticism among Western politicians about their likely effect on Soviet behavior. For dissidents, on the other hand, the reaction went beyond skepticism: To us, the agreement represented a clear betrayal by Western powers, who had given Moscow everything it wanted in exchange for empty promises. Since the end of World War II, the Soviet Union had wanted the world to recognize the Baltic Republics, which it had obtained from Hitler, as its own; the Helsinki Accords made this a reality. For years the Soviet Union had wanted Eastern Europe to remain as its protectorate; the Helsinki signatories agreed. And despite these imperialistic policies, the Soviet Union wanted economic cooperation with the West; once again, its negotiating partners gave in.
The aim of the accords was to improve relations between the Communist bloc and Western countries, and to that end it established terms of cooperation between the signatories on various political and economic matters. Yet its provisions were non-binding, and the so-called “third basket” in particular—which obliged parties to respect their citizens’ basic rights—promised to become part of yet another never-ending debate between Soviets and the West about the relativity of their respective values.
It was clear to us dissidents that there was little point in trying to convince the Soviet Union to accept an international standard for human rights, let alone abide by one. Our goal was instead to press Western governments to take Soviet rights abuses seriously.
For this, what was needed most of all was a shared understanding among the agreement’s Western signatories of what constituted a violation.
Those wondering whether Britain now “gets it” about the threat from Islamic extremism or whether it is still a weak link in the West’s defense chain would do well to look at the election last week of Sadiq Khan as London’s mayor.Journalist Ibrahim Issa: Londoners Elected a Muslim Mayor, But No Christian Governor in Egypt
During the campaign, several people from the Prime Minister David Cameron downward expressed anxiety about Khan’s past associations with Islamists. Britain’s defense secretary, Michael Fallon, suggested that London would be in more danger from extremists if Khan was in charge (a claim he later softened under pressure).
A strange thing then happened. Khan’s election ricocheted the new mayor and former Labour MP from zero to hero. Those who expressed extremism concerns have been denounced as racists (their attackers appear to think Islam is a race, but let’s put that to one side).
To a Labour Party utterly frantic over its calamitously inept, ultra-leftist leader Jeremy Corbyn, Khan became overnight the man of the moment for winning power and doing so by attacking Corbyn from the Right.
No matter that Khan did this in a ruthless maneuver to neutralize the fact that he had actually nominated Corbyn for Labour leader. There’s now even excited talk that Khan could become leader himself.
