What Causes Genocide? A Perspective on Anti-Semitism at UC Davis
Decades after the atrocities of the Holocaust, researchers and anthropologists alike have searched tirelessly for the definitive answer to this harrowing question.Amb. Alan Baker: Is the Palestinian ICC gambit compatible with the EU call for a return to negotiations?
One looks to not find a simple answer, but to find a solution -- a pretext for genocide, so as to prevent it and fulfill the wishes of "never again."
Researchers such as Ben Kiernan, director of the genocide studies program at Yale, have argued that "racism, religious prejudices, revivalist cults of antiquity...and idealization of social classes" are the roots of genocide. James Waller, professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Keene State College, argued that nationalism and severe xenophobia were among main causes while Ervin Staub, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, has said that genocidal behavior stems from cultural stereotyping and devaluation of respective races.
Despite what these renowned researchers of genocide argue, there is a common denominator among their reasons.
Simply put, while the genesis of the Holocaust is rooted in the troubled political history of Europe during that time period, it cannot be denied that the justification for the systematic mass genocide of the Jewish people during World War II lies in, not the sociopathic behavior of the oppressors, but the simple racist stereotyping of the oppressed: anti-Semitism.
It started with anti-Semitism; it ended in death.
As reported by the EU: “The Quartet underlined the importance of the parties resuming negotiations as soon as possible, with a view to reaching a just, lasting and comprehensive peace on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, the Madrid Principles including land for peace and the agreements previously reached between the parties.”European Anti-Semitism Starts from the Top
Surprisingly, the EU Quartet added: “A sustainable peace requires the Palestinians’ aspirations for statehood and sovereignty and those of Israelis for security to be fulfilled through negotiations based on the two-state solution. The Quartet will remain actively engaged in preparing for a resumption of the peace process in the coming period, including regular and direct outreach to Arab states. Pending the resumption of negotiations, the Quartet called on both parties to refrain from actions that undermine trust or prejudge final status issues.”
Clearly the question here, taking into consideration these two news items, is how can the Palestinians push for bringing Israeli leaders before the ICC on the one hand while on the other intimating to the world their desire to resume negotiations with those same leaders? That the person heading their ICC preparation committee is the chief Palestinian negotiator to both the US and the EU would alone seem to render this whole picture rather absurd. It begs the question: which Israelis does Erekat intend to negotiate with, if his aim is to have them all arrested for war crimes? It is perhaps high time that the international community faced the reality that the Palestinian leadership, in attempting to stem the rise of popular support for Hamas among its population, is resorting to this ICC gambit as a public relations exercise, blatantly deceiving themselves, their constituency and the international community.
Having issued their Quartet statement calling for the resumption of negotiations, and in light of their express intention to “remain engaged” in preparing for a resumption of such negotiations, one would expect that if they had an iota of genuine concern for the future of the peace process the senior Quartet representatives issuing the statement – Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, US Secretary of State John Kerry, EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Federica Mogherini and UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson (representing UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon) – would have made it very clear to the Palestinian leaders that “they can’t have their cake and eat it, too.”
The Obama administration’s inexplicable denial that last month’s attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris could possibly be anti-Semitic overshadowed yesterday’s other interesting tidbit from the anti-Semitism front: German Jewish organizations are furious because a blue-ribbon panel set up by the German government to advise it on fighting anti-Semitism doesn’t include a single Jew. It’s hard to imagine that a panel on, say, prejudice against Muslims or blacks would exclude representatives of the targeted community. But the more serious concern is that a panel without Jews will ignore one of the main manifestations of modern anti-Semitism, as exemplified by another German decision just last week: a judicial ruling that there’s nothing anti-Semitic about torching a synagogue to protest Israeli actions in Gaza.In New York Times, J Street Gets the Last Word
The case involved two German-Palestinian adults who threw Molotov cocktails at the Wuppertal synagogue in July, causing 800 euros worth of damage. The court decided the attack wasn’t anti-Semitic and therefore let them off with suspended jail sentences and community service. And why wasn’t it anti-Semitic? Because, said the court, the perpetrators were simply trying to bring “attention to the Gaza conflict” then raging between Hamas and Israel. And of course there’s nothing anti-Semitic about attacking Jews in one country to “bring attention” to acts by other Jews in another country; they’re all Jews, aren’t they? Doubtless the court would be equally understanding if Israelis torched a German church to “bring attention to” this abhorrent ruling.
Nor is the ruling an aberration; it’s quite representative of elite German thought. Last year, Prof. Monika Schwarz-Friesel of the Technical University of Berlin published a study that analyzed 10 years’ worth of hate mail sent to the Central Council of Jews in Germany and the Israeli embassy in Berlin. To her surprise, only 3 percent came from right-wing extremists, while over 60 percent came from educated members of “the social mainstream.” And these letters weren’t mere “Israel criticism”; they contained classic anti-Semitic statements like “It is possible that the murder of innocent children suits your long tradition” or “For the last 2,000 years, you’ve been stealing land and committing genocide.”
When Israel is covered by a writer from the New York Times, it is a safe bet that the writer will go to J Street in search of a stinging quote to drive home the article’s message, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.
The liberal anti-Israel lobbying group and its founder Jeremy Ben-Ami have become staples of Times coverage of Israel, which usually features a quote from Ben-ami as the final kicker.
The group has been quoted in nearly 30 New York Times articles since the beginning of 2009 and in more than half of those articles J Street is quoted in the concluding paragraph.
The practice of using J Street and Ben-Ami for kickers has been on the rise in recent weeks.
In a single day on Jan. 29, two different authors both used quotes from Ben-Ami regarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to the U.S. Congress.