There is a growing debate within the American Jewish community about whether the external threats to the Jewish community worldwide are similar to those just before the outbreak of World War II. The challenges now facing world Jewry, however, are not remotely similar — because of the creation of the State of Israel, because of the lessons learned from the Holocaust, because of the integration of Jews into Western societies and, critically, because the most profound challenges facing Israel and world Jewry are shared by the wider world.
To act on the proposition that the threats today are equivalent to those in 1938 would lead to inappropriate and counterproductive policy responses. Nevertheless, there are significant dangers now facing world Jewry.
In 1938, Adolf Hitler had been in power for five years and had begun to apply anti-Jewish laws while planning the invasion of Europe. His “Final Solution” became official policy later, as a result of both his vehement antisemitism and the failure of the Allied powers to agree to take any additional Jewish refugees, a failure he took as a clear signal that the world’s democracies put a low priority on saving Jewish lives.
In 1938, Palestine was still under the British Mandate, and there was no independent Jewish state to afford a refuge to Jews in danger. Public opinion polls in the United States showed some 40% of the American public held antisemitic stereotypes of Jews and that in Europe there was rampant antisemitism, much of it church-based.
Hitler had a largely free hand in perpetrating the Holocaust, and indeed, in several Eastern European countries local residents facilitated the Nazi genocide. In France, a Vichy regime would soon be created that passed its own anti-Jewish laws and cooperated with German authorities to deport tens of thousands of French Jews to their deaths.
Today, however, there is a third Jewish commonwealth, a state that over the years has been a sanctuary for Jews in distress, from Arab nations to the former Soviet Union.
Israel has one of the world’s five most powerful military capabilities. It can defend itself against any conventional attack. Israel has signed peace agreements with two of its most powerful foes, Egypt and Jordan, and they have been scrupulously followed. While it is not the warm peace we might have wished for, it is a peace nevertheless, and it takes pressure off Israel’s military forces.
In 2002, and again just a few weeks ago, Saudi Arabia proposed a peace initiative, accepted by the entire Arab League, offering normalized relations with Israel. While the conditions are clearly unacceptable, the willingness to recognize Israel by some of its most vociferous foes is noteworthy. I likewise believe an agreement with Syria could be reached that protects Israel’s security interests.
Moreover, while antisemitism has not been extinguished, the gravity of the Holocaust has been imbedded on world opinion. Levels of general antisemitic attitudes have declined sharply. There has been a successful decades-long Catholic-Jewish dialogue, with important statements by the Vatican that diminish religious-based antisemitism.
Indeed, intermarriage rates have soared in the United States and in Western Europe — a clear and present danger to Jewish continuity, to be sure, but a symbol of the acceptance of Jews by general society. Most Western European countries have Holocaust remembrance days, and several have Holocaust memorial museums, commemorations that were both initiated by the United States during the Carter administration.
While it is sad that it is needed, virtually every major European nation provides police protection for Jewish synagogues and religious schools. Antisemitic actions are met with firm responses, as in France, albeit belatedly. To its credit, the French anti-hate crimes law was amended to include antisemitic actions.
Our work during the Clinton administration raised the implications of the Holocaust back onto the world agenda, with belated justice for Holocaust victims and their families — some $8 billion in compensation and restitution overall. Of long-term significance, more than a dozen countries undertook official reviews of their role in misusing confiscated Jewish property, the most searching being the Swiss and French reports. And the Holocaust Education Task Force, initiated by Sweden and now including more than 20 nations, is promoting Holocaust education in school systems around the world, under the guidance of Yad Vashem in Israel.
Likewise, the Jewish community in the United States, largely quiescent during World War II, has learned the lessons of its silence and has vowed “never again.” Jewish organizations are active, public and vocal in defending Jewish interests both at home and abroad.
Yet there are genuine external threats to Jews around the world. The difference is that the Jewish people and Israel today have allies in combating those threats.
The major external challenge in the United States, beyond sporadic antisemitic incidents, is actually symbolic of the clout held by Jews in the American political arena: the canard that the so-called “Jewish lobby” controls American policy in the Middle East in ways that are disadvantageous to America’s national security interests. There is a troubling growth of anti-Israel sentiment on American college campuses, stemming primarily from the Israeli occupation of territory captured in self-defense following the Six Day War.
There is a fine line — which is at times being disturbingly crossed — between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and the de-legitimization of Israel as a Jewish state. But troubling as these incidents are, there is little resonance among the general American public, which by overwhelming numbers is supportive of Israel compared to the Arab world, even more so since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
European Jews face a situation of greater concern. In Europe, public opinion is sharply anti-Israel, with recent Eurostat polls finding Israel, along with the United States, to be the greatest threats to world peace, ahead of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Iraq. In the United Kingdom, one of the two largest academic unions passed a motion last year to boycott Israeli academic institutions.
Of even greater concern is the radicalization of a small-but-dangerous part of the European Muslim community, which was underscored by the tragic 2006 murder of Ilan Halimi in Paris. There are some 20 million Muslims in Europe today, with the number likely to grow to 50 million in the next 25 years. The overwhelming majority are peaceful and want a better way of life, but there may be a growing number of radicals at the fringe feeding on the Palestinian conflict and on the lack of jobs and education in their adopted homes in Europe.
European leaders, it must be noted, recognize the need to crack down on the radicals. The French Muslim riots in 2005, the bus and subway bombings in London the same year, and the train bombing in Madrid in 2004 were attacks on Western societies, not against Jews, and therefore elicited responses from political leaders to defend broader national interests. As the Islamic influence grows in Europe, leaders throughout key Western European nations are trying to fashion policies that better integrate Muslim immigrants into society while maintaining traditional European values. European Jews are not alone in facing the challenge of the Islamization of the European continent.
The external challenges facing American and European Jewry, however, pale in comparison with the external threats facing Israel — namely, the growth of Hamas in the Palestinian territories and of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the rise of Iran, a major financial, spiritual and military supporter of both radical groups.
The United States and the European Union both list Hamas as a terrorist organization, and the diplomatic quartet of the United States, E.U., United Nations and Russia refuses to recognize Hamas until it recognizes Israel’s right to exist, forswears violence and accepts all previous peace agreements. The United States takes the same position regarding Hezbollah. While both organizations are very troubling, neither is a threat to Israel’s existence.
Iran is a different story. It poses a potential existential threat to Israel. Its president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and denies the Holocaust, and the country has both a medium-range missile capacity and a voracious appetite for nuclear weapons. But again, Israel’s concerns are widely shared.
Moderate, pro-Western Arab leaders are as concerned as Israel about the possibility that a nuclear-armed Shiite Iran will dominate the region and destabilize their regimes. Acting on findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United States has gotten strong support from the E.U. and from the U.N. Security Council for economic sanctions against Iran.
The view that it is unacceptable for a radicalized Iran to possess nuclear weapons is shared by Western nations, most Arab countries and even Russia. How Iran will be deterred remains to be seen. But what is critical to remember is that Israel is not isolated in its grave concerns, and should not unilaterally initiate military action at this time.
World Jewry and Israel do indeed face external problems. But it does no good to suggest that these problems are equivalent to those that an essentially weak Jewish community faced in 1938.
Stuart Eizenstat is a former American ambassador to the European Union, deputy secretary of the Treasury, under secretary of commerce for international trade, and under secretary of state for economic, business and agricultural affairs. He served as President Carter’s chief domestic policy adviser and as President Clinton’s special representative on Holocaust-era issues.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
Boston Bombers Pal Slain in Florida Eyed in 'Jewish' Triple Murder
You've successfully signed up!
Dear Mr Eizenstat, thank you for this insightful overview of the state of the world as regard to jewish and israeli securities. I suggest that you take notice of the patterns suggested by some of my analyses of multidecennial publication trends in some scientific journals. They indicate bias against publication of papers signed by scientists with israeli adresses, as compared to those from other countries, and as compared to other journals (links are at the end of this message). If my interpretations of these patterns are correct, they indicate long term prejudice against Israel in many academic circles, notably including the natural sciences, commonly believed to be relatively immune of prejudices as affecting scholar decisions. I believe this is symptomatic, not only of prejudice against Israel, but also of a general disrespect for objectivity, search of truth and due process. There is no reason to think that such attitudes do not pervade other parts of society, notably such that are closely related to the academy, such as tribunals and hospitals. These attitudes ultimately lead to the dismemberment of civil societies. Respectfully Yours, Herve Seligmann Links: <a href="http://www.spme.net/documentation/bmj.html">http://www.spme.net/documentation/bmj.html</a> or <a href="http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7421/989-d">http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7421/989-d</a> <a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7391/713/c#33902">http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7391/713/c#33902</a> <a href="http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7391/713/c">http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7391/713/c</a> <a href="http://spme.net/cgi-bin/facultyforum.cgi?ID=2080">http://spme.net/cgi-bin/facultyforum.cgi?ID=2080</a> <a href="http://discardedlies.com/entry/?4877">http://discardedlies.com/entry/?4877</a> <a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7421/989-d?hits=10&FIRSTINDEX=0&AUTHOR1=Seligmann&FULLTEXT=Israel&SEARCHID=1117010542257_1884&gca=bmj%253B327%252F7421%252F989-d">http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7421/989-d?hits=10&FIRSTINDEX=0&AUTHOR1=Seligmann&FULLTEXT=Israel&SEARCHID=1117010542257_1884&gca=bmj%253B327%252F7421%252F989-d</a>&
Fundamentally it all comes down to what real legitimacy either side can call upon in furtherance of its claim on the land, be it that of Israel or Palestine. Conferring and confirming that legitimacy has always been something of a problem. The lack of any permanent resolution here is ever the cause of continued conflict. Maybe such an issue should be finally addressed and in an altogether more robust manner. Rather than relying on the disputed memories and documentation of past events, sovereignty should be conferred and legitimised through the lens of today and tomorrow's more focused viewpoint. Here's an example. (A graphical representation can be found at http://yorketowers.blogspot.com) Can it really be beyond the compass of the human mind to at least regulate this constant cycle of carnage in the Middle East? Maybe it is - but here's a suggestion for closure where the expenditure involved would seem to comprise mainly that of a few brain cells, a commodity we all have in plentiful supply. This is a dry, almost antiseptic solution, perhaps a bit 'clinical' in its approach to the conflict. It's a formula-driven method which, somewhat perversely, derives an unexpected synergy from the very problem it seeks to address. Worked out by a German I met many years ago in Nurnburg. Very Germanic therefore, very direct - and, in its own fashion, arguably much more effective than many peace proposals floated in the past - and which have now long since sunk without trace. Simulation. Monitor events in the region, sample and evaluate those incidents involving violence and/or intolerance, even the quite minor ones. Place on record that which occurs and make a determination/estimation as to whether this side or that is deemed responsible. For instance, something happens; it was violent; it seemed deliberate; people were hurt; property was damaged - so on and so forth. This was judged at the time to be Israeli in origin - or it was Palestinian inspired. Can include a default option too - 'perpetrated by person or persons unknown' - if circumstances so dictate. Collate all this information and await the next sequence of bombs, bullets, whatever, that happens along. Do likewise with these and continue monitoring. At some stage - a time limit, a points cut-off - the sampling process terminates and one of the entries thus catalogued is then randomly selected. Penalise the offending party here by conferring full ownership and title of some nominal area of land on its opposite number. One square kilometre should more than suffice, the transfer of which is formally recognised by the rest of the world - also acting as guarantor - even if only in the moral and legal sense. One of the much maligned UN resolutions perhaps? The sampling process then re-engages and, assuming the violence continues unabated, a further parcel of land is thereby delineated and assigned to whoever. The area this covers would then be some 2 sq. km. Subsequent infractions might trigger another penalty; 4 sq. km. After that, it's 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 sq. km. . . . . . . . A natural progression; soon ramps up to some very serious real estate indeed. Scenario. The dynamic of the whole situation now changes markedly. Israelis, through violence and the like, would be seen to be promoting, even ratifying the Palestinian cause while, similarly, Palestinians might well be perceived as carrying forward and cementing the dream of a permanent Jewish homeland. Prospects guaranteed to give even the most militant in either camp considerable pause for thought. 'He brought home the other sides' bacon for them' - quite possibly the least coveted obituary of martyr, soldier and politician alike. Very salutary though if a permanent end to these hostilities is ever to emerge from the present fog of contention. Now, back there in Nurnburg, I felt that, as a theory, the concept had some small merit but little practical value. And I said as much to my German companion, detailing what I felt to be major obstacles in its path. 1. Too biased. The Israelis might go for it - the novelty alone makes it an idea worth exploring. Not so the Palestinians - and with some justification. Yes, this might lock down the violence - and appreciably so - but to what end? To preserve the status quo? To stifle any movement towards change or progress? Not entirely a welcome outcome where Palestinian interests are concerned. The answer, apparently, is to acknowledge the objection and offer to take the system 'off-line' for one or two months. In that time slot, the whole question might readily be referred back to the field of battle - if calmer counsels have not prevailed in the interval. 2. Too easily sabotaged. Disaffected elements in both groups could easily overload the process, manufacturing spurious claims and stage-managing acts of violence. A futile endeavour therefore and not worth the effort. Any halfway decent sampling technique should be more than adequate to discourage such activities. Those seeking to choreograph events could find their efforts ineffective, or worse still, counterproductive. 3. Wouldn't it be imperative to obtain at least tacit approval from both principals in this matter? Given the long-standing enmity between them, acceptance of so radical a departure from familiar norms and customs of warfare seems doubtful in the extreme. Curiously enough, agreement on the issue need not be a mandatory requirement here. In fact both parties could initially ignore the whole procedure and continue on much as before. However, there comes a time when the areas of land so designated must reach something of a critical mass. At such a point, one side or the other might very well decide to go with what's on offer. Holding such clear and universal title to any major tract of this much disputed territory might prove progressively more and more difficult to resist. Thereafter, further violence becomes increasingly untenable. Fighting against a conventional enemy is all very well - but when that enemy is also a mathematical construct, the numbers themselves soon begin to outweigh all other considerations. 4. But who could - or should - debate, decide, pronounce on changes of such magnitude? Who would accept the awesome responsibility entailed in decisions of this significance? We are all, it seems, as ever, still our brothers keeper. It must fall to us, the world community - or representatives thereof - to perform the deed. And, with such godlike powers theirs to command, the expectation is that there would be no great shortage of volunteers. Now whether all this has any relevance as to our view of the Middle East today is, of course, debatable. But it would be well to note that, in our various dealings with the Angel of Death, any increase in our choices here must certainly be welcomed. A template capable of ending once and for all, not just this business, but also others of an equally intractable nature, would go a long way towards making some sense out of all that's happened - even if only as an intellectual exercise. And if, for some reason, it didn't work out, some unforeseen flaw in the design perhaps, well then, we could at least console ourselves with the knowledge that, in the final analysis, ,,,,,, we can always blame the Germans! John Yorke Wirral, UK.
Eizenstadt, the all-around-genius and Holocaust-era presidential advisor, is too busy dissecting the trees to see the forest. Yes, Europe today comprises democratic republics with legal protection for Jews. Yes, anti-Semitism is now a tool of the powerless, not the powerful. And yes, anti-Semitism is out of vogue — in the United States. These facts differentiate today from 1938. But how should one react when even the former "moderate" president of Iran speaks openly of welcoming a nuclear weapon exchange with Israel — because it would destroy Israel but only damage the Islamic world? Or when Iran's current president threatens to "wipe Israel off the map" with a "single storm"? Eizenstadt offers cold comfort: "[W]hat is critical to remember [about Iran] is that Israel is not isolated in its grave concerns, and should not unilaterally initiate military action at this time." He has it backwards: What is critical to remember is that Israel is the only country with real concerns about being put in a grave, and not being isolated about "concerns" about Iran will not disarm it. With the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons looms the horrific death of millions of Jews. That is a Holocaust. The trees are different, but the forest is as dark today as it was in 1938. Jon E. Drucker, Los Angeles
Actually I disagree with the statement that the majority of Americans support Israel. Over the past five years as the public has become more educated about the ME, and particulary after Lebanon bombing, the average American has a negative opinion of Israel, it's supporters in the US and a growing resentment of their interference in US foreign policy. I don't think this creates true anti-semitism, but as I said it does create resentment of what most Americans see as "cultist" type groups of Jews and assorted Evangelicals who for different reasons beleive they they have the right to live in one country and serve another country or cause by peverting our political process for their own benefit. How long the majority will allow this abnormality to continue remains to be seen, but history tells us that when the envelope is pushed to it's maximum the cycle reverses to seek balance.
In fact, the complete opposite is true about Jewish survival. Yes, Israel, the lone county which has a sizeable Jewish population and can defend itself, is in no way safe from extinction. The US, Canada, and parts of Europe equally, cannot protect their Jewish populations from our many enemies, home grown and foreign. Let me explain my reasoning to those who doubt anything I've posted. Israel, while strong, is vulnerable within minutes of a massive Iranian nuclear attack, coordinated with her other Arab neighbors. Egypt's airforce alone has more advanced planes than Israel, and is supplied with hundreds of F-16s. She has smart bombs and ground to ground missiles and missile boats. Israel has a small navy. The combined Arab armies have thousands of tanks, planes and missiles. Iran, not a Muslim, but not an Arab country, has a huge navy, Shihad Missiles and Soviet weaponry. It's troop strengh is nearly 5m including home guards. It has 40,000 suicide bombers alone. If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, the Shia populations are ready to combine their resources (against Israel). We should look at what happened recently when Israel took on a small group of militants (Hezbollah) in Lebanon and the calamity it caused. Also, Hamas, with less than 20,000 fighters, is causing Israel a lot of concern. Can anyone imagine the might of the combined Muslim armies united? As far as Diaspora Jewry, we have virtually no protection from the (albiet) minority who really do dislike us. Yes, most Americans support Israel, but that attitude is fickle. In an attack against Israel, how would the militias and Farrakan's boys act towards us? Would the days of Reagan NOT Begin come back? Would Jews be accused of having dual loyalties and causing all the world wars ( a la Mel Gibson ). Would those supposedly who love us start accusing the neo-cons of provoking all the US conflicts in the M.E. and linking their Jewish backgrouds? In the last riot in Los Angeles, there were less than 20 police assigned to guard Jewish areas of the city. Only 5,000 rioters caused a curfew for days. Fires destroyed entire malls. Jewish areas were vulnerable to the hooliganism. France, which has nearly 1m Jews, has been plagued by Muslim violence, it's Jewish community has been hard hit and unable to defend itself. England is hopelessly anti-Semitic. Germany still has NAZI types and Russian Jew haters are well documented. Even in Australia, there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims with anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic attitudes. In Belgium, Jewish youth do not wear skull caps or appear too Jewish in public places. As far as Israel, it has never successfully tested it's supposed nuclear capability. It is believed however that it's computer models suffice to prove it's successful development of atomic and high fusion bombs. But, there is no definite proof of it's ultimate deterrence. Yet, Iranian officials boast that only 2 bombs exploded over Israel's crowded coast, would destroy the Zionist enterprise. I believe that scenario, no matter how destructive Israel's retaliation would be. By then, it would be too late. Let's be honest about Arab-Muslim unity against Israel. Prior to the 67 War, Syria and Egypt united. Egyptian divisions were relocated to the Syrian front. Israel struck first, and we know the result. In any new war, unless Israel pre-empts an Iranian attack, the outcome will be far different. The US is now forcing Israel to accept advanced weapons systems to be supplied to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, ostensibly to thwart Russian sales to the area, and put a wedge between Sunni and Shia Muslims (using Iraq as an example). I am convinced that in the event of a war, these countries will re-assign their weaponry as needed. I also believe that foreign pilots (No. Korean) could be utilized as mercenaries. But we should also remember that Hitler did not possess atomic bombs. If he had, would not WW2 have had a much different ending? Would not we Jews in the US been in mortal danger? Did we not know what he had in mind for US? Already, we read by one Israeli pundit that Israel would have to accept 20,000 deaths in the event of an Iranian attack, and would survive to live on. I'm not so sure of that. I have been very pessimistic obviously. But, Israel and Western Jewry still have time to thwart the above scenarios. If Israel comes out of the closet so to speak about it's hundreds of high fusion bombs, that might give these Muslims something to think about. In the meantime, Israel could be preparing shelters for the worse. American Jews could be rethinking which political party deserves our money and our votes at election time., and whether the current President's policy is good or bad for Israel. I think it's good.
When Benny Morris, the most peace loving Israeli historian writes that he thinks the president of Iran will unleash atom bombs on Israel in ten years and destroy the who country I am very worried.
Mr. Benni Morris has a big problem for the Middle East's historian. He does'n know Arabic. He doesn't know Farsi too. This is why he doesn’t have a necessary knowledge, and his opinion about Iran's state of affairs can be neglected.
The lastest polls shows in the U.S. it is almost 3 to 1 in favor of Israel. Sorry Carroll but you own Anti-Zionism does not change that fact and your complete false scenario is pure fiction.
I WAS ANGERED BY THE EXCLUSION OF THE MURDEROUS MUSLIM SHOOTING ATTACK ON SEVERAL INNOCENT JEWISH WOMEN IN SEATTLE, LAST YEAR. IN POLITICALLY CORRECT AMERICA OF TODAY, SUCH STORIES ARE COVERED UP! ALSO, NO MENTION IS MADE OF THE DEEP FEAR THAT PERMEATED MANY ELDERLY JEWISH-AMERICANS DURING THE HEZZBOLLAH WAR, LAST YEAR. INDEED, IN BOSTON'S NORTH SHORE, ONLY ONE TEMPLE RECOGNIZED THE FEAR AND HAD AN EVENING PROGRAM ON THE SUBJECT. OF COURSE, MOST ELDERLY CANNOT GET TO SUCH MEETINGS AND THE PROGRAM WAS NOT RECORDED FOR USE ON LOCAL CABLE ACCESS TV (WHICH OFTEN BROADCASTS BLACK MUSLIMS PROGRAMS). NEVERTHELESS, THERE WAS MUCH ELDERLY FEAR, INCLUDING AMONG HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS, AS WAS NOTED IN A LOCAL NEWSPAPER. ONE OFTEN FEELS AS THOUGH THIS IS THE THIRTIES AGAIN. EUROPEAN ANTI-SEMITISM HAS NEVER BEEN WORSE; POLLS SHOW THAT MUSLIMS OVERWHELMINGLY HAVE DEEP HATRED FOR JEWS; WE KNOW THE DANNY PEARL AND BERG STORIES AS WELL AS THE YOUNG FRENCH JEW - WHO WAS TORTURED AND MURDERED FOR BEING A JEW, NEAR THE PARIS RAILROAD TRACKS BY FRENCH MUSLIMS; AND THE YOUNG HUNGARIAN PRIME MINISTER (WHO HAS A WIFE OF JEWISH ORIGIN), AND RECENTLY SAID THAT HE HAS NEVER SEEN EAST EUROPEAN ANTI-SEMITISM AS BAD AS IT IS NOW! DURING, THE LEBONEN WAR, LAST SUMMER, JEWISH PARENTS SEEMED MORE INTERESTED IN WHETHER THEIR KIDS SHOULD GO TO "JEWISH" EAST EUROPE OR TO ISRAEL. MEANWHILE, THE ONLY OUTSIDE POSTERS OF SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL WAS ON EVANGELICAN CHURCHES HERE - ONE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM A TEMPLE. MEANWHILE, TEMPLES WERE UNDER POLICE PROTECTION AND HAD SURVEILANCE CAMMERAS COVERING THEIR PROPERTY. WHEN JEWS SEE THOSE "PEACE MARCHES" ON TV, DO YOU ALSO SEE THE ARABS WAVING PALESTINIAN FLAGS AND COVERING THEIR FACES WITH THEIR ARABIC SCARVES. DO YOU HEAR WHAT THEY SAY AT THESE "PEACE MARCHES". THE ONLY OPPOSTION TO MUSLIM RALLIES AGAINST ISRAEL IN BOSTON - COMES FROM IMMIGRANT RUSSIAN JEWS. LOCAL AMERICAN JEWS ARE TOO BUSY BREAKING BREAD WITH LOCAL MUSLIMS, SUPPORTING THE BUILDING OF A $20 MILLION MOSQUE, (REPORTED BY LOCAL TV, AND A MAJOR BOSTON DAILY, AND SOME JEWISH GROUPS, LIKE THE DAVID PROJECT), AS BEING BACKED BY PEOPLE WITH TERRORIST CONNECTIONS WHO HAD GONE TO SAUDI ARABIA FOR MONEY, AND WHO BOUGHT THE $2 MILLION LOT FOR A COUPLE OF HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS THROUGH A MUSLIM WORKING FOR THE CITY BUILDING AUTHORITY. ANOTHER SOUTH OF BOSTON IMAM, HERE ILLEGALLY (ON AN EXPIRED STUDENT VISA, I BELIEVE), WAS BRINGING IN MORE ILLEGAL MUSLIM MOSQUE EMPLOYEES, SUPPOSEDLY TO FILL RELIGIOUS VACANCIES, BUT NEVER RETURNED TO THEIR HOMELANDS AFTER THEIR VISAS EXPIRED - UNTIL THE FEDS RAIDED THEM LAST YEAR AND ARRESTED THEM. YET THE LOCAL JEWISH COMMUNITY WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO DEFEND THEM AGAINST THE FEDS AS GOOD NEIGHBORS! (THERE WAS A GERMAN-JEWISH BANKING FAMILY THAT THOUGHT THE NAZIS WOULD BE GOOD FOR LAW AND ORDER!) WE HAVE THIS SAME TYPE OF THINKING IN AMERICA ABOUT "ISLAM AS A RELIGION OF PEACE". JUST LOOK AT THE WAY THE SUNNIS AND SHIITES ARE BUTCHERING EACH OTHER IN IRAQ! CAN WE EXPECT LESS! PARTICULARLY WITH A MUSLIM A-BOMB. ONE ASSASINATION, AND MUSHARIF OF PAKISTAN'S A-BOMBS CAN BE SHOT TOWARD ISRAEL, EVEN BEFORE IRAN IS READY TO SHOOT THEIR A-BOMBS. DO YOU THINK THAT THE BBC WILL CARE? SHIITE IRAN AND SUNNI JIHADISTS, LIKE HITLER, HAVE ALREADY WARNED US OF THEIR PLANS FOR JEWS. IN MY OPINION, EIZENSTAT'S OPINIONS ARE OF LITTLE HELP IN PREPARING US FOR THE DREADFUL FUTURE THAT LIES AHEAD! I PRAY THAT ISRAEL CAN GET A MORE COMPETENT LEADER THAN OLMERT TO RALLY ISRAEL. I DO KNOW THAT WEALTHY ISRAELIS ARE ALREADY BUILDING A-BOMB SHELTERS FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE. BUT, THIS PRIVATISED BOMB SHELTERS IS NOT THE JEWISH WAY! IT ONLY OCCURS BECAUSE WE HAVE A LEADERSHIP VACCUUM IN ISRAEL AND AMERICA. I WOULD ADD EUROPE, BUT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY THERE SEEMS TO BE VOTING WITH THEIR FEET. THE FORWARD IS RIGHT IN ITS FEAR! TRUE, THE ARABS FEAR THE IRANIAN BOMB MORE THAN THE ISRAELI ONE, BECAUSE THE HAVE LEARNED TO LIVE WITH IT AND ARE NOT FEARFUL ISRAEL WILL PULL A SURPRISE ATTACK. BUT, NOW THE ARABS ARE GOING TO BUILT THEIR OWN A-BOMB - FOR DEFENSE AGAINST AN IRANIAN THREAT! BUT, THEY COULD JUST AS QUICKLY TURN AND USE IT AGAINST ISRAEL! ARABS MAY TRUST ISRAEL NOT TO DO A SURPRISE ATTACK, BUT ISRAEL MUST NEVER BELIEVE THAT THE ARABS WOULD NOT PULL A SURPRISE ATTACK IF THEY COULD!
You know although I do not Like Ahmadi Nejad. I am sick and tired of hearing Iran is a threat to Israel. You are comparing Ahmadi Nejad to Hitler while still there are so many Iranian Jewish living in Iran who have representative in the Iranian parliament and I have pictures of them smiling and having lunch with Ahmadi Nejad. All of them smiling and happy. Ahmadi Nejad is a Theocrat. He talks about his believes, that does not mean that he is crazy or can not understand the reality of life. Israel is one of the most influential country around the world. According to the reports they have more that 200 atomic bombs. They can destroy Iran if they want to. They will too if they have the reason. I am sure Iranian government know that too. Iran just started to develop nuclear energy. They have signed the Non-Perforation Treaty while Israel has not. If there is any treat, we should expect Israel's Attack on Iran not vise versa. If you look in the history for last two to three hundred years, you can not find Iran attacking any country or individual. Although the former Iranian government was secular. But even the none secular govrnment of Ghajar did not invade or attack any country while the opposite had been true. Ahmadi Nejad does not have any power to do any thing even in Iran without getting ok from the many government organization how can he be any threat to any country let alone the most powerful country in the region and the world. Israel can make peace with her neighbor then there is no need for the Iranian support for Hezbollah or Hammas. Don't you agree that both Israel's population and the Palestinian are tiered of war? Isn't it better to live in peace with out fearing any body? www.persiandreams.org www.persiancorner.org
Maryam, what planet do you live on?
"Carroll Renfro said: “Actually I disagree with the statement that the majority of Americans support Israel." Carrol is spewing left wing antsemitism. Every phrase in her post is untrue and drips of malice towards Jews. Carrol is a true antisemite.
Mr. Eisenstat, you write: "There is a fine line — which is at times being disturbingly crossed — between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and the de-legitimization of Israel as a Jewish state." Israel's relocation of its own civilians into occupied Palestine is a "grave war crime" by the very standard that Israel itself adopted - Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. So the condemnation of this relocation program ("settlements) is not by some alien and externally imposed rule - it is Israel's own rule by adoption of the Geneva Convention. To the point - you refer to criticism of Israeli government "POLICY", not "program, enterprise or behavior". Thus you mask the strongest reason for anti-Israeli sentiment - its "war crime program of relocation in violation of Art. 49". POLICY implies a choice between legitimate alternatives. there is NO FINE LINE between a war crime program and a legitimate policy choice. A war crime program is not, and never can be, a "legitimate policy". Actually, to use your semantics, Israel's adoption of a war crime program under the guise of "government policy" enhances the deligitimization of these "so-called policies"and casts a pall over the overall "legitimacy" of Israeli decisions vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
Inaccurate, misleading and unsupported statements: "European Jews face a situation of greater concern. In Europe, public opinion is sharply anti-Israel, with recent Eurostat polls finding Israel, along with the United States, to be the greatest threats to world peace, ahead of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Iraq. In the United Kingdom, one of the two largest academic unions passed a motion last year to boycott Israeli academic institutions." "There is a troubling growth of anti-Israel sentiment on American college campuses, stemming primarily from the Israeli occupation of territory captured in self-defense following the Six Day War." The view that anti-Israeli sentiment on college campuses is growing anti-semitism conflates "anti-Israeli sentiment" with "anti-semitism", two very different things. Israel does not equal Jews! "Of even greater concern is the radicalization of a small-but-dangerous part of the European Muslim community, which was underscored by the tragic 2006 murder of Ilan Halimi in Paris. There are some 20 million Muslims in Europe today, with the number likely to grow to 50 million in the next 25 years. The overwhelming majority are peaceful and want a better way of life, but there may be a growing number of radicals at the fringe feeding on the Palestinian conflict and on the lack of jobs and education in their adopted homes in Europe." Totally speculative. No facts to show this IS a danger. Notice repeated use of word "may". "May" means speculation. "Iran is a different story. It poses a potential existential threat to Israel. Its president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and denies the Holocaust, and the country has both a medium-range missile capacity and a voracious appetite for nuclear weapons. But again, Israel’s concerns are widely shared." Widely disputed statements according to Western intelligence analysts. Iran is many years away from developing even a single nuclear weapon even if that is its intention. The best incentive for them to develop a nuclear arsenal is to isolate and threaten them. North Korea is a prime example of where having nuclear weapons was an effective deterrent to US pre-emption. Native Farsi speakers dispute this translation of the Iranian president, and he is a figurehead; Iran is run by clerics whose self-interests are not served by a conflict with Israel nor the United States. Consider that any nuclear attack on Israel would also take out Palestine and several adjoining nations.
This from a Brandeis University board member with President Jehuda Reinharz (Louis Brandeis would be alarmed about both) bestowing Brandeis honors on the anti-Zionist ("Israel is a mistake") Tony Kushner. Next it's Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. As Cyril Connolly wrote from Britain about his and his friends chants on the streets in the 1930's (in the face of the Left), "1-2-3-4 Pacificism Means War." Winston Churchill---You had a choice between Shame and War. You chose Shame, and you'll get War. Ora Pro Nobis. From the New York Sun: January 18, 2007 Exclusive: Handwritten Note From Jimmy Carter Interceding for Nazi SS Guard Proven to Have Murdered Jews We now have a copy of the note that Jimmy Carter sent to the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigation, interceding on behalf of a Nazi SS Guard. We first reported on this story this morning. Carter's note is attached to a letter from the daughter of the Nazi SS Guard to Mr. and Mrs. Carter, asking for them to help the Nazi SS Guard. Mr. Carter sent the letter to the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, with the following note attached: To Director, O.S.I. I hope that, in cases like this, that special consideration can be given to affected families for humanitarian reasons. Jimmy Carter The Real Jimmy Carter By Alan M. Dershowitz FrontPageMagazine.com | April 27, 2007 I have known Jimmy Carter for years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president, he sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice. I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign. Shortly thereafter, my former student, Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election.... --a fellow Georgia Bar member who worked in France.
an incredibly erroneous assessment of reality with serious disregard and distortions of facts. yes, it is not 1938. and yes, there is a serious surge in anti-semitism. and yes, there is a serious surge in moslem terrorism, in europe & the u.s. and, egypt & jordan do NOT scrupulously follow the peace treaties. if stuart eizenstat wore a beard and yarmulke, looked like a jew, walked like a jew, talked like a jew; he would definitely be the recipient of prejudicial harassment, vandalism and hate. then, he wouldn't write ridiculous pieces like this.
I'm a Roman Catholic who believes that ISREAL MUST survive. She is our only hope in this country (USA),and that She should WIPE out her enemies,with the American peoples help and support!! GOD BLESS ISREAL!!!