Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism:A Report Provided to the United States Congress PDF version U.S. Department of State Tom Lantos, 1928-2008 May every conscience remember that anti-Semitism is always wrong and is always dangerous, may every voice speak out against anti-Semitism, and may all of us have the civic courage to take action against anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance whenever and wherever they arise. "The Jewish people have seen, over the years and over the centuries, that hate prepares the way for violence. The refusal to expose and confront intolerance can lead to crimes beyond imagining. So we have a duty to expose and confront anti-Semitism, wherever it is found.” President George W. Bush “Gathered in this place we are reminded that such immense cruelty did not happen in a far-away, uncivilized corner of the world, but rather in the very heart of the civilized world.…The story of the [concentration] camps reminds us that evil is real, and must be called by its name, and must be confronted. We are reminded that anti-Semitism may begin with words, but rarely stops with words...and the message of intolerance and hatred must be opposed before it turns into acts of horror.” Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism Report Dear Reader: Anti-Semitism is one of the oldest forms of malicious intolerance and violates the precepts of human dignity and equality that are fundamental to a free and peaceful society. History has shown that wherever anti-Semitism has gone unchecked, the persecution of others has been present or not far behind. Defeating anti-Semitism must be a cause of great importance not only for Jews, but for all people who value humanity and justice and want to live in a more tolerant, peaceful world. Together, we must continue our efforts to monitor and combat anti-Semitism in all of its forms wherever and whenever it occurs. Sincerely, Gregg J. Rickman, Table of Contents Overview Part I—Contemporary Forms of Anti-SemitismChapter One—Anti-Semitic Incidents Chapter Two—Anti-Semitic Discourse Chapter Three—Traditional and New Anti-Semitism Part II—Vehicles for Anti-Semitism Chapter Four—Government-Sponsored Anti-Semitism
Chapter Five—Anti-Semitism in the United Nations System Chapter Six—Anti-Semitism in Private Media Part III — Combating Anti-Semitism Chapter Seven—Government Responses Chapter Eight—Responses by Private Groups and Individuals Appendixes Appendix One—Examples of Anti-Semitic Incidents Appendix Two—European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia Working Definition of Anti-Semitism In response to rising anti-Semitism worldwide, including in some of the strongest democracies, the U.S. Congress passed the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the legislation into law (Public Law 108-332). The Act requires the U.S. Department of State to document and combat acts of anti-Semitism globally. To advance these goals, the Act mandated a one-time report on anti-Semitic acts, which the U.S. Department of State submitted to the U.S. Congress in January 2005. The Act also established within the U.S. Department of State an Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. On May 22, 2006, Gregg Rickman was sworn in by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as the first Special Envoy. The U.S. Department of State’s January 2005 Report on Global Anti-Semitism surveyed anti-Semitic incidents throughout the world. The annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and the annual Report on International Religious Freedom include country-by-country assessments of the nature and extent of acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement. The Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism contributes to the anti-Semitism sections of these annual surveys, pursuant to the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. Both reports have revealed that incidents of anti-Semitism have become more frequent in recent years. Consistent with the U.S. Department of State’s commitment to assess and counter anti-Semitism, this report is provided to the U.S. Congress to further assess contemporary anti-Semitism by exploring anti-Semitic themes and practices. This report is meant to be used as a resource for increasing understanding of and informing public discourse about contemporary forms of anti-Semitism and for shaping policies to combat anti-Semitism worldwide. The U.S. Department of State prepared this report using information from U.S. Embassies, foreign government officials, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), Jewish and other religious leaders, journalists, roundtable discussions, published reports, Jewish communities, and victims of anti-Semitic crime. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Public Affairs provided editorial review. Overview This report focuses on the following three areas:
While the report describes many measures that foreign governments have adopted to combat anti-Semitism, it does not endorse any such measures that prohibit conduct that would be protected under the U.S. Constitution. Because the mandate of the U.S. Department of State pertains to foreign countries, this report does not include a review of anti-Semitism within the United States, where anti-Semitism also remains a problem. This report is not intended to be an exhaustive compendium of all global anti-Semitic incidents. Rather, illustrative examples are used to shed light on the adaptive phenomenon of contemporary anti-Semitism. Over the last decade, U.S. Embassies and Consulates have reported an upsurge in anti-Semitism. This rise in anti-Semitism has been documented in the U.S. Department of State’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and its annual Report on International Religious Freedom. This same trend has been reported with concern by other governments, multilateral institutions, and world leaders. For example: Since 2003, the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has convened six major forums addressing anti-Semitism, at which national leaders underscored their commitment to combat anti-Semitism at home and abroad. The OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism held in Berlin in April 2004 culminated in the issuance of a declaration (“The Berlin Declaration”)[1] that, “Recogniz[es] that anti-Semitism…has assumed new forms and expressions, which, along with other forms of intolerance, pose a threat to democracy, the values of civilization and, therefore, to overall security.” The Declaration also states, “unambiguously that international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism.” The OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) notes in its 2006 annual report Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: Incidents and Responses, “Anti-Semitic incidents and crimes continued to threaten stability and security in the OSCE region, remaining at high levels in terms of both frequency and intensity.” In December 2006, The European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)[2] published a Summary Overview of the Situation in the European Union 2001-2005, which documents an increase in anti-Semitism. In the United Kingdom, an All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism launched an investigation into anti-Semitism. The Inquiry produced a September 2006 report, which states: “It is clear that violence, desecration of property, and intimidation directed towards Jews is on the rise.” In June 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued Resolution 1563, which notes: “The persistence and escalation of anti-Semitic phenomena…[and that] far from having been eliminated, anti-Semitism is today on the rise in Europe. It appears in a variety of forms and is becoming relatively commonplace.” This report is intended to provide a broad overview of the state of anti-Semitism globally. However, it is important to note the challenge of collecting this information, particularly in closed societies, as we must rely on reported anti-Semitic incidents. Thus, available statistics tend to reflect anti-Semitic incidents that occur in open, democratic countries that allow transparent monitoring of societal conditions such as anti-Semitism. In contrast, information about anti-Semitic incidents in closed societies is largely unavailable, particularly because nongovernmental groups and scholars reporting from closed societies risk persecution. Indeed, a major challenge in eradicating anti-Semitism is directly linked to that of promoting transparency and accountability in countries that are less than fully free. Finally, since statistics focus on actual attacks against Jews and facilities used by Jews, they do not capture more generalized anti-Semitic attitudes or restrictions, such as those reflected by anti-Semitic political cartoons, or anti-Semitic behavior in countries where there is not a significant Jewish population. Finally, we note that the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom Report (both of which are available at www.state.gov/g/drl) provide the most current, specific, country-by-country examples of reported anti-Semitic incidents. Contemporary Forms of Anti-Semitism Contemporary anti-Semitism manifests itself in both overt and subtle ways, both in places where sizeable Jewish communities are located and where few Jews live. Anti-Semitic crimes range from acts of violence, including terrorist attacks against Jews, to the desecration and destruction of Jewish property such as synagogues and cemeteries. Anti-Semitic rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and other propaganda circulate widely and rapidly by satellite television, radio, and the Internet. Traditional forms of anti-Semitism persist and can be found across the globe. Classic anti-Semitic screeds, such as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf, remain commonplace. Jews continue to be accused of blood libel, dual loyalty, and undue influence on government policy and the media, and the symbols and images associated with age-old forms of anti-Semitism endure. These blatant forms of anti-Semitism, often linked with Nazism and fascism, are considered unacceptable by the mainstream in the democratic nations of Western Europe, North America, and beyond, but they are embraced and employed by the extreme fringe. Anti-Semitism has proven to be an adaptive phenomenon. New forms of anti-Semitism have evolved. They often incorporate elements of traditional anti-Semitism. However, the distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that—whether intentionally or unintentionally—has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis, and attributing Israel’s perceived faults to its Jewish character. This new anti-Semitism is common throughout the Middle East and in Muslim communities in Europe, but it is not confined to these populations. For example, various United Nations bodies are asked each year on multiple occasions to commission investigations of what often are sensationalized reports of alleged atrocities and other violations of human rights by Israel. Various bodies have been set up within the UN system with the sole purpose of reporting on what is assumed to be ongoing, abusive Israeli behavior. The motive for such actions may be to defuse an immediate crisis, to show others in the Middle East that there are credible means of addressing their concerns other than through resort to violence, or to pursue other legitimate ends. But the collective effect of unremitting criticism of Israel, coupled with a failure to pay attention to regimes that are demonstrably guilty of grave violations, has the effect of reinforcing the notion that the Jewish state is one of the sources, if not the greatest source, of abuse of the rights of others, and thus intentionally or not encourages anti-Semitism. Comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is increasingly commonplace. Anti-Semitism couched as criticism of Zionism or Israel often escapes condemnation since it can be more subtle than traditional forms of anti-Semitism, and promoting anti-Semitic attitudes may not be the conscious intent of the purveyor. Israel’s policies and practices must be subject to responsible criticism and scrutiny to the same degree as those of any other country. At the same time, those criticizing Israel have a responsibility to consider the effect their actions may have in prompting hatred of Jews. For example, at times hostility toward Israel has translated into physical violence directed at Jews in general. There was, for example, a sharp upsurge in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide during the conflict between Hizballah and Israel in the summer of 2006.[3] Governments are increasingly recognized as having a responsibility to work against societal anti-Semitism. But instead of taking action to fight the fires of anti-Semitism, some irresponsible leaders and governments fan the flames of anti-Semitic hatred within their own societies and even beyond their borders. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has actively promoted Holocaust denial, Iran’s Jewish population faces official discrimination, and the official media outlets regularly produce anti-Semitic propaganda. The Syrian government routinely demonizes Jews through public statements and official propaganda. In Belarus, state enterprises freely produce and distribute anti-Semitic material. And in Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has publicly demonized Israel and utilized stereotypes about Jewish financial influence and control, while Venezuela’s government-sponsored mass media have become vehicles for anti-Semitic discourse, as have government news media in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Elsewhere, despite official condemnation and efforts to combat the problem, societal anti-Semitism continues to exist. In Poland, the conservative Catholic radio station Radio Maryja is one of Europe’s most blatantly anti-Semitic media venues. The Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, a private institution in Ukraine commonly known by the acronym MAUP, is one of the most persistent anti-Semitic institutions in Eastern Europe. In Russia and other countries where xenophobia is widespread, such as some in Central and Eastern Europe, traditional anti-Semitism remains a problem. In France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, anti-Semitic violence remains a significant concern. Recent increases in anti-Semitic incidents have been documented in Argentina, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and beyond. Today, more than 60 years after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is not just a fact of history, it is a current event. Around the globe, responsible governments, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental groups, religious leaders, other respected figures, and ordinary men and women are working to reverse the disturbing trends documented in this report. Much more remains to be done in key areas of education, tolerance promotion, legislation, and law enforcement before anti-Semitism, in all its ugly forms, finally is consigned to the past. A widely accepted definition of anti-Semitism can be useful in setting the parameters of the issue. Such a definition also helps to identify the statistics that are needed and focuses attention on issues that policy initiatives should address. The definition of anti-Semitism has been the focus of innumerable discussions and studies. The definition has evolved over the centuries depending upon the time, the place, and the circumstances. According to the current edition of Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, which continues to use an 1882 definition, anti-Semitism is “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.” While the basic elements of this definition remain applicable, anti-Semitism is an adaptive phenomenon and continues to take on new forms. Efforts have been underway this past decade to determine an approach for collecting data on anti-Semitism that corresponds to its contemporary manifestations. The European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)—in close collaboration with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, international experts on anti-Semitism, and civil society organizations—began discussing a common approach to data collection on anti-Semitism. This effort led to the drafting of a Working Definition of Anti-Semitism. The EUMC’s working definition provides a useful framework for identifying and understanding the problem and is adopted for the purposes of this report: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” Because the working definition is broad, the EUMC provides explanatory text that discusses the kinds of acts that could be considered anti-Semitic: “Such manifestations [of anti-Semitism] could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for 'why things go wrong.’ It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: The EUMC makes clear, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded in itself as anti-Semitic.[4] Part I—Contemporary Forms of Anti-Semitism “My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California. My father is Jewish. My mother is Jewish. I am Jewish.” Daniel Pearl, February 2002, moments before he was beheaded by terrorists in Karachi, Pakistan. Chapter One: Anti-Semitic Incidents Over much of the past decade, U.S. Embassies worldwide have noted an increase in anti-Semitic incidents, such as attacks on Jewish people, property, community institutions, and religious facilities. Other governments, international institutions, and nongovernmental groups have documented similar trends, including the United Kingdom Parliament, the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), and Human Rights First.[5] Reinforcing these findings, in 2006 Tel Aviv University’s Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism, which produces the most comprehensive, global statistical analysis of anti-Semitic incidents, saw the highest number of physical, verbal, and visual manifestations of reported anti-Semitism since 2000. There were 593 cases of major anti-Semitic incidents registered worldwide (compared to 406 in 2005). The sharp increase included major attacks perpetrated with a weapon and intent to kill (19 compared to 15 in 2005) and serious incidents of violence and vandalism aimed at Jewish persons, property, and institutions (574 compared to 391 in 2005). Geographic Breakdown of 593 Major Anti-Semitic Incidents Against Jewish Individuals and Facilities in 2006 (Based on Roth Institute Statistics): Western Europe: 324 major incidents North America: 103 major incidents CIS and Baltic States: 80 major incidents Oceania: 50 major incidents Africa: 15 major incidents Latin America: 11 major incidents Eastern Europe: 10 major incidents The Roth Institute’s statistics reflect anti-Semitic incidents chiefly against Jews and facilities used by Jews where they generally are allowed the freedom to live and express themselves—it does not capture more generalized anti-Semitic attitudes or restrictions. This explains why the Middle East is not listed.[6] These statistics also need to be seen in the proper context. The Roth Institute receives information from a variety of reporting sources, including multinational and national NGOs, governmental organizations, and research institutes. Because open, democratic governments tend to allow NGOs to gather information freely about societal conditions and also are apt to report such information themselves, global statistics about anti-Semitic incidents are disproportionately skewed against Western democratic countries. Statistical analysis also is complicated by the fact that some countries record attacks against Jews as “hooliganism” or ordinary criminal attacks, without recording the anti-Semitic nature of a crime; thus, such attacks often are not reflected in national statistics. In addition, countries’ differing data collection methodologies complicate efforts to make accurate cross-country comparisons on anti-Semitic crimes. According to the Roth Institute data, of the 593 major incidents (against Jews, schools, community centers, cemeteries, memorials, synagogues, and private property), the year 2006 also saw a sharp increase in the number of reported physical attacks on Jews—277 compared to 133 in 2005. Such assaults mostly took place in schools, at the workplace, and in streets near Jewish institutions, and usually were unplanned and opportunistic. While reports of desecration of cemeteries and memorials remained roughly on the same level as in 2005, 50% more schools and community centers were reported to be attacked, and 105 synagogues were reported damaged, compared to 64 in 2005. In addition to increases in major incidents, such as serious violent attacks and cases of actual damage to property, a number of countries also experienced increases in overall anti-Semitic incidents, including non-violent incidents such as graffiti and verbal assaults. Increases in Major and Non-Major Anti-Semitic Incidents in 2006[7] Increases in reported anti-Semitic incidents and expressions of anti-Semitism in 2006 took place in the following countries: Descriptions of some of the major contemporary anti-Semitic incidents follow, including of terrorist attacks, violence, abuse, property damage, and cemetery desecration. The examples cited illustrate the wide-ranging and geographically diverse nature of some of the most easily identifiable acts of anti-Semitism. Terrorism Terrorist attacks and threats aimed at Jewish communities worldwide have been linked to Islamist terrorist groups, which, in the name of global jihad, have declared their intentions to attack Jews and Jewish targets. Some of the attacks also have been linked to state-sponsors of terrorism. Significant incidents include: [Buenos Aires, July 18, 2006. Thousands of friends and relatives of the 85 victims of the bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center gather to commemorate the 12th anniversary of the most lethal contemporary anti-Semitic terrorist attack. (AP Photo)] [Relatives of Murat Sahin, a Turkish man who was killed during the Neve Shalom Synagogue bombing, carry his photographs during a ceremony near the synagogue in Istanbul, Turkey, November, 15, 2006. Relatives and friends gathered to commemorate the 2003 suicide attack on the synagogue. (AP Photo)] Even prior to these terrorist attacks, the Moroccan, Tunisian, and Turkish governments took very seriously their responsibilities to protect non-Muslim communities and have offered security and/or warnings of possible attacks to those communities. Since the attacks, they have increased their protective measures even further. Similarly, Argentina takes special steps to protect its Jewish community from attack. Yet, despite security efforts by governments, there continue to be on-going reports of large-scale attacks planned against the Jewish community worldwide. In 2006, there were reports of a potential attack against a synagogue and other targets in Oslo, Norway and reports of an explosive device found outside a synagogue in Bastia, on the island of Corsica, France. These and other terrorist plots against Jewish entities were disrupted, but the fear of a terrorist attack is commonplace among Jewish populations around the world. Many Jewish communities, schools, museums, and synagogues have instituted high levels of security. Physical Attacks Worldwide anti-Semitic incidents include direct and violent attacks on Jews, sometimes leading to serious injury or death. In all of the following examples, the Jewishness of the victim was the reason for the attack.[8] [Rabbi Yitzak Kogan stands in the Chabad Bronnaya synagogue in downtown Moscow, the morning of January 12, 2006, the day after a man attacked congregants with a knife. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Foreign Ministry publicly condemned the attack. (AP Photo)] [Ruth Halimi displays a photo of her son Ilan on February 23, 2006, a week after he was killed in an incident that revived concerns of anti-Semitism in France. (AP Photo)] Abuse/Intimidation Verbal anti-Semitic abuse and intimidation of both Jewish individuals and institutions continues to be a societal problem in countries around the globe. While such abuse does not involve physical harm, it raises the level of anxiety within Jewish communities and frequently includes the threat of physical attack. The following are illustrative examples of such anti-Semitic acts.[10] In Buenos Aires, Argentina, on October 6, 2007, an Orthodox Jewish woman was walking near the Shoppin Abasto shopping center when a skinhead raised his hand in the Nazi salute and shouted: “You Jewish [expletive]! They should have done all of you in!”
While anti-Jewish discrimination in professional sports has become increasingly rare, incidents of anti-Semitic shouts, chants, and songs at soccer events continue to be reported over a wide geographic area. In the United Kingdom, in late September 2007, Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck claimed that Chelsea fans have been making anti-Semitic comments about the team’s new Jewish manager, Avraham Grant. In Prague, Czech Republic, on August 17, 2007, Sparta Prague fans seeking to insult the opposing team chanted “Jude” (the German word for Jew) at its Champions League qualifying match against the Arsenal team from the United Kingdom. In Poland, soccer fans of opposing teams have been known to call each other “Jew” as a term of abuse. In Paris, France, on November 26, 2006, a mob of up to 300 men chased a French fan of the Tel Aviv soccer team after a game, shouting “dirty Jew” and “fat Jew,” while making Nazi salutes and other gestures; an undercover police officer shot and killed one of the assailants while protecting the fan. In Pamplona, Spain, on November 25, 2006, Deportivo La Coruna fans yelled anti-Jewish slurs at the team’s Israeli goalkeeper Dudu Awate. In Argentina, on November 21, 2006, during a soccer match, Defensores de Belgrano fans chanted anti-Semitic songs against Atlanta fans and players. In Berlin, Germany, on September 26, 2006, VSG Altglienicke fans chanted, “Gas the Jews” and “Auschwitz is back” at Jewish soccer team TuS Makkabi Berlin. In Italy, on July 11, 2006, neo-Nazis celebrating Italy’s World Cup victory in the Jewish quarter of Rome vandalized walls, doors, and vehicles with swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti. Property Damage Vandalism, which often is severe and premeditated, is another manifestation of anti-Semitism. With the exception of cases of anti-Semitic graffiti and minor vandalism, the governments concerned condemned and investigated all of the following acts.[11] In Kyiv, Ukraine, on October 31, 2007, the Simcha school, a Chabad institution, was damaged by arson. Four classrooms had serious damage but classes resumed within two days of the fire. [Members of a Swiss fire brigade work at the Hekhal Hanes synagogue in Geneva, Switzerland, May 24, 2007. More than 40 firefighters were needed to extinguish the blaze, which was caused by arson. (AP Photo)] [A Jewish community leader is about to enter the swastika-smeared door of the Vladivostok synagogue as the chief rabbi of Vladivostok and the Far Eastern Primorsky region points, March 2, 2007. (AP Photo)] While it sometimes is difficult to distinguish random vandalism from vandalism which has a distinct anti-Semitic intent, cemetery desecration is a specific form of property damage often targeted at the Jewish community.[12] [An Italian carabinieri paramilitary police officer looks at one of the tombs damaged in a Jewish cemetery in Milan, Italy, May 16, 2006. About 40 tombstones in Milan’s Jewish cemetery were knocked over the prior evening. (AP Photo)] Chapter Two - Anti-Semitic Discourse “The crimes with which the Jews have been charged in the course of history—crimes which were used to justify the atrocities perpetrated against them—have changed in rapid succession. They were supposed to have poisoned wells. They were said to have murdered children for ritual purposes. They were falsely charged with a systematic attempt at the economic domination and exploitation of all mankind. Pseudo-scientific books were written to brand them an inferior, dangerous race. They were reputed to foment wars and revolutions for their own selfish purposes. They were presented at once as dangerous innovators and as enemies of true progress. They were charged with falsifying the culture of nations by penetrating the national life under the guise of becoming assimilated. In the same breath they were accused of being so inflexible that it was impossible for them to fit into any society.” Albert Einstein in Collier’s Magazine, November 1938, immediately following Kristallnacht, the “night of broken glass.” Conspiracy Theories As noted in the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, “anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it often is used to blame Jews for ‘why things go wrong.’” The EUMC includes as contemporary examples of anti-Semitism: “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—such as…the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.” Anti-Semitism is at the root of numerous contemporary conspiracy theories, including the following examples of false claims. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories play to widespread hatreds and suspicions. The examples above did not arise spontaneously. In many cases, they have been deliberately concocted. An examination of each follows: The first known appearance of the spurious claim that “4,000 Jews” or “4,000 Israelis” knew about the September 11, 2001 attacks beforehand was on Hizballah’s Al-Manar television on September 17, 2001. The commentator claimed that 4,000 Israelis who worked at the World Trade Center, “Remarkably, did not show up in their jobs” on September 11. The 4,000 figure apparently came from an article entitled “Hundreds of Israelis missing in World Trade Center attack,” which appeared in the September 12 Internet edition of the Jerusalem Post. It stated, “The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attacks”—in other words, in New York City and Washington, DC. This tentative estimate that 4,000 Israelis had been in two of the largest metropolitan areas of the United States in early September 2001 was then transformed into the false claim that 4,000 Israelis or Jews did not report for work at the World Trade Center on September 11. A further elaboration of this falsehood claims that Jews who worked at the World Trade Center had been warned by the Israeli foreign intelligence service, Mossad, not to go to work that day. A related false claim is that, two days before the attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon supposedly cancelled a trip to New York City. “Syria has documented proof of the Zionist regime’s involvement in the September 11 terror attacks on the United States …[That] 4,000 Jews employed at the World Trade Center did not show up for work before the attack clearly attests to Zionist involvement in these attacks.” The Syrian ambassador to Iran, Turki Muhammad Saqr, at a conference held at the Iranian Foreign Ministry on October 24, 2001 The false belief that Israel and Jews were behind the September 11th attacks also was spread visually. [Cartoon Image] In the above cartoon, which appeared June 23, 2002 in Al-Watan[13] Arabic daily newspaper in Qatar, Ariel Sharon is shown watching on the sidelines as an Israeli plane crashes into the World Trade Center, which spells the words “the peace.” [Hundreds of female members of Jamat-e-Islami, a Sunni political and religious party, march October 6, 2001 in Islamabad, Pakistan. In the above photo, demonstrators carry a placard reading “Zionist=Terrorist.” The group condemned the terrorist attacks in the United States but blamed the action on Zionist terrorists rather than associates of Osama bin Laden. (AP Photo)] The World Trade Center claim has been widely believed. An October 13, 2001 story in The Washington Post reported: 13% of Pakistanis questioned about the story of 4,000 Jewish survivors described it as a “rumor,” 71% thought it was a “possible fact,” and only 16% thought it was “baseless.” The fact is, there was no mass absence of any group of people at the World Trade Center on September 11. An estimated 10 to 15% of the 2,071 occupants of the World Trade Center who died were Jewish, as attested to by the numerous funerals of World Trade Center victims at synagogues and temples. The false claim that the October 2002 Bali bombing was caused by an Israeli “mini-nuke” was invented by Joe Vialls, an anti-Semitic Australian conspiracy theorist and self-styled “private investigator” who died in 2005. Vialls had a penchant for elaborate, bizarre conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims. The “mini-nuke” claim did not spread widely, although it was reported in the Indonesian press. One week after the South and Southeast Asian tsunami in December 2004, a January 1, 2005 article by Mahmud Bakri in the sensationalist, nominally independent Egyptian newspaper Al-Usbu suggested that the tsunami had been caused by underwater U.S.-Israeli-Indian nuclear tests. The false claim was repeated in the press in Indonesia, Turkey, and elsewhere. In the December 6, 2004 issue of Al-Usbu, Mustafa Bakri, Mahmud’s brother and the editor of Al-Usbu, falsely claimed that the United States and Israel had secretly collaborated to write and publish a book called The True Quran, which altered some Quranic verses. In fact, a book titled The True Furqan (Furqan is another name for Quran) has been written by evangelical Arab Christians in an attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity. The book’s translator, Dr. Anis Shorroush, states emphatically that none of the book’s authors has any connection with the U.S. Government or Israel. A conspiracy theory from the 1930s, which still circulates, claims that U.S. founding father Benjamin Franklin warned that Jews are a “great danger” to the United States and should be “excluded by the Constitution.” The so-called “Franklin Prophecy” is a forgery that first appeared in 1934 in a pro-Nazi magazine in the United States. The distinguished historian Charles Beard debunked the forgery in 1935, noting: “The phraseology of the alleged Prophecy is not that of the 18th century; nor is the language that of Franklin. It contains certain words that belong to contemporary [Nazi] Germany rather than America of Franklin’s period. For example, the word ‘homeland’ was not employed by Jews in Franklin’s time.” The canards reviewed above appear to be 20th and 21st century variations on the classic conspiracy myth of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which asserts that Jews are inherently evil, manipulate world events for their own purposes, and dominate the world. This century-old Czarist forgery was exposed in 1921 as a fabrication, but it continues to be widely popular and influential around the world, including in bookstores throughout the Middle East, parts of Europe, and beyond.[14] [An image of an English-language edition of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Published by the Islamic Propagation Organization in Tehran, Iran, 1985. (AP Photo)] [This edition of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion claims that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were orchestrated by a Zionist conspiracy. The final chapter predicts the eventual destruction of the state of Israel. Authorized by the Syrian Ministry of Information and published in Damascus, Syria, 2005. (AP Photo)] In fact, long passages of the Protocols were plagiarized, word-for-word, from a book published in 1864 titled Dialogues in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, a work of political satire that did not have an anti-Semitic theme but was written to discredit Emperor Napoleon III of France. South Korean Comic Book Echoed Jewish Conspiracy Theories In March 2007, a South Korean publisher agreed to pull a best-selling children’s book from stores after an international outcry about the anti-Semitic nature of many of the cartoons. The controversial book, written by a South Korean university professor, was one in a series designed to teach youngsters about other countries in comic book format. The series, “Distant Countries and Neighboring Countries,” sold more than 10 million Korean-language copies. The book on the United States recycles various Jewish conspiracy theories, such as Jewish control of the media, Jews profiting from war, and Jews causing the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attacks. For example, one comic strip shows a newspaper, a magazine, a television, and a radio and is captioned, “In a word, American public debate belongs to the Jews, and it’s no exaggeration to say that [U.S. media] are the voices of the Jews.” Another strip shows a man climbing a hill and then facing a brick wall inscribed with a Star of David and a STOP sign. The caption reads: “The final obstacle [to success] is always a fortress called Jews.” The author later acknowledged his mistake and pledged to write, “In a more responsible way.” Conspiracy theories about alleged predominant Jewish power can have tremendous influence. In two polls commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which were released in May and July 2007, 60% of those polled in Hungary believe, “Jews have too much power in the business world.” This number was 53% in Spain, 49% in Poland, 42% in Italy, 41% in Switzerland, 37% in Austria, 36% in Belgium, 28% in France, and 21% in Germany. In the same poll, the statement “Jews have too much power in international financial markets,” was deemed as “probably true” by 68% in Spain, 61% in Hungary, 54% in Poland, 43% in Austria, 42% in Italy, 40% in Switzerland and Belgium, 28% in France, and 25% in Germany. Survey data about perceptions of Jewish power in the business world only are available for Europe; they are not available for the Middle East, where such attitudes are reflected in the government-sponsored media (see Chapter 4). Holocaust Denial and Trivialization According to the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, contemporary examples of anti-Semitism include: In addition, according to the EUMC, an example of how anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel includes: Efforts to deny or minimize the Nazi genocide against the Jews have become one of the most prevalent forms of anti-Semitic discourse. At its core, Holocaust denial relies upon—and furthers—the traditional anti-Semitic myth of a world Jewish conspiracy. Holocaust deniers explicitly or implicitly reject that the Nazi government and its allies had a systematic policy of exterminating the Jews, killing between five and seven million Jews, and that genocide was carried out at extermination camps using tools of mass murder such as gas chambers. The Nazis themselves were the first Holocaust deniers. Hitler and the bureaucrats in charge of implementing his plans for a “final solution to the Jewish question” went to great lengths to obscure their involvement and to destroy evidence of their crimes. Nevertheless, ample documentation, extensive survivor and eyewitness testimony, and other forms of evidence survived the Nazis’ attempts to cover-up the Holocaust. Holocaust deniers often allege inconsistencies in the historic data and dispute the number of victims. For example, deniers note different recollections about the amount of time it took to kill people, claiming that the gas chambers and crematoria were incapable of processing the volume of victims in the alleged timeframe of the atrocities. Initially, Holocaust deniers primarily were neo-Nazis interested in rehabilitating fascism and restoring the image of Nazi Germany; for such groups, Holocaust denial has an obvious appeal. The neo-Nazis then were joined by other right-wing groups, such as white supremacists, who were drawn to both fascism and anti-Semitism. The neo-Nazis and white supremacists share a belief that Jews invented the Holocaust for financial gain (reparations) and spread this “myth” of the Holocaust via their alleged control of the media. In addition to outright Holocaust deniers, others trivialize the Holocaust and accuse the Jewish people of exaggerating it as justification for the creation of the State of Israel. The terms “Holocaust industry” and “Shoah business” have come into vogue among those who allege Jewish leaders use the Holocaust for financial and political gain. [cartoon image] For example, in the above image, a Jew is holding a gun labeled “the Holocaust” to a man’s head that is shaped like a globe. Another cartoon caption reads: “Robbery.” A number of deniers have published articles or books trying to discredit well documented facts, historical research, and eye-witness accounts, all the while casting themselves as martyrs standing up to public opprobrium and censorship. Denying the Holocaust is a crime in a number of European countries. For instance, Holocaust denial is illegal in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Such conduct cannot be criminalized in the United States. The U.S. Constitution protects freedom of expression and, generally, the government may not restrict expression based on its content regardless of the offensiveness of the underlying message. British citizen David Irving, one of the most infamous deniers, was sentenced to three years in jail for remarks he made in Austria in 1989. At his 2006 trial, however, he admitted that the Nazis did use gas chambers. He said, “I made a mistake by saying there were no gas chambers.…I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place.” However, he later indicated that he no longer felt remorse for his Holocaust views. Irving is not the only person to have been prosecuted for Holocaust denial; Austria, Belgium, Germany, and France have prosecuted other deniers. While Holocaust denial began in the 20th century with neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Europe and the United States, in the 21st century it also is found in the Middle East. The potent anti-Semitic assumptions upon which Holocaust denial is founded—primarily the myth of a world Jewish conspiracy—make it an attractive weapon for those seeking to demonize Jews and de-legitimize a major basis for the founding of the State of Israel. Holocaust denial in the Middle East is a relatively new phenomenon. In the decades that followed the Nazi genocide, the accepted attitude toward the Holocaust in the Middle East had been to acknowledge its occurrence, but to assert that it did not justify the creation of Israel. This attitude appears to have changed. In July 1990, the Palestinian Liberation Organization-affiliated Palestinian Red Crescent published an article in its magazine Balsam claiming that Jews concocted, “The lie concerning the gas chambers.” Gradually, throughout the 1990s, Holocaust denial became commonplace in popular media in the Middle East, particularly in the Palestinian Authority. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) documents how Syrian, Iranian, and Hamas officials have, since 2000, all made Holocaust denial statements. In 2002, the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up, an Arab League think tank whose Chairman, Sultan Bin Zayed Al Nahayan, served as Deputy Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates, hosted a Holocaust denial symposium in Abu Dhabi. In recent years, some Western Holocaust deniers have turned to Muslim countries for help when facing prosecution at home, including Austrian Wolfgang Frohlich and Swiss citizen Jurgen Graf, who both have sought and were given refuge in Iran. In Their Own Words: “I want to make it clear to the West and to the German people, which is still being blackmailed because of what Nazism did to the Zionists, or to the Jews. I say that what Israel did to the Palestinian people is many times worse than what Nazism did to the Jews, and there is exaggeration, which has become obsolete, regarding the issue of the Holocaust. We do not deny the facts, but we will not give in to extortion by exaggeration.” Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al, Al-Jazeera Television, July 16, 2007 “The Holocaust is the biggest institution of investment and trade in history…. The Jews suffered a Holocaust in Germany, and then they start a Holocaust for the Arabs as a compensation for what happened in Germany….” Qatari journalist Raja An-Naqash, Al-Watan, March 6, 2006 “I agree wholeheartedly with [Iranian] President Ahmadinejad. There was no such a [sic] thing as the ‘Holocaust.’ The so-called ‘Holocaust’ is nothing but Jewish/Zionist propaganda. There is no proof whatsoever that any living Jew was ever gassed or burned in Nazi Germany or in any of the territories that Nazi Germany occupied during World War II. The Holocaust propaganda was started by the Zionist Jews in order to acquire worldwide sympathy for the creation of Israel after World War II.” Saudi professor Dr. Abdullah Muhammad Sindi, interview with the Iranian Mehr News Agency, December 26, 2005 “First of all, this figure [six million Jews killed during the Holocaust] is greatly exaggerated.…The Zionist lobby and the Jewish Agency use this issue as a club with which they beat and extort the West.” Iranian columnist for Tehran Times Dr. Hasan Hanizadeh, interview with Iranian Jaam-e Jam 2 TV, December 20, 2005 Under the leadership of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has promoted Holocaust denial more than any other country. In a December 2005 declaration on live Iranian television, Ahmadinejad said that the Holocaust was a “fairy tale” promoted to justify Israel: “They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets.” In a conference on December 11-12, 2006, sponsored by the Iranian Foreign Ministry, a group of deniers suggested that the Holocaust was “a myth” and that its victims died from disease (see Chapter 4). Participants included several well known Holocaust deniers and revisionists, as well as leading Western white supremacists, but not a single Holocaust survivor nor any of the world’s recognized Holocaust experts. As Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said at the Conference, “If the official version of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the identity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt.” [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad adjusts his headset during a government-sponsored conference on Holocaust, Tehran, Iran, December 12, 2006. The participants questioned whether the Holocaust took place. (AP Photo)] Participants agreed to establish a World Foundation for Holocaust Studies in Tehran and appointed Mohammad-Ali Ramin, a political analyst and advisor to President Ahmadinejad, as the organization’s first secretary general. Participants also selected five Holocaust deniers and revisionists to form a central council to assist the secretary general. The Iranian Foreign Ministry sponsored the Holocaust Denial conference despite UN General Assembly Resolution 60/7 (November 2005), which designates January 27 as an annual International Day of Commemoration of the victims of the Holocaust. UNGA Resolution 60/7 also rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historic event, either in full or in part. Many European and other world leaders condemned the Iranian government for holding the conference and for denying the Holocaust. The UN General Assembly also responded by passing resolution A/61/255 (January 2007), condemning denial of the Holocaust and urging UN member states to reject any and all denial of the Holocaust (see Chapter 7). German NGO groups organized a counter-conference at the same time as Iran’s Holocaust denial conference. [An Egyptian cyclist rides past graffiti on an Alexandria street that declares: ‘Israel is like a cancer that should be cut out,’ June 12, 2002. The Jewish Star of David is linked to the Nazi swastika in the graffiti. (AP Photo)] [A Palestinian boy plays by graffiti on a wall equating the Nazi swastika with the Star of David in the northern West Bank refugee camp of Balata, adjacent to the city of Nablus, March 29, 2004. (AP Photo)] Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is increasingly commonplace, as illustrated by the frequent media images of Israel as a “Nazi-state” during the July-August 2006 conflict between Hizballah and Israel. For instance, in Greece on August 16, 2006, Eleftherotypia, the second-largest daily newspaper, published a cartoon depicting an Israeli soldier praying with a rifle emitting a swastika-shaped cloud of smoke. [cartoon] Also in Greece, the LAOS political party’s weekly newspaper in 2006 accused the Israelis of genocide against the Lebanese people, and a July 15, 2006 editorial stated that if “the Jews continue this way, they will beat Hitler’s number of victims.” In Syria, on April 26, 2007, the government-owned newspaper Teshreen, with the second-largest distribution in the country, published a cartoon depicting an Israeli telling a Nazi, “We are the same.” [cartoon] In the United Kingdom in July 2006, Sir Peter Tapsell, a Tory Member of Parliament (MP), told the House of Commons that Israel’s actions against Hizballah in Lebanon were, “A war crime gravely reminiscent of the Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quarter of Warsaw.” In reply, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett rejected his allegations entirely. In October 2006, another Tory MP, Andrew Turner, suggested to the House of Commons that Israel’s actions in, “attacking civilians from the air…were the tactics of the Nazis in 1939 and 1940….” In response to criticism, including from his fellow MPs, Turner later apologized for his comments. “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel, but the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example, by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures.”Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, April 28, 2004, OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism, Berlin, Germany In addition to outright comparisons between Jews and Nazis, Holocaust terminology and symbols frequently are invoked for commercial purposes, diminishing the gravity of their meaning. In India, in October 2007, a new line of bedspreads called “The Nazi Collection” was promoted; the collection featured swastika decorations. The swastika had been a symbol of good luck in India well before the Nazis adopted it. However, the title of the collection revealed that the intent was to be provocative. On October 2, 2007, in response to protests from Jewish groups, the manufacturer agreed to recall the bedspreads and sent a written apology to the Indian Jewish Federation. In Croatia, in February 2007, a sugar company in Pozega produced and locally distributed sugar packets bearing an image of Adolf Hitler and containing jokes about Holocaust victims in concentration camps. The use of the Nazi label to tar Jews in general and Israelis in particular trivializes the crimes committed against the Jews during the Holocaust. 2007 ADL Poll Results on the Holocaust When asked whether “Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust,” the following percent responded “probably true”: Austria: 54% Belgium: 43% France: 40% Germany: 45% Hungary: 58% Italy: 46% The Netherlands: 31% Poland: 58% Spain: 46% Switzerland: 45% United Kingdom: 28% Public survey data about whether, “Jews still talk too much about…the Holocaust” only is available for Europe; it is not available for the Middle East, where such attitudes are reflected in the government-sponsored media (see Chapter 4). Anti-Zionism “Anti-Zionism” in its most basic sense is opposition to “Zionism,” a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the State of Israel. However, the term “anti-Zionism” now has many different meanings, and often is used as a synonym for anti-Semitism. In contemporary discourse, those who use the terms “Zionism” or “Zionists” as a perjorative often assert that they have no problem with Jewish people; rather, it is the “Zionists” with whom they disagree. [cartoon] Frequently, no distinction is made between “Zionists” and “Jews,” regardless of whether or not the Jews are Israelis, or whether or not the Jews support the policy of Israel. The two terms often are used interchangeably. Such “anti-Zionist discourse” often employs classic, demonic stereotypes of Jews. Examples of Anti-Zionist Rhetoric that is Anti-Semitic “Zionists have triggered this crisis. They’ve taken over the country and are now trying to arrange a salt crisis like they did before perestroika, when there were shortages of tobacco and washing powder. They do it all deliberately.” A comment by an interviewee on the February 26, 2006 radio report on “panic-buying of salt in Moscow,” according to the transcript from Correspondents’ Report on Australia’s ABC radio station. “Out of the country Zionist assassin Jews, you only encourage hate and resentment. Get out Marxists of Argentine faculties.” Graffiti found on September 29, 2006, in nearly all of the men’s bathrooms of the Faculty of the Social Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. “Jew Dogs” and “Zionists Get Out” Graffiti found on August 6, 2006 in the Caracas neighborhood of Los Chorros, which houses the main Jewish Day School and the Jewish Community Center. The graffiti were signed by the Venezuelan Communist Party. “In addition to distortion of history, the Zionist Warner Company is also pursuing cultural and political objectives by producing such a film which has a very shallow script. From the cultural point of view, the Zionists and the elements affiliated to the U.S. have tried to launch a propaganda front against ancient and historical roots of Iranians.” Iranian commentary on Time-Warner Brother’s release of the Hollywood film “300,” as aired on March 13, 2007 by the IRINN television program. The film stirred negative reaction from the Government of Iran and Iranian media. According to the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, contemporary examples of anti-Semitism include accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own countries. Throughout history, anti-Semitic detractors have accused Jews of dual loyalty. One of the earliest examples was the suspicion in parts of medieval Christian Europe (especially Iberia) that Jews were in league with some Muslim powers. Another example is the Dreyfus Affair, a scandal in France at the end of the nineteenth century involving a Jewish army officer who was falsely convicted of betraying French military secrets to Jewish interests. According to Anti-Defamation League polls released in May and July 2007, many Europeans continue to question the loyalty of their Jewish fellow citizens. Approximately half of those surveyed believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country. 2007 ADL Poll Results on Perceptions of Jewish Loyalty to their Country When asked whether, “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country,” the following percentage of respondents answered “probably true”: Austria: 54% Belgium: 54% France: 39% Germany: 51% Hungary: 50% Italy: 48% The Netherlands: 46% Spain: 60% Switzerland: 44% Poland: 59% United Kingdom: 50% Those who believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country tend to believe that Jewish lobbying groups and individual Jews in influential positions in national governments seek to bend policy toward Israel’s interests. According to the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel include using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, such as blood libel, to characterize Israel or Israelis. Perhaps the oldest-surviving anti-Semitic conspiracy theory is that of “blood libel,” or the allegation that Jews perform murders to gather blood for religious purposes. According to this myth, Jews needed Christian blood for the production of matzoh (unleavened bread consumed during the Jewish holiday of Passover). Blood libel accusations against Jews date back to the ancient Greek author Apion. But it was in the Middle Ages that such accusations became common. The blood libel charge recurred throughout Europe in succeeding centuries, leading to substantial attacks against Jews. Blood libel charges now are fairly uncommon in Europe, but still occur: In Russia, in January 2005, some 500 persons, including 20 State Duma members, publicly made a blood libel charge in a letter that accused Jews of participating in ritual murder of Christians. The letter was widely condemned by Russian Government and public leaders. Today, the blood libel myth is common in the Middle East, where it often is spread via Arabic-language and Iranian newspapers, television, radio, websites, and books. On February 8, 1991, at the UN Human Rights Commission, Syrian delegate Nabila Chaalan said, “We should like to urge all members of this Commission to read this very important work that demonstrates unequivocally the historical reality of Zionist racism.” The Syrian delegate held up the book The Matzah of Zion and quoted from the preface by then Syrian Minister of Defense Major-General Mustapha Tlass, which reads: “The Jew can...kill you and take your blood in order to make his Zionist bread....I hope that I have done my duty in presenting the practices of the enemy of our historic nation. Allah aid this project.” For example, in Syria in 2003, a show entitled Al-Shattat, or Diaspora, was produced and shown on Hizballah’s Al Manar television station. In Al-Shattat actors graphically depict a Christian child being ritually murdered for his blood by Jews who discuss using the blood to make matzoh. In Iran, a modern-day variation of this age-old blood libel accuses Israelis of stealing the body parts of Palestinian children, an idea popularized by a television series called Zahra’s Blue Eyes that first aired in December 2004 (see Chapter 4). In Bahrain in June 2002, the independent newspaper Al-Wasat[15] published a cartoon depicting a Jewish man impaling a swaddled infant on a spear, furthering the anti-Semitic blood libel that Jews kill children. [cartoon] Chapter Three—Traditional and New Anti-Semitism “Growing up as a child in Saudi Arabia, I remember my teachers, my mom and our neighbors telling us practically on a daily basis that Jews were evil, the sworn enemies of Muslims whose only goal was to destroy Islam. We were never informed about the Holocaust. Later in Kenya, as a teenager, when Saudi and other Gulf philanthropy reached us in Africa, I remember that the building of mosques and donations to hospitals and the poor went hand in hand with the cursing of Jews. Jews were said to be responsible for the deaths of babies, epidemics like AIDS, for the cause of wars. They were greedy and would do absolutely anything to kill us Muslims. And if we ever wanted to know peace and stability we would have to destroy them before they would wipe us out. For those of us who were not in a position to take arms against the Jews it was enough for us to cup our hands, raise our eyes heavenward and pray to Allah to destroy them.” Somalia-born former Dutch Member of Parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Confronting Holocaust Denial,” International Herald Tribune, December 15, 2006 Traditional anti-Semitism—the overt demonization or degradation of Jews—continues to influence fringe extremist groups in Western Europe, North America, Australia, and other democratic societies. Nazi ideas of racial purity and segregation of different cultures, religions, and races still resonate among such groups. Such groups also have adopted anti-Zionist references and increasingly are exploiting modern technology, notably the Internet, to disseminate messages, build networks, and recruit new adherents (see Chapter 6). Traditional anti-Semitism also is prevalent in parts of Central and Eastern Europe and Russia, where xenophobic attitudes persist. According to a June 2007 report by Human Rights First entitled, Anti-Semitism: 2007 Hate Crime Survey, in Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation, extreme nationalist political groups have adopted the language of nineteenth century anti-Semitism: “Sectors of the dominant Orthodox churches of the region, and certain Roman Catholic institutions, notably in Poland,[16] have encouraged anti-Semitism and religious and ethnic chauvinism.” According to Human Rights First, a similar situation prevails in Ukraine and other neighboring states, such as Hungary. The tactics of many anti-Semitic groups include the propagation of conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, and the attribution to Jews of a satanic and “cosmic” evil. Traditional conspiracy theories claiming Jewish control of global financial systems, the media, the U.S. government, or Hollywood remain widespread. May and July 2007 Anti-Defamation League polls found that 39% of Polish respondents and 26% of Hungarian respondents, respectively, agrees that the Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. Traditional anti-Semitism also has been subsumed by increasing xenophobia of a more general nature. For example, in Russia, where xenophobic, racial and ethnic attacks are widespread and on the rise, the primary targets of skinheads are foreigners and individuals from the North Caucasus; however, skinheads often express anti-Semitic sentiments as well. This broader attitude of intolerance within such xenophobic movements often can provide a haven for anti-Semitic views and activists. [Members of the new extreme-right Magyar Garda (Hungarian guard) during their swearing-in ceremony in Budapest, Hungary, August 25, 2007. Magyar Garda members wear uniforms bearing a variation on the red-and-white Arpad Stripes associated with Hungary’s Nazi-aligned Arrow Cross party in power during World War II. (AP Photo)] Traditional Anti-Semitism in Ukraine: A Case Study on MAUP The Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, a private institution in Ukraine commonly known by the acronym MAUP, is one of the most persistent anti-Semitic institutions in Eastern Europe. MAUP, which receives significant funding from overseas, is a vocational college that claims to have more than 50,000 students enrolled at campuses in various branches throughout Ukraine and in Eastern Europe. It publishes a monthly journal, Personnel, and a weekly newspaper, Personnel Plus, which are the subjects of an ongoing criminal investigation by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office. In 2007, MAUP accounted for nearly 90% of all anti-Semitic material published in Ukraine. In an effort to clamp-down on MAUP’s extremist activities, in March 2006 the Government of Ukraine closed 7 affiliated schools out of approximately 50 across Ukraine, because of “unspecified licensing violations;” the Government of Ukraine closed down 30 more schools before the September 27, 2006 commemoration of the Babyn Yar massacre (the site of the death of 33,171 Jews at the hands of the Nazis in September 1941). In November 2006, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko issued a presidential order to the Security Service of Ukraine and Ministry of Science and Education to investigate manifestations of xenophobia at MAUP. In February 2007, following MAUP’s successful appeal to the Kyiv Commercial Court, the Ministry of Education was ordered to restore the licenses of 26 regional branches. In May 2007, the mayor of Kyiv responded to the opening of a MAUP bookstand selling anti-Semitic literature near the Babyn Yar massacre memorial site by closing it and promising to close other MAUP bookstands in the city. MAUP filed a lawsuit against the mayor for his order to remove the bookstand. At the end of 2007, this lawsuit still was pending. “The most worrying discovery of this inquiry is that anti-Jewish sentiment is entering the mainstream, appearing in everyday conversations of people who consider themselves neither racist nor prejudiced.” Labour MP Denis MacShane, Chair of the 2006 U.K. All- Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Anti-Semitism, as quoted by The Guardian on September 7, 2006 While traditional anti-Semitism remains prevalent among extremist fringe groups and populations where xenophobic attitudes persist, “new anti-Semitism” commonly manifests itself in the guise of opposition to Zionism and the existence and/or policies of the state of Israel. Traditional anti-Semitism, with its historic linkage to Nazism and fascism, tends to be overt and is considered unacceptable and illegitimate by much of the mainstream in Western Europe, North America, and beyond. In contrast, new anti-Semitism, characterized by anti-Zionist and anti-Israel criticism that is anti-Semitic in its effect—whether or not in its intent—is more subtle and thus frequently escapes condemnation. According to the EUMC definition, regardless of the motive, anti-Zionist and anti-Israel criticism become anti-Semitic when they entail: Motives for criticizing Israel may stem from legitimate concerns over policy, or from illegitimate prejudices. This report does not purport to ascribe motive to the various critics of Irsrael. However, disproportionate criticism of the Jewish State and/or Israelis and demonizing them as barbaric, unprincipled, selfish, inhumane, etc. is anti-Semitic and has the effect of causing global audiences to associate those bad attributes with Jews in general. Similar to the way that constant news coverage associating Muslims with terrorism, or blacks with crime, can have the effect of promoting anti-Muslim or anti-black prejudice, respectively, constant and disproportionate criticism of Israel can have the effect of promoting anti-Jewish prejudice. Throughout the Middle East and in many Muslim communities in Western Europe and beyond, anti-Zionist rhetoric finds frequent and powerful expression especially in Arabic-language newspapers and magazines, on the radio, on television, via the Internet (see Chapters 4 and 6), and in sermons delivered in mosques. [Lebanese protestors in Aukar northeast of Beirut, Lebanon, March 30, 2005, carry their national flag and a banner reading, “Zionist Governs the U.S. But Not us.” (AP Photo)] While the distinguishing features of new anti-Semitism are anti-Zionist rhetoric and opposition to Israel, it often incorporates some classic elements of traditional anti-Semitism, such as drawing on the age-old anti-Jewish theory of blood libel (see Chapter 2) by depicting Israelis as bloodthirsty, or perpetuating the traditional conspiracy theory of undue and unseen Jewish influence (see Chapter 2), for example, by attributing U.S. policy to the influence of the “Zionist Lobby,” “Jewish-Lobby,” or “Pro-Israel Lobby”—terms that tend to be used interchangeably and to imply a Jewish conspiracy or disloyalty to their country. The adaptive nature of traditional anti-Semitism into new settings is reflected in the infusion into some Muslim communities of translated classic anti-Semitic works, such as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf.[17] [A copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf is prominently displayed by a book vendor at Istanbul’s main train station, March 18, 2005. According to The Guardian, in March 2005 the book was a bestseller in Turkey, reportedly selling over 100,000 copies in 2 months. (AP Photo)] According to the EUMC’s Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2005[18]: “There has been some evidence to support the view that there is some link between the number of reported anti-Semitic incidents and the political situation in the Middle East…. Moreover, some of the data indicate that there have been changes in the profile of the perpetrators. It is no longer the extreme right which is seen as solely responsible for hostility towards Jewish individuals or property (or public property with a symbolic relation to the Holocaust or to Jews)—especially during the periods when registered incidents reached a peak. Instead, victims identified ‘young Muslims,’ ‘people of North African origin,’ or ‘immigrants’ as perpetrators.” The EUMC concludes that in Europe: “Anti-Semitic activity after 2000 is increasingly attributed to a ‘new anti-Semitism,’ characterized primarily by the vilification of Israel as the ‘Jewish collective’ and perpetrated primarily by members of Europe’s Muslim population.” Attitudes toward Jews in Selected Muslim Countries and Communities In many Muslim countries, polling data is not always available. Information on sensitive societal attitudes is easier to collect in open, transparent societies, as reflected by the regular public opinion surveys on attitudes toward Jews in Western Europe (see Chapter 2). However, in the last several years, the Pew Global Attitudes Project has begun collecting data on attitudes toward Jews in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, and Turkey. Similar polling information does not exist for other Muslim countries, hindering our ability to compare data and make conclusions. While each country is unique, available polling data also reveals that Muslims in Europe hold more unfavorable opinions of Jews than the general population. According to a spring 2006 survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project: [Indonesian Muslims participate in an anti-Israel rally in Solo, Central Java, Indonesia, April 27, 2007. Some demonstrators held placards demonizing Israel, such as the one in the photo that equates Israel with the devil. (AP Photo)] Contemporary anti-Semitism is not unique to Muslims. A frequent manifestation occurs when anti-Israel rallies feature placards reading, “Death to the Jews—Death to Israel” and Stars of David emblazoned with swatiskas. Such placards are commonplace at anti-Israel rallies on every continent. Anti-Semitism also emanates from unprecedented coalitions, uniting groups that otherwise have little common cause. Activists attending a November 16-19, 2006 conference in Beirut organized by Hizballah and the Communist Party of Lebanon agreed in their final statement “to establish a worldwide network against the American-Zionist project which…target[s]…humanity.” According to the Brussels Tribunal, an international coalition of activists, the conference was attended by 400 people “from all over the world [representing] trade unions, anti-globalization, anti-war and anti-imperialist movements.” In May 2007 the United Kingdom-based University and College Union offered two separate resolutions which would require its membership to support a Palestinian call for a boycott and endorse restrictions on collaborative research with Israeli scholars. The debate over the proposed academic boycott featured anti-Semitic demonization of Israel, such as Nazi analogies and suggestions that Israel is “a fascist state.” The call for a boycott later was called off. In May 2006, in Ontario, Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) voted unanimously to pass a resolution to support the “international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination.” The resolution repeatedly made references to “Israeli Apartheid.” Applying a double-standard to Israel, a common component of today’s new anti-Semitism, manifests itself most profoundly in the context of the United Nations (see Chapter 5). In the United Kingdom a July 19, 2006 cartoon, which appeared in the widely-circulated newspaper The Guardian, depicts Stars of David being used as a knuckle duster on a bloody fist to both punch a young boy and crush U.S. President George Bush. [cartoon] A July 26, 2006 caricature in Norway’s largest daily Verdens Gang shows Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, while shaving, looking in the mirror and seeing Hizballah leader Hasan Nasrallah; Olmert’s feet are those of a clawed animal, expressing the classic anti-Semitic motif of the Jew as a subhuman. [cartoon] “The left in particular sees itself as immune from anti-Semitism, which it considers the exclusive province of the xenophobic right…. Commitment to Palestinian independence comes not from anti-Jewish prejudice but from a sense of justice and the need to redress grievances in what is increasingly seen as unfinished post-colonial business…. Many on the left are firm in their condemnation of racism and would almost certainly not accept that they were guilty of anti- Semitic discourse.” From the 2006 United Kingdom Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism Contemporary Anti-Semitism in France With about 600,000 Jews, France has the largest Jewish community living in Europe. Traditional anti-Semitism (as explicitly represented by Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front Party) has receded but has not disappeared. A new anti-Semitism, attributing alleged abuses by Israel to Jews in general, to which some immigrants of Muslim background are particularly susceptible, appears to be the generator of most anti-Semitic incidents, as evidenced by the clear spike in anti-Semitic incidents whenever conflict in the Middle East flares up. According to the EUMC Summary overview of the situation in the European Union 2001-2005, in France there is evidence of a shift away from extreme right-wing perpetrators of physical attacks on Jews and Jewish property toward young Muslim males. The early 2006 kidnapping and brutal murder of the French Jew Ilan Halimi by a gang of African Muslim immigrants heightened anxiety throughout most French Jewish communities. Part Two—Vehicles for Anti-Semitism Chapter Four—Government-Sponsored Anti-Semitism “What totalitarian regimes do is to—and this is what makes them extremely devastating—is they look at you and say, ‘You are not.’ Or, ‘You are something else.’ Or, ‘This event didn’t exist.’ This power, that is only God’s power. If a regime, or some people, think they are God, they can have the right to make you animals or human. They can create you or kill you. And this is unbearable. So the only thing you can do—and the most subversive thing you can do—is to tell the truth. This is devastating because each time you come back with the truth, you deny their prerogative of creating a fictitious world where they can say whatever they want.” Iranian exile Ladan Boroumand, June 7, 2007, speaking to the U.S. Holocaust Museum as part of “Voices on Anti-Semitism,” a podcast series Government-sponsored anti-Semitism appears in various forms, including in government publications, speeches by leaders, government-controlled media, and discriminatory laws and practices. Government-sponsored anti-Semitism may also be revealed when governments take no effective action to condemn or combat anti-Semitism in the face of egregious anti-Semitic actions on their territory. Actions by Heads of State and other Government Officials State-sponsored anti-Semitism currently is most prevalent in, but not restricted to, parts of the Muslim world. [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during a conference in Tehran entitled The World without Zionism, October 26, 2005. (AP Photo)] In Iran since August 2005, President Ahmadinejad has pursued a virulent anti-Israel campaign, including anti-Semitic propaganda and discrimination (see Chapter 2). At the October 2005 The World without Zionism conference held in Tehran, Iranian President Ahmadinejad resurrected Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s statement, “Israel must be wiped off the map.” Ahmadinejad’s comments were the first public call in recent years for Israel’s destruction by a high-ranking government official. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wields the greater governing power in Iran, did not repudiate Ahmadinejad’s remarks. [Backdropped by an enormous painting of the Star of David and American flag being stomped on, Iranian female paramilitary militias (Basiji) parade in front of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, unseen, in Tehran, Iran, October 26, 2005. (AP Photo)] The Iranian regime hosted a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran December 11-12, 2006. Participants, including prominent anti-Semitic authors and Holocaust deniers, argued that the Holocaust did not occur or was an exaggeration used by Jews for political and financial gain. They also called for the elimination or delegitimization of the state of Israel. Addressing the conference, President Ahmadinejad questioned the history of the Holocaust and asserted that Israel would “soon be wiped out.” While President Ahmadinejad provides the most egregious recent example of anti-Semitic incitement by a head of state, other heads of state also have made anti-Semitic statements. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has publicly demonized Israel and utilized stereotypes about Jewish financial influence and control. For example, in the context of the 2006 conflict between Hizballah and Israel, on August 25, 2006 in Beijing, and again in Doha three days later, President Chavez compared Israeli behavior to that of the Nazis.[20] On August 6, 2006, on the program, Alo, Presidente, on Venezolana de Television, President Chavez accused Israelis of “applying to the Lebanese people and to the Palestinian people the same treatment they have so criticized about the Holocaust.” On July 28, 2006, in an interview broadcast domestically in Venezuela and on Al-Jazeera television, President Chavez said that Israel’s actions regarding the Palestinians and Lebanon were “perpetrated in the fascist manner of Hitler…they are doing what Hitler did to the Jews.”[21] In Belarus, on October 12, 2007, President Aleksander Lukashenko called the Belarusian city Bobruisk “a Jewish city” and said that it was a “pigsty.” He also urged all Belarusian Jews who had emigrated to Israel to, “Come back with money!” Senior government officials and political leaders around the world have made recent anti-Semitic comments as well. In Syria, on July 21, 2006, on national television, Deputy Minister of Religious Endowment Muhammad 'Abd Al-Sattar proclaimed that Jews are cursed. The Quran, he argued, paints the people of Israel as “sinister and dark.” He called Jews the “descendents of apes and pigs,” claiming that “terms that are closer to animals than humans” are more appropriate in describing them. In Russia, 20 members of the State Duma and hundreds of others in a January 2005 letter urged the Prosecutor General to investigate Jewish organizations for misconduct and initiate proceedings to ban them (see Chapter 2). The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the letter on January 25, as did President Putin in remarks delivered in Krakow, Poland on January 27. On February 4, the State Duma passed a resolution condemning the January 24 letter. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Council of Muftis also condemned the letter. President Putin has been outspoken in his criticism of anti-Semitism and in June 2007 publicly donated one month’s salary to the Museum of Tolerance being built by the Russian Federation of Jewish Communities. In Iraq, in July 2006, the Speaker of Parliament Mahmoud al-Mashhadani accused Jews of financing violent activity in the country to promote a Zionist sectarian agenda. In Sudan, in September 2006, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs Ali Ahmed Karti asserted that the idea of sending African Union forces to Darfur under the umbrella of the United Nations was, “All part of a Zionist colonialist plot to take over Darfur and exploit its natural resources.” In Kuwait, in the summer of 2006, in the context of the Hizballah-Israel conflict, a Member of Parliament publicly launched an attack on Jews in which he cited The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. In Bulgaria, Dimitar Stoyanov, a member of the extremist political party Ataka[22] and a Member of the European Parliament as of January 1, 2007, said in a media interview that he opposed the “Jewish establishment” and: “There are a lot of powerful Jews, with a lot of money, who are paying the media to form the social awareness of the people. They are also playing with economic crises in countries like Bulgaria and getting rich.” Ataka’s newspaper (launched in October 2006), website, and cable television mouth-piece Skat, also promulgated strong anti-Semitic material, as did Ataka media statements in 2005 and 2006. The European Parliament did not officially condemn Stoyanov’s anti-Semitic statement, though several Members of the European Parliament did criticize his remarks. In Poland, on February 15, 2007, European Parliament Deputy and former head of the Political Party League of Polish Families Maciej Giertych published a booklet without authorization bearing the EU Parliament logo suggesting that Jews are unethical and a “tragic community” because they do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. The 32-page brochure asserts that Jews “create their own ghettos” because they like to separate themselves from others. The European Parliament officially censured Giertych. Religious Discrimination and Freedom Issues Though most countries around the world do not have laws that explicitly discriminate against Jews, some non-democratic governments enshrine anti-Semitism in their laws and regulations. In Syria, the government cited tense relations with Israel as the reason for barring Jewish citizens from employment in the civil service or serving in the armed forces, and for exempting them from military service obligations. Jews are the only religious minority group whose passports and identity cards note their religion. Syrian Jews also face extra scrutiny from the government when applying for licenses, deeds, or other government papers. In Iran, the government recognizes Judaism as a minority religion; however, Iranian Jews face frequent official discrimination, as do other non-Shiite Muslim religious minorities. Iranian Jews, along with other religious minorities, are prevented from serving in the judiciary and security services and from becoming public school principals or career military officers. Applicants for public sector jobs—the main source of employment in Iran—are screened for their adherence to and knowledge of Islam, and those who do not observe Islam’s principles are subject to penalties. In addition, while not exclusively motivated by anti-Semitism, restrictions on religious freedom in some countries negatively impact Jews. For instance, in Saudi Arabia, religious freedom does not exist in general. Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, and the tenets of that religion are enforced by law. Members of religions other than Islam, including Jews, are not permitted to practice their religion in public in The Kingdom. Additional country-specific information about religious discrimination and freedom issues can be found in the U.S. Department of State’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, as well as its annual Report on International Religious Freedom (see www.state.gov/g/drl). Both reports include detailed sections on anti-Semitism. State-Sponsored Media Anti-Semitism is pervasive in state-sponsored Arabic-language media and in state-sponsored media in Iran. In many Middle Eastern countries, there is limited or no freedom of the press and governments own or heavily influence the content of newspapers, television, and radio programs. Government stations host programs where anti-Semitic statements and ideas raised by guests or Imams go unchallenged. Such programs are beamed through satellite television stations to mi |