 |
|
Rabbi
Michael Melchior |
Since September 2000, the Middle
East has been plagued by a resurgence of violence (Intifada),
mirrored by deadly fundamentalist extremism played out on the
world stage. Simultaneously, the Jewish people have been
encountering a new wave of antisemitism and anti-Zionist
rhetoric, unmatched—according to certain authorities—since the
dawn of the Holocaust.
In September 2001, the United
Nations held the World Conference Against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance in Durban,
South Africa. Texts likening Zionism to racism and equating
the Israeli treatment of Palestinians with the German genocide
of six million Jews during the Holocaust were drafted and were
almost incorporated into the conferences’ final declaration of
nations. Following the 11 September terrorist attacks in the
US, widespread rumors surfaced throughout the Arab world,
insisting the violence was part of “a world-wide Jewish
conspiracy.” Anti-Israeli sentiments were also expressed in
the Western world with assertions that America had been
targeted because of its continuous support for Israel.
Concurrent with these recent
events, the subject of the Holocaust - which has peaked in
public interest in the last decade - has emerged for the most
part as a platform for anti-racist objectives, but
occasionally as a tool to further political aims.
Yad Vashem Jerusalem
discussed today’s key trends in relation to the Holocaust
and antisemitism with four leading specialists: Deputy
Minister of Foreign Affairs for the State of Israel, Rabbi
Michael Melchior; Director of the Stephen Roth Institute for
the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism at Tel-Aviv
University, Professor Dina Porat; Academic Advisor for Yad
Vashem’s International Institute for Holocaust Research,
Professor Israel Gutman; and Chairman of the Yad Vashem
Directorate, Avner Shalev.
|
 |
|
Professor
Dina Porat |
“In recent years, there has been
an increase in Holocaust awareness from both Jews and
non-Jews, even though paradoxically, we are historically
further away from [the Holocaust],” says Shalev.
For several decades, the memory of
the Holocaust was used as grounds to aid and protect the State
of Israel as well as Jews worldwide. Recently, the term
Holocaust has expanded to include multiple contexts, among
them those that condemn the Jewish people and the State of
Israel.
According to Porat, “the meaning
and status of the Holocaust have changed in the last decade
not so much for the Jewish people [and Israel], but for other
countries and peoples. Today, the Holocaust serves mainly as a
cultural code of education, democracy against fascism,
protection of human rights, and an ultimate symbol of
suffering.
“In Durban the Holocaust was
blatantly used as such a symbol when various state
representatives stressed that the conference declaration
should not indicate ‘do not forget the Holocaust’ but
rather ‘do not forget all holocausts…’ This phenomenon
was also apparent in the way in how demands for compensation
for slavery were based on the model of Holocaust survivor
claims. The centrality of the Holocaust today as part of the
greater world culture creates a reality in which anyone can
use the Holocaust for his own interests—be they educational,
political, democratic goals, or unfortunately, anti-Israeli
propaganda.”
 |
|
Professor
Israel Gutman |
Gutman detects an explicit danger
in applying Holocaust terminology to unrelated contexts:
“[These recent applications] are attempts to view the
Holocaust as one of many events that occurred over many
generations, rather than a unique phenomenon of anti-Semitism
and persecution against Jews. People are attempting to exploit
events like the Israeli/Arab conflict and manipulate the
historical facts. We must remember, though, that the Holocaust
was civilization’s betrayal of the Jews. Something like this
had never happened to any other nation, at least not without a
direct conflict triggering it.”
It was not the phrasing of the
term Holocaust nor the issue of compensation, but
rather the anti-Zionist, anti-Israel street demonstrations in
Durban that drew media attention. Demonstrators distributed
t-shirts and flyers with antisemitic messages, and held signs
with slogans such as: “Zionism = Racism” and “Israel the
Apartheid State”.
According to Melchior: “In Durban
any remaining delineation between Jews, Israelis, and Zionists
vanished… [The antisemites] believe we are all made of the
same flesh, and they want to injure all of us. One hundred and
sixty-three countries were represented at Durban. They all
attacked Israel alone, instead of dealing with the critical
issues around which the conference was meant to be based…”
Gutman views these occurrences as
a warning sign: “A renewed antisemitic campaign has been
launched which there is an attempt to attach a global
character and dimension. The preparations for the Durban
conference as well as the hushed whispers and blatant
propaganda regarding the 11 September disaster were attempts
to revive the barbaric cruelty evidenced during the peaks of
antisemitism and apply it to human dilemmas which require
human solutions.
|
 |
|
Avner Shalev |
In Shalev’s opinion: “There is not
a shadow of a doubt that these rumors and expressions are
based on the same basic antisemitic views and legends from
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion... In the 1990s, the
[instigating] parties wanted to divert the historical
discussion in Holocaust research to marginal factors, thus
escaping the most fundamental causal element of the
Holocaust—antisemitism.”
Porat also believes that
antisemitism is at the foundation of the rumors and incitement
against Israel: “We, at the Stephen Roth Institute for the
Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism at Tel Aviv
University do not see a renewal in the Jewish conspiracy
theory. Indeed, it has been alive and active for many years.
Currently, other than Holocaust denial, the conspiracy theory
is the main tool used for antisemitism. It is constantly
present, however alters its form, as evidenced most recently
with these [anti-Israel] rumors… The Durban conference
participants’ willingness to condemn Israel alone, derived
largely from antisemitic foundations, but also was
precipitated by oil, political, and economic interests.”
Even when considering these
political/ economic interests, many were surprised by European
representatives and NGOs support of anti-Zionist and
antisemitic ideas.
Attempting to explain these
unforeseen reactions Shalev comments: “Following many years of
suppression, silence, and denial in various European
countries, the Holocaust was finally confronted in recent
times. This confrontation resulted in many opposing feelings.
One reaction in Europe was to view it as part of a healthy
process of coping with the past, while adopting modern
democratic values. In Western Europe, though, this process was
accompanied by right-wing radicalism, an increase in
antisemitism, and a new wave—seeping beneath the surface—that
tried to allay the guilt of the murderers, collaborators, and
others who stood idly by during the Holocaust.
“This new wave has resulted in
extreme criticism and unbalanced media coverage of Israel, as
well as the empowerment of traditional antisemitic forces. Of
course, Arab fundamentalist propaganda has also aided this new
wave in two main ways: Holocaust denial and the use of
Holocaust terminology against Israel. Antisemitism was mainly
an illness of Christian society. Now, due to the Israeli-Arab
conflict, it plagues parts of Islamic society too.”
Gutman supports this view: “The
murder of the European Jews was not an act of one Hitler, but
was possible only in a Europe seized by anti-Jewish ideas. It
could not have been executed without those enthused by the
spirit of Nazism and without the people’s silent acceptance
and—to a certain extent—will.”
“In every generation antisemitism
wears a different mask so as to hide its ugly face. Today we
are encountering the mask of a “new antisemitism,” which is a
combination of classic antisemitism and that of Bin Laden and
fundamentalist Islam,” says Melchior.
This being the case, what can be
done today to combat this “new antisemitism”? Should it be
confronted in new, innovative ways or should the current
educational and public relations apparatuses continue to be
used?
Porat believes “we do not need to
emerge from the recent events feeling the whole world is
against us; this is unproductive and erroneous. There have
also been some very positive recent events, such as the Pope’s
visit to Israel, the Stockholm Conference, Irving’s loss in
the libel case [marking a victory over Holocaust deniers], and
the final declaration of nations at the Durban Conference
[omitting all antisemitic, anti-Israel references]. We must,
however, increase the number of public relations emissaries
and ensure that they directly access the large media networks.
“I believe that there is wide
support for Israel and a deeper understanding of the Muslim
world, especially after 11 September. Educational programs on
antisemitism do not need to be expanded in places like Yad
Vashem. Such institutions should focus on soliciting support,
explaining the State’s position, and presenting a
proportionate outlook on the current situation.”
Shalev explains Yad Vashem’s
perspective following the recent events: “Yad Vashem continues
to strengthen the bodies fighting antisemitism by providing
accurate Holocaust materials and current research. In
addition, we are preparing educational tools and explanatory
activities in conjunction with Israel’s Foreign Ministry of
Affairs in order to effectively deal with the recent events.”
Melchior argues that new ways must
be found to cope with the situation: “The events that preceded
and took place at the Durban conference revealed a new type of
antisemitism which requires a new approach. Therefore, we
reinstated the activities of the Forum for the Coordination of
the Struggle Against Antisemitism which I have the honor of
heading… and established a small response team. Also, we set
up an international forum of well-known figures who believe
the danger of antisemitism is a danger to democratic society
as a whole, and are willing to harness themselves to action on
the educational, public relations, and legal levels… The
antisemites do not rest for a single moment; we cannot afford
to either.”
There are various ways of addressing the recent
events, whose long-ranging implications are yet to be
determined. Perhaps Gutman sums it up most effectively with
his suggestion: “I do not know whether it is necessary to ring
all the bells right away. Nevertheless, it is important that
we identify the sources of the hatred, are aware of the lies,
and are alerted to the potential [for evil] that is ensconced
in the latest wave of antisemitism.” |
