“They used to hate us because we didn't have a state, Now they hate us because we have one” - Shimon Peres.
Yair Sheleg discusses European anti-Semitism in yesterday’s Haaretz. There are two views propagated in the article:
a. Anti-Israeli sentiment held by European leaders is not anti-Semitism and saying it is can be harmful to Israel.
b. The opposite (explained by none other than, surprise surprise, Dr. Yossi Beilin and our very own Foreign Minister Shimon Peres).
Some excerpts:
“Dr. Yossi Beilin, known for his close relations with Europe, surprisingly says that anti-Semitism exists there as a nearly permanent phenomenon. "Anti-Semitism in Europe is illegitimate in all European countries, but it exists beneath the surface everywhere. What makes me a passionate Zionist is, among other things, the fact regrettably that anti-Semitism has not passed from the world and is stronger than those who deny it exists. European leaders claim the last thing they think is anti-Semitic, and I believe them. But I don't rule out the possibility that people who grew up in a certain cultural climate are influenced by certain things even without wanting to be. The Durban Conference Against Racism obviously had expressions of anti-Semitism."
[…]
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres does not rule out the element of anti-Semitism as one factor in European attitudes toward Israel, but he is careful to ascribe it more to public opinion than to politicians…”
More on the same subject
Fred Lapides kindly sent me this delightful article about the anti-Semitism of the British left, which appeared in The City.
A horrible thought
He might very well live into his nineties and beyond (Arafat that is). That’s another twenty years, at least.
I don’t necessary agree with all Zvi Bar’el had to say in yesterday’s Haaretz (you’ll notice I’m a day late here. It’s because I worked late yesterday) but it’s an interesting analysis nonetheless.
This quote, from an Egyptian commentator, shows how the Arabs misjudge Israel, using their own values:
"Just imagine that tomorrow President Bush would call on the Israeli people to replace Sharon because he did not live up to his promises. He did not bring either peace or security, your economic situation is very bad and the social situation is wobbly. The entire Israeli society, including those who do not like Sharon, would mobilize against the American demand".
You just have to look at Gush Shalom’s antics to see that this is nonsense.
The same commentator also says:
“In our modern history there has never yet been a case in which an Arab leader of one country removed the Arab leader of another country, other than by war”. Which means Israel is on the right path.
In contrast
I always enjoy reading (and hearing) Dennis Ross, talking about the Middle East. He really knows the ins and outs of the conflict. Most important, maybe because he experienced it himself, being so deeply involved, he really seems to understand what has happened to the Israeli moderate left (myself included) since the summer of 2000. It’s very likely that he also experienced a great disappointment, as we did, when Camp David II failed. The disappointment grew into a deep collective depression, when we started to grasp that the Palestinian violence that began in September 2000 was not a popular uprising, but a planned and orchestrated military attack on Israel, using some particularly horrifying weapons. That depression has since given way to tremendous anger, on one hand, and a steely determination, on the other.
In view of this, I think Mr. Ross understands what many leaders and commentators outside Israel (and quite a few inside Israel, marginal as they may have become) seem to find negligible – that for the Israeli public to accept any sort of peace plan, the Palestinians will have to go to great lengths to prove that they are trustworthy.
This is a great essay of his, published in Foreign Affairs, and provided by Fred Lapides. In this essay, he refutes some assumptions, popularly cited when discussing the Middle East.