Two stories from Italy over the last few days eerily demonstrate how the evangelical anti-Zionism of the far left can overlap with the unabashed antisemitism of the far right.
First, there was the blog taken down last Friday, on the orders of Italy’s interior minister, which listed the names of more than one hundred Jewish and non-Jewish academics accused of lobbying for “the Zionists.” The same blog included links to Holocaust denial sites, glorifications of fascist dictator Benito Mussolini and other unwholesome material.
Second, there were widespread calls for a boycott of the Turin International Book Fair this coming May, because of plans to honor the 60th anniversary of Israel’s creation. Among those calling for a boycott are the Islamist intellectual Tariq Ramadan, Mohamed Salmawy, the President of the Egyptian Writer’s Union, and Tariq Ali, the Marxist writer.
Technically speaking, these two developments are unrelated. As yet, there is no evidence linking the individuals behind the blacklist blog with the individuals seeking to blacklist Israel. But both developments feed off each other. Both represent the extent to which three distinct ideological universes - Islamist, far left and extreme right - now overlap.
The names listed in the blacklist blog, which appears to be a project of the far right, were actually lifted from a petition which protested a cause embraced by the far left: the academic boycott of Israel by some British academics. Many of the petitioners are affiliated with Rome’s La Sapienza University (see a snapshot of the blacklist here), a fine institution which has energetically promoted academic cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.
This poses a direct question to those who advocate boycotts against Israel. Are they not obliged to confront some moral responsibility for the fact that their calls may be - as the blacklist proves - interpreted in an unambiguously antisemitic manner? Or should they just shrug it off as an unhappy coincidence - as US academic Tony Judt did last October, when, in a speech endorsing the Israel Lobby theory of US foreign policy, he opined that if he or others sounded like antisemitic conspiracy theorists, “…it’s unfortunate, but that’s just how it is?”
Such a dismissive, scornful approach cannot, surely, be acceptable when it comes to fascist blacklists. The existence of the fascist blacklist should surely make at least some of those left-wing activists who stormed the Turin Book Fair’s offices last week think again. No?
“This poses a direct question to those who advocate boycotts against Israel. Are they not obliged to confront some moral responsibility for the fact that their calls may be - as the blacklist proves - interpreted in an unambiguously antisemitic manner? Or should they just shrug it off as an unhappy coincidence - as US academic Tony Judt did last October, when, in a speech endorsing the Israel Lobby theory of US foreign policy, he opined that if he or others sounded like antisemitic conspiracy theorists, “…it’s unfortunate, but that’s just how it is?””
Let’s face it the extreme right is always antisemitic as they view the Jews as a foreign element in their midst.
The Islamicists war against the Jews has more in common with the left than with the right. This is because they both harbor utopian fantasies: one wants and international Caliphate, the other and international solidarity movement which abolishes all borders and all national identities. In each case Jews are in the way.
Of course these groups feed off each other’s hatred. But let’s remember that both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany hated Democracy more than they hated each other.
At bottom Tony Judt’s hatred of Israel also has more to do with his vision of the global situation than with Israel society. Israel’s is spoiling his theory of an end to national sovereignty.
What motivates people to hate Jews is that they perceive them as contradicting their utopian visions whatever they be: universal Christianity, universal Islam, the worker’s paradise offered by Marxist thought or any variation of these. Then there is the old Jew hatred practiced by what is called the paleo-conservatives (the ultra right in Europe, the Buchananites in the US) who view the Jews as a foreign minority with too much power. In the days of globalization and multiculturalism this kind of hatred is more easily marginalized.
The real danger to Jewish well being these days comes not from the extreme right but from universalizing left and the Islamicists.
shriber,
I disagree slightly with your rather well considered analysis. I think the point for the Islamists - if not also the very far left of the Western political spectrum - is not that Jews stand in the way of an agenda. The point is that Jews and Israel are points about which there is some degree of agreement so that it might serve as a means of uniting what might otherwise become divergent interests.
Recall the speech by Malaysia’s former PM Mahathir at the 10th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference on Oct 16, 2003. One of the central topics of that speech - which was roundly and correctly criticized for its anti-Jewish bigotry - was achieving unity. Among other things, he said: “But not only are our governments divided, the Muslim ummah is also divided, and divided again and again.” Further: “We may not be able to do that. We may not be able to unite all the 1.3 billion Muslims. We may not be able to get all the Muslim governments to act in concert. But even if we can get a third of the ummah and a third of the Muslim states to act together, we can already do something. Remember that the Prophet did not have many followers when he went to Madinah. But he united the Ansars and the Muhajirins and eventually he became strong enough to defend Islam.” Moreover, “The Prophet preached the brotherhood of Islam to them and they were able to overcome their hatred for each other, become united and helped towards the establishment of the great Muslim civilisation.”
And, Israel and Jews fit into the unity message. According to Mahathir: “To begin with, the governments of all the Muslim countries can close ranks and have a common stand if not on all issues, at least on some major ones, such as on Palestine.”
The theme of unity, and the place of Jews and Israel in helping to forge unity, is not limited to Mahathir. Ahmadinejad raised the same issue in his so-called “The World Without Zionism” speech.
In that speech, he noted that the fight over Israel is not really about helping Palestinian Arabs or anything of the sort. In his words: “We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.’” Instead, according to Ahmadinejad: “The establishment of the occupying regime of Qods [Jerusalem]was a major move by the world oppressor [ the United States] against the Islamic world. The situation has changed in this historical struggle. Sometimes the Muslims have won and moved forward and the world oppressor was forced to withdraw. Unfortunately, the Islamic world has been withdrawing in the past 300 years. I do not want to examine the reasons for this, but only to review the history. The Islamic world lost its last defenses in the past 100 years and the world oppressor established the occupying regime. Therefore the struggle in Palestine today is the major front of the struggle of the Islamic world with the world oppressor and its fate will decide the destiny of the struggles of the past several hundred years.”
The Palestinian Arabs and their fight instead have symbolic significance (”The Palestinian nation represents the Islamic nation [Umma] against a system of oppression, and thank God, the Palestinian nation adopted Islamic behavior in an Islamic environment in their struggle and so we have witnessed their progress and success.”) The significance of that struggle is as follows: “Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.”
So, in defeating Israel, Ahmadinejad sees the beginning of a revival of Islamic political power - a way of unifying Muslims, which I think is the real point here.
The far left has always been keen on criticising Western/ quasi-Western democracies rather than non-democracy following an anti-colonial mind-set. The problem is that this mind-set has always been monolithic, ignorant of the complexities of conflicts, colonialism and ‘capitalist democracies’. They are stuck in the past refusing to be propositive. They are not in favour of peace and dialogue. They seem to want to perpetrate the image of the ‘wretched of the earth’ without setting people free. Freedom implies responsibility. By focusing only on one side’s responsibilities they are discounting the other’s responsibilities and rights. Those who called for the boycott are also rather hypocritical, see http://paswonky.blogspot.com/2008/02/for-fistful-of-books.html