Arab Anti-Semitism: It's Getting Personal

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=7548 ^ | 5-24-04 | Cinnamon Stillwell

[SeenTheLight]

There’s been a lot of talk since 9/11 about anti-Muslim and anti-Arab discrimination, and yet according to actual hate crime statistics, it is Jews who have had the most to fear. According to the FBI’s Hate Crimes Statistics Report for 2002, there were 155 anti-Islamic incidents and 931 anti-Jewish incidents. And as anyone who follows these developments knows, the majority of these anti-Jewish acts were perpetrated by Arabs and/or Muslims.

Of course, the media has remained largely silent on this issue, preferring instead to stick to their usual script of brown victims and white oppressors. But Jews themselves do not have that luxury. In contrast, many young Jews who never before encountered anti-Semitism are now reading daily about synagogue burnings, blood libels, grave defacements, school fire-bombings, and the cold-blooded and deliberate murder of Jews. They are also experiencing hatred on a personal level for the first time.

My own brush with anti-Semitism, in the post-9/11 landscape, first came while counter-protesting at ''peace'' rallies in San Francisco leading up to the war in Iraq. Most of the vitriol was couched in anti-Israel terminology, such as the hysterical accusations of ''genocide'' displayed on signs and the ''Intifada'' T-shirts worn by members of the crowd. On one occasion, I was called a ''Zionist pig'' for daring to wave an Israeli flag. But it was the Arab teenager with the ''Kill the Jews'' sign that made the most lasting impression.

Actually, I became aware of Arab anti-Semitism long before 9/11, mostly through my neighborhood grocery stores. San Francisco has many such corner stores, the nicest of which are owned and run by Arab-Americans.

A former neighbor of mine made the mistake one day of engaging in a political conversation with our local Arab store owner. Somehow the subject of Australians came up and she mentioned in passing their attitude towards the British. Not knowing she was Jewish, the man nodded in agreement, saying how much he hated Jews. Dumbfounded, she simply walked out the door without comment. From then on, the store became known as the ''Jew-Haters.'' We continued patronizing the place, joking about how we were going down to the ''Jew-Haters'' for some milk or a loaf of bread. But our casual indifference concealed a real fear--evident in the fact that we both tucked our Star of David necklaces into our shirts whenever we went in after that.

I later switched neighborhoods and hence corner stores, but in a cruel twist of fate, it turned out the ''Jew-Haters'' owned another store in the vicinity of my new address. A friend of mine, who isn’t even Jewish, ended up in an argument one day with the owner, who blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks and conjured up the conspiracy theory that 4000 Jews stayed home that day on a tip from Mossad. My friend pointed out how ludicrous these accusations were, but to no avail. Not being able to stomach giving money to the ''Jew-Haters'' any longer, neither of us returned to the store

Years later, I still frequent my local, Arab-owned corner stores, mostly out of necessity, but also because, ironically, they provide the friendliest service in the city. But in the back of my mind, there lingers a nagging question. I can’t help wondering if they would be as friendly if they knew I was a Jew? In fact, I wonder if they would want to slit my throat if they knew I was a Jew? As the young men behind the counter smilingly hand me my change, such are the thoughts that go through my mind.

Having lived most of my life as a tolerant, egalitarian type, I dislike feeling this way, but I’ve read too many passages like the one in the Koran where Muslims are instructed not only to avoid befriending ''disbelievers,'' but to kill them as well. I’ve seen the videos of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, both Jews, beheaded like animals by calm, cool, Arab terrorists. I’ve seen the photos of Palestinians triumphantly holding up their Jewish-blood-stained hands, and dancing gleefully in the streets--the heads and remains of Jewish soldiers held aloft. But it is the story of Sébastien Selam, the young Jewish DJ in France who was murdered last year by his Arab neighbor, that haunts me the most. The two young men had been friends, but after slitting Sebastien’s throat and mutilating his face with a fork, the Arab youth simply said, ''I have killed my Jew. I will go to heaven.'' How one reconciles a sense of humanity with such callous indifference to life, is a question I continue to struggle with.

The mundane nature of evil has confounded mankind throughout history and the current situation is no exception. Today’s ''monsters'' could very well be the shopkeeper down the street, a neighbor in your building, or even someone you think is a friend. And for Jews in particular, such realities raise difficult questions. All too often, these concerns go unspoken for fear of giving offense, but the rising bodycount should add some perspective. We have seen where such willful ignorance has led in the past. Can we really afford to go down that path again?

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

By your logic I should exterminate every single white American because one of them was Tim McVeigh.

This, of course, represents utterly specious reasoning. Not only was McVeigh not harbored, he was caught, tried, convicted, and executed for his crimes.>>>

Actually no. Although I could make exactly the same point by changing the name to Eric Rudolph.

[Lazamataz]

Arabs and Jews are both Semites

But neither of them are Vegamites.

Ask any Australian. He'll tell ya!

[Lazamataz]

By your logic I should exterminate every single white American because one of them was Tim McVeigh.

If all the white males were quietly cheering Tim McVeigh on, then yes.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

By your logic I should exterminate every single white American because one of them was Tim McVeigh.

If all the white males were quietly cheering Tim McVeigh on, then yes.

Hello? Earth to Laz.WE DON'T EXTERMINATE PEOPLE FOR QUIETLY CHEERING ANYBODY ON.

[Lazamataz]

Hello? Earth to Laz.WE DON'T EXTERMINATE PEOPLE FOR QUIETLY CHEERING ANYBODY ON.

Well, *you* don't.

I have been known to set up sprawling death-camps for people who look at me wrong.

[CatoRenasci]

One does not burn down a barn to kill a rat. Oh, you can do it if you want, but it costs you the barn and shows you to be an idiot.

Actually, if the rat is carrying bubonic plague, and it's the only way to get at the rat, you're an idiot if you don't burn down the barn.

Again, this is a matter of how serious you think the threat is. You appear to think that the islamists are not so serious a threat, that we have to tolerate their existence if it's very hard or impossible to separate them from "innocent" moslems. I believe islamism is a plague that must be completely eliminated.

[CatoRenasci]

Actually, Rudolph was also caught, was a solo, and had very little help. The analogies just don't hold.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

was a solo, and had very little help.>>>

Like hell. He was solo in the woods, but a LOT of people rooted for him, and a LOT of people helped him stay there.

[CatoRenasci]

Sorry, but our information differs. From what I have read, he had only a little help. And, I haven't heard of many people rooting for him. Maybe a few skinheads, but NOTHING like the moslem reactions to 9/11 or the support of Bin Laden.

[CatoRenasci]

BTW, apparently good old ronly bonly jones tried to call down the moderators on me.

[VOA]

I swear, I'm beginning to develop a real hatred myself - for (expletive deleted) Arabs and Moslems.

Please proceed with caution.
A fair number of Arabs in the USA are Christian Arabs who came to the USA...
because of the carrot of the American Dream and the stick of Islamic hate back
in their former homes.

[Robert Teesdale]

I'd like to interpose my own $.02 into this discussion, if I may.

First, I understand and agree with Ronly's point regarding the moral disgrace of advocating extermination. On the other hand, Cato's point of throwing away the scabbard is also well-put and succinct.

I submit, gentlemen, that your arguments are both erring on the area of semantics. I offer to you the supposition that it is not Muslims who deserve extermination; but the ideology of jihad and its familiar accountrement of brutal, hate-filled indoctrination into unthinking, cataclysmic violence.

A distinction perhaps minor, but important.

To exterminate Muslims would be inappropriate. To single out and decisively kill the major proponents of jihad, following the declaration of war we heard quite clearly on September 11th, 2001 - not to mention the repeated instances of horrific butchery flagellated in our faces by the jihadists since - would be fully appropriate.

What took place in Srebrenica was foul, indeed. Yet it is nothing more than a footnote in history when tallied against the barbaric list of human crimes throughout the ages.

In summary? The Israeli Defense Force's current strategy versus Hamas is a superb example of appropriate response.

Continue beheading the snake. Ultimately the replacement heads lack the Darwinian experience of the previous heads, rendering the organization less and less effective until it can be stamped out through the spine.

[CatoRenasci]

Actually, I agree with you completely. The notion that I have ever advocated wanton slaughter of moslems as moslems is a straw man erected by ronly bonly jones. If you read all of my posts, it should be clear that my primary objective is to kill all of the Islamists, whom I believe seek to kill or enslave us. I would prefer, all other things being equal, not to kill "innocent" moslems. I would agree that it would be morally reprehensible to advocate exterminating moslems as moslems.

I would also agree that it is the ideology of islamism that needs to be, literally, exterminated, not moslems who are content to go about their business, not bothering non-moslems anywhere, and not seeking to impose islam on the rest of the world.

However, unless the "innocent" moslems clearly disassociate themselves from the jihadisti, it can be extremely difficult to know who is who.

And, there is the open question of just how 'radical' an interpretation of islam Islamism actually is. There people who say it is a perversion of islam. Others, suggest it is a mainstream islamic view entirely consistent with the Koran and the traditions. My own reading of the Koran and secondary works, and works about the history of islam and the West, and my training as an historian and philosopher, incline me to the later view. Certainly, the Koran does take the view Islam is entitled to rule the world and everyone must submit to islam.

Certainly, a large number of moslems seem to support the Islamists, and were cheering at the attacks on the US and the mutilation of our soldiers and civilians.

If, in order to protect ourselves adequately from those who would kill us, 'innocents' who will not disassociate themselves from the Islamists are caught in the crossfire, it is a regrettable necessity of war.

[CatoRenasci]

I should add that I come from a family with a long history with the moors: according to family tradition dating from the 12th century, one of my forebears fled Spain when the Moors came, went to France and fought with Charles Martel at Tours. Some of us have ancestral memories as long or longer than the moslems who look to the glory days of their barbaric and bloodthirsty conquest of Africa and Spain.

[Robert Teesdale]

Thank you for your reply. I'd like to respond to it in detail, since I think some of the points you've made are extremely important.

If you read all of my posts, it should be clear that my primary objective is to kill all of the Islamists, whom I believe seek to kill or enslave us. I would prefer, all other things being equal, not to kill "innocent" moslems. I would agree that it would be morally reprehensible to advocate exterminating moslems as moslems.

I think this point's settled well.

I would also agree that it is the ideology of islamism that needs to be, literally, exterminated, not moslems who are content to go about their business, not bothering non-moslems anywhere, and not seeking to impose islam on the rest of the world.

Yes. I find this to be an unavoidable imperative if the West is to survive.

Some ideologies and their methods may be permitted to die of their own accord. Stalinism, Marxism, Communism are examples. Others must be forcibly and deliberately exterminated with violence. Nazism is the primary example in this regard.

Jihadism, or Islamofacism, as many call it, requires such extermination.

However, unless the "innocent" moslems clearly disassociate themselves from the jihadisti, it can be extremely difficult to know who is who.

It will become easier.

And, there is the open question of just how 'radical' an interpretation of islam Islamism actually is. There people who say it is a perversion of islam. Others, suggest it is a mainstream islamic view entirely consistent with the Koran and the traditions. My own reading of the Koran and secondary works, and works about the history of islam and the West, and my training as an historian and philosopher, incline me to the later view.

Regrettably, yes. I find this to be the case as well.

Certainly, the Koran does take the view Islam is entitled to rule the world and everyone must submit to islam.

Not while I've a rifle, I mustn't. Or my neighbors.

Certainly, a large number of moslems seem to support the Islamists, and were cheering at the attacks on the US and the mutilation of our soldiers and civilians.

Yes. But only because the War is only in the initial stages of skirmish. This is an important consideraton.

The invastion, subjugation, occupation, and ongoing transformations of Afghanistan and Iraq are merely responding declarations of the Republic to the opening gambit of September 11th.

The real fighting has not started. And it will not end over the Middle East, but rather between the Republic, and the colossus of China.

This all is, after all, only the pre-game show.

If, in order to protect ourselves adequately from those who would kill us, 'innocents' who will not disassociate themselves from the Islamists are caught in the crossfire, it is a regrettable necessity of war.

Harshly put, but I cannot fault the accuracy of it. Goebbelsian total war is not yet necessary, however. We can increase the scope of our accomplishments through less restraint on the part of our command process, however, before moving towards less restraint on the part of our field forces.

[CatoRenasci]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I would quibble with you only on a couple of points:

First, I'm not sure how (or that) it will become easier to distinguish the 'good' moslems from the 'bad' moslems, unless they act to help us. I do not see much evidence of that help as yet. Khadafi is one counterexample, but the Pakistanis are probably playing an ultimately unacceptable double game: the jury is out.

Second, while I am concerned in the long run about China, I think the Chinese, who are not moslems, will sit this war out: they're smart enough to know they can't successfully ally with the islamofascists. While they may try to exploit our vulnerability as we fight this war, they don't really have a dog in this fight besides us: after all, islamism threatens them as much in the very long run as it does us. Net, net, I don't expect much help from the Chinese, but not any serious opposition either. But, I would be interested to hear your analysis.

Third, I would not describe the total war we may yet come to as Goebbelsian, which has unfortunate associations that I think are inappropriate here, but rather as Shermanesque. We are not at a place where, ala France in the 1790s, Prussia after Leipzig, or America in the 1860s, where we have to mobilize the entire nation-in-arms, but, I fear we may come to it. I don't know. I do think another major attack on the US would result in our truly letting slip the dogs of war. It worries me. And, when make harsh analyses (as you note), it is not because I like them, but because I can't see how to avoid them.

[Robert Teesdale]

First, I'm not sure how (or that) it will become easier to distinguish the 'good' moslems from the 'bad' moslems, unless they act to help us. I do not see much evidence of that help as yet. Khadafi is one counterexample, but the Pakistanis are probably playing an ultimately unacceptable double game: the jury is out.

I do not think Khadafi is stupid. Bizarre, perhaps, but not stupid. He is a survivor, and I think that his turn towards the United States is probably geniune - but subject to verification through time.

To answer your question as to how the difference becomes easier to tell, I will reply with harshness of my own: if domestic killing begins, the wheat and the chaff will automatically enter a self-sort paradigm.

Second, while I am concerned in the long run about China, I think the Chinese, who are not moslems, will sit this war out: they're smart enough to know they can't successfully ally with the islamofascists. While they may try to exploit our vulnerability as we fight this war, they don't really have a dog in this fight besides us: after all, islamism threatens them as much in the very long run as it does us. Net, net, I don't expect much help from the Chinese, but not any serious opposition either. But, I would be interested to hear your analysis.

Vastly simplified, it is this:

1. The world will inevitably globalize.
2. There will inevitably be one government.
3. There will be one of two forms of this government. Either
a) One under which all men are created equal, and all men have inalienable rights, or
b) One where they are not, and do not.
4. There are only two viable contenders for this role of global hegemon:
a) The United States
b) China

It is worth noting that China has expected to win this contest, and prepared for it, for thousands of years. Against that patience and grim ruthlessness I match American ingenuity, fierceness and good-natured balls.

Third, I would not describe the total war we may yet come to as Goebbelsian, which has unfortunate associations that I think are inappropriate here, but rather as Shermanesque. We are not at a place where, ala France in the 1790s, Prussia after Leipzig, or America in the 1860s, where we have to mobilize the entire nation-in-arms, but, I fear we may come to it.

We are certainly not at the point that Germany was at in 1945, and thankfully so. General Sherman's methodology was successful, but rather cruel - and he did not have, as an underlying motivation, the re-educational transformation of the burnt regions behind him. It was punitive more than it was rehabilitative in intent.

To mobilize the entire nation will require death on a massive scale, along with political leadership prepared to properly focus the public will in the direction of survival, where it is currently and decidedly not.

I don't know. I do think another major attack on the US would result in our truly letting slip the dogs of war. It worries me. And, when make harsh analyses (as you note), it is not because I like them, but because I can't see how to avoid them.

It depends upon what the major attack consists of. The cry of "Havoc!" will not come, my friend, without millions dead on our own soil.

Until then, we will require patience of ourselves when dealing with those in the press, and in the public eye, who do not comprehend the vast gulf between their petty trivialities of self-inflated conscience - and the fate of the nation and, ultimately, humanity itself.

What I fear is an immediate nuclear attack upon the mainland by the People's Republic, which may judge our nation sufficiently staggered by nuclear detonations in Washington and New York to be unable to respond.

Islam is the dancing, taunting child with a ripped-off car antennae, prancing in mad glory between two serious street fighters about to decide ownership of the block. I'm sure China finds it all rather amusing.

[CatoRenasci]

Thanks again. I agree about Khadafi, but am less sure he represents a trend than a counterexample. Time will tell.

As to domestic killing sorting out who's on which side, I would agree. My point, however poorly made, was that short of something like that, it is pretty hard to sort them out.

As to China, I don't disagree that it represents the long-term serious threat. I think the Chinese may be as much a reason for the missle defense shield as the 'rogue' nuclear one-trick ponies like North Korea and France. Where I disagree, is what China's reaction in the short to medium run will be. I think their very patience suggests the will not try a nuclear attack on the US. They know we still are geared for (and, if attacked would release upon them) old Dulles' "massive retaliation.

And, lastly, I think we are closer to the cry of "Havoc!" than you apparently do. I don't think it would take the death of millions, or even hundreds of thousand. An attack that killed 10,000 or so, IMO, would trigger both a public reaction against the moslems here, and serious calls for the use of nuclear fires on the moslem holy sites.

[Robert Teesdale]

The cry will come quicker than the slipping of the leash, I agree. Yet with the stakes as high as they are....

We live in interesting times.

[CatoRenasci]

We live in interesting times

Appropriately Chinese sentiment, that curse 'may you live in interesting times'l