Subscribe to our
|More Emperor's Clothes articles on antisemitism and its history, the Arab-Israeli dispute, etc.|
With Internet Explorer, Best Viewed With Medium Text Size
As European Union Suppresses Report on antisemitic Violence...
What do the EU, George Bush and Malaysian PM Mahathir have in Common?
(Could it be they're all pushing the politics of antisemitism?)
By Jared Israel
[ www.tenc.net ]
According to the Financial Times of
November 22, the European Union (EU) has suppressed a report it had
commissioned on the epidemic of antisemitic violence in Europe.
you are wondering, 'Is antisemitic violence really a problem in Europe in
2003?' the answer is unfortunately 'yes'. As Leah Vitale wrote in the
If you are wondering, 'Is antisemitic violence really a problem in Europe in 2003?' the answer is unfortunately 'yes'. As Leah Vitale wrote in theUniversity of Massachusetts (Amherst) student newspaper, regarding the situation in France:
Given the widespread evidence of rampant antisemitism in Europe, why did the EU suppress its own report on this problem?
According to the Times, the report
came to a conclusion that was deemed politically incorrect: that attacks
on European Jews are mainly carried out by Muslims.
Notice that the word they use is 'inflammatory', not 'false'.
Such things as murdering innocent
people in the street or in their places of worship because they are Jews
constitute racist gangsterism.
Like every political force, racist gangsters are sensitive to
public opinion. If the media
and official bodies suppress the information that it is Muslims who are
carrying out violent attacks on Jews in Europe, then the gangsters donít
pay a political price for their terror. Thus by suppressing the report,
the European Union empowered murderers.
Based on everything I have heard and read, the upsurge in hatred towards Jews in Europe goes far beyond the Muslim population. Moreover it is escalating rapidly, and not only in Europe. It reminds me of the situation in the 1930s.
The most obvious mechanism for mobilizing hatred of Jews in the West at this time is the dissemination of fabricated horror stories about the Middle East conflict. In earlier times, antisemitism was mobilized in the West by means of horror stories of a slightly different type, such as the nightmare tale that Jewish people murder Gentile children and use their blood in Matzos (the 'blood libel'). Unbelievable though it may seem, this 'blood libel' is widely taught in the Muslim world today. For example, I have posted the link to a video clip from a program on Al-Manar TV which operates out of Lebanon with Syrian government funding. In this program, one episode in a TV series broadcast every night, actors depicting rabbis murder a child for his blood. It is quite horrible. I imagine it is something a child would never forget.
In the West, TV stations are not (yet) broadcasting programs depicting rabbis slitting Gentile children's throats. Instead, the vehicle of demonization is mainly the misrepresentation of the Middle East conflict. Up until now, when people have falsely claimed that Israel is an apartheid state, the greatest oppressor on earth, and so on, the polite fiction was that the target was Israel, not Jews as a group. But of course, it is hard to maintain that fiction in the face of the EU report. If Muslims are not opposed to Jews *as Jews* then why are they knifing Orthodox Jews on the streets of France? What do French Jews have to do with opposition to Israeli policies, real or imagined? Unless of course the opposition to Israel is rooted in its being a *Jewish* state and unless, in turn, the media coverage which mobilizes opposition to Israel encourages hatred of Jews everywhere.
Alongside the demonization of Israel, there is another process at work, fanning antisemitism in the West. This involves the idea that a secret cabal of Jews is dominating U.S. policy. The 'Jews-are-in-control' myth is being pushed in the mass media and I believe deliberately encouraged by the Bush administration. While this is done in a relatively subtle way in the West, it is much more openly proclaimed in the Muslim world. A few weeks ago it was broadcast worldwide by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mr. Mahathir. Let us consider what Mahathir said and how Western leaders responded.
Mahathir tests the waters
Six weeks ago, Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia gave a speech that was taken right out of the Protocols of Zion. In it he claimed Muslims are being humiliated everywhere. Mahathir delivered this speech at a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference. 58 leaders of Muslim states were present and when Mahathir finished, he got a standing ovation. 
Mahathir accused Jews of having "invented democracy, communism, socialism and human rights", as if, assuming this were true, it would prove something bad about Jews. But he also said Jews constitute a conspiracy which runs the world with the express goal of humiliating certain Gentiles, namely Muslims.
He claimed Muslims are being humiliated worldwide as part of a global attack on Islam and, to complete the imaginary picture, the culprits are 'The Jews.'
Note that Mahathir does not fault Palestinian or other suicide bombers for attacking innocent people. Why? Because in Mahathirís bizarre world, Jews are not innocent and they're really not people. Mahathir objects to suicide bombing because he considers it an act of weakness. Muslims, he argues, must create *effective* armed forces with modern weapons and unite against the imaginary Jewish attack. This is what he means by "defense":
Notice that Mahathir does not encourage Muslims to enrich their societies by studying a broad range of ideas - e.g., democracy, socialism, communism, human rights, or even world literature. No, just science and math, because Muslims need them...to make bombs. Am I alone in finding this mind boggling?
Many Imams (that is, Muslim religious teachers) hold to the view that the humiliation of Islam - real or imagined - justifies jihad, which in practice means holy war. Thus by accusing Jews of humiliating Muslims worldwide, Mahathir was inciting violence against Jews, worldwide.
1) While Mahathir did talk about Israel, his target was clearly Jews *in general*. He did not attack Israel because of this or that supposed tactic of the Israeli government. Rather he opposed Israel because it was Jewish. His only criticism of the 50 year Muslim obsession with destroying Israel was that it had not worked:
You see? The man is
mono-obsessed. He doesn't even bother to deny that Jews have been fiercely
persecuted; rather he warns that they "survive" because they are smart,
just as one would warn of the cleverness of some vermin one wished to
It is therefore most significant that the European Union issued no statement regarding Mahathir's speech. The way it apparently happened was this: Italy, which presently presides over the EU, announced that a statement of criticism would be issued at an upcoming meeting of European heads of state. But then came the meeting, and the criticism was reportedly "fiercely" opposed by French President Chirac. Having gone through the motions of preparing to criticize, the EU surrendered to France: a rout. Nobody has seen anything quite like it since the French surrendered to Nazi Germany in 1940.
According to the Malaysian paper, the Strait Times, Dr. Mahathir thanked France:
According to the Associated Press:
When Muslims burn down synagogues, one may not report it. And when Muslim leaders give a standing ovation to a Prime Minister who calls for holy war against Jews, thus empowering those who firebomb synagogues, this may be "strident" but it is "not appropriate" to criticize him.
So much for the claim by European leaders that they are motivated only by opposition to specific supposed Israeli policies, not by antisemitism. The EU's silence was of course a statement, and Muslims heard it, loud and clear. And so did ordinary people in the West! The hidden message was: 'Mahathir shouldn't have said such a thing, but of course it's true, so we will not issue even a formal criticism.'
Enter George the Indispensable 
Now comes George Bush, Jr. with his contribution.
After Mahathir accused 'The Jews' of humiliating Muslims, Bush says he privately rebuked Mahathir for being "divisive". Pretty mild considering that Mahathir was cheered by Muslim heads of state for inciting holy war. By the way, Mahathir claims Bush did *not* rebuke him. Rather, claims Mahathir, Buke apologized for "having to"criticize him. 
Whether Mahathir is lying, or Bush, or both, the important statement was made by Bush's adviser, Condoleezza Rice. She said that although Mahathir's comments were hateful, they did not reflect the views of Muslim leaders. Sounds great, but then who gave Mahathir that standing ovation?
It is precisely because Mahathir's views *do* represent the thinking of millions of Muslims - and not only Muslims - that an entirely different kind of statement was needed, something that would challenge the thinking of people who agree with Mahathir.
'The Protocols' has been used this way in the Arab world - e.g. by the Baath party in Syria and Iraq and by Nasser in Egypt - and it was used this way by the Nazis. Like Mahathir, Hitler claimed Europe and the US were controlled by a Jewish conspiracy to humiliate and destroy (in this case) Germans. That idea was crazy, as proven by the fact that not one of the states which were supposedly controlled by Jews lifted a finger to interfere with Hitler's Final Solution.
Today 'The Protocols' is family entertainment in Arab countries. [9A] And itís ideas are pushed in the West as well.
Could Bush, or whoever writes his speeches, have offered a serious refutation of Mahathir's arguments? If he tried he would have run into two problems.
First problem: he would have had to discuss Nazism. This could get sticky for Bush. The Nazi rearmament of Germany was paid for largely with American money. Bush's grandfather and great grandfather played a leading role. [9B]
Bush could finesse this by avoiding German rearmament. But there's a second problem as well.
The second problem is the killer
Exposing the fictional content of Mahathir's source, 'The Protocols of Zion', [3B] and showing the absurdity [3A] of these ideas wouldn't have been hard. Nor would it have been hard to show that 'Protocols' thinking is deadly, and not just for Jews. After all, ninety percent of the people who died in Hitler's war (which was justified by 'The Protocols'!) were gentiles.
So why didn't Bush do it? What was the second problem?
Everything I am about to say will challenge conventional wisdom. It will challenge beliefs held by people who are worried about antisemitism and people who think it is a tempest in a teapot. It will challenge the thinking of people who consider themselves pro-Israel and of those who consider themselves pro-PLO. In upcoming articles I and others will explain how we have come to these unusual conclusions and we will post and respond to questions and disagreements about what I am about to say. Let me begin by answering this question: What is the second problem that Bush would face if he tried to refute the ideas Mahathir was presenting?
The second problem is that the US and European Establishments do not *want* to defeat Mahathir's ideas.
Because they are spreading the same ideas themselves.
Why on earth would they spread such ideas?
For an old reason: They want to direct people's anger over problems at home and abroad against 'The Jews' rather than against themselves - the Establishment of the aggressively expanding US-led empire.
How are they achieving this?
Articles in the mass media, carefully calculated actions and statements of Bush administration officials, and the statements and writings of Bush critics create a certain impression. That impression is that Jewish or pro-Jewish neoconservatives have taken control of the Bush administration and use their power supposedly to direct US foreign policy to serve evil Israeli (i.e. Jewish) ends.
By spreading the false idea that the US is dominated by Israel, or 'The Jews,' everything the US does is explained as Israel's policy: the war in Iraq, the takeover of Afghanistan, even the covert sponsorship of Islamist terror. You name it. Anything and everything.
This belief is so full of factual and logical holes it would leak in the rain. But people are not presented with the evidence that shows the absurdity of the notion that a pro-Israel cabal is running the U.S.
Consider the argument that the US invaded Iraq to help Israel.
In fact, from a geopolitical standpoint, the invasion of Iraq was terrible for Israel. Why? Because Saddam Hussein's Iraq was hostile to the leaders of both Saudi Arabia and Iran. Situated between them, it hindered both; so the destruction of Hussein's horrible Baath dictatorship has removed an obstacle to the power of the Saudi and Iranian regimes, both of which lead international Islamist movements with antisemitism as a motivating force and the destruction of Israel as a central goal. [9C]
What country fought Iran in a fierce war that lasted almost a decade? Israel? No, Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
What next door neighbor threatened Saudi Arabia and challenged it for leadership of the Sunni Muslim world? Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Moreover, even before the invasion there was compelling evidence that the US was working with Iran to install an Islamic fundamentalist government in Iraq. Karzai, the Islamic fundamentalist whom the US installed in Afghanistan, is close to the Iranian leaders and is one of the people who gave Mahathir a standing ovation at the OIC. Would an Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iraq be friendlier to Jews than Karzai? If anything it would be more hostile - subservient to Iran. [9D]
Does Israel need an Iran-Iraq superstate dedicated to destroying Israel? A state which controls the Persian Gulf?
What brilliant strategists these neocons are to attack not Iran or Saudi Arabia, Israel's worst enemies, but Saddam Hussein, who hampered those enemies!
Moreover, it seems to me that the whole way in which the war in Iraq has been and is being conducted (and opposed) is suspect. It smells of con game. I believe that certain grotesque seeming missteps were deliberately taken to foster the suspicion that Bush and Blair were being pushed into Iraq by Israel. We have seen the unprecedented phenomenon of establishment leaders, like Robin Cooke, who has discovered, late in life, that he hates government lies, and intelligence operatives like Scott Ritter leading the fight against a US war. [9E] This creates the false sense among ordinary people of a struggle within the Establishment and lays the basis for the argument that 'valiant' people within the elite are resisting 'The Jews.'
The slogan, 'Oppose the Empire!' comes
to suggest 'Free the Establishment from Jewish domination!' This mentality
is what is meant by the phrase, 'creating a mass base for Fascism.'
This explains why, when Mahathir expressed his hallucination, born of the Czarist secret police, that 'the Jews' run the world with a goal to destroying 1.3 billion Muslims, Bush offered the absurdly off-the-mark response that Mahathir was being "divisive". People hear this and they think, "Bush can't refute that Malaysian dude so he has to chastise him for saying what everybody knows is true. It's just that the Jews don't want anyone to hear it!"
In fact the people who really cause the problems - and these people are not 'The Jews,' but the economic-political elite which the old left used to call 'the ruling class' - in fact these people most definitely *do* want ordinary people to hear that 'the Jews' are supposedly The Problem. Blaming the Jews is music to the ruling class's ears, just as it was in previous times of crisis, in Czarist Russia, and then in Germany.
Is the current flurry of 'Protocols of Zion'-type attacks on Jews a coincidence?
In my opinion Mahathir's speech was a calculated move, orchestrated by, or at least with the approval of, the European and US Establishments, to be followed by similarly insane remarks from other prominent figures. Statements like Mahathir's are made by this or that leader or celebrity who is then dismissed as eccentric; perhaps, as in the case of Mahathir, the media criticizes him somewhat but also points to 'positive' things about his speech. After such statements, rebukes are issued; perhaps this or that politician is expelled from his party; Mahathir or whomever points to these rebukes, mild or severe, as confirming the vast power of 'The Jews'.
What is the effect? To create an environment in which Nazi-like antisemitic arguments come to be perceived as normal and associated with resistance to a vaguely defined New World Order. People think, "Well, nobody can refute this stuff; they just say it's ugly. But where there's smoke, there's fire. At least these people have the guts to speak out."
In this fashion, Western populations are indoctrinated in the belief that their problems are produced by the 'hidden hand of The Jews.' Once adopted, this belief becomes a filter through which events are viewed so that any event may be interpreted as confirming the prejudice.
Does what I am saying sound too horrible to believe? We have done a lot of research to test the accuracy of this hypothesis, and as quickly as possible we will publish what we have uncovered.
'The Jews Did It!' - Take Two!
By the way, this is exactly what happened in Germany prior to the Nazi takeover.
Hitler did *not* invent the notion that the Jews were responsible for all the woes that had befallen Germany. Rather, the notion of a secret cabal of Jews stabbing Germany in the back was inculcated for many years by much broader forces, often with the support of the Establishment. And then, when conditions were appropriate and necessary, the Establishment swung full support over to the Nazis, who could march in as the seeming answer to a 'problem' - albeit a lie - which had already been sold to varying degrees to most ordinary people.
In other words, people who were voting for liberal, conservative or even left wing parties had been convinced to varying extents of the lies that 'The Jews' instigated World War I for profit, and/or sold out Germany in that war, and/or were behind the ruinous inflation of the twenties, and/or had polluted German culture, and or were starving Germany of credit through control of the banks and/or were pulling the strings of German Communism for the purpose of crippling Germany.
These ideas were not inculcated only by the Nazis. Indeed, for most of the period from World War I until the Nazi takeover, these ideas were not even inculcated mainly by the Nazis. Rather, these ideas were deliberately pushed by the German establishment through the media of various political currents. They became 'common knowledge,' because even fictional explanations can become common knowledge, thus laying the basis for the Nazis. From this perspective, Nazism was only the culmination of a process. It was the last part of a magic trick pulled off by the German elite.
Bush echoes Mahathir
Mr. Bush visited the UK last week and delivered a speech about Iraq and other issues. After the speech he gave an interview to Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, an Arab paper which is owned by the Saudi government and which operates out of London. In both the speech and the interview Bush used Mahathir's language, saying that Israeli Jews supposedly "humiliate Palestinians" by stopping them at checkpoints (as if there were not a real daily danger of terrorist attacks by Arabs!). 
Will Ms. Rice now issue a statement assuring the world that Mr. Bush's remarks, though outrageous, do not reflect the views of other Western leaders?
Rules of the game
I've posted the Financial Times article below.
EU Body Shelves Report on Antisemitism
Financial Times Nov. 22,
The European Union's racism watchdog
has shelved a report on antisemitism because the study concluded Muslims
and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents it examined.
The Vienna-based European Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) decided in February not to publish
the 112-page study, a copy of which was obtained by the Financial Times,
after clashing with its authors over their conclusions.
The news comes amid growing fears that
there is an upsurge of antisemitism in European Union countries. Among
many recent incidents, a Jewish school near Paris was firebombed last
Saturday, the same day two Istanbul synagogues were devastated by suicide
truck bombs that killed 25 and wounded 300.
Turkey, which hopes to join the EU,
suffered again at the hands of what are believed to be al-Qaeda inspired
terrorists on Thursday with truck bomb attacks on British targets.
Following a spate of incidents in
early 2002, the EUMC commissioned a report from the Centre for Research on
Antisemitism at Berlin's Technical University.
When the researchers submitted their
work in October last year, however, the centre's senior staff and
management board objected to their definition of antisemitism, which
included some anti-Israel acts. The focus on Muslim and pro-Palestinian
perpetrators, meanwhile, was judged inflammatory.
"There is a trend towards Muslim
antisemitism, while on the left there is mobilisation against Israel that
is not always free of prejudice," said one person familiar with the
report. "Merely saying the perpetrators are French, Belgian or Dutch does
no justice to the full picture."
Some EUMC board members had also
attacked part of the analysis ascribing antisemitic motives to leftwing
and anti-globalisation groups, this person said. "The decision not to
publish was a political decision."
The board includes 18 members - one
for each member state, the European Commission, Parliament, and the
council of Europe - as well as 18 deputies. One deputy, who declined to be
named, confirmed the directors had seen the study as biased.
In July, Robert Wexler, a US
congressman, wrote to Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief,
demanding the release of the study.
Ole Espersen, law professor at
Copenhagen University and board member for Denmark, said the study was
"unsatisfactory" and that some members had felt anti-Islamic sentiment
should be addressed too.
The EUMC, which was set in 1998, has
published three reports on anti-Islamic attitudes in Europe since the
September 11 attacks in the US.
Beate Winkler, a director, said the
report had been rejected because the initial time scale included in the
brief - covering the period between May and June 2002 - was later judged
to be unrepresentative. "There was a problem with the definition [of
antisemitism] too. It was too complicated," she said.
This week, Silvan Shalom, Israel's foreign minister, proposed a joint ministerial council to fight what Israel sees as a rise in European antisemitism.
[Footnotes Follow The Appeal]
[To make a donation]
It is traditional during Hanukkah and Christmas to give to the needy. The New York Times runs a daily feature in December called "Remember the Neediest," featuring cases of the Deserving Poor.
There is nothing shameful about poverty; some of the best people have tried it. So we at Emperor's Clothes are not ashamed about our condition. And we are Deserving. We refuse to adjust our conclusions to fit anybody's correctness. Rather, we study and we base our analyses on the facts we uncover. When studying the Middle East led us to conclude we had been wrong about the Israel-Arab issue, some expected us to tone down our criticisms of US foreign policy. We didn't. We are stubbornly honest therefore we are poor.
Our only income comes from readers' donations. If you approve our unfashionable approach, even if you sometimes disagree with us, then as you enjoy this holiday season, think of us: poor but honest. We have several projects hindered by lack of cash. Your donation will be a great help, and much appreciated!
Footnotes and Further Reading
 You can
access the Window Media clip of Al Manar TV's video which accuses Jewish
people of murdering non-Jewish children for their blood (!) at
 To find out about "The Protocols of Zion," the
book Hitler used to justify the slaughter of the Jews and also World War
II, go to
[3A] Given the immense influence of "The
Protocols of Zion" it is amazingly badly done. See "'The Protocols of
Zion' - Illogical, Sloppy, and Incoherent..." at
[3B] Why does 'The Protocols' have appeal? The appeal stems from the two works of fiction from which its theme and texts were taken. One book was a work of anti-Jewish fear-mongering. The other book was a very serious satire written to attack Napoleon III, the Emperor of France, a despot who used demagoguery to mobilize mass support. For more on this, see "Reader Comments: 'I am no antisemite. Why do some parts of 'The Protocols' Ring True?' http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/ringstrue.htm
 Mahathir's speech is at http://www.oicsummit2003.org.my/speech_03.php
 Mahathir's speech is at http://www.oicsummit2003.org.my/speech_03.php
 New Straits Times
(Malaysia); October 19, 2003, Sunday; Section:
Nation; Pg. 3; Headline: Dr M expresses
gratitude to Chirac for his 'understanding'
'Dream TV' produced a 41-episode series based on "The Protocols of
Zion." It was shown in 2002 during Ramadan, thus
guaranteeing the maximum audience: fun for the whole family. For more on
that, go to "Pakistani Student Asks: Was Egyptian TV Miniseries Really
about 'Protocols of Zion?'" This article includes quotes from the
Concerning the role played by George W. Bush's grandpa and great grdndpa,
Prescott Bush and Herb Walker,
in financing Nazism, see "Nazis in the Attic," at
Concerning US sponsorship of Muslim extremism, we've published a fair amount. We'll collect it all in one place ASAP, but meanwhile here are three articles:
--- As you may already know,
the US fomented Islamic extremism in Afghanistan in the 1980s. For a
detailed account, see
--- The accepted wisdom is
that U.S. blundered in Afghanistan in the 1980s, not understanding it
was empowering fanatical Muslim extremists. The following article is one
of two we have published on Zalmay Khalilzad, now the NSA official
in charge (and on the scene!) from Afghanistan to Iraq. The first half of the following
article focuses on disproving the oft-stated view that Khalilzad is just
an oil consultant; the second half deals with Khalilzad's involvement
(along with Zbigniew Brzezinski!) in a company devoted to mobilizing
Western media to portray the Mujahideen fighting in Afghanistan as
freedom fighters. This company was funded by Congress for the purpose of
deceiving the public about the character of the Islamist terrorists whom
the US and Saudi Arabia spawned in Afghanistan. If you only want to read
this part, see "Zbigniew and Zalmay's Excellent Afghan Pro-Terrorist
Propaganda Adventure," at
--- The official story is that
the U.S. first tolerated the Taliban, then crushed them. Based on the
following article, including Congressional testimony, it appears that in
the middle 1990s the U.S. played a duplicitous role, tricking
anti-Taliban forces so that the Taliban could slaughter them. See
"Congressman: U.S. Set Up Anti-Taliban to be Slaughtered. *
Excerpts from a most revealing hearing * Comments by Jared Israel," at
[9C] Just for the record, in a piece written a year ago - that is, before we had direct evidence that the U.S. was quietly collaborating with Iran in preparation for the invasion of Iraq - I argued that:
other words, invading Iraq would not help Israel. See, "A Los Angeles Reader Asks: Are You for or Against
Saddam Hussein? Are You For or Against the Proposed War?"
[9D] For EC
articles that provide evidence that the US and Iran have been working
together in Iraq, go to
[9E] Regarding Robin Cook: As Foreign Secretary
of the UK he was one of the biggest government liars during the 1999 anti-Yugoslav war,
yet now we are supposed to believe he was shocked to learn that Blair
lied about Iraq. In an EC article called "We've been lied to about
Milosevic and the Serbs," I contrasted Cook's description of Milosevic's
famous speech, delivered in Kosovo in 1989, with the actual content of
 Interview of the President by Al-Sharq Al-Awsat
This Website is mirrored at