New antisemitism - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CJCurrie (talk | contribs) at 00:16, 14 April 2006 (back to previous version -- see talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:16, 14 April 2006 by CJCurrie (talk | contribs) (back to previous version -- see talk page)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

File:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg

Anti-Semitic image photographed at a February 16, 2003 anti-war rally in San Francisco. Figures described as "Counterfeit Jews" lean over the shoulder of "capitalist white man", portrayed as a devil wearing a swastika.

The term new anti-Semitism refers to contemporary forms of anti-semitism, manifesting themselves through anti-Jewish incidents and attacks on Jewish symbols, as well as the acceptance of anti-semitic beliefs and their expression in public discourse.

The term first came into general use in the early 1970s. In modern discourse, it is usually used to identify forms of anti-Semitism which are grounded in anti-Zionism and seen as emenating from the left of the political spectrum. It is argued these new forms should be distinguished from the old-style right-wing and Islamist anti-Semitism, which is motivated by religion, racism, racial theory or nationalism. The term 'new anti-Semitism' has also been used, however, to refer to the resurgence of such historical anti-Semitic beliefs or to characterise modern anti-Semitism as a development or "mutation" of old-style anti-Semitism.

Controversy regarding new anti-Semitism centers on whether opposition to the state of Israel expresses anti-Semitism only as a symptom or by-product, or whether it is more closely linked to, and supported by, more general anti-Semitic beliefs. Some commentators and academics argue that some allegations of new anti-Semitism are an attempt to silence debate on Israel. They claim that those who make legitimate criticism of Israel's actions or argue that pro-Israel groups have significant influence over US Middle East policy are very likely to be labelled as anti-Semites. Opponents of this view argue that a disproportionate focus on Israeli problems, without reference to the situation in other countries, constitutes a new anti-Semitism.

The nature of the new anti-Semitism

File:NewASMagenDavidswastika.jpg

An image in the Jordanian newspaper Ad-Dustour on November 13, 2000 merged the Star of David with the swastika.

The charge of new anti-Semitism is primarily applied to groups on the Left, and is described as drawing its vocabulary and arguments from an opposition to Zionism and to the state of Israel. Gerry Gable, publisher of the anti-fascist Searchlight magazine has said that "a lot of anti-semitism is driven by the left. There are elements who take up a position on Israel and Palestine which in reality puts them in league with anti-Semites. It's becoming more pervasive. A lot of hatred is being built up by people who really should know better."

Proponents of this model argue that anti-Zionism may function as a proxy for traditional anti-Semitism, thereby allowing anti-Semites to espouse a socially acceptable opposition to the Israeli state and its ideology, rather than a socially unacceptable religious or ethnic hatred. Proponents further argue that some grievances against Israel, stemming from the Arab-Israeli conflict, have become anti-Semitic in character and are manifested by hostility toward Jews in general. As Daniel Lazare has commented, in a paraphrase of August Bebel: "Anti-Semitism is the anti-Zionism of fools…"

Britain's Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks expressed this view when he argued that "the new antisemitism — and it is new — is a global phenomenon conveyed by Internet, e-mail, television and video, and we do not yet know how the new communications media will affect its spread. … It is coming simultaneously from three different directions: first, a radicalized Islamist youth inflamed by extremist rhetoric; second, a left-wing anti-American cognitive élite with strong representation in the European media; third, a resurgent far right, as anti-Muslim as it is anti-Jewish.

In The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz describes a definition of anti-Semitism as "taking a trait or an action that is widespread, if not universal, and blaming only the Jews for it. That is what Hitler and Stalin did, and that is what former Harvard University president A. Lawrence Lowell did in the 1920s when he tried to limit the number of Jews admitted to Harvard because 'Jews cheat.' When a distinguished alumnus objected on the grounds that non-Jews also cheat, Lowell replied, 'You're changing the subject. I'm talking about Jews.' So, too, when those who single out only the Jewish nation for criticism are asked why they don't criticize Israel's enemies, they respond, 'You're changing the subject. We're talking about Israel.'"

That attacks on Israel may serve as a cover for anti-Semitism has been accepted by official governmental bodies in Europe and the United States. For example, in 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), part of the Council of Europe, tried to define more clearly the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as part of a general effort to track anti-Semitism. The EUMC developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that defined ways in which attacking Israel or Zionism could be anti-Semitic, the definition states:

"Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic."

In his article "Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness", Irwin Cotler, Canada's Minister of Justice, writes that "classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; the new anti-Semitism — incompletely, or incorrectly, as "anti-Zionism"... — involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intrinsic to each form of anti-Semitism — and common to both — is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has moved from discrimination against Jews as individuals — a classical anti-Semitism for which there are indices of measurement (e.g., discrimination against Jews in education, housing, or employment) — to discrimination against Jews as people — a new anti-Semitism — for which one has yet to develop indices of measurement.

Cotler identifies distinct categories to illustrate the scope, character and specific instances of the new anti-Semitism. He describes them as Genocidal, Political, Theological, Cultural, Anti-Israel, Economic and State-sanctioned. Broadly, he asserts that anti-Semitism has expanded from the hatred of Jews to include hatred of Jewish national aspirations, the hatred of Israel's status as a sovereign nation, and the denial of its right to an equal role in the global community of nations. Cotler identifies distinct indices by which this prejudice may be manifested, ranging from the state-sanctioned theological anti-Semitism of some Islamic governments to the Cultural anti-Semitism which he perceives in the European elite. He also stressed that such prejudice may be overtly manifested (in the case of anti-Semitic rhetoric) or subtly manifested through diplomatic pressure, or by the economic boycott of Israeli businesses and their trade partners.

State of the controversy

For detailed contentions, see section Criticism.

Opponents

Opponents of the concept of New anti-Semitism assert that:

Antipathy toward Israel's policies, its character as a Jewish state, or even its existence, does not necessarily amount to anti-Semitism.
- People may have legitimate reasons to criticize or condemn the actions of any state, and Israel is as subject to this as any other.
- There are Jewish groups and Jewish individuals who hold views critical of Israeli policy; some of these (though far fewer) even question the legitimacy of Israel's character as a Jewish state. Some Haredi groups regard the state of Israel and Zionism as secularist heresies, and a few fringe organizations, most notably Neturei Karta, have called for the creation of a unitary state of Palestine in the region. A minority of secular and non-Haredi Jews also oppose the state of Israel and/or Zionism from a standpoint of anti-nationalism. Former Knesset member Tamar Gozansky is one such figure, while prominent Jewish intellectuals such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber articulated similar views in the mid-twentieth century.
- Many left-wing groups within mainstream Israeli politics hold views regarding some Israeli government policies similar to those criticized as anti-Semitic when expressed by left-wing groups outside Israel.
A frequent target for accusations of new anti-Semitism — the socialist Left — maintains a principled stand against any form of bigotry.
Accusations of anti-Semitism may be used to discredit those who criticize the actions of the Israeli government.
Comparing Israel with regimes known for repressive policies is commonplace within Israeli politics as well, with right-wing Zionists comparing Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Ariel Sharon to Adolf Hitler.
Palestinians and their sympathizers have reasons to oppose Israel independently of its connection to the Jewish people. Some of these sympathizers bear ill will toward the Jewish people, while others do not.
Frivolous accusations of anti-Semitism could undermine the struggle against more serious examples of it.

Proponents

Proponents of the concept of the new anti-Semitism respond to these objections as follows:

It is no coincidence that criticism against Israel is:
- Out of any proportion to the size of the conflict, whether measured in number of individuals affected, the size of the territory in dispute, or by the magnitude of alleged transgressions;
- Characterized by a double standard, in which Israel is held to a higher standard than any other state in a comparable situation;
- Replete with persistent exaggerations, distortions and outright falsehoods.
While it is certainly possible to criticize Israel without harboring anti-Semitic motivations, it is reasonable to assume that those who hate Jews also hate Israel.
Whether or not anti-Zionists harbor anti-Semitic attitudes, they should still be held responsible for promoting anti-Semitic prejudice.
The fact that some Jews are anti-Zionists does not provide immunity against anti-Semitism.
- Religious anti-Zionists base their opposition on convictions that ultimately call for the return of Jews to Eretz Israel.
- Just as all those who are critical of Israel aren't anti-Semitic, Jews who are critical of Israel have different reasons for their views.
- Even so, Jews are not exempt from misguided attitudes and self-loathing neuroses.
Vocal elements within both the secular and religious Arab world employ anti-Semitic images, canards, and stereotypes for political purposes.
The left wing is no more immune from bigotry than any other group.
There is ample evidence that the hostile popular opinion against Israel is correlated with blatant anti-Semitic acts.

Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism

Related articles: anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism

Anti-Zionism is a term that has been used to describe several very different political and religious points of view (both historically and in current debates), all expressing some form of opposition to Zionism. Many commentators, particularly those supportive of Israel, believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to anti-Semitism. In turn, critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. They point out that, during debate over the establishment of the State of Israel, most notably, many Hassidic Jews considered this manifestation of Zionism heretical. Today, the number of anti-Zionist Jewish groups worldwide is small.

There are examples of leading Zionists, while stating that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism, conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is on the record saying "The harsh but un-deniable truth is this: what some like to call anti-Zionism is, in reality, anti-Semitism — always, everywhere, and for all time... Therefore, anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hatred." Foxman believes that it is Anti-Semitic to criticize "the occupation by the Jews of Palestinians" if one does not also criticize the "Indian Hindus and their occupation of Muslim Kashmir", or similar military occupations. The World Union of Jewish Students looks at the dictionary definitions of anti-Semitism and Zionism and concludes that "According to these definitions it seems that anti-Zionism is Antisemitism". Nevertheless, it distinguishes between opposition to Israeli policy and anti-Zionism: "Can a person oppose the actions of the State of Israel, without denying its right to exist? The answer appears to be clearly yes."

Natan Sharansky has suggested that anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism can be distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel if it fails the "3D" test. In Sharansky's words:

"The first D is the test of demonization. …Jews were demonized for centuries as the embodiment of evil. Therefore, today we must be wary of whether the Jewish state is being demonized by having its actions blown out of all sensible proportion. For example, the comparisons of Israelis to Nazis and of the Palestinian refugee camps to Auschwitz… can only be considered anti-Semitic…"
"The second D is the test of double standards. For thousands of years a clear sign of anti-Semitism was treating Jews differently than other peoples, from the discriminatory laws many nations enacted against them to the tendency to judge their behavior by a different yardstick. Similarly, today we must ask whether criticism of Israel is being applied selectively… It is anti-Semitism, for instance, when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while tried and true abusers like China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria are ignored. Likewise, it is anti-Semitism when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross."
"The third D is the test of delegitimation. In the past, anti-Semites tried to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish religion, the Jewish people, or both. Today, they are trying to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish state, presenting it, among other things, as the last vestige of colonialism. While criticism of an Israeli policy may not be anti-Semitic, the denial of Israel's right to exist is always anti-Semitic. If other peoples have a right to live securely in their homelands, then the Jewish people have a right to live securely in their homeland…"

Despite some acceptance of the general principle that anti-Zionism may be used as a proxy for anti-Semitism, descriptions of specific political groups as examples of the new anti-Semitism have been challenged by critics. Although it is usually conceded that right-wing anti-Semites have latched onto aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Arab anti-Zionism has led to a growth of anti-Jewish as well as anti-Israeli sentiment in the Arab world, critics argue that claims of a new anti-Semitism have largely, or even primarily, been used to deflect legitimate criticism of Zionism, of Israel, or of the Israeli government.

Manifestations of the new anti-Semitism

False allegations about Israel and Jews

Proponents of the new anti-Semitism say that one of its manifestations involves false allegations made about Israel and Jews, with the intent of stirring up hatred against them. This section lists examples used to support that claim.

Perhaps the most notable case was the so called "Jenin massacre" allegation, in which it was claimed that in Jenin in 2002, Israeli Defense Forces committed atrocities "horrific beyond belief," according to United Nations special envoy Terje Rød-Larsen , and "massacred" 500–3000 innocent Palestinians during Operation Defensive Shield. Two weeks after the press promoted the Jenin massacre allegation, international reporters uncovered that no massacre had taken place in Jenin. Fatah lowered its estimate of the death toll to 56 people, the majority of whom were combatants, as were the 23 IDF soldiers killed during the battle. The "Jenin massacre" story sparked waves of anti-Israeli protests and violent attacks against Jews in Europe.

The role of the media in reporting these events was highly controversial. Many Western media outlets were criticized as having deliberately misled their readers, and some reporters were accused of fabricating information to demonize Israel. However, reports by the Western media of a "massacre" in Jenin were generally presented as eyewitness accounts, and not as undisputed facts. The BBC, for instance, conveyed reports of a "massacre" from some international observers, but did not take a position as to whether or not such events had occurred. Some reporters noted that it was difficult to ascertain what had actually happened in Jenin following the end of Israeli military operations there, as foreign observers were not initially given access to the city.

In the Arab media, conspiracy theories involving Jews abound. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a text debunked many years ago as a fraud perpetrated by Czarist intelligence agents, continued to appear in the Middle East media, quoted not as a hoax but as a factual source. In 2002 and 2003, two television series appeared that dramatized the events of The Protocols. One was a Syrian production, sponsored in part by the government of Syria, that aired on Hezbollah satellite television in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East; the other, a 41-part series, was produced and aired in Egypt. The presentations emphasized blood libel and the alleged control by the Jewish community of international finance. The clear purpose of the programs was to incite hatred of Jews and of Israel. Copies of the Protocols and other similar anti-Semitic forgeries were readily available in Middle Eastern countries, former Soviet republics and elsewhere.

Another widely disseminated conspiracy theory holds that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks. This accusation is usually supported by the false claim that 4,000 Jews or Israelis who worked at the World Trade Center did not show up for work on the day of the attacks, supposedly a sign that they were warned by a complicit Israeli intelligence agency. (See also 9/11 conspiracy theories.) These allegations were renewed after the October 2005 bombings in Amman, Jordan, when it was revealed that the Israeli government had issued a routine warning to its citizens in Amman before the bombings took place.

Such media channels often broadcast globally and incite attacks against Jews. On December 2004, the French court banned Hizbullah's TV channel Al-Manar after repeated anti-Semitic attacks and allegations such as "Zionist attempts to transmit AIDS to Arab countries."

Straw-man anti-Semitism

One claim made by some opponents of Israel and/or the notion of a new anti-Semitism is that defenders of Israel describe any criticism of the State of Israel as anti-Semitism. This claim is then used to criticize defenders of Israel as unreasonable, or attempting to stifle legitimate debate.

However, proponents of the view that there is a New anti-Semitism point out that no groups supportive of Israel officially hold, or have ever held, such a position. One popular understanding of this issue can be found in a statement by the Anti-Defamation League:

"Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism. Certainly the sovereign State of Israel can be legitimately criticized just like any other country in the world. However, it is undeniable that there are those whose criticism of Israel or of "Zionism" is used to mask anti-Semitism." (Anti-Defamation League website.)

In his speech given at the University of California, Berkeley on April 29, 2004, Law Professor at Harvard University Law School Alan Dershowitz said, in particular: "Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies."

Cartoons described as anti-Semitic

The U.S. State Department report on Global Anti-Semitism describes the rise of anti-Semitic cartoons in the Arab press and other media sources as a symptom of growing antisemitism:

File:Latuff cartoon Israeli soldier voting.jpg

Graphic art-work created by Carlos Latuff, a cartoonist associated with left-wing groups such as Indymedia and Gush Shalom. This work, published in one of Indymedia's websites, depicts a Jewish religious soldier as eager to "kill Palestinian kids for fun in the name of God".

Critics of Israel frequently use anti-Semitic cartoons depicting anti-Jewish images and caricatures to attack the State of Israel and its policies, as well as Jewish communities and others who support Israel. These media attacks can lack any pretext of balance or even factual basis and focus on the demonization of Israel. The United States is frequently included as a target of such attacks, which often assert that U.S. foreign policy is made in Israel or that Jews control the media and financial markets in the United States and the rest of the world. During the 2004 United States presidential campaign, the Arab press ran numerous cartoons closely identifying both of the major American political parties with Israel and with Israeli Prime Minister Sharon.

One controversial cartoon was in the British daily, The Independent, and depicted the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon sitting among bombed houses eating a baby while helicopters and tanks buzzed 'Vote Sharon'. The cartoon , drawn by Dave Brown and based on the painting Saturn Devouring one of his children by Francisco Goya, appeared whilst Sharon was seeking re-election in Israel and sparked a wave of protests from the Israeli embassy and Jewish human rights groups. Critics accused the cartoonist of incitement and anti-Semitism. "This cartoon conjures up the horrific medieval anti-Semitic Blood Libel and is more in keeping with the tradition of the Nazi paper 'Der Stürmer'," lamented Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The Independent's editor and the cartoonist denied that the cartoon was anti-Semitic and claimed it was just "anti-Sharon", and the British Press Complaints Commission ruled against the complaints, pointing to the fact that the same Goya painting had also been adapted to attack non-Jewish politicians. The cartoon was selected as Cartoon Of The Year 2003 by the Political Cartoon Society.

Reactions and responses

Position of the United States

On December 30, 2004, the US Department of State published its annual Report on Global Anti-Semitism, in accordance with Section 4 of PL 108-332. The report's summary says: "The increasing frequency and severity of anti-Semitic incidents since the start of the 21st century, particularly in Europe, has compelled the international community to focus on anti-Semitism with renewed vigor." "Four main sources" of the phenomenon were identified:

"Traditional anti-Jewish prejudice that has pervaded Europe and some countries in other parts of the world for centuries. This includes ultra-nationalists and others who assert that the Jewish community controls governments, the media, international business, and the financial world."
"Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism."
"Anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by some in Europe's growing Muslim population, based on longstanding antipathy toward both Israel and Jews, as well as Muslim opposition to developments in Israel and the occupied territories, and more recently in Iraq."
"Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both."

The report contains major incidents, trends and actions taken around the world in the period between July 1, 2003 and December 15, 2004.

On April 28, 2004, at the OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism in Berlin, then United States Secretary of State Colin Powell explained, "It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel, but the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures."

On September 13, 2004, the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) established for the first time that it is the policy of OCR to investigate claims of anti-Semitic harassment at institutions that receive federal educational funding. OCR continued to clarify and publicize this new approach throughout 2004.

Position of the European Union

Groups monitoring hate speech and violence in the European Union have noted an upswing in attacks on Jewish people and Jewish institutions in many European countries. The Interior Minister of France has announced that the number of anti-Semitic attacks in France in 2004 is more than double that of the same period in 2003.

In September 2004, The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, a part of the Council of Europe, called on its member nations to "ensure that criminal law in the field of combating racism covers anti-Semitism" and to penalize intentional acts of public incitement to violence, hatred or discrimination, public insults and defamation, threats against a person or group, and the expression of anti-Semitic ideologies. It urged member nations to "prosecute people who deny, trivialize or justify the Holocaust". The report said it was Europe's "duty to remember the past by remaining vigilant and actively opposing any manifestations of racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance... Anti-Semitism is not a phenomenon of the past and... the slogan 'never again' is as relevant today as it was 60 years ago."

Position of the United Nations

A number of groups and writers have expressed the view that the United Nations has condoned and encouraged anti-Semitism.

Anne Bayefsky, a Canadian human rights activist, addressed the UN specifically on this matter in her capacity as representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists:

At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target. More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40 years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought 600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments like crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation of right hand and left foot. This is not legitimate critique of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is demonization of the Jewish state...

According to Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, "The United Nations-sponsored World Conference on Racism — while failing to mention human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, or anyplace in the Arab world — spoke of Israel's policies prior to recent struggles under the Barak government as constituting ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The NGO declaration at the same conference was even more virulent."

David Matas, senior counsel to B'Bai Brith Canada, has argued that "ather than being a haven from antisemitism, the United Nations has become a forum for antisemitism" and that "or many organs of the United Nations, anti-Israel denunciation has become the principle item of business."

While in the early years of its existence, the United Nations Human Rights Commission focused only on themes, once it shifted its focus to countries, it targeted only South Africa and Israel, and for six years, from 1969 until 1975 when Chile was added, those two countries were the only two the Commission would consider. For the last 40 years, almost 30 percent of country-specific resolutions and 15 percent of the Commission's time has been directed against Israel. During its annual six-week session in 2002, the Commission spent half its time on Israel, more than it spent on all the other countries in the world combined.

Matas argues that the "invective against Israel by far exceeds the language used against other countries with much worse violations." For example, in 1989, a Commission resolution about alleged human-rights abuses in Israel "noted with several disapproval," using phrases like "strongly condemns," "deplores," "inhuman treatment," "terror," and "flagrant violation of human rights," while in the same year, a resolution against Guatemala, at the height of its civil war when disappearance and arbitrary execution were common, noted only that the Commission was "seriously concerned," and one against Iran, also in 1989 during the reign of the Ayatollah Khomeini, warranted only "deep concern."

According to Matas, "tatements are made within UN precincts that would not have been tolerated within any democratic parliament," citing the example of the Palestinian representative to the Commission who, in an echo of the traditional blood libel, claimed in 1997 that Israeli doctors had injected Palestinian children with the AIDS virus. Congressman Steve Chabot told the United States House of Representatives in 2005 that " took several months to correct in its record a statement by the Syrian ambassador that Jews allegedly had killed non-Jewish children to make unleavened bread for Passover.

The General Assembly is also criticized for its focus on Israel. There are currently around 250 Security Council resolutions and 1,000 General Assembly resolutions on Israel. Of the ten emergency special sessions the Assembly has held, six have been about Israel, and the tenth session, opened in 1997, was reconvened 13 times between then and August 2004.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan himself has said that "t sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews." He has called the 1975 General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism, not repealed until 1991, "lamentable," saying that "its negative resonance even today is difficult to overestimate."

On June 21, 2004, Annan told a seminar on anti-Semitism: "It is hard to believe that 60 years after the tragedy of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is once again rearing its head. But it is clear that we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of these phenomena in new forms and manifestations. This time the world must not, cannot, be silent." He asked UN member states to adopt a resolution to fight anti-Semitism, and stated that the Commission on Human Rights must study and expose anti-Semitism in the same way that it fights bias against Muslims. Annan asked: "Are not Jews entitled to the same degree of concern and protection?"

In 2005, the United States Congress passed, by a vote of 405 to 2, the United Nations Reform Act of 2005, which insists that the United Nations must:

require all employees of the United Nations and its specialized agencies to officially and publicly condemn anti-Semitic statements made at any session of the United Nations or its specialized agencies, or at any other session sponsored by the United Nations;
require employees of the United Nations and its specialized agencies to be subject to punitive action, including immediate dismissal, for making anti-Semitic statements or references;
propose specific recommendations to the General Assembly for the establishment of mechanisms to hold accountable employees and officials of the United Nations and its specialized agencies, or Member States, that make such anti-Semitic statements or references in any forum of the United Nations or of its specialized agencies; and
develop and implement education awareness programs about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism throughout the world, as part of an effort to combat intolerance and hatred.

Country-specific incidents

Incidents in the United Kingdom

Since 2001, the Community Security Trust, an organization that records anti-Semitic attacks in Britain, has recorded a sharp increase in incidents. The 532 incidents recorded in 2004 include verbal abuse, vandalism, desecration of property, including synagogues and cemeteries, abusive literature, threats, and physical violence. Police believe this mostly reflects improved reporting of incidents. The CST say around 120 of these attacks were directly linked to tension in the Israel-Palestine conflict with peaks noted, for example, at the time the Israel Defense Forces were involved in battles in the Jenin refugee camp.

One hundred synagogues have been desecrated, including set on fire, since 2000; 68 gravestones were desecrated in the Jewish section of a cemetery in Middlesbrough; and there has been a rise in the number of Islamic bookshops selling anti-Semitic books, such as Mein Kampf.

Attacks on Jewish and Israeli students were also recorded. Jewish organizations say that Islamist groups are active on university campuses, where militant Muslim students arrange conferences and protests against Israeli and Jewish organizations.

National Union of Students

There are concerns that the support for Palestine within some left-wing students' and academic unions may enable anti-Semitism to pass unchallenged. Luciana Berger, a Jewish student, former National Union of Students (NUS) National Executive Committee member, and co-convener of the NUS Anti-Racism/ Anti-Fascism Campaign, resigned from her post along with two other NUS officials after anti-Semitic leaflets were distributed at NUS conference. She told The Guardian:

Almost half a year ago, serious complaints were lodged about anti-semitic comments made by an NUS member in a public meeting. These complaints were ignored, with no official response or action. A few months ago, when it was (incorrectly) rumoured that I, a Jewish student, was standing for the NUS presidency, anti-semitic whispers rocked the NUS. And NEC members failed to condemn a comment made recently at the SOAS Students' Union in London that burning down a synagogue is a rational act.

In September 2005 an independent report commissioned in the wake of the resignations after having cleared the NUS of allegations of anti-semitism concluded "Having looked at the background to the incidents there were clearly occasions when matters could have been dealt with more quickly, or more efficiently, but do not demonstrate apathy to anti-semitism." The report from human relations consultant Marco Henry criticized NUS as being slow to react to criticism and also that it should develop procedures for dealing with allegations of discrimination.

Academic Boycott of Israel

At the same time that the above allegations about NUS were made, some Israeli academics were facing a boycott by the AUT The academic boycott was at the behest of nearly sixty Palestinian groups and, in line with that call, contained an exemption for "any conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies". The motions passed at AUT conference called for a boycott of the universities of Haifa (due to alleged mistreatment of Ilan Pappé) and Bar-Ilan (for awarding degrees to students from the College of Judea and Samaria, based in the Ariel settlement). This was seen by many on both sides as the first step to a wider boycott being pushed by the proponents

The boycott was overturned at an emergency conference held on 26 May 2005. Reasons cited for the decision were: the damage to academic freedom, the hampering of dialogue and peace effort between Israelis and Palestinian, and that boycotting Israel alone would be bigotry. The boycott was described as antisemitic by some groups and individuals , most prominently the Engage group while there was also much opposition to the boycott on other grounds such as damaging academic freedom or being counterproductive . Others defended the boycott and rejected accusations of anti-Semitism.

Ken Livingstone

Journalists and Jewish groups also protested against London's controversial mayor Ken Livingstone for meeting with controversial Muslim scholar and preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has supported Palestinian suicide bombings against Israeli military targets.

George Galloway

Also, during the 2005 UK General election, the election for the constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow in London's most heavily Muslim district was tainted by incidents of tyre-slashing and vicious verbal assaults on the incumbent Labour candidate Oona King, who is half African-American (from a U.S. emigrant) and half-Jewish. King's support for the war in Iraq, which was unpopular with many British voters and with Muslims in particular, may also have been instrumental in her unseating by George Galloway, candidate for the new, anti-war RESPECT Party. According to BBC News online "Ms King ratcheted up the tension when she accused Mr Galloway's supporters of anti-Semitism following an egg-throwing at a memorial to Jewish war dead". Former Labour MP Tony Banks accused Galloway of exploiting racial politics to win the seat, which Galloway denied (although he stood by a statement he had made during the campaign that King "had been responsible for the deaths of many people in Iraq with blacker faces than hers".

Incidents in France

In October 2000 there was a dramatic increase of antisemitic attacks and incitement against Jews in France. The French police and Jewish community organizations recorded hundreds of antisemitic incidents in Fall 2000 compared to less then ten per month during the late 90's. Even though the number of incidents decreased in the first half of 2001, the number of antisemitic remained very high compared to previous years. The records show especially high numbers of incidents in April 2002, in March/April 2003 and, to a lesser extent, in September/October 2001. These incidents seem to be in part a reaction to international events such as the beginning of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the upcoming war in Iraq and different events of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the later refuted allegation of the Jenin massacre in April 2002. Nevertheless, the attacks against Jews in France seem to have become more and more 'independent' from current international events suggesting domestic roots of antisemitic sentiments. The majority of antisemitic incidents were recorded in the suburban banlieue and poor inner-city neighborhoods of major cities such as Paris, Lyon and Marseille. Manifestations of hatred toward Israelis and Jews could be found among radical Islamists taking part in Anti-war rallies in France, which were often used as a stage for burning Israeli flags and chanting anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish slogans. While only a minority of protesters engaged in such activities, they were well-publicized. In one event, several activists from the Zionist-socialist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair were attacked by the protesters, promoting harsh criticism from Aurélie Filipetti, who said to Maariv

I felt we should stop putting our head in the sand, saying that these are only fringe effects and therefore 'none of our concern', which leads us to just condemn them and do nothing more... They explained to me that the slogan 'Bush and Sharon are murderers' is not antisemitism but anti-Zionism. But for me, when you burn the flag of Israel, it is antisemitism. The meaning is the delegitimation of Israel's right to exist

She later wrote an article to Libération, blaming the French left-wing for turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism that seem to plague their own camp.

In the 2002 presidential campaign, crime and insecurity were the leading topic and the media focused on a number of incidents, especially those where youth from Muslim immigrant communities were involved. Anti-semitic crime was brought to attention as part of a general perceived or real inflation of crimes committed by such youth.

Though the French authorities vocally condemned antisemitism and took measures to combat the phenomenon, the number of attacks only increased. According to the National Consultative Commission of Human Rights, there were 970 antisemitic incidents in 2004, as compared to 601 incidents in 2003.

In May 2005, the Versailles court found three guest editorialists for Le Monde, as well as the newspaper's editor (directeur de la publication), guilty of "racist defamation" against Israel and the Jewish people. The writers of the article "Israel-Palestine: The Cancer" (published in 2002) Edgar Morin (a well-known Jewish sociologist), Danièle Sallenave (a senior lecturer at Paris-X Nanterre University) and Sami Nair (a member of the European parliament), as well as Le Monde's editor, Jean-Marie Colombani, were ordered to pay symbolic damages of one Euro to the Franco-Israeli association and to Avocats sans frontières.

List of antisemitic attack in France (2000-2005)

Incidents in the United States

File:Msa sfsu poster.jpg

Poster displayed on the campus of SFSU resurrects the blood libel myth: "Palestinian Children Meat", "Made in Israel", "slaughtered according to Jewish Rites under American license."

Incidents described as representative of the new anti-Semitism, where the line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism has been blurred, have been recorded by the Anti-Defamation League on college campuses across the U.S. The organisation asserts that an April 9 2002 rally by the Muslim Student Association at San Francisco State University resurrected the blood libel myth. The pro-Palestinian rally featured posters bearing a picture of soup cans reading "Made in Israel" on the label and listing the contents as "Palestinian Children Meat," and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as the manufacturer. A photo of a baby, with its stomach sliced open, was also on the can, following the words "slaughtered according to Jewish Rites under American license." A month later, on May 7 SFSU-authorized pro-Israel rally was held by 30 Jewish students. During the rally, the pro-Israeli demonstrators clashed with about 60 pro-Palestinian students, who are alleged by the Jewish students to have screamed racist insults and used physical violence against them. The conflict continued for about 20 minutes until campus police arrived. Soon after, a cinder block was thrown through the glass doors of UC Berkeley's Hillel building on Passover. Around the same time, two Orthodox Jews were beaten one block from the UC Berkeley campus, and anti-Zionist graffiti appeared on the sidewalks, garbage cans and buildings near the school. In covering the story about the campus unrest at SFSU, journalist Camille T. Taiara, a writer for the San Francisco Bay Guardian, disputed these reports of the attacks and blamed pro-Israeli demonstrators for trying to suppress opposition to the policies of the Israeli government.

In February 2006, also at UC Berkeley, anti-Semitic graffiti was sprayed on the house of the Berkeley chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi, a Jewish fraternity.

Criticism

Many writers have questioned whether there really is any new anti-Semitism. They see the talk of the new anti-Semitism as merely a ploy to deflect or stifle legitimate criticism of Israel.

Norman Finkelstein

Norman Finkelstein dedicates the first half of his book Beyond Chutzpah to discussing claims of new anti-Semitism, arguing that they simply provide political cover to supporters of Israel. He asserts that every couple of decades Jewish leaders claim there is a new wave of anti-Semitism on the basis of what he considers scanty evidence. He advances similar arguments in The Holocaust Industry and other books.

Noam Chomsky

Perhaps the best known proponent of such views is the Jewish linguist/anarchist Noam Chomsky. He maintains that the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups see legitimate criticism of Israeli policies as examples of new anti-Semitism while turning a blind eye to blatant examples of traditional anti-Semitism.

In 1988, there was much publicity when it was discovered that there were several known anti-Semites in high positions in the Republican Party. The New Republic argued in an editorial that the discovery of "seven aging Eastern European fascists in the Republican apparatus" really wasn't the threat it was made out to be. Their form of anti-Semitism was merely traditional bigotry without an agenda. The New Republic saw a greater threat in the anti-Semitism of the left, which had a salient agenda: "the delegitimization of the Jewish national movement".

In his book Necessary Illusions and subsequent writings, Chomsky saw this as an example of how the real anti-Semitism was ignored while criticism of Israel was vilified. This was his conclusion:

Thus for The New Republic, the discovery of unreconstructed Nazis in high places in a Republican Party that was then considered to "support Israel" was a minor matter; Nazism, Holocaust denial, hatred of Jews are only "antique and anemic forms of anti-Semitism," The New Republic explained, in contrast to the serious stuff: the "Jew-hatred" in the Democratic Party

Brian Klug

Brian Klug, in an article written for The Nation in 2004, argues that while we should be concerned with the recent rise in anti-Semitic events including violence against Jews, anti-Jewish graffiti, and talk of Jewish led conspiracy plots, these do not as a whole represent some new or more virulent form of anti-Semitism but simply a revival of the old anti-Semitism. He believes that in reality, the claim of there being a new anti-Semitism is really a code-word for including anti-Zionism in anti-Semitism; he argues that anti-Zionism is not necessarily anti-Semitic. He notes that Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League has stated "The harsh but undeniable truth is this: what some like to call anti-Zionism is, in reality, anti-Semitism—always, everywhere, and for all time....Therefore, anti-Zionism is not a politically legitimate point of view but rather an expression of bigotry and hatred", and argues that supporters of this comparison, such as Foxman and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, are making a false claim that all Jews are Zionists and thus unfairly linking all forms of anti-Zionism as automatically anti-Semitic. He goes on to suggest that the concept of new anti-Semitism is being used by some to unfairly silence many legitimate critics of Israel. He suggests that line between legitimate and anti-Semitic criticism of Israel is being drawn by many supporters of Israel in such a way as to rule out any criticism beyond a rap across the Israeli government's knuckles or a finger wagging at the laws of its land. Thus, in his view, criticisms of Israel are too often labeled anti-Semitic without regard to the true motivations of the critic or whether the facts support the critics claims. He says that to argue that hostility towards Israel and hostility towards Jews as being one and the same is equating Israel with Jewry, an equation he rejects. He does not claim there is never a connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism but that it is usually only one potential ingredient in a complex situation and not the engine that drives most anti-Zionism. He takes issue with the claim by some supporters of Israel that criticism of Israel that is unbalanced and intemperate is automatically anti-Semitic. He argues that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a bitter struggle with complex issues, inflamed passions, and suffering on both sides. Thus, partisans on both sides are liable to cross the line at times. He says that one cannot assume that when either side crosses the line that it is necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism, racism, or Islamophobia, though for some that may indeed be the case.

Michael Neumann

Michael Neumann, a Jewish professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, shared similar views in his CounterPunch article "Criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitism." He is critical of how the term anti-Semitism is applied, and says that too often criticism of Israel is wrongly labeled anti-Semitic. He believes anti-Semitism should be defined as hatred of Jews for what they are and not what they do. Thus criticizing Jews for simply being a Jew or applying anti-Semitic stereotypes to them would be anti-Semitic but not, say, criticizing the Jewish community for failing to hold Israel accountable for its actions. He believes it is important to separate the Israeli government from the Israeli people and the Jewish Israelis from Jews as a whole, since Israel does not represent all Jews and the Israeli government does not represent the views of all Israelis. Thus criticism of the Israeli government and its actions is never the same as criticizing all Jews or even simply all Israelis.

Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions

Another area of activity condemned as anti-Semitic is the boycotting of Israeli companies or companies that profit from dealing with Israel. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions has stated that they "…absolutely reject the accusation that general divestment or boycott campaigns are inherently anti-Semitic. The Israeli government is a government like any other, and condemning its abuse of state power, as many of its own citizens do quite vigorously, is in no way the same as attacking the Jewish people."

Notes

^ Chesler, Phyllis. The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, Jossey-Bass, 2003, pp. 158-159, 181 Cite error: The named reference "Chesler" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ Kinsella, Warren. The New anti-Semitism, accessed March 5, 2006 Cite error: The named reference "Kinsella" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ Jews predict record level of hate attacks: Militant Islamic media accused of stirring up new wave of anti-semitism, The Guardian, August 8, 2004.
Endelman, Todd M. "Antisemitism in Western Europe Today" in Contemporary Antisemitism: Canada and the World. University of Toronto Press, 2005, pp. 65-79
See interview question - "Is contemporary European anti-Semitism a new strain or old wine in a new bottle?" in Jonathan Sacks interview, Hadassa Magazine, August/September 2003 Vol. 85 No.1, By Charley J. Levine
The Israel Lobby, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, London Review of Books, Vol. 28 No. 6 dated 23 March 2006
Lazare, Daniel. The Chosen People, The Nation, December 19, 2005, p.36. Accessed 8 Jan 2005. This is an allusion to Bebel's famous remark, "Anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools."
Sacks, Jonathan. "A New Antisemitism?" The Forward, June 2002. Online at Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia Today. Accessed 3 January 2006.
Dershowitz, Alan. The Case For Israel, John Wiley & Sons, 2003, ISBN 0471679526, p. 2
Working Definition of Anti-Semitism (PDF), European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). Accessed 3 January 2006.
Cotler, Irwin. Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 16, 2004. Accessed 3 January 2006.
^ Klug, Brian. The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism. The Nation, posted January 15, 2004 (February 2, 2004 issue). Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
Foxman, Abraham H. New Excuses, Old Hatred: Worldwide Anti-Semitism In Wake Of 9/11. Speech given before the ADL's Executive Committee, Palm Beach, Florida, February 8, 2002. Accessed 3 January 2006.
World Union of Jewish Students, Antisemitism and Anti - Zionism. Accessed 3 January 2006.
Sharansky, Natan. Anti-Semitism in 3D, Jerusalem Post, February 23,2004. Reprinted on the site of NCSJ. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
^ Jenin 'massacre evidence growing' BBC News 18 April, 2002. Accessed 7 Jan 2005.]
^ (U.S.) State Department report on Anti-Semitism: Europe and Eurasia, excerpted from a longer piece, and covering the period of July 1, 2003 – December 15, 2004. Accessed 6 Jan 2005.
France pulls plug on Arab network. BBC News, 14 December 2004. Accessed 6 Jan 2006.
Dershowitz, Alan. Making the Case for Israel, FrontPage magazine, June 1, 2004. Accessed 6 Jan 2006.
Online copy of the Dave Brown cartoon of Ariel Sharon as Saturn devouring one of his children. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
Simon Wiesenthal Center. SWC: "The Independent's Sharon Cartoon in Tradition of 'Der Stürmer' and Conjures Up 'Blood Libel' Canard". January 30, 2003. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
Byrne, Ciar. Independent cartoon cleared of anti-semitism. May 22, 2003. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
cartoonist wins award for Sharon cartoon, Indymedia UK, 27 November 2003. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
"Anti-Semitism Shall Have No Place Among Us," Powell Says, posted April 29, 2004. U.S. Department of State. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
U.S. Department of Education. Letter of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for Enforcement Kenneth L. Marcus, Delegated the Authority of Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights, September 13, 2004. Accessed March 6 2006.
Letter to Sid Groeneman by Kenneth L. Marcus. Accessed March 6, 2006.
Bryant, Elizabeth. Report: Anti-Semitic Acts Nearly Double in France, Reach Record High, Religion News Service. Accessed March 6, 2006.
"Anti-Semitism in the United Nations", UN Watch, February 1998 (originally published December 1997). Accessed March 6, 2005.
Bayefsky, Anne. One Small Step, Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2004. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
Summers, Lawrence H. Address at morning prayers, September 17, 2002. On the site of Harvard University. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
^ Matas, David. Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism. Dundurn Press, Toronto, 2005, pp. 129-144. ISBN 1550025538
Bayefsky, Anne. "The UN and the Jews", Commentary Magazine, February 2004
House Passes Chabot’s Bipartisan United Nations Reform Amendment, June 17, 2005. Accessed March 6, 2006.
"Actually the world is wrong," National Post, April 11, 2002
Annan, Kofi. Opening Remarks at DPI Seminar on anti-Semitism, The UN Chronicle. Accessed Mar 6, 2006.
United Nations Reform Act of 2005, Sec. 114. Anti-Semitism and the United Nations, Library of Congress. Accessed March 6, 2006
2004 Community Security Trust Antisemitic Incidents Report.
^ Anti-Semitic crime 'reaches high', BBC News, 11 February 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
Curtis, Polly. Jewish NUS officials resign over anti-semitism row, The Guardian, April 12, 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
Berger, Luciana. Why I had to resign. The Guardian, April 15, 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
Curtis, Polly. NUS launches anti-semitism inquiry. The Guardian, May 20, 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
Curtis, Polly. NUS cleared of anti-semitism claims. The Guardian, September 20, 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
Academics back Israeli boycotts, BBC News, 22 April 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
Curtis, Polly & Taylor, Matthew. Second opinion. The Guardian, May 24, 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
Palestinian call, on the site of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
^ Burchill, Julie. British AUT getting 'down wiv the kidz', Ha'aretz, 1 May 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
The original "About Engage" statement, Engage on line, accessed 7 Jan 2006.
Kimmerling, Baruch. A boycott all the way, Ha'aretz, 17 May 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
We Must Try Harder, attributed to "Yehudith Harel and an Israeli lawyer". Occupation magazine, 17 June 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006. An abbreviated and edited version of the article appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Blackwell, Sue. Academic boycott – A legitimate form of peaceful protest (PDF), The Muslim News, 24 June 2005. Accessed 7 Jan 2006.
Mayor justifies cleric's welcome, BBC News, 11 January 2005. Accessed 8 Jan 2006.
Livingstone Demands UK Media Apology for Qaradawi, Islam Online, January 11, 2005. Accessed 8 Jan 2006.
Al-Qaradawi full transcript, BBC News, 8 July 2004. Accessed 8 Jan 2006.
Galloway's East End street fight, BBC News, 6 May 2005. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
Handler, Sefi. "The left wing protests in France against the war in Iraq became anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist events", Maariv, 18 April 2003. Accessed 9 Jan 2006. Partially translated at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Left-wing_politics/Archive3.
21 March 2005. Accessed 9 March 2006.
"J'Accuse: Anti-Semitism at Le Monde and beyond", The Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2005, http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/LeMonde.htm
ADL, Anti-Semitic/Anti-Israel Events on Campus. Dated May 14, 2002, but includes information as late as June 4, 2002. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
Letter from SFSU President Robert A. Corrigan to California State University Chancellor Charles B. Reed, July 25, 2002. On the SFSU site. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
Richman, Josh. ADL: Antisemitic Incidents Soar in N. California. The Forward, April 4, 2003. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
The Battle for the American Campus, on the site of the Jewish Federation of Northeastern Pennsylvania. Index dates it as August 1, 2002. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
Taiara, Camille T. State of unrest. San Francisco Bay Guardian, July 10, 2002. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
Chomsky, Noam. Necessary Illusions. Online in HTML form. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
Chomsky, Noam. "Historical Revisionism", letter. March 31, 1992. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
Neumann, Michael. There Are Much Larger Threats: Criticism of Israel is not Anti-Semitism, CounterPunch, December 30, 2003. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.
ICAHD, ICAHD First Israeli Peace Group to Call for Sanctions. January 27, 2005. Accessed 9 Jan 2006.

References

The Case For Israel, Alan Dershowitz, John Wiley & Sons, 2003, paperback 2004 ISBN 0471679526
The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, Phyllis Chesler, Jossey-Bass, 2003
Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism by Abraham Foxman, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003
A New Antisemitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21st Century Britain, Ed. Paul Iganski and Barry Kosmin. Profile Books, 2003
Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory Deborah Lipstadt, 1994, Penguin
The Return of Anti-Semitism, Gabriel Schoenfeld, Encounter Books, 2003
Why the Jews? The Reasons for Antisemitism Revised Edition. Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, Simon & Schuster, 2003
Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred, Robert S. Wistrich. Pantheon Books, 1992.
2004 Annual Report on the activities of the parliamentary commissioner for the rights of national and ethnic minorities (PDF). European Union.

External links