Chapter Seventeen: War of a Million Cuts – How Hatred is Transmitted

There are many conduits available and used to transmit hatred and incitement. The major mechanisms of doing so have already been discussed in previous chapters. We will thus only group these here summarily. Before that, however, attention has to be given to what is often poorly understood: language is not neutral, as the choice of words is a tool to convey messages, including hatred.


Semantics have long been an important method of transmitting anti-Semitism, and they remain so in our time. The use of the word Jew as an invective is widespread in many European countries. Norwegian Jewish community leader Ervin Kohn said in 2014 that “Jew” is one of the most common curse words in Norwegian schools.1

In the propaganda war, semantics are also an important method of transmitting hate messages. If one uses the term “occupied territories,” one employs language that bends international law—which, as mentioned before, is a dubious field in itself—because these are “disputed territories.”2 Most Palestinian “refugees” are not true refugees. They did not flee from Israel, though their parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents may have done so and are genuine refugees. Another abuse of language is to call Israelis “colonists” if they live a few tens of kilometers from where they resided before.

The semantics of anti-Israelism often include terminology with an anti- Semitic undertone. Israeli policies are defined as an “eye for an eye” approach, an expression rarely used about far more severe actions taken by other countries. The word revenge is also associated much more with the IDF than with other armies, such as the Allied forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.

“Peace” with Israel is seen by many Arabs as an intermediate stage toward its total destruction. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the distorted use of terms such as “peace movements” and “peace activists” requires an in-depth investigation. Some of the more extreme peace organizations might perhaps be described more accurately as “allies of Arab and Palestinian murderers” or “indirect genocide promoters,” or “inexplicit helpers of Islamo-Nazis.”

There are many other disparate uses of semantics against Jews and Israel. In some European countries, typical “code words” for Jews in the United States are, for instance, “East Coast intellectuals” and “neoconservatives.”

Politicians and media often use the term borders for what were “armistice lines” between Israel and Jordan. All of these examples are just a small selection of a far larger arsenal of semantic distortions concerning Jews and Israel.

Introducing Ideological Views in Language

Several authors have noted the use of semantics against Jews and Israel. French linguist Georges-Elia Sarfati undertook a detailed analysis of the phenomenon. He pointed out that discourse is formulated on the basis of the ideological views of those who engage in it. “Rather than words being neutral, they serve to introduce a certain vision of the question they address.”3

This is simple to understand. An extreme case is how the Nazis contaminated the German language and how, after the war, the expressions they had coined entered the lexicon of other languages as well. One example among many is the expression “war of extermination,” which is a literal translation of the German Vernichtungskrieg. This expression has now entered the minds of many Europeans who believe that Israel is conducting such a war against the Palestinians. Sarfati remarked that anti-Zionism’s major “canonic” texts are primarily Soviet fabrications. A key role was played by Trofim Kitchko, a major ideologist who published several anti-Semitic books over a twenty-year period starting in 1963. “His first book, Judaism Unembellished, was sponsored by the Soviet Academy of Sciences.”

The term anti-Zionism came into systematic use only after the Six Day War. This was first done by the Soviet Union’s Information Ministry and thereafter by the media of France’s extreme left. Sarfati noted that anti-Zionism has by now become an “ideology”—a system of ideas—that has permeated specific groups in society. He added, “A number of key equations dominate the anti- Zionist discourse. The master one—which transversally commands all others —is ‘Zionism equals Nazism.’ This also demonstrates how this conduit is used to propagate the notion that Jews are the most evil people in society.”

Sarfati summed up by saying that the equivalences used against Israel “are so evil because they attach the four major negative characteristics of Western history in the last century—Nazism, racism, colonialism and imperialism—to the State of Israel. They relate to a collective memory and are easily memorized.”4

Calling Up Associations with George Orwell

There are also a large number of other linguistic distortions that in part call up associations with George Orwell’s 1984, and works by other authors. Raphael Israeli described the Kafkaesque world where there is no cause and effect; when you achieve peace it does not mean reconciliation; when you wage hostilities that is not called war, when you massacre civilians that is not terrorism; when you make concessions, that does not mean that you cannot go back on them once you have achieved your goals; and when you pledge something it obliges you only as it is convenient to you.5

Susanne Urban discussed a book by another German historian, Jörg Friedrich, whose revisionist works have become bestsellers.

He uses terms that for decades were associated with Nazi persecution and the Shoah; thus, cellars and air-raid shelters in which Germans died are “crematoria,” an RAF bomber group is an “Einsatzgruppe” [task forces which became known as mass murderers of Jews], and the destruction of libraries during the bombings constitutes “cherverbrennungen” [burning of books]. In this way the Shoah is diminished through language.6

Samuels drew attention to yet another aspect of the use of language. He noted that at the 2001 Durban Conference, terms such as “genocide,” “Holocaust,” “ethnic cleansing,” and even “anti-Semitism” were hijacked by the defamers and used against the Jews—who have historically been the main victims of these phenomena.7

Steinberg said:

Many in European politics, academia, the media and the NGOs use almost identical semantics. These four elements of society parallel each other and work together as well, reinforcing each other in the overall attack on Israel. Analysis can start with any one of them. When various European Union representatives and diplomats condemn Israel they use standard vocabulary such as “excessive force,” “violation of human rights,” or “violation of international law.”8

Operation Protective Edge

During the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, one saw the recurring use of other false semantics. One of these was the mention of “tension between communities.” It suggested that two communities, the Muslim and the Jewish ones, were aggressive toward each other. The reality was very different. The root cause of these “tensions” was the aggression and hatred toward the Jewish community that originated mainly from parts of the Muslim community.9

A second recurrent expression was that one did not want to import the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into European countries. This was said, for instance, by both French President François Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls.10 It would have been much more correct to say that their predecessors imported the conflict as a byproduct of letting millions of people from Muslim countries into France.11

There are many other cases where as a result of the massive immigration, different groups of immigrant descendants have fought with other such groups. For instance, in August 2014 in Herford, Germany, three hundred Yazidis immigrants from Syria and Iraq protested ISIS actions against their communities. During the demonstration they were attacked by ISIS supporters. Earlier that day a Yazidi restaurant owner and a sixteen-year-old boy were injured by ISIS supporters for displaying a poster for the demonstration.12

Similarly, in October 2014 there were violent clashes in the German cities of Hamburg and Celle. In Celle there was fighting between Yazidi Germans and Chechen Muslim immigrants. In Hamburg an initially peaceful protest by Kurdish immigrants turned violent when Salafist Muslims confronted them.13 There are related protests as well. In October 2014, sixty to seventy Kurdish protesters occupied part of the Dutch parliament in The Hague, demanding international action to defend the Syrian town of Kobane against Islamic State fighters.14 In the same month under the banner “Hooligans against Salafists,” four thousand soccer fans and members of a neo-Nazi organization confronted the police in major riots in Cologne, Germany. The authorities had great difficulty containing the situation.15

Obama’s Strange Statement

During Protective Edge U.S. President Barack Obama strangely remarked that he had “no sympathy for Hamas.” If he had said “I have no sympathy for Al-Qaeda” or “I have no sympathy for Nazism” he would justifiably have come under heavy criticism.16

Obama frequently reiterates that the status quo of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not sustainable, an expression borrowed from the environmental discourse.17 He said this several years ago and repeated it during Protective Edge.18

If one looks at the reality in the Middle East and North Africa, there are many situations that are chaotic and thus unsustainable. The U.S. president, however, seems to prefer the use of the expression for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.19

Masking the Truth

In the case of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism, the biased use of semantics is sometimes accompanied by what might be called “expressions that try to mask the truth.” A frequent one is “I’m an anti-Zionist, not an anti-Semite.” The denial of the Jewish people’s right to their own state and self-determination is an anti-Semitic act according to the FRA definition.

A second, frequent masking expression is the denial that anti-Semitic acts are anti-Semitic. A third is the claim that anti-Semitic acts are for the benefit of Jews or Israel. An extreme case where the two were combined occurred in the Netherlands in 2005 and 2006. In 2005, the pastor Kees Mos spoke in the town of Wassenaar at a church belonging to the Protestant umbrella organization PKN. He said, “The Jew in us is a traitor, says Matthew. . . The sin of the Jew is that he refuses to be human . . . We have painted Hitler in the past decades as a monster, but monsters don’t exist . . . But the Jew we do not recognize. He is a silent killer.” Thereafter, the community was split into supporters and opponents of Mos.

In 2006, another pastor named Van Veen, who did not belong to the community, preached in the same church. He spoke about the persecution of the Jews and said, “We have to be careful that our guilt feelings about genocide won’t lead to an attitude of lack of criticism toward Israel. That doesn’t help Israel and the Jews.” He added, “In that way, Jews remain in their victim role and see anti-Semitism in everything.”20 A year and a half after his hate sermon, Mos withdrew the text. The PKN had remained silent.21

The Changing Use of “Palestinians”

A complex semantic issue that is difficult to categorize concerns the word “Palestinians.” Before the creation of Israel it was mainly the Jews in Palestine who used “Palestinian” as a way to describe themselves. They were “Palestinian Jews.” This gradually changed after the establishment of the Jewish state. Jews now called themselves Israelis or, more rarely, Israeli Jews. Gradually, “Palestinians” became the term with which the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza identified themselves. So did some of the Israeli Arabs, and the refugees were now called “Palestinian refugees.”

These usages have helped foster the misleading image in the Western world of the Palestinian Arabs as the native population of both Israel and the territories. This, in turn, has engendered many distortions, historical and others.

Word of Mouth

In previous centuries, word of mouth was a dominant means of transferring messages. Many Christian preachers and teachers spread the hatred of Jews, mentioning their alleged role in the alleged deicide of Jesus for centuries. They did so from the pulpit and in religious education.

Word of mouth remains a widespread means of gossip, slander, and incitement. One small illustration: Jeffrey Gedmin described typical dinner conversations in Berlin a number of years ago, in which most of the conversation partners attacked his pro-Israeli positions. There were others at the table who agreed with him, yet remained silent. Some of these called him the next day and expressed their empathy.22

A Jewish nurse who worked at an Amsterdam hospital was willing to be interviewed only by using the pseudonym Carla because of how she saw the current situation in the Netherlands. She said:

I worked at that hospital for more than ten years. My coworkers knew that my son had served in the Israeli army. I sometimes heard remarks like: “They only kill Palestinians there.” Doctors and psychologists often said this too. The head of a medical department frequently and casually discussed “the suffering of the Palestinians.” He always attacked me directly when something was published on Israeli politics.

Whenever the Dutch media wrote something about Israel, several people started a political discussion with me. They behaved as if I shaped Israeli politics. No one would ever say to someone with family in Italy, “What crazy thing has Berlusconi done this time?”23

Those who demonize Israel and the Jews by word of mouth have a number of public-domain “channels” at their disposal to transmit their hate messages. Among these are shouts of “Death to the Jews,” which have been heard during anti-Israeli demonstrations in various European cities.

The JTA reported from an anti-Israeli demonstration in The Hague: “Holding up the black ISIS flag, the crowd chanted in Arabic, ‘Jews, remember Khay- bar, the army of Muhammad is returning.’ The cry relates to an event in the seventh century when Muslims massacred and expelled Jews from the town of Khaybar, in modern-day Saudi Arabia.”24

Abuse of the Holocaust

Abuse of the Holocaust is a special category of transmitting hatred. The main abuse of Holocaust memory has long been Holocaust denial. Additional categories such as Holocaust justification, inversion, and obliteration are, however, becoming important as well.25, 26, 27

These sometimes appear together with the promotion of alleged “Jewish conspiracy theories.” This author’s 2009 book, The Abuse of Holocaust Memory: Distortions and Responses analyzes these issues in detail.28


 Another category of word of mouth is teaching at universities and high schools. This has been discussed in two earlier chapters.

As aforementioned, sometimes anti-Semitic concepts are conveyed in schools. Some university teachers promote anti-Israeli ideology instead of advancing knowledge. At some universities Jewish students feel physically and verbally threatened.

Conferences with an anti-Semitic character take place at several universities—for instance, questioning Israel’s right to exist as a state. Similar discussions do not take place regarding any other nation. This indicates the highly discriminatory nature of such gatherings.

Popular Art

Art and popular art are also vehicles of transmitting hatred. Though often debated, Shakespeare’s character Shylock is a classic example. Wistrich says that during his high school years there were few British authors he had to read who were devoid of anti-Semitism. Regarding Shakespeare and Shylock he remarks:

This Shylock image influenced the entire West because it fits so well with the evolution of market capitalism from its early days. Shakespeare portrayed the subject in a way that is to a certain extent realistic, reflecting the rise of a commercial society in Venice and of economic competition. But Shylock has come to embody an image of the vengeful, tribal, and bloodthirsty Jew, who will never give up his pound of flesh. Rightly or wrongly, this is what most people remember. Shylock is the English archetype of the villainous Jew. Those who talk about how humanistic, universal, and empathetic his portrait is, are ignor- ing not only how it was perceived at the time but its historical consequences.29

There are several examples of hatred of Israel expressed through art. Altsech related:

In October 2003, [the important daily] Ta Nea interviewed the artist Alexandros Psychoulis, who was organizing an exhibition in Athens concerning the heroism of an Arab female suicide bomber who blew herself up in a Jerusalem supermarket in March 2003. The artist said “that the title ‘Body Milk’ brings together both female cosmetics and the human milk of an 18-year-old Palestin- ian girl bomber in an Israeli supermarket . . . A very beautiful girl, educated, in love . . . of an army of women in the women’s space of the supermarket . . . the supermarket is a super female provider. If she blows herself up there, she is magnifying her existence and her act.” Ta Nea30 wrote that the pink lace embroidery montage displayed an Arab woman with a bomb belt, who was “heroically obliterating an Israeli supermarket.”31

In 2004, then-Israeli ambassador to Sweden Zvi Mazel damaged an art exhibi- tion in a Stockholm museum that glorified suicide bombing.32

Performing Artists

During his 2013 world tour, musician Roger Waters equated the Jews with dictatorial regimes and unethical corporations. He appeared on stage simultaneously with a floating pig covered in Stars of David, in addition to symbols such as dollar signs, while wearing a costume reminiscent of a Nazi uniform. In a statement released by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Rabbi Abraham Cooper responded to these visual displays: “Waters has been a supporter of the anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement. Forget Israel/ Palestine. Waters deployed a classic disgusting medieval anti-Semitic caricature widely used by both Nazi and Soviet propaganda to incite hatred against Jews.”33 When not using his own music and stage shows to denigrate Israel, Waters also devotes much time to encouraging other entertainers to boycott Israel. In 2014 he publicly urged musician Neil Young to cancel a scheduled concert in Tel Aviv, and actress Scarlett Johansson to step down as spokesperson for the Israeli company SodaStream.34

The French anti-Semitic comedian and inciter Dieudonné behaves some- what similarly. He managed to remain in the French news for several years. As the BBC describes it:

He now openly attacks the “Zionist-American axis of power” and named [the extreme rightist anti-Semitic politician] Jean-Marie Le Pen as godfather of his child. He has been condemned on seven occasions for anti-Semitic remarks—at one point describing Holocaust commemorations as “memorial pornography”—and counts as allies a motley mixture from Shiite radicals to shaven-headed far-right ultras.35

In 2013, Dieudonné invented a new salute called the quenelle. It emulates the Nazi salute yet does not violate France’s law against displaying Nazi symbols. This salute was then adopted by many in France, among them extreme right- wingers. It also went international when the French soccer player Nicolas Anelka performed it at an English soccer game of the club he plays for there. So did the French NBA basketball star Tony Parker.

One picture shows a man doing the quenelle in front of the Jewish Ohr Torah school in Toulouse, where Mohammed Merah murdered four Jews in 2012. The man is wearing a shirt with a picture of Yasser Arafat.36

Social Media

With its massive number of surfers, the internet has become a major instrument for disseminating anti-Semitic ideas and promoting the delegitimization of Israel. Using this medium for these purposes becomes increasingly effective. It may well lead to a culture where anti-Semitism becomes socially acceptable on it and thereby permeates society even further. New internet media such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube serve various originators of hate-promotion.

Creating Israel-hate or anti-Semitic sites on the internet is a simple method of transmitting demonizing statements in many ways through social media. Tens of thousands of such hate sites exist.

For Dieudonné, social media plays a major role. As the BBC puts it:

But despite (or maybe because of) his estrangement from the establishment — and these days he is now more or less totally boycotted by the media—Dieudonné retains a wide appeal in France. Thanks to the internet, he speaks regularly to his tens of thousands of fans via Twitter and Facebook. And his videos on YouTube, which appear every week or so, can draw up to 2.5 million hits.37


Anti-Israeli media are, besides originators of Israel-hatred, instruments of anti-Semitism and the delegitimization of Israel. They can be an “originator” through their editorials. Their choice of news items can also be biased and create hatred.

Such media become transmission instruments of incitement when they provide space for hate-promoting opinion articles. A further element is talkbacks in those media that have internet sites. Some media eliminate talkbacks from their site that do not meet certain criteria; others do not.

Cartoons are concentrated tools for transmitting anti-Semitic messages. Many originate from Arab and Muslim sources, including in countries that are at peace with Israel. They also appear in government-owned journals. Many extreme anti-Semitic cartoons have also been published in Europe, primarily in Greece and Norway but in other countries as well.

TV stations can be originators of hatred through their choice of items, the ways these are structured, and the language used. By their choice of interview- ees they can become transmission channels.

The United Nations

The United Nations is sometimes an originator of hatred when the secretary- general or others use double standards against Israel. The General Assembly’s resolutions against Israel show that it is a transmission medium for hatred. This has been possible because the Arab states can count on almost automatic support from a majority of states. The same is true for other UN bodies, among which the UNHRC is probably the most prolific.

Lawfare38, 39

In recent years, the interpretation of international law in an anti-Israeli fashion has become a major tool in the battle against Israel. In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) released an advisory opinion that the separation barrier between Israel and the Palestinian territories was “contrary to international law.” The ICJ was not the initiator of this opinion; it became in part a transmis- sion tool. The opinion was given at the request of the UN General Assembly.

With fourteen votes in favor and one against, the ICJ concluded that Israel is obligated to cease construction on the barrier, which is intended to prevent terrorists from entering Israel, and dismantle it in areas where it was already built.40 Although this is the only case submitted to the ICJ specifically apply- ing to Israel, in other cases the Arab bloc in the United Nations has distorted international law to demonize Israel.

According to Israeli legal expert and former ambassador to Canada Alan Baker:

Arab states initiated an alteration in the text of the Court’s statute listing as a serious violation of the laws of armed conflict the war crime of “transferring, directly or indirectly, parts of the civil population into the occupied territory.” The deliberate addition of the phrase “directly or indirectly” to the original 1949 text was intended by them to adapt the original 1949 Geneva Convention language in order to render it applicable to Israel’s settlement policy.41

Intimidation in the Public Square

Intimidation in a public domain or in private is also a way of transmitting “messages.” It can take the form of actual violence or threats. It occurs in many places including on a number of campuses in the Western world.

During the IDF’s Operation Cast Lead, a new phenomenon merited particular attention. Groups, often dominated by violent Muslims, tried to conquer the public square in Europe and at the same time, tried to remove Jewish and Israeli symbols from it. Sometimes the authorities assisted in this process, such as in cities like Duisburg, Germany and Malmö, Sweden.

Muslims have attacked pro-Israeli demonstrators in various places, as well as Jews in the streets. There were also arson attempts against Jewish institutions. After some anti-Israeli demonstrations, Muslim prayer services were held in public places in Europe and the United States. The roles played by Muslim or- ganizations in these activities have not been sufficiently investigated. Attempts to remove Jewish and Israeli symbols from the public square have occurred in the past, mainly on an individual basis (e.g., attacking people carrying Israeli flags or wearing kippas or Stars of David). In those cases, the perpetrators were not necessarily mainly Muslims.

Physical  Attacks

A substantial number of physical and verbal attacks on Jews take place in the public domain in various countries. Only a few examples can be given here.

In 2012, a German rabbi was attacked in Berlin for wearing a kippa by four Arab youths in front of his six-year-old daughter, who was also threatened.42 In response, a German rabbinical college advised against wearing kippas in public.43

Perpetrators of these anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli attacks are often but not only Arabs. Also in 2012 in Kiev, an ultra-Orthodox man was in critical condi- tion after an assault by Ukranian neo-Nazi skinheads.44 These are just some examples out of many.

Sometimes non-Jews are attacked because of pro-Israeli actions. In 2013 Mats Green, mayor of the Swedish city of Jönköping, was physically assaulted outside his home. Although he could not identify his attackers, police believe the attack was motivated by his attempts to stop the sale of “Burn, Israel, burn” shirts at a Socialist shop operating in a city-owned cultural center.45

It was to be expected that during Operation Protective Edge there would be anti-Semitic incidents in Malmö, where the hatred of Jews is so widespread.


  2. Dore Gold, “From ‘Occupied territories’ to ‘Disputed territories,’” Jerusalem Let- ter/Viewpoints, 470, January 16, 2002.
  3. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Georges-Elia Sarfati, “Language as a Tool against Jews and Israel,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 17, February 1, 2004.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Raphael Israeli, Islamikaze: Manifestations of Islamic Martyrology (London: Frank Cass, 2003).
  6. Susanne Urban, “Anti-Semitism in Germany Today: Its Roots and Tendencies,”
    Jewish Political Studies Review 16, 3-4 (Fall 2004): 124.
  7. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Shimon Samuels, “Anti-Semitism and Jew- ish Defense at the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002 Johannesburg, South Africa,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 6, March 2, 2003.
  8. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Gerald Steinberg, “European NGOs against Israel,” in Israel and Europe: An Expanding Abyss? (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Adenauer Foundation, 2005), 112.
  9. See, g., Paul Ceaux, “Manif pro-palestinienne autorisée: les organisateurs cri- tiquent Hollande,” LExpress, July 22, 2014 (French); Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Dutch Jews Wonder About Their Future,” Israel National News, August 8, 2014; Reuters and AP, “France vows harsh hand on anti-Semitic violence after Paris riots,” Haaretz, July 21, 2014.
  10. See, g., “Valls ne laissera pas “le conflict Israélo-palestinien s’importer en France,” Le Monde, July 13, 2014 (French); AFP, “Hollande: le conflit israélo-palestinien ‘ne peut pas s’importer’ en France,” The Times of Israel Français, July 14, 2014. (French)
  11. Manfred Gerstenfeld, “France: Importing conflict from, and exporting problems to the Middle East,” The Jerusalem Post, January 7, 2015.
  12. “Iraq conflict resounds on German streets,” The Local, August 7, 2014.
  13. “Reactions to riots in Hamburg, Celle,” Deutsche Welle, October 8, 2014.
  14. “Kurdish protesters break into European Parliament,” BBC, October 7, 201
  15. Philip Oltermann, “Football fans and neo-Nazis clash with police in Cologne,”
    The Guardian, October 27, 2014.
  16. Maya Rhodan, “Obama: ‘No Sympathy’ for Hamas,” Time, August 6, 2014.
  17. Manfred Gerstenfeld, “The sustainability of the conflict,” The Jerusalem Post, Janu- ary 13, 2015.
  18. Ewen MacAskill, “Barack Obama throws full US support behind Middle East uprisings,” The Guardian, May 2011.
  19. Barack Obama, “Remarks by The President at the Annual Iftar Dinner, July 14, 2014,” The White House, July 14, 2014.
  20. Kim van Keken, “Dominee blijft, de gemeente wijkt,” de Volkskrant, May 22, 2006 (Dutch).
  21. “Doofpotaffaire Mos,” Nederlands Dagblad, March 18, 2008. (Dutch)
  22. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Jeffrey Gedmin, “Experiencing European Anti-Americanism and Anti-Israelism,” in Israel and Europe: An Expanding Abyss? (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Adenauer Foundation, 2005), 142-158.
  23. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Carla, “Jewish and Cautious in Amster- dam,” Israel National News, February 24, 2014.
  24. “Hague Muslim protest features menacing calls about Jews,” JTA, July 7, 2014.
  25. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Deborah Lipstadt, “Denial of the Holocaust and Immoral Equivalence,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 11, August 1, 2003.
  26. Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Holocaust Inversion: The Portraying of Israel and Jews as Nazis,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 55, April 1, 2007.
  27. Manfred Gerstenfeld, “The Multiple Distortions of Holocaust Memory,” Jewish Political Studies Review 19, 3-4 (Fall 2007): 35-57.
  28. Manfred Gerstenfeld, The Abuse of Holocaust Memory: Distortions and Responses
    (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 2009).
  29. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Robert Wistrich, “Anti-Semitism Embed- ded in British Culture,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 70, July 1, 2008.
  30. “25 Months of Anti-Semitic Invective in Greece: March 2002-April 2004,” report compiled in cooperation with the Greek Helsinki Monitor, Simon Wiesenthal Center, April 2004.
  31. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Moses Altsech, “Anti-Semitism in Greece: Embedded in Society,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 23, August 1, 2004.
  32. David Hardaker, “Israeli Ambassador attacks Swedish artwork,” The World To- day, January 19, 2004.
  33. “Wiesenthal Center: By Floating a Pig Balloon Stamped With Star of David at His Concert, Roger Waters Has Moved to the Front of the Line of Anti-Semites,” Simon Wiesenthal Center, July 24, 2013,
  34. “Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters slams Scarlett Johansson, Neil Young for Israel Ties,”
    The Jerusalem Post, February 2, 2014.
  35. Hugh Schofield, “Dieudonné: The bizarre journey of a controversial comic,” BBC News, December 31, 2013,
  36. “Quenelle salute performed in front of Toulouse Jewish school,” JTA, December 30, 2013.
  37. Schofield, “Dieudonné.”
  38. Abraham Bell, “International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel’s Right to Self-Defense,” Jerusalem Issue Briefs, 9:29, January 28, 2008.
  39. Dore Gold, “Did Israel Use ‘Disproportionate Force’ in Gaza?,” Jerusalem Issue Briefs, 8:16, December 28, 2008.
  40. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” International Court of Justice, July 9, 2004.
  41. Alan Baker, “The Settlements Issue: Distorting the Geneva Convention and the Oslo Accords,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, May 4, 2012.
  42. “Anti-Semitism: Attack on Rabbi in Berlin Draws Outrage,” Spiegel Online Inter- national, August 30, 2012.
  43. Rachel Hirshfeld, “German Rabbinical College Warns Against Wearing Kippot in Public,” Israel National News, September 2, 2012.
  44. Eli Shvidler, “Report: Jewish man in critical condition after assaulted by Neo- Nazis in Ukraine,” Haaretz, April 9, 2012.
  45. Cnaan Lipshiz, “Swedish mayor fighting sale of anti-Israel T-shirts is attacked,” JTA, April 12, 2013.


Comments are closed.