Israel and Europe: An Expanding Abyss?

by Manfred Gerstenfeld. From Israel and Europe: An Expanding Abyss, 2005.

The relationship between Europe and Israel is complex, tense, and historically loaded. Over the years a gap has developed between their perspectives. Although not measurable, many observers believe it continues to widen and has become an abyss.

At the same time, European-Israeli relations in areas such as trade, science, culture, and sport have expanded and only partially been affected by the political divergence. Given the prevailing mood in Europe, the question is whether the impact of that discord will gradually aggravate the situation in other areas as well.

Israel struggles to survive in a hostile environment, confronting Arab terrorism and demonization. It has to defend itself in many ways against asymmetric warfare. Nevertheless, it has succeeded in maintaining its democratic character. However, being made excessively vulnerable in the political domain by what should be sympathetic democracies causes it major damage.

Focusing on Europe

To be better understood, the multifaceted dynamics of the political relationship between Israel and the many European countries as well as the European Union require assessment from different angles.

The European Union consists of twenty-five states, with hundreds of millions of citizens covering a large territory. Israel is a small country with a population of six million, partly surrounded by mortal enemies. Europe and Israel, then, are not comparable entities, and in view of the imbalance in power, populations, and geographic size, analysis must focus mainly on the far larger European side.

There is another reason to do so: the ongoing discriminatory criticism by the European Union and many of its member states against Israel in recent years seems to stem primarily from Europe’s characteristics, history, and worldview.

A Reconnaissance Mission

Doing justice to the subject would require a much more detailed inquiry into the state of European-Israeli relations and how to improve them. Quantifying the multifaceted interaction between Israel, the European countries, and the European Union would demand lengthy research by a multidisciplinary team with a major budget. Such an in-depth project would, however, have the serious drawback that by the time of its completion-due to the speed with which events evolve-recent developments would call for new investigation. Thus, even such a detailed study would partly be a time capsule.

This essay and the following interviews form together a reconnaissance mission into European-Israeli political relations. Key issues are identified that merit a more extensive assessment. The aim is to provide an initial, strategic impression of European political attitudes toward Israel.

Europe’s Strategic Postwar Mistakes

Like all political entities, Europe has committed many errors in its postwar history. During the Second World War itself, democratic Europe was unable to withstand the National Socialist onslaught. Nor could it liberate itself without decisive American help and substantial Russian efforts.

In the postwar period, three major European strategic errors stand out. Each affects the European-Israeli relationship, and some aspects also impact the wellbeing of Jews in the European Union.

Europe’s first crucial error was its reluctance to take responsibility for its own defense against totalitarian Communism. In any case, Europe would have had to rely to a certain extent on the United States – specifically, for a nuclear shield – but it did not act to minimize this dependence. By the late 1950s and certainly in the 1960s, Europe had most of the basic means for shouldering a much larger share of its own defense needs than it did. That the Soviet Union crumbled during the 1980s was largely the result of American pressure, particularly during the Reagan presidency. West European efforts, many of which were aimed at appeasement of the Communist bloc, played no role in the latter’s downfall.

It is difficult to pinpoint the many consequences of Europe’s lukewarm attitude toward its own defense. Europe’s inclination to depend on others has profoundly permeated its mindset. In the Yugoslav wars of the mid-1990s, this failing was starkly apparent.

The neglect of terrorist threats in Europe is also probably related to this continent’s low-resistance mindset. Why would those who did not want to shoulder the maximum possible burden of their defense against Communism be willing to take the stringent preventive measures necessary to diminish the risks of terrorist attacks?

Negative Consequences for Israel

This strategic European failure and the resulting mindset have had substantial negative consequences for Israel. Large numbers of Europeans are unable to comprehend Israel’s day-to-day security needs. This is probably related in part to their failure to understand Europe’s own security reality when confronting the Soviet Union.

Europe’s partial denial of its defense problems prepared it mentally for another major dependence, which became much larger than necessary: on the Arab-Islamic world for oil. This excessive reliance became Europe’s second major strategic postwar error.

The Europe of the past few decades had not only enough wealth and technological competence to take care of most of its defense against Communism. It also had the financial capacities to cultivate a broad range of alternative energies and replace much more of its oil usage than it did. It could also have developed better policies of energy saving. Both would have reduced its dependence on the Arab world. Europe lacked, however, the willpower to do so.

The negative consequences for Israel of Europe’s second strategic error are well evident. Europe’s excessive dependence on oil from Arab countries and Iran has fostered a European-Arab symbiosis for which Israel has often become the political scapegoat. France has spearheaded this hostile approach over the past decades.

France’s effort to improve its standing in the oil-producing Middle Eastern countries has not only damaged Israel. It caused one of the greatest problems of the Western world, of which Israel is one of the most substantial victims. In 1977 French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing gave asylum, and hence international legitimization, to Ayatollah Khomeini. The French thus helped pave the way for the first Islamic-fundamentalist nation, Iran, which exported state terrorism.

Excessive Dependence on Immigrants

The exaggerated Western dependence on America for its defense and on Middle Eastern oil for its energy needs prepared Europe’s mindset for a third major strategic error. Foreign immigrants were needed to provide labor and make up for the shortfall in Europe’s birthrates, and also to guarantee the future pensions of those working today. Thus another European dependence was created, this one on immigrants who increasingly came from Muslim countries.

Jews were among the first to feel the effects of this major policy error. Violent anti-Semitic acts in Europe are disproportionately committed by youngsters from immigrant Muslim communities, mainly but not only the North African ones. To be clear if politically incorrect: without the large-scale Muslim immigration, the number of acts of violence and intimidation against Jews in Europe would be much lower.

The exposure of the truth is the first step toward starting to close the gap between Europe and Israel. At the same time, the major impact on Israel and Jews of substantial parts of Europe’s Muslim community can serve as an indicator of Europe’s future as well. The Jews and Israel play here a precursor role as well. It is easier to study the Muslim impact on a small community, which can be affected far more acutely than a large one.

Denigration of Israel has also become a tool in European election campaigns. In the French 2002 presidential elections, the desire not to offend potential Muslim voters heavily affected the local Jews. Despite the many violent attacks on Jews for more than a year, both the Socialist Jospin government and Gaullist President Jacques Chirac tried to conceal this phenomenon from the public at large.

To What Extremes Will Europe Go?

When looking for telling indicators in a relationship, often a useful first step is to identify extreme attitudes. They can suggest what distortions the parties are capable of. Looking at the extremes of Europe’s recent postures toward Israel is important because in turbulent times, these become signposts for how low Europe might eventually stoop if the world political situation deteriorates.

Analyzing such drastic European attitudes toward Israel is important for another reason as well. It was against the Jews that Europe reached its absolute nadir of behavior in the 20th century. Although Europe’s worldview at present is not comparable to that of the 1930s, still there are several disquieting similarities with the demonization of the Jews in that period. 1

One strong gauge of Europe’s negative outlook on Israel is its voting record in the United Nations. As this involves democracies judging another democracy, it can be characterized as abysmal. The argument that this is attributable to Israel’s approach to the conflict with the Palestinians is easily refuted, since after the 1993 Oslo agreements Europe’s voting pattern at the United Nations did not change.

A Case Study: The International Court of Justice

The United Nations plays an important role in the establishment of international law. Israel faces many new problems where this law falls dramatically short of meeting reality. In this area as well, Israel has become an indicator of the failures of Western society.

The inability to cope with international terrorism is one among several malfunctions of international law. The latter is premised on the existence of states that are bound by its norms. There is no legal basis, however, for holding any particular state accountable for Al Qaeda and other international terrorists.

In its 2004 ruling on Israel’s security fence, the International Court of Justice decided that the right of self-defense only exists if one is confronted by a state. As international lawyer and former Israeli ambassador Meir Rosenne notes: “If this were true, it would mean that whatever the United States undertakes against Al Qaeda is illegal. This cannot be considered self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter because Al Qaeda is not a state.”2

Declarations of the European Union

The political damage Europe’s double standards cause Israel is manifested in many other ways. Statements by EU foreign ministers are often extremely one-sided – probably far more so than EU declarations concerning any other democracy.

The frequent excessive EU criticism of Israel comes at a time when European anti-Semitism has reached a post-Holocaust high. Two questions have to be asked here. What elements of official EU policy use the classic methodology of anti-Semitism against Israel? And, to what extent does the anti-Israeli bias contribute to the emerging anti-Semitism in Europe? Fine-tuning the answers to these questions will require more detailed study.

Besides the European voting record at the United Nations and the double standards of the European Union’s condemnations of Israel from Brussels, a third issue is high on Israel’s charge sheet: the European Union has provided funding for a variety of anti-Israeli activities.

Many matters are not clear, some because they have not been sufficiently investigated, others because they are still emerging. The Israeli government claims that the Palestinian Authority has used EU donations for terrorism, including the murder of Israeli civilians. The European Union has for a long time stalled investigations of these claims. When finally the European Fraud Investigation Agency (OLAF) undertook such an inquiry, no conclusive evidence was found.3

Additional Charges

Israeli political scientist Yohanan Manor, who has studied Middle Eastern textbooks, asserts: “The European Union has a heavy responsibility in the transformation of the Palestinian education system into a war machine against the Oslo process. This despite the fact that it had excellent means to assure that Palestinian education should serve the process of peace and contribute to the permanence of the historical compromise that was reached.” Manor concludes that the European Union, despite the financial support it and its member states give to the Palestinian Authority, has neglected its supervisory role of the textbooks.4

A further item of Israel’s indictment concerns EU financing of other anti-Israeli bodies. One example is the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN). Israeli political scientist Gerald Steinberg writes that this organization receives 80% of its funding from the European Union. He notes that EMHRN has been at the forefront of various campaigns for suspending trade agreements with Israel including the Association Agreement.5

European funding has also gone to purveyors of anti-Semitism, including several extreme-Left NGOs. Steinberg points out that the European Union was a major funder of the 2001 Durban Conference, which the NGO network exploited for demonizing Israel and promoting anti-Semitism.6 In his interview, he details several ways in which the European Union finances NGOs that vilify Israel.

De Gaulle: Reintroducing Anti-Semitism in the Mainstream

France’s key role in Europe’s anti-Israeli bias has been mentioned. Yet for about two decades after World War II, it helped Israel in many ways. Says Rosenne: “Before the state was established many Jews who wanted to emigrate illegally to Palestine came to France and departed from there. Later when there was an American weapons embargo the Israeli air force was equipped with French Mirage planes.”7

In the 1967 Six Day War, when Israel’s existence was threatened, France’s President Charles de Gaulle took a pro-Arab direction and imposed a weapons embargo on the Middle East. His verbal attacks against Israel sometimes included anti-Semitic statements. In his press conference on 27 November that year, de Gaulle called the Jews “an elitist and domineering people” in a much-publicized remark.

This is often considered the post-Holocaust reintroduction of anti-Semitism at the highest levels of mainstream European democratic society. With this breaking of the postwar taboo, de Gaulle paved the way for other European statesmen who would go much further in later years. Greek Socialist Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou, and Swedish Socialist Olaf Palme on his way to the prime ministership, would compare Israelis to Nazis by 1982.

Interviewee Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, details the French role as an anti-Israeli leader at this international body. France has been particularly active in building Europe’s anti-Israeli voting record there. Europe’s position in the United Nations’ 2004 voting on the security-fence issue is one example.

It is impossible to gauge the individual contribution of the several factors that have made France the democracy with the most anti-Semitic incidents in the new century. Many experts, however, claim that France’s anti-Israeli stance played a substantial role in the explosion of anti-Semitic incidents there.

In a 2004 report prepared for the French interior minister, the author, human rights expert Jean-Christophe Ruffin, explicitly links anti-Semitism to the anti-Israeli mood prevailing in the country: “It is not conceivable today to fight actively in France against anti-Semitism in its new mutations without going all-out to try and balance anew the public’s view of the situation in the Middle East.”8

The Jew as a Symbol

The Jew has fulfilled many symbolic functions in European society for more than a millennium. In the fifth century, St. Augustine defined the Jews as a witness people. Their existence proved that Christianity was superior and represented the truth.

Later, the Jew in Christian Europe became a symbol of the devil. What could one expect from the descendants of people who were, albeit falsely, reputed to have murdered God’s son? The Jew represented all evil in society, Satan and his messenger. With the arrival of capitalism and Communism, for the adherents of each system the Jew became the personification of the opposite one. Nazism thereafter developed a new mutation of the “Jew as personification of evil” motif.

The impact of these symbols survives in contemporary European society. For a certain period after the Holocaust, their use became politically incorrect. Many Europeans had become aware that if there was absolute evil in the world, it was represented by parts of Europe rather than the Jews. For many others, however, this was too painful to admit. It created the psychological necessity to reattach evil to the Jews, this time to the Jewish state.

The Israeli psychologist Nathan Durst remarks: “If the guilty person is bad, the Jewish victim becomes good. The moment it can be shown the latter is bad too, the ‘other’ – that is, the European – is relieved of his guilt feelings. To claim that Israelis behave like Nazis reduces the sin of the grandparents. Then the children of the victims can no longer be the accusers. This equalizes everybody.”9

The Media Bias

Israel also encounters major media problems in Europe, which have been described for a long time. Slowly, international awareness is increasing that the media’s lack of accountability is a major problem for democratic society. Once again, Israel is a test case for a key drawback of the Western world.

Many European media have consistently taken extreme anti-Israeli positions. Interviewee Hildegard Müller, a German CDU parliamentarian, considers that it is partly responsible for Israel’s problematic image, often relaying news without verifying its truth. The repeated use of the same pictures, which she calls “news preserves,” is widespread. Müller also notes that many newspapers take their news from the press agencies, such Agence France Press (AFP), which leads to similar reporting.

Interviewee Trevor Asserson, a senior British litigation lawyer, has undertaken one of the most sophisticated media analyses ever, focusing on the BBC. He points to many breaches of its government charter, biases, and double standards when reporting on the Middle East conflict.

Creating an Anti-Israeli Atmosphere

The aforementioned factors have helped create an anti-Israeli atmosphere in Europe. In his interview, Steinberg says:

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.”

Various Christian churches and organizations constitute a fifth factor. To this must be added other groupings, such as many European Muslim bodies and large parts of the European extreme Right.

A detailed assessment of the process of European demonization of Israel is complex. It would have to include a study of the infiltration of Arab hate propaganda into European society. This would also require a sociological and psychological analysis of the European countries that have been in the forefront of promoting the anti-Israeli sentiment.

Indicators of Europe’s Mood

The frequent repetition by many Europeans of excessive charges against Israel has created a climate hostile to those who want to defend Israel. It manifests itself in many ways in the media and public discourse. It has also made criticizing Israel in elite salons both common and politically correct.

Interviewee Jeffrey Gedmin, the American director of the Berlin Aspen Institute, mentions that elegant dinner parties in Germany have become venues where the majority often bashes Bush and Sharon as substitutes for anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism of various kinds. Those who disagree often remain silent under the onslaught.

Such “salon anti-Israelism” is a widespread phenomenon confirmed by many authors. An assessment of this mindset can only be anecdotic. Carol Gould, an American Jewish journalist living in London, wrote: “I know Jews – including Anglo-Jews – who have ceased socializing because of the abuse they receive from old friends.”10

French sociologist Shmuel Trigano said that he frequently hears Jews say things like: “We don’t go to dinner with our non-Jewish friends anymore, nor do we see them.”11 U.S. journalism professor Ari Goldman wrote about the many anti-Jewish remarks he heard in discussions while traveling in Greece.12

Anti-Semitism

In Europe, denigrations of Israel and Jews are interlinked. The post-Holocaust resurgence of European anti-Semitism proves again how deep its roots are in European society. Although this suggests that anti-Semitism is inherent to European culture and values, it must be stressed that it does not imply that all or most Europeans are anti-Semites.

There are, however, many indicators of profound European anti-Semitism. It takes various forms. In Greece, for instance, remnants of Christian anti-Semitism abound to which new elements are added.13

Anti-Semitism has not remained constant over the centuries. Although its main motifs have stayed remarkably identical, its manifestations have mutated over the years.14 The most recent major version of anti-Semitism targets Israel. This variant of Jew-hatred is now commonly referred to as “new anti-Semitism.” Its perpetrators often call themselves anti-Zionists. They aim to isolate Israel and present it – in the words of the Berlin Technical University’s Center for Research on anti-Semitism – “as a state that is fundamentally negatively distinct from all others, which therefore has no right to exist.”15

Cartoons and Schools

Cartoons are a simple indicator of anti-Semitism. Those who draw them have to refer to widely known stereotypes of Jews. The main source of cartoons demonizing Jews is now the Arab world. Some motifs, however, have filtered into European media including mainstream ones.

Belgian political scientist Joel Kotek has demonstrated how the main recurrent motif in Arab cartoons concerning Israel is “the devilish Jew.” This image conveys the idea that Jews behave like Nazis, kill children, and love blood. The similarity of themes with those promulgated by the Nazis is evident. Many Arab cartoons praise suicide bombing or call for murder. To dehumanize Jews, Arab cartoonists often depict them as malevolent creatures: spiders, vampires, or octopuses. The collective image of the Jews that is projected lays the groundwork for a possible genocide.16, 17

Anti-Semitic cartoons are published in leading newspapers remote from fascism or the extreme Left. These include the London Independent,18 the Italian La Stampa, the Spanish El Pais, and many others. Even if this is incidental rather than regular, it still indicates that all borders have been crossed in the continent where sixty years ago, the great majority of the Jews were murdered by the Germans and Austrians aided by other Europeans.

Anti-Semitism in European schools is not a rare occurrence. Muslims alone cannot be blamed for this, even if many are European citizens by now.

Opinion Polls

Polls express in numbers what anecdotes about elite dinner conversations, universities, and cartoons indicate qualitatively. The most relevant country here is Germany in view of its major effort of reeducation after its defeat in World War II.

In 2004, the University of Bielefeld undertook a poll that analyzed various aspects of anti-Semitic and critical attitudes among Germans concerning Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians. The study concludes that the criticism of Israel is to some extent a cover for anti-Semitism.19

On one of the criteria, the majority of the Germans polled hold a clear anti-Semitic position – that of comparing Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians with the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Some 35% fully agree and 33% are inclined to agree with the statement that Israel “leads a war to destroy the Palestinians.” Another 27% fully agree and 24% are inclined to agree that: “what Israel does with the Palestinians in principle is not different from what the Nazis in the Third Reich did with the Jews.” Only 19% disagree totally and 30% are inclined to disagree. The findings of this 2004 survey reinforce data from earlier surveys on German anti-Semitism that have been analyzed by several authors.20

Many other polls have identified substantial anti-Semitic stereotypes among other European populations.21 A 2002 survey on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League found that in five countries – Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands – one out of five respondents can be characterized as “most anti-Semitic.”22

Another poll carried out in nine EU countries for the Italian daily Corriere della Sera also found substantial anti-Semitic trends. In all countries, anti-Semitic sentiment paralleled anti-Israeli sentiment.23 A poll conducted around the same time in the UK concluded that almost 20% of Britons consider that a Jewish prime minister would be less acceptable than a non-Jewish one.24 This is particularly relevant since Michael Howard, the Conservative Party’s leader, is Jewish.

A Growing Abyss

The foregoing raises the question of whether the gap between Israel and Europe is widening. Assessments can only be based on impressions. Gedmin believes Europe’s anti-Israeli sentiment is increasing, and attributes this to four factors: the attempt to assuage guilt over Europe’s murderous past, rivalry with the United States, anti-Semitism, and the rejection of European concepts of society by the majority of Israelis.

The French philosopher Jean-Claude Milner maintains that anti-Judaism is linked to the affirmation of Europe itself. On the one hand, it wants to assert itself vis-à-vis the United States; on the other, having realized its unity, it seeks to present itself as a model for humanity. In his view, at the Anti-Racism Conference in Durban, Europe and the Islamic world found themselves standing together on an anti-Jewish platform.25

Israel’s Attitude

Since Europe has applied double political standards to Israel in many areas, Israel cannot meet Europe’s desires without endangering itself. Whatever Israel does can only affect nuances rather than the essence of European behavior.

In such a context, one would have expected the Israeli government to undertake a profound analysis of what endangers it and to assess how the European attitude fits into the postmodern total war waged against it by the Arab world. Such an evaluation would be an important step in determining how to use Israel’s limited resources more effectively in this battle.

Israeli government reactions on specific issues, however, have lacked competence and understanding. Interviewee Johannes Gerster, representative of the Adenauer Foundation in Israel, mentions how after the second Palestinian uprising began he attempted to convince important figures in the Israeli government that propaganda was a crucial part of the war. He told them Israelis had to provide pictures to counter the one-sided ones from Palestinian society and political groups. For a long time, Israeli reactions showed no comprehension of this correct position.

Developing a Strategy

The present state of affairs raises the question: what should be done? The first step in any attempt by Israel to change its relationship with Europe must be to systematically uncover the latter’s duplicity. The exposure of a few of the worst appliers of double standards against it would make others more careful. Today, attacking Israel is often free of charge as there is no risk involved for the assailant. This only invites further aggression.

Simultaneously, Israel needs to develop a strategy toward Europe. The tension between Israel and Europe leads several of the interviewees to reflect on what could be done to improve relations. Israeli political scientist Yehezkel Dror has written: “In view of the deep bases of disagreements between Israel and the European Union, relying on ad hoc action, changes in the personal composition of the EU bodies, ‘personal chemistry,’ better public relations, luck, and so on is clearly not enough.”

He added: “Israel urgently needs to craft a grand strategy toward the European Union aimed at improving relations and upgrading cooperation with the EU also in political and security matters. This would require substantial changes in the Israeli political system and the machinery of government.”26

Interviewee Avram Pazner, a former Israeli ambassador, wonders whether Israel should not rethink its position and involve Europe more in the Middle East political process. The European Union might then, he believes, offer Israel membership in one form or another.

Interviewee Zvi Shtauber, also a former Israeli ambassador, says that while Israel does not have many resources, we must invest heavily in expanding the dialogue with Europe. We must spend more time on contacts with various groups including opinion leaders and students. We must consider Europe almost in the same category as the United States. With the Americans, Israel maintains various frameworks where one can talk freely outside the official system. That gives both parties a chance to better understand each other’s problems.

Fighting for a Common Understanding

Müller concludes:

Israelis and Europeans should not give up the fight for a common understanding. Despite all the difficulties, there are no alternatives. We will not find other friends so rapidly and thus must stay together. A more intensive European-Israeli dialogue should be initiated. This should be done through a privileged partnership of Israel with the EU. A European security guarantee for Israel must be part of such a privileged partnership.

She pleads with Israelis not to write off the Europeans as unreliable: “I ask my Israeli friends to look at every aspect of the relations between Europe and Israel, the positive and the negative ones. That is the only way to assess reality.”

Gerster proposes practical routes to progress. The Adenauer Foundation aims to initiate an intellectual dialogue between Israel and Europe

where prominent people from both sides can speak about the existing dissonance between Israel and Europe. These will include politicians, publishers of journals, writers, and intellectuals. The discussions should focus on analysis. They should deal with questions such as: what is happening and why is Israel perceived as the main troublemaker in the Middle East? We start from a situation that has not only led to a cooling of attitudes but to almost hostile ones. One doesn’t have to hide what one thinks because only businesslike debate between intellectuals can clear up the climate a bit.

One major conclusion should be added, which is also drawn by several interviewees. Because Israel can much less afford the frequent hostility than Europe can, it should take the initiative to see how the damage can be limited. It should do so without endangering vital interests or remaining silent about the injustice Europe is causing it.

* * *
Notes

1. Manfred Gerstenfeld, “The Deep Roots of Anti-Semitism in European Society,” Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 17, Nos. 1 & 2, Spring 2005, pp. 3-48.

2. Personal interview with Meir Rosenne.

3. Amos Harel, “EU Wants to Question Palestinian Prisoners about PA Funds,” Haaretz web edition, 4 August 2004.

4. Yohanan Manor, Les manuels scolaires palestiniens: une génération sacrifiéé (Paris: Berg International éditeurs, 2003), p.130ff. (French).

5. Gerald Steinberg, “Abusing the Legacy of the Holocaust: The Role of NGOs in Exploiting Human Rights to Demonize Israel,” Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 16, Nos. 3 & 4, Fall 2004, p. 67.

6. Ibid.

7. Personal interview with Meir Rosenne.

8. Jean-Christophe Ruffin, “Chantier sur la Lutte contre le Racisme et l’antisémitisme,” Ministère de l’interieur, de la sécurité interieure, et des libertés locales, p. 30, October 2004 (French).

9. Interview with Nathan Durst, “Europe: From Guilt Feelings to Repackaging Anti-Semitism,” in Manfred Gerstenfeld, Europe’s Crumbling Myths: The Post-Holocaust Origins of Today’s Anti-Semitism (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 2003), p.135.

10. Carol Gould, “An American Scapegoat in London,” The Guardian, 16 October 2004.

11. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Shmuel Trigano, “French Anti-Semitism: A Barometer for Gauging Society’s Perverseness,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 26, 1 November 2004.

12. Ari L. Goldman, “Meanwhile: The Jewish Ghosts of Salonika,” International Herald Tribune, 6 May 2004.

13. Simon Wiesenthal Center, “Easter Pogrom Hatemongering – Effigies, Desecration, Caricature: Greek Antisemitism Epidemic Persists,” Press Release, 20 April 2004.

14. Gerstenfeld, “Deep Roots of Anti-Semitism.”

15. “Manifestations of Antisemitism in the European Union,” drafted for the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) by the Center for Research on Antisemitism (ZFA) at Berlin Technical University, p. 17, http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/FT.htm

16. Joel et Dan Kotek, “Au nom de l’antisionisme: L’image des Juifs et d’Israel dans la caricature depuis la seconde Intifada,” Brussels: Editions Complexe, 2003 (French).

17. Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Joel Kotek, “Major Anti-Semitic Motifs in Arab Cartoons,” Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 21, 1 June 2004.

18. www.politicalcartoon.co.uk/html/exhibition.html.

19. Wilhelm Heitmeyer, “Texte zu Ergebnissen der Umfrage 2004 des Projektes,” Universítàt Bielefeld, Institut fur interdisziplinare Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung, 2004 (German).

20. See, e.g., Martin Ulmer, “Current Trends in Germany,” lecture presented at the Conference of SICSA in Jerusalem: “Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Western Europe since 2000,” haGalil.com, 18 December 2002; Susanne Urban, “Anti-Semitism in Germany Today: Its Roots and Tendencies,” Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 16, Nos. 3 & 4, Fall 2004, pp.119-130.

21. Gerstenfeld, “Deep Roots of Anti-Semitism,” pp. 19-21.

22. Anti-Defamation League, “ADL Survey of Five European Countries Finds One in Five Holds Strong Anti-Semitic Sentiments: Majority Believes Canard of Jewish Disloyalty,” Press Release (New York), 31 October 2002.

23. “European Poll: 46% Say Jews Are ‘Different,'” Haaretz, 26 January 2004.

24. Stephen Bates, “One in Seven Britons Say Holocaust Is Exaggerated,” The Guardian, 23 January 2004.

25. Claude Meyer, interview with Jean-Claude Milner, Actualité Juive Hebdo, No. 823, 11 December 2003 (French).

26. Yehezkel Dror, “Foundations for an Israeli Grand Strategy toward the European

* * *
DR. MANFRED GERSTENFELD is chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is an international business strategist who has been a consultant to governments, international agencies, and boards of some of the world’s largest corporations. Among his ten books are Europe’s Crumbling Myths: The Post-Holocaust Origins of Today’s Anti-Semitism (JCPA, Yad Vashem, WJC, 2003); American Jewry’s Challenge: Conversations Confronting the 21st Century (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005) and, most recently, Israel and Europe: An Expanding Abyss? (JCPA and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2005).

Comments are closed.