Report on Global Anti-Semitism (excertos)
For the purposes of this report, anti-Semitism is considered to be hatred toward Jews—individually and as a group—that can be attributed to the Jewish religion and/or ethnicity. An important issue is the distinction between legitimate criticism of policies and practices of the State of Israel, and commentary that assumes an anti-Semitic character. The demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue.
Global anti-Semitism in recent years has had four main sources:
a. 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;
b. Strong anti-Israel sentiment that crosses the line between objective criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism;
c. 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;
d. Criticism of both the United States and globalization that spills over to Israel, and to Jews in general who are identified with both.
Declarações proferidas um dia antes, 4 de Janeiro de 2005, por Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), provável líder eleito da Autoridade Palestiniana, a partir de 9 de Janeiro de 2005:
“Israel é o inimigo sionista”Artigo publicado na Commentary de Janeiro de 2005, de Efraim Karsh, do King's College da Universidade de Londres:
Arafat Lives (excertos)
“In one way, indeed, Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] is more extreme than many of his peers. While they revert to standard talk of Israel’s illegitimacy, he devoted years of his life to giving ideological firepower to the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish indictment. In a doctoral dissertation written at a Soviet university, an expanded version of which was subsequently published in book form, Abu Mazen endeavored to prove the existence of a close ideological and political association between Zionism and Nazism.Among other things, he argued that fewer than a million Jews had been killed in the Holocaust, and that the Zionist movement was a partner to their slaughter.
In the wake of the failed Camp David summit of July 2000 and the launch of Arafat’s war of terror two months later, Abu Mazen went to great lengths to explain why the “right of return” was a non-negotiable prerequisite for any Palestinian-Israeli settlement.“ Peace will not be achieved without the refugees getting back their sacred rights, which cannot be touched” he argued. “It is the individual right of every refugee, and no one can reach an agreement in this matter without his consent.” To dispel any doubt about the nature of this “right,” he emphasized that “the right of return means a return to Israel, not to a Palestinian state.”
On the assumption that the elections scheduled for January 9 go as forecast, Abu Mazen’s succession is thus no more likely to bring peace with Israel, or democracy to the Palestinians, than a new Germany would have been ushered in after World War II by the accession of one of Adolf Hitler’s erstwhile lieutenants.”
It is precisely here that the great importance of the Bush Doctrine lies. For while the EU seems all too happy to continue asking nothing of the Palestinians, as if they were too dim or too primitive to be held accountable for their own actions, Bush has tackled the issue of accountability head on. In his correct perception, it is the total absence of this factor from Middle Eastern political life that has allowed a long succession of local dictators, from Gamal Abdel Nasser, to Saddam Hussein, to Yasir Arafat, to inflict recurrent disasters and endless suffering on their peoples, and mayhem upon the world.
So long as the Palestinian territories continue to be run by men of this kind and by their terrorist organizations, there can be no true or lasting reconciliation with Israel. And so long as the territories continue to be governed by Arafat’s rule of the jungle, no Palestinian civil society, let alone a viable state, can develop. Just as the creation of free and democratic societies in Germany and Japan after World War II necessitated, above and beyond the overthrow of the ruling parties, a comprehensive purge of the existing political elites and the reeducation of the entire populace, so the Palestinians deserve a profound structural reform that will sweep the PA from power, free the territories from its grip, eradicate the endemic violence from political and social life, and teach the virtues of coexistence with their Israeli neighbors. Until this happens, there will be no lasting peace in the Middle East.”