From Poland with Love

It can’t be easy to be Polish.

No, I don’t refer to the “sitting-alone-in-the-darkness” bit of it, rather to the fact that almost every time Poland makes the international headlines it’s not for its fascinating cities, tasty beer or rich cultural life, but rather somehow connected to the Holocaust. Just a few days ago it happened again: everyone — at least in Israel — was talking about the theft of the “Arbeit macht frei” sign over the gate to Auschwitz.

Luckily, the sign has been recovered already and today I note that Yediot reports that the suspected thieves apparently were going to smuggle the sign out of Poland and deliver it to someone in — Sweden.

Defending Donald

Ever since the publication of his much-criticized article that suggests that the IDF murders Palestinians and harvest their organs, Donald Boström’s line of defense has been clear. He has not been making unfounded anti-Semitic statements — he’s merely been passing them on. As soon as the shit hit the fan, Boström hid behind the bereaved Palestinian family, and said that he didn’t have any evidence, but that he was just reporting what they told him. 

Now even this rather modest claim to veracity has come under doubt.

In an article in the Jerusalem Post, the family of Bilal Ahmed Ghanem is asked about the circumstances surrounding Bilal’s death and burial. To the Jerusalem Post, they say that 1) they don’t know if Bilal’s organs were harvested, 2) they never claimed that to be the case, and 3) they can’t recall having even spoken to Mr. Boström.

How embarrassing. Well, I’m sure that Mr. Boström has a good new line of defense ready. In the unlikely case that he doesn’t, please allow me to give him a few tips of lines that might work:

1) Someone has bribed the family to lie to the Jerusalem Post;

2) Someone has poisoned the well of the family with lie-serum;

3) Someone is threatening to infect the family with AIDS if they don’t deny the allegations.

If neither of those defenses appeal to him, Mr. Boström can always resort to pointing out that the Jerusalem Post is controlled by the Jews.

Organ for Anti-Semitism

A time-honored anti-Semitic lie is that Jews kidnap non-Jews and kill them to use their bodies for various — usually ritual — purposes. In Christian Europe of the Middle Ages, it was claimed that Jews used the blood of Christian children to bake matzah for Passover.

In a modern-day version, it’s claimed that Israel kills Palestinians and use them as involuntary organ donors for ill Jews in need of a kidney, liver or spleen. The Swedish journalist Donald Boström tried to push this story in a book already in 2003, and now he’s found another opportunity to recycle the accusation: the illegal organ trade scandal in the United States.

Yesterday, Boström published a long article connecting the events that have rocked the Jewish community in New Jersey with the rumors and unsubstantiated hearsay he was fed in the West Bank during the Second Intifada. 

The culture section of Aftonbladet, the leading organ of the social democratic movement in Sweden, is Boström’s willing mouthpiece. His article can be read in full here.

Fortunately, the publication has already met some reactions, both in Sydsvenskan and in Svenska Dagbladet.

UPDATE: Also Haaretz writes about Boström’s claims in English here and in Hebrew here.

Beware of the Jews

The fairly new CST blog reports on an interesting article in the Independent, following President Obama’s big speech to the Muslim world on June 4. In the article, David Usborne excels in dramatic speculations about how Obama’s speech risks the ire of the “Jewish lobby” in Washington DC, and the CST analysis is recommended reading.

Usborne’s article in full can be read here.

You might have thought that was a bit rich, but everything is relative. Also hyperbole about Jewish power. Usborne’s tirade fades next to the pronouncements of Nael Touqan, the spokesman for the Swedish-Palestinian National Association. He was asked by Swedish Radio 1 to comment the speech on June 4, and said:

This was a perfect speech. […] I see this as a completely new American policy, and it’s a very positive policy. But I think that Obama risks his life with this speech. […] Israel is going to murder him.

Just so you know.

The interview with Touqan can be found here.

Turkish Antisemitism?

Yediot Aharonot recently published an article referring to a poll conducted in Turkey. According to the poll, carried out by a university in Istanbul, the Turks are quite an intolerant people. Their tolerance toward Jews seems to be especially low: as many as 64 percent of the Turks wouldn’t want Jewish neighbors.

Christians were a slightly less disliked, and 48 percent of the Turks would be prepared to suffer Christian neighbors. American neighbors would be tolerated by a whopping 57 percent of the Turks. It’s not quite clear from the article what would happen to the level of tolerance among the Turks if they were to realize that their new American neighbors were in fact Christians or Jews.

The results of the poll show that the only category of people who were less popular than Jews were — unmarried couples. 67 percent of the Turks would not want to live next to a couple living in sin.

Yediot, true to its tabloid character, pointed out to its readers that the Turks evidently don’t mind Israelis coming to Turkey on vacation to spend their hard-earned shekels there, but that they wouldn’t want to live next to them.

Well, in all honesty, if Israelis on vacation are the only exposure that the Turks have to Jews, can one really blame them for not wanting them as neighbors?

Nothing New under the Sun

A link to this article in Sydsvenskan was sent to me the other day. On the one hand it’s good that someone writes about the problems in Malmö — and obviously it’s nice not to be forgotten. But on the other hand it would obviously be much better if the problem would just go away. I could live with people forgetting my research if it would become obsolete.

Holocaust Memorial Day in Geneva

In an incident of immaculate timing, the Holocaust-denying president of Iran Mahmud Ahmadinejad delivered a speech at the UN headquarters in Geneva, at the eve of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day — as well as Hitler’s 120th birthday. Mr. Ahmadinejad and delegates from many other countries are in Switzerland to attend the controversial and widely condemned conference Durban II.

In the past, Mr. Ahmadinejad has on many occasions denied the Holocaust and called for the destruction of Israel. This time around, he used the forum of the UN anti-racism conference to once again spread his message of racism.

To his credit, the Swedish delegate joined his EU colleagues at the conference when they stood up and walked out in reaction to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s latest installment in his seemingly endless diatribe.

The Norwegian foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, stayed in the hall. However, he took advantage of the fact that he spoke immediately following Mr. Ahmadinejad, and criticized the Iranian president for spreading “hatred, fear and intolerance”.

On the Non-Existence of Jewish Radicalization

On the first show of the season, the TV-show Existens on Swedish public TV surveyed radicalization in the wake of Operation Cast Lead.

Before the show had been aired, Per Gudmundson of Svenska Dagbladet expressed skepticism about the perceived attempts to stick to the “a plague on both your houses” formula (maybe the lazy man’s version of impartiality?) In this case, the researchers for the show had tried to find examples of increasing Jewish radicalization, as well as Muslim dito. Gudmundson wrote about the issue here, and I watched the show with some curiosity to see what they made of it in the end.

The show could find examples of radicalized Muslims, incarnated in the form of Muhamed Omar, whose appearance on the show I’ve written about it before.

Fine.

Then they went on to find similar Jewish radicalization, which — the voice-over explained to the viewers — according to anonymous informants was supposed to be out there, somewhere.

Unfortunately, they couldn’t find any Swedish Jews, who’d become radicalized by the deteriorating situation in Gaza, so they had to remind the viewers of the existence of Jewish terror by adding a little segment on Yigal Amir and the Yeshivah where he had studied. (But unlike some Israeli leftists, they honorably enough refrained from attacking Bar-Ilan University.)

Once they had failed in their efforts on this count, they went to Britain to interview a member of a Jewish peace organization. He agreed that people who call people who look for radicalized Jews anti-Semites, are not doing the Jewish people any favors (as the voice-over explained that some — maybe the same — anonymous informants had done). But at the same time he did think that you can see a clear increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Europe in 2009, so the fear among many Jews is real — albeit exaggerated.

Ok, so the Jews aren’t radicalized and violent, but at least they exaggerate.

Let me just stress, before I’m counted as one of Existens’ anonymous informants, that I don’t find the “a plague on both your houses” formula anti-Semitic.

Merely stupid.

Coffee, Crowns and Conspiracies

It’s well known that the public discourse in the Middle East offers plenty of comic relief — not least when supposedly serious people make silly statements about Jews. This is something that I’ve written about before.

This time around, it was a cleric by the name of Safwat Higazi who declared on Egyptian TV that all Arabs and Muslims should boycott Starbucks. And no, not because their coffee is like making love in a canoe, and not even because the company would be owned by/controlled by/exploited by Jews, but because of its logo.

Apparently, just in time for Purim, good old Mr. Higazi must have had trouble sleeping one night. So he brought out his old copy of the Book of Esther and started to read about the exploits of Mordechai the Jew and his niece/adopted daughter Esther, who married the king of Persia. In the end, this lucky liaison saved the Jewish people a lot of grief, but that’s not the point.

The point is, that Mr. Higazi might have been drinking a cup of some hot, watery beverage from Starbucks as he perused the text.  He probably cast a glance at the cup in his hand and suddenly he realized to his horror: the woman on the Starbucks logo must in fact be none other than the Jewish queen Esther, consort of the king of Persia. As proof (if anyone would doubt him), you can see that the woman on the logo wears a crown — as did queen Esther. QED. As soon as Mr. Higazi realized this, there was really only one conclusion: all Arabs and Muslims must boycott Starbucks.

Seriously, next time the Hollywood screenwriters go on strike, Letterman should just open his show by quoting Egyptian TV.

Anyone interested in watching the clip with Mr. Higazi can do so here.

Left Party Leader Rejects Antisemitism — in Theory

Some time ago I wrote about how Lars Ohly, the leader of the Left Party in Sweden, claimed that an antisemitic blog was one of his favorites. Today Svenska Dagbladet publishes a short statement by Ohly, where he states that “antisemitism must be combated wherever it is found”.

He also points out that he has participated in memorial ceremonies on Kristallnacht and on Holocaust Memorial Day on several occasions.

Fair enough. 

But what about that particular blog? Why doesn’t Mr Ohly see it fit to comment on the matter at hand? If he hadn’t declared his support for this one particular blog in the first place, he wouldn’t have had to make this statement. He wants to sound categorical and clear, and he does reject antisemitism — in theory.

When it comes to an actual concrete example of anti-Jewish sentiments expressed by members of his party, he still chooses to avoid the issue.

UPDATE: In an interview in Expo (February 26 2009), Mr. Ohly clarifies that there is indeed antisemitic content on the blog in question, and that if he had known about it, he would never have listed it as one of his favorite blogs. He also says that Party representatives have spoken to the man behind the blog, and asked him to remove the antisemitic content. At the same time, Mr. Ohly doesn’t want to characterize the man responsible for the blog as an antisemite, and points out that most of the offensive content isn’t written by him.