2 dec 2017
The Dutch chapter of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement recently asked me to write an essay for Art, Solidarity and Palestine, a day of conferences and debate about the pros and cons of an Israeli boycott due to be held on 29 November, the United Nations International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
Although I was flattered to be asked, I must admit I had to think twice before doing so. Some friends actually advised me not to.
To support or call for an Israeli boycott is no small matter these days. Before you know it, you are labeled an anti-Semite. Or worse.
A criminal offence
In France and some parts of the US it is considered a criminal offence. In March, a group of 43 US senators introduced the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which would make it a nationwide felony with a maximum penalty of $1m and 20 years in prison. As a comparison, the maximum penalty for rape in the Netherlands is 12 years.
Seeing the sensitivities at play, I figured it would do no harm to check if writing anything could get me in trouble. When it comes to the Netherlands, former foreign minister Bert Koenders in May 2016 stated that the Dutch government does not support an Israeli boycott, yet calling for one is protected by freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
And, although the newly appointed government took a turn to the right, that position is unlikely to change.
In implementing its right to self-determination, should Israel not be held to the same basic principles of freedom and equality as any other self-professed democracy?
One should know that freedom of speech is holy in the Netherlands. It is the main platform for the country's right-wing politicians to throw their insults at (Muslim) immigrants. To now make an exception for the call to an Israeli boycott would not only be inconsistent, it would arguably not hold up in court.
Having said that, the Netherlands is also one of 31 states that endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) non-binding working definition of anti-Semitism.
At first sight, there seems nothing wrong with that. "Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews," the IHRA states.
"Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
The IHRA goes on to offer a series of examples, including blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus, accusing them of being behind the ills of the world, or conspiring to take over, as well as any kind of Holocaust denial. Impossible to disagree with any of that, I would say.
Problematic definition of anti-Semitism
However, the IHRA's working definition becomes problematic when it states that "contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life" include "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the state of Israel is a racist endeavour".
This I do not understand. It is an undeniable fact that Israel's Arab citizens, who constitute one-fifth of the population, do not enjoy the same rights as their Jewish counterparts. If someone chooses to qualify this "Israeli inequality" as discriminatory, racist or even apartheid, how does that fundamentally deny the "Jewish people" the right to self-determination?
In implementing its right to self-determination, should Israel not be held to the same basic principles of freedom and equality as any other self-professed democracy?
It speaks for itself that the picture does not get any rosier were we to include the Palestinians living under military occupation in the West Bank, which today is home to some 500,000 Israeli settlers.
The US State Department goes much further than the IHRA. Influenced by such pro-Israel organisations as the Anti-Defamation League, its definition of anti-Semitism includes "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist".
This is a highly problematic formulation, as it somehow equates the notion of the Jewish people's right to self-determination with Israel's right to exist. As if one could not exist without the other.
Yet, one may acknowledge, say, the Kurds' or Catalans' right to self-determination, without supporting their call for a Kurdish or Catalan state.
Secondly, one may acknowledge Israel's right to exist, yet not in its current shape and form. Personally, I oppose the inequality within Israel, the military occupation and settlement of the West Bank, and the de facto occupation of the Gaza Strip.
These factors have reduced the much-discussed two-state solution to a meaningless slogan and are an obstacle to Palestinians implementing their right to self-determination.
BDS goals
What's more, I believe that the current right-wing Israeli government is unwilling to make any concessions. On the contrary, its aim is to fully incorporate what it refers to as "Judea and Samaria". Add to that the support Israel enjoys in Washington and the American power of veto in the UN Security Council, and I do not see any changes for the better coming from that direction.
Hence, a call for a cultural and/or economic boycott is not unreasonable and certainly not anti-Semitic. After all, the stated goals of the BDS are clearly political, namely an end to the Israeli and settler colonisation of Palestinian lands and the Golan Heights, full equality of Palestinian citizens within Israel, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
Perhaps a comparison with other boycotts is helpful. When France did not support the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there was an open call in the US not to buy French products. Not because of some deep inner hatred towards the French, but because of their politics.
Replace France with Israel. Would the call not to buy Israeli products then be considered anti-Semitic?
The boycott of South Africa started in England in 1959 with a call upon British consumers “to withdraw support from apartheid by not buying South African goods”. No one ever denied the South Africans as a people the right to self-determination nor South Africa as a country the right to exist.
Coincidentally, “apartheid” is a Dutch word. Not a legacy to be proud of and arguably one reason that the anti-apartheid movement was very active in the Netherlands. May it be a reminder for people on all sides of the Israeli boycott divide that the South African system of racial segregation was eventually abolished in 1991, while the nation continues to exist.
- Peter Speetjens is a Dutch journalist who lived in Lebanon for 20 years. He was a correspondent for Trouw and De Standaard. His article was published in the Middle East Eye website.
Although I was flattered to be asked, I must admit I had to think twice before doing so. Some friends actually advised me not to.
To support or call for an Israeli boycott is no small matter these days. Before you know it, you are labeled an anti-Semite. Or worse.
A criminal offence
In France and some parts of the US it is considered a criminal offence. In March, a group of 43 US senators introduced the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which would make it a nationwide felony with a maximum penalty of $1m and 20 years in prison. As a comparison, the maximum penalty for rape in the Netherlands is 12 years.
Seeing the sensitivities at play, I figured it would do no harm to check if writing anything could get me in trouble. When it comes to the Netherlands, former foreign minister Bert Koenders in May 2016 stated that the Dutch government does not support an Israeli boycott, yet calling for one is protected by freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
And, although the newly appointed government took a turn to the right, that position is unlikely to change.
In implementing its right to self-determination, should Israel not be held to the same basic principles of freedom and equality as any other self-professed democracy?
One should know that freedom of speech is holy in the Netherlands. It is the main platform for the country's right-wing politicians to throw their insults at (Muslim) immigrants. To now make an exception for the call to an Israeli boycott would not only be inconsistent, it would arguably not hold up in court.
Having said that, the Netherlands is also one of 31 states that endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) non-binding working definition of anti-Semitism.
At first sight, there seems nothing wrong with that. "Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews," the IHRA states.
"Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
The IHRA goes on to offer a series of examples, including blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus, accusing them of being behind the ills of the world, or conspiring to take over, as well as any kind of Holocaust denial. Impossible to disagree with any of that, I would say.
Problematic definition of anti-Semitism
However, the IHRA's working definition becomes problematic when it states that "contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life" include "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the state of Israel is a racist endeavour".
This I do not understand. It is an undeniable fact that Israel's Arab citizens, who constitute one-fifth of the population, do not enjoy the same rights as their Jewish counterparts. If someone chooses to qualify this "Israeli inequality" as discriminatory, racist or even apartheid, how does that fundamentally deny the "Jewish people" the right to self-determination?
In implementing its right to self-determination, should Israel not be held to the same basic principles of freedom and equality as any other self-professed democracy?
It speaks for itself that the picture does not get any rosier were we to include the Palestinians living under military occupation in the West Bank, which today is home to some 500,000 Israeli settlers.
The US State Department goes much further than the IHRA. Influenced by such pro-Israel organisations as the Anti-Defamation League, its definition of anti-Semitism includes "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist".
This is a highly problematic formulation, as it somehow equates the notion of the Jewish people's right to self-determination with Israel's right to exist. As if one could not exist without the other.
Yet, one may acknowledge, say, the Kurds' or Catalans' right to self-determination, without supporting their call for a Kurdish or Catalan state.
Secondly, one may acknowledge Israel's right to exist, yet not in its current shape and form. Personally, I oppose the inequality within Israel, the military occupation and settlement of the West Bank, and the de facto occupation of the Gaza Strip.
These factors have reduced the much-discussed two-state solution to a meaningless slogan and are an obstacle to Palestinians implementing their right to self-determination.
BDS goals
What's more, I believe that the current right-wing Israeli government is unwilling to make any concessions. On the contrary, its aim is to fully incorporate what it refers to as "Judea and Samaria". Add to that the support Israel enjoys in Washington and the American power of veto in the UN Security Council, and I do not see any changes for the better coming from that direction.
Hence, a call for a cultural and/or economic boycott is not unreasonable and certainly not anti-Semitic. After all, the stated goals of the BDS are clearly political, namely an end to the Israeli and settler colonisation of Palestinian lands and the Golan Heights, full equality of Palestinian citizens within Israel, and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.
Perhaps a comparison with other boycotts is helpful. When France did not support the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there was an open call in the US not to buy French products. Not because of some deep inner hatred towards the French, but because of their politics.
Replace France with Israel. Would the call not to buy Israeli products then be considered anti-Semitic?
The boycott of South Africa started in England in 1959 with a call upon British consumers “to withdraw support from apartheid by not buying South African goods”. No one ever denied the South Africans as a people the right to self-determination nor South Africa as a country the right to exist.
Coincidentally, “apartheid” is a Dutch word. Not a legacy to be proud of and arguably one reason that the anti-apartheid movement was very active in the Netherlands. May it be a reminder for people on all sides of the Israeli boycott divide that the South African system of racial segregation was eventually abolished in 1991, while the nation continues to exist.
- Peter Speetjens is a Dutch journalist who lived in Lebanon for 20 years. He was a correspondent for Trouw and De Standaard. His article was published in the Middle East Eye website.
24 nov 2017
Former Dutch Prime Minister Dries Van Agt said that “Israel, for those who do not know, has a range of nuclear bombs, [and] is the most dangerous country in the Middle East.”
This came in a speech delivered by Van Agt during a discussion session on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, organized by the “Youth Socialists in the city of Utrecht,” on Thursday.
Van Agt explained, according to Al Ray, that “Israel seems to the world public opinion as if living under constant threat, as a small place among a number of Arab countries,” he said.
“The whole world is turning a blind eye to the siege imposed on the Palestinian Gaza Strip, including the Netherlands,” he said.
“The interest in the Palestinian cause has decreased significantly over the past few years,” said Agt, who went on to defend Palestinian rights after leaving politics.
“There are several factors, but the most important thing is that people are beginning to look at it as something natural, along with the disintegration of the Middle East,” he said.
Van Agt led the Dutch government between 1977 and 1982, a member of the Christian Democratic Union Party, with a book called “An uprising against injustice, and the tragedy of the Palestinian people.”
This came in a speech delivered by Van Agt during a discussion session on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, organized by the “Youth Socialists in the city of Utrecht,” on Thursday.
Van Agt explained, according to Al Ray, that “Israel seems to the world public opinion as if living under constant threat, as a small place among a number of Arab countries,” he said.
“The whole world is turning a blind eye to the siege imposed on the Palestinian Gaza Strip, including the Netherlands,” he said.
“The interest in the Palestinian cause has decreased significantly over the past few years,” said Agt, who went on to defend Palestinian rights after leaving politics.
“There are several factors, but the most important thing is that people are beginning to look at it as something natural, along with the disintegration of the Middle East,” he said.
Van Agt led the Dutch government between 1977 and 1982, a member of the Christian Democratic Union Party, with a book called “An uprising against injustice, and the tragedy of the Palestinian people.”
22 nov 2017
A Dutch government-backed promotion at a Shufersal store in Pisgat Zeev settlement in the occupied West Bank, on 17 November, two days after Dutch foreign minister Halbe Zijlstra told parliament the promotion was not taking place in settlements.
The Dutch foreign minister has misled parliament about a deal between his country’s embassy in Tel Aviv and an Israeli supermarket chain that operates in settlements in the occupied West Bank.
In partnership with the Netherlands embassy, Israel’s Shufersal chain is running a month-long promotion of Dutch products in its stores.
The partnership violates long-standing Dutch government policy against supporting business in or with Israeli settlements, all of which are illegal under international law.
Foreign minister Halbe Zijlstra claimed that the promotion is not taking place in Shufersal stores in West Bank settlements.
In response to questions from lawmakers on 15 November, Zijlstra acknowledged that Shufersal “has branches in Israel as well as branches in the West Bank, in Palestinian territory.”
He stated: “The Dutch embassy was very careful. The activities that it undertook were only focused on the supermarkets in Israel.”
Zijlstra also reiterated the longstanding government policy of “discouraging” Dutch companies from working in occupied territories.
But what Zijlstra said simply isn’t true.
False statement
Last week, The Electronic Intifada published a photo showing that the Dutch food promotion is taking place at the Shufersal Deal store at 17 Tzvia ve Yitzhak Street in the Gilo settlement in the occupied West Bank.
Photos taken by an Israeli citizen show the Dutch promotion displayed all over the store, including signs confirming that the initiative is “in partnership with the Netherlands embassy.”
For further confirmation, The Electronic Intifada asked the same Israeli citizen to visit another Shufersal store in a different settlement to see if the Dutch government-backed promotion was going on there too.
On 17 November, the citizen visited the Shufersal store at 106 Moshe Dayan Street in the Pisgat Zeev settlement and photographed evidence that the promotion is going on – again directly contradicting the Dutch foreign minister’s statement to parliament.
Two of those photos are published with this article.
Violating own policy
The Dutch foreign minister has misled parliament about a deal between his country’s embassy in Tel Aviv and an Israeli supermarket chain that operates in settlements in the occupied West Bank.
In partnership with the Netherlands embassy, Israel’s Shufersal chain is running a month-long promotion of Dutch products in its stores.
The partnership violates long-standing Dutch government policy against supporting business in or with Israeli settlements, all of which are illegal under international law.
Foreign minister Halbe Zijlstra claimed that the promotion is not taking place in Shufersal stores in West Bank settlements.
In response to questions from lawmakers on 15 November, Zijlstra acknowledged that Shufersal “has branches in Israel as well as branches in the West Bank, in Palestinian territory.”
He stated: “The Dutch embassy was very careful. The activities that it undertook were only focused on the supermarkets in Israel.”
Zijlstra also reiterated the longstanding government policy of “discouraging” Dutch companies from working in occupied territories.
But what Zijlstra said simply isn’t true.
False statement
Last week, The Electronic Intifada published a photo showing that the Dutch food promotion is taking place at the Shufersal Deal store at 17 Tzvia ve Yitzhak Street in the Gilo settlement in the occupied West Bank.
Photos taken by an Israeli citizen show the Dutch promotion displayed all over the store, including signs confirming that the initiative is “in partnership with the Netherlands embassy.”
For further confirmation, The Electronic Intifada asked the same Israeli citizen to visit another Shufersal store in a different settlement to see if the Dutch government-backed promotion was going on there too.
On 17 November, the citizen visited the Shufersal store at 106 Moshe Dayan Street in the Pisgat Zeev settlement and photographed evidence that the promotion is going on – again directly contradicting the Dutch foreign minister’s statement to parliament.
Two of those photos are published with this article.
Violating own policy
Earlier this month, Zijlstra told lawmakers that the government “does not provide services to Dutch companies when it comes to activities that they develop in or for the benefit of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.”
Yet the Dutch embassy’s arrangement with Shufersal blatantly violates this policy by directly assisting a number of Dutch firms to promote their goods in settlements and therefore to profit from trade there.
These companies include well-known Dutch brands such as Calvé, Gouda’s Glorie, Vos Banket, Merba, De Ruijter, Buiteman, Jeurgens and Daelmans, which makes stroopwafels, a syrup-filled cookie that has been aggressively marketed in the US in recent years.
And no less significant, the Dutch government is lending its name and legitimacy to Shufersal, which is among more than 100 firms likely to appear on a UN list of companies doing business in Israeli settlements.
Palestinians have hailed the list, whose creation was mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, as the first concrete step to hold Israel accountable for its settler-colonization of the occupied West Bank, which Israel has carried on for decades with impunity.
There is a growing consensus among international jurists and human rights organizations that business and trade in and with Israeli settlements must be ended because it sustains Israel’s occupation and illegal colonization and enables serious crimes against Palestinians.
While there is no doubt Zijlstra gave false information to parliament, what remains unclear is whether he did so knowingly – meaning he lied – or whether he was provided with false information by other Dutch officials, or by Shufersal.
In any case, there can be no possible excuse for Dutch official complicity and support for Israel’s settlements.
The Dutch foreign ministry was presented with the evidence contained in this article but has yet to provide an explanation.
Adri Nieuwhof contributed research and translation.
Yet the Dutch embassy’s arrangement with Shufersal blatantly violates this policy by directly assisting a number of Dutch firms to promote their goods in settlements and therefore to profit from trade there.
These companies include well-known Dutch brands such as Calvé, Gouda’s Glorie, Vos Banket, Merba, De Ruijter, Buiteman, Jeurgens and Daelmans, which makes stroopwafels, a syrup-filled cookie that has been aggressively marketed in the US in recent years.
And no less significant, the Dutch government is lending its name and legitimacy to Shufersal, which is among more than 100 firms likely to appear on a UN list of companies doing business in Israeli settlements.
Palestinians have hailed the list, whose creation was mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, as the first concrete step to hold Israel accountable for its settler-colonization of the occupied West Bank, which Israel has carried on for decades with impunity.
There is a growing consensus among international jurists and human rights organizations that business and trade in and with Israeli settlements must be ended because it sustains Israel’s occupation and illegal colonization and enables serious crimes against Palestinians.
While there is no doubt Zijlstra gave false information to parliament, what remains unclear is whether he did so knowingly – meaning he lied – or whether he was provided with false information by other Dutch officials, or by Shufersal.
In any case, there can be no possible excuse for Dutch official complicity and support for Israel’s settlements.
The Dutch foreign ministry was presented with the evidence contained in this article but has yet to provide an explanation.
Adri Nieuwhof contributed research and translation.
26 oct 2017
|
|
The state of Israel is a model for the extreme right in the US and in Europe.
SHIR HEVER: The success of Sebastian Kurz in Austria’s recent election means that the extreme right Freedom Party, the FPO, will likely join the governing coalition. Populist right-wing parties are on the rise in many European countries in recent years. These parties include the Party of Freedom in the Netherlands headed by Geert Wilders, the National Front in France headed by Marine Le Pen, the Sweden Democrats headed by Jimmie Akesson, and more. |
Although highly nationalistic in their politics, these right-wing parties are very similar to each other. They share an Islamophobic and xenophobic ideology, and very interestingly, they all share a strong support for Zionism and for the state of Israel.
Michael Colborne wrote an article for the Haaretz newspaper with the title “Rise of a New Far-right: The European ‘Philosemites’ Using Jews to Battle Muslims,” to address the seeming contradiction in the European far-right.
Indeed, there really is no difference between philo-Semitism and anti-Semitism. There is no such thing as positive racism. The far-right groups did not replace their hatred of Jews with the hatred of Muslims. They continue to hate both groups.
Richard Silverstein told The Real News about how the election of President Trump emboldened those groups in the United States.
R. SILVERSTEIN I think that the anti-Semites in the United States are affiliated with the alt-right movement that you correctly associated with Breitbart, and this alt-right movement includes a very big cadre of anti-Semites, and they feel empowered by Trump’s victory and his nativist, kind of populist, extremist kind of views. That’s why a lot of the anti-Semitic attacks are happening, and they’re very much linked to the attacks on the Muslim community, which is why American Jews should really be making common cause with Muslims.
SHIR HEVER: White nationalism has its roots in Europe in the 19th century as it developed and took form in order to serve as justification for European colonialism. In those European countries that had smaller and fewer colonies, such as Germany, Italy, and Hungary, white nationalism turned inwards in the form of fascism, implementing the strict, hierarchical, colonial structure on their own citizens. It sought to find its enemies within and turned on minorities.During the Second World War, an unprecedented industrial genocide was perpetrated against Jews, against Sinti and Roma, against homosexuals and lesbians, against people with mental disabilities, and against others who were deemed enemies of the state.
Since Jews were targeted above all other groups during this genocide, and since the State of Israel, which was founded three years after the Holocaust, defines itself as a Jewish state, it raises the question of why does the European racist right-wing support the State of Israel? Aren’t they on completely opposite sides?There are two explanations for this. One is that the Zionist movement and the State of Israel seek to convince Jews from all over the world to migrate to the State of Israel. The prospect of European Jews and North American Jews leaving their homes and moving to the Middle East appeals to many racist groups. The second explanation for the alliance between the Western far-right and the State of Israel is that Israeli policies towards immigrants, towards Arabs and towards Muslims, are precisely the kind of policies that the European and North American far-right would like to implement.President Trump, during his campaign for the presidency, commented on Fox & Friends on how the US can and should imitate Israeli racial profiling.
DONALD TRUMP: Our local police, they know who a lot of these people are. They’re afraid to do anything about it because they don’t want to be accused of profiling, and they don’t want to be accused of all sorts of things. You know, in Israel they profile. They’ve done an unbelievable job, as good as you can do.
SPEAKER: Sure.
DONALD TRUMP: But Israel has done an unbelievable job, and they’ll profile. They profile. They see somebody that’s suspicious, they will profile, they will take that person and they’ll check out, “Do we have a choice?” Look what’s going on. Do we really have a choice? We’re trying to be so politically correct in our country, and this is only going to get worse.
SHIR HEVER: In the European context, fear of immigration fuels the extreme right. Lia Tarachansky told The Real News how Israeli policies towards asylum seekers inspire the European right.
L. TARACHANSKY: The African refugees like the Palestinian laborers pay taxes to the State of Israel, while they receive absolutely no services whatsoever from the State of Israel. They don’t get shelters. They don’t get basic food supplies. They don’t get health care. Zero, nothing. On top of paying taxes to a government that does not provide them with any services, they are now going to have these wages taken, and as far as I know, and I’m of course not a refugee expert, no other country does that.Now, you have to understand that Israel actually promotes itself to Europe, which is currently seen as in a crisis of migration, as the frontier of effective policies on how to basically prevent migrants from coming into your borders. Israel is using this as yet another tool in its marketing campaign that it’s trying to convince other Western nations, other developed nations, to adopt in their attack on globalized migration.
SHIR HEVER: The current wave of right-wing nationalism in Europe has adopted the prejudice that all Jews are Zionists. They invite European and American Jews to join their movement against what they perceive is the common Muslim enemy. The vast majority of European and American Jews, however, reject this invitation. They may be invited to the feast for now, but they know that it is the Jews themselves who will be served for dessert.
Michael Colborne wrote an article for the Haaretz newspaper with the title “Rise of a New Far-right: The European ‘Philosemites’ Using Jews to Battle Muslims,” to address the seeming contradiction in the European far-right.
Indeed, there really is no difference between philo-Semitism and anti-Semitism. There is no such thing as positive racism. The far-right groups did not replace their hatred of Jews with the hatred of Muslims. They continue to hate both groups.
Richard Silverstein told The Real News about how the election of President Trump emboldened those groups in the United States.
R. SILVERSTEIN I think that the anti-Semites in the United States are affiliated with the alt-right movement that you correctly associated with Breitbart, and this alt-right movement includes a very big cadre of anti-Semites, and they feel empowered by Trump’s victory and his nativist, kind of populist, extremist kind of views. That’s why a lot of the anti-Semitic attacks are happening, and they’re very much linked to the attacks on the Muslim community, which is why American Jews should really be making common cause with Muslims.
SHIR HEVER: White nationalism has its roots in Europe in the 19th century as it developed and took form in order to serve as justification for European colonialism. In those European countries that had smaller and fewer colonies, such as Germany, Italy, and Hungary, white nationalism turned inwards in the form of fascism, implementing the strict, hierarchical, colonial structure on their own citizens. It sought to find its enemies within and turned on minorities.During the Second World War, an unprecedented industrial genocide was perpetrated against Jews, against Sinti and Roma, against homosexuals and lesbians, against people with mental disabilities, and against others who were deemed enemies of the state.
Since Jews were targeted above all other groups during this genocide, and since the State of Israel, which was founded three years after the Holocaust, defines itself as a Jewish state, it raises the question of why does the European racist right-wing support the State of Israel? Aren’t they on completely opposite sides?There are two explanations for this. One is that the Zionist movement and the State of Israel seek to convince Jews from all over the world to migrate to the State of Israel. The prospect of European Jews and North American Jews leaving their homes and moving to the Middle East appeals to many racist groups. The second explanation for the alliance between the Western far-right and the State of Israel is that Israeli policies towards immigrants, towards Arabs and towards Muslims, are precisely the kind of policies that the European and North American far-right would like to implement.President Trump, during his campaign for the presidency, commented on Fox & Friends on how the US can and should imitate Israeli racial profiling.
DONALD TRUMP: Our local police, they know who a lot of these people are. They’re afraid to do anything about it because they don’t want to be accused of profiling, and they don’t want to be accused of all sorts of things. You know, in Israel they profile. They’ve done an unbelievable job, as good as you can do.
SPEAKER: Sure.
DONALD TRUMP: But Israel has done an unbelievable job, and they’ll profile. They profile. They see somebody that’s suspicious, they will profile, they will take that person and they’ll check out, “Do we have a choice?” Look what’s going on. Do we really have a choice? We’re trying to be so politically correct in our country, and this is only going to get worse.
SHIR HEVER: In the European context, fear of immigration fuels the extreme right. Lia Tarachansky told The Real News how Israeli policies towards asylum seekers inspire the European right.
L. TARACHANSKY: The African refugees like the Palestinian laborers pay taxes to the State of Israel, while they receive absolutely no services whatsoever from the State of Israel. They don’t get shelters. They don’t get basic food supplies. They don’t get health care. Zero, nothing. On top of paying taxes to a government that does not provide them with any services, they are now going to have these wages taken, and as far as I know, and I’m of course not a refugee expert, no other country does that.Now, you have to understand that Israel actually promotes itself to Europe, which is currently seen as in a crisis of migration, as the frontier of effective policies on how to basically prevent migrants from coming into your borders. Israel is using this as yet another tool in its marketing campaign that it’s trying to convince other Western nations, other developed nations, to adopt in their attack on globalized migration.
SHIR HEVER: The current wave of right-wing nationalism in Europe has adopted the prejudice that all Jews are Zionists. They invite European and American Jews to join their movement against what they perceive is the common Muslim enemy. The vast majority of European and American Jews, however, reject this invitation. They may be invited to the feast for now, but they know that it is the Jews themselves who will be served for dessert.
