Issue No. 597
Opinion
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
1 - 7 August 2002 Issue No. 597 Opinion |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Who are the racists?
Accusations of "anti-Semitism" in the Egyptian press do not stand up to scrutiny, writes Ibrahim Nafie
In Egypt we are used to the insidious attacks on our politicians and intellectuals unleashed by the US Zionist lobby in coordination with Zionist groups in Europe. The most salient common denominator of these campaigns is the spurious charge of anti-Semitism. And that the Egyptian press is laden with material deliberately intended to foment hatred of Jews is one of the most often repeated accusations.
As Mubarak himself has frequently pointed out, the Arabs are Semites too, rendering the allegation of anti-Semitism against us a contradiction in terms. But even on the basis of the term's imputation of racism the charge cannot stand. Racism is a mode of behaviour based on the tendency to attribute to certain ethnic groups certain intrinsic and immutable traits. Certainly, this definition does not apply to the Egyptian media, in which the bulk of what has been branded as "anti-Semitic" are, in fact, criticisms of Israeli policy and condemnations of the practices of the Israeli occupation forces.
Simultaneously, we can easily come up with dozens of utterances by political and religious leaders in Israel that fit the definition of racism to the core. Here, however, the racism is directed against Arabs, both Muslim and Christian. The hypocrisy of this situation is deplorable and demands a firm stance.
I have in front of me a report that was circulated among the heads of diplomatic missions in Cairo on "anti-Semitism" in the Egyptian press. It is divided into two sections, the first covering excerpts from newspapers it categorises as official and the second the opposition press. This very categorisation is eminently suitable to Zionist aims as it facilitates holding the Egyptian government responsible for independent views expressed in the press.
The overwhelming majority of the so-called samples of anti-Semitism contained in this report are, in fact, writers' personal opinions on Israeli policy and the atrocities committed by the occupation army against the Palestinian people. Typical of the articles cited is that which denounces the war crimes committed against Palestinian school children. Is this anti- Semitic?
In another article cited in the report, the writer charges that Israel is practicing terrorism. How is one to describe Israeli policy towards the Palestinian people other than as terrorism by an occupying power, and the crimes the occupation forces have perpetrated in Jenin and Nablus other than crimes against humanity? Why else did the Security Council approve the US-sponsored compromise resolution to send a fact-finding commission to Jenin and Nablus?
Another supposedly anti-Semitic article spoke of the terrorism perpetrated against Palestinians by "Zionist gangs" before the establishment of Israel. I would advise reading modern Israeli historians Ilan Pappe and Benni Morris, whose works make it impossible to escape the conclusion that terror was a major component of the thinking and actions of the Zionist gangs.
Also branded as "anti-Semitic" is an article describing Sharon as a war criminal and a terrorist no less evil than Bin Laden. This is indeed curious when we read Sharon's statement following Israel's incursion into Gaza. Revelling in the slaughter of innocent civilians, among whom was a child of two months, he described this offensive as "one of the most successful operations Israel has undertaken". As Sharon promised more of the same, UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson decried Israel's actions as a violation of the principles of "democratic states and international law".
We come, now, to that collection of articles that the report claims represent the epitome of anti-Semitism. In these articles, the authors liken Israeli policies to Nazism and Sharon to Hitler. I am aware of the impact such comparisons have on the European mind. However, to Egyptians and Arabs, for whom that experience was remote, Nazism represents a racist movement that perpetrated atrocities against humanity in Europe. On this basis, it is not difficult to perceive why Egyptian and Arab writers draw a comparison between Nazism and Sharon's practices. While there remains a vast difference in scale, there are nevertheless distinct similarities between Nazi and Zionist premises and attitudes.
In Jewish Fundamentalism, the late Israel Shahak expressed his shock at the rabid racism voiced by certain Jewish groups against the Palestinians and Arabs. He points in particular to the adherents of Rabbis Koch, father and son, and to Yehoshua Arieli who held that the 1967 War marked the beginning of a metaphysical transformation for Israel. The Israeli victory in that war "wrested that land from the power of the devil to the divine realm". He continues: "Any withdrawal from this land will have metaphysical consequences that could enable Satan to regain his hold on this land." The movement that this rabbi represents justifies slaughtering Palestinians on the grounds that such acts "purge the land of the devil and the evil that provokes God's wrath". Shahak comments: "Change the word Jewish to German or Arian and non-Jew to Jew and you have the creed that made Auschwitz possible in the past." He adds that the similarities between Jewish political messianism and German Nazism are as clear as daylight, for non-Jews to the proponents of Jewish political messianism are as the Jews were to the Nazis.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
