The relevance for Jews and Israelis

  Dina Porat

The current wave of violent Muslim protests against caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad that were published a few months ago by a Danish daily, is a reminder of Samuel Huntington's prophecy on the clash of civilizations. Back in the middle of the 1990s the American scholar envisioned the character of the next world war as a clash between cultures, not armies; a struggle over values and ways of life, not territories or natural resources; an unavoidable clash between Islam and the West.

Many commentators now consider the Danish caricatures as a mere excuse seized upon by Muslim radicals to start a wave of violent reaction against the West and one of its most sacred values, freedom of speech--in effect, a far-reaching, Jihad-like assault that constitutes punishment for the Islamophobia that has spread in the very countries that have been opened to Muslim immigrants. If indeed the struggle is such a world-engulfing one, what is its relevance to Jews and Israelis?

Let me try to pin-point two possible answers. They focus on the call for a compromise to calm down the situation, and the use of the Holocaust by Iran.

During a conference held in Malaysia this week, a compromise was suggested by former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami: the wave of violence would subside, provided that a commitment is made by western countries not to use the freedom of speech in order to defame Muslims' sacred concepts. The most logical reaction to this proposal among Jews is, first, how come we never launched a loud campaign to protest against thousands of far more abusive caricatures, published worldwide for hundreds of years, which have defamed everything dear to us? Did we simply get used to them? And second, we should call upon the United Nations, the European Union, Council of Europe and OSCE to formulate a commitment that freedom of speech will not be used to defame any of the religions.

As an historian who for about 15 years has headed an institute monitoring anti-Semitism and racism, where thousands of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist caricatures are catalogued, I must offer, however reluctantly, a rather pessimistic view: the caricaturing of Jews, their holy scripts, traditions and leaders started more than a thousand years ago, and their negative image is now deeply embedded in western Christian culture. It is part and parcel of every aspect of expression, from sculpture to painting, from prayer books to language. Each generation has found its own means of expression; the caricature is today's main vehicle, blending anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, but its leitmotifs and the basic elements of the negative Jewish images remain intact.

One might also argue that during the last decade it is Muslim rather than Christian propaganda that has repeatedly portrayed a cruel, bloodthirsty image of the Jew and Israeli. Yet Muslim propaganda in general and Muslim caricaturists in particular have adopted Christian elements, from the blood libel to the crucifixion, from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Der Sturmer's medieval physical depiction of the Jew. The portrayal of Palestinians as Christian martyrs persecuted by Jews helps transmit their message. The uprooting of such commonly used and politicized imagery seems hardly possible.

Why did Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinezhad announce a "scholars" conference and a caricatures contest on the Holocaust, and not, say, on Theodor Herzl? Because since the beginning of the 1990s, with the waves of newcomers and foreign workers from the poor southern hemisphere flooding the rich industrial North, legislation there against racism and deprivation of minority rights has become the order of the day. Today it includes some 15 laws against anti-Semitism and denial of the Holocaust. Hence the comparison seemingly begs itself: freedom of speech excludes only the Holocaust.

Still, let me suggest a less well-known reason for the Iranian anti-Holocaust crusade: that same legislation against Holocaust denial, especially in western and central European countries, has put in jail a number of its central figures, such as Germar Rudolf (Germany), Ernst Zundel (Canada) and Siegfried Verbeke (Belgium), with David Irving under arrest and awaiting trial in Austria. Others, fleeing trial, have found refuge in Iran. I would suggest, though I naturally cannot prove it, that the Swiss Jurgen Graf, the Austrian Wolfgang Froelich and the German Horst Mahler, who are either residing in Tehran or visit there frequently, are the moving spirits behind the Iranian campaign. They, and others who have good contacts there such as the French Roger Garaudy, who converted to Islam and is considered a hero in the Arab world, or the Americans Mark Weber and Bradley Smith, are the "scholars" behind the upcoming conference and caricatures contest. Again, Muslim propaganda using Christian and western anti-Jewish elements.

One can already enter the "Official reaction of the Iranian cartoonists to the publication of the drawings humiliating on the Mohamed prophet" [sic] site, which features dozens of very recently-received caricatures from the world at large and warns that the Americans might close the site down any minute because it represents freedom fighters persecuted by the evil powers.

My pessimism notwithstanding, let us call upon the UN Third Committee on Discrimination to ask the representatives of each religion to define precisely what are its most sacred values, and then to reach an agreement signed by all nations not to abuse freedom of speech in order to defame them. This is the least the international community can do.- Published 16/2/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org

Prof. Dina Porat heads The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Racism and Anti-Semitism at The Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, Tel-Aviv University.