There are definitely European journalists who call a spade a spade, e.g. a terrorist a terrorist, and who denounce the anti-Semitism which the Islamists of the Middle East exalt, but many of their colleagues have given up doing so in order to resort to words like “militants” and “political movement”, or even “resistance” and “social organization”. It is true that the Hitlerjugend also had a social function.
Between Hitler and Nasrallah
And the war they are fighting against Israel is an anti-Semitic war: on the one hand, against the Jewish Israelis and on the other hand, against all Jews worldwide.
Since an accusation this serious cannot be taken lightly, let’s hear what the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah, who has a reputation for doing what he says and saying what he does, has to say about it.
On 19 July 2006, a Katyusha rocket struck the Israeli city of Nazareth; killing two brothers aged three and seven, Ravia and Mahmoud Taluzi. The next day, on Al Jazeera, Nasrallah apologized to the family of the two boys.
Not because he was suddenly struck with remorse after seeing the pictures of dozens of lives annihilated by his missiles, but because the two Israeli boys, Ravia and Mahmoud, were not Jewish.
Here the Islamist leader gives us a contemporary application of the selection which took place during World War II among other children who, underpants down, had to show their genitalia to save their lives. For Nasrallah, as for Hitler, only Jewish children must die.
Another crazy idea is common to both men: all Jews must die. The words of Nasrallah in 2002 couldn’t be any more explicit: “If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”
This didn’t stop him, whilst waiting for a hypothetical mass immigration, from acting on his words in 1994, when Hizbullah terrorists blew up the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 87 people.
Hamas isn't better
We find the same ingredients in the charter of Hamas, which, should it be pointed out, is the party in power in Palestine:
“With their money, they (Jews) took control of the world media… With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world… They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there.
"With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies … With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there… There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.”
Barely aware of this rhetoric of sinister memories, the European general public would doubtless take offence at such ideas and would probably see the conflict that opposes IDF and the spiritual sons of Adolf Hitler from another perspective. So why is this silence from some journalists who are not at a loss for words when it comes to criticizing Israel?
In itself, criticizing Israeli policy is certainly not reprehensible, neither legally nor morally. What is questionable, is the singling out, the exceptional treatment which the Jewish state is subjected to.
Because how on earth can we explain that a nation covering 0.0001 percent of the planet’s surface, whose inhabitants make up one thousandth of the world’s population, and which, according to the annual report by Freedom House, is one of the most democratic states in the world, has attracted so much media attention, whereas Darfur – but we could equally refer to Tibet, Chechnya, Burma or the fate of the Kurds in Syria – has been the stage of 10 daily “Qanas” for the past three years, and is glaringly absent?
There are several explanations for this.
Militantism: A wealth of ideological reasons motivate some journalists who, well aware of the miserable conditions of the populations in the Middle-East, saw fit to opt for the camp of the enemies of Israel, which in their eyes is a symbol of neo-colonialism and imperialism (hard to understand when we consider the surface area of Israel – equal to that of New Jersey – faced with an Arab bloc 676 times larger).
For these information professionals, taking part in the fight justifies silencing or dressing up a certain number of painful truths. The death of Mohammed Al-Dura is one example; the “fauxtography” by Reuters and Associated Press are the latest manifestations of this.
Anti-Semitism: For others, anti-Zionism is an accommodating cover up for shameful anti-Semitism. While this sort of racism is a crime in our countries, they substituted the State with the individual. They will of course forcefully deny these allegations and, paradox or alibi, it is not uncommon to see them pouring out their hearts over the victims of the Shoah with tears in their eyes.
But the very idea of seeing the children of those who escaped defending themselves with weapons against this same genocidal project is unbearable to them. There is an old joke about anti-Semites: “I am not anti-Semitic, some of my best friends are Jewish.” The new anti-Semite has six million Jewish friends.
Conformism: For reasons of simplicity, ignorance or cowardice, many journalists, without sharing in any way the commitment of the former or the unhealthy passions of the latter, are content with obediently following the trail made by the “shepherds”.
These three attitudes are appalling, but although it might seem unrealistic to try reasoning with militants and Anti-Semites, it is definitely worth trying to shake up the conformists.
Here we must call them to order, appeal to their conscience; invoke the professional code of ethics. Or, more simply, invite them to google “Hamas charter” so that they no longer unwittingly ape Al Manar.
Joel Rubinfeld is President of the Brussels-based think tank Atlantis Institute and Secretary-General of the Belgium-Israel Friendship Society