Taking as his point of departure the late Robert Wistrich’s 2013 essay “The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism,” Charles Small examines the long history of the hatred of Jews and the causes of its durability. He also elucidates the connections between old-fashioned European anti-Semitism—manifested as religious or racial prejudice—and its newer incarnations in radical Islam and in the anti-Zionism of the far left. Most troublingly, Small points to, and explains, Western academia’s unwillingness to confront these manifestations of anti-Semitism even as it produces much scholarship on its older forms, as well as on the anti-Semitism of today’s far right. (Interview by Jonathan Silver. Audio, 46 minutes. Options for download and streaming are available at the link below.)
Why Universities Have Ignored the New Anti-Semitism
Putting Aside the Pious Lies about the Israel-Palestinian Conflict
In light of recent developments, including Mahmoud Abbas’s unusually frank speech to the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s leadership, Moshe Arens advocates jettisoning some frequently mouthed but clearly false assumptions about Israel’s situation, beginning with the idea that the U.S. should act as a neutral party in negotiations between Jerusalem and Ramallah. (Free registration may be required.)
The United States cannot be, and has never been, neutral in mediating the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It is the leader of the world’s democratic community of nations and cannot assume a neutral position between democratic Israel and the Palestinians, whether represented by an autocratic leadership that glorifies acts of terror or by Islamic fundamentalists who carry out acts of terror. . . .
In recent years the tectonic shifts in the Arab world, the lower price of oil, and the decreased importance attached to the Palestinian issue in much of the region, have essentially removed the main incentive the United States had in past years to stay involved in the conflict. . . .
Despite the conventional wisdom that the core issues—such as Jerusalem or the fate of Israeli settlements beyond the 1949 armistice lines—are the major stumbling blocks to an agreement, the issue for which there seems to be no solution in sight at the moment is making sure that any Israeli military withdrawal will not result in rockets being launched against Israel’s population centers from areas that are turned over to the Palestinians. . . .
Does that mean that Israel is left with a choice between a state with a Palestinian majority or an apartheid state, as claimed by Israel’s left? This imaginary dilemma is based on a deterministic theory of history, which disregards all other possible alternatives in the years to come, and on questionable demographic predictions. What the left is really saying is this: better rockets on Tel Aviv than a continuation of Israeli military control over Judea and Samaria. There is little support in Israel for that view.