How Modern Anti-Semitism Is Predicated on Memory of the Holocaust

Today’s anti-Semitism, writes Shmuel Trigano, even if it is not so different from the anti-Semitism of previous eras, finds its main expression in objection to the Jewish state’s existence. But while the Muslim variant is explicable in that it is rooted in religious rejection of Jewish sovereignty in the midst of the Middle East, the Western variety is harder to understand:

Western anti-Zionism . . . predicates itself on “compassion” and memory of the Holocaust. Not only does Western anti-Zionism accuse the Jews and the state of Israel of cynically exploiting the memory of the Holocaust; not only does it equate the Holocaust with the Palestinian “Nakba” (caused by the failed war of annihilation against the Jews in Israel) by establishing the Jews as modern-day Nazis, but the West has become a world where monuments and museums are erected to preserve the memory of the Holocaust, while the state of Israel is simultaneously outcast and stigmatized under the auspices of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement and legal warfare. Memory of the Holocaust is permitted; the right to the Western Wall is not.

The French [statesman] General Charles de Gaulle expressed this view perfectly in his outrageous comments following the Six-Day War, when he asserted that Israel had crossed its moral and political boundaries. The existence of the Jewish state, according to de Gaulle, was a form of compensation for the Holocaust and reparation for Europe’s crime against the Jewish people. With that, the Jews—in his mind—do not have the right to [violate European-imposed] boundaries or deem themselves sovereign or independent, and if they dare think otherwise, they will lose the support of France, which will no longer come to help them if they are in danger of being destroyed. . . .

At the core of [this sort of anti-Semitism], which [is just the old anti-Semitism] cloaked in different attire, is the humiliated Jew, stripped of legitimacy, denied any justification for living according to the accepted norms of the times, [and] attacked in a tangible way.

Read more at Israel Hayom

More about: Anti-Semitism, Charles de Gaulle, Holocaust, Israel & Zionism


Only Hamas’s Defeat Can Pave the Path to Peace

Opponents of the IDF’s campaign in Gaza often appeal to two related arguments: that Hamas is rooted in a set of ideas and thus cannot be defeated militarily, and that the destruction in Gaza only further radicalizes Palestinians, thus increasing the threat to Israel. Rejecting both lines of thinking, Ghaith al-Omar writes:

What makes Hamas and similar militant organizations effective is not their ideologies but their ability to act on them. For Hamas, the sustained capacity to use violence was key to helping it build political power. Back in the 1990s, Hamas’s popularity was at its lowest point, as most Palestinians believed that liberation could be achieved by peaceful and diplomatic means. Its use of violence derailed that concept, but it established Hamas as a political alternative.

Ever since, the use of force and violence has been an integral part of Hamas’s strategy. . . . Indeed, one lesson from October 7 is that while Hamas maintains its military and violent capabilities, it will remain capable of shaping the political reality. To be defeated, Hamas must be denied that. This can only be done through the use of force.

Any illusions that Palestinian and Israeli societies can now trust one another or even develop a level of coexistence anytime soon should be laid to rest. If it can ever be reached, such an outcome is at best a generational endeavor. . . . Hamas triggered war and still insists that it would do it all again given the chance, so it will be hard-pressed to garner a following from Palestinians in Gaza who suffered so horribly for its decision.

Read more at Washington Institute for Near East Policy

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict