2014.
13. Damien Sharkov, “Pro-ISIS Demonstrators Call for ‘Death to Jews’ in the Netherlands,” Newsweek Europe, July 30, 2014.
14. Gilad Atmon, The Wandering Who: A Study of Jewish Identity Politics (Winchester, UK: Zero Books, 2011), pp. 54, 188, 175.
15. Ibid.
16. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), p. 188.
17. Leon Wieseltier, “Something Much Darker,” New Republic, February 8, 2010. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/something-much-darker.
18. Jonathan Chait, “Andrew Sullivan Is Not an Anti-Semite,” New Republic, February 9, 2010. http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/andrew-sullivan-not-anti-semite.
19. Jeffrey Goldberg, “Leon Wieseltier, Andrew Sullivan and Anti-Semitism,” Atlantic, February 10, 2010. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/02/leon-wieseltier-andrew-sullivan-and-anti-semitism/35682/.
20. “George Galloway Blames Israel for Ukraine Revolution.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ecTkBDwDKg. I am grateful to Adam Levick of UK Media Watch whose research pointed me to the various video clips of Galloway cited in this paragraph.
21. “G. Galloway on the difference between anti Zionism & anti Semitism.” https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=544780715569990.
22. “Galloway: Bradford is an Israel Free Zone.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMSM5vvAmYs.
23. “‘I Greet You in the Name of Thousands of Britons,’” Times (London), January 20, 1994.
24. “Episode 59,” RT Question More. Sputnik. http://rt.com/shows/sputnik/218959-gilhad-atzmon-dj-motown/.
25. Stephen Castle, “European Trade Chief Accused of Anti-Semitism,” New York Times, September 3, 2010.
26. “Academic Freedom and Anti-Semitism,” Remarks of Lawrence H. Summers, Columbia Center for Law and Liberty, January 29, 2015. http://larrysummers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/AcademicFreedomAndAntiSemitism_FINAL1-2.pdf.
*Available at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HS4EQGA/ref=s9_qpp_gw_p351_d18_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=18HT3FC4NWD859N4JP9Y&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop and http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/liberal-oasis-joshua-muravchik/1118576613?ean=9781594037559.
In October 2009, a United Nations’ investigatory commission chaired by the Jewish jurist, Richard Goldstone, accused Israel of “crimes against humanity” during the three-week war in Gaza the previous winter. This extraordinary category of crime was invented for the Nuremberg trials following World War II, which condemned the surviving leaders of the Nazi regime for the systematic mass murder of Jews and others. Now things had come full circle: the Jews themselves stood accused.
This moment underlined a dramatic change in international opinion that would have seemed unthinkable a few decades earlier. Little more than forty years had elapsed since underdog Israel had fought a six-day war against its Arab neighbors in which the Western world had cheered for its victory. For example, in Great Britain, where attitudes toward Israel had been chillier than elsewhere in Western Europe, virtually every major newspaper editorialized in support of the Jewish state. The British government took it upon itself to introduce UN Security Council Resolution 242, which affirmed Israel’s right to live in peace behind “secure and recognized boundaries”—a formula that implicitly endorsed alterations to the pre-war armistice lines to allow Israel more favorable borders. Efforts by the Arab states to rally support for their cause in the General Assembly, where London and Washington wielded no veto, were rebuffed, with a substantial number of states condoning Israel’s action.
But, by 2009, this sympathy seemed a distant memory in the United Kingdom and the rest of Western Europe, and the United Nations was arrayed overwhelmingly against Israel. Its Human Rights Council, which had created the Goldstone Commission, in the few years since its formation, had already adopted multiple resolutions condemning Israel for one thing or another, while rarely rebuking any other government even once. The Jewish state, once widely admired for its resolution “never again” to allow Jews to be targeted, now was denounced each time it raised its hand against murderous enemies.
In singling out Israel, the Human Rights Council was far from alone. Its predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights, had practiced the same one-sidedness, as had the UN General Assembly, which had lacerated Israel in countless resolutions, even going so far as to endorse terrorist attacks on Israel as legitimate “resistance.”
Although the United Nations constituted an especially fertile field for denunciations of Israel, many other national and international bodies, including many in the West, joined this chorus. British teacher unions proclaimed academic boycotts of Israel; mainline Protestant churches in the United States divested from companies doing business with Israel; Norwegian supermarkets boycotted Israeli goods; Sweden’s largest newspaper concocted sensational stories that Israel was slaughtering Palestinians to harvest and sell their organs; reputable international human rights organizations focused more on Israel than on the world’s most egregious tyrannies; and a former president of the United States issued a book accusing Israel of practicing “apartheid.”
In short, the “global community” had stamped Israel as an outcast. What had happened in the intervening decades to occasion such a dramatic turnaround?
On the surface, there were two explanations. First, the Arab cause, reactionary, overtly homicidal in its objectives, and expressed in bluster, had been replaced by the far more sympathetic and “progressive” Palestinian cause. Instead of proclaiming openly their determination to deny the Jews a state, Israel’s enemies now accused the Jews of denying that same right to another people, the Palestinians.
Second, Israel no longer seemed endangered. The Egyptian and Syrian rulers who had mobilized their armies on its frontiers in 1967 had trumpeted their intent to annihilate the Jewish state. Although Israel had defeated Arab opponents in 1948 and 1956, it remained surrounded and outnumbered, and in 1967, with memories of the Holocaust still fresh, nobody felt certain that the Jewish state would survive this more determined threat to its survival. But four decades and several wars later, Israel appeared invulnerable. In a complete reversal of fortune, David seemed to have become Goliath.
Although superficially plausible, neither of these explanations was sufficient to account for the vehemence with which world opinion turned against Israel. It was true that the Palestinians had suffered at Israel’s hands (as Israel had at theirs). And yet, no reasonable person could argue that Israel’s abuses equaled, much less exceeded, those of scores of