The Old Jews vs. “The New Jews”: A Comparison
I have said before that the Anti-Defamation League is not itself to be faulted, but only the fact that their modus operandi has been copied by the Muslim enemy (as is the Koran a ripoff of the Tanach, and as is the “Palestinian Nation” fraud a cynical imitation of Zionism), foremostly by CAIR. So it is only natural that the Muslims should portray themselves as “The New Jews”, and “Islamophobia” the counterpart of anti-Semitism. Leftists play gladly here: Daily Kos once did a diary on that theme, and just recently the British TreasonMedia rag The Guardian featured an article, titled “This scapegoating is rolling back the gains of anti-racism”, by Martin Jacques, where he brazenly ignores the fact of Islam being a religion, a doctrinally supra-racial religion, and warns of anti-Muslim racism. (Question: if a black Christian policeman arrests a blond, blue-eyed convert to Islam, is it racism? An answer of “Yes” is the minimum necessary to score an MQ (Moonbat Quotient) of 100).
To every argument a response, if not a refutation. How do the Muslims of today fare in their “Jewishness”? Jewishness being, according to the Leftist definition, the status of victimhood, scapegoating, prejudice and the like. That definition, that focus, is already a reason why the “Muslims as New Jews” ploy won’t fly—I’ll come to that later.
First of all: Jew-hatred has always required conspiracism as its base, while “Islamophobia” is based on things seen in the light of day and heard cried out loud. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were, by the author’s admission, even to the very title, overheard in secret, not meant to be revealed at all; the Dolchstosslegende, the legend according to which Germany lost World War I because the Jews stabbed it in the back, is similar, for a stab in the back is something done unawares; and the blood libel is altogether something that makes me remember why G-d is to be trusted over humanity every time. The blood libel, saying Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children to bake matzos for Passover, is beyond conspiracism. For conspiracism has going against it only the lack of evidence for it, while the blood libel is sustained by ignoring the evidence to the contrary. The Torah and all its rabbinical commentaries forbid the Jew to drink a single drop of blood, something which only for non-Jews is allowed (for which see, for example, the German Blutwurst).
The student of the Orthodox Jewish sources will find many politically-incorrect ideas, especially exceptionalism, but not a plot to control and dominate the world. What is there is there and can only be admitted: disparaging words about Jesus, for example (in the past, those were censored from European editions of the Talmud). But what is not there can only be fabricated, and that is what Jew-haters have done throughout countless generations.
In contrast, the mainstream canon of Islam is explicit about the goal of Islamic world domination and the means of furthering it. Radical Muslims have no problem appealing to the sources of Islam to rally Muslims to jihad and to cower their moderate brethren into silence. Nor do they hide those views from public:
These things are public. For a Muslim to say them is to be a practitioner of his religion; it is only when a non-Muslim quotes the same sources and shows the same scenes as a criticism that it becomes “Islamophobia”. A Muslim leader in Australia can compare unveiled women to uncovered meat, and a Muslim leader in Britain can say a whole host of things that offend the sensibilities of the host society around him, but as soon as it comes out as scandalous, they cry it has been “quoted out of context”.
There was Rosa Luxemburg, a Jewish woman who launched an attempt at a Communist coup of the Weimar Republic, and many Jews of similar misfortune. But she did not do it in the name of Judaism, at least not of Orthodox Judaism, except for maybe an appeal here and there to Jewish sentiments à la Perchik. In contrast to that, every Muslim terrorist gladly and loudly proclaims to be doing it in the name of Islam. Among “multicultural” societies, the phenomena of Hinduphobia, Buddhophobia, Sikhophobia, Bahaiphobia, Zoroastrophobia, Taophobia, Confuciophobia (you think of the rest) are scarce to be found, if at all; only Judeophobia and “Islamophobia” are prevalent, the former being carried over from days of old, now under the mantle of anti-Zionism, and the latter is quoted because the word, “phobia” means “irrational fear”, while there is nothing whatever irrational in the fear of Islam. 9/11 as an act of Islamic terrorism was clear for all to see; the alternatives, such as the hypothesis that it was a “Jewish plot, executed by the Mossad”, is a conspiracy theory, same as The Protocols. In short: Judeophobia grows out of conspiracy theories and lies, while “Islamophobia” is the result of reflecting on the events in plain sight. Whether it is because of 9/11 or the Danish Cartoons Affair or the Kassam rockets, a formerly tolerant person becomes an “Islamophobe” because the events have made him rethink his position; Jew-hatred, on the other hand, is usually already there, waiting to find an event to support it, such as “the oppression of the Palestinians” or the alleged mistreatment of women in buses by Ultra-Orthodox Jews. Jimmy “Too Many Jews” Carter didn’t just wake up one morning and decide to write his book.
And there are some true accusations, such as Jews as money-lenders, which brings me to the second point: the Jews’ lowly status was usually forced, while Muslims inflict their woes upon themselves. With nearly all occupations in Medieval Europe requiring a Christian oath, money-lending was among the few left to the Jews. As soon as the requirement was repealed, Jews filled new roles in their host countries (until banished, or worse). To contrast to this, the Muslims withdraw from their host societies far beyond the need to maintain their identity: they could marry European converts, but they prefer to stick to their custom of cousin marriage; and they reject modern medicine on grounds of purity laws. Wherever the Muslims are in a miserable state, it will be found that they are the ones who perpetuate it, through their rejection of “infidel” achievements; and more, they desire to drag their host societies to their level, and say so publicly. Society is open to them as it was not to Jews in the past—no Christian oath required, no numerus clausus policies, in fact, quite the opposite, a society that has engraved equal opportunity on its banner, to the point of opting for Affirmative Action rather than selection by merit. As of their starting-point, they are no worse off than any other immigrants, yet they stay in their mire and whine (permissible, in contrast to the same without the H) about it.
Indeed, here is the Leftists’ fallacy in calling anyone “The New Jews”: it defines Jewishness as victimhood. But while Jewish history is full of woe (or Yiddish vey), Judaism is about positive ideas: choosing life over death, fulfilling the role of spreading G-d’s light in the world (by which the facts of His sovereignty over and fatherhood toward His creation are meant, not Leftist platitudes like “to each according to his need, from each according to his ability”), believing ourselves the beloved sons and daughters of the King, and so on. These strong positive beliefs made the long centuries of Diaspora life tolerable for Jews, and dissuaded them from the suicide of assimilation. Islam, on the other hand, has experienced relatively very little in the way of defeat, vanquishment and lowered status, so that its believers are programmed to view victory and dominance as their natural state, and anything less than that as oppression.
The Jews have never been either rootless or cosmopolitan; the Diaspora has always been their temporary abode, for as long as it might take, and the world as a whole never their dwelling, but to the Land of Israel, their only land, have they ever set eyes. The Muslims wish to make every country in which they live theirs, and regard the whole world as belonging to them. Their sadness is the sadness of the plantation owner bewailing the spectacle of not being accorded his “right” to slaves. They market themselves astutely to the Western Left by using its post-colonial vocabulary, but between themselves and in their source texts the truth is there for all to see.
As Melanie Phillips says, Jews are the new Jews. I would add, editorially, “Dressed up as ‘Zionist colonial oppressors of an indigenous people’ as the newest fashion”, and further: the Muslims, after the Soviets, in turn after the Nazis, are the members of the third fascistic movement carrying the torch of Jew-hatred in modern times and striving for world dominance as well. Slick post-colonial marketing can’t change the facts.