 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
The Last Word Enemies of
the State
It is, unfortunately, not historically uncommon. A
small Jewish community has developed a network of institutions providing a full
and meaningful Jewish life, while being well-integrated and accepted into the
broader society. It then sees a government come to power that cynically and
brutally unleashes the demons of antisemitism and shatters any feeling of
security.
It is a
little less common, but not unheard of, for a Jewish community with deep roots
in a country and society to find that “their” government has mounted an overtly
anti-Jewish foreign policy.
In recent
times, we have also become accustomed to reports of harassment within a number
of societies of advocates of inter-religious understanding, with the most
extreme of these including serious threats of death.
In Budapest
recently, I joined colleagues from around the world at the two-yearly gathering
of leading international analysts of antisemitism.
From
intimidation of school-children, tolerance of individuals who repeatedly daub
antisemitic graffiti on synagogues, vilification of religious leaders, to open
support for genocidal anti-Jewish movements, the Jews of Venezuela are
undergoing a traumatic assault.
The
analysis we received did not suggest that Venezuelan society had changed
overnight – the opposition forces, close to fifty percent of the country,
are either pro-Jewish or anti-anti-Jewish. Rather, the Government has made a
determination that it suits its interests to portray the Jewish community as
its enemy.
The situation
of the Jews of Iran, which has a Government which acts as if overt anti-Jewish
propaganda is a legitimate foreign policy tool, has been the subject of media
attention recently, mainly because the Teheran terror-ocracy has discovered the
immense gullibility and self-delusion of a considerable sector of Western
society.
Reports of
the happy existence of Iranian Jews, who are depicted as being as anti-Israel
as their friendly neighbourhood secret police, have been given wide
distribution. More intelligent and rational assessments of the life of people
who have their individual and communal existences determined by the whims of a
fanatic government are far more difficult to find.
One useful
insight into Iranian Jewish life came in the form of a review in the Israeli
newspaper Ha’aretz
of Muslim Iranian director Ramin Farahanis’ new documentary on Jews in Iran, in
which the director notes the harassment, intimidation and vilification of
people who are too scared to tell their own story.
Finally,
proof that the existence of a Jewish community is not a pre-requisite for crude
and potentially murderous, state-supported antisemitism is evident in the
current trial of journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury in Bangladesh.
Shoaib is
an outspoken supporter of Muslim-Jewish and Muslim-Christian dialogue, opposes
anti-Israel maximalism and has exposed the agents and activities of Islamists
who have been gaining in strength and influence in his country.
For these
efforts he has been placed on trial for “sedition, treason and blasphemy”, with
the charge sheet including the claim that “by praising Christians and Jews . .
. and [advocating] ties between Bangladesh and Israel, [Shoaib] has hurt the
sentiments of Muslims”.
In a
country with a non-Muslim minority population which exceeds the entire
population of Australia, Shoaib is fighting not only for himself (the “crimes”
carry a death penalty) but to prevent the institution of oppressive, regressive
totalitarian Islamist rule.
The
Venezuelan Jewish community, Iranian Jews who want to live as Jews, and the
proponent of tolerance in Bangladesh are all portrayed as “enemies of the
State”.
They are also human rights “causes” which should be adopted not only with energy but with urgency.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Copyright
© AIJAC 2006 |
