Arab Anti-Semitic Media

Updates from AIJAC

Arab Anti-Semitic Media

November 12, 2002
Number 11/02 #04

This month, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, state-sponsored Egyptian television, plus other Arabic stations around the world, are featuring a 41-part television drama, "Horseman with a Horse" which is based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", the infamous Czarist forgery claiming to reveal a secret Jewish plot to rule the world. The Protocols in part inspired the Nazi Holocaust. While the US government and many Jewish organisations have protested, Egypt insists there is nothing antisemitic about the series, but in reality, the Egyptian media is filled on a regular basis with the vilest antisemitism possible.

Below, a report from the Israeli daily Ha'aretz reports on the Egyptian series and other recent incidents which indicate a dangerous escalation in antisemitic racism in the Arab world. Next, the Middle East Media Research Institute details some of the Egyptian reaction to criticism of the series - some Egyptians rightly condemn the racism it exhibits, but most defend it and decry "Zionist" attempts to cover up the truth.

Finally, top international journalist Andrew Sullivan, formerly Editor of The New Republic, looks beyond the Middle East at the growing legitimation of antisemitism around the world in the peace and anti-globalisation movements.

Two libels and an escalation

In the new Arab anti-Semitism, the Jews are portrayed as enemies of Islam.

By Eliahu Salpeter

Ha'aretz October 30, 2002

Despite the protests of Jewish groups from all over the Western world, Egyptian Television has announced that during the upcoming month of Ramadan, it will begin airing a 41-part series called "A Rider Without a Horse." The series is based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," the anti-Semitic booklet from 1905 written and distributed by the secret police of Russian Czar Nicholas II, which describes a purported Jewish plot to take over the world. The series describes the efforts of an Egyptian journalist to "verify the truth" of the Protocols and, its producers say, their star discovers a "Zionist plot to take over Palestine."

Coincidentally or not, the hottest item at this month's international book fair in Damascus is a book by Syrian Defence Minister Mustafa Tlas. The book, "The Matza of Zion," which is now in its eighth edition, is an Arab version of the medieval Christian blood libel: the Jews use the blood of a Muslim child to bake matzas for Passover.

The origins of both libels and the fact that Arab governments are disseminating them are indications of a dangerous escalation of anti-Semitism in the Arab world. Jewish organizations are increasingly concerned about the fact that even countries that reject Muslim fundamentalism are promoting the anti-Semitic incitement being distributed by reactionary states such as Saudi Arabia.

The phenomenon highlights the changes Arab anti-Semitism has undergone in recent years. Traditionally, Islam believed in coexistence with the Jews, whose religion, unlike Christianity, was not considered a competitor threatening Islam. Islam made do with attributing an inferior status to Judaism, which the prophet Mohammed recognized as a monotheistic religion that predated his faith.

Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism is linked to the struggle with Zionism over the Land of Israel, and recently it has experienced a "reactionary" change. In preceding decades, modern Arab anti-Semitism drew its terms from those of Christian anti-Semitism and European racism. Now, with the surge in Muslim fundamentalism, Arab anti-Semitism has also returned to the Koran. The Jews are no longer an inferior people that should be kept in inferior status and their lives protected; they are enemies of Islam and must be obliterated. Muslim anti-Semitism is thus becoming like the "annihilationist" anti-Semitism of the Nazi era. As a result, a paradox has emerged in which almost the only partners to this kind of anti-Semitism are European Christian neo-Nazis and racists. These are the same groups whose hooligans organize murderous rampages against Muslim immigrants to their countries.

The radicalised return to fundamentalist Muslim roots is described by Dr. Meir Litvak's study in the 2002 report of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Vidal Sassoon International Centre for the Study of Antisemitism. He notes, among other things, that "Zionism," "Israel" and "Jews" are used interchangeably by the Arabs, not only for tactical propaganda purposes, to argue that they are not anti-Semites, but also for ideological reasons.

They see Zionism and the State of Israel as the modern embodiment of Judaism, which they claim, was the sworn enemy of the prophet, Mohammed. "The centrality of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the lives of the Palestinians has caused anti-Semitism to assume an even more prominent place in the doctrine of the Hamas movement - the Muslim movements now perceive the struggle against Israel and the Jews as part of the broader war between Muslim culture and Western culture."

Litvak notes that there are many concepts that Hamas propaganda has borrowed from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" about the world media and the establishment of "secret organizations" such as the Rotary Club and the Free Masons in order "to destroy the culture" and "disseminate Jewish vileness." In many respects, the new Muslim anti-Semitism is more dangerous than its predecessors because it expresses an ideological force. It stems from a deeper popular belief and is less subject to political changes such as peace agreements.

Recently, a new development in Muslim anti-Semitism has emerged - a combination of the ideology of anti-Western globalisation movements and Jew hatred. "Many Arab and Muslim writers see globalisation as a threat to Arab culture and identity and fear that it will increase Western control of their economies and political systems." Associating globalisation with "Jewish intrigues" makes it easier for the Arabs to explain why they lag behind in economics, technology and science, Litvak concludes.

Fundamentalist and wealthy Saudi Arabia, the turf that produced Osama bin Laden and his movement, is a hotbed of Muslim anti-Semitism, which often influences Egypt, Syria and other "progressive" Arab states. Saudi Arabian television and newspapers specifically incite to murder Jews, something that especially infuriates American Jews, to whom Saudi Arabia is presented as their loyal ally. Saudi anti-Semitism and its social backwardness have been receiving increasing coverage in the American media since the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in September of last year. The Saudis, for their part, attribute this growing criticism to Jewish influence. Just seeing the number of members of Congress who wear Jewish skullcaps is enough to explain the accusations made against us, the Saudi defense minister, Prince Sultan (father of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S.) said in an interview with a London-based Arabic newspaper.

The Arabs continue to view the Holocaust and the feelings of guilt stemming from it as one of the main reasons for the establishment of the State of Israel. Holocaust denial is a regular feature of Arab anti-Semitism, and is also echoed in the official Arab media. There are other reasons for it as well: the Arabs understand that the guilt feelings are one of the reasons for Western aid to Israel. They are aware of the great impact that the memory of the Holocaust has on Jewish identity in the diaspora and diaspora support for the Jewish state. The Arabs understand that the Holocaust is the most sensitive point for the Jews and that it can be used to strike at both Zionists and non-Zionists.

The Jews feel physically threatened by Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. They are asking local authorities to help them protect their lives and their institutions. On the other hand, many also expect Israel to act cautiously, lest the way it is portrayed in the international media increase the fervour of the Muslim minority and the criticism coming from the Christian public.

There are Arab intellectuals who understand and appreciate the importance of their Western, liberal, Jewish colleagues' support of the Palestinian cause. However, the Muslim fundamentalists do not differentiate between "the good Jew" and "the bad Jew." Fundamentalist anti-Semitism is directed at both.

Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Inquiry and Analysis Series

- No. 109 November 8, 2002

Arab Press Debates Antisemitic Egyptian Series 'A Knight Without a Horse'

On November 6th, 2002, some Arab television channels aired the first segment of a 41-part serial called "A Knight Without a Horse," which is based on 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'

The series was slated for broadcast on Egyptian state television, the Egyptian "Dream" channel, Iraqi state television and Hizbullah's Al-Manar channel.[1][2]

The series, which was produced by Muhammad Subhi (who also plays the lead role), was slated for broadcast last Ramadan but was not completed in time, and is therefore being aired this year. The series sparked protests in the West, with the U.S. State Department calling on the Egyptian government to prevent the broadcast - a demand that was rejected out of hand by Egyptian Information Minister Safwat Al-Sharif. Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that the minister reached his decision after viewing all the episodes having to do with the Protocols[3].

The series aroused much debate in the Egyptian and Arab press. Most writers supported the airing of the series, but a few criticized Egypt's obsession with antisemitic writings.

The series was viewed and approved for broadcast by a committee appointed by the Egyptian Censor. A committee from the Egyptian Radio and Television Association declared the series "a landmark in the history of Arab drama." The Egyptian Information Minister stated that "the dramatic views expressed by the series contain nothing that can be considered antisemitic."

Columnist Mark Sayegh: What if Israel had Done the Same Thing?

Mark Sayegh, a journalist opposed to the series' broadcast, found an unusual way to express his protest in his weekly column in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat. In his article, titled "The Protocols of the Arab Elders: Enough, Egypt, Enough," Sayegh presented a reverse scenario - that is, Israeli television airing a program based on the "Arab conspiracy" to take over the world: "In an atmosphere of secrecy, Israeli television began producing a series to air on Israel Television and some American channels during the coming month of Yom Kippur [sic]. The content of this series was worrisome. The program's script writer claimed that Jews from Aleppo had given him a document that no one had ever heard of before [it said that] during the 1920s, after the fall of the Arab kingdom and the shattering of the dream of Arab unity, a meeting of representatives from all the Arabic speaking regions was held in Aleppo, in response to the cruel imperialistic attack to examine how to regain Arab control of the world"

"According to the Israeli series, within 80 years, the Arabs succeeded in encouraging emigration and forcing themselves on European society, while placing ministers into the French governments and members of parliament in the other European countries, and forcing countries such as France to respect Arab sentiment and adopt an Arab policy"

"The Lebanese representative sent to the Aleppo meeting was a farmer, because the Lebanese elite at that time was preoccupied with Francophone matters.[4] The Lebanese farmer from the Biqa' Valley said, in a natural manner, that he was planning to uproot fruit trees and plant hashish, and then flood the markets of the Zionist entity and the colonialist countries with the hashish, so as to subdue them to the Arab will at a later stageS"

"Naturally, an argument broke out in Israeli cultural circles about the authenticity of this 'document' and the racism of its allegations. Many among the Aleppo Jewish community doubted its authenticity. But the Israeli professor 'Mustahiq Mabdai' summed up the debate by saying: 'I do not know whether this document is an invention or an authentic one, but I do know that the Arab leaders tried to carry out most of its parts.'"

"Obviously, this story is no more than the imaginary," wrote Mark Sayegh. "The Israeli intellectuals and artists, who reached a maximum level of violating the rights of the Palestinian people, did not reach (and who is capable of reaching?) the level of idiocy of some of our own intellectuals and artists. Next week, during the month of Ramadan, Egyptian television will begin airing the program 'A Knight Without a Horse,' which is based on the historic forged book The Protocols of the Elders of ZionS The historic truth does not interest some in the Arab and Egyptian 'elite.' For example, instead of demanding that their government cancel the peace agreement with Israel - the agreement that has been carried out successfully for a quarter of a century - some Cairo artists turn to drums, microphones, and media idiocy that exacerbate the Palestinians' situation."

"The series' protagonist, Muhammad Subhi, hastened to clarify that 'the dramatic treatment of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is artistic'! Artistic, just like the 'I Hate Israel' symphony, by ironing stand owner Ludwig Sha'aban.[5] Enough, Egypt, enough."[6]

Columnist Ibrahim Al-Arabi: The Arab and Islamic Public is Stuck in the 19th Century

Writing in Al-Hayat's movie column, Ibrahim Al-Arabi also opposed the airing of the series: "By means of the series, the art of Arab television managed to place itself at the heart of a lengthy debate, going back over 150 years, about the book, which today is known with certainty to be a 'fabrication' by the Russian Czar's secret police aimed at justifying attacks on the Russian Jews. This book always served fascist, racist, and antisemitic regimes, for stepping up persecution of the Jews - with a more disastrous result for the Arabs than for the Jews, as it turned into a political and historic argument supporting the idea of a 'national homeland for the Jews' and the establishment of [the State of] Israel"

"For months, people with awareness in Egypt have been talking about this project. Some say that the main support for Muhammad Subhi's project came from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein personally - as if the damage he has caused the Arabs was not sufficient and he is now setting a trap for Egypt, its artists, and its reputation in the world"[7]

Egyptian Government Press: The Series is Based on "Legitimate History"

The Egyptian press endorsed the opposite approach. The editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Akhbar, Galal Duweidar, wrote: "In our belief in democracy, which is based on the values and principles of freedom, we must oppose the barbaric attack to which Egyptian and Arab art is subject. Under cover of deceit and deception, the new Zionists deny, as did their fathers and grandfathers [before them], the principles calling for freedom of expression when they conflict with their own goals and conspiracies. This is nothing unusual when speaking of them [the Jews], because they even denied what is said in the [Islamic] holy scriptures!!"

"Thomas Friedman, the Zionist agent with the Israeli identity and the American citizenship, continued his hostile, filthy attack against Egypt and on behalf of the goals of the aggressive Israel, with his condemnation, in a New York Times article, of Egyptian Television's intent to air this series during the month of Ramadan. [He] claim[ed] that it focuses on a Zionist plot to take over Arab land -which is a fact. He attacked the program, but ignored the fact that at issue was scientific literature based on legitimate history. He continued by accusing the Egyptian leadership of disseminating hatred against the Jews... This despicable Friedman did not find a weapon to wave in the face of Egyptian and Arab thought except the weapon of extortion and terror based on the charge of antisemitism"[8]

Al-Akhbar columnist Sanaa Fath Allah was angry that "the American Congress did not oppose the play Mama America [a 1993 Muhammad Subhi play against American rule and hegemony in the world, in which the Statue of Liberty is smashed] but is now opposed [to the 'A Knight Without a Horse' series] because [it focuses] on the history of the Jews"

Fath Allah praised Subhi and expressed her hopes that the Jihad would continue in every possible way. In her words, "We need an artist like Subhi. Blessings on the 'eye-opening' series."[9]

Interviews with the Series Producer

In an interview producer Muhammad Subhi told the Egyptian opposition weekly Al-Usbou': "The series tells part of our history in the Arab region, and what the Jews did. This work is unconnected to the Jewish religion and it does not encourage bloodshed and killing. The truth is that the series condemns terror. My message to the world is that the Islamic religion prohibits killing innocents, women, and children, but does not prevent us from waging Jihad and fighting to regain the land."[10]

In an interview with the Egyptian government daily Al Gumhouriya, Subhi added, "The series has no connection to semitism, and it does not concern any religion. The censorship committees viewed it more than once, and approved it; they even praised it, which is happening for the first time in 20 years. I do not know why they fear a series from which the censor did not delete a single scene. If they claim that the series is antisemitic and supports terror. what is their response to the clerics among them who curse Islam?"[11]

After his return from Baghdad, where he had gone to observe the referendum in which Iraqi president Saddam Hussein won 100% of the votes, Subhi said he was "not interested in Israel's protests, and unaffected by their hysterical screams. because I am exposing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and see them as the basis of Zionism. I found that the memoirs of Hafez Najib [on which the series is based] are fertile ground for a work that will expose these protocols. They [the Jews] cannot accept any criticism, especially if it is from an Arab. They realize that discussion of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion will expose their true racist face, their expansionist intentions, and their objection to any peace."[12]

The Palestinians: Watching the Program is a Pan-Arab Duty

There was criticism of the series in Palestinian circles, but it focused on how the Arab media provided the Arab regimes with a way to pretend to support the Palestinian struggle while in fact doing something. The editor of the Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Hafez Al-Barghouti, wrote: "The series came as an attempt to anesthetize, or to sigh in relief, because the repressed Arab citizen, prohibited from expressing solidarity with the slaughtered Palestinians, will feel that he is fulfilling his pan-Arab duty by sacrificing an hour a day to watching the small screen, and can relax because his turn has not yet come to be slaughtered, according to Washington's time - and that of its Arab suburbs, the Arab capitals are [also] in line for slaughter."[13]

The Airing of the First Episode

The series began airing on November 6th. Episode one begins with a recollection of the Palestinian/Arab defeat in 1948 by the "Children of Zion, who took it [the land] with treachery." The explanation, says the narration, lies in the past. It begins with the story of a kidnapping of a 5 year-old child in Cairo in 1855 by the Turkish pasha, who keeps the boy in his home despite his wife's and daughter's objections [since his wife gave birth only to girls]. The kidnapped boy, Hafez Nagib, is the person on whose later memoirs the series is based.

[1] According to the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, six other Arab countries decided not to broadcast the series as planned, so as to avoid disrupting relations with the U.S. See MEMRI Special Dispatch 309, December 6, 2001.

[2] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), November 3, 2002.

[3] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), November 1, 2002.

[4] A mocking reference to the 2002 Francophone countries summit held in Beirut.

[5] A mocking reference to Egyptian singer Sha'aban Abd Al-Rahim, who wrote the popular Egyptian song "I Hate Israel, I Love Amr Moussa."

[6] Al-Hayat (London), November 3, 2002.

[7] Al-Hayat (London), November 1, 2002.

[8] Al-Akhbar (Egypt), November 3, 2002.

[9] Al-Akhbar (Egypt), November 4, 2002.

[10] Al-Usbou' (Egypt), November 4, 2002.

[11] Al-Gumhouriya (Egypt), November 2, 2002.

[12] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), November 1, 2002.

[13] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (Palestinian Authority), November 3, 2002.

The Wages of Hate

Antisemitism and the war

Andrew Sullivan

October 20, 2002, Sunday Times of London

A student-written article in the Yale Daily News last week, the paper for the elite American university, was typical fare. It was a piece by a precocious first-year student criticizing what he regards as the anti-Semitism tolerated at the U.N. The response, however, was far from typical. He'd touched a nerve. In the comments section, posted online next to the article, a torrent of anger was unleashed. Here's one respondent's comments: "I recently attended a forum focusing on the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Both sides made very valid points but there was a moment of heated exchange when the pro-Israel side initiated the "anti-semite" slur and completely ended it for me. I am sick and tired of Jewish people always smearing those that merely disagree with their views as "evil". I never thought I'd say this but a lot of what the so-called "white supremacists" are saying are proving to be more accurate than I feel comfortable admitting." Sympathy for the arguments of "so-called white supremacists"? At Yale? The comment was not anonymous. Now there's always scope for nut-cases venting on the web. But the tenor of the discussion on a Yale website was certainly something new.

Then there was the recent "Not In Our Name" rally in Cental Park, demonstrating against a potential war against Iraq. Many of the speeches to the crowd of around 10,000 were full of classic anti-war boilerplate. Some of them, given that the demo was organized by such extremist groups as the International Action Center, were predictably more outlandish, demanding no action whatever against Iraq and condemning the U.S. for everything from Robert Mugabe to global warming. (One of IAC's officials has written that "no one in the world ... has a worse human rights record than the United States.") But around the edges of the rally, copies of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," the classic forged document of nineteenth-century anti-Semitism, were being sold. According to a report in the New York Sun, this peddling of anti-Semitic tripe was not entirely accidental. One protestor told the Sun, "There are interest groups who want Israel to dominate Palestine. If Bush goes with them and is too critical, he might lose [their] support ... the international financiers have their hooks in everything." Ah, those international financiers. Remember them? Then there was this comment from another self-described "peace activist": "Bush is more Israeli than the Israelis themselves. He is a puppet of the Zionists [who] control the media, the government and the economy. The Jews' book 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' explains how they control the world and how they make people fight against each other."

America's anti-war movement, still puny and struggling, is showing signs of being hijacked by one of the oldest and darkest prejudices there is. Perhaps it was inevitable. The conflict against Islamo-fascism obviously circles back and back to the question of Israel. Fanatical anti-Semitism, as bad or even worse than Hitler's, is now a cultural norm across much of the Arab Middle East and beyond. It's the acrid glue that unites Saddam, Arafat, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran and the Saudis. They all hate the Jews and want to see them destroyed. And if you're campaigning against a war against that axis, you're bound to attract some people who share these prejudices. That is not to say that the large majority of anti-war campaigners are anti-Semitic. Of course they're not. But it is to say that this strain of anti-Semitism, hovering around the edges of that movement, is a worrying and dangerous sign.

In American history, it's also not new. One of the major strains in anti-war sentiment in the 1930s in America was anti-Semitism. The America Firsters saw war as something that would only enrich the "international financiers" who controlled the banks and arms industry. European Jews - and their American counterparts - were trying to snare the U.S. into a European conflict it would do best to avoid. No surprise then that, alongside the far left, the far right in America is also now a part of the anti-war movement. Patrick Buchanan's new magazine, The American Conservative, is full of such anti-war bromides. Buchanan has long flirted with anti-Semitism, and it must surely somewhat embarrass the "progressives" fighting a war against Iraq that he is now, as his forefathers were in the 1930s, their ally.

The biggest faultline around this issue, however, is now on America's campuses. Earlier this year, a movement sprung up calling for universities to withdraw any investments in Israel, just as they once did in South Africa. A petition, begun at M.I.T. and Harvard, attracted hundreds of signatures from faculty, students and alumni. Similar initiatives were pursued at 40 other colleges. It was answered by another M.I.T./Harvard petition opposing divestment, which has garnered many more signatures. The controversy was further stoked by Harvard president Larry Summers' statement last month. He claimed that "serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent," in reference to the petition. "Where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists," he went on, "profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities."

Summers' argument was a simple one: why has Israel been singled out alone as worthy of divestment? Supporters cite its continued occupation of the West Bank. There's no question that Israel's policies in that regard are ripe for criticism, and to equate criticism of that with anti-Semitism is absurd and despicable. Similarly, it's perfectly possible to argue against Israel's domestic policies without any hint of anti-Semitism. But to argue that Israel is more deserving of sanction than any other regime on earth right now is surely bizarre. Israel is a democracy; it is multi-racial; Arab citizens of Israel proper can vote and freely enter civil society; there is freedom of religion and a free press. An openly gay man just won election to the Knesset. In any other Middle Eastern country and the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank, he'd be in jail, executed or crushed under a pile of rocks. There is simply no comparison with apartheid South Africa, where a tiny ethnic minority denied the majority any vote at all. Compared to China, a ruthless dictatorship which is now brutally occupying Tibet, Israel is a model for democratic governance. And, unlike China's occupation of Tibet, Israel's annexation of the West Bank was undertaken as a defensive action against an Arab military attack.

Or compare it to any other country in the Middle East, from Syria's satrapy in Lebanon, to Mubarak's police state, to Iraq's barbaric autocracy or Iran's theocracy, and it's a beacon of light. To single Israel out for condemnation and divestment, while ignoring all these others, is so self-evidently bizarre that it begs an obvious question. What are these anti-Israel fanatics really obsessed about? Where are the divestment campaigns for China or Zimbabwe? The answer, I think, lies in the nature of part of today's left. It is fueled above all by resentment - resentment of the West's success, resentment of the freedom to trade, resentment of any person or country, like Israel or Britain or the U.S., that has enriched itself by means of freedom and hard work.

Just look at Israel's amazing achievements in comparison with its neighbours: its vibrant civil society, its economic growth, its technological skill, its agricultural miracle. When you think about all Israel has achieved, it is no surprise that the resentful left despises it. So, for obvious reasons, do Israel's neighbours. If they had wanted, the Arab states could have made peace with Israel decades ago, and enriched themselves through trade and interaction. Instead, rather than emulate the Jewish state, they spent decade after decade trying to destroy it. When they didn't succeed, rather than seek reasons for their own backwardness and failure, rather than engage in the difficult task of reform and renewal, the Arab dictators and their pliant propaganda machines simply resorted to the easy distractions of envy, hatred and obsession. Al Qaeda is the most dangerous and nihilist manifestation of this response. Hezbollah is a close second. But milder versions are everywhere. And what do people who most want to avoid examining their own failures do? They look for scapegoats. And the Jews are the perennial scapegoat. Now that the Jewish people actually have a country to themselves, the anger and hatred only intensifies.

This attitude isn't restricted to the Middle East. In the West, parts of the left, having capitulated to moral relativism and bouts of Western self-hatred, have seized on Israel as another emblem of what they hate. They're happy to have Saddam get re-elected with 100 percent of a terrified vote, happy to see him develop nerve gas and nuclear weapons to use against his own population and others. They're happy to watch Syria's rulers engage in regular massacres; or the Saudis subject women to inhuman subjugation. This they barely mention. After all, these countries form part of the "oppressed" developing world. But Israel's occasional crimes in self-defense? They march in the streets. Telling, isn't it?

Ask the average leftist today what he is for, and you will not get a particularly eloquent response. Ask him what he is against, and the rhetorical floodgates open. That tells you something. Similarly, ask the average anti-war activist what she is for with regard to Iraq, what exactly she thinks we should constructively do, and the stammering and stuttering begins. Do we just leave Saddam alone? Do we send Jimmy Carter to sign the kind of deal he made with North Korea eight years ago? Will pressuring the Israelis remove the nerve gas and potential nukes Saddam has in his possession? Will ceding the West Bank to people who cheered the destruction of the World Trade Center help defang al Qaeda? They don't say and don't know. But what they do know is what they are against: American power, Israeli human rights abuses, British neo-imperialism, the "racist" war on Afghanistan, and on and on. Get them started on their hatreds, and the words pour out. No wonder some have started selling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Central Park.

This negativism matters. When you have a movement based on resentment, when you have a political style that is as bitter as it is angry, when your rhetoric focuses not on those who are murdering partiers in Bali or workers in Manhattan, but on those democratic powers trying to defend and protect them, then your fate is cast. A politics of resentment is a poisonous creature that slowly embitters itself. You should not be surprised if the most poisonous form of resentment that the world has ever known springs up, unbidden, in your midst.