Tomorrow, in the Danish city of Aarhus, a Europe-wide rally organized by the far-right English Defence League will try to set up a European anti-Muslim movement. For Europe’s far-right parties the rally, coming so soon after the murders in southwest France by a self-professed al-Qaeda-following Muslim, marks a moment rich with potential political capital.
Yet it is also a delicate one, especially for Marine Le Pen. Well before the killings, Le Pen was assiduously courting Jews, even while her father and founder of the National Front, Jean-Marie Le Pen, was last month convicted of contesting crimes against humanity for saying that the Nazi occupation of France “wasn’t particularly inhumane.”
Marine must disassociate herself from such sentiments without repudiating her father personally or alienating his supporters. To do so she has laced her oft-expressed Islamophobia (parts of France, she has said, are suffering a kind of Muslim “occupation”) with a newfound “philozionism” (love of Zionism), which has extended even to hobnobbing with the Israeli ambassador to the UN.
Almost all European far-right parties have come up with the same toxic cocktail. The Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-immigrant Freedom party, has compared the Koran to Mein Kampf.
In Tel Aviv in 2010, he declared that: “Islam threatens not only Israel, Islam threatens the whole world. If Jerusalem falls today, Athens and Rome, Amsterdam and Paris will fall tomorrow.”
Meanwhile, Filip Dewinter, leader of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang party, which grew out of the Vlaams Blok Flemish nationalist party, many of whose members collaborated with the Nazis during World War II, has proposed a quota on the number of young Belgian-born Muslims allowed in public swimming pools. Dewinter calls Judaism “a pillar of European society,” yet associates with antisemites, while claiming that “multiculture ... like AIDS, weakens the resistance of the European body” and “Islamophobia is a duty.”
The most rabidly Islamophobic European philozionist is Heinz-Christian Strache, head of the Austrian Freedom party, who compared foreigners to harmful insects and consorts with neo-Nazis. Yet where do we find Strache in December 2010? In Jerusalem, alongside Dewinter, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself.
In Scandinavia the anti-immigrant Danish People’s party is a vocal supporter of Israel and Siv Jensen, leader of the Norwegian Progress party and a staunch supporter of Israel, has warned of the stealthy Islamicization of Norway.
In Britain, English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson, in his first public speech, sported a star of David. At anti-immigrant rallies, the party’s banners read: “There is no place for Fascist Islamic Jew Haters in England.”
So has the Jew, that fabled rootless cosmopolitan, now suddenly become the embodiment of European culture, the “us” against which the Muslim can be cast as “them?”
It’s not so simple.
For a start, “traditional” antisemitism has not exactly evaporated. Look at Hungary, whose ultra-nationalist Jobbik party is unapologetically Holocaust-denying, or Lithuania, where revisionist lawmakers claim that the Jews were as responsible as the Nazis for World War II.
What is more, the “philosemite,” who professes to love Jews and attributes superior intelligence and culture to them, is often (though not always) another incarnation of the antisemite, who projects negative qualities on to them — both see “the Jew” as a unified racial category. Beneath the admiring surface, philozionism is not really an appreciation of Jewish culture, but rather the opportunistic endorsement of Israeli nationalism and power.
Indeed you can blithely sign up to both antisemitism and philozionism.
Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik described himself as “pro-Zionist,” while claiming that Europe has a “considerable Jewish problem” — he saw himself as simultaneously anti-Nazi and pro-monoculturalism.
The far right British National Party’s Nick Griffin once called the Holocaust the “Holohoax,” subsequently supported Israel in its war “against the terrorists,” but the day after the Oslo murders tweeted disparagingly that Breivik was a “Zionist.”
Most Jews, apart from the Israeli right wing, are not fooled. They see the whole iconography of Nazism — vermin and foreign bodies, infectious diseases and alien values — pressed into service once again, but this time directed at Muslims. They understand that “my enemy’s enemy” can easily mutate into “with friends like these ...”
The philozionism of European nationalist parties has been scrutinized most closely by Adar Primor, the foreign editor of the Haaretz newspaper, who insists that “they have not genuinely cast off their spiritual DNA, and ... aren’t looking for anything except for Jewish absolution that will bring them closer to political power.”
Similarly Dave Rich, spokesman of the Community Service Trust, which monitors antisemitic incidents in Britain, told me that far-right philosemites “must think we’re pretty stupid if they think we’ll get taken in by that. The moment their perceived political gain disappears, they revert to type. We completely reject their idea that they hate Muslims so they like Jews. What targets one community at one time can very easily move on to target another community if the climate changes.”
Rich’s words, spoken before the murder of Jews in Toulouse, now sound chillingly prescient.
The president of the French Jewish community, Richard Pasquier, judges Marine Le Pen more dangerous than her father.
French Muslim leaders rallied round Jewish communities last week. Next week sees the start of Passover, a festival celebrating the liberation of the Jews from slavery in Egypt, when Jews often think about modern examples of oppression.
Let us hope that French Jewish leaders use the occasion to rally round Muslim communities and to remember that, ultimately, racism is indiscriminate.
Anne Karpf is the author of The War After: Living with the Holocaust.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath