Aussichten für Israel und den Rest der Welt im Visier des Islam

Richard Rubenstein zeigt in seinem brisant aktualisierten Nachwort zu seinem Buch «The Cunning of History“ auf, was die Illusionen, die sich der Westen über den Islam macht, den die politischen Eliten von seinem Terror trennen, für die Existenz Israels bedeuten –  und für die westlichen Appeaser, die glauben, der Appetit des Krokodils sei gestillt, wenn man ihm Israel zum Frass vorsetzt. Die deutschen Medien, der das arabische Israelbashing übernehmen, das die Existenz Israels nicht anerkennt, haben offenbar kein Problem mit dieser „Lösung“.

aus: An Afterword for The Cunning of History

by Richard Rubenstein

New English Review  July 2015

(Richard L. Rubenstein is President Emeritus of the University of Bridgeport. His latest book is Jihad and Genocide (Rowman and Littlefield: 2011).

Introductory note: In 1975, Harper & Row published the first edition of my book, The Cunning of History: Mass Death and the American Future. In 1978, Harper & Row published a paperback edition with an introduction by William Styron, the author of Sophie’s Choice. In 2004, I received a request from a French publisher, Olivier Veron, for an “Afterword” bringing the book up to date. In the aftermath of 9/11, I focused on the threat of radical Islam. The Afterword was published in France in La Perfiie de l’Histoire. We are presenting it in English for the first time in this issue of New English Review.

 Europe’s Old-New Demon

  • A great deal has been written concerning the revival of anti-Semitism in France, but that country is hardly alone.[57] Expressions of extreme hostility towards Israel and unswerving support of the Palestinian cause have become pervasive in the media of western and central Europe. Cartoons and caricatures have long been one of the most effective means of demonizing Jews and Judaism.[58] Some of the most vicious images of traditional anti-Semitism have once again surfaced in mainstream European newspapers and periodicals, such as The Guardian (UK), Le Monde (France) and El Pais (Spain).[59] One cartoon depicts two Israeli policemen beating up a Palestinian. One officer says to the other, “There’s no time for me to reflect on the Holocaust.” (La Razón, Spain, June 9, 2001). The Holocaust theme also appears in a cartoon depicting three completed buildings and one under construction. The signs in front of the completed buildings read “Museum of the Jewish Holocaust,” “Museum of the Bosnian Holocaust,” “Museum of the Chechen Holocaust.” The sign on the building under construction reads, “Future Museum of the Palestinian Holocaust.” (La Vanguardia, Spain, May 25, 2001).
  • There is also a pervasive identification of Israel with Nazi Germany and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with Hitler in cartoons, posters and political rhetoric. In one image worthy of Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer, Sharon is depicted as a fat, ugly, hook-nosed Jew wearing a kippah (skull cap) and saying, “From bad can come good. At least, Hitler taught me to invade a country and exterminate every living vermin.” Sharon is depicted as wearing a swastika within a Star of David on his chest. (Cambio 16, Spain, June 4, 2001). El Pais, arguably Spain’s most influential newspaper, published a cartoon depicting a small figure flying toward Sharon. The caption reads “Clio, the muse of history, placing the mustache of Hitler on Sharon.” (May 22, 2001)
  • One of the most venomous cartoons appeared in The Independent (UK) on January 27, 2003, the week of Ariel Sharon’s reelection. It depicts a fat, slovenly, naked Sharon, his private parts covered only by a small sign that reads “Vote Likud,” voraciously biting off the head of a Palestinian baby. In the left hand corner four Israeli helicopters are attacking a bombed-out Palestinian town. Sharon is depicted as saying “What’s wrong? You’ve never seen a politician kissing babies before?” In the lower right hand corner is the phrase, “After Goya,” an indication that the cartoon is modeled after one of Francesco Goya’s most gruesome paintings, “Saturn Devouring His Children.” Both the cartoonist, Dave Brown, and the editor of the Independent, Simon Kellner, are Jewish and denied any anti-Semitic intent. Nevertheless, the image elicited powerful associations with one of the most durable of all anti-Semitic canards, the blood libel that Jews allegedly require the blood of Christian boys for their religious rites. Blood libel cartoons appear frequently in Muslim newspapers and journals. What is shocking was its appearance in a respectable, mainstream British newspaper. Inevitably, the crucifixion of Jesus is assimilated to the Palestinian struggle, as if the Palestinians were a Christ among the nations and the Jews once again Christ’s crucifiers. One cartoon depicts a young, innocent Palestinian boy nailed not to a cross but to a Star of David. (El Periodico de Catalunya, Spain, October 6, 2000). There is no caption. None is needed.
  • Diplomats and political leaders usually express their distaste for Israel with greater finesse, but not always. For example, shortly after 9/11, Daniel Barnard, Ambassador of France to the United Kingdom, declared at a gathering at the home of newspaper magnate Lord Conrad Black, publisher of London’s Daily Telegraph and the Jerusalem Post, that the current troubles in the world were all because of „that shitty little country Israel.“ The ambassador asked, “Why should the world be in danger of World War Three because of those people?” The incident was first reported by Barbara Amiel, Lady Black, in her Daily Telegraph column without revealing the ambassador’s identity but word quickly got out.[60] Commenting on the incident, the editors of the Wall Street Journal wrote:
  • “Islamic fanaticism has declared itself the enemy of western civilization, and has killed more than 3,000 people to prove it…. But French elites blame everything on Israel? The suggestion is so bizarre and so willfully oblivious to the facts, that it has to make one wonder if it isn’t based on some deeper kind of animus…
  • Polite society in both Europe and America has rightly bent over backwards not to stereotype Muslims in whose name the atrocities of Sept. 11 were committed. Mr. Bernard is polite society personified. We’d like to think that Mr. Bernard’s remarks have made him an embarrassment in European circles. Perhaps the greater scandal here is that they haven’t.” [61]
  • Nor was Barnard the only diplomat who suggested that Israel, or at least its leader, was responsible for the crisis. Two weeks after 9/11, a “senior British Foreign Office source” was quoted in a front page story in the Guardian declaring that Ariel Sharon was “the cancer at the center of the Middle East crisis.” That official may very well have been Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary, who commented during an official visit to Iran, “I understand that one of the factors that help breed terrorism is the anger many people in this region feel over events in Palestine.”[62] The demonization of Israel also has a certain echo in Europe’s religious inheritance. Jews were supposed to “survive but not thrive” until a remnant came to accept Christ and in no place was it less acceptable for Jews to “thrive” after the destruction of the Jerusalem’s Holy Temple than in “Christ’s patrimony,” the Holy Land.[63]
  • At stake in the pervasive demonization of Israel is the legitimacy of that country’s existence. Extremist organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah have stated repeatedly and explicitly that they will settle for nothing less than Israel’s total destruction as a matter of non-negotiable religious obligation. There are, of course, Palestinians who claim that peace with Israel is possible if Israel were to return to its 1967 borders and accept the Palestinian’s unrestricted right of return. Nevertheless, even if a compromise were found acceptable to the Israeli majority and some responsible Palestinian authority, how durable would such a “peace” be if Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Muslim “street” categorically refused to honor its terms and in the name of religion rejected the legitimacy of Israel’s existence as a sovereign state?
  • In the unlikely event that Israel were to agree to return to its 1967 borders and accept the “right of return,” how long would such a “peace” last? An Israel that is only nine miles wide from the Mediterranean to the Palestinian border would be strategically indefensible. In reality, Israel is confronted with a never-ending, religiously legitimated, existential threat that her enemies have every intention of carrying out if they can. In every major European government, as well as in the United Nations, there are highly intelligent, knowledgeable officials who fully understand the possible outcomes of the Arab-Israeli conflict. One wonders what advice these officials would offer were Europe’s Arab partners to defeat Israel and the outcome for Israel’s 5 million Jews were expulsion or genocide. The latter prospect is not unthinkable given the depth of Muslim rage at the narcissistic wound inflicted upon them by prior Israeli victories and the extent to which the Middle East has become accustomed to murder during the last thirty or forty years. Even if the victors permitted the defeated Jews to survive on the condition that they go elsewhere, what European government would be willing to receive the descendants of those Jews for whom settlement in Israel was the only available answer to the utter untenability of Jewish life in Europe after the Shoah?
  • One might consider an even grimmer scenario: The victorious Muslims vengefully enact their own “Final Solution.” Would the response of the Europeans, the United Nations with its fifty plus Muslim member-states, or even the United States be any different than the world’s response to bloodshed and ethnic cleansing in Cambodia, Bosnia, Chechnya, Srebrenica, Darfur and, most especially, Rwanda where U.N. forces were present and did nothing to prevent the slaughter?[64] The complete or near complete elimination of populations that interfere with a dominant group’s political or demographic reordering of a society or territory did not begin with the Third Reich. It has been a regular part of human history in ancient, medieval and modern times. Is it reasonable to expect that in countries where senior officials and the media have held that Israel is basically at fault both for having come into being and for its alleged mistreatment of the Palestinians would expend their citizens’ blood and treasure to prevent genocide or to find a safe haven for the survivors? In spite of the oft-employed rhetoric of two states living side by side in security, is it not more likely that most European governments would regard Israel’s complete demise as a welcome “solution” to the crisis in the Middle East? That is certainly the subtext of the parties of the left in Europe and the United States that cynically propose a single, “democratic,” multi-ethnic, state to replace a “racist” Israel while ignoring the promise of Islamic


Die antiisraelische Propaganda, die mit der sog. Ölkrise 1973 ihre offizielle Approbation erhielt und zur obsessiven Kritik an Israel eskalierte mit der Süddeutschen als Vorreiterin in Deutschland, hat eine Vorgeschichte in den fortwährenden Boykottversuchen der Arabischen Liga gegen die Wiedergutmachungsleistungen (Abkommen von Luxemburg 1952) und gegen die Anerkennung des Staates Israel (Aufnahme diplomatiscdher Beziehungen erst 1965).

Schon zehn Jahre vor dem Jahr des Eurabiadeals liefen die anti-israelischen Beziehungen gut geölt: siehe > (1963)

Die arabische Nicht-Anerkennung Israels bzw. die Venichtungsagenda – in Fortsetzung der Kooperation der Muftis von Jerusalem mit den Nazis – hat sich seit der Staatsgründung Israels nicht wesentlich geändert, auch die anti-israelische und pro-palästinensische Politik der DDR setzt sich in der Nachfolgepartei der SED, deren Vermögen, wie Bärbel Boley berichtete, bei einer Palästinnenserorganisation landete, fort. Ein kleines spotlight von 1953, also aus der Zeit, als noch keine diplomatischen Vertretungen in den arabischen Staaten bestanden.

Heinz Wever 1963 zu den Deutsch-Israelischen Beziehungen (Frankfurter Hefte, 1963, Heft 7, S. 455):

  • «Auf deutscher Seite musste man daher das Eintreffen einer offiziellen arabischen Delegation am 19. Oktober 1952 als eine aussichtsreiche Möglichkeit ansehen, zu einer gütlichen Einigung mit den Arabern zu kommen. Die vier arabischen Delegierten wurden als Gäste des Bundeskanzlers behandelt; sie wurden von Dr. Adenauer und zweimal vom damaligen Staatssekretär Hallstein empfangen. Ferner erhielten sie Gelegenheit zu offiziellen Gesprächen mit Bundestagsabgeordneten und Wirtschaftsvertretern. Ihre politische Mission, die darin bestand, die Bundesregierung zum Abrücken vom Luxemburger Abkommen zu veranlassen, scheiterte indessen am eindeutigen Nein der Bundesregierung. Es wurde ihnen erklärt, dass es sich bei der Wiedergutmachung an Israel um eine freiwillige moralische Sühne für das von den Nationalsozialisten begangene Unrecht handle, von der man unter keinen Umständen abzurücken bereit sei. …»

Heute gehört die arabische Liga, pardon der Islam zu Deutschland, und nichts wird seinen fordernden Agenten mehr abgeschlagen, vom Megamoscheebau bis zur scheibchenweisen Einführung der Scharia.

  • Der Besuch der arabischen Delegation hatte einige fatale Nebenerscheinungen. Die Araber fuhren nämlich «zweigleisig», wie es anschliessend in einer offiziellen deutschen Äusserung formuliert wurde.

Schnupperbegnung mit der Takya? Die Araber schienen sich aber wie die Fische im Wasser zu fühlen. Sie konnten da auf etliche Sympathisanten zählen.

  • Nach dem Ende ihres formellen Besuches nahmen sie auf eigene Faust Kontakte zu Bunddestagsaabgeordneten und Wirtschaftskreisen auf, wobei sie sich besonders für ehemalige Nazis interessierten.

Tja, die Herrschaften sagten sich halt, wie der Mufti mit den Nazis, so könnten auch sie alte Beziehungen an Ort und Stelle weiterpflegen.

Die Propagandatätigkeit der arabischen Delegierten wurde schliesslich so sehr zu einem öffentlichen Ärgernis, dass die Bundesregierung ihnen die Abreis nahelegte.

Nach dem Scheitern des Interventionsversuches begann es arabische Erklärungen zu hageln…usw.

Das war ein Jahr vor der Gründung der Terrororganisation PLO. Der Terror hatte Erfolg.

Die Verbindung war damals noch zu peinlich. Das wäre sie heute nicht mehr. Heute treffen die Anti-Israel-Propagandisten weltweit auf willige Helfer , vornehmlich aus dem linken Anti-Zionisten-Pool, der sich die arabische Vernichtungsagenda gegen Israel zu eigen macht, in Nachfolge der deutschen Nazi-Kollaboration mit den Muslimbrüdern. Die Antisemiten und Linksfaschisten von heute sind kein öffentliches Ärgernis, sie sind die offiziellen Vollstrecker der Islamisierung.

Das Bündnis der Linksfaschisten mit dem Islam wird in Deutschland an Anti-Israel-Demos mit Naziparolen offen zelebriert. Kein deutscher Justizminister protestiert gegen die offen demonstrierte islamische Judenfeindschaft, die der Vernichtung Israels gilt, keine deutsche Regierung bietet mehr den immer dreisteren arabischen Forderungen nach staatl. Förderung grundgesetzwidriger Organisationen Einhalt, im Gegenteil, auch die EU hat vor dem Islam kapituliert, die Aussenbeauftagte hat die Kapitulation erklärt: der Islam gehöre zu Europa. Die feudalen antidemokratischen EU-Eliten verwalten nur noch die Konkursmasse Europas, in dessen verwesenden Körper sich eine Raubnomadenkultur aus der Wüste des siebten Jahrhunderts eingenistet hat, die dem Westen den Krieg erklärt hat, der sich der Erobererreligion schon unterwirft, ehe er sich gegen seine Eroberung wehrt.