I think so.

lord ahmed jihad for food

I disagree in principle with the equating of diaspora Jews who are demanded to apologize for actions taken by the Israeli government, with that of Muslims being expected to apologize for the terrorist actions being done in the name of Islam.

The former does not represent the political government of the Jewish state, the latter however adheres to, and to some degree, even promotes the ideology which these 7th century throwbacks are acting upon. The duality of the koran makes it ‘their issue’ by default, even if they’re not willing to admit to it.

NOTE: People of course can make up their own minds about this, I don’t always have to agree with people that I greatly respect. That said, I do however agree with a lot of what is written here, what you don’t agree with, or have problems with provides some healthy thought provoking exercises.

This however leads us into a labyrinth, because many lay and religious Muslim leaders and organizations in a multitude of countries explicitly incite to murder. How can they condemn the very acts they promote? How can they condemn killings which they interpret as active adherence to Koranic requirements?

When can one request Muslims – and Jews — to publicly condemn crimes?

Manfred Gerstenfeld
Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldThe recent mass murders by Muslims in Paris raise again the question whether other Muslims are morally obliged to publicly condemn these murders. This issue is directly related to regular demands on Jews in the Diaspora to publicly condemn Israeli actions.

One of the best-known such demands was by the Swedish Social Democrat and part-time anti-Semite Ilmar Reepalu, when he was mayor of Malmö. That town, partly due to his mode of governance, has become perceived by many as the European capital of anti-Semitism.1 2

Why was Reepalu’s demand anti-Semitic? The Jews in Malmö are Swedish, not Israeli, citizens. Why should they distance themselves from acts in a country where they cannot vote, and thus have no say in its policies? What one could reasonably ask of Swedish Jews, or better yet, of representatives of the Jewish communities in that country is that they should condemn crimes committed in Sweden perpetrated by Jews in the name of Judaism. One should expect that in such cases both the rabbis and the lay leaders of Jewish communities there would come out against the crimes. In truth, the issue is for the most part theoretical. Jewish lawbreakers in Sweden usually do not usually claim to do so in the name of Judaism.

What has been said here about Swedish Jews may serve as a guideline of what public statements can reasonably be expected of Muslims after the mass murders in Paris. One has no right whatsoever to insist that individual Muslims or even Muslim organizations abroad express their opinion publicly on the murders. However, as with Sweden’s Jews, lay and religious Muslim leaders in France should be expected to condemn publicly such acts carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam.

This however leads us into a labyrinth, because many lay and religious Muslim leaders and organizations in a multitude of countries explicitly incite to murder. How can they condemn the very acts they promote? How can they condemn killings which they interpret as active adherence to Koranic requirements?

Let us look at where the French imams stand on this issue. Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles published an article on November 15 in which he described a meeting between a SWC delegation and French President François Hollande, which took place a year and a half ago. Cooper wrote that the SWC dean Rabbi Marvin Hier asked the President: “‘How many imams are there in France, and how many have condemned terrorist attacks’? ‘Six thousand imams…and about 10 have publicly spoken out…’ These days the number has been reduced to one: Imam Chalgoumi of Drancy. The others have been cowered into silence…”3 Unsurprisingly perhaps, this imam requires ongoing police protection.

Continue Reading →


This article about how serious is France in the war against Muslim terror first appeared in Israel National News and republished here with the author’s consent.

French presidential candidate Francois Hollande dust up

How serious is France about the war against Muslim terror?

Manfred Gerstenfeld

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldMany tough words have been used by President François Hollande and other French leaders after the terrible massacres in Paris on November 13. “Even if France is wounded, she will rise,” Hollande said. “Even if we are in grief, nothing will destroy her.” He also called the massacres an “act of war.”1 Prime Minister Manuel Valls said “we are at war.” The government has also called a state of emergency which it now wants to extend for three months.

The French government gives the impression that it is going to undertake a huge program to fight the Islamic State. French planes have already bombed the Syrian city Raqqa, the de facto capital of the organization. As an aside one might mention here that a summer 2014 poll found that 16% of the French population viewed ISIS favorably at that time.2

France or indeed any other country going to war, has to assess the battlefield. In a post-modern society this is radically different from classic warfare, as it is not limited to a geographically defined area. The battlefield includes a disparate collection of many individuals with seditious intentions. Radical Muslim ideology is widespread in France and elsewhere in Western Europe. The Islamic State variant is just one among several others.

Some of the terrorists came from the Molenbeek quarter, a radical Muslim hotbed in Brussels. The Belgian government has admitted that it has lost control over the area.3 France has temporarily closed its borders. However, instituting permanent border controls is a prerequisite in any effective fight against radicalized Muslims. Such a measure will inevitably undermine the Schengen open borders agreement, one of the major achievements of the EU.

France’s leaders have given no indication, in what we have heard from them thus far, that the country intends to deal with the entire battlefield. On the contrary, after the January 2015 murders of the Charlie Hebdo journalists and the Jews in the Hyper Cacher supermarket, Hollande stated: “these fanatics have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”4 He thus nonsensically claimed that when a Muslim with intent to murder shouts “Allahu Akbar” as a battle cry it has nothing to do with Islam. Valls spoke more truthfully when he commented on the minority ghettoes at the time. He said that there is a “territorial, social, and ethnic apartheid” separating these neighborhoods from the rest of France.5

These attacks pose a problem far greater than that faced in January this year, as the target is clearly no longer limited to journalist and Jews. The whole of France — and by extension Europe – its population and culture, is under attack.

Problems in the French Muslim community have multiple aspects, as for instance pointed in a study by Gilles Kepel.6 It is probable that only a small percentage of the anti-democrats among the Muslims in France currently harbor terrorist intentions. However, many more are susceptible to radicalization, and therefore must be seen as potential terrorists. Convincing a few more French Muslim leaders to condemn the murders is not going to help much. The real postmodern war against violent and other antidemocratic Muslims requires a master plan that goes far beyond interim measures such as the closure of radical mosques.

This means reclaiming the lost territories in French cities and society, a move tantamount to the elimination of defined urban areas currently ruled, to all intents and purposes, by Sharia law, where French law has been marginalized. It would mean the end of “no go zones” where the police can only enter in large numbers on an ‘ad hoc’ basis.

To state explicitly that government control would have to be restored in self-contained Muslim enclaves would verge on the sacrilegious for a socialist politician in France. This is not the result of a conspiracy of silence on the part of the French government and politically correct media. Such avoidance has its origins in something more insidious: a sanitization of public expression encouraged by the establishment’s main actors, both social and political. The absence of any clear mention of problems specifically related to the French Muslim population and to Islam, allows for the fallacious belief that such problems are not major.

Continue Reading →


France did not learn it’s lesson from attack on Charlie Hebdo staff.


Aftermath of the Paris Killings: Symptoms of French Disease

Manfred Gerstenfeld

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldAfter the recent spate of killings in Paris, French President François Hollande said that, “these fanatics have nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”1 Hollande’s words whitewash rather than clarify the problem, and was just one of the many events in the aftermath of the Paris murders which merit further attention.

Among world leaders, Hollande is not alone in whitewashing the Muslim identity of criminals. In a speech about the Islamic State movement, President Barack Obama said it was “not ‘Islamic’” and added, “No religion condones the killing of innocents.”2 This sentiment about the extreme Muslim movement was shared by British Prime Minister David Cameron, who stated, “They boast of their brutality. They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters.”3

The fact that the Paris murderers were very much Muslims was made even clearer when a variety of Muslim religious leaders and organizations in the Middle East identified with them.4 One does not even need to go that far. Many Muslim pupils in France refused to participate in the minute of silence, held at schools out of respect for the victims.5

The murderous events in Paris and the subsequent reactions are still too fresh to allow for a full-fledged assessment. Yet there are already a number of aspects which can be pointed out in the meantime, even if they merit further investigation.

First of all, between the two main killing sprees, there were marked differences in motive. The Charlie Hebdo journalists were killed for what they wrote and drew; the Jews in the supermarket were killed for who they were.

There is great symbolism in the four Jewish victims having been buried in Israel, even though they are Frenchmen. France has deceived them. The betrayal started long ago. France gave entry to millions of immigrants from a culture hostile to Jews. Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco are among the ten most anti-Semitic countries in the world. These results are from a 2014 ADL study on classic anti-Semitism in the world.6

Continue Reading →


When governments fail to act responsibly, individual actors rush in to fill in the gaps to safeguard their self interests, some for actual good -standing in defense of classical liberalism- and others for bad, ultra-internationalists and ultra-nationalists, with each demanding a radical solution to their country’s borders.

NOTE: What does it tell us about a Europe (Germany in particular) and its responsibility for the annihilation of European Jewry, when it busies itself with the importation of millions of Jew hating Muslims to replace the Jews it murdered?

NOTE: This new article on Germany was published in Israel National News, and republished here with the author’s consent.


Manfred Gerstenfeld

5 November 2015

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldGermany has been Israel’s major political backer over the past decades in an increasingly morally degenerating Europe. Even if only for this reason, it is important for Israel to closely follow what is happening in that country, and to assess whether the considerable emerging changes are relevant to it.

Israel’s main current worry however, should concern the potential impact on the local German Jewish population of the expected arrival of an estimated million refugees in the country this year and additional hundreds of thousands thereafter. Many of them come from extremely anti-Semitic Muslim countries and have imbued anti-Semitism since childhood.

An unsigned paper which recently circulated amongst high level security officials in the Federal government expressed dismay about the way in which Germany, in its “open-arms” policy toward the refugees, was importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism and national and ethnic conflicts of other nations by letting people in with a very different attitude toward society and the rule of state law.1

The analysis of the changes taking place in Germany is complex as new information is constantly emerging. 2 One has to differentiate between short term problems and what may possibly constitute long term changes. The probable short term issues are easier to identify. These include the difficulties in dispersing the asylum seekers throughout the country, the resulting tension between the two Christian coalition parties, Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrat Union (CDU) and Horst Seehofer’s Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), frictions with Austria regarding the way in which refugees are allowed to pass through its territory, and tensions with Eastern European countries which refuse to absorb asylum seekers.

These latter are no longer limited to Hungary, the initial leading opponent of mass immigration. These countries have enough problems of their own. They have also observed how problematic the integration of many of the Muslim immigrants in Western Europe has been in the past. In addition, the abuses perpetrated during Turkish rule, are enshrined in local history even if these events happened hundreds of years ago. Once the stream of immigrants lessens, these tensions are also likely to diminish as they are not necessarily perpetuated by practical factors. Another issue where there is less clarity how it will impact concerns the promises Merkel has made to Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with regard to promoting Turkey’s case for EU membership.3

The long-term issues are far more difficult to discern. It is helpful to try to understand what is behind Merkel’s policy of open borders. As a result Germany has taken in far more refugees in the past few months than all the other EU countries combined.

A number of motivations come to mind. Perhaps Merkel is seeking to offer the ultimate proof that Germany has changed, and that the new Germany has totally distanced itself from the indelible image created by Nazism. In sharp contrast to the country which expelled or murdered those it defined as outsiders, meet the new Germany, which offers a warm welcome to third world immigrants.

Continue Reading →


Daniel Killy has published a review of Dr.Manfred Gerstenfeld’s book “The War of a Million Cuts in German“, in the widely read Jewish German paper Jüdische Allgemeine. Republished here in English with the author’s consent.

The War of a Million Cuts

Daniel Killy

KillyThe common hatred of Jews in modern times, in particular in Germany, likes to cloak itself in the stealth mode of ‘censure of Israel’. This is its newest ploy, just one aspect of a worldwide anti-Semitism in its innumerable facets and forms, which has not only survived, but constantly seeks to expand further. In his most recent work, The War of a Million Cuts, Jerusalem-based anti-Semitism researcher Manfred Gerstenfeld assembles and analyzes the categories of current anti-Semitism and the defamation of Israel, all in one book.

The book’s title, The War of a Million Cuts illustrates the huge array of manifestations of enmity toward Jews. “I created this expression,” says Gerstenfeld, “in order to represent how radically the fight against the current forms of anti-Semitism is different from that against classic anti-Semitism. There the hatred of Jews concentrated itself in one particular message – the murder of Jesus, for instance, in religious anti-Semitism, or the genetic inferiority of the Jews in ethnic anti-Semitism.”

Propaganda Attacks

Nowadays the “cuts” are mainly directed against Israel. In 21 chapters and more than 500 pages, the 78-year-old author portrays and analyzes the individual facets of hatred toward Jews and Israel. This is the first complete collection and analysis of the unfortunately daily, worldwide propaganda attacks against Israel and the Jews. Be it Muslims (whether in dictatorships or as migrants in the West), politicians, classic media, social media, NGOs, church leaders, academics, trade-unionists, right wing extremists, social democrats or radical leftists – they all make up the essence of a new anti-Semitism which is apparently unstoppable in its relentless march forward.

Gerstenfeld meticulously describes the individual motifs and categories of this hatred, and presents an erudite exposition of how it constantly poisons societies, and how much damage it causes to Israel and the Jews. It is interesting to see that historical hate motifs such as the Jewish lust for blood survive in modern mutations. Gerstenfeld depicts the case of the Norwegian physicians Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse who helped wounded Hamas fighters during the 2008 Gaza campaign – financed by the Norwegian government. In their book Øyne I Gaza (Eyes in Gaza), they claim that Israel only marched into the Gaza strip in order to kill Palestinian women and children. In numerous interviews, these two compared the Israeli defence policy with the Greek Hades, the god of the underworld. Their reward for these defamations: repeated praise from the Norwegian Prime Minister at the time, Jens Stoltenberg, currently Secretary General of NATO, and the Order of St. Olav – from the hand of King Harald V himself.

Theft of Organs?

The Swedish journalist Donald Böström published an article in the daily Aftonbladet entitled “Our sons’ organs were stolen”, claiming that the IDF kills Palestinians in order to ‘harvest’ their organs – with the approval of the Israeli health authorities.

It would be premature to find such nonsense merely amusing. The vast number of such incidents, which Gerstenfeld details by country and methodology, shows how perniciously effective they are. For this reason, one cannot value Manfred Gerstenfeld’s work enough, in that he has brought together an entire cosmos of hatred against Jews and Israel in one compendium. The same is true for his core thesis: that for decades, Israel has not taken these attacks seriously enough, and prefers to counter them in a purely reactive way. Gerstenfeld vehemently demands the creation of an anti-propaganda agency.

The author asserts that it is possible to conduct a structured well organized battle against anti-Semitism, if it is done so with strategic, cool precision. Against the backdrop of so many intolerable incidents, Gerstenfeld’s book, graced with a preface by the former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, should be obligatory reading – in particular in Germany!

Manfred Gerstenfeld: »The War of A Million Cuts: The Struggle

Against the Delegitimization of Israel and the Jews, and the

Growth of New AntiSemitism RVP Press, New York 2015, 501 pages

29,95 $

Originally published in German under the title “Millionen Nadelstiche”, in the Jüdische Algemeiner, November 5, 2015.


And I’ll add, and carry a big Glock.

Anti-Israel tards

I keep insisting (and I believe that I’m right) that the importation of millions of Jew hating Muslims into Europe is a sign that Europeans really haven’t learned from its Holocaust of the Jews. It also serves as a warning for European Jews (as well as for American Jewry) to expect the imported Islamic variant of Jew hatred, to supercharge the European strain.

NOTE: This article was first published at INN and republished here with the author’s consent.


Manfred Gerstenfeld

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldJewish communities have had to tread carefully in their reactions to the huge influx of refugees, mainly Muslims, into Europe. This was particularly the case in the first emotion-laden weeks following publication of the appalling picture of the dead Syrian child on the beach of Lesbos, Greece. No Jew could publicly say: the intense suffering of many of these people is real – but so is the environment of extreme anti-Semitic hate in which these people have been raised. However, as the many practical problems related to the refugee influx have grown and received increased publicity, Jews have made more realistic statements, though remaining cautious.

The indiscriminate European acceptance of many millions of Muslims in the past has caused huge damage to European Jewish communities. A major influx of Muslim refugees into a European country means a further increase in anti-Semitism there. This is not because all the immigrants are anti-Semites. However, a much higher percentage of the immigrants are. So are those likely to perpetrate anti-Semitic acts if compared with the hate crime perpetrators in the existing local population. Some Muslim immigrants or their descendants are also far more radical than the native population. In the current century all murders of Jews in Europe because they are Jews, be it in the Paris area, Toulouse, Brussels or Copenhagen, have been committed by Muslims.

Every Jewish leader in Europe knows this. Yet at the onset of the crisis we saw several humanitarian-masochist statements by some who should have known better. Some Jewish representatives welcomed the newcomers without any mention whatsoever of the huge potential problems which could result.

The umbrella body of Jewish organizations in Flanders issued a press release reminding the authorities of the sufferings of Jewish refugees in the 1930s, and asking them to implement a generous admission policy for the newcomers. They even praised Germany’s current refugee policy, something about which the German Jewish community would later express deep concern. This ‘see no evil’ Jewish umbrella body made no mention of the many problems anti-Semitic Muslims had caused Jews in Belgium.1

Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the UK, usually a keen observer of the situation also got carried away. On 6th September 2015 he published an article in the anti-Israeli British daily The Guardian, entitled “Refugee crisis: ‘Love the stranger because you were once strangers’ calls us now.”

Part of his article was devoted to comparisons of the new immigrants with the “Kindertransport,” the Jewish refugee children who were brought to England from Germany in the 1930s. He also mentioned their subsequent significant contribution to British society. This was all the more surprising in light of Sacks’ familiarity with the many problems created for UK Jewry by Muslim immigrants and several Muslim organizations. A few weeks later, these problems were revisited in articles concerning frequent harassment of Jews in London’s Stamford Hill neighborhood by ‘young Asian men’. This expression is politically correct terminology used for Muslim criminal suspects.2

One should also remind Sacks that many of the people he welcomes with loving kindness take the Koran literally. They consider him and fellow Jews pigs and monkeys, in other words ‘subhuman.’3 The Kindertransport children were fleeing from Germans who also considered Jews subhuman. These Jewish children did not promote hate of anyone or discrimination of minorities.

One of the first to present a realistic opinion was Esther Voet — the editor of the Dutch Jewish weekly NIW — in the internet magazine Jalta. She wrote that people should not be carried away by their emotions. Voet mentioned that it was dangerous to state her opinion because she would risk inclusion in the extreme right wing camp.

She reminded readers how Dutch deputy Prime Minister Lodewijk Asscher was laughed at for his suggestion in 2013 that each refugee seeking asylum in the Netherlands should sign a declaration accepting the rights of women and homosexuals and asserting that he would not tolerate any intolerance against people of other religions and atheists. She added that the new refugees come from cultures where most people cannot accept equal rights for homosexuals, Jews, atheists and women.4

One of the first Jewish leaders in Europe who dared to express his views in clear language was Oskar Deutsch, the chairman of the Jewish community in Vienna. There had already been a debate among members following the community’s financial donation to the anti-Israeli Caritas organization. 5 Deutsch wrote in the Austrian daily Kurier on September 21 that the Jewish community had helped many refugees over the years.

He also pointed out that in the past, the arrival of 20 million Muslims to Europe had frequently led to physical anti-Semitic attacks and migration of Jews. Deutsch added that refugees arriving now from Syria and Afghanistan come from societies where anti-Semitism is a staple in their schoolbooks, media and social networks. Terror against Israelis, Muslim attacks on Jewish schools, synagogues, and Jewish museums are often glorified in these countries.6

Early in October 2015 Josef Schuster, the head of the German Jewish umbrella body Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland, expressed his worries in a meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel. He said that among the people who seek refuge in Germany, many come from countries where Israel is considered the prime enemy. Schuster remarked that these people have been grown up with a very hostile image of Israel and too frequently transfer this resentment to all Jews. The Jews of Germany therefore are right to fear that Muslim anti-Semitism in Germany will grow.7

Subsequently, Levi Salomon, a German Jewish anti-Semitism expert, told the British Daily Express that Jew-hating Nazi ideology and the hatred of Israel had been at the heart of the ruling Baath parties in both Syria and Iraq for decades. He added that therefore it must be assumed that the majority of Syrian refugees are anti-Semites. Lala Susskind, the former head of the Berlin Jewish community was quoted saying that “we don’t believe our fears are being taken seriously by politicians.”8 The paper also mentioned that in Germany “anti-Jewish crimes rose to a five-year high in 2014 with 1,596 recorded hate crimes against Jewish people, more than in any other EU state.”

The CJO, the umbrella body of Dutch Jewish organizations were moved to react when the municipality of Amstelveen, an Amsterdam suburb where many Jews live, decided to make an empty office building available for Syrian and Iraqi immigrants. The CJO press release expressed the deep concern of Dutch Jewish organizations about the security of the Jewish community. The text clarified that the proposed asylum center is located in the only place in the Netherlands with a visible and recognizable Jewish community infrastructure, with multiple synagogues, Jewish schools, kosher restaurants and kosher shops.

The CJO mentions that most of the terrorist threat to Jewish institutions comes from individuals and organizations from the countries of origin of the current asylum seekers, where official channels are very negative toward Jews.9

Polarization in Europe is increasing as a result of the refugee influx. Populist, nationalist and right wing parties have not only been rising in the polls – some election results already show that these parties have been actually achieving the gains forecasted. Recently in the state of Upper Austria, the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) won more than 30% of the votes as against 15% in the 2009 election.10 In Vienna the party received almost 31% of the votes, as opposed to 26% in 2010.11 While polarization is not specifically related to Jews, the rising xenophobic environment indicates further trouble in the future for Jewish communities.

Several years of negligence on the part of the European Union in its policies on the refugee issue have caused the recent influx. A few years ago, the EU could have pre-empted much of the issue by offering Turkey a fraction of the billions of Euro now being offered to that country. All in all, the future of many of the increasingly marginalized European Jewish communities is bleaker now than it was few month ago.


Continue Reading →


This was originally published in Hebrew, and presently the only publication of it in english, and published with the author’s consent.


Manfred Gerstenfeld

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldThe recently disclosed large-scale cheating of Volkswagen regarding the emissions of its diesel cars in the US is likely to develop into one of the world’s largest industrial scandals. What the American Volkswagen engineers did was simple. They developed and installed a device which reduced emissions far below their actual level when they were measured. Once the measurement was over, emissions returned to a multiple of the measured one.

The selling of cars with this device has been going on for years. One can only wonder how it wasn’t discovered much earlier. The discovery took place because some outsiders did driving tests of a Volkswagen car on the road instead of a lab test. They measured emissions and found that the Volkswagen diesel car emissions were many times bigger than they were announced to be. Only the tight Volkswagen culture can explain why there was no whistle blower in the company who told the story years earlier to the media. Yet it has become known that within the firm there were engineers who warned against the cheating. In a hearing before the US senate, the head of the US subsidiary of Volkswagen, Michael Horn, said that he only heard about the problem in 2014.

The reasons given for this major cheating are that the development engineers were given performance criteria for new diesel car emissions which could not be met within the planned budget. Once again, the rigid Volkswagen culture explains why they did not expose the problems to top management.

There are huge potential costs and other consequences of this cheating. Volkswagen is currently selling the largest number of cars in the world. It will have to recall all the cars which have deficient devices and make changes which bring emissions down to a legally admitted level. This seems to concern eleven million cars. Furthermore, no new diesel cars can be sold until they have been fitted with alternative devices.

Continue Reading →


And with Europe being led by socialists and neo-statists who are hell bent on importing more and more jew hating muslims into europe, well, the situation is not going to get any better, in fact, it’s going to worsen.

NOTE: This appeared today’s Jerusalem Post, and republished here with the author’s consent.


Manfred Gerstenfeld

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldEarlier this month, the Fundamental Rights Agency – an official European body — published a review of anti-Semitism in Europe over the period 2004-2014.1 Perhaps the most significant observation on studying the document is that no data was supplied by several member countries, and that data collected differ greatly from country to country. Many Jews do not even think it worthwhile to report anti-Semitic incidents to the police.

When data for problems which were known ten years ago is allowed to remain insufficient, not much more is required to prove that the EU does not make serious efforts to fight anti-Semitism. The establishment of a solid data base is an essential first step for the development of a broad plan to fight anti-Semitism.

The FRA report mentions the main perpetrators of anti-Semitic incidents in the following order: “neo-Nazis, sympathizers of the far right and far left, Muslim fundamentalists and the younger generation, including school children. There are also incidents of public anti-Semitic discourse on university campuses.”2

The order of the perpetrators as presented by the FRA is suspect. Those familiar with European anti-Semitism know that on an overall European basis Muslims should be placed at the top of the list. The murders of Jews because they were Jews in the current century in France, Belgium and Denmark have all been perpetrated by Muslims.3

In view of the social climate in Western Europe only a few Jewish experts have dared to point out that the majority of anti-Semitic incidents in their country are caused by Muslims. One of them was Esther Voet, when she was director of the Dutch pro-Israeli defense organization CIDI. She stated that the number of anti-Semitic incidents reported in summer 2014 in The Netherlands was equal to the total number of incidents in the year 2011-2012. Voet estimated that two-thirds of these are perpetrated by non-Western immigrants or their descendants. It was a euphemistic reference to Muslims who represent at most seven percent of the Dutch population.4

Sammy Ghozlan, president of the National Bureau for Vigilance against Anti-Semitism in France was quoted as saying, even before Protective Edge, that the vast majority of physical anti-Semitic attacks in France are committed by Muslims.5

The FRA is the successor of an earlier body, The European Monitoring Center for Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). This organization was officially established through a European Council Regulation in 1997. In 2003, the EUMC attempted to suppress a study about European anti-Semitism it had ordered from the Center of Research of Anti-Semitism at The Technical University in Berlin (CRA). In response to the suppression of their conclusions, the CRA researchers stated that the emphasis they had given to Muslim anti-Semites and anti-Zionists was inconvenient for the EUMC. By not putting Muslims first among the current perpetrators, this is apparently still inconvenient for the FRA.6

The FRA itself has also hampered the fight against anti-Semitism.

In 2013 it removed the EUMC working definition of anti-Semitism from its website, which had been prepared by a group of experts in 2005.7 The existence of a definition is crucial for fighting this form of hatred. The suppressed definition was inconvenient for the EU as it lists the use of double standards against Israel as anti-Semitic acts.8 This would effectively label the EU as a perpetrator of anti-Semitic acts.

Within the EU Commission, its Dutch Vice President Frans Timmermans is now responsible for the fight against anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. This intelligent and cunning former Dutch Foreign Minister is a member of the anti-Israeli Dutch Labor Party.9 Often when Israel is at stake he will make some valid remarks and then somehow insert a distorting twist.

At the first Forum of Fundamental Rights, at the beginning of this month Timmermans addressed anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.10 His speech was vintage Timmermans. He mentioned that “anti-Semitism sometimes tries to hide itself behind anti-Zionism.” For an observer of the European scene, this is an understatement. The “sometimes” should be replaced by “frequently.” He began to stray considerably from reality when he compared the current refugees with the Jewish refugees of the 1930s, saying with emotional emphasis “The only thing that is different is that the refugees today come from somewhere else and have a different background.” He conveniently forgot to mention that, among other differences, many of the current Muslim refugees were raised in an environment where they have been instilled with extreme hatred of Israel and Jews for decades.

Timmermans announced that the European commission is going to appoint two coordinators, who will report respectively about anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. They will report directly to him. This is a positive initiative.

Two important observations should however be made here. First, the anti-Semitism coordinator should be charged specifically by Timmermans to deal with anti-Israelism as well. If he does not do so, he cannot function effectively in the EU environment where forty percent of the population over 16 years old hold the extreme anti-Semitic stereotypical belief that Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians.11 Much of the widespread European anti-Semitism manifests itself as anti-Israelism. It has been pointed out in letters in the past to the previous Heads of the EU Commission and the president of the European Parliament by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Gatestone Institute. The vague answers they received indicated that there was no desire to change anything.12

The second observation is that Timmermans should charge the anti-Semitism coordinator to devote significant attention to Muslim anti-Semitism. If he does not do so, Jewish organizations should approach Euro-parliamentarians to ask the European Commission questions why this Coordinator does not give Muslim anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism the great deal of attention they so obviously require.


1 Antisemitism Overview of data available in the European Union 2004–2014, FRA- European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, October 2015.

2 Ibid, 11.

3 Ruthie Blum, “Antisemitism Scholar Decries ‘Commemoration Discrimination’ on 43rd Anniversary of Munich Massacre”, The Algemeiner, 6 September 2015.

4 Naama Lansky, “Sakana Berura Umijadit,” Israel Hayom, 22 August 2014. [Hebrew]

5 “Report: Gang of youths taser French Jew at Paris monument,” JTA, 11 June 2014.

6 Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Professor Amy Elman, “Op-Ed: How European Agencies Suppress Key Anti-Semitism Data,” Israel National News, 23 September 2014.

7 Sam Sokol, “Israel Urges EU Human Rights Body to Return ‘Anti-Semitism’

Definition to Website,” The Jerusalem Post, 6 December 2013.

8 Working definition of anti-Semitism, Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism (CFCA),

9 Manfred Gerstenfeld, “Will the EU Delegate to the Global Anti-Semitism Forum Tell the Truth?” Israel National News, 3 May 2015.

10 “Opening remarks of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans at the First Annual Colloquium on Fundamental Rights,” European Commission Press Release Database, Brussels, 1 October 2015. (

11 Manfred Gerstenfeld, “: The Widespread German Hatred of Jews and Israel,” Israel National News, 2 July 2015.

12 Letter from Gatestone Institute New York to Mr. José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, 25 March 2014.

Letter from Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center Los Angeles to Mr. Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, 18 February 2014.

TT NOTE: The equating of irrational based Jew hatred (antisemitism) with that of the fallaciously named ”islamofauxbia” (factual critique of Islam and corresponding muslim behavior) is a crime in itself. What at times might be called anti-muslim related crime (ripping of a hijab, attacking their person and other forms of violence etc), by no means should be confused with the term (ruse) of “islamofauxbia”, a label that defies description by those who wield it about like an iron club.

CSP’s Stephen Coughlin at OSCE Warsaw 2013: 

But what I saw today was a refusal to give a definition, and I think in large part because you can’t.
Now the thing about it is, the term Islamophobia is applied to people for the purpose of attacking them. And so I noticed, sir, you brought up the fact that you work for Runnymede. It’s not lost on me that the OIC’s observatory publications, annual observatory reports, relies on Runnymede for the terms that they go after to attack people. And in fact, I just pulled one up right now where they’re quoting Runnymede.
So I think there’s something just not quite right about how this discussion is going. I mean, all people asked was that you define the term you’re going to use to attack people, when you attack them, when it’s clear that the OIC has observatory reports to go after people for doing exactly that.
So I mean, if the people writing this book find that the terms is so complicated they can’t define it, maybe they should defer to somebody else or maybe they should suspend use when attacking people when they can’t get their hands around it. I mean, there’s just something not right about this. Cause you did say you were going to give us an in detail discussion of what it means and that has not happened. [APPLAUSE]


Their muffled sobs during annual Holocaust Memorial services are erased by their support for murders of Jews today.

Israeli political scientist Efraim Karsh noted that in 2001 in an interview with the news magazine Suomen Kuvalehti, the Socialist foreign minister of Finland Erkki Tuomioja denounced Israel’s attempts to protect its citizens from the terror war launched by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority in September 2000. Tuomioja, compared Israeli defensive measures to the Nazi persecution of European Jewry: “It is quite shocking that some implement the same kind of policy toward the Palestinians which they themselves were victims of in the 1930s.”11

How European Social-Democrats support Palestinian Murderers

Manfred Gerstenfeld

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldWith the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the British Labour party the anti-Israeli incitement by European social democrats has crossed a new red line. Corbyn is not just another pro-Palestinian. Several years ago, he called a Hamas and Hezbollah delegation ‘his friends,’ despite the fact that both organizations promote genocide of the Jews. Ghazi Hamad, deputy foreign minister of the Islamo-Nazi movement Hamas, praised Corbyn at the beginning of September, describing him as ‘a man of conscience.”1

Corbyn is open about where he stands by calling such criminals his friends. Many other European social democrats support crime-promoting Palestinians more insidiously. One typical ‘subterranean’ method is to attack Israel while remaining silent on the subject of Hamas’ genocidal plans against the Jews and the glorification of murderers of civilians by the Palestinian Authority and President Mohammed Abbas, leader of Fatah, the second largest Palestinian party.

In an interview with Norway’s commercial channel TV2 in 2011, Jonas Gahr Stoere, then Norwegian Foreign Minister and currently Labor Party leader, initially denied that he had spoken directly with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal several times on the phone.2 The interviewer replied that Mashal had confirmed that he had been in contact with the Foreign Minister at the time. Stoere then asked to stop the tape and restart the interview. He explained that the contacts with Mashal were instigated following a request by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Norwegian government also asserted that it had never recognized Hamas or established political contact with that entity. The US ambassador to Norway at the time, Benson K. Whitney, saw it differently. In a note he sent to the State Department in 2009, he said, “Even though they would deny it, there are clear signs that the contact with Hamas is not just a tactical need for dialogue, but that they also support Hamas’s position on some level.”3

The current Swedish government was the first Western European government to recognize the ‘state of Palestine.’4 Social democrat Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and his colleagues knew very well that they were recognizing people who actively glorify murderers, and that this ‘state’ consisted of two separate entities barely communicating with each other.

Social democrat Prime Minister Olof Palme was perhaps Sweden’s leading post-war politician. He showed overt hatred toward Israel when several decades ago he accused Israel of Nazi practices.5

The Dutch Labor party is the junior partner to the liberals within the current Dutch government. Its leader Diederik Samson is an anti-Israeli inciter.6 The party’s position on major political issues is set out on its website. The section concerning international affairs includes a subsection on the Middle East. Peculiarly, the entire subsection is devoted to one item alone: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.7 The remainder of the Middle East, despite all the mass murders and other turmoil, apparently does not exist, or is not worthy of mention. This is particularly odd considering the fact that the Netherlands actively participates in the bombardment of the so-called “Islamic State” Islamo-Nazis in Iraq.8

Iceland is a small, marginal country in Europe. However, even in this relatively unimportant country, the socialists managed to cross the existing red lines and get enough support in the Reykjavik municipal council to vote in a boycott of Israeli products.9

Apart from the parties as such, extreme individual anti-Israeli inciters are also active among social democrats in other countries.

Continue Reading →


It’s Jew hatred, the very same kind that murdered these 11 Israeli athletes.

Antisemitism Scholar Decries ‘Commemoration Discrimination’ on 43rd Anniversary of Munich Massacre

SEPTEMBER 6, 2015 3:13 PM


A Black September terrorist in the midst of the hostage-taking and murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. Photo: Xavier Tricot/Wikimedia Commons.

On the 43rd anniversary of the Munich massacre, perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli athletes during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Germany, a well-known antisemitism scholar says the world’s reaction over the years has amounted to antisemitism.

In an interview with The Algemeiner on Sunday, Manfred Gerstenfeld, author of the recently published book, The War of a Million Cuts: The Struggle against the Deligitimization of Israel and the Jews, and the Growth of New Anti-Semitism, called the lack of ceremony surrounding the mass murder “commemoration discrimination.”

“One can hardly imagine that if participants in the Olympics from a European or Arab country had been killed during the games, there would not have been official commemorations at subsequent games,” said Gerstenfeld, who was born in Austria, raised in Holland and moved to Israel in 1968. “The fact that the murdered Israeli athletes have not been officially commemorated seems indicative of double standards. It is one of many contemporary phenomena where the double standards that characterize antisemitism manifest themselves.”

Gerstenfeld, a former steering committee chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, explained what he considers to be a difference between the Islamic terrorists who committed the slaughter in Munich and those of today.

More here.


Actions in need of explaining.


Manfred Gerstenfeld

Seventy years have passed, during which successive Dutch governments have avoided official mention of the grave misconduct of its Second World War predecessors in exile in London, with respect to the many murdered Dutch Jews. All governmental post-war statements on this issue taken together amount to less than one page of vague, irrelevant or glib rhetoric.

Every now and then, opportunities arise to draw attention again to the Dutch official omissions or falsifications of the truth. One such occasion occurred when the Dutch government recently apologized to the family of a murdered woman for its negligence in surveilling the murderer, her mentally disturbed brother. The government also rushed to apologize to the family of the former Dutch Prime Minister Els Borst who was murdered in February 2014, apparently by the same suspect. He has however neither confessed to this murder, nor been convicted in court.

The contrast of these rushed apologies for possible indirect government responsibility with the lengthy absence of such apologies to the Jewish community is self-evident, and highlights the extreme double standards involved. On the one hand – apologies concerning one person possibly killed due to government negligence. On the other hand – seventy years of waffling about over 100,000 Dutch Jews murdered by the German occupiers, while the Dutch government showed virtually no interest in these citizens and made no effort to save any of them.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center aroused the interest of the Wall Street Journal in this matter. The paper offered us (Rabbi Cooper and myself) the opportunity to publish a joint article on Dutch double standards concerning apologies.1

Continue Reading →


This article of Jamie Berk and Dr.Gerstenfeld on UNESCO’s moral relativism was originally published at INN and republished here with the author’s consent.


Manfred Gerstenfeld and Jamie Berk

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldArguments making use of “moral relativism,” or the immoral claim that “the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons”1 are often used against Israel in a damaging way. The United Nations is a major culprit, and this tool is employed frequently under its auspices

In an earlier article we have shown moral relativism’s regular use by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).2 This abusive instrument, based on “different value criteria for different people”, is regularly employed against Israel by yet another UN agency – the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

UNESCO was established in 1945, its purpose being “to respond to the firm belief of nations, forged by two world wars in less than a generation, that political and economic agreements are not enough to build a lasting peace. Peace must be established on the basis of humanity’s moral and intellectual solidarity.”3

Israel has been an active and compliant member of UNESCO since 1999. It now has nine World Heritage Sites and eighteen tentative sites awaiting approval.4 Yet UNESCO has continually attacked Israel. The accusations by the agency not only concern what it falsely calls Israeli threats to cultural landmarks, but also question Jewish claims to heritage in Israel.

In 2012, UNESCO inaugurated a sponsored Chair in Astronomy, Astrophysics and Space Sciences at the Islamic University of Gaza. The institution employs numerous Hamas engineers who have been known to manufacture explosives and bombs for use against Israeli civilians. According to a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official, this sponsoring of academic activities taking place within a terrorist environment was announced without being preceded by an investigation of the university’s doings. Similar inaugurations of UNESCO-sponsored chairs at the Technion and at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliyah (IDC) were, however, “checked with a magnifying glass.”5

One common application of moral relativism by UNESCO has been its harsh judgment of how Israel manages holy sites. The agency has also denied the legitimacy of Jewish claims to these sites. No similar standards have been applied by UNESCO within the Arab world.

In 2014, UNESCO partnered with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in presenting an exhibition at UNESCO’s Paris headquarters entitled, “People, Book, Land – The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People to the Holy Land.” Its text was written by the late Robert Wistrich, a leading scholar of anti-Semitism.

Continue Reading →


Originally published in Israel National News, republished here with the author’s permission.



Manfred Gerstenfeld interviews Carlo van Praag

An estimated 53,000 Jews live in the Netherlands. This figure is based on two demographic studies carried out among the Jewish community – the first one in 1999 and the second in 2009. The main purpose of these studies was to investigate the nature of the bond between Dutch Jews and Judaism. Many people interviewed were hesitant about how to define their Jewishness. The figure above reflects a heterogeneous population; about 30,000, or 57%, self-identify as Jews, while 17,000 self-identify as having ‘Jewish origins’.

Some 7% see themselves as Jews at given moments. The phenomenon of ‘feeling’ Jewish can emerge, for instance, when they are among Jews, or alternatively, when they are among non-Jews. It also may surface when they are confronted with anti-Semitism or with critiques of Israel from non-Jews. About 4% consider themselves to be non-Jewish. Only 1% of the Jews are converts.”

Carlo van Praag has studied social geography at Amsterdam University. He is the retired deputy director of the Social and Cultural Planning Bureau, a government office that carries out social research and advises the Dutch government.

He adds: “The number of those in the Netherlands who are Jewish according to Jewish law (halachically Jewish) is about 37,000. This population maintains its numbers in part because of the increasing number of Israelis living in the Netherlands, which currently stands at about 9,000. Their stay is often temporary, however, as many of them are students or ex-pats who have found work in the Netherlands. Jews who have only Jewish fathers or grandfathers, are not considered to be Jewish according to Jewish law.

Over the past decades, the assimilation of Jews in the Netherlands has continued, much like elsewhere across Europe. The other marked trend taking place is the decline in membership of Jewish organizations. Mixed marriages are both an indicator and a stimulator of assimilation. On the one hand, they lead to a greater stability in numbers of Dutch Jews. On the other hand, the intensity of the bond with Judaism decreases.

Continue Reading →


Present day Jew hatred in The Netherlands mirrors that of the 30’s in Germany.

And once they get done with apologizing for past offenses, then they can apologize for flooding of their country with more Jew haters (Islamic immigrants), proving that they were never really serious about addressing the Jew hatred that led to their “contributions” during the German occupation, nor about combating it afterwards in post war Europe.

It’s Time for the Netherlands to Apologize

The government has yet to officially acknowledge its mistreatment of Jews in World War II.

More here.


I firmly believe that it’s not by accident that after Europe murdered over 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, they end up importing by tens of millions of highly antisemitic Muslims. The former’s latent Jew hatred is then complimented and supercharged by the latter’s, in an evil symbiotic relationship, that will eventually consume these very host societies and they don’t even see it coming.

NOTE: It’s also worth noting that Christian Jew hatred has been roundly condemned by the very same jackasses who then turn a blind eye to canonical based Islamic Jew hatred, some out of political expediency, others from being in complete agreement.

cnaan liphshiz


Manfred Gerstenfeld interviews Cnaan Liphshiz

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldWhile covering Europe as a journalist over the past years, I have seen a recrudescence of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism almost everywhere on the Western part of the continent. In such a brief interview, I can only mention a few examples to illustrate it.

In October 2012 I wrote about the synagogue in Marseille, France’s second largest city: ‘At a time when Jewish institutions across France resemble military fortresses for their security, entering the great synagogue and main Jewish center of this picturesque city on the Mediterranean coast is as easy as pushing open the front door.’

In Marseille, this is no longer the case. Jews fortify their institutions almost everywhere in Western Europe and an increasing number of them hide their identity. In January 2015, the Jewish schools of Marseille, which is home to France’s second-largest Jewish community, were put under permanent police protection provided by officers armed with machine guns.”

Cnaan Liphshiz is the European correspondent of the Jewish Telegraph Agency since 2012. He has previously worked for Haaretz, Maariv and The Jerusalem Post.

One response in Paris is rather unique, but it means little within the general European context. In 2013, some members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) chased the Arabs they suspected of having perpetrated an attack a day earlier. The JDL also went into action when a Parisian synagogue was attacked during Israel’s Protective Edge campaign in the summer of 2014. They are on a collision course with the Jewish community which has always been opposed to taking the law in one’s own hands.

In the Paris suburb of Sarcelles during the summer of 2014, I stood in a cloud of tear gas with Jews who were defending their shul from a pogrom-like rabble. An Arab mob numbering two hundred, armed with sticks and stones, tried to attack the synagogue. They set garbage cans alight and shouted, ‘Slaughter the Jews.’ A police force prevented their attack. The hundred or so JDL supporters who were at the scene, armed with baseball bats and clubs, sang the French national anthem, La Marseillaise, in honor of the police. The Arabs were unable to reach the synagogue but managed to torch two cars and throw a firebomb at a smaller synagogue which was slightly damaged. Over the summer, nine French synagogues were attacked.

Around that time I reported from Paris that during an illegal demonstration, I had heard a young black man with a Parisian accent declare loudly to a dozen of his friends, ‘OK, guys. Let’s go hunt some Jews.’ One of his friends answered, ‘Let’s break their heads’, to which the man replied, ‘Catch them fast, kill them slow.’

One of the few other places where I found some members of a Jewish defense force, be it under very different circumstances, was the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. A small group of Jews were practicing self-defense in case of urban warfare. All of them had some form of Ukrainian or Israeli army background, but their skills were rusty.

My own environment has changed as well. My wife and I lived within a small gated Jewish enclave in the Schilderswijk, a neighborhood of The Hague. This is one of the most problematic neighborhoods in the Netherlands. There is high unemployment and in the summer of 2014, a number of Muslims marched there in support of the Islamic State. The problems go far beyond the fact that my wife cannot walk in public wearing a skirt.”

Liphshiz quotes from an interview he gave a Dutch news site at time. “I said during the interview that, although it is distressing to say so, I feel more at ease in some neighborhoods of Jerusalem, including the ones with Palestinian residents, than in the Netherlands. In Israel, there is much acceptance of minorities’ sensitivities. In Europe, minorities are often resented for those sensitivities.”

He adds that in The Hague “I went to have my phone repaired in a shop. When the Turkish owner heard that I was Israeli, he said, ‘Wait a moment. I’ll fetch my gun’. He laughed a bit to indicate that he was not serious. I asked him what he had against Israelis, or against Jews. The shop owner answered that he ‘simply’ hated Jews. In the summer of 2015, during the Ramadan holiday, there were riots after an Aruban national was strangled to death by the Dutch police during his arrest. The unfortunate event had nothing to do with Jews, and yet many protesters shouted anti-Semitic slogans.”

Liphshiz concludes: “In the past when I would mention to friends where I resided, I would always add that we never had any issues with our neighbors. I would also remark that I did not hide being a Jew. Nowadays that is no longer true. We have relocated, in part because of the rapid radicalization we experienced.”


Dr.Gerstenfeld’s latest article on the decades of media bias against Israel, published here with the author’s consent.



Manfred Gerstenfeld

The strong bias that many European media hold against Israel has been documented for decades by a great variety of analysts. One of the first to do so was The Jerusalem Post editor David Bar-Illan. He gave many examples of media prejudice in his book, Eye on the Media,1 published in 1983 and based on his columns in the daily.

In a 1985 book, Israeli diplomat Sergio Minerbi analyzed six documentaries of the French-language Belgian TV station RTBF. These focused on the Middle East and were heavily biased against Israel.2 Henry Weinberg devoted an entire chapter of his 1987 book, The Myth of the Jew in France, to the widespread prejudice of the French left-wing “quality” daily, Le Monde.3

During an interview some ten years after the publication of his book, Bar-Illan told me that the BBC was “by far the worst offender when it comes to Israel.” He said that there were hundreds of examples of BBC malevolence within the political sphere. Bar-Illan took the example of an incident in which a coffeehouse in Arab East Jerusalem collapsed due to structural problems. Jews and Arabs worked together to save lives. The BBC did not say a word about this collaboration; all they reported was that Arabs had suffered while repeating the libel that a bomb had been placed in the coffeehouse.4

The huge outburst of European anti-Semitism that has emerged over the past fifteen years has been most violent in France. The French media prejudice against Israel was covered in 2002 in a collection of ten essays by the anti-Semitism watchdog organization, Observatoire du Monde Juif, headed by Shmuel Trigano.5 Two essays were devoted to the bias of Le Monde, and an essay by Clément Weill Raynal analyzed the anti-Israel bias of the French press agency, Agence France Presse.6

In an interview in 2004 Trigano told me that the extreme power of the media represents a major danger to Western democracy. “Their attitude toward Israel and the Jews over the last few years has shown that they can pervert analysis, debate and criticism. We are dependent on a class of journalists with consensus political views. They read and co-opt each other’s opinions, without accountability to anyone. Freedom and democracy however, cannot coexist if truth and facts are obscured.”7

In 2005 I published a collection of interviews on European-Israeli relations in a book titled Europe and Israel an Expanding Abyss. One of the interviewees, German Christian-Democrat parliamentarian Hildegard Müller, affirmed that the media is partly responsible for Israel’s problematic image. She mentioned that they often relay news items without confirming their veracity. Müller drew attention to the repeated use of particular images which she called “news preserves.” She also remarked that many newspapers obtain their news items from press agencies, such as Agence France Press, which then leads to similar reporting in many media.8

Another interviewee, Robert Wistrich, the leading academic scholar on anti-Semitism, stated that the media, together with politicians and society in general, “castigate, reproach, heavily criticize, and even demonize Israel. They paint a negative and stereotypical picture of the Jewish state, especially on television and in the press.”9

Former Israeli ambassador to the UK, Tzvi Shtauber, recounted during his interview that he was once visited by five members of a board of a British association of journalists. A prominent journalist made a demand of Shtauber which reflected how much Israel had been demonized: “We want your assurance, Mr. Ambassador, that it is not the official policy of the State of Israel to shoot journalists.”

Shtauber called the BBC a problem in itself: “Over the years I had endless conversations with them. Any viewer who for a consistent period looks at the BBC’s information gets a distorted picture…it derives from the BBC’s method of Broadcasting.”10

A quantitative analysis of the BBC’s prejudice against Israel was undertaken by Trevor Asserson, a British litigation lawyer who has since immigrated to Israel. Between 2001 and 2004, he conducted four well-documented studies detailing the BBC’s systematic bias against Israel. Asserson mentioned that the BBC enjoys a monopoly derived from a legally binding contract with the British government.

Asserson analyzed the BBC’s legal obligations as delineated in its charter, and identified fifteen guidelines. These included the obligation of the BBC to ensure that opposing views are well represented and the obligation of not allowing the audience to gauge reporters’ personal views. Asserson identified many cases in which the BBC breached several of these guidelines, and added that on some occasions, it broke most of them.

In order to determine the extent of its bias, Asserson conducted a forensic analysis of the BBC. He concluded that the “BBC’s news reports concerning Israel are distorted by omission, by inclusion, by only giving partial facts, by who is interviewed, and by the background information provided or lack of it.”

Since then, a variety of European media have been analyzed for bias against Israel. A recent study by Joël Kotek, for instance, shows how Israel was portrayed in a severely distorted manner in the French-speaking Belgian media during the 2014 Protective Edge campaign against Hamas.11

I also interviewed Johannes Gerster for my 2005 book. This former German parliamentarian was the head of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Israel. Gerster mentioned that he had tried in vain to convince top Israeli officials that propaganda was an essential element of war. He noted that they did not want to listen.12

We are now ten years down the road, but the situation has not changed. The problem of media bias against Israel has been documented repeatedly over the past decades, and the analytical methodology needed to assess this prejudice has been in place for years. This raises a fundamental question about Israeli policy: what has the Israeli government done to stem the tide of incitement against Israel resulting from such prejudiced reporting?

Why would the Israel government not follow and analyze – if necessary, by an outside contractor — the bias against Israel of a number of media over the years? Would it have been difficult to design a mode of action against those media who are, to a large extent, direct or indirect propagandists for Israel’s enemies?

The answer can only be that the Israeli government has done next to nothing regarding the matter. One can only wonder why there are no politicians or political parties which feel it is worthwhile to raise the issue and keep it in the public eye.


Continue Reading →


This is Dr.Gerstenfeld’s article on the Jewish masochist tradition, published today in the Jerusalem Post, and republished at the Tundra Tabloids with the author’s consent. This version has footnotes.

From Abraham to Woody Allen: The Jewish Masochist Tradition

Manfred Gerstenfeld

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldThe largest Palestinian party, Hamas, which triumphed in the 2006 democratic elections, openly promotes genocide against Jews. It is explicitly stated in its official charter and repeated from time to time by its leaders. The second largest Palestinian party, Fatah, is only (sic) a racist party. Its leader, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, has declared that no Israelis will live in a future Palestinian state.1 The Palestinian Authority furthermore regularly glorifies murderers of Israelis.2 Compared to those of other Arab states and entities, Palestinian levels of prejudice and criminality are probably somewhere in the middle. Polls indicate that should current elections be held, Hamas leader Haniyeh would easily win against Abbas.3

Despite all of the Palestinians’ criminality, there is a significant number of Israelis who have little or no critique of them. Simultaneously, a certain number of these Israelis prefer to criticize the Israeli leadership for a variety of failures. However legitimate and significant these critiques might be, they pale in comparison to the moral degradation of the Palestinian nation, which voted Islamo-Nazis and glorifiers of murderers of civilians into political power.

This widespread masochist attitude among Israelis has deep roots in Jewish tradition. It begins with the founder of the Jewish people, Abraham. He pleads at length with God about how many righteous citizens of Sodom one would need to find in order that the evil city be saved. However, when God tells him to sacrifice his own son, Isaac, Abraham is willing to fulfill this divine order without any argument. God ultimately saves Isaac – but not because Abraham has asked him to do so.4 That is the plain reading of the Bible text.

Besides this masochistic attitude, there is a second Jewish tradition which might be best described as the Mosaic one. Moses pleads for himself in addition to fighting for his people. When God tells him that he will not enter the Holy Land, Moses argues to convince God otherwise. It is in vain, but at least he tried.5

The Jewish masochistic tradition continues throughout the centuries. A variety of texts of the prophets also fit this approach. A Talmudic text even states it explicitly: “Rabbi Abahu says be always among the persecuted and not among the persecutors. 6

Many Holocaust survivors would take exception to these words, which classically are seen as an expression of wisdom. The Holocaust generation is witness to how many Jewish doctors and humanitarians were murdered, and how many of the most brutal executioners survived and weren’t even brought to justice.

An exegetic text of the Midrashic literature shows a similar attitude as the above Talmudic one: “Abel was the victim of Cain, Abel’s offerings were accepted; Noah was persecuted by his contemporaries, Abraham by Nimrod, Isaac by the early Philistines, Jacob by Esau, Joseph by his brothers, Moses by Pharaoh, David by Saul, and Saul himself by the Philistines; and amongst all these the persecuted and not the persecutors were chosen by God.”7

Similarly, some Jewish prayers have a strong masochistic content, which reaches its pinnacle in the prayers around the High Holidays. One such prayer is, “we have sinned more than any other nation.” Taking into account global events such as the mass murders in the Arab world and in Africa, for instance, or the genocidal calls emerging from parts of Islam, the prayer’s text is surrealistic.

A more extreme form of masochism is self-hate. Theodor Lessing, in pre-war Europe, coined the term as a title for his book.8 A typical example of this self-loathing is evident from the politics of the Jewish prime minister of Austria, Bruno Kreisky. Only a Jew could plead the Austrians partly-free of their huge guilt during the war. His Jewish self-hate was made clear with statements such as, “If the Jews are a people, they are an ugly people.”9

The Jewish masochist tradition also expresses itself in Jewish humor. The English make fun of the Irish, the Germans joke about the Poles and the Dutch laugh about the Belgians. Jews, however, often make jokes at their own expense. This is epitomized by a line from Woody Allen’s film, Annie Hall. Alvy, the filmmaker’s alter ego, says, “I am comparatively normal for a guy raised in Brooklyn.”

In May 2014, the visit of then-president Shimon Peres to Norway yielded a far-going example of Israeli self-abasement. In Norway, anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are rife. A poll showed that 38% of the population consider that Israel behaves like Nazis toward the Palestinians.10 During the visit Peres said, “Norway is the pearl of humanity, built on human values, and seeks to keep people equal and free.”11

This small selection illustrates a deeply rooted tradition which manifests itself to different extents across large parts of the Israeli political spectrum. The appeasers and peace movements who continue to push for further territorial concessions to the Palestinians are unable to learn anything from Ariel Sharon’s disastrous decision to withdraw from Gaza. The masochism does not sit in their genes, however; children are not born masochist but get it from their education.

The masochistic tradition also sits, to a lesser extent, in many other places within Israeli society. Consecutive Israeli governments have not exposed the severity of official Palestinian criminality. Examples of Israeli masochism on this issue abound –and nothing is done about it. It is one of the main reasons why so many enemies of the Jews regularly enjoy a free anti-Semitic lunch.

It is essential that the fight against masochism becomes a central issue in Israeli society. This applies to the appeasers within Israel who choose to look away from the crimes of the enemy, and is equally valid concerning those Jews promoting anti-Israelism abroad.


Continue Reading →


This interview appeared in today’s edition of Israel National News and republished here with the author’s consent.

This is not just a simple minded hearing of what all sides have to say, and coming to a conclusion, but also picking apart the logic behind the motivation and goals of those voicing their opinions (including those who oppose the Jewish state) and when that’s done, logic dictates a stronger affiliation with the only representative democratic government in the region, Israel.

NOTE: We shouldn’t be afraid of hearing differing opinions like the stalinist Left and Islam 101’ers, when logic dictates (based upon human experience and rational thinking) we win, and tyranny loses.

irwin mansdorf


Manfred Gerstenfeld interviews Dr. Irwin J. (Yitzchak) Mansdorf

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldOver the past decade, I’ve developed a curriculum on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for American Jewish students who are studying in Israel for the year. The idea behind the course is to educate Jewish students starting university in the US about the relationship between Israel and the Arab world.

The program, which lasts a full academic year, places an emphasis on how history and current events interact. It provides a thorough understanding of the perspectives of those with whom Israelis are ostensibly in conflict, namely, those who identify as Palestinian Arabs.”

Irwin J. (Yitzchak) Mansdorf, Ph.D. directs The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) program in Israel-Arab studies. He is a clinical psychologist and researcher in psychological warfare and has dealt with victims of terror as well as issues related to war-related trauma.

Continue Reading →


Letting Greece join the Euro was an act of ideology trumping reality and reason. Continuing to bail it out was just more of the same.

greece euro exit


Another substantial strategic mistake was the initially almost uncontrolled flow of millions of immigrants into the EU. Many of these emigrated from anti-Semitic and non-democratic Muslim countries. Although many immigrants integrated successfully, the presence of millions of who remain unintegrated will continue to cause European countries problems for decades to come. The rise in Jihadism in the Middle East has already aggravated them further.


Manfred Gerstenfeld

Dr.Manfred GerstenfeldThe current Greek financial and social crisis is not only the result of poor management of many successive Greek governments. A huge contribution to this calamity has also been made by various decisions of the European Union. Like many major political upheavals around the world, this one as well has important lessons for Israel. The importance of the Greek crisis does not lie in whether or not it has an immediate impact on the Israeli reality, but rather what Israel can learn from it.

In Europe, most of the attention on the Greek crisis is placed on its financial aspects. Questions frequently heard are, “Will Greece have to leave the Euro?”, “What will be the financial impacts on the Euro”, and “How will it affect possible other aspects of the European Union?” The most recent agreement doesn’t change much of Greece’s structural problems.

This strong focus on financial issues is one-sided and short sighted. There are political aspects to this crisis which, in the long run, may become far more important. One only has to remember that at the Yalta conference of 1945, Stalin and Churchill discussed their spheres of interest in post-war Europe. Stalin agreed to British demands that while the Balkan countries would be in the Soviet Union’s control, Greece would almost entirely be in that of Great Britain.1

Chaos in Greece may have a tremendous political fallout. Increased Russian influence within the country could have a substantial nuisance value for the West. Chinese influence, admittedly less probable, might be even worse. For NATO, Greece is very important, and for many reasons. There is a major NATO naval base in Crete at Souda Bay, for example.2 Greece has not always been a friendly partner. In the 1980s then Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou stated that his foreign policy goal was his refusal to be a “client state of the West.”3

A foreign observer recently asked me whether it was conceivable that Greek terrorists would carry out attacks against the EU, whether in Brussels or elsewhere. I was initially taken aback by the question, but after giving it some thought, I answered that although highly unlikely, it was not totally inconceivable. The particularly dangerous Marxist-Leninist November 17 terrorist group for instance made 23 victims including Greeks as well as American, British, and Turkish diplomats during its activities from 1975-2002.4

I recalled the years when I worked in Greece at the end of the 1990s. I was then a strategic advisor to the president of one of the country’s largest corporations which were not under state control. As he frequently had time constraints, I accompanied him from time to time to the airport. We could thus have a quiet conversation in the car, a prestigious model of one of the luxury Italian car makers. I doubted whether there was any similar car in Athens. An armed bodyguard on a motorcycle rode ahead of us.

After we reached the airport, I would return to the company’s office in the same car. The bodyguard had no intention of accompanying me back to the office–he had been hired to guard the president and nobody else. During those rides, I would often muse that potential terrorists could not know that the person in the highly visible vehicle was not the company’s president but just me. It was an uncomfortable feeling, but part of my Greek reality at the time.

There are more practical considerations regarding the current Greek crisis. Israeli exports to the EU will be affected by a further decline in the Euro. There would be significant consequences, as the EU is Israel’s largest market abroad. There are also other far reaching considerations which have less to do with Greece’s internal problems and more with how the EU deals with such issues. From my frequent visits to Greece, fifteen or more years ago, it was clear to me that there were huge economic problems, including an overgrown and often incompetent bureaucracy. Its ranks were filled with supporters of the two parties which alternated in having political power: the socialist Pasok and the liberal New Democrats. As a foreigner I could not understand the details of the substantial corruption, but I could sense its impact.

Greece joined the EU in 1981.5 Over the years, the Brussels Eurocrats must have understood the country’s problems in far greater detail than an outsider like myself. They should have known that Greece was not a suitable candidate to join the Eurozone under any circumstances, and yet it happened in 2001.6 Had Greece kept the drachme as its currency, its structural problems would have gradually come to the surface over the years, but they would not have led to such a major calamity as is currently the case.

Letting Greece join was a sign of EU incompetence and of its irresponsibility. When the Greek crisis broke out, the EU focused mainly on the financial side of the problem, as if it was not accompanied by a social one. If the EU would have correctly analyzed the situation, they would have gradually eased Greece out of the Euro. The Eurozone members who lent money to keep Greece afloat were aware that the chances of being fully paid back were close to nothing. They knowingly fooled their own citizens, however, by claiming that there would be a return on their investment.

The Greek problem will not disappear easily. It is but one of a variety of huge strategic mistakes the EU has made. The creation of the Euro in a non-uniform economic system took away the major safety valve of devaluation from the weaker countries. Such a setup was only fine for countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, who had maintained a de facto fixed exchange rate between their pre-Euro currencies.

Continue Reading →


The well-known columnist Isi Leibler wrote a very positive review of Dr.Gerstenfeld’s new book “The War of a Million Cuts” in the Jerusalem Post. I have permission to have it published here as well.

NOTE: It’s also worth noting that Islam has its own unique variant of anti-Semitism that dovetails with traditional Christian Jew hatred. Whatever the Muslims had in common with the German expression of anti-Jewish behaviour, before, during and after World War II, was first found in canonical Islam, which permeates their societies till this day.

Candidly Speaking: Combating the new anti-Semitism

How does one effectively fight anti-Semitism and its newest mutation, anti-Israelism?

swastika germany
A Jewish man stands near some of the 127 graves desecrated by vandals with Nazi swastikas and anti-semitic slogans in the Jewish cemetery of Herrlisheim . (photo credit:REUTERS) How does one effectively fight anti-Semitism and its newest mutation, anti-Israelism? The first step must be to understand how these phenomena are manifested and who is behind them.

Over the past decade as anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism increased exponentially, many books covering the subject have been published. Until now, aside from magisterial works of the late Robert Wistrich and the excellent analysis by Daniel Goldhagen, The Devil That Never Dies: The Rise and Threat of Global Anti-Semitism, there has not been a contemporary review of the global battlefield covering the world’s oldest hatred. There are other valuable studies but they are of limited scope.

See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page
Dr. Gerstenfeld served for 12 years as the chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Israel’s leading think tank. A former international strategic business consultant to some of the world’s largest multinational corporations, Gerstenfeld would today, after the death of Wistrich, be considered the most qualified analyst of contemporary anti-Semitism with a focus on anti-Israelism.He is a prolific writer and has published 10 books on this subject, including pioneering studies on anti-Semitism on campuses in a variety of countries, the anti-Israelism behind the pseudo-humanitarian mask of the hypocritical Northern European societies, the attitude toward Jews as an indicator of the moral decay of the Netherlands and the increasingly important role that Holocaust inversion and other distortions have assumed in the efforts to demonize the Jewish state.

His new book is a tour de force and undoubtedly his magnum opus. It is a readable, 500-page volume that provides encyclopedic coverage of the subject. It is probably the first book that reviews the delegitimization of Israel as an entity, identifying the motifs employed, the categories of perpetrators, how the hate themes enter society and the extent of damage to Israel and Jews.

Citing a large number of examples from many countries, the central theme of the book highlights the fact that our current struggle is immensely more complex than confronting classical anti-Semitism in which hatred focused on single messages such as the killing of Jesus or genetic inferiority of Jews. Today the onslaught comes from many diverse sources, applies many different motifs and uses a great variety of methods and transmission channels.

His opening chapter is a lucid analysis of how anti-Semites have adopted and integrated anti-Israelism as a new mutation of traditional Jew hatred. The successive chapters discuss how ancient hate motifs have been espoused and upgraded by the current enemies of the Jewish people. Gerstenfeld demonstrates how Muslim anti-Semitism today has effectively adopted the role of Nazi anti-Semitism and is at the forefront of the hatred and violence against Jews – which not only emanates from Muslim countries but from wherever Muslim migrants have settled.

He skillfully illustrates the interfacing and interaction between Muslims in Western countries, politicians, the traditional media, social media activists, nongovernmental organizations, church leaders, academics, trade union leaders, right-wing extremists, social democrats and above all those on the extreme Left, now bolstered by Jewish self-haters, who complete the witches’ brew from which the current onslaught of poisonous anti-Semitism has emerged.

Gerstenfeld demonstrates that anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism use the same core motifs. He cites a variety of studies which indicate that over 150 million European Union citizens believe the Israelis behave like Nazis or seek to exterminate the Palestinians. He systematically exposes the shameless, naked anti-Semitism of the majority of UN representatives. These include the Europeans who are increasingly inclined to either abstain from or vote in favor of outrageous resolutions, often initiated by rogue states, which apply double standards and single out Israel for censure. Gerstenfeld demonstrates that anti-Semitism is not only part of Europe’s history but also its culture. His depiction of a new criminal Europe warrants serious debate.

He also analyzes the impact of the ongoing campaigns of delegitimization on Israel and the ramifications for Diaspora Jews – especially in Europe – who find themselves increasingly discriminated against.

Gerstenfeld outlines his plans to organize the fight on behalf of embattled Israel and the Jewish people. He is strongly convinced that the Israeli government has failed to deal with this problem for decades by mistakenly considering it a minor irritant instead of appreciating the immense consequences of losing the war for the world’s public opinion. He sees a desperate need for the Israeli government to set up an advanced, well-staffed and amply funded anti-propaganda agency which will globally refute the loathsome lies and defamation and humiliate and shame those responsible.

The first task of this agency would be to deal with research, an important component being the creation and updating of a databank of “enemies of Israel and the Jewish people.” Each new incident of hatemongering could thus immediately be linked to their combined past mischief. One would also be able to identify the vulnerabilities of Israel’s enemies.

Gerstenfeld states that many enemies of Israel today enjoy a free anti-Semitic lunch. He suggests that we could, for example, identify some of the academically weakest adherents of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and expose their professional failures among their university colleagues and in their profession internationally. He claims that it would not even cost much money. As most people are cowards, he believes that many would think twice before joining the BDS movement.

The second activity the anti-propaganda agency would deal with would be the monitoring of new developments concerning hatemongering. His suggestion that this should be done in three different categories is commendable.

The first would be by activity, e.g., calls for violence, Holocaust inversion, BDS, etc. The second would be by perpetrators, such as Muslim states, Muslims in the Western world, media, politicians, liberal churches, NGOs, academics, social democratic parties, trade unions, etc. The third would monitor developments in various countries.

A third department of the proposed anti-propaganda agency would focus on activism, either directly or indirectly. One proposal is that tens of thousands of youngsters willing to defend Israel could be trained to understand how Israel’s enemies work, what lies and fallacies are used and how to expose them. Today the defense of Israel is chaotic. More coordination would enable much more with the same means.

The book includes an introduction by former Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar, who describes the book as “an excellent contribution to better understanding the indirect attacks against Israel.” It also contains endorsements and commendations from Czech Culture Minister Daniel Herman, former Italian foreign minister Giulio Terzi di Sant’Agata, former Dutch foreign minister Uri Rosenthal, former Swedish development cooperation minister Alf Svensson, former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and others. This book should be considered a compulsory manual for anyone engaged in public activity to promote the case for Israel or combat anti-Semitism.

The author’s website can be viewed at He may be contacted at