What do international banks, sweatshops, soft drink makers and Israel all have in common? Currently the attention of the anti-globalization movement. The latest explosion of anti-globalization protests at the UN's Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg is yet another chapter in the movement's sordid history regarding its policies on Israel.
The phenomenon of anti-globalization first appeared in Seattle in 1999 at the World Trade organization meeting. It was further developed at the World Bank demonstrations in Washington in April 2000, at the G7 meetings in Genoa and Prague in July 2001, at the Durban World Conference Against Racism in August 2001, anti-war demonstrations in Washington and San Francisco in April 2002, and now in Johannesburg in August-September 2002. The pattern of disrupting international conferences and trade summits is now firmly entrenched.
While globalization, the internationalization of market capitalism, is seen by many as a ray of hope for solving the world's economic problems, it is also blamed for problems plaguing nations and individuals. This new umbrella movement has emerged to oppose "capitalist globalization." It is a broad-based, motley gathering of groups who aim to reduce corporate power and global inequity, and bring about social justice in the world. It is decentralized, multinational, opposed to hierarchy, and by nature chaotic. Among the very few goals shared universally amongst members of the movement is the need for radical reform of the World Trade Organization and IMF. Israel has recently been added to that list, becoming the global "whipping boy" of the leftist movement. This serves to unify the anti-globalization movement despite its obvious complexities and contradictions.
The roots of the flawed shift in leftist thinking toward Israel were amplified at the UN Conference on Racism in Durban in August 2001, which ended only 3 days before the terror attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. This controversial conference shifted the anti-globalization debate, and placed racism and xenophobia at the center of its campaign. The net result was that the conference raised the specter of anti-Semitism as a global force in the international community.
Terms like "genocide", "fascism", "apartheid" and "holocaust" were bandied about at every opportunity to describe Israeli actions and the Jews.
The international groups (NGO's) in attendance were receptive to the information provided claiming that Israel is an apartheid state engaged in oppression of the Palestinians. Included in the discourse was the infamous forgery "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Terms like "genocide", "fascism", "apartheid" and "holocaust" were bandied about at every opportunity to describe Israeli actions and the Jews. Nazi symbols next to stars of David were used in their protests.
The avalanche of anti-Israel sentiment was made particularly credible by the legitimacy of the UN. Most NGO's look towards the UN for moral guidance, leadership and responsible governance. If the United Nations represents the common goal of truth and justice brought forth by all nations that engage in it, then its resolutions should represent truth.
However, the UN has become a bastion for anti-Israel resolutions -- in effect sponsoring Palestinian terror. Arab states have a disproportionate voice in setting the agenda at the General Assembly and have frequently used it to push forward anti-Israel resolutions. Israel is the only member state at the U.N. that has been denied a seat on the Security Council, and has yet to be included as a member of a regional group at the U.N. The second largest employer after the PA in the West Bank and Gaza is UNRWA. This UN flagship organization has done nothing to prevent camps becoming centers of terrorist activity. For the lack of appropriate action, the UN is morally culpable.
Durban was the catalyst that legitimized anti-Israel rhetoric (anti-Zionism) on a grand scale. The NGO's and participants became messengers of ideas that were spread across the globe. The ideas disseminated placed Israel as the sole antagonist in the conflict, raising the level of worldwide anti-Israel emotion to terrifying proportions. The anti-globalization movement, who took on Israel-bashing as their cause and mantra, embraced the distortion of facts provided at the UN Conference without question.
The "Take the Capital" anti-globalization demonstration in Washington in April 2002 was supposed to be a protest against the G8. Instead it turned into predominantly a show of solidarity for the Palestinian cause and a mobilization against Israel. Organizers claimed it was the largest showing of solidarity with Palestinians in U.S. history. Protestor "Stanley" perhaps summed up the mood of the marchers best when he was quoted as saying: "We don't approve of suicide bombers killing civilians, but it's the only defense Palestinians have" (as reported by the Washington Post, April 21 2002).
The anti-globalization movement called for a "global intifada" to protest against Israeli "aggression," essentially calling for wholesale murder and maiming of innocent civilians.
In April 2002, movements aligned to the anti-globalization movement called for a "global intifada" to protest against Israeli "aggression," essentially calling for wholesale murder and maiming of innocent civilians. Apparently the slaughter of innocent Jews deemed irrelevant and sympathies should lie with suicide bombers.
The anti-globalization movement blames Israel for creating desperate conditions that led to a violent outbreak of resistance. To blame economics for the Palestinian uprising is misleading. The outbreak of terrorism began during a period of economic optimism amongst Palestinians. A recent study from the independent National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts concludes: "Any connection between poverty, education and terrorism is indirect and probably quite weak." The study demonstrates that violence in the Middle East has increased while economic conditions were improving.
The anti-globalization movement believes that Palestinians have been deprived of "their land," and that giving it back to them will create a peaceful resolution to the conflict. In accordance with the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel withdrew militarily from Palestinian areas, so that by 1999, 98% of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were under self-rule. It is a myth that the Palestinians lacked freedom or autonomy and that this has anything to do with the current armed conflict. What is even more chilling is the idea of billionaire Arafat as a peacemaker. Rather than resolve the conflict through negotiation at Camp David, the Palestinian leadership initiated the current "intifada" against Israel, a reign of terror still continuing until this day. The Palestinians have achieved nothing by all these years of hatred, blood and war, but poverty and deprivation.
Anti-globalization activists claim that Zionism is a form of apartheid and a racist ideology enforced on the Palestinian people. Never mind that this has nothing to do with fighting global capitalism. Zionism represents the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. This also happens to be the only type of nationalism ever targeted by the UN as racist. The claim that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, but a legitimate criticism of Israel's policies, is difficult to understand in the context of the anti-globalization movement making no other pronunciations about any other country in the world. Why is Jewish nationalism described as racism -- do Jews not deserve a national homeland? The only satisfactory answer is that anti-Zionism is none other than anti-Semitism on a national scale. Instead of targeting the Jew as individual, now his national homeland bears the brunt of hatred.
Supporting the ideology of suicide bombers who seek, on principle the outcome that most combatants try to avoid in armed conflict -- the killing of innocents -- places the West in great danger. Islamic fundamentalism, which promotes jihad as a legitimate religious protocol, is a serious threat to Western democratic values, and the peaceful values expounded by the anti-globalization movement.
Palestinian society is strangled by the dictatorial rule of Arafat, with extremist elements like Islamic Jihad and Hamas controlling the streets. Palestinians are directly responsible for a significant percentage of the Palestinian death toll as "suspected collaborators" are publicly lynched. If they are fortunate, they'll have their property confiscated by Arafat's corrupt police force, or detained, tortured, or forced at gunpoint to leave the territories. The spontaneous murder without trial of Palestinians by Arafat's cronies is seldom addressed. Confronting the suffering of Palestinians caused by Israel is one thing, but where is the outcry about the suffering inflicted upon them by the Arafat regime?
By supporting the Palestinian cause, morally and economically, anti-globalization activists share some of the blame for the terror attacks perpetrated by the terrorists. In April 2002, so-called "peace activists" were pictured hugging and kissing Yassir Arafat in a gesture of international solidarity, while he was hiding in his Ramallah compound. This after the Pesach bombing in which a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up 26 civilians. None of the activists who went to "support" Arafat visited the families or the victims of the bombings or expressed any sympathy.
The anti-globalization movement has become a receptacle for propaganda. The receptiveness for fabricated stories of massacres (like Jenin massacre that never happened), followed by vitriolic denunciations without any viable proof, is pure bigotry. Such behavior forms part of a global pattern of denial in response to increasingly lethal anti-Semitism. It seems that global social justice holds that you are "guilty until proven innocent."
The anti-globalization movement engages in selective amnesia when it comes to other countries. Social justice for a country like Saudi Arabia involves a punishment of flogging of women, no matter what the crime. The religious intolerance of other Arab nations in the Middle East, or the oppression metered out by African crackpot dictatorships fails to show up on the radar screen of this movement. How about considering the subjugated Cypriots, Tibetans, the refugees in the Balkans, and the litany of displaced peoples currently in Africa? The only institutionalized racism in the region by the state-run media of the Arab world is continually ignored. All of Israel's neighbors ignore its citizens' human rights, democratic values and freedoms. The anti-globalization movement cannot expect global social justice to take place when their spotlight is always on Israel, and they support a terrorist organization whose human rights record is appalling.
Controversial right-wing Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi notes a "strange unanimity" between Islamic terrorism and anti-globalization protestors -- both "enemies of Western civilization." This is overstepping the mark. The association between the Arab world and the anti-globalization movement has its roots in a common opposition to American "domination." Israel and the Jews represent American capitalism. Thus attacking Israel gives the movement a good excuse to vent its anti-Semitic frustrations. Besides the anti-Israel component of the protest movement, its social justice and humanitarian agenda is commendable. Many activist movements have had similar liberal aspirations in the past. Many have fallen spectacularly like the socialist movement, whilst many have had outstanding successes, like the anti-Apartheid movement.
If the anti-globalization movement is to be taken seriously in the future, it needs to stop sympathizing and implicitly supporting terrorists and to remove the Middle East conflict from its agenda. Rather than battle against Israel, they should support it as a staging ground for Western values and democracy in the Middle East.
(26) Anonymous, May 5, 2019 8:33 PM
Understatement
The anti-globalism movement IS actually opposed to Western Civilization and uses Israel and the Jewish People as the symbolic representative of Western Civilization and its convenient whipping boy. Of course, just like the article stated, the anti-globalists - and the Islamic Jihadis - are also anti-Semitic at their core even though they are animated by radically different anti-Western ideologies.
The other shame of the anti-globalist movement is that they oppose the very phenomenon which has lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty. This actually promotes the very goals of economic justice which they claim to espouse. The catch is that that phenomenon is also is propelling Chinese Communist led China to the position of the world's most powerful nation. Given the Chinese Communist Party's cozy relationship with Iran and Pakistan, China achieving that status will have other enormous ramifications for Israel and the world - many of which will be negative and illiberal.
(25) Anonymous, March 25, 2018 1:38 PM
This article is misleading
This article is misleading. I lean Orthodox in my Jewish belief, I am strongly pro-Zionist, and I am totally against globalism. Politically conservative, right-wing people are almost totally Pro-Israel & anti-Palestinian. Breitbart (named after its Jewish founder) also shares these Pro-Israel/anti-globalist views. There is a huge difference between right wing (Pro-Israel/anti-Globalist) & far right wing (anti-Israel/anti-globalist) political views. This article makes no distinction between the two.
(24) Pinhas Attias, February 12, 2012 9:54 PM
OMG...seriously?
I support Israel all the way, but let’s get real everyone! There are anti-Semitic dimwits who declare that we Jews are the problem behind globalization. But the authors are not helping to clear the Jewish name by writing such a ridiculous article with an even more ridiculous title. If anything, the authors have merely enforced the stereotype by DEFENDING globalization. They call anti-globalization “the new anti-Semitism,” but I would like to know if the authors have ever heard of the infamous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. There is nothing new with the notion that Jews are money-grabbing shysters. In addition, I would like to remind all who are reading this that globalization is NOT a Torah thing. We don’t convert nearly as much as the other abrahamic faiths; globalization goes out of its way to convert people to a product. We leave corners of our fields for the poor, but corporations’ horde as much money as they can for themselves. We are told not to mix with the nations, yet globalization commends the mixing of cultures. We are told to be a separate people, yet globalization demands that we assimilate. We are told not to cheat, lie, steal, and extort, to not “place a stumbling block before the blind” yet these are all undeniable practices of globalization and big companies. And I will not hesitate to call anyone who says otherwise a fool and a liar. In conclusion, Ani Ivri, Ani Yehudi, I am a Jew. Born in Rehovot, raised in Manhattan, but I stand with our ancient faith AGAINST the practices of globalization.
(23) Anonymous, June 16, 2011 8:57 PM
very true
I support the anti-globalization/global justice movement in its opposition to neoliberalism and corporate domination, but I'm also a hard-core Israel supporter and I think the left is 100% wrong about Israel. People like US need to speak out! It's not just the anti-globalization movement; it's the entire left that has bought the Palestinian's misinformation completely. I was actually at the April 20 protests you're talking about. I went because I wanted to protest the IMF, WB, etc, not because I was against Israel. Others I know were also disappointed at how the protest somehow developed an anti-Israel focus. Thanks for the great article!
(22) Anonymous, April 29, 2011 9:26 AM
huh?
i would like to know where you are getting some of your information from and how the anti-globalization movement, which resists the exploitation of third world countries/promotes employee rights/environmental issues/and in every way possible tries to improve wealth inequality around the world, has anything to do with terrorism. So unless your information came form a very creditable source i would re think your argument. i really have a hard time connecting anti-globalization and anti-Semitisim Alexander is right anti globalization has nothing to do with anyone v.s. anyone it has to do with people v.s. multimillion dollar companies and political policies that profit off of the regulation and restrictions of other countries.....this article was a little bit confusing to me
(21) Stephanie Brent, July 28, 2010 4:17 PM
Jewish and against globalization
I am Jewish (and ardently pro-Israel) and increasingly against globalization. I"m glad I stumbled on your writeup so I know that I have to be careful who I hook up with. But the WTO may soon pass a ruling that America must open its markets to (contaminated and unsanitary) Chinese chicken which would kill off yet another American industry. That is not tolerable.
(20) Gil, June 6, 2010 8:47 AM
Where is the money going?
Follow the money trail if you want to know who is behind all of the world's problems. You will find that the trails lead to the wealthy elite, no-one else. Certainly not to the ones who make the money. Here's the problem. Imagine yourself being so rich that you could easily purchase anything you wanted. Physical comforts would become boring. Recognition would become a liability. If you are that rich or powerful, you'd probably find ways to hide it. If you were one of the richest or most powerful men in the world, would you want everyone to know it? I think the richest are presently unknown to us. I suspect that most of them are jews. That's always been the case." Many are the owners of the top US news sources, and financial organizations.
(19) William, April 11, 2009 5:50 PM
Whose fault GFC c. 2008-9
As I've said in another commentary, it wouldn't take long for some morron to come to, and sprout, the conclusion , or "fact", that the current global financial meltdown "is the fault of the Jews". You haven't heard it yet? I have! And, as you may guess, it came from Europe.
(18) Sharon A, Webb, August 26, 2008 11:25 AM
I basically agree
I know the author, David Arenson, from childhood... and this commentary surprises me a bit. But especially after living 15 years overseas myself, I'm a big fan of the globalization movement, I believe that if people of all countries understood each other better it would be very helpful,and one of the ways to begin developing understanding is to trade with each other. This author does his research and knows exactly what he is talking about. In my opinion the anti-Isrelei bias in world politics is, and has been, growing and building for a very long time, and is related to the growing anti-US bias. I've often felt the anti-Isrelei bias was camoflauged as protest about US support for Israel or condemnation of US weapon sales to Israel.
(17) Alexander, September 26, 2007 8:41 PM
Misunderstanding
The anti-globalization movement is going to side with the oppressed people of the world, whether they are Jews, Muslims, or of any other ethnicity. When you take your own personal us-vs-them struggle and try to shove the anti-globalization movement in, you end up missing the point. People need to understand that we aren't anti-American, we aren't anti-Israel. We're anti powerful countries taking advantage of the weaker ones. If Iran suddenly becomes a world power and starts bossing other countries around, you can bet we'd go after them too.
The problem is, that we don't see this as a Jew-vs-Islam struggle but as a people-vs-people struggle, and if you don't understand how we think, you won't understand the movement. For example, SOME anti-globalizationists are anarchists, and so of course these people are opposed to the State of Israel. But then again, anarachists are opposed to every single State in the world. When you single out their opposition to Israel, and call them anti-Semetic, you're failing to realize that they don't hold Jews to any different standards than anybody else. Many people in the movement oppose Jewish nationalism not because they are anti-jew, but because they are anti-nationalism.
And yes, there are a few anti-semetic nuts in the movement. But they are by far the minority. At the last protest I was at, some people were chanting about Israel's occupation of Palestine and somebody started shouting out "Yeah, kill the Jew!" and screaming about the inferiority of the Jewish people. Everybody stopped chanting. Within minutes, we had hundreds of protesters forcibly removing him from the protest and telling him to take his biggoted self somewhere else because we wouldn't stand for it.
(16) Ben Adler, September 13, 2007 1:03 AM
Ridiculous PROPAGANDA
I am Jewish and active against the Wal-Marting of the World. Equating Anti-Globalization with Anti-Semitism is pure PROPAGANDA by "APPEAL TO PREJUDICE" and it's embarrassing to me.
(15) Garry, April 24, 2007 11:22 AM
Confused, and a little bit angry.
I find this article quite offensive. You are blanketing all anti-globalists. Myself being one, myself also being against the policies of Israel, I have been unfairly labelled. I however, am in no way "racist." You constantly reference "the slaughter of innoccent Jews," but not once have you, the author, managed to mention the slaughter of innoccent humans, regardless of "Race, creed, or colour."
(14) Andrew, July 1, 2006 12:00 AM
Not a sheep to pull wool over eyes.
Another case of hysterical name calling and finger pointing. Most of us, at least the ones I have talked to, by definition of the word anti-globalization do not believe that what's happening in other countries is our business to try to control. I believe that Israel has the right to exist, just as much as any other country whom the people of that country fought against those powers who tried to topple that entity, and were victorious. You should be able to use whatever at your means to keep your soveriegnty. But in kind, you should not think it is in your right to force your opinion and will on others outside the physical boundary of your state and not expect retaliation. It is inevitable that if you act like a man, you get treated like a man. Period. The main concern of most of us, at least in the religous sector, is that the countries not be melted down and poured into one cast, therefor ushering in the NWO. It may be a point that's mute now, but this is the real underlying problem.
(13) Anonymous, August 24, 2004 12:00 AM
What a load of rot
The last line of this article says it all. You wish to bring democracy and western values to the middle east and we should support Israel as a staging ground. I am reminded of a quote form a certain Brazillian dictator "We will bring democracy to this nation, those that oppose us will be crushed and destroyed." Shouln't the middle east make up their own mind about how they live rather than having it forced upopn them by a 50 year old state?
(12) mohamed rafi, November 2, 2003 12:00 AM
ashamed as a muslim
i am ashamed as a muslim. since muslims killing my brothers, jews.why they do not know that judiasm and islam are interrelated. sorry for the sins committed by us
(11) Jannie DeBeer, October 1, 2002 12:00 AM
The New Anti-Semitism Israel is HARDLY an
apartheid state! I am a so-called right wing Afrikaner, and find Israel's
military victories very inspiring. I was also brought up to be suspicious of
Jews. This was a result of a Calvinistic education. I have since learnt that
racism of any sort is not compatible with the bible.
Thankfully, things are changing in South Africa, and people like me are
beginning to realise and acknowledge the wrongs of the past, the wrongs of
racism and xenophobia.
I have noticed in media circles that a link between apartheid South Africa
and Zionist Israel is being made. This is rather strange, as apartheid was a
white versus black issue, not coloured by religion or history. Both the
majority black people and white people in South Africa are not indigenous.
White South Africans subjugated and oppressed black South Africans under
apartheid, by denying them rights.
Israel's position is different, as they have continually offered the Arab
countries surrounding them the hand of peace. Their position is based on
war - defensive war. Each parcel of land has been won under heavy
bombardment from surrounding Arab countries.
The bible tells us clearly that Jews were given the land of Israel by God.
History tells us, too, that the Jews have lived there for thousands of
years, and during their exile, never stopped longing for Israel, and
claiming it in their hearts.
Thus, claiming that Israel is an "apartheid state" is somewhat strange,
definitely ignorant, and bordering on anti-Semitism.
(10) Paual Potaznik, September 17, 2002 12:00 AM
Agree completley, AG's forget CHina, Laos, etc as well.
I agree with the article. These people have no real interest in the world as a peaceful, just place. They have an intolerant, far left wing idealogy, which has no place for real Western democratic values
(9) Raphael, September 16, 2002 12:00 AM
Information not inflamation. Please.
I understand that for the purpose of the point being made it is necessary to present arguments in such order. However, the result is at best misleading because potentially GOOD info/perspectives are mixed with misinformation/propaganda.
The authors are victim of the same type of imbroglio that they are accusing the NGOs of.
For example, Regardless of the veracity of the statement ".. By 1999, 98% of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza were under self-rule..", out of context, it hides the following facts:
- Rates of new Jewish settlement in Palestinian controlled territorry were at their highest
- The government had not handed the agreed percentage of land to the palestinian
In any other context just the settlement issue would be enough to ignite a war. It does mystify me as to why this fact alone escapes the authors. How could one expect that Barak's "peace talks" be taken seriously by palestinian (and sympathizers) while the very reason/excuse for tension (that is, LAND) is being grabbed by one of the parties.
In conclusion, we will never quite truly know what has been and is going on. It is very easy to show how leaders on either side have made atrocious narrow minded decisions.
However I submit that
1) It is crucial to differentiate anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism.
2) One should recognize that NGOs may appear to be on the palestinian side only because they are the weaker of the two.
3) Any fair minded individual would see why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is uniquely important in so many many different ways that is unfair in principle to accuse NGOs to appear to be too focused on that issue only.
Peace! (I mean it)
AUTHOR RESPONDS
Our article argued that anti-globalization and the Middle-East conflict are
mutually exclusive. The campaign against Israel is just one aspect of the
anti-globalization movement’s agenda. We did not discuss the merits of any
other campaign as this was not relevant to the point we were making. Our
intention was to challenge the idea that Israel has anything to do with the
anti-globalization’s agenda.
We never said that Israel is beyond criticism. In response to Raphael, it
should be pointed out that balance and fairness are missing from the
anti-Israel campaign. Anti-globalization proponents like Naomi Klein quickly
shifted their positions so that debate was deemed unnecessary. This is a
crucial element missing.
Any person who fails to condemn in the strongest possible language the
needless butchering of innocent civilians, is guilty of xenophobia. When
those innocent civilians are Jewish, further questions need to be asked.
When Palestinians try to blow up as many Jews as possible on a daily basis,
their cause is the ultimate in anti-Semitism, genocide, much like the nazi
holocaust that preceded and inspired them.
The expansion of existing Israeli settlements is completely legal. According
to internationally signed agreements, Israel should halt the building of new
settlements. Existing settlements are allowed to continue. This is not
“incitement” or “expansionism” – just natural growth. It is no more
provocative than Palestinian expansion and development in east Jerusalem or
Ramallah. To expect either side to halt development in disputed territories
is naïve.
Are new buildings in Efrat or Beit El more provocative than terrorist bombs
on Israeli buses and on Ben Yehuda Street? Palestinian military activities
and incitement to violence are explicitly outlawed by Oslo. The underlying
principle of Oslo was to resolve the conflict through negotiations not armed
conflict.
The Palestinians are hardly the “weaker” of the two opponents. Any
understanding of the history of the region will tell you that this conflict
forms part of a wider “Middle-East conflict”. Militant Islam is fighting a
war against Israel and the West. Israel is not officially recognized by most
of its Arab neighbors, with the exception of Jordan and Egypt. Arab
terrorism against Israel has been going on for over 100 years. Israel is a
tiny speck on the map of the Middle-East, often described as a thorn in the
backside of the Arabs. The Jews are outnumbered 100 to 1 in this equation.
The myopia of the anti-globalization movement is worrying. What should worry
NGO’s is why the bigotry of the Arab world is hijacking international
conferences and hijacking a movement whose cause is to create a just and
sane world.
(8) Wayne, September 13, 2002 12:00 AM
Ignore them, the U.N. does.
The phenomenon of anti-globalization reflecs other sissyfied organizations hiding behind the big guys at the U.N.
In Africa where women and children are being dismembered, they don't show, I'd be afraid myself.
No sign of them in Pakistan or India, not to safe there either.
To give them any attention at all is unnecessary, their just a remnant of the natzi regeime and will soon vaporize.
(7) Lynda Lowery, September 13, 2002 12:00 AM
Re: New Anti-Semitism
Shalom! This may be one of the best well written articles I have read in years. Thank you for the knowledge and awareness boost! I can see that what the article is saying is true from what I have been reading for the past two years. One comment more: AFter all it has been through and continues to survive, Israeli pride should be totally replaced with honor and humility, then held firmly in place until all issues internally and externally are resolved.
The difference being that "pride" is too similar to "arrogance" and harder to distinguish. Once a nation becomes honorable, genuine humility is more naturally achievable. I am not shocked to hear that Israel has no place on the U.N.'s Security Counsel because of U.N.'s obvious unholy agenda. I pray daily for the peace of Jerusalem. God bless and keep you. TX/USA
(6) Alex Vilensky, September 11, 2002 12:00 AM
One of the main reasons....
is us: to be exact those of us called "self-hating Jews". We won't get any respect from the nations until we learn how to respect ourselves and be proud of our heritage.
(5) Anonymous, September 10, 2002 12:00 AM
A bit confused
I'm a bit confused after reading the article. From my experience, living in the US, the globalists (which includes the UN, and the American "Left") have been very pro-"palestinian" and anti-israeli. However, the impression that I got from the authors of the article was that they believe it is the opposite -- the anti-globalists being anti-israeli.
As things stand today, I believe the UN to be an evil creation, with ill intent. They appear to seek globalization, and act in a very anti-israeli, anti-jew, anti-judaism manner. The globalists side with the UN. The marxists side with the UN. The American Left sides with the UN.
I do not side with the UN. I'm pro-israeli, pro-judaism, pro-jew. I do not believe the "palestinian" arabs require, nor deserve, a state of their own. I categorize myself with the American right which is pro-capitalism, but tends to be both anti-globalisation and anti-palestinian.
Is there an explaination for my confusion between what I understand from experience, and what has been said in the article?
Many thanks. s"m
(4) Jonathan Berger, September 10, 2002 12:00 AM
Nothing to be "Confused" about
The American right is very much pro-globalization and big business interests.
The term "globalists" also loosely refers to members of the anti-globalization movement, so I am unsure to what "Anonymous" refers? There is no counter movement to the anti-globalization movement, except perhaps the liberal democratic movement.
What is clear is that people throughout history have found every excuse under the sun to hate and persecute Jews. Nowadays they are hated for being "rich" , "capitalist" and "educated"... in European ghettoes it was for being "poor", "uneducated", "dirty" and "communist". Seems we just can't win as Jews, they'll hate us whatever our colour, creed and ideology.
(3) Jared Goldberg, September 10, 2002 12:00 AM
Exactly Right
For us Zionists who are anti-globalization ourselves, it is extremely disheartening to hear that people protesting corporations going against Israel.
This article says it best: anti-globalization has NOTHING to do with Israel. Corporations are a pain in my butt, and the lack of them in Israel is one of the many reasons I love it.
Grynberg and Arenson are right: anti-globalization protestors should remove Israel from their agenda, simply because Israel has nothing to do with corporations, capitalism, or economy.
(2) S. Benayon, September 10, 2002 12:00 AM
Kudos for an important perspective
Simon & David:
I just read your article entitled “Anti-Globalization : The new Anti-Semitism”. I found the article well- written, well- organised and easy to follow. More importantly, I found that it shed much- needed light on the duplicity of the anti-globalization movement, while doing so a logical and well-supported fashion. I commend you for presenting essential facts that are too often swept under the proverbial carpet. Finally, I was most impressed with your conclusion as you presented the movement in a fair light, acknowledging their failures while optimistically suggesting their potential for improvement. I thought the conclusion was particularly strong as it demonstrated the article’s honourable and sensible platform.
(1) Anonymous, September 9, 2002 12:00 AM
an intelligent read
A sharp article. Tackling a very insiduos problem. Good job.