OVERVIEW

The term ‘the new antisemitism’ refers to the current wave, which has swept much of the world since October 2000. It has been characterized as ‘political antisemitism’, on the one hand, because of its use by radical Islamists in their geo-political struggle against the West and its alleged spearhead the Jewish people and its state; and on the other, because of the association made in the media and by public figures between Israel and the Jewish people as an inseparable entity. In parallel, the barriers between antisemitism and anti-Zionism have been lifted and the two merged.

This definition is pertinent to two major events, both of which took place in September 2001 and made this year unique in terms of world public opinion and antisemitic activity. They were the UN World Conference against Racism (in Durban, South Africa), which ended on 9 September, and the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York, barely two days later.

The Durban conference, originally assembled to address acute world problems of discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, was transformed into a wholesale attack on Israel and the Jewish people. During street parades, demonstrators carried banners equating Zionism with all evil, and in particular, racism and apartheid. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Mein Kampf and similar materials depicting modern blood libels and abhorrent images of Jews were distributed freely, and Jewish NGO delegates were physically threatened. Other factors which led to the highjacking of the conference by Arab and Muslim countries and the targeting of Israel were personal ambitions of UN officials; the Islamization of UN institutions due to the large numbers and constant pressure of Arab and Muslim states; the US and the European Union’s wish to circumvent the demands presented to them to compensate former colonies and slaves with enormous sums; deep-seated anti-American sentiments prevailing in many Third World Countries as well as European ones; and the unspoken wish to shake off the burdensome shadow of the Holocaust by accusing the Jews of supporting the worst crimes. These are circumstantial factors. Yet the aggressive attacks directed solely at Israel and the Jews, and the complete disregard of other countries where human rights violations are known to be sky-rocketing, clearly point to deep-rooted and hostile emotions against an image which allegedly explains all that is evil.

However, once the Third World delegations realized the conference was serving Arab and Muslim interests alone, the tide turned and in the closing sessions a more balanced concluding document was drawn up and approved. But what was done could not be undone. Extensive media coverage transmitted the hostile atmosphere and the cynical political manipulations into millions of homes worldwide, and the immediate result was a wave of antisemitic manifestations and violence. The September 11 events enhanced this wave, with some accusing the Jews and Israel of perpetrating the attacks, thus reinforcing the image of the unscrupulous murderous Jew, the source of the world’s troubles. Others blamed the attacks on US support for Israel, due to Jewish control of the government, underpinning the assumption that the Jews are indeed the source of world unrest (see below).

Worldwide processes also served as fertile ground for an increase in antisemitic manifestations: Globalization of the world economy is often identified with the Jews, because of their alleged wealth and cosmopolitan connections. The migration to the ‘rich north’ of refugees, asylum seekers and foreign workers has sharpened problems of national, ethnic and racial identity, and led to calls for more restrictive legislation and domestic policy. In parallel, hundreds of human rights organizations worldwide – initially established during the last decade to offer aid and advice to the disadvantaged – were persuaded to support the Palestinian cause because of generous Arab funding, a traditional empathy for the current underdog, loose and vague definitions of racism and its offspring, and the fact that Israel as a democratic state could be morally condemned, thus avoiding a confrontation with despotic Muslim regimes. Moreover, determined demands, put forward by Jewish organizations, to have the Jewish people compensated for its property looted during the Holocaust, generated resentment, since the majority of Jews now reside in wealthy countries, while millions suffer from poverty and human rights abuses.

This permissive mood, which prevailed both prior to September 2001 and afterwards, set the stage for a wave of antisemitic violence. About 50 major attacks (involving the use of weapons), and about 180 other violent incidents, were perpetrated against Jews in 2001, particularly after 11 September (and mainly by Muslims) – a total of 230, compared with 255 in 2000. France witnessed a decrease in major violent incidents and attacks, from 54 incidents in 2000 to 27 in 2001, although there were numerous other antisemitic incidents such as threats, insults and minor acts of vandalism. In the UK the numbers remained similar (39 in 2001 versus 36 in 2000), while Russia experienced a sharp increase in criminal, including antisemitic, activity in general (28 violent antisemitic incidents in 2001 compared with 6 in 2000).

Numbers are not the only indication. In 2001 there was a higher degree of violence and even vindictiveness, especially against individuals who were obviously Jewish, and against synagogues – 133 such attacks, mainly arson. This number marks a dramatic change from 1998-9, when half of violent attacks were perpetrated against cemeteries, while synagogues comprised only 20 percent. In 2000/1, attacks against individuals and synagogues made up more than half of cases. (The manifold numbers of threats, insults and calls to kill Jews, in public speeches and in demonstrations, in the media and on the Internet, were not included in the numbers presented here because of the difficulties in counting them and because of different monitoring systems in the various countries.)

Differences of opinion regarding the categorization of violence produced different estimations: in France, for instance, the authorities claimed there were 29 cases in 2001, defining them as criminal, not antisemitic, while CRIF (Conseil Representatif des Institutions Juives de France) put the number at 320 violent antisemitic incidents, and SOS Racisme, at 400 (the latter two between October 2000 and February 2002).

The prevailing political climate is a determining factor regarding violence against Jews. Following previous antisemitic events, there was an outburst of public indignation; since October 2000 the French authorities have been slow to react and have advised the Jewish community to remain quiet and inconspicuous.

It thus might be concluded that despite slightly lower numbers in 2001 compared with 2000, the level of violence continued to be high and threatening. Offensive references to Jews that had been confined to the fringes since World War II were made in European salons and among the higher echelons of society and government. Coupled with violent attacks, this development led to the dissemination of antisemitic stereotypes and to openly questioning the legitimacy of the State of Israel and even of the Jewish people. While Jewish communities perhaps pay a price for the Middle East conflict, Israel pays for the image of the Jew: “In polite company”, wrote a London Sunday Times observer, “one uses ‘Israel’ when hesitating to use the word ‘Jew’.”

Blaming Israel and the Jews:

ANTISEMITIC IMAGES IN THE AFTERMATH OF 11 SEPTEMBER

The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York and the Pentagon in Washington sent shock waves throughout the world. Alongside widespread condemnation and expressions of horror and sympathy, anti-Americanism – specifically, anger against America’s “imperialist” policies and US support for Israel – was reported in various parts of the world. For antisemites – both rightists and leftists, as well as Islamists and commentators in the Arab world – the Jew was the indirect or even the direct culprit, and the antisemitic terminology of these groups was frequently similar.

After 11 September, antisemitism was expressed either in blaming the US for its support of Israel, or in directly implicating Israel in the attacks. Some antisemites claimed that US support for Israel, induced by alleged Jewish control of the US government and media, was the main motive for the Islamist terrorists’ acts. The second claim, accusing Israel, particularly the Mossad and American Jews, of the attacks themselves, was a continuation of the anti-Israel and antisemitic campaign carried out in Durban, which aimed at portraying Israel and the Jews as the ultimate evil, and the main obstacle to peace between nations and religions.

Simultaneously, a wave of racist attacks on Arabs and other ethnic minorities in the US and in Western Europe erupted after the events of 11 September.

The First Approach: American Policy as a Jewish Plot

The concept of US support for Israel as the main motivation of the perpetrators was propagated by extremists and antisemitic groups, as well as by Israel’s opponents worldwide. For many, both on the left and the right, this concept was part of strong anti-American feelings, and the attacks were portrayed in various parts of the world as a just reaction against oppressive US policy. This explanation for the horror could not be accepted by American white supremacists. For them, it was not the American people but the Jews and their supporters in the government who were to blame. The Americans, according to white supremacist thinking, were “human shields for Israel.”

The Islamist and Arab Reaction

Unlike the unequivocal horror and denunciation expressed by most nations, the reaction of the Arab world was confused and hesitant, ranging from half-hearted condemnation to sheer jubilation. This response reflected not only conflicting Arab attitudes and sentiments toward the US, but a deep-seated, centuries-old enmity between two competing powers and civilizations – Islam and the West. This hostility, exacerbated by a continued sense of humiliation experienced by the world of Islam in the last two centuries, and nourished by Usama bin Ladin’s Islamist worldview, was evidently the driving force behind the attacks. Hostility toward the Jews and Israel was part and parcel of this vision. Hence, the Arab reaction to the September 11 events was composed of two interrelated positions – anti-Americanism and antisemitism.

In most Arabs states the attacks were described as the most terrifying and abominable terrorist event in US history, and were condemned for having harmed innocent civilians. Yet, instead of discussing the terrorist phenomenon emanating from within and offering explanations for the doctrines justifying it, the debate in the Arab world concentrated on the reasons for such profound anti-Americanism. Thus, most criticism of the attacks differentiated between the suffering of individual Americans and the “legitimate” damage done to the symbol of American might, and blamed US policies and America itself for the attacks. Lebanese writer George Hawi explicitly stated in the pro-Syrian paper al-Safir that rejecting terrorism meant disagreement with the tactics but not with the goals.

“Traditionally biased” US policy toward Israel was given as the prime reason for the deep-seated hatred of the US. Islamist groups in the Arab world and outside it also blamed the attacks on US Middle East policy, which had created over the years a series of grievances, among which support for Israel was only one. These included perceived US animosity toward Islam, US exploitation of Arab resources, American support of undemocratic regimes in the region, and US actions against Iraq. The American public, it was argued, had been misled by Israeli/Zionist domination over the American media and by the strong influence of the Jewish lobby in the US; thus, it was indifferent to the Palestinians’ suffering and to Israeli aggression against them.

`Ali `Aqla `Arsan, chairman of the Syrian Arab Writers Association, admitted that when he saw the masses fleeing in horror in the streets of New York and Washington, he felt that he was being “carried in the air above the corpse of the mythological symbol of arrogant American imperialist power, whose administration had prevented the people from knowing the crimes it was committing.” Some Arab commentators called on “the arch Satan,” America, to reflect on why it was “the object of all that violence and antipathy,” and adopt “more humane policies, less biased in favor of aggressors and occupiers.”

In many Arab countries, such as Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Palestinian Authority (PA), there were spontaneous outbursts of joy – people poured into the streets, distributed sweets to passers-by, chanted slogans of “God is Great,” honked horns, flashed the victory sign and fired shots into the air. “This is the language that the United States understands”; “Let America have a taste of what we’ve tasted”; “The myth of America was destroyed with the WTC in New York… It is the prestige, arrogance and institutions of America that burn”; and “The super-terrorist had a taste of its own bitter medicine” – were all themes that recurred in the media. In an open letter in the Gaza Hamas mouthpiece al-Risala, Palestinian `Attallah Abu al-Subh wrote: “We [the Arabs] stand in line and beg Allah to let you [the Americans] drink from the cup of humiliation – and behold, heaven has answered.”

Arab leaders, however, downplayed these manifestations of exaltation. Fearing American reprisals in the war against terrorism, they condemned the attacks and absolved themselves of responsibility, while simultaneously trying to appease domestic public opinion by implicitly criticizing American policy, and claiming that it bred a sense of injustice and disappointment among Arabs and Muslims. Most revealing was PA Chairman Yasir Arafat’s reaction to the televised coverage of the celebrations in the PA. He banned celebratory demonstrations and warned against filming them. The PA semi-official paper al-Hayat al-Jadida even accused cameramen of falsifying the scenes. The only Arab leader who openly celebrated the attacks was Iraq’s Saddam Husayn. He asserted that the US had reaped “the thorns that its rulers have planted in the world.”

Latin America

Harsh anti-Americanism, alongside expressions of grief, was also manifested in Latin America. It reflected the deep hostility of many Latin Americans, both on the left and the right, toward what they perceived as American imperialist policies. Immediately after 11 September several letters to editors of newspapers cited America’s “aggressive” foreign policy, seen as an attempt to rule the world and unduly favor Israel, as the chief cause of radical Islamic activity.

In Argentina, María Hebe Pastor de Bonafini, leader of Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, said she had rejoiced when she heard about the attacks against the WTC – “It made me happy.” For her, the attacks had “avenged the blood shed by so many,” since “in those two towers it was decided who among us would die, lose their jobs, be massacred, be bombed.” Moreover, “the fear that they instilled in us, with the persecutions, the disappearances, the torture, is now being experienced by the entire American people – the people who remained silent and applauded wars.” Bonafini compared the WTC attackers to “our children” who “were also called terrorists, but were revolutionaries,” and “gave their lives for a better world.”

In Venezuela letters to mainstream papers claimed that the US attitude toward Israel was the principal cause of the radicalization of Islam, which had led to such catastrophic results. Biased American policy they maintained, had led to deep-seated Arab hatred of the United States. Venezuelan criticism of the American campaign in Afghanistan was voiced not only in the press, but also by government figures and intellectuals. In an article in the mainstream El-Nacional, Prof. Vera Chela from the University of Caracas expressed empathy with the terrorists’ motives. It was America, she wrote, that had sown the seeds of hatred. Not only had it conducted an imperialistic policy but it had also supported the Jewish occupation of Palestine and the expulsion of its true habitants.

In Brazil there were conflicting viewpoints regarding the attacks, the fight against terrorism and US relations with Israel and the Jews. On the one hand, Brazilian television broadcast scenes of Palestinians rejoicing on the day of the bombing and during its aftermath, and interviewed a Palestinian living in Brazil who said she was happy to see the devastation. The revulsion to this attitude opened a crack in the usually solid support of the Palestinians. On the other hand, there were signs of increasing anti-Americanism in Brazil. For example, accusations were leveled at the United States by leading public figures, such as Judge Fabio Konder Comparato, who claimed that the United States was “a criminal nation which flouts international law and morality in its relations with other peoples, while in the name of sovereignty its policies border on international crime.” Milton Temer, of the leftist Partido do Trabalho (PT), said the United States was reaping the fruits of a policy of aggressive imperialism.

Brazilian youth expressed open hostility to America on various occasions. At a street protest in September demanding better educational conditions, high school students carried posters of bin Ladin saying, “He’s innocent.” In the Sao Paolo youth paper Folhateen a letter to the editor claimed, “I do not accept the attempt to turn bin Ladin into the devil, which CNN is doing. He is a man fighting for the freedom of his people.” A survey in this paper showed that 52 percent of readers thought President Bush more of a terrorist than bin Ladin.

The special relationship between the United States and Israel was the subject of some extremely harsh commentary in the media by public figures and members of parliament. Former Administration Minister Luis Carlos Bresser Pereira blamed the United States for its position of unreserved support of Israel, which he considered had laid the ground for Islamic hatred of the United States.

Some letters to the editor in mainstream newspapers of São Paolo and Rio de Janeiro expressed extremely anti-Zionist opinions, even calling for the annihilation of the State of Israel. The well-known Brazilian intellectual Jose Arthur Giannotti viewed the new alliance against terrorism as an opportunity for a rational solution to the problem of the Middle East. “Let us agree that the history of the Middle East would be entirely different without the State of Israel, which opened a wound between Islam and the West. Can you get rid of Muslim terrorism without getting rid of this wound which is the source of the frustration of potential terrorists?”

Emir Sader, professor of sociology at the University of São Paolo and the University of Rio de Janeiro, inveighed against Jewish influence in Brazil and throughout the world. In Folha de Sao Paulo he wrote: “One of the reasons for the failure of US policy is the pressure of the Jewish lobby.” According to Sader, “Zionism is racism, since the Arabs are second-class citizens there.” Further, he claimed, “there is also a hateful Zionist lobby in Brazil, which daily brings to bear all the forces of the media in order to mold public opinion to suit the Jews, while silencing all who disagree with them.”

Western Europe

Criticism of US support for Israel and empathy with Islamist terror appeared in publications of the West European extreme right, which for years had demonized Arabs/Muslims in Europe. Radical neo-Nazis joined left-wingers and Islamists in anti-American demonstrations, which were often accompanied by direct or indirect verbal attacks against Israel or the Jews.

In Spain, for example, the Movimiento Social Republicano (MSR) participated in demonstrations organized by Islamists and non-governmental organizations in favor of the Palestinians and in protest against the US anti-terror initiative. It should be noted that on other occasions the same group joined the xenophobic protests of residents against the opening of a Moroccan consulate in Almeria and marched in demonstrations alongside racist groups such as Blood & Honour.

In Germany the extreme right attempted to make political capital out of the attacks on America and the war in Afghanistan. Chanting anti-imperialist slogans with a leftist ring, Germany's National Democratic Party (NPD) and other ultra-right-wing groups demonstrated their “solidarity with the Afghan people” as well as a surprising solidarity with Muslims living in Germany. Accusing the US of waging a “war of retribution against the Islamic world,” they declared “that the participation of the German government is thereby also an open declaration of war against the two million Muslims who live here.”

However, extreme rightist support for the Islamist terror attacks on the US was not unanimous. The German Republikaner, for example, distanced themselves from such solidarity, and backed the American air strikes in Afghanistan. Chairman of the Republikaner Rolf Schlierer understood that “effectively fighting Islamic fundamentalist terror is in Germany's interest,” since the Taliban were endangering Germany's domestic peace “by producing refugee waves and heroin.”

Exploiting public fear of a terror attack, the Republikaner demanded, in the name of internal security and protection of citizens, stronger surveillance measures, especially of foreigners, asylum seekers and others who might threaten their freedom. They tried to persuade the insecure population that multiculturalism was a dangerous dream.

            Some extreme right activists admitted they found it difficult to resolve the conflict between their struggle against Muslim immigration to Europe, on the one hand, and their sympathy for the fight against the US, on the other. In October 2001 NPD vice-chairman Jürgen Schön declared that “we nationalists are fighting against the economic, cultural and militaristic aspirations of the US for world domination (Weltherrschaft) and at the same time against the islamization of Europe, since Islamic fundamentalism represents a threat to the struggle for existence of the German people.”

In France and the UK, the countries with the largest Arab/Muslim and Jewish populations, violent attacks against Jewish targets increased considerably after 11 September. In the UK, antisemitic incidents rose by 150 percent in September and October over August 2001. The figures for September and October were the second and the third highest monthly totals ever recorded. In France 44 percent of major violent incidents and attacks for the year 2001 took place in September and October.

The US

The satisfaction expressed by some extreme right groups in Western Europe following the attacks in the US created a sharp dispute with their American white supremacists allies. When the Spanish neo-Nazi Nuevorden, which was linked to the server of the white supremacist Stormfront, operating out of Florida, applauded the anti-American attacks, they were removed from the server with the following announcement: “We have watched with deep anger and disgust the unfeigned joy with which many ‘patriots from Spain and from other countries have welcomed the attack against our own country, which has so far given you the opportunity to put information online via this site. Thousands of my fellow countrymen have been killed by the Arabs, who have also invaded your country and threaten the entire West. However, we see that many national socialists like you do whatever is possible to justify what is unjustifiable.”

Organizations on the extreme right in the US – primarily hate groups and anti-government groups – reacted aggressively to the September 11 attacks and their aftermath. Some blamed American society, suggesting that toleration of homosexuals, abortions and separation of church and state had led God to punish the United States. Groups and individuals such as the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the World Church of the Creator and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, one of the main activists of the American extreme right, attempted to seize what they sensed was an opportunity to channel the raw emotions felt by many Americans after the events toward targets of their own desire, mainly Jews and immigrants. On the other end of the political spectrum, some on the left blamed American oil interests or large corporations for the war in Afghanistan.

Like Islamists and commentators in the Arab world, American ultra-rightists tried to exploit the claim made in mainstream papers immediately after 11 September that the terrorists were motivated mainly by frustration and fury over American support for Israel – an assumption rejected by terrorism experts. An ADL survey released in November found that the American people overwhelmingly rejected the notion that the close US-Israeli relationship was to blame for the September 11 attacks. The survey revealed that 63 percent of Americans believed that Usama bin Ladin attacked America because “the terrorists don't like our values or way of life, not because of our relationship with Israel.” Only 22 percent thought the attack would not have occurred had the US not been such a close ally of Israel.

To hardcore antisemites, Jews were responsible for everything bad in America, up to and including the terrorist attacks. Most common among hate groups was the argument that the September 11 attacks occurred because the United States, dominated by the “Jewish lobby,” supported Israel. Many extreme right groups preferred such arguments because they were more persuasive than Mossad conspiracy theories (see below). “Ever since the beginning of the last century,” Arkansas-based Klan leader Thomas Robb told his followers in a November issue of his newsletter The Torch, “we have allowed anti-Christian Jews entrance into our Christian government under the guise of tolerance.” Jews came to dominate the entertainment industry, he wrote, and “eventually captured our political parties and churches.” Consequently, the US had abandoned the “Christian principles of our forefathers” and adopted a campaign of “political Zionism.” As a result of the domination of the US by Jews, “we are under not a blessing but a curse for our wickedness.” The New York-based newsletter White Voice agreed, asserting that the “Jewish State of Israel, and its Jewish supporters in the United States, in particular, the Jewish lobby which controls our Congress… have succeeded in bringing their cursed war, and their wretched enemies to America’s shores.” Alex Linder, editor of the Missouri-based Vanguard News Network, was more succinct, writing in early November that “Jews cause problems. Period.”

The actions of Matt Hale of the racist and antisemitic WCOTC illustrate the energy with which white supremacists have attempted to co-opt the September 11 attacks for their own ends. After the attacks, Hale issued a press release with the headline, “Pro-Israel Policy Costs Thousands of Lives Today.” The release demanded an end to US aid to Israel and the “liberation” of the US from “the manipulations of the Jews that have had such terrible consequences,” Hale called for a “fervent and immediate response” in spreading this message.” Within a week of the attacks, WCOTC members had distributed fliers in Phoenix, Arizona, featuring the slogan, “Let’s stop being human shields for Israel,” and urging Americans to “find a nationalistic government that will look after their interests and not the interests of the Jews.” Members in Spokane, Washington, distributed similar fliers.

Hale himself led demonstrations in East Peoria, Illinois, in which he and his followers displayed signs with messages such as “America before Israel” and “Arabs & Jews Get Out.” When the United States began its military attack in Afghanistan, Hale altered his message to suggest that the war was for the benefit of the Jews and criticized the people “chomping at the bit to annihilate the anti-JOG [Jewish Occupied Government] forces in Afghanistan.” In a late October press release, Hale asserted that “this Jewish-dominated government… is quite willing to force non-Jewish Americans to become human shields.” He claimed that “with each passing day, more and more white people agree with our message.”

Neo-Nazi David Duke was equally opportunistic. The former Klan leader issued a statement on his website shortly after the attacks, labeling them a “day of tragedy for the wounded heart of America.” Duke accused the “powerful, Zionist lobby” which dominated the media and government and whose actions caused suffering among “our people, the normal moms and pops, and sons and daughters of America.” He claimed that the US was now “reaping the whirlwind,” while “our masters already plan their war against the terrorism that they themselves inspired.” He urged the US to “break the grip of this Zionist power in our midst.”

In subsequent pronouncements, Duke elaborated on this theme, blaming the terrorist attacks on the “criminal behavior” of Israel. His organization produced a flier that claimed, “Israeli genocide against the Palestinians is paid for with our money and now our blood.” Duke, too, incorporated US military actions in Afghanistan into his propaganda. “Jewish supremacist elements in the government and mass media,” he said in the October 2001 issue of his David Duke Report, were trying to expand the actions in Afghanistan into a “massive, global war.”

The National Alliance, America’s largest neo-Nazi group, led by William Pierce (whose novel, The Turner Diaries, inspired terrorists in the 1980s and 1990s), was slower than Hale and Duke in responding to the attacks. Pierce eventually took the lead with short-wave radio broadcasts dominated by accusations against Jews. The terrorist acts, he claimed, were “a direct consequence of the American people permitting the Jews to control their government and to use American strength to advance the Jews’ interest at the expense of everyone else’s interests.” Many more people, he warned, will be killed because of US government actions “at the behest of the Jews.” Although Pierce condemned the terrorists in a later broadcast for killing so many white people in the attacks on the WTC, his message focused almost completely on Jews. “We were attacked,” he said later in September, “because we have been letting ourselves be used to do all of Israel’s dirty work in the Middle East.” President Bush himself, Pierce said, was controlled by Jews working behind the scenes who judged “every policy by the single criterion, ‘Is it good for the Jews?’”

The National Alliance propaganda machine produced fliers for members to distribute. In Pennsylvania, they contained an image of Tower Two as it collapsed with the accompanying caption, “Is Our Involvement in the Security of the Jewish State Worth This?” In Washington, DC, National Alliance members organized a demonstration outside the Israeli embassy in early November to “express the opposition of American patriots to the policies of the US government that expose Americans to terrorist attacks.” Claiming to speak “on behalf of all humanity,” the National Alliance expressed its concern for world peace and asserted: “The interests of the Jews does NOT outweigh the needs of the people of the world! The freedom-loving people of the world are adamant that the Jewish state immediately cease its barbaric treatment of the people whose lands it occupies illegally! Israel's continued genocidal actions leave us no alternative but to call for a total end to all American economic and military aid to Israel! Failure to address these reasonable demands will be a tacit admission to the world that Israel is a terrorist state and that Jewish interests are bent on world domination and genocide against Palestinians, Muslims and people of European ancestry!”

Thus, opportunistic antisemites such as Matt Hale, David Duke and William Pierce aimed at creating a new wave of antisemitism by convincing Americans that the terrorist attacks were the direct result of US support for Israel, and that this support stemmed from complete Jewish domination of the government. This line of argumentation was also raised by leaders of extreme black groups in the US. Malik Zulu Shabazz, national chairman of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), claimed, for example, at a televised conference in November 2001 that “Zionism is racism, Zionism is terrorism, Zionism is colonialism, Zionism is imperialism, and support for Zionism is the root of why so many were killed on 11 September.”

Central and Eastern Europe

As in Western Europe, the extreme right attempted to find a synthesis between criticism of the US, particularly its support for Israel, and its fundamental fear of Islamic infiltration into Europe. For almost a decade now antisemites of the former communist states in Eastern Europe have presented themselves, on the one hand, as true supporters of “Christian and Western values” against the machinations of world Jewry, and on the other, as allies of anti-Western, Arab and Muslim-led elements against Israel and Zionism. Thus, racist and xenophobic elements which, in principle, reject the presence in their land of non-Europeans and Muslims, make common cause with them when antisemitic and anti-Israel factors link them. This stand, adopted by the extreme right in the wake of the anti- Israel campaign in Durban, continued after 11 September.

            Extremists in Eastern and Central Europe took some time to adjust their reactions to popular sentiment. The initial response of the Hungarian Justice and Life Party (MIEP) of Istvan Csurka, published in Magyar Forum after the attacks, was that the US had got its just desserts for its policies of world domination. MIEP, the only Hungarian party to oppose Hungarian support for the US war against terror, found its position was generally condemned.

By 20 September, it had amended its stand. In a statement published in Magyar Forum, the party shared its grief with the victims, but recalled other victims in the world, “those who have died of hunger, or were killed or bombed.” It called for remembering “all victims of genocide” – the reference being to victims of communism. The statement concluded that the events of 11 September were not unconnected to other world events. In the same issue Csurka created a link between Durban and 11 September. He argued that the strong condemnation of Israel’s racist and genocidical policies in Durban amounted to a “political Stalingrad” for Israel, the US and the forces of globalization, which they had wanted to avoid. Csurka wrote that “it is impossible to silence what is happening in Palestine, where innocent people are being killed daily – children, Palestinians who are the ancient inhabitants of the land.” As for the suicide bombers who killed Israelis, Csurka implied that such deeds demonstrated the desperation of the oppressed. Against such personal actions of desperate people, the “global powers” could not launch actions of collective punishment. But, after 11 September, Csurka maintained, this had become possible: “They began with the Afghanis, but it will not end with them; that is why Arafat donated blood [to the Afghanis under US attack],”

The more sophisticated line of Romania’s Greater Romania Party (GRP) continued its anti-Israel rhetoric, but was much swifter in condemning the attacks. GRP leader Corneliu Vadim Tudor, traditionally pro-Arab and especially pro-Iraq, directly linked the war against terror to his own vendetta against President Ion Iliescu, and published allegedly secret evidence that Iliescu had helped train “Hamas terrorists” in Romania in the early nineties. Unexpectedly, however, the party lowered its anti-Israel tone, while maintaining it campaign against former Jewish communists, Jewish influence in present day Romania and the destructive role played by Jewish-Israeli business interests.

The Second Approach: “The Big Lie”

The theory that accusations against Muslims were merely a blind to the real identification of the perpetrators originated in the Arab media. Since the operation was so “successful,” and required such meticulous preparatory work, Arab commentators considered it too complex and too demanding to have been carried out by an Arab/Muslim group. Seeking perpetrators who would relieve them of any blame, they resorted to conspiracy theories and suggested the attacks were “made in the USA.” They accused either the Bush administration, the FBI, American extreme right organizations or oil companies of planning the attacks with the aim of furthering their own interests.

The search for likely perpetrators and conspirators “naturally” led to the Jewish connection and gave rise to a host of arguments linking Jews, Zionism and the Israeli Mossad to the attacks. They were presented as “the act of the great Jewish Zionist mastermind that controls the world’s economy, media and politics.” The goal of the operations was to coerce the US and NATO “to submit even more to Jewish Zionist ideology” by cultivating fears of “Islamic terrorism” and instigating a war against Islam. Only the Jews were capable of planning such an event, because it required great expertise, of which neither Usama bin Ladin nor any other Islamic organization or intelligence apparatus was capable, explained the Egyptian Shaykh Muhammad Jami`a, in the US. The attacks were straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which exhorted the Jews to destroy the world in order to control it, wrote an Egyptian commentator, whereas a Palestinian observer explained that they were the result of Jewish ire and disappointment over the defeat of Al Gore and “his Zionist-American colleague” in the US presidential elections.

Posing the question as to who would have been the chief beneficiary of the attacks, it was argued that Israel stood to gain the most from the bloody operation if Arabs and Muslims were accused of perpetrating it. “The Israeli regime knows that only by inflicting such a wound and blaming it on Islamic terrorism could it wipe out any dissent to current American policy,” wrote the Iranian daily Jomhuri-ye Eslami. Only a highly efficient intelligence agency with access to facilities and information inside the American system, such as the Mossad, could have been behind such attacks, the argument continued. Five Israeli youths, detained in the US for photographing the collapse of the towers, provided further “proof,” in some Arab eyes, of Israeli intelligence involvement. Moreover, a Saudi writer even blamed the Jews for infiltrating pan-Arab and Islamic organizations that had “acted in good faith.”

The most popular claim, allegedly proving the Jews’ prior knowledge of the planned attacks, was the supposed absence of some 4,000 Israelis (or Jews in another version of the tale) from work in the WTC on the day of the attacks. This rumor may be traced to an accidental or deliberate misreading of an estimate by an Israeli official as to the number of Israelis living in the New York City area. It was propagated both by extreme rightist (see below) and by Islamists. “A suitable way was found to warn the 4,000 Jews who work every day at the Twin Towers to be absent from their work on 11 September 2001, and this is really what happened! Were 4,000 Jewish clerks absent by chance, or was there another reason?,” asked Ra’id Salah, leader of the Islamic movement in Israel in its newspaper Sawt al-Haqq wal-Hurriyya.

This libel against Israel and American Jews appeared in publications of American white supremacists. Sometimes articles by Muslim writers were used by white supremacists, while articles of the latter were reprinted in the Muslim media. The Yemen Observer, for example, posted an article by American extreme right activist David Duke. The NY-based English-language newspaper Muslims reprinted an antisemitic piece by neo-Nazi William Pierce. Antisemitic articles written by Americans were reprinted also by Muslims of the Americas (MOA), a.k.a. al-Fuqra, by the Arab Students United, in The Syria Times and on Hizballah sites.

The extreme right in the US emphasized the two main arguments outlined in the Muslim press above. The Christian Identity newsletter Scriptures for America put it succinctly: “The Israeli Jews have much to benefit if America fights the Muslim world. And thus many suspect the behind-the-scenes action of the Mosad [sic].” A Texas-based newsletter The Eagle disclaimed “paranoia about Israeli plots,” but noted that the Mossad “has the operatives with language skills who can and have infiltrated…various Islamic networks.” Did the Mossad plan it? “That’s hard to say,” said The Eagle, “it’s more likely Mossad encouraged and abetted or just sat back and let it happen.”

Some antisemites postulated that Israel might have had partners, such as the CIA. This was the theory of Paul Hall, publisher of the antisemitic and anti-government newspaper Jubilee. Hall suggested that the Mossad and the CIA were the “real perpetrators,” and cited The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to explain how Jews “will use world war to fight their enemies and achieve their goal of world government if they can’t do it themselves.”

Among American white supremacists, many proponents of the Jewish conspiracy theory claimed as fact the rumor that 4,000 Israelis employed at the WTC did not report for work on 11 September. This suggested to them an obvious conspiracy in which the Israeli government somehow prevented its citizens from going to the towers that day, knowing they would be attacked. Ironically, even after this hoax was completely debunked, conspiracy theorists were able to incorporate it in their propaganda. Thus Michael Collins Piper, a writer for the antisemitic American Free Press, claimed that the rumor was actually a straw man designed to hide Mossad foreknowledge of or involvement in the attack. “There is, however,” he wrote, “good reason to believe that at least some Israelis working at the WTC may have had advance warning.” Similarly, Florida antisemite Hans Schmidt, publisher of the GANPAC Brief newsletter, discounted the rumors of the 4,000 Israelis, but wrote that “there is no question, however, that Jews are predominant in the financial services,” and that there were “relatively few Jewish names” among the initial victim lists.

Another conspiracy theory suggested that “greedy Jews” destroyed the building for the insurance money. “We’ve been royally conned,” wrote antisemite John Bryant on his website, “by a Hebrew mish-mash of vengeful Arabs who carouse the night before their voluntary demise, Arabs who can’t fly jets in any case, ‘evidence’ thrown around like confetti, old but newly-owned heavily-insured buildings which inexplicably fall down too soon, and jets which suddenly become uncontrollable.”

Some antisemites simply combined various theories. “Did you know,” stated an article on the website of the Free American magazine, “that in July, the Twin Towers were leased to the Silverstein Companies for a mere 668 million dollars? Did you know they were insured? Did you know that a Pakistani television station reported that none of the 4,000 Israelis and Jews who worked in the building were killed?… Could the Mossad be involved? Could this be an exaggerated case of Jewish lightning [sic]?”

In Europe, as well, Islamists, right-wing extremists and Holocaust deniers repeated the claim that Jews were behind the attacks in New York and Washington. On 21 September, for example, the imam of Valencia, Spain, asserted in a mosque filled with worshipers: “All the evidence shows that the Jews are guilty.”.

In Romania, the most widely circulated publication of the extreme right, Romania Mare, asserted that “some 4,000 Israelis and Jews were alerted not to go to their workplaces at the WTC a day before 11 September.” The paper attributed the item to “news stories from various sources,” but made no comment on the allegation. However, it was written in such a way that left no doubt as to its veracity.

The alleged Jewish plot behind the attacks fitted the Jewish world conspiracy theories held by some Holocaust deniers in Europe and the United States. At a gathering of Holocaust deniers in Trieste one month after the attack, the American denier Russ Granata told his audience that “the main reason why my country was attacked on 11 September was because of the US support of Israel” and “there certainly has been a lot of perceptions regarding September 11 [sic]. It has been reported that there was some inside trading in insurance and airline stock market shares that points to a previous knowledge of the forthcoming attack – and it has also been reported that there were some advance warnings in the Jewish-owned investment banking system.” The German Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf used a similar line of argumentation, implying that the Mossad was the body that would profit most from the murder of thousands of innocent people.

Another promoter of the Jewish world conspiracy myth, Lyndon LaRouche, “the Prophet” of the LaRouche international cult, fantasized about the involvement of the Israeli army (IDF), explaining that “it is the IDF, which, as part of its war aims, has carried out an aggressive espionage and covert operations penetration of the USA.”

The idea that Israel was behind the attacks and that only it could have benefited from them, served too as a propaganda theme of radical groups in Russia and Ukraine, as well as in areas with large concentrations of Muslims – Moscow, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and north Caucasia. Islamic organizations, including those identified with the most radical movements in the Arab world, have increased their operations in recent years in Russia, Ukraine, the Crimean peninsula and Central Asia. They include the Muslim Brotherhood, active among Muslims in Russia, Caucasia and the Central Asian states; Hamas, active in Russia and Central Asia; Hizb-ut Tahrir al-Islami in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, north Caucasia and Central Asia; and the Islamic Movement for the Liberation of Uzbekistan. These groups, whose growth parallels the general awakening of extremist movements in the Islamic world, and which has taken place against the background of the Russia-Chechenya conflict, is of great concern to the authorities in the former Soviet Union, which have been trying to contain and repress them in order to avoid conflict between the Slavic and Muslim populations.

Attacks against Other Ethnic Minorities in the Wake of 11 September

In parallel to the wave of antisemitic and anti-Israel reactions, the September 11 events triggered a series of racist attacks on Arabs and other ethnic minorities, particularly in the US. Since the acts were committed by Islamist terrorists, Arabs and Muslims became prime targets of abuse for a variety of extremists and hate groups. The hundreds of hate crimes and incidents directed against people perceived to be Arab or Muslim indicated that extremists saw the terrorist attacks as a real opportunity to exploit the deep public anger they had generated. Some hate groups specifically targeted Arabs and Muslims, while others turned their resentment of Arabs and Muslims against all immigrants.

In Mississippi, in mid-October, for example, members of the racist Nationalist Party held an “Aliens Out” protest, calling for racial profiling and the deportation of “aliens” and “suspicious characters.” According to one participant, “People know that criminals, subversives and aliens must be profiled. Their looks, language and traits all need to be examined and watched, so that their threat to our American way of life can be countered and defeated.” Another group, the American Nationalist Union, urged the sealing of borders with Mexico and Canada, the implementation of a ten-year moratorium on all immigration, the deportation of all illegal aliens, and the deportation of all visa and permit holders “who arouse the slightest bit of suspicion.” Holocaust denier Michael Hoffman urged President Bush to “defend America from foreign invasion, by ending illegal immigration and placing a moratorium on legal immigration.”

One of the organizations most active in espousing extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric was the Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC), a large group descended from the White Citizens Councils of the segregation-era South. Within weeks of the September 11 attacks, the group displayed on its website the headline “Dirty Rotten Arabs and Muslims.” An accompanying article claimed that America was now “drinking the bitter dregs of multiculturalism and diversity.” Moreover, the threat of “Muslim-Arab mischief” was not confined to Usama bin Ladin, since “Arab treachery and deviousness have been a scourge since biblical times.” Islam, the website asserted, “is a religion of hatred and vindictiveness!”

In the CofCC website's “Confederate Dreadnaught” editorial section, a particularly racist essay claimed that the answer to “this problem of terrorism” is to “segregate ourselves from the Arabs, Muslims, and/or all others who will do us harm,” whether they are “Arab terrorists, or Chinese scientists stealing our nuclear secrets, or blacks raining murder, rape, and theft down among us.” CofCC member H. Millard suggested that when US reservists were called up to fight terrorism, illegal aliens would fill their jobs and fill “the lonely nights of the women left behind.” In November, a Dreadnaught essay urged Southerners to “glorify God, aided by the ethnic segregation He instituted in the Bible.”