Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism

June 28, 2004 at the Adenauer Conference Center in Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem

Symposium Israel & Europe: An Expanding Abyss

Jointly organized by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs



Dr. Johannes Gerster, representative of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Israel, opened the symposium. He stressed that a major effort is required to improve European-Israel relations, and that this and future conferences can make a contribution to this process. He pointed out that discussions between Israelis and Europeans have become tense. This derives in part from the very different views Israelis and many Europeans have about the Middle East conflict. The Israelis see themselves as David confronting a mighty Arab Goliath, whereas many Europeans view Israel as a Goliath against a Palestinian David. One crucial contribution to improving European-Israeli relations must be helping Europeans to better understand the special situation of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East.

Dr. Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, expressed his appreciation to the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and to Dr. Gerster personally for once again supporting a symposium on a crucial problem facing Israel. He observed that the first step to improving relations must be exposing the existing problems with candor.

The first session was devoted to the Israeli perspective on the issue. The session’s president, political scientist Professor Gerald Steinberg of Bar-Ilan University, stressed that Europeans and Israelis often use the same vocabulary, which however has very different meanings for each side. He drew attention to the narrow focus of the European media discourse on Israel, which deals exclusively with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This leads to a distorted European picture of Israel as it means that Europe remains uninformed on essential points of the internal discussion in Israel.

The first speaker was Professor Yehezkel Dror, founding president of The Jewish People Planning Institute. He outlined why Israel needs to develop a grand strategy toward Europe. He mentioned that Europe has the largest concentration of Jews after the United States and Israel, and substantial parts of Israel’s population come from Europe. Yet the United States in the foreseeable future will remain more important for Israel than Europe. He explained that this is not only the case because the United States is more powerful than Europe, but also because Europe’s power is mainly soft in nature, and its ability and readiness to back it up by hard power are very limited. In the long run, Europe is important for Israel, the more so as both are faced by a new kind of terrorism that derives from Islam, even if it is not an inherent feature of the religion.

Dr Manfred Gerstenfeld, chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, began by showing three extreme anti-Semitic cartoons from European mainstream papers, the U.K. Independent, the Italian La Stampa, and the Greek Ethnos. He pointed out that Europe’s hostility toward Israel to a large extent results from the three major strategic mistakes post-war Europe made. Rather than make a maximum effort to take care of its own defense, it leaned far more than necessary on the United States to defend it from Communism. Rather than develop alternative energies, it remained more than necessary dependent on Arab oil. Rather than learning from its failure to integrate a small number of Jews over many centuries, it has proclaimed itself a multicultural area, and in a short time has let immigrate large numbers of much more difficult to integrate Muslims.

Professor Robert Wistrich, historian and director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti- Semitism, said that the new Europe is turning out to be the worst of all possible worlds for Europe’s Jews at the present time. Not since 1945 has one seen such a level of concern, anxiety and even depression among Europe’s Jews as one witnesses today. Governments have now finally become aware of the seriousness of the wave of anti-Semitic violence, harassments and incidents across the European Union. They are beginning, very inadequately, to address the problem. There is substantial reason to fear that Europe is once again falling back into a syndrome of appeasement of terrorism and the culture of anti-Semitism.

The second session was presided over by sociologist Professor Shmuel Trigano, of Paris’ Nanterre University. Hildegard Mueller, member of the German Bundestag and Chair of the German-Israeli Parliamentary Group, observed that a number of bad news items mask a range of other favorable factors in Israel’s relationship with the EU. As such, she mentioned Europe’s close historical and geographic links with Israel and the Middle East, and the lasting influence of the Jewish and Christian religion on Europe. She pointed to the special relationship between Germany and Israel, as well as Germany’s consciousness of its history and the responsibility it bears within the EU for Israel’s right to exist within secure borders.

Ambassador Avram Pazner, chairman of the United Jewish Appeal, said that Israel should avoid the impulse to shut itself off from the EU, even if many Europeans do not understand that Israel is fighting for its survival. There are many anti-Semites and anti-Semitic acts in Europe, which however does not make the countries who harbor these people, anti-Semitic ones. He proposed that Israel should reconsider its position and involve Europe more in the Middle East political process. At the same time, Israel should obtain from Europe the option to enter in one way or another into the European Union.

In the discussion, various members of the audience intervened, among them Czech ambassador Michael Zandowski.

The third session was presided over by Ambassador Freddy Eytan. Ambassador Mark Sofer, Deputy Director General Division for Europe and Euroasia of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, focused on the Eastern European entrants among the ten new countries to join the EU in 2004. He underlined that these states do not consider the Middle East a priority in their policies. Their presence in European Union discourse, including that of the European parliament, is likely to create a more positive atmosphere for Israel. In situations where Europe will not be able to reach a unified position on Middle Eastern problems, the new entrants are more likely to be on the positive side as far as Israel is concerned.

The next speaker, Ambassador Gold, mentioned that Europe’s voting record at the United Nations has been consistently negative toward Israel for the last 30 years. This includes voting in the General Assembly, the Security Council and other UN bodies. If there is any hope of developing the European-Israeli relationship in a more positive direction in the future, this issue has to be faced. He added that Israel and Europe have to reach a common understanding of the true meaning of jihad as a threat to both of them.

Dr Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute, Berlin, related in an anecdotic way, a selection of not only anti-American insults but also anti-Semitic ones he has experienced, pointing out that he is Catholic. He mentioned that certain elements of the attitude of many Europeans toward Americans and Israelis have more to do with pathology than with ideology. He said that America expects Europe to come out of its cocoon eventually and in the meantime, at least to behave somewhat responsibly or at least not to stand in the United States’ way in Iraq.

In the debriefing, the organizers agreed that this symposium has exposed a substantial number of basic problems. There is however the need to move on to a more focused discussion on how a partly ruptured dialogue between Europe and Israel can be established. As a first step, a book of interviews on the subject of the symposium is in preparation. This includes, besides the lecturers at the conference, the views of other experts unable to attend the symposium.