Many of the rallying functions and the allegations of classical anti-Semitism have been updated and mutated into a new form of anti-Americanism.

As an openly expressed idea polluting the mainstream, classical anti-Semitism is by-and-large behind us. The waning of a religiously and then “racially” based delusion that had stirred the Western world might be considered to be good news. This is so especially when, due to the efforts of Tehran, Pyongyang, Hamas and the collusion of their great power protectors, positive reports are scarce. Regrettably, the good tidings apply only if the eye is focused on the surface and skips the substance. While classical anti-Semitism is losing power, two interrelated “anti-forces” are more than just taking its place.

The anti-Semites of our day have regrouped. One of their marching columns protests being anti-Jewish because that sounds like “Nazi,” which is, given the hostility during the second phase of the WW, anti- Soviet; that is not “left-progressive.” Politically correct, its “members” only admit to being anti-Israel. The same lot is also anti-Globalization. This harkens back to Soviet anti-Semitism, which was officially against “Cosmopolitanism; that is, opposed to the guys who, in the terminology of the last Kaiser, were “lads without a fatherland.”  The other, larger and louder brigade rallies under the flag of anti-Americanism. Naturally, similar to the “I am not anti-Semitic but I condemn Israel” crowd, these folks are not against the “American people” but opposed to American “dominance” lurking in the Bush. As a letter writer put it while this was written, they are anti-American to the extent that they are “allergic to stupidity.” The membership of these groups is practically identical. The two branches that “march separately” to join the battle “united,” coalesce after only a short PR-serving separation. This is one of the good answers I did not give to a nice well-to-do American lady visiting here. She wanted to know why “we have to help Israel.” I withheld my response because given the fact that she does not follow public events, the effort would have been a waste.

If then, anti-Semitism is alleged to have been overcome then this is not due to reasoned extrapolation regarding its merits but by virtue of its replacement. Many of the rallying functions and the allegations of classical anti-Semitism have been updated and mutated into the anti-Americanism that prevails.  Reduced to their core premise, such anti-movements do have a common element. It is the irrationality of their accusations and the logic-defying nature of its proof. This is perhaps a natural consequence of what happens when the thesis of a mind-set attains the status of conventional wisdom.

Having said this, the overwhelmed writer stares at several pages of typed quotes assembled to develop the topic by letting the advocates of “the US is our Unglück” speak. Limiting the best anti-Americanisms collected to just one page seems to be an insurmountable task. Perhaps it is best to take another page. It carries the summary of an interview the weekly Weltwoche has made with Irene Khan, who directs Amnesty International. In doing so, the rest of this piece will depart from its original concept. Even then, the point that was to be made will emerge as three-dimensional for those who analyze the summary below.

You have compared Gitmo to the GULAG.

I have said “Gunatanamo is the Gulag of our day.”

In the USSR twenty plus million were killed. (Note: The estimates range from 20 to 80 million.) Gitmo (only) has hundreds of inmates.

“I do not compare the number of the victims…”. Gitmo is a symbol.

. . .

What is your relationship to Bush? Have you ever spoken to him?

No.

Why not?

He does not think that human rights or “Amnesty” are important.

Has he said that?

No, but I am certain that he has a low opinion of human rights.

How can you be so sure?

Look at his time in office: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, the debacle in Iraq.

. . .

To what conclusions do you come if you compare the massive violations (during Hussein’s rule) . . . with the situation today?

I do not think that we should make such comparisons.

. . .

Ok, then, how do you evaluate the quality of human rights in Iraq today with those under . . . Hussein?

I do not think that it is right to put these two situations side by side.

. . . In comparison to the Saddam era the situation is less bad than it used to be. Would you agree with this summary?

I do not wish to compare.

This might not have been an elegant way to prevail in a debate. Ms. Khan does score but, in case she cares for such trivial matters, not necessarily the way she might have intended to. For an effective way to do that, while avoiding becoming accountable, I have a professor for you. He had been asked about his opinion regarding the possible role of the CIA in making 9/11 come about. His answer: “Do I really have to know to what extent the CIA has participated in the different scenarios (circulating) that range from self-staging (the event) to its knowing toleration, or whatever?” This could only be topped with the revelation that “Auschwitz,” might have been a Zionist plot!

As things stand, Europe is, in a welcoming way, receptive to such talk. Statistics such as that more than 70% of the Spanish and 60% of the Germans have a negative view of America are illustrative consequences. As such they are more than “interesting” or regrettable signs of ingratitude for services rendered or justice denied. Angela Merkel might have healed much of the damage caused by Shröder’s opportunistic election-time use of anti-US sentiment. This new good will is reduced to the personal relationship of the governors. Old Europe and much of new Europe are democracies. The free hand their governments have is limited by this. America’s friends — who like this writer can also be her reasoned critics – are a minority here. All this amounts to a salient fact that sets tight limits to the possibilities of a multilateral approach in US foreign policy — and to the efficacy of the general struggle against terror.

That this hurts America is a clear, and so, in many circles it is a silently or overtly celebrated consequence. However, that the cheers might turn to tears is not an outlandish prediction. Anti- Americanism — and this is true of similar movement in their original settings – tends to under-estimate other dangers. Adherents can even be inclined to have a benign view of the mutual enemy just because it is the foe of the self-invented adversary. Today this strengthens Europe’s opponents while it makes the unprepared Continent’s dependency on US succor greater. Those who are against everything if it can be made out to be “American,” and hail whatever is bad for her, have a serious problem. The next crisis might bring proof of how unpleasant it is to be forced to seek (belatedly?) rescue from a long-maligned power.