By Howard R. Zern

People may view the title of this essay as an anachronism. Unlike pogroms in the 19th or 20th century, the 21st century version is more subtle. Practiced by democracies and non-democracies, pogroms today are designed to diminish rights of Jews and the Jewish State.

Kosher Slaughter – Denmark outlawed Kosher slaughter under the pretext that ritual slaughter is more painful to animals than a state-approved slaughtering method. Protestant Denmark is willing to define how Jews should practice their religion and implies that animals are more important than laws protecting Judaism.

Religious Dress – France enacted laws to forbid religious garb in schools. Observant Jews cannot wear a kippah, tzitzit, or a Star of David in school. The purported purpose of this law is to foster assimilation into French society, which is predominantly Catholic. A truly welcoming society doesn’t need to force assimilation.

Circumcision – Denmark and Sweden are exploring the possibility of banning circumcision until the child is old enough to make a personal decision. The intent is clear…making it difficult for Jews to practice their faith.

Boycott, Divest, Sanction – BDS began with individuals who wanted to pressure Israel to make territorial concessions to the Palestinians jeopardizing Israeli security and sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. Many European Union countries are now following suit banning funds to Israeli companies operating across the 1949 armistice line and requiring labeling of Israeli made products there.

Proportionate Response – “Proportionate response,” according to the International Criminal Court and its Rome Statute (not ratified by U.S., China, Israel and others) relates to nations attacked. It says that “the defense must match the level of the threat.” i.e. deadly force begets deadly force. The attacked has the responsibility to avoid civilian targets; however, the term does not mean there will be no civilian casualties. The Statute permits “…belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even though some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) Article 8(2)(b)(i). … Under this (non-binding) law, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime.”

A Jewish cemetery in France, desecrated with spray-painted swastikas earlier this year.

There are tests here: Did the defensive state try to avoid the violence? Did they act with restraint? A country that is attacked can carry out offensive attacks against a military objective that may cause civilian casualties so long as that objective can establish a military advantage in proportion to the casualties.

These rules of engagement were made for countries in conflict with other countries, not terrorist organizations that use human shields and place command centers in civilian areas making them legitimate targets. Greater civilian casualties, while deeply unfortunate, have little to do with fact and law.

Based on the attempted murder of one million Israelis, the Palestinians are guilty of disproportionate response. Israel has fewer civilian casualties because it has protected its citizens with Iron Dome; this is a matter of investment and good fortune, not a matter of proportionality. Many nations feel badly for Jews when they are dying; those same nations do not admire Jews when they fight back and win.

Many countries emotionally and incorrectly look at body count as a way to equate proportionate response. For every Jew there are 54 Arabs. Should the death toll reflect this proportionality? There have been millions killed in the Middle East and Africa and the only nation that the UN and countries criminalize is Israel. Perhaps, Israel should respond equally by launching 2,500 indiscriminate rockets against Gaza’s cities or allow the loss of Israeli lives. Israel has chosen a much better path to save civilian lives through more targeted response.

Balanced News Reporting – News reporting is supposed to be factual, accurate and in context. “Balanced news reporting,” in relating events between Israel and the Palestinians, is a prejudiced attempt to equate in moral and ethical terms the reporter’s view of facts and issues when they are not of equal weight. The key issue is not who kills more people, but who provoked the war and caused the death of its own civilians. Balancing the number of deaths establishes a false comparison.

Another example of unbalanced reporting is the characterization of Iran’s President Rouhani as a “moderate” and that of Israel’s President Rivlin as a “hard-liner.” This reflects how prejudiced the press has become in presenting facts. “Balanced reporting” in news is designed to elicit emotional reactions and sell newspapers.

The European Paradigm

The elements of the 21st century pogrom, collectively, are the same as last century’s pogroms: legalistic, tacit permission of law enforcement to allow violence and anti-Semitism. Europe and others are fixated with anti-Israel sentiments and have fostered an atmosphere that breeds anti-Semitism. There are several reasons:

• Europeans are dependent on oil.

• Centuries of inbred anti-Semitism.

• Fear of internal terrorism: Europe failed to integrate hundreds of thousands of Arabs. Arabs have transferred their anti-Semitic activities from their homelands to Europe, including killing Jews, burning synagogues and shops, and anti-Jewish rhetoric with impunity. Regardless of what Israel does, Europe’s problems will not subside.

If European countries admit the potential for an Islamic terrorist threat on their own soil, then they actively need to do something about it. It is easier for Europeans to believe that someone else is causing the problem, such as Israel or Jews. Regrettably, this is Europe’s sad history.

Before 1948, Jews were impotent and controlled. They had no political clout, weapons, military, or their own state. When Israel was reconstituted, it had to fight for its life against many UN member nations. Few expected the survival of Israel.

Europe, other countries and some in our own administration fail to understand that a Palestinian state will neither create peace nor reduce terrorism in the Middle East or Europe.

Many say Israel has to the right to defend itself, and then want to dictate what is proportionate. No country can fight a defensive war against a terrorist organization that controls a territory. Europe’s approach to Jews and Israel is a designed formula that simply does not want either to succeed on their own. It is not that Europe does not get it. They get it. They prefer to bury their heads. Their actions, inactions and hypocrisy by focusing on Israel and not the terrorists all point to a new script for anti-Semitism – the most insidious pogrom yet.

Howard Zern lives in West Hartford.

A Jewish cemetery in France, desecrated with spray-painted swastikas earlier this year.