Remembering Professor Robert Wistrich

The news of Professor Robert S. Wistrich’s sudden death was all the more difficult to absorb given that just last Thursday, those of us participating in the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism had the pleasure of hearing him speak – as eloquently and powerfully as ever. There can be no better account of that address than Professor Wistrich’s own – published in the Jerusalem Post as he requested, but not in time for him to see.

Many tributes have already been written in honour of Professor Wistrich’s life and work and as Ben Cohen observes:

“Robert’s death is an incalculable loss on many levels. At just the time that anti-Semitism has again become socially acceptable in Europe and elsewhere, we have been robbed of one of the few individuals whose voice on this topic underlined urgency, but not hysteria. Robert, moreover, was someone who intimately understood the historical provenance of today’s anti-Semitism, particularly in its insidious “anti-Zionist” guise.”

As readers may recall, Professor Wistrich gave the keynote address at CAMERA’s event examining the effects of UK media coverage of Israel on European antisemitism earlier this year.

May his memory be a blessing.

Related Articles:

In memoriam: Professor Robert S. Wistrich  UK Media Watch


6 comments on “Remembering Professor Robert Wistrich

  1. Meanwhile, here is an analysis by Daniel Pipes of IS attacks on the West on his Middle East Forum blog. In it he criticises beeboid security correspondent Frank Gardener’s analysis of the Garland, Texas shootings as missing the point. Duvidl is hardly surprised at the Isra-hating BBC’s poor point-missing analysis.

    “…A BBC analysis misses the point when it holds that if ISIS can “prove that it planned and directed [the Garland attack] – rather than just staking a claim after the event – then that would be a significant development.” Not so; ISIS is all the more formidable for not planning and directing but simply talking and writing….”

    “…Analysis: Frank Gardner, BBC security correspondent
    This is obviously not the first jihadist attack to take place on the US mainland, but if Islamic State is able to prove that it planned and directed it – rather than just staking a claim after the event – then that would be a significant development.
    It is also possible that IS’s claim is one of convenience, that it played little or no part in the attack.
    In some ways, it was a failure. The attackers did not get near the actual event organisers or speakers and the two gunmen ended up being the only ones killed, shot down not by a SWAT team, but by a traffic policeman.
    But that would be to miss the point. For IS, this is all about publicity and the generation of fear. The message they want to give Americans is: “You’re not safe in your own backyard, this was just the beginning and there are more attacks to come.”…”

  2. I was saddened to hear of Robert Wistrich’s death.

    Anti-Semitism: the longest hatred – that comprehensive exploration of the subject – is still on my bookshelf.

    He was a great soldier in the fight against the demonisation of Jews and he will be missed.

  3. Duvid, I’m not convinced there was any bias in Gardner’s article. I have an idea that his loathing of Islamic terrorists trumps his standard BBC political correctness.

    After all, he was left paralysed and his cameraman murdered in a terrorist attack.

    • Agreed.

      Duvidl was not suggesting he was biased, just wrong; and wrong in a way that tends to shore up the Isra-hating BBC’s malevolently mistaken conception of what terrorists are trying to achieve. This he does without even using the word “terrorist”, as per BBC protocol.

      If Frank wanted to do anything remotely useful to report and analyse terrorism he would be far better advised by Duvidl to ditch the moribund BBC and go to work in America, as British historian Andrew Roberts has done for the past four years.

      • By the way, in case any BBC Watch readers were under any BBC-induced mis-apprehensions that terrorists are merely trying to achieve a terrorised Britain, let Duvidl disabuse them. Terrorists, make no Frank-like mistake, say they are trying to establish a caliphate.

        This calliphate, terrorists hope, will stretch from Cornwall to Carlisle. The British are intended to be dhimmis within it paying the jizya (conquered subjects tax) to the caliph as the Jews of Arab lands were forced to pay before they were massacred and expelled to find refuge in Israel.

        Happy Shavuot and chag sameach.

        • By the way again, here are some examples from Soeren Kern at Gatestone of the spread of caliphate-seeking terrorism in Britain last month. Duvidl has not checked how many, if any of these cases beeboid security correspondent Frank has reported or analysed, even wrongly.

          “…In Britain, Irfan Chishti, an imam from the Rochdale Council of Mosques, warned that the reach of the Islamic State is spreading “far and fast” throughout the British Muslim community. “No one is immune to it, he said. “The tentacles of ISIS really are spreading so quickly, not just into homes but into palms, via the internet on phones.”

          On April 5, the Sunday Times reported as many as 100 Islamist teachers and teaching assistants could face lifetime bans from working in schools as a result of an investigation into their alleged links to the so-called Trojan Horse scandal. The paper revealed that the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL), the profession’s watchdog that can ban teachers from classrooms, was considering possible disciplinary cases against current and former staff members at schools in Birmingham, where hardline Islamists were attempting to take control of state schools.

          In London, a court ruled that a Libyan immigrant, convicted of more than 70 criminal offenses, would be allowed to remain in the UK because he is an alcoholic. The 53-year-old man, who first came to Britain to study aeronautical engineering in 1981, successfully argued that he would face physical punishment and imprisonment in his homeland, where alcohol consumption is illegal. Judge Jonathan Perkins ruled that returning the man to Libya would “expose him to a risk of ill-treatment” and “interfere disproportionately with his private and family life.”

          In Birmingham, Mohammed Waqar, 23, and Mohammed Siddique, 60, pleaded not guilty to charges that they had beaten a ten-year-old boy at the Jamia Mosque in Sparkbrook for wrongly reciting the Koran. The two men face up to ten years in prison for the offense of cruelty to a person under 16….”

Comments are closed.