| HOME | Featured Stories | February 2007 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
|
HAPPY PURIM -- HAG SAMEACH
Posted by Bernice Lipkin, February 28, 2007. |
|
The first photo is by Fred Reifenberg. See other of his
imaginative and delightful photos at The second was submitted by Michael Travers of some Israeli Purim spielers. |
|
|
|
TOP RABBIS SEND PERSONAL PLEA TO PRESIDENT BUSH FOR POLLARD
Posted by Hillel Fendel, February 28, 2007. | |
|
Nationwide White House Call-In for Jonathan Pollard
Every call is tallied by subject matter.
| |
|
Two of world Jewry's most renowned Torah Sages, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv of Jerusalem and Rabbi Aaron Leib Shteinman of Bnei Brak, have signed a historically unprecedented letter to U.S. President George Bush, calling for the release of Jonathan Pollard. It is reportedly the first time that these Torah Sages have ever addressed a foreign head of state about any matter. The letter was relayed to Jeremy Katz, Special Assistant to the President and Liaison to the Jewish community, and others in the White House. Copies of the letter, written in both Hebrew and English, were also sent to various Jewish communal leaders and activists. The joint letter to the U.S. President was the initiative of Rabbi Pesach Lerner, Executive Vice President of the National Council of Young Israel. Lerner, who has visited Pollard many times in his prison cell in North Carolina [ See below here. and below here.], met of late with leading Torah sages in Israel and asked for their involvement in securing his release. Another rabbi who has taken great active interest in the case, and whom Pollard considers his personal rabbi, is the Rishon LeTzion, former Chief Sephardic Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu of Jerusalem. Rabbi Lerner discussed with Rabbis Shteinman and Elyashiv the special elements of the Pollard case, over and beyond its being a supreme Torah value of "Redemption of Captives." Mentioned were Pollard's self-sacrifice on behalf of the security of the Jewish People, the disproportionate nature of the sentence, the failure of the Israeli Government to act on his behalf, Pollard's failing health, the positions taken by former CIA head James Woolsey and Dennis Ross [see below], and more. The rabbis then decided that their best course of action would be to send a concise personal letter to President Bush. The letter reads as follows:
In Oct. 1993, nearly 30 leading rabbis in the United States took out a full-page ad in the hareidi-religious Yated Ne'eman newspaper, calling upon "every Jew to make efforts to free [Jonathan Pollard] from his imprisonment; those who can should write letters to the government, and whoever can intercede on his behalf should do so." The White House has also been bombarded of late with calls for Pollard's release from another direction: A nation-wide call-in campaign, also initiated by Young Israel and endorsed by Agudath Israel. Jonathan Pollard's wife Esther, speaking with IDF Radio this morning, called on Prime Minister Olmert to follow the example of the Torah sages by making an immediate demand for Jonathan's release. "Mr. Olmert does not have to free murderers or terrorists," she said. "All he has to do is bring Jonathan home now and he will have blessing and the thanks of the Nation." "After 22 years in prison," Mrs. Pollard said, "22 years of torture and affliction and the worst possible treatment by the Government of Israel - and by the Americans - Jonathan deserves to be home in Israel well in advance of Pesach so that he can truly celebrate the Holiday of Freedom." Jonathan Pollard has been imprisoned since November 1985 regarding his conviction on one count of passing classified information to an American ally - Israel. The normal sentence for this offense is 2-4 years, and his unprecedented life sentence was in direct contrast to his plea bargain arrangement. He has long been in a maximum security prison, under difficult conditions. U.S. Appellate Court Justice Steven Williams has called the Pollard case a "fundamental miscarriage of justice," and even James Woolsey - former head of the CIA, a body that has traditionally been against clemency for Pollard - believes Pollard should be released. He recently told Arutz-7, "Now that [Pollard] has served [over] 20 years in prison, my view is that 20 years is enough. I also think that the close relationship between the US and Israel is also of some consideration, and at this point I think he's served long enough." Former US Ambassador Dennis Ross, who has been involved in shaping US policy in the Middle East under Presidents Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr., has said that Pollard's sentence was excessive, and that he told all three presidents that Pollard should be released. "Pollard has been in jail for so long," Ross said last December, "that whatever facts he might know would have little if any effect on national security today."
Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor of Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).
|
|
HILLARY CLINTON FOUNDATION SUPPORTS PC INCORRECT KING HUSSEIN FOUNDATION
Posted by Janet Lehr, February 28, 2007. |
|
Bill O'Reilly touched upon a dark aspect of Hillary tonight, don't let it go. Don't let Anna Marie Smith cop 60 % of the airtime, this is important news. FOXNEWS O'REILLY 070227 Clinton charitable foundation-Hillary an officer. 5 million dollars fund -- Hillary violated Senate rules by not didn't file a report of her position as an officer of this non profit -- Spokesperson said it was a clerical error, From the Fox report, the $5 million foundation has gave spent 1.3 mill Recipients that O'Reilly noted were : Baptist Foundation; U/AK and King Hussein Foundation. This is an explosive revelation Here is a list of the past winners of the KHF Prize taken from the foundation website * Year 2005 winner: The Arab Human Development Reports, Dr. Rola Dashti, Mrs. Sulha Djuderija, and OneVoice Mary Robinson is a very controversial person. Her record at Durban was certainly dismal, and could well be and is often accused of as being anti-Semite. In what years was the contribution to the KHF made? Surely, the Clintons could have found a more worthy recipient. It brings to mind, Hillary's kissing Mrs Arafat. UNRWA is a highly flawed institution which has contrived and connived with the Arab powers for 60 years to reduce the palestineans in the UNRWA refugee camps to pathetic peon status -- and then blame their sorry state on Jews and Israel. NO, any contribution to the KHF needs to be explained on more grounds then not reporting it to the Senate finance committee. Before I run this in Israel Lives, I'd like some explanation from Hillary's camp. Susie - What charities or efforts does Hillary, do the Clinton's, support with a decidedly pro-Israel bias? Yes, I know that Hillary worked for the magic crystal solution for MDA being included in the International Red Cross. This below was written by Michael Rubin, who is a visiting fellow at the
Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations.
It is called "Mary Robinson, War Criminal?" and
was published May 20, 2002
on National Review Online
|
|
On September 12, 1997, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Mary Robinson as the United Nation's High Commissioner for Human Rights. On paper, Robinson is as eminently qualified as any other U.N. political appointee. For seven years, she served as president of Ireland. The website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights trumpets Robinson's "outstanding legal qualifications" and her long record in human rights. Chief among Robinson's accomplishments are her attendance and participation in many United Nations conferences and her travel. The official website crows, "Ms. Robinson was the first head of State to visit Rwanda in the aftermath of the genocide there... While in Rwanda, she met representatives of, and was briefed by, agencies on the ground, as well as by the United Nations Human Rights Monitors. She was also the first Head of State to visit the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia..." What the United Nations trumpets as qualifications look like little more than empty grandstanding to anyone caught outside the U.N.'s labyrinthine bureaucracy. Nevertheless, the International Criminal Tribunal might be an appropriate place for Robinson to return, albeit for a slightly longer visit. The trouble starts with Robinson's tenure as president of Ireland. During the last four years of Robinson's tenure, the European Union donated large sums of money to the Palestinian Authority. Ireland even held the presidency of the European Union for the second half of 1996. During this time, Arafat siphoned large amounts of European aid money away to pay for terror. Robinson can plead ignorance, but documents seized during the recent Israeli incursion into the West Bank revealed that the Palestinian Authority spent approximately $9 million of European Union aid money each month on the salaries of those organizing terror attacks against civilians. While European officials like Robinson looked the other way, the Palestinian Authority regularly converted millions of dollars of aid money into shekels at rates about 20 percent below normal, allowing the Palestinian chairman to divert millions of dollars worth of aid into his personal slush fund. Remember the young boys, students, and old women killed in the rash of Palestinian bus bombings back in 1996? It's hard to believe that European politicians are so incompetent than to notice that Palestinian violence grew in proportion to their aid money. European funds enabled Arafat to purchase $50 million worth of sophisticated Iranian weaponry for use against civilians. While the world knows the story of the Karine-A's interception last January, few remember that the ship represented only one of many Palestinian weapons schemes (Remember the Calypso? The Santorini? The smuggling tunnels from Egypt into Gaza?) European leaders may claim ignorance, but Robinson should be the first to admit that indirect responsibility is no mitigation for war crimes. The sad fact is that aid given by Robinson helped build the organizations that now kill children at pizzerias, teenagers at discos, and pensioners at Passover seders, not to mention numerous American citizens along the way. Robinson's tenure at the United Nations has been little better than her record as Ireland's president. She was the driving force behind the Orwellian "World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance." At the conference, Robinson presided over little more than an intellectual pogrom against Jews and Israel. She remained largely silent as the preliminary Asian Regional Conference in Tehran (to which Israel was excluded) inserted blatantly racist statements into the conference agenda. She failed to speak out when, on the grounds of the U.N. conference itself, the Arab Lawyers Union distributed pamphlets depicting hook-nosed Jews as Nazis spearing Palestinian children. In the same tent where nongovernmental organizations depicted Israel as a "racist, apartheid state," were distributed fliers entitled, "What if Hitler had won?" The answer: "There would be no Israel, and no Palestinian bloodshed." While Robinson takes no responsibility for enabling the greatest single display of anti-Semitism in 50 years, she failed to lift a finger when the South African government denied visas to European anti-slavery activists critical of human rights in Islamic nations like the Sudan, where over two million people have perished in a war since the regime in Khartoum declared a jihad against non-Muslims in 1983. Either black Sudanese are less worthy of concern to the human-rights commission, or it would be inexcusably politically incorrect to actually protest human-rights violations conducted in the name of Islam. Robinson's post-Durban record is little better. On April 15, Robinson's commission voted on a decision that condoned suicide bombings as a legitimate means to establish Palestinian statehood (six European Union members voted in favor including, not surprisingly, France and Belgium). The vote came after Robinson initiated a drive to become a fact finder to investigate the now-famous massacre in Jenin (also known as "the massacre that never happened"). Curiously, in the months preceding Israel's incursion into the U.N. refugee camp in Jenin, suicide bombers launched from the camp wearing explosives likely bought with European money killed more than 100 Israeli civilians. However, for Robinson, a massacre is the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians in a war zone (47 Palestinian militants and 23 Israel soldiers also died). The deaths of more than 100 Jewish civilians by suicide bombers is worthy of little more than deafening silence interrupted by an occasional pithy statement of moral equivalence. The world still waits for Robinson to use her bully pulpit to call for an investigation of the terrorist murder of Jews (but then again, such an inquiry might lead uncomfortably close to UNRWA and European Union officials ). Of course it's farcical to believe that Robinson will ever be brought before the International Criminal Tribunal, or that she even should be. With her double standards, amazing ability to look the other way, and her record at the Human Rights Commission, Robinson has done more than any other international official to demonstrate that international courts, commissions, and agencies are more about politics than ethics, human rights, or morality, and therefore should never the legitimacy of U.S. endorsement. The charge of indirect responsibility for crimes against humanity is a reasonable charge so long as it is levied against those whom the chattering classes in Europe wish to condemn. Otherwise, dozens of Dutch peacekeepers would be in prison now for handing countless Muslim men and boys to Serb gunmen in a so-called U.N. safe haven. U.N. peacekeepers might be defending their actions in The Hague for working feverishly to avoid taking any action in Rwanda as all hell broke loose. UNIFIL observers might need to explain under oath why they helped cover up Hezbullah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers from across a border the secretary general himself certified. Speaking of the secretary general, he might wish to explain, at least as a witness, why he saw fit to meet with and legitimize Hezbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah just two months after Nasrallah declared, "Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities." UNICEF director Carol Bellamy might want to explain why slaves (oops.. "abductees" in U.N. and E.U. parlance: We mustn't antagonize the Sudanese government) liberated by UNICEF in Sudan never returned home, but ended up dead at government check points a day after UNICEF representatives crowed triumphant and foreign journalists departed. Then again, with UNICEF workers in West Africa trading emergency food and medical assistance for child sex, why question a few dead Sudanese so long as the photo-op was successful? The European Union and the United Nations are sick with self-righteousness, moral equivalence, and appeasement, but Mary Robinson is just one symptom. Worthy international causes have been hijacked for narrow political agendas. Accountability has become a dirty word. And looking the other way, especially regarding terrorism, has become a form of art. But then again, why reform if bashing Israel and sponsoring forums to promote anti-Semitism can reinforce your credentials in the eyes of your peers? Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@veredart.com |
|
JNF FAILURE
Posted by Janet Lehr, February 28, 2007. |
| [Editor's Note: For more information, see below.] |
|
Remember the blue and white JNF boxes you and I feed in good faith. Today, JNF abets the acquisition of JNF land by Arabs. How could this be? Will it be stopped? The JNF, Jewish National Fund was founded in 1901 at the Fifth Zionist Congress at Basle, which resolved: "The JNF shall be the eternal possession of the Jewish People. Its funds shall NOT be used except for the purchase of lands in Palestine and Syria." The public ownership of land is based on the Biblical injunction: "The Land shall not be sold forever, for the Land is Mine." (Leviticus 25:23). The JNF protocol specifically prohibits selling land ownership and selling any rights to non-Jews. Jews from all over the world put their money into the little Blue Boxes, donating millions of dollars to the Jewish National Fund (JNF). For those wishing to donate to truly Zionist organizations dedicated to purchasing land in Israel for Jews, and guarding and protecting that land, should write to Aryeh King at: kingshir@bezeqint.net.il. For those wishing to reach leadership at JNF to find an explanation for the apparently inexplicable please write the following and cc janetlehr@veredart.com: rlauder@jnf.org; adabrow@jnf.org; rlevine@jnf.org; lkleinman@jnf.org; aklein@jnf.org; jhess@jnf.org; hdamsky@jnf.org; blevin@jnf.org; iblachor@jnf.org; shochberg@jnf.org; mwechsler@jnf.org; slizerbram@jnf.org; dfrank@jnf.org; jlevine@jnf.org; dcantor@jnf.org; hweiss@jnf.org; nsiegel@jnf.org; eborkson@jnf.org; mpollock@jnf.org; jperlow@jnf.org; swilensky@jnf.org; bgould@jnf.org; mbrivik@jnf.org; javiram@jnf.org; jlevine@jnf.org; mruskin@jnf.org; jgoren@jnf.org; aklein@jnf.org; cfax@jnf.org; scohen@jnf.org; dmargules@jnf.org; jgrossman@jnf.org; lwolk@jnf.org; rwigoda@jnf.org; tbanks@jnf.org; mwiener@jnf.org; cwhitehill@jnf.org; hlis@jnf.org; nforman@jnf.org; abrooks@jnf.org; sbaratz@jnf.org; eheilicher@jnf.org; jresnick@jnf.org; jlevin@jnf.org; lpalan@jnf.org; jdavis@jnf.org; rlubin@jnf.org; bharrisburg@jnf.org; sfirestone@jnf.org; espritz@jnf.org; jrudoler@jnf.org; rpetcove@jnf.org; rbenedon@jnf.org; dshatz@jnf.org; rgering@jnf.org; mmiller@jnf.org; lbarris@jnf.org; sscheiner@jnf.org; ekay@jnf.org; hober@jnf.org; rsieger@jnf.org; mkelman@jnf.org; msimon@jnf.org; inegrin@jnf.org; jkay@jnf.org; rrobinson@jnf.org ; hcohen@jnf.org; mrosenzweig@jnf.org; abinder@jnf.org; ykane@jnf.org; mbernstein@jnf.org; elankin@jnf.org; aalterman@jnf.org; tbanks@jnf.org; sbaratz@jnf.org; jbelson@jnf.org; jberko@jnf.org; wberkowitz@jnf.org; dberman@jnf.org; mbirger@jnf.org; ebalachor@jnf.org; ablumenfeld@jnf.org; eborkson@jnf.org; sbreslauer@jnf.org; abrooks@jnf.org; dcantor@jnf.org; scardin@jnf.org; schesley@jnf.org; rcohen@jnf.org; gcohen@jnf.org; dcohen@jnf.org; adavids@jnf.org; jdavis@jnf.org; sdelug@jnf.org; jdweck@jnf.org; cfax@jnf.org; nforman@jnf.org; dfrank@jnf.org; sfratkin@jnf.org; jfriedman@jnf.org; tgelbart@jnf.org; sgendell@jnf.org; agoldman@jnf.org; rgolub@jnf.org; jgoren@jnf.org; ihack@jnf.org; rharrisburg@jnf.org; eheilicher@jnf.org; jhess@jnf.org; whess@jnf.org; rhurwitz@jnf.org; bisrael@jnf.org; chacobson@jnf.org; mjacobson@jnf.org; mkagan@jnf.org; bkahn@jnf.org; ckalmanson@jnf.org; trubin@jnf.org; aross@jnf.org; jresnick@jnf.org; dradler@jnf.org; jrabin@jnf.org; mpost@jnf.org; rpopkin@jnf.org; spersky@jnf.org; npaul@jnf.org; rpatt@jnf.org; lpalan@jnf.org; jpabian@jnf.org; roxman@jnf.org; rorkand@jnf.org; tolken@jnf.org; moliner@jnf.org; dnewman@jnf.org; tmower@jnf.org; mmower@jnf.org; mmiller@jnf.org; mmarkowitz@jnf.org; dmarkind@jnf.org; dmargules@jnf.org; rlubin@jnf.org; blipton@jnf.org; rlevine@jnf.org; jlevine@jnf.org; tzuckerman@jnf.org; mzuckerman@jnf.org; swolnek@jnf.org; lwolk@jnf.org; mwolf@jnf.org; swilensky@jnf.org; rwigoda@jnf.org; mwiener@jnf.org; cwhitehill@jnf.org; hweiss@jnf.org; mwechsler@jnf.org; jwachstein@jnf.org; jlevin@jnf.org; blevin@jnf.org; mlefton@jnf.org; mlazar@jnf.org; vkurtz@jnf.org; bkruglick@jnf.org; lkleinman@jnf.org; aklein@jnf.org; lkestenbaum@jnf.org; gkay@jnf.org; jkaufman@jnf.org; tkatz@jnf.org; rkaslove@jnf.org; jkaplan@jnf.org; dkaplan@jnf.org; jrudoler@jnf.org; lruss@jnf.org; msalberg@jnf.org; rsalfeld@jnf.org; jschector@jnf.org; sscheiner@jnf.org; sschonfeld@jnf.org; jschottenstein@jnf.org; mschwartz@jnf.org; eseelig@jnf.org; hshapiro@jnf.org; asilber@jnf.org; bspack@jnf.org; espritz@jnf.org; mstein@jnf.org; msterling@jnf.org; jsternstein@jnf.org; btannenbaum@jnf.org; source: http://www.jnf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=exec_off Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@veredart.com |
|
MKS EXAMINE DESECRATED ANCIENT MT. OF OLIVES CEMETERY
Posted by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, February 28, 2007. |
|
(IsraelNN.com) Legislators serving on the Knesset's State Control Committee were given a tour Tuesday of the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mt. of Olives, overlooking Jerusalem's Old City. The purpose of the tour was to examine first-hand the many complaints registered with the authorities over extensive desecration of graves at the site, including graffiti and smashed headstones. MK Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party-National Union), chairman of the Knesset State Control Committee, expressed bitterness over the destruction he saw at the ancient cemetery: "If such vandalism as the smashing of headstones and the desecration of graves had occurred in a Jewish cemetery in Europe, I am convinced that the entire Jewish world would be shocked and the law enforcement authorities would attempt to capture the guilty parties." MK Orlev noted that, in contrast to the case of a European Jewish cemetery desecration, such "shocking phenomena" are taking place "in the heart of the capital of Israel, adjacent to the Western Wall, [yet] the sovereign Jewish regime remains apathetic." Representatives of the Development Authority responsible for eastern Jerusalem, who accompanied the parliamentarians on their fact-finding tour of the Mt. of Olives, promised to implement government decisions to preserve and restore the desecrated Jewish cemetery. Among other measures, the development authority is to establish effective security arrangements for the area, repair the damaged headstones, and assure general cleanliness, waste collection and disposal. MK Orlev announced that the committee he heads will request State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss to examine the conduct of the relevant state authorities responsible for the Mt. of Olives site. In three months, Orlev said, the State Control Committee would hold a follow-up meeting on the issue. The cemetery on the Mt. of Olives includes approximately 150,000 graves, dating from the First Temple period through modern times. Among the many graves there are those of many famous Jewish historical figures such as Rabbi Moshe Ben-Nachman (Ramban), former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook, Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel Shlomo Goren, the codifier of modern Hebrew Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, author and Nobel Prize laureate S. Y. Agnon, British Chief Rabbi and Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, and media mogul Robert Maxwell. Many Jews through the ages have sought burial on the Mt. of Olives because the site is mentioned in the Bible as the first spot from which the dead will be revivified. COMMENTS: 1. The real desecration
is in fact the attitude of the current Chelmite "government". They just don't like religious Jews of any stripe. Their religion is leftist secularism, and the just want to be loved by the world, a world that hates Jews. And whatever they might think they are, the world will define them too as Jews, just like Hitler did, and if our fate is doom, they will share it. The world doesn't love them back, no matter how much they kiss up. Disgraceful!
Chazak Ve-ematz!
2. it just cant be and just to think that the Jews werent living in Israel until 1948,hummmmmmmmm now how did these Jews sneak these graves in there? ought to tell them something should'nt it? harold, usa (28/02/07) 6. The savages attack graves now. If the U.S. and Israeli governments allow them to keep getting stronger and stronger, then these vermin will skip the graveyards and go after the population centers. What will the West do? Coddle our Islamic enemies... let them keep pulling the wool over the eyes of millions in the U.S. and Europe with this 'religion of peace' garbage... that's what will happen. I am starting to know what the process of suicide looks like more and more. Leo, Fort Wayne, Ind (28/02/07) 8. Disbelief again My disbelief is not at the desecration, which is the normal behavour to be expected from our "neighbors" but the disbelief is yet again in the the East Jerusalem Authority whose promises are as worthless today as they have been in the past. Since I have family on the Mt of Olives - I know at first hand Or-Lev -FOLLOW UP NECESSARY!!!!! zvi fenton, Jerusalem (28/02/07) 9. RE; Harold in USA Ahmaine...you are so right. I mean if we Jews did not already have the land prior (1948) to the Arabs ...then Explain why all our Patriarchs from.the Torah.and Rabbis and so on are burried in Israel dating back thousands of years. The world needs to wake up to the truth...Shalom Zahara, USA (28/02/07) 13. Why like this al the time, arabs already destroyes our graves and europe does the same, what's new? But the solution is to throw all arabs and certain christian OUT OF ISRAEL, and i mean shomron and yehuda too...than nobody will do this anymore, throw also our bad leaders out of Israel and put people there like Bibi! Shalov rabotai, tehiyeh bari kolam! 14. WHATS NEW _ WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE SHAME ON THE GOVERMENT AGENCIES AND PRIME MINISTER. THIS WAS RAISED SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND FALSE PROMISES MADE TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION. IT IS AS IF THE AUTHORITIES CLOSE THEIR EYES TO THIS DESICRATION JUST LIKE WHAT THEY DID WHEN ARABS DESTROYED HAR HABAYIT. WE SHOULD SHOW THE ARABS THE DOOR TO JORDAN ONCE AND FOR ALL _ IT IS OUR COUNTRY NOT THEIRS TO DO AS THEY PLEASE ELIEZER, (01/03/07) Nissan Ratzlav-Katz is a writer for Arutz Sheva.
This article appeared today in Arutz-Sheva
|
|
PURIM REPLAY
Posted by Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, February 28, 2007. |
|
If you stop to consider, it might occur to you that there is something surreal about Purim this year. It is almost as if we are witnessing "replay". Haman is once again in our midst, but this time he is called Ahmadinejad - same country, same place, same agenda. Today's Iran is Persia of yore, and even as the malevolent Haman schemed Holocaust - the "final solution", so too, his 21st century heir is orchestrating a plan to wipe Israel off the map. And even as the Jews in Shushan were divided, caught napping and assimilating into their secular culture, so today, our people are fragmented, sleeping, and succumbing to the enticements of society. To be sure, there is one huge difference between Shushan of old and the events of today - Esther and Mordechai are missing. There is no one to summon our people, to awaken them from their slumber and charge them with their Divine calling. There is no one to proclaim those two magic words, "Keemu V'Keeblu" - "Let us re-accept and re-commit to our Torah" - two magic words that resulted in a. nechapochu - "a miraculous turn-around", converting darkness into light, doom into blessing, culminating in the joyous festival of Purim. But worse still, today we find ourselves in an untenable situation. Not only do we have to deal with the Ahmadinejads of this generation - Hamas, Fatah, and all the other anti-Semites who are proliferating on every continent, but we have to deal with a scourge that is by far more menacing - those of our people who have become Jewish self-haters. And that is an evil that we cannot easily overcome, for the decay from within is by far more deadly than any onslaught from without. Our own people, members of the liberal left, have taken up the cause of those who would wipe us off the map (see Professor Alvin Rosenfeld's study on "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism".) There is an entire corps of intellectual, liberal Jews who would demonize Israel and accuse her of being an apartheid state which uses fascist tactics for ethnic cleansing. As unbelievable as it may sound, this anti-Semitic vituperative is actually parroted by some of our own people of the left, who, in the name of freedom of speech, justify their anti-semitic stance by claiming that they are merely criticizing Israel. Incredibly, instead of crying out against jihad and the reign of terror that is being foisted upon Israel without surcease, these so-called Jews excoriate Israel for defending herself. Loudly, they demand a Palestinian state, never realizing that, in point of fact, there already is a Palestinian state in place that came about in August of 2005 when Israel evacuated twenty-one Jewish settlements and forcibly removed her own people from their land. The new State of Palestine has become a launching pad for Jihad; an odious cesspool of terrorists; a depot for lethal weapons; a haven for assassins from Iran and other parts of the globe, a place where slaughter, graft, and corruption are daily fare, - and now these so-called do-gooders would impose that very same fate on Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. To complicate matters, Abbas (the president of the Palestinian authority) has formed a unity government with Hamas. So now they can place added pressure on Israel to relinquish more and more of her land. But what the media and the world fail to report and accept, is that there is no difference between the goals of Fatah and Hamas. Fatah talks negotiation while simultaneously launching savage, murderous attacks, and Hamas just kills without negotiation. But the bottom line is that the charters of both parties call for the annihilation of Israel. When Abbas announced his unity government, he also said that "Arabs have to put their internal strife aside so that they might raise their guns only against Israel, for the sons of Israel are corrupting humanity on earth." But the media and the world chose to ignore all that. To them, attacks on Israel are non-issues. Now it's one thing for the media to be oblivious to anti-Semitic declarations, but it's something else again when this same platform is endorsed by Jews Was it only yesterday that, despite assimilation, Israel evoked a surge of pride in the most assimilated heart, creating a different climate in America. Remember when Mayor Giuliani, refused entree to Arafat, when Jesse Jackson was called upon to apologize for calling New York City "Hymietown" and Harvard, under pressure, felt constrained to return a very large grant to the Arabs? Why is there silence now? To understand the extent to which Israel-bashing has become politically correct, just consider that at a recent winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, Husham al Hussainy, an avowed Israel hater, was chosen to deliver the invocation. During Israel's war with Hizbollah last summer, this man led rallies in support of Lebanese terrorists, carrying swastikas and anti-Semitic posters. Giving honor to such a man could never have happened a few short years ago and I'm not even discussing Carter's best seller which vilifies Israel, or General Clark's anti-Semitic` rhetoric, scoring "New York's 'money people'" And there are many more of their ilk out there. But what is significant is not so much what these anti-Semites are saying, but rather, that they feel confident in saying it. They fear no backlash because they know that none will be forthcoming - a tragic commentary on the state of affairs in the United States today. But all this pales into insignificance when compared to that which is transpiring in the State of Israel, where this same anti-Israel sentiment has taken hold of many of our people. Now, as if this was not enough, Israel has yet another scourge to contend with. In addition to the usual terrorist attacks, corruption is eroding the moral fiber of our people, from government, political, and military leaders to athletes, almost everyone is under investigation or being indicted - and that is by far more deadly than that to which we are witness in the United States, for if there is decay from within in Israel, the very security, the very survival of the state is at stake. If there is no idealism, if there is no vision, how can the nation defend herself? How can 5,308,300 Jews survive in a sea of tens of millions of hostile Arabs. So how did we come to this catastrophic turn of events? The answer is painfully simple - secular zionists were bent upon creating "a state that would be like all other states", and to that end, they were determined to fashion a "new" Jew - a Jew who was not burdened by his past; a Jew who would be physically strong and not be weighed down by a black hat. So, a generation was raised without Hashem, without Torah, and the vacuum filled with materialism, hedonism, greed, drugs, and all the other ills of Western civilization. Secularists of the newly formed state were so obsessed with cutting the umbilical cord to their Jewish past, that, not only did they refrain from mentioning Hashem's Name, but even reference to our Patriarchs to whom G-d promised the land, had to be omitted. For example, in Hatikvah, the national anthem, instead of saying, "lashuv l'eretz avoteinu" - "to return to the land of our fathers," "leyot am chofshi b'artzenu" - "to be a free people in our land" is sung. Our Yom Tovim - Pesach, Shavuos, and Succoth, have been converted to agricultural and national celebrations; Chanukah has become a symbol of military might; Purim a day of carnival and frolicking; Rosh HaShana, a time to take off and go to the beach, and G-d's Covenant - our encounter at Sinai, His promise that the land would be ours in perpetuity, has all but been forgotten. Is it little wonder then that many Israelis question their right to the land and find it difficult to refute the intellectual elite who view Israel as no different than colonial occupiers? More than Ahmadinejad's nuclear threats, it is this internal rot that is threatening our existence. Our long, painful history is testimony to a simple truth of which I spoke some thirty-four years ago in my first public appearance in Jerusalem: "B'shuv Am Yisrael l'Elokav, B'hitachaid Am Yisrael eem Torato, ayn koach b'olam she youchal lo" - "When the Jewish people return to G-d and become one with their Torah, there is no force on earth that can prevail against them." How easy it all sounds, and yet, how complicated, how remote this message is if the simple element of faith is lacking. But if those of us who understand; if those of us who can still hears the echoes from Sinai would attempt to be Esthers and Mordechais and awaken our slumbering people, inspire them to take hold of their Divine destiny and assume their Priestly roles, then we would make this remote formula the reality of our lives and once again become a Goy Kadosh - a holy nation; Mamlechet Kohanim - a Priestly Kingdom; Ohr L'Goyim - a Light Unto the Nations." If we will it, it can happen! Our destiny is calling.... It is up to us to make the words of the megillah - "La'YehudimHoyso Orho V'Simcha" - "And for the Jewish people there was joy and gladness" come alive. Contact the Rebbetzin at webmaster@hineni.org |
|
CIRCUMVENT THE MEDIA - REACH OUT TO THE BLOGOSPHERE!
Posted by Michael Freund, February 28, 2007. |
|
With the growing importance of blogs in shaping public opinion, Israel has an opportunity to start getting its message across beyond the filter of the mainstream press. As I suggest in the column below from yesterday's Jerusalem Post, it is time for the Jewish state to begin reaching out to the blogosphere and utilizing this important resource in the battle against Arab propaganda. This article is archived at
|
|
As archeologists continue to excavate the site of the Mughrabi Gate alongside the Temple Mount in Jerusalem's Old City, it remains anybody's guess what they might just find underneath the mounds of soil, rock and debris. But one item already unearthed by this dig should have us all deeply concerned, and that is the mainstream media's disgraceful habit of parroting Arab propaganda. It was just a few weeks ago that a shocking array of prominent media outlets, in their coverage of this non-event, went about spreading one irresponsible and malicious lie after another about the Mughrabi Gate dig, tarnishing Israel's image and inflaming public opinion against the Jewish state. A headline in The Australian screamed "Palestinians unite to fight Temple Mount dig," as if the bulldozers were actually tearing up the mount itself. Across the globe, France 24, the international French news channel, declared: "Palestinians protest over Jerusalem mosque works," falsely implying that Israel was ripping apart a Muslim house of prayer. Similarly, China's official Xinhua news agency reported: "Arab League urges international response to Israel's dig at al-Aqsa Mosque," as though the earthmovers were displacing the mosque itself. Perhaps the most egregious example was provided by Time magazine, whose editors could not resist taking a swipe at Israel by running the headline: "Raiders of the Temple Mount." It's hard to remember the last time so many falsehoods were spread so extensively in such a short period of time. If there is a lesson to be learned from this sorry state of affairs, it is that Israel needs to begin utilizing alternative means to circumvent the mainstream media and spread its own message far and wide. IN ORDER to better counter the Arab propaganda machine, the Jewish state should actively reach out to its many supporters in cyberspace, and especially in the blogosphere, for help in disseminating the truth. Blogs, or weblogs, are basically on-line journals where individuals or groups can posture, pontificate or simply share their thoughts by posting them on the Internet. There are literally millions of blogs out there, covering just about every subject you can imagine. Their reach is enormous, and their influence is growing rapidly. According to a July 2006 study by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 39 percent of US Internet users, or about 57 million American adults, read blogs. This is nearly double the amount of just three years ago. Over half of all bloggers are under the age of 30, underlining the importance of blogs to the next generation of decision-makers. Some of the most popular sites welcome hundreds of thousands or even millions of visitors. In recent years, blogs have come to play a key role not only in shaping the news, but in making it as well. In September 2004, just two months before the last US presidential election, a team of determined bloggers debunked the authenticity of documents presented by CBS News which claimed that George W. Bush had dodged the draft. Blogs have now become such a vital component of US presidential politics that campaign teams hire people to do "blog outreach." Some have paid and volunteer staffers who monitor blogs and keep track of the pulse and current of public opinion. Even shady Middle Eastern dictators have come to appreciate, and even fear, the power of blogs. Just last week, in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak's autocratic regime sentenced a blogger to four years in prison for "insulting the president." THE FACT IS that blogs are a vibrant source of energetic and independent thinking, often providing readers with a fresh way of looking at things that is unencumbered by bureaucratic blinders or organizational self-interest. As a blogger myself, I often find better and more timely analysis on the Web than in the mainstream media. Indeed, some of Israel's best friends and most articulate defenders can be found in the blogosphere, where sites such as Little Green Footballs, Powerline, Atlas Shrugs, Hugh Hewitt, Debbie Schlussel and Instapundit all provide a refreshing alternative to the moral relativism and politically correct anti-Israel blather of the media. AT THE height of the Mughrabi Gate crisis earlier this month it was the blogosphere which played a critical role in getting out the truth, just as it did during last summer's Lebanon war. Time and again, blogs have shown themselves to be a potent communications tool, and Israel needs to start tapping into their vast potential. This can be accomplished by launching a concentrated and effective outreach effort aimed specifically at influential bloggers, who should be courted with the same resources and commitment as the mainstream press. The government and Jewish groups should begin by organizing periodic fact-finding tours of Israel for key bloggers, giving them a chance to learn firsthand about the situation here in the region. An annual conference of pro-Israel bloggers, attended by key Israeli statesmen and personalities, could help to galvanize what is already a burgeoning network of support for the Jewish state. It is also crucial that Israeli spokesmen and leaders take the blogosphere into account when formulating their media strategies and messaging tactics, both by sending them relevant information and making sure to keep them in the loop. SURE, mainstream entities such as CNN, the BBC and The New York Times will continue to dominate the news business for years to come. But the battle for public opinion is far from being a lost cause. Israel just needs to start thinking a little more creatively about how to wage the battle. By working with our allies in the blogosphere, Israel can begin to turn the tide in its favor and chip away at the falsehoods being spread by the press. If we can't beat the media, let's circumvent it. Reaching out to bloggers seems like a good place to start. Michael Freund blogs on Middle Eastern and Israeli affairs. His 'Fundamentally Freund' can be found at IsraelNationalNews.com. Contact him at msfreund@earthlink.net. |
|
THE NEW DEMOGRAPHIC BALANCE IN EUROPE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February , 2007. |
|
This was written by Raphael Israeli, who is a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and a professor of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of numerous books including The Third Islamic Invasion of Europe (forthcoming); Green Crescent Over Nazareth; Islam in China: Religion, Ethnicity, Culture, and Politics; The Iraq War: Hidden Agendas and Babylonian Intrigue: The Regional Impact on Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis and Arabs; and Palestinians Between Nationalism and Islam. This a Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA) publication. This
article is archived at
|
The Muslim world includes 57 Muslim-majority countries spanning Asia and Africa, comprising about 1.5 billion believers, making it the second-largest faith after Christianity. Since its inception, Islam spread, as did other faiths, by conquest, missionary work, or through expanding trade from the core areas of Islam in the Middle East to the Far East and the coasts of Africa. While Islam was extending its rule into others' territories, it necessarily came into armed conflict with the prevailing cultures, like the Berbers in North Africa, the Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, or the Christians of the Middle East and Europe. But since the Europeans halted the Muslim Ottomans at the gates of Vienna in the late seventeenth century, and the British defeated the Muslim Moghuls in India in the nineteenth century, a reversal in the fortunes of Islam has unfolded. Thenceforth, Islamic was in descent and the European and Western powers were on the ascent. As Islam withdrew, independent Judeo-Christian and Hindu nations emerged in the Balkans, in India, and in Palestine, and the remaining Islamic world was colonized by Europe, until its reemergence as independent nation-states after the world wars. The Attraction of European Society Colonization had its long-term effects nonetheless, inasmuch as modernization, both in thought and in effect, set in and began gnawing at the monopoly of Islam in those societies. As a result, the elites of those emerging new nations took to Western culture and learned the languages, the mores, the civilizations, the institutions, and the thought of their occupiers, and remained tied to them long after their emancipation from foreign rule. So, after attaining independence, many formerly colonized populations moved to the metropolis of their previous occupiers and established Muslim communities there. Some of the newcomers were more at home in the ambiance of their newly adopted cultures than in their original homes where they had become alienated. Others went in search of better economic opportunities. Still others came for study periods or to seek political asylum, but then were reluctant to relinquish the freedom, prosperity, and tranquility of the West and to return to the poverty, oppression, and turmoil of their own countries. Compared to the immense populations of their original homelands, these were tiny trickles of privileged individuals or families who were intent on adapting to their new environments, to adopt their new countries and cultures as their own, and to take the necessary steps to merge into the host-cultures of their choice. Their limited numbers, on the one hand, and their dispersion among the general population, on the other, was a built-in guarantee that in no time they would integrate into the mainstream and assimilate completely. The rapid economic growth of Europe in the aftermath of World War II - due to both reconstruction of the ravages of war and the economic and technological revolutions that those societies underwent, coupled with the very slow pace of reproduction of European populations, where both men and women were seeking careers rather than raising families - brought about an acute shortage of manpower. Former colonies, where manpower was available that required relatively limited cultural adaptation, became the plentiful sources for unskilled laborers who slowly at first, and then in droves, would lavishly replenish the dwindling pool of workers in Europe. In addition, vast countries like the U.S., Canada, and Australia, which had been founded as immigrant societies, would also absorb much of this massive immigration from Muslim countries to the West. Abusing European Generosity This growing movement of populations now came to encompass not only adventurers and seekers of new economic opportunities, but also increasing numbers of "political refugees," some of whom were genuine asylum seekers from their oppressive regimes at home. Many others, however, abused the generosity, concern for human rights, and openness of the West to escape "justice" in their own countries or to use their countries of asylum as launching pads for political struggle against their home regimes. Eventually, some of these immigrants would turn against their adoptive countries and launch terrorist campaigns against them. These new immigrants, who for the most part gained local citizenship after the requisite period of residency, which varies from one country to another, soon began to have an impact on their adoptive countries in different areas:
A Population Explosion in the Muslim World Generally speaking, the billion and a half Muslims of the world are distributed into three major blocs: about one-third in the Middle East and Africa, with the Arabs constituting over half, with another 150 million in Turkey and Iran (75 million each), and the rest in black Africa, principally Nigeria and the Horn of Africa. Another third encompass the Indian subcontinent with its three major components of Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh with about 150 million in each country, and smaller Muslim populations in Afghanistan and Central Asia. The rest are concentrated in East and Southeast Asia, with about half in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, and the rest in Malaysia, and Muslim minorities in Thailand, Burma, the Philippines, and in Russia and China (about 25 million in each). The growth of Islam in the Western societies of Europe, America, and Australia is quite a new phenomenon, and as its numbers increase, either via immigration (legal or illegal) or by natural growth, the awakening of a Muslim identity discourages integration and gives rise to problems. There are already areas in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, and Britain where Muslim children constitute the majority of the school population, a situation that is pregnant with disaffection and can potentially lead to unrest and terror. Beyond its expansion into new areas, such as Western democracies, the Islamic world has sustained a consistent internal growth of 3 percent for many years, that is, a doubling of the total population every 25 years. This means that with this high birthrate, a result of tradition, prohibitions on birth control, and the general trend in the developing world where the rich get richer and the poor have more children, and decreasing mortality due to health improvements, there is a virtual population explosion in the Islamic world. Countries like Iran, Turkey, and Egypt, which boasted populations of 35-40 million in the 1980s, have each doubled since then. Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, where the Muslim populations were already high in the 1980s, have also doubled since then. Smaller countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco, and Algeria have also doubled their populations, as have the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. So, in general, the three-quarter billion Muslim population of the 1980s has soared to one and a half billion, that is, 25 percent of the estimated world population of six billion. Moreover, since most of this population is young, the rapid demographic growth in those countries will continue apace as the children in this population come of age. While demographic statistics in those countries are not always reliable, there is little doubt about the trends. Moreover, while European statistics on incoming Muslim legal immigrants can be relied upon, the countless illegal migrants remain uncounted. A lack of statistics from the Muslim countries of emigration further complicates the calculations of demographers. Yet one thing is certain: an immense surplus of Muslim manpower has been migrating into Western democracies, either as "political refugees," as welcome manpower for manual jobs that Europeans are reluctant to do, or as illegal migrants who easily slip through porous European borders. Muslims in Europe When Europe changed the rules and began to tighten its border control following major terrorist attacks in Madrid and London in 2004-5, the 25 million-strong Muslim population of Europe was already difficult to supervise due to the liberal freedom of movement allowed Europeans across the entire expanse of the European Union. An additional source of demographic growth for the Muslim population in the West is domestic proselytization, which produces some of the most devout and radical Muslims, like the Black Muslims of America, and potential recruits for terrorism like Richard Reed in the UK. In France alone, it is estimated that in the decade between 1995 and 2005, some 50,000 Christian French converted to Islam. These figures amount in their aggregate to a Muslim population of about 6 percent in the European Union today, with France reaching 10 percent (6 out of 60 million), and 7 percent in the Netherlands and Belgium. In Germany, Britain, Italy, and Spain, Muslims can be counted in the millions, and Muslim visibility and public prominence seem out of proportion to their real numbers for a number of reasons:
Factors Limiting Growth of Muslim Identity in Europe On the other hand, several factors militate against an even faster rise of Muslim communitarian identity and demographic growth in Europe, as discussed in Amitai Etzioni's seminal work:[1]
Muslims Confront European Host Societies As long as Islam lived within its traditional boundaries, its tensions and frictions with the West remained outside the domain of the Western public; it was remote and lay beyond the horizon. But with the rise of fundamentalist Islam and the increase of Muslim immigration to the West, Muslims learned to face up to their host societies and even to confront them in debate. Their growing self-confidence and self-assertion taught them that they could debate the West without being imprisoned or executed, as they would be in their home countries. For the Europeans, the clash of civilizations, which had taken place for centuries on the borders of Christendom, moved into their own heartland and they were unprepared for it. Convinced that their open and democratic societies would prevail and lead the new immigrants to abandon their roots and identity, Europeans were shocked to discover that over the years the gaps had widened, the differences grew into clashes, and the complaints had grown into demands. The Westerners began to realize that they were obliterating their traditionally homogeneous societies in favor of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and at times even multi-linguistic ones. Europeans began to see their goodwill and hospitality towards Muslims "rewarded" by violent demonstrations. This European reaction will not make it easy for Turkey to enter the European Union. Bringing Turkey in would mean not only freedom of movement of Turkish labor and nationals throughout Europe, but also spreading the message of Islam into all corners of the continent. With some 6-7 percent of the EU population Muslim today (25 million out of 380 million), frictions are already difficult; how much more so if 75 million Muslim Turks would join, raising the rate of Muslims to 20-25 percent (100 million out of 450 million). The rapid growth of the Muslim population, on the one hand, and the shrinkage of the European family unit, on the other, would mean that in the next generation Europe may become half Muslim. Britain, the most ardent proponent of Turkish integration into the EU, agreed to suspend the talks between the parties when it realized that Turkish oppression of the Kurds continues unabated, that women are still discriminated against in Turkish society, and that Turkish school textbooks, which are monitored by the EU, contain thousands of cases of racism and human rights abuses, notably negative portrayals of Greeks, Jews, Kurds, and Armenians.[2] The Behavior of Muslim Minorities Demography has a long-term effect on the chances of coexistence in countries where Muslims are a minority because of the built-in contradiction between the requirement of Muslims to live under Islamic rule, since only there can the Law of Allah can be brought to bear, and the grim necessity for many Muslims to escape from the persecution of their Muslim regimes in order to seek refuge in the West. Believers who live in non-Muslim lands must either regard their stay there as temporary, and in the meantime do their best to live their Muslim life undisturbed, or return to the Abode of Islam as soon as they can, or try to turn their country of residence into a Muslim one by seizing power in it. For this reason, Muslim minorities have pursued states of mind varying from quietist acceptance of permanent minority status to violent rebellion. The response of the Muslim minority depends in no small measure on the perceived threat posed to it by the majority host culture. Whenever coexistence with it seems feasible, as was the case with Muslim minorities in the West before the rise of fundamentalism among them, they could always say that as long that they could perform the obligations of their faith without inhibition, they could consider themselves as living within enclaves of the Abode of Islam, a state of affairs they could bear indefinitely. But as soon as perceived oppression made their lives as Muslims untenable, and they diagnosed their position as dwellers in the Abode of War, they were set on a collision course with their hosts, and conflict ensued. Additional variables have an impact, including the general Muslim environment, which when embracing the road of militancy can draw behind it Muslim minorities who are fascinated by its power, which compensates for their feelings of oppression, underprivileged status, and hopelessness in tackling the requirements of modern life. Furthermore, the larger the minority, to the point of constituting local majorities in certain areas, the more it feels self-confident to challenge the majority. In areas where large concentrations of Muslims are clustered together, they feel strong enough to advance demands and to resort to violence or to threaten the use of violence if their demands are not fulfilled. Finally, if the regime under which they live is as oppressive as their own countries of origin, they would be less inclined to rebel, knowing what their punishment would entail, but under the liberal democratic rule of the West, it is easier for them to act to undermine it and paradoxically seek its destruction because it gives them more leeway. There was a time when Muslim minorities were quite limited in numbers and scope of dispersion, usually as a result of interaction with the colonial powers who encouraged a certain amount of "natives" to tread their cultural ways in their own metropolitan centers, and some of them intermarried and stayed. However, the large waves of Muslim immigrants since the mid-twentieth century to the Americas, Australia and Europe, and more so the opening labor markets in the West to Muslim "guest-workers," coupled with important movements of conversion to Islam as a result of intense Muslim da'wa (mission), has dramatically increased the numbers of Muslim migrants to those countries. Moreover, the "guests" have come to regard themselves as permanent residents with all attending privileges of citizenship and social benefits. Not only do they not any longer regard their presence outside the realm of Islam as temporary, embarrassing and calling for justification, but with the birth in place of the second and third generations, who grow to learn the languages, cultures and ways of their new habitats, the process of their acculturation into their new homelands has accelerated. As Muslim Populations Grow, the Illusion of Integration Fades As long as their rate in the general populations of their new countries was negligible, and the socio-political environment was liberal (like in the U.S., Canada, Australia, Israel and Europe), then social pluralism and individual freedom of worship were advocated by the Muslim minorities. Under oppressive regimes like the Soviet or the Chinese, the Muslims were quick to adopt material acculturation into their host society, with all the trappings of language, dress, education and participation in the elites and social customs. The core of the faith was kept almost intact however, with the Muslim calendar, festivals, dietary laws, worship, and places of prayer preserved to the extent possible. This was easier in areas where Muslim minorities were more sizeable and commanded the critical mass necessary to entertain communal life, and much more difficult when the Muslim population was so sparse as to render any public display of Muslim identity impractical. When Muslim minorities become frustrated by the unworkability of a pluralistic society, either because they believe they are discriminated against or their expectations are not met, they become antagonistic to their host society. This is so much more so when they perceive the majority as having transgressed the limits of previous coexistence and encroached upon their freedom of worship or conduct. In such cases, they use Western vocabulary (freedom, tolerance, democracy, human rights, etc.) to impress upon their hosts that while they wish to play by the rules of their adoptive countries, it is the latter that violate them. In more extreme cases, like with some Muslim fundamentalist leaders (religious actors par excellence) in London, they claim that they came to Europe in order to change it, not to be reshaped by it, or they reject Western attitudes altogether. This sets the Muslim minority, and especially the fundamentalist elements in its midst, on a collision course with the host authorities. Militant elements among this disaffected minority may seek political or cultural autonomy (such as the London Muslim "Parliament"). In India, Muslims had conquered the land and subjugated Hinduism, but when Muslim power was eroded by the British, Islam sought and achieved separation from the Hindus for the most part, rather than submit to the democratic rule of modern India that would have allowed the Hindus to exercise political domination over the Muslims. When the majority of Indian Muslims established their own state (Pakistan), their 'ulama spoke of the reinstitution of the Shari'a as their state law. There was no alternative to this arrangement if one bears in mind the fact that Islam is incompatible with other political ideologies. As Orthodox Muslims see it, and much more so the fundamentalists among them, Islam is ideally an either-or affair. Either Islamic law and institutions are given full expression and dominate state life or, failing that, if the state is non-Islamic, Muslims should try to reverse the situation or leave. Despite the initial naïve days of Muslim immigration into Europe, when it was assumed that Muslim minorities would integrate painlessly into the much more prosperous nations where they made their new homes, difficulties began to emerge from the outset, which were dismissed as pangs of acculturation. But as the years passed, the Muslim communities grew, their Muslim radicalism came to the surface, and the illusion of integration began to fade, replaced by the illusory vision of multi-cultural societies, which made cultural concessions to the immigrants in order to accommodate them and make them partners in the system. But far from satisfying the Muslims of Europe, whose growing numbers gave them the necessary self-confidence to defy the system, that only further increased their sense of alienation from their host countries. The Europeans, in turn, sensing that their liberalism had turned against them, began to try to back-pedal, but it was too late and the collision became inevitable. Notes 1. Amitai Etzioni, From Empire to Community (New York: McMillan, 2004). 2. Anthony Browne and Suna Erdem, "Education Clash Holds Up EU Talks," The Times (UK), April 8, 2006. Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. He is Director of Sales and Marketing of Israel Visit (www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet buying facility for American visitors to Israel. |
|
THE WARD CHURCHILL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA
Posted by Steven Plaut, February 28, 2007. |
|
This article appeared in the Arutz Sheva
|
|
The Eichmann metaphor at Haifa University. Over the past few years, Ward Churchill, an instructor at the University of Colorado, has become the best-known symbol of academic lunacy in the United States. In an essay and then in a "book" authored by Churchill, both with the title On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Consequences of American Conquest and Carnage, published by the "radical and anarchist" publisher AK Press, Churchill wrote that the victims of the 9/11 Al-Qaeda attacks on New York were "the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the Twin Towers." Instead of repudiating Churchill's lunacy, many on the fringes of the Western Left embraced and endorsed him, not only supporting his "right of free speech," but agreeing with the content of his statements. An associate professor of theater at the University of Haifa denounces Israeli soldiers as "little Eichmanns." Churchill has a long history of turning out anti-American hate screeds. He has long tried to pass himself off falsely as an American Indian, a victim of "white Amerika." He has a long track record of defending terrorism and playing apologist for Holocaust deniers. Churchill teaches "ethnic studies" at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Since the "little Eichmanns" incident, a movement led by the Governor of Colorado has sought to get Churchill dismissed from his university job, and those efforts are expected to be successful very shortly. A bit less well known than Ward Churchill, the University of Haifa has its own faculty member who makes a practice out of Eichmann metaphors, whose comments denouncing Israeli soldiers closely resemble those of Churchill endorsing the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers. In the Haifa weekly Kolbo, dated February 1, 2002, page 30, Professor Avraham Oz, a far-leftist anti-Israel associate professor of theater at the University of Haifa, denounces Israeli soldiers as "little Eichmanns." The news clipping above cites Oz as saying in his classroom, in the middle of a lecture that was part of a university course, that "in each of these people [evidently meaning Israeli soldiers] is hiding a little Eichmann." Oz then went on to compare the actions of Israel's military in the "occupied territories" to those of Nazi Germany. Students listening to him were outraged and complained. (That is probably how the newspaper heard about the incident.) Oz has a long history of denouncing Israel inside his classroom and utilizing his classroom for purposes of political indoctrination. He was earlier denounced for this by Limor Livnat when she served as Minister of Education, who also demanded that Haifa University officers take action regarding Oz. Oz's credentials to issue fatwas in judgment of Israeli soldiers are that he teaches courses in theater. When contacted for a reaction by the paper, Oz admitted the comments about Eichmann and added that he even was including questions on them in his course exam. Pity the student who does not provide him with the political answers he is seeking in those exam questions. Oz has tried to organize "Nakba Day" on his campus, together with Pappe. Oz has long been a defender and ally of Ilan Pappe, denouncing his own dean and drumming up support for Pappe in the infamous "Tantura Affair" fabrication. (Pappe and a student invented a non-existent "massacre" of Arabs by Jews, and had their legal defense fees financed in part by the PLO.) Like Pappe, Oz has also been active in promoting international boycotts of Israel and even of his own university. He falsely claims his own university "discriminates against Arabs" and he has tried to organize "Nakba Day" on his campus together with Pappe. On Nakba Day, Israel's catastrophic creation would be mourned. Among Oz's extra-curricular activities is his running an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic chat list named "ALEF" ("Academic Left"), whose members include some of the worst neo-Nazis and anti-Semites on the planet, some of them Jewish. ALEF operates under the auspices of the University of Haifa and is hosted on the University of Haifa computer. A good idea of the nature of ALEF can be derived from the fact that its members engage in debates over whether or not Hitler was "guilty" of anything, and also post praise there for David Irving. Oz only intervenes in the list debates when pro-Israel material is posted there inappropriately. Because of his devotion to denouncing his own country and hosting neo-Nazis and anti-Semites on his chat list, Oz is celebrated by them, ranging from Al-Ahram to communist web sites and neo-Nazi web magazines. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments -- both seriously and satirically -- on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com or write him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il |
|
HATE TERMINOLOGY IN ARABIC SANITIZED IN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS BY PALESTINIAN NEWS SERVICE
Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, February 28, 2007. |
|
The Ma'an News Service publishes numerous daily announcements in Arabic, which it subsequently translates and releases in English. In recent stories, PMW has noted that the Ma'an releases in Arabic include the hate ideology espoused by the terror organizations that deny Israel's right to exist, express reverence for suicide terrorists and justify terrorist murder as "resistance." But when translated into English, the same stories go through a sterilization process to hide from the English readers -- and possibly from the two Western countries, the Netherlands and Denmark, who give them funding -- the terrorist ideology Ma'an is helping to propagate. The following are two examples: 1 -- On Jan. 29, 2007, a suicide terrorist killed three Israelis in the city of Eilat. The Ma'an Arabic report included the language of the terror organizations, while the English was cleansed with changes and omissions, including changes to the language of direct quotes. The differences are striking: Denial of Israel's right to exist In English Ma'an accurately reports that the event happened "in the southern Israeli resort of Eilat." But in the original Arabic, Eilat is changed from an Israeli city to a Palestinian city occupied by Israel -- reflecting the terrorist assertion that all of Israel is "occupied Palestine." Ma'an English: "...in the southern Israeli resort of Eilat." Ma'an Arabic in first reference: "... in Eilat located in the south of occupied Palestine."
In the English the mother is referred to simply by her name and age: "Ruwaida Siksik, 42." In Arabic Ma'an adds: " Ruwaida Siksik, 42, whose family originated from the occupied city of Jaffa." The routine definition in a news story of Jaffa, a part of southern Tel Aviv, as "occupied" and Eilat as "occupied Palestine" is a way to linguistically express denial of Israel's right to exist, and is the terminology used by the terror organizations. Glorifying suicide terror as Shahada -- revered Martyrdom The act of the suicide bombing is likewise reported differently in the English and the Arabic. The English refers to a "bombing," while the Arabic gives it an idyllic Islamic categorization of an "Amaliyyah Ishtish'hadyyah" - a Shahada-seeking action. This is not merely a positive categorization, but is defining the suicide bombing as an honored Islamic action. The perpetrator is given the status of a Ishtish'hadi- Shahada-seeker, who becomes after his death a Shahid -- a revered holy Martyr. In Arabic: "She heard the news on Monday morning that he died as a Shahid ... In English: "Family of Eilat bomber" In Arabic: "mother of the Shahada-seeker" Another interesting difference is that in the Arabic, the brother of the bomber admits to knowing that his brother was leaving on a terror operation. This is omitted from the English version. 2- The second article demonstrating the terror support by Ma'an is its release yesterday about the murder of Erez Levanon, a 42-year-old Israeli musician and father of three children, who was attacked and stabbed to death by two Palestinians while praying in a field. The Ma'an English: "Palestinian sources told Ma'an that armed Palestinian men ambushed an Israeli..." The Ma'an Arabic: "Palestinian sources told Ma'an that Palestinian resistance men ambushed an Israeli ..." This is not just semantics. In choosing to categorize murder as "resistance," Ma'an is choosing the language used by terror organizations to justify murder. Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -- Palestinian Media Watch -- (http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem. Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative. |