International Citizens Action Network
ICAN For volunteer Public Diplomacy
LATEST BLOGS - In Apartheid Week - Two More Israeli Products to Boycott
Israeli Invention Saves London's Water
Friends,
It seems quite natural that this week I should be focusing on IAW, Israel Apartheid Week, with the number of activities going on in the campuses around the world. By definition, “Apartheid” is defined as “the segregation of living spaces, concentrating one race in the cities and forcing people of other races into rural areas or the urban fringes. In addition to separating whites from nonwhites, apartheid also separated different races, and fraternization between Africans of different tribes, Asians, and Europeans was frowned upon. Whites and nonwhites held different jobs, lived in different regions, and were subject to different levels of pay, transportation, education, and health care.”
Anyone that knows Israel today in a true and objective way can, in no way, define Israeli society in these terms. A look at the first two photos below represents life in general, not to mention a view of our hospitals today which has no segregation either in the staffing of the hospital or the treatment of patients, (also from Gaza, Judea and Samaria!!). However, the statement by Abbas in picture three has all the trappings of genuine apartheid. My thanks to Elderofziyon.blogspot.com for these photos, more can be seen at http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/p/eoz-posters-for-apartheid-week.html
Another photo blog well worth seeing on this subject can be viewed at http://realjerusalemstreets.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/israeli-apartheid/
ACTION In conjunction with IAW, there is also a call for March 30th to be designated as a day to isolate and punish Israel through a proposed "day of action" that will promote the BOYCOTT of Israeli goods. Many pro-Israel organizations are calling for March 30 to be turned instead, into a day of special support for Israel by going out to buy Israeli products wherever you live.
Please forward this note to your friends and community members and ask them to join the movement to counter the "boycott Israel day" on March 30, and help make this movement a success.
BDS action
The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, commonly known as BDS, sees its members following like sheep in making claims about Israel that have no basis in fact or reality. An alterative BDS campaign defines these initials as BLACKMAIL, DELIGITIMIZATION AND SLANDER. You can use this effectively in any letters you write to your newspapers or local and national representatives.
Success in the Bedouin community
Another success story that flouts the gathering tsunami of opinions about Apartheid Israeli is that of the first Bedouin woman to earn a Ph.D. as she navigates between her own culture and the Arab and Israeli culture as she blazes new pathways in higher education. The full story can be read at http://tinyurl.com/6a6nsmd
Gaza Crossing Point
In light of attacks on the Gaza Strip’s Karni Crossing, this crossing will be closed in the following months and the southern Kerem Shalom Crossing will be expanded, enabling a growth in imports and exports to the strip. No doubt there will be cries of the liberals shouting about Israelis again creating a “humanitarian” crisis.
The area around the Karni crossing is one of the most difficult to secure. Hamas and other terrorist organizations carry out diverse terrorist activities in the area and it has become difficult not only to secure the crossing but also to enable the local Israeli civilian population to live peacefully
Despite the change, preparations have ensured that import and export rates of the Gaza Strip will not be effected. In fact, the Kerem Shalom Crossing will be expanding and branching out. Thus, for example, during the second half of 2011, approximately 450 larger import and export trucks will pass through the crossing every day. This is 344% percent increase from the number of trucks entering and leaving over the same period of time last year.
Stuart Palmer
Director
Blog www.haifadiarist.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________________________________
SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE
This is an Israeli Citizens Action Network (ICAN) newsletter. If this message has been forwarded to you,
and you wish to subscribe, send a request to: stuartp@netvision.net.il
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, March 11, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Am not a fan of Sarah Palin but Rabbi Shmuley makes some valid points on her use of term "blood libel"
By SHMULEY BOTEACH The term "blood libel"—which Sarah Palin invoked this week to describe the suggestions by journalists and politicians that conservative figures like herself are responsible for last weekend's shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz.—is fraught with perilous meaning in Jewish history.
The term connotes the earliest accusations that Jews killed Jesus and enthusiastically embraced responsibility for his murder, telling Pontius Pilate, "His blood be upon us and our children" (Matthew 27:25). Thus was born the legend of Jewish bloodlust and of Hebrew ritual use of Christian blood for sacramental purposes. The term was later used more specifically to describe accusations against Jews—primarily in Europe—of sacrificing kidnapped Christian children to use their blood in the baking of Passover matzos.
Sarah Palin responds to allegations that violent political rhetoric played a role in the attempted assassination of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, saying "irresponsible" news pundits were creating a "blood libel" that risked further violence. Courtesy NewsCore.
.The Benedictine monk Thomas of Monmouth is generally credited with having popularized the blood libel in his "Life of the Martyr William from Norwich," written in 1173 about a young boy who was found stabbed to death. Thomas quoted a servant woman who said she witnessed Jews lacerating the boy's head with thorns, crucifying him, and piercing his side. While William was canonized, the Jews of Norwich fared less well. On Feb. 6, 1190, they were all found slaughtered in their homes, save those who escaped to the local tower and committed mass suicide.
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.
The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.
Despite the strong associations of the term, Sarah Palin has every right to use it.
.Jews did not kill Jesus. As the Roman historian Tacitus makes clear, he was murdered by Pontius Pilate, whose reign of terror in ancient Judea was so excessive, even by Roman standards, that (according to the Roman-Jewish chronicler Josephus) Rome recalled him in the year 36 due to his sadistic practices. King Herod Agrippa I, writing to the Emperor Caligula, noted Pilate's "acts of violence, plunderings . . . and continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, endless, and unbelievable cruelties, gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity."
Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.
Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).
How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.
To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.
Rabbi Boteach is the author of "Honoring the Child Spirit: Inspiration and Learning from Our Children" (Vanguard, 2011). He will shortly publish a book on the Jewishness of Jesus and his murder at Roman hands.
Copyright
The term connotes the earliest accusations that Jews killed Jesus and enthusiastically embraced responsibility for his murder, telling Pontius Pilate, "His blood be upon us and our children" (Matthew 27:25). Thus was born the legend of Jewish bloodlust and of Hebrew ritual use of Christian blood for sacramental purposes. The term was later used more specifically to describe accusations against Jews—primarily in Europe—of sacrificing kidnapped Christian children to use their blood in the baking of Passover matzos.
Sarah Palin responds to allegations that violent political rhetoric played a role in the attempted assassination of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, saying "irresponsible" news pundits were creating a "blood libel" that risked further violence. Courtesy NewsCore.
.The Benedictine monk Thomas of Monmouth is generally credited with having popularized the blood libel in his "Life of the Martyr William from Norwich," written in 1173 about a young boy who was found stabbed to death. Thomas quoted a servant woman who said she witnessed Jews lacerating the boy's head with thorns, crucifying him, and piercing his side. While William was canonized, the Jews of Norwich fared less well. On Feb. 6, 1190, they were all found slaughtered in their homes, save those who escaped to the local tower and committed mass suicide.
Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.
The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel.
Despite the strong associations of the term, Sarah Palin has every right to use it.
.Jews did not kill Jesus. As the Roman historian Tacitus makes clear, he was murdered by Pontius Pilate, whose reign of terror in ancient Judea was so excessive, even by Roman standards, that (according to the Roman-Jewish chronicler Josephus) Rome recalled him in the year 36 due to his sadistic practices. King Herod Agrippa I, writing to the Emperor Caligula, noted Pilate's "acts of violence, plunderings . . . and continual murder of persons untried and uncondemned, and his never-ending, endless, and unbelievable cruelties, gratuitous and most grievous inhumanity."
Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.
Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).
How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.
To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.
Rabbi Boteach is the author of "Honoring the Child Spirit: Inspiration and Learning from Our Children" (Vanguard, 2011). He will shortly publish a book on the Jewishness of Jesus and his murder at Roman hands.
Copyright
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Buy Israeli goods on November 30th
Let us do everything to counteract this boycott- I plan on doing all my Chanukah shopping come Tuesday November 30th- and every item will be Israeli made!
Please do the same!
skip to main | skip to sidebar
Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers
Monday, November 22, 2010
Its a BIG deal: Buy Israeli Goods Nov. 30 and Always
It’s a BIG deal: Buy Israel Goods Campaign November 30
From the Israeli advocates at Stand With Us:
On Tuesday, November 30, anti-Israel activists in New York City plan to demonstrate and call for boycotts of stores that sell Israeli products. Their target is Ricky's because it carries Ahava goods. But this action in New York is just one of many. Boycotters have been energetically lobbying other stores across the country to drop Israeli products, from local co-ops to Costco and Trader Joe's.
The pro-Israel, pro-peace community urges you to join a counter campaign. We are making November 30 a BIG (Buy Israeli Goods) Day. Let us show anyone that calls for boycotts of even one or two stores, that it will always be met with a much larger counter-movement to buy Israeli goods.
StandWithUs and the America-Israel Chambers of Commerce calls on schools, college campuses, synagogues, community organizations, and individuals to designate Tuesday, November 30, as the day to actively Buy Israeli Goods. Go to your local stores and request Israeli products. Whenever a boycott is called, respond by purchasing the very Israeli goods that are being targeted and let store managers know they should keep them well-stocked on the shelves.
The holiday season is fast approaching. When you go holiday shopping, choose presents from the wonderful array of Israeli-made items, from fine Israeli wines to the high quality Ahava beauty products, Israeli jewelry, shoes and clothing lines, and of course, food. Select Sabra or Tribe hummus, great Israeli wines and Osem cookies to grace your holiday party.
We must defeat the boycotters who advocate destructive instead of constructive measures, who undermine hopes for peaceful co-existence, and whose only goal is to defame, cripple and damage Israel.
We can defeat them if we join together. The very date, November 30th, should encourage us. It comes the day after the 53rd anniversary of the UN Partition Resolution when the effort, against all odds, to restore the Jewish State was endorsed and recognized by the international community. It also comes just as Hannukah is approaching when we celebrate the Maccabees who also restored Jewish independence, and who were a few who triumphed over the many. We can do the same, and shine a light on Israel for all people of good will.
On November 30th, go shopping for Israel no matter where you live. Buy for Israel. Buy for peace. Be a big part of this BIG (Buy Israeli Goods) Day.
Where can you buy Israeli products locally?
Try here.
Posted by Dusty at 7:39 PM
Labels: BIG, Buy Israeli Goods Day, Buycott Israel, Stand With US
2 comments:
Becky Johnson said...
I for one will be buying from Trader Joe's here in Santa Cruz which has resisted pressure from anti-Israel groups such as the ISM, Students for Justice in Palestine and the Resource Center for Nonviolence to boycott Israeli food products.
November 23, 2010 12:45 AM
Dusty said...
Thank you, Becky. I plan on shopping at the Berkeley Bowl, an independent grocery store in Berkeley which has steadfastly refused to submit to the haters and carries a beautiful variety of Israeli products. They have Health and beauty aids made from Dead Sea minerals, Israeli olive oils, cheeses and chocolates. They are also one of the few places locally to get "Sharon fruit"- a gorgeous variety of Israeli persimmon that is candy sweet and crunchy. They are spectacular, eaten like an apple, but they are also delightful sliced thinly in a spinach salad, with a fruit or nut vinegrettte
November 23, 2010 10:25 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post
DovBear: Down with Derek Jeter
Derek Jeter is 37 years old, and on the decline. Within two years we're likely to discover that he doesn't have the range or the speed to play shortstop anymore, and he already can't hit with enough power to play third or DH. ...
Posted by noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) at November 24, 2010 7:26 AM
DovBear: Who are the nursing mother and the Sar Apis?
The gemarah identified the former with Eve, who "suckled the whole world" and thus became a deity. The latter is said to represent Joseph who was a sar prince who calmed the world by handing out grain. I hate to be a party pooper, ...
Posted by noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) at November 23, 2010 8:00 PM
DovBear: Judge Kimba Wood gives a great response to a lawyer who ...
Judge Kimba Wood gives a great response to a lawyer who asks to be excused for his grandchild's bris. After Judge Kimba Wood, of NYC, receives a request to be excused from court for a Bris, the Judge gives an awesome response (which was ...
Posted by DovBear at November 23, 2010 9:31 AM
Create a Link
Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Raison d'être
An opportunity to vent, a useful resource, and a reference library for pro-Israel bloggers in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Contributors
The back of the hill
Baruch P.
Fuzpin
Eclectic Infidel
DEATH BY NOODLES
Chaim ben David
Steffy
AnarchoZionist
ViciousKitty
Dusty
Becky Johnson
GRANT!PATEL!
BBJ
News Service
MacTav
Gland 'X'
Friar Yid (not Shlita)
Blog Archive
▼ 2010 (135)
▼ November (11)
Its a BIG deal: Buy Israeli Goods Nov. 30 and Alwa...
JVP ATTACKS MIDDLE AGED DISABLED WOMAN
If you Plant Ice You're Gonna Harvest Wind. Heckl...
Jewish Voice for Peace and bully tactics
Hamas reveals IDF death toll from Gaza conflict wa...
Amazon.com - Hijacked by haters. Its time to fight...
International ANSWER calls for Solidarity with Who...
Truth is not Key in Al Awda Propaganda Ploy
“ The Movement for One Democratic State in Palesti...
"Divest this: How to Stop the Global Boycott Sanct...
Lonely Planet: Tel Aviv is one of the top three ci...
► October (12)
Mövenpick, Ramallah. 5 star luxury in the West Ba...
"Peace Activists" and Palestinians Destroy Olive T...
Iranian weapons bound for Gaza seized in Nigeria
Tony Greenstein: Dishonest, dangerous and anti-Dem...
"You must give back to the country you live off" ...
Israeli soldiers at a California University
If you are going to Boycott Israel, do it right
The California BDS Initiative-- Anti-Peace and Unj...
An inside look into the prison of Gaza
Recruiting a new Rachel Corrie.
A matter of perspective: Israeli and Palestinian t...
Sacramento Natural Food co-op says No to BDS
► September (12)
Beautiful! Another failed Ahava Boycott in NYC
Port Townsend: Another Co-op rejects BDS.
Friends of Israel Initiative: A strong voice for I...
The Audacity of Hope: the New Ship of Fools
Hamas Uses Phosphorous Bombs . The silence of t...
BDS Its not about " Occupation": Its about Israel'...
BDS: Its not about "Occupation". Its about Israel'...
Iranians claim: Israel behind Planned Koran Burnin...
Fidel Castro : Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic. What'...
PALESTINIAN SHOW-STOPPER
"There is no free speech in Berkeley if you speak...
US Palestinian Community Network rejects Peace Pro...
► August (10)
Europeans upset at exclusion
Labor Says Yes to Israel, No to BDS
A Tale of Two Cities: A Photo Essay
So, Hows' that Boycott Going? The epic fail of B...
Zionism is Self Determination
New Seasons in Portland: The latest BDS victim
WAR DRUMS ARE BOOMING
BDS is Not About Peace
Please do the same!
skip to main | skip to sidebar
Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers
Monday, November 22, 2010
Its a BIG deal: Buy Israeli Goods Nov. 30 and Always
It’s a BIG deal: Buy Israel Goods Campaign November 30
From the Israeli advocates at Stand With Us:
On Tuesday, November 30, anti-Israel activists in New York City plan to demonstrate and call for boycotts of stores that sell Israeli products. Their target is Ricky's because it carries Ahava goods. But this action in New York is just one of many. Boycotters have been energetically lobbying other stores across the country to drop Israeli products, from local co-ops to Costco and Trader Joe's.
The pro-Israel, pro-peace community urges you to join a counter campaign. We are making November 30 a BIG (Buy Israeli Goods) Day. Let us show anyone that calls for boycotts of even one or two stores, that it will always be met with a much larger counter-movement to buy Israeli goods.
StandWithUs and the America-Israel Chambers of Commerce calls on schools, college campuses, synagogues, community organizations, and individuals to designate Tuesday, November 30, as the day to actively Buy Israeli Goods. Go to your local stores and request Israeli products. Whenever a boycott is called, respond by purchasing the very Israeli goods that are being targeted and let store managers know they should keep them well-stocked on the shelves.
The holiday season is fast approaching. When you go holiday shopping, choose presents from the wonderful array of Israeli-made items, from fine Israeli wines to the high quality Ahava beauty products, Israeli jewelry, shoes and clothing lines, and of course, food. Select Sabra or Tribe hummus, great Israeli wines and Osem cookies to grace your holiday party.
We must defeat the boycotters who advocate destructive instead of constructive measures, who undermine hopes for peaceful co-existence, and whose only goal is to defame, cripple and damage Israel.
We can defeat them if we join together. The very date, November 30th, should encourage us. It comes the day after the 53rd anniversary of the UN Partition Resolution when the effort, against all odds, to restore the Jewish State was endorsed and recognized by the international community. It also comes just as Hannukah is approaching when we celebrate the Maccabees who also restored Jewish independence, and who were a few who triumphed over the many. We can do the same, and shine a light on Israel for all people of good will.
On November 30th, go shopping for Israel no matter where you live. Buy for Israel. Buy for peace. Be a big part of this BIG (Buy Israeli Goods) Day.
Where can you buy Israeli products locally?
Try here.
Posted by Dusty at 7:39 PM
Labels: BIG, Buy Israeli Goods Day, Buycott Israel, Stand With US
2 comments:
Becky Johnson said...
I for one will be buying from Trader Joe's here in Santa Cruz which has resisted pressure from anti-Israel groups such as the ISM, Students for Justice in Palestine and the Resource Center for Nonviolence to boycott Israeli food products.
November 23, 2010 12:45 AM
Dusty said...
Thank you, Becky. I plan on shopping at the Berkeley Bowl, an independent grocery store in Berkeley which has steadfastly refused to submit to the haters and carries a beautiful variety of Israeli products. They have Health and beauty aids made from Dead Sea minerals, Israeli olive oils, cheeses and chocolates. They are also one of the few places locally to get "Sharon fruit"- a gorgeous variety of Israeli persimmon that is candy sweet and crunchy. They are spectacular, eaten like an apple, but they are also delightful sliced thinly in a spinach salad, with a fruit or nut vinegrettte
November 23, 2010 10:25 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post
DovBear: Down with Derek Jeter
Derek Jeter is 37 years old, and on the decline. Within two years we're likely to discover that he doesn't have the range or the speed to play shortstop anymore, and he already can't hit with enough power to play third or DH. ...
Posted by noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) at November 24, 2010 7:26 AM
DovBear: Who are the nursing mother and the Sar Apis?
The gemarah identified the former with Eve, who "suckled the whole world" and thus became a deity. The latter is said to represent Joseph who was a sar prince who calmed the world by handing out grain. I hate to be a party pooper, ...
Posted by noreply@blogger.com (DovBear) at November 23, 2010 8:00 PM
DovBear: Judge Kimba Wood gives a great response to a lawyer who ...
Judge Kimba Wood gives a great response to a lawyer who asks to be excused for his grandchild's bris. After Judge Kimba Wood, of NYC, receives a request to be excused from court for a Bris, the Judge gives an awesome response (which was ...
Posted by DovBear at November 23, 2010 9:31 AM
Create a Link
Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Raison d'être
An opportunity to vent, a useful resource, and a reference library for pro-Israel bloggers in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Contributors
The back of the hill
Baruch P.
Fuzpin
Eclectic Infidel
DEATH BY NOODLES
Chaim ben David
Steffy
AnarchoZionist
ViciousKitty
Dusty
Becky Johnson
GRANT!PATEL!
BBJ
News Service
MacTav
Gland 'X'
Friar Yid (not Shlita)
Blog Archive
▼ 2010 (135)
▼ November (11)
Its a BIG deal: Buy Israeli Goods Nov. 30 and Alwa...
JVP ATTACKS MIDDLE AGED DISABLED WOMAN
If you Plant Ice You're Gonna Harvest Wind. Heckl...
Jewish Voice for Peace and bully tactics
Hamas reveals IDF death toll from Gaza conflict wa...
Amazon.com - Hijacked by haters. Its time to fight...
International ANSWER calls for Solidarity with Who...
Truth is not Key in Al Awda Propaganda Ploy
“ The Movement for One Democratic State in Palesti...
"Divest this: How to Stop the Global Boycott Sanct...
Lonely Planet: Tel Aviv is one of the top three ci...
► October (12)
Mövenpick, Ramallah. 5 star luxury in the West Ba...
"Peace Activists" and Palestinians Destroy Olive T...
Iranian weapons bound for Gaza seized in Nigeria
Tony Greenstein: Dishonest, dangerous and anti-Dem...
"You must give back to the country you live off" ...
Israeli soldiers at a California University
If you are going to Boycott Israel, do it right
The California BDS Initiative-- Anti-Peace and Unj...
An inside look into the prison of Gaza
Recruiting a new Rachel Corrie.
A matter of perspective: Israeli and Palestinian t...
Sacramento Natural Food co-op says No to BDS
► September (12)
Beautiful! Another failed Ahava Boycott in NYC
Port Townsend: Another Co-op rejects BDS.
Friends of Israel Initiative: A strong voice for I...
The Audacity of Hope: the New Ship of Fools
Hamas Uses Phosphorous Bombs . The silence of t...
BDS Its not about " Occupation": Its about Israel'...
BDS: Its not about "Occupation". Its about Israel'...
Iranians claim: Israel behind Planned Koran Burnin...
Fidel Castro : Ahmadinejad is anti-Semitic. What'...
PALESTINIAN SHOW-STOPPER
"There is no free speech in Berkeley if you speak...
US Palestinian Community Network rejects Peace Pro...
► August (10)
Europeans upset at exclusion
Labor Says Yes to Israel, No to BDS
A Tale of Two Cities: A Photo Essay
So, Hows' that Boycott Going? The epic fail of B...
Zionism is Self Determination
New Seasons in Portland: The latest BDS victim
WAR DRUMS ARE BOOMING
BDS is Not About Peace
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Why we need to oust Congressman Tierney
http://www.congressmanjohntierney.com
please link and read it all
please link and read it all
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Letter Written by Dr. Hal Scherz
The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal
Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare
Don't believe Democrats who promise to fix the bill once they're re-elected.
Text
By HAL SCHERZ
Facing a nationwide backlash, Democratic congressional candidates have a new message for voters: We know you don't like ObamaCare, so we'll fix it.
This was the line offered by Democrat Mark Critz, who won a special election in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district after expressing opposition to the law and promising to mend it—but not to repeal it. As a doctor I know something about unexpected recoveries, and this latest attempt to rescue ObamaCare from repeal needs to be taken seriously.
For Democrats who voted for ObamaCare, this tactic is an escape route, a chance to distance themselves from the president with a vague promise to fix health-care reform in the next Congress.
To counter this election-year ruse, my colleagues and I at Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Our patients have always expected a certain standard of care from their doctors, which includes providing them with pertinent information that may affect their quality of life. Because the issue this election is so stark—literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead—we are this week posting a "Dear Patient" letter in our waiting rooms.
Associated Press
Andy Griffith pitches President Barack Obama's health care law to seniors.
The letter states in unambiguous language what the new law means:
"Dear Patient: Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them government employees and means that you and your doctor are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world."
Our doctor's letter points out that, in addition to "badly exacerbating the current doctor shortage," ObamaCare will bring "major cost increases, rising insurance premiums, higher taxes, a decline in new medical techniques, a fall-off in the development of miracle drugs as well as rationing by government panels and by bureaucrats like passionate rationing advocate Donald Berwick that will force delays of months or sometimes years for hospitalization or surgery."
We cite the brute facts of ObamaCare's passage:
"Despite countless protests by doctors and overwhelming public opposition—up to 60% of Americans opposed this bill—the current party in control of Congress pushed this bill through with legal bribes and Chicago style threats and is determined now to resist any 'repeal and replace' efforts. This doctor's office is non-partisan—always has been, always will be. But the fact is that every Republican voted against this bad bill while the Democratic Party leadership and the White House completely dismissed the will of the people in ruthlessly pushing through this legislation."
Then we address the Democrats' evasive campaign maneuver:
"In the face of voter anger some Democratic candidates are now trying to make a cosmetic retreat, calling for minor modifications or pretending they are opposed to government-run medicine. Once the election is over, however, they will vote with their party bosses against repealing this bill."
The letter's final lines are the most important:
"Please remember when you vote this November that unless the Democratic Party receives a strong negative message about this power grab our health care system will never be fixed and the doctor patient relationship will be ruined forever."
This message is going out to an electorate that is already frustrated over what they see happening to health care. Missouri voters rejected ObamaCare overwhelmingly in August, voting by a margin of 71%-29% to reject the federal requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance. Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has assessed that ObamaCare is "a disaster" for Democrats. And around the country many little-noticed primaries have reflected voter rage—including the Republican primary victory of surgeon, political newcomer, and advocate of repeal Daniel Benishek in Michigan's first district.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration's damage-control efforts have fallen flat. The latest round of pro-ObamaCare television spots targeting the elderly and starring veteran actor Andy Griffith have not only failed to move the polling numbers. They have caused five U.S. Senators to ask for an investigation of the ads as a violation of federal laws barring the use of tax dollars ($750,000) for campaign purposes.
America's doctors have millions of personal interactions each week with patients. We have political power. And we intend to use it by working to defeat those who have disrupted and gravely endangered the best health-care system in the world.
Dr. Scherz, a pediatric urological surgeon at Georgia Urology and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, serves on the faculty of Emory University Medical School and is president and cofounder of Docs4PatientCare.
Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare
Don't believe Democrats who promise to fix the bill once they're re-elected.
Text
By HAL SCHERZ
Facing a nationwide backlash, Democratic congressional candidates have a new message for voters: We know you don't like ObamaCare, so we'll fix it.
This was the line offered by Democrat Mark Critz, who won a special election in Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district after expressing opposition to the law and promising to mend it—but not to repeal it. As a doctor I know something about unexpected recoveries, and this latest attempt to rescue ObamaCare from repeal needs to be taken seriously.
For Democrats who voted for ObamaCare, this tactic is an escape route, a chance to distance themselves from the president with a vague promise to fix health-care reform in the next Congress.
To counter this election-year ruse, my colleagues and I at Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Our patients have always expected a certain standard of care from their doctors, which includes providing them with pertinent information that may affect their quality of life. Because the issue this election is so stark—literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead—we are this week posting a "Dear Patient" letter in our waiting rooms.
Associated Press
Andy Griffith pitches President Barack Obama's health care law to seniors.
The letter states in unambiguous language what the new law means:
"Dear Patient: Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them government employees and means that you and your doctor are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world."
Our doctor's letter points out that, in addition to "badly exacerbating the current doctor shortage," ObamaCare will bring "major cost increases, rising insurance premiums, higher taxes, a decline in new medical techniques, a fall-off in the development of miracle drugs as well as rationing by government panels and by bureaucrats like passionate rationing advocate Donald Berwick that will force delays of months or sometimes years for hospitalization or surgery."
We cite the brute facts of ObamaCare's passage:
"Despite countless protests by doctors and overwhelming public opposition—up to 60% of Americans opposed this bill—the current party in control of Congress pushed this bill through with legal bribes and Chicago style threats and is determined now to resist any 'repeal and replace' efforts. This doctor's office is non-partisan—always has been, always will be. But the fact is that every Republican voted against this bad bill while the Democratic Party leadership and the White House completely dismissed the will of the people in ruthlessly pushing through this legislation."
Then we address the Democrats' evasive campaign maneuver:
"In the face of voter anger some Democratic candidates are now trying to make a cosmetic retreat, calling for minor modifications or pretending they are opposed to government-run medicine. Once the election is over, however, they will vote with their party bosses against repealing this bill."
The letter's final lines are the most important:
"Please remember when you vote this November that unless the Democratic Party receives a strong negative message about this power grab our health care system will never be fixed and the doctor patient relationship will be ruined forever."
This message is going out to an electorate that is already frustrated over what they see happening to health care. Missouri voters rejected ObamaCare overwhelmingly in August, voting by a margin of 71%-29% to reject the federal requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance. Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has assessed that ObamaCare is "a disaster" for Democrats. And around the country many little-noticed primaries have reflected voter rage—including the Republican primary victory of surgeon, political newcomer, and advocate of repeal Daniel Benishek in Michigan's first district.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration's damage-control efforts have fallen flat. The latest round of pro-ObamaCare television spots targeting the elderly and starring veteran actor Andy Griffith have not only failed to move the polling numbers. They have caused five U.S. Senators to ask for an investigation of the ads as a violation of federal laws barring the use of tax dollars ($750,000) for campaign purposes.
America's doctors have millions of personal interactions each week with patients. We have political power. And we intend to use it by working to defeat those who have disrupted and gravely endangered the best health-care system in the world.
Dr. Scherz, a pediatric urological surgeon at Georgia Urology and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, serves on the faculty of Emory University Medical School and is president and cofounder of Docs4PatientCare.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Huffington Post Article by Alan Krinsky
8 Reasons Leftists Should be Pro-Israel
by Alan Krinsky, The Huffington Post, July 20, 2010
Israel continues to be the demon poster-child of the Left. The prime example of a repressive regime and abuser of human rights. On the Left, people became outraged and agitated over Israel more than over any other cause. Israel's supposed villainy will bring out protestors on cold, rainy days in a way no other issue can. Many of these people are earnest, but perhaps misled.
In most ways, my own politics tend to be Liberal-Left: I support single-payer, universal healthcare, I opposed the war in Iraq and the Bush-Cheney "imperial presidency," I even voted twice for Ralph Nader. However, like French philosopher Bernard Henri-Lévy, I differ on Israel and reject the demonization of Israel, whether at the United Nations, in the world media, or among American and European Leftists.
If my fellow Leftists or even Liberals think that the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement will help bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as peace to the Middle East and harmony to the community of nations, they are sadly mistaken. There is a difference between criticism and demonization, and the campaign against Israel is of the latter type. Criticism, and there is much of it within Israel's own healthy democracy, can result in positive change. But the focused attempt to demonize Israel, not undertaken against any other nation, is aimed at delegitimizing Israel and undermining its very existence, as if the problems of the world were the fault of the Israelis—the fault of the Jews—and if they would only go away, all would be better.
Not only is this a sorry illusion, but this concerted assault on Israel itself betrays the principles of the Left. Here, then, are 8 reasons Leftists should be Pro-Israel (or, at least, Pro-Peace rather than Anti-Israel):
1. Human Rights. The Left fights for human rights in the world. Even if one thinks Israel or its soldiers guilty of human rights violations (and I am not willing at the outset to grant this point), there is no international or historical comparison that could reasonably rank Israel among the worst criminals of the world or of history. Whether we look at the scale of the conflict, the numbers of lives lost, or the treatment of the press or of dissidents, there are far too many examples of bloodshed and persecution dwarfing anything done by Israel against the Palestinians over the last four decades since the Six Day War, when Israel was attacked by its neighbors. Even Arab treatment of Palestinians, such as in Jordan's Black September massacre, caused thousands of deaths, possibly more in 10 days than in four decades of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And how can we compare Israel to Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or the Chinese crackdown on Tibet and Tiananmen? Or the disappearances and death squads of Latin America Square or the killing fields of Pol Pot? Let alone the genocide pursued by Hitler or Stalin's murderous reign? Let us be clear: genocide is the attempt to exterminate an entire people and culture; this is not what has happened to the Palestinians, and it is not the goal of Israeli policy. By contrast, the explicit aim of Hamas is to eliminate Israel. So, if we support human rights and oppose persecution, ought we not first to focus our efforts on the places where we find the worst situations? Can anyone rationally claim that among these places, let alone the most horrendous of all, is a small nation on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea?
2. Internationalism. Leftists tend to support internationalism. One would think that the United Nations would be the world body most dedicated to furthering this aim. But how is it that Israel, this small nation, has become such a central concern? From 2003-2010, there have been more than 900 human rights actions against Israel at the U.N.; the next closest is Sudan at just under 400. Israel is the only member of the U.N. to be excluded from any of the five regional groups. And should not all on the Left oppose the absurdity of the so- called Human Rights Council, whose members include such paragons of humanitarianism as China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kyrgyzstan? How can Leftists stand silent when the Turkish Prime Minister denounces Israel for human rights crimes while then promising that the Kurds will "drown in their own blood," in a conflict with human rights abuses on both sides and tens of thousands individuals killed? If Gaza is not the ideal place to live, if the Gazans are suffering, nevertheless the photos in The New York Times and elsewhere and the testimony of reporters clearly demonstrate that Gazans are not starving, their store shelves are not empty, whether for food or consumer goods; as difficult as the situation may be, it is simply not the pinnacle of human rights disasters, and Israel is thus not deserving of international condemnation above all other nations in the world.
3. Peace. Leftists want peace. In the Middle East and elsewhere. The polls make clear that, overwhelmingly, Israelis desire peace with their neighbors; the difficult sacrifices, including the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza make this evident. Israelis are prepared for a secure, two-state solution, to live side-by-side in peace. Meanwhile, the stated goal of its enemies is to end its existence. A simple thought-experiment should make the matter starkly clear: If tomorrow Hamas and other Palestinian groups unilaterally put down their weapons, what would follow? Peace. If Israelis unilaterally put down their weapons, what would follow? Millions of dead or exiled Jews. Anyone on the Left who does not recognize this is living in denial. Leftists should support peace and not live in denial.
4. Anti-Authoritarianism. Leftists oppose authoritarianism and dictatorship and instead support popular, democratic rule. Israel maintains a vibrant, parliamentary democracy, with a broad range of views represented, much more so than in the United States, for example. Indeed, Arabs parties and Communists have long had representatives voted into the Israeli Knesset. Can we imagine such representation, as well as the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in Israel's Arab neighbors? In the Gaza ruled by Hamas? In Egypt or Syria or Saudi Arabia? By opposing Israel and supporting groups like Hamas, the Left is not supporting a liberation struggle but rather the effort to replace the Middle East's only democracy with yet another repressive dictatorship. Do Leftists really desire such an outcome? How can the one major effort to boycott, divest, and sanction be aimed at a democratic nation like this? As Bernard Henri-Levy has written at the Huffington Post of the "Confusion of an era when we combat democracies as though they were dictatorships or fascist States. This maelstrom of hatred and madness is about Israel. But it also concerns, as we should be well aware, some of the most precious things established in the movement of ideas in the last thirty years, especially on the left, and these are thus imperiled."
5. Human Dignity and Equality. The Left fights for the values of dignity and equality. Are these traits exemplified more by Israel or its neighbors? Look at how much Israelis value the life of a single soldier, in the willingness to trade hundreds of prisoners for one soldier, and even to trade prisoners to recover their dead for proper burial. Look at the rules of engagement of the Israeli Defense Forces, at how the IDF calls and leaflets civilians to warn them; does any other military do such a thing? In terms of equality and human rights, compare the state of women's and gay and lesbian rights in Israel with that in the rest of the Middle East. And in terms of human dignity, do people on the Left think so little of Palestinian dignity that they are willing to claim Palestinians have "no choice" but to turn themselves into homicidal-suicidal bombers to kill Israeli children? Can we not expect more of people? Treating Palestinians like helpless victims does less than recognize their human dignity.
6. Anti-Discrimination. Leftists oppose sexism, racism, and any similar sort of discrimination. And so, Leftists do or ought to oppose anti-Semitism in the same way. And yet, Leftists too often give a pass to anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism or anti-Israel sentiment. The playwright David Mamet has written in the Huffington Post as follows: "Yet most of the Western Press, European and American, pictures Israel as, somehow the aggressor, and the Israelis as somehow inhuman, and delighting in blood." As Mamet has elaborated in his book The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred, and the Jews, this is nothing less than a reworking of the old Blood Libel against the Jews--except this time, instead of being accused of using non- Jewish blood to bake matzah, the Jews are accused of spilling blood for no reason other than gratuitous pleasure. Leftists ought to be vigilant in distinguishing between constructive criticism of Israel and dehumanizing caricatures of Jews.
7. Self-Defense. Only the most uncompromising pacifists oppose the right to self-defense, and certainly most Leftists uphold this right. At least when Palestinians are doing the defending. Why are Israelis exempt from this right? How many Leftists would sit idly by while rockets rained down on their towns and families, with their children traumatized? And if we said, oh, but people are only killed occasionally, would that minimize your commitment to protect your family? Only Jews are expected to lay down their weapons and offer their throats. How dare the Jews have the chutzpah to fight back?!
8. Progress. We want movement on Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli peacemaking. Yet, demonizing Israel, singling it out, as is done at the UN and on college campuses will do little to advance peace. We all know, have all known for decades the basic outlines of a peace settlement. The Israelis have been prepared for this and have prepared their citizens. The Left should be pressuring Palestinians to accept peace and to stop teaching their children that Jews are monsters after their blood. This sort of pressure might bring some progress.
It was long ago time for Leftists to tear down the poster that features Israel as the demon-child of human rights abuse and repression. It is time for Leftists to become outraged not over Israel, but over the distortions and demonization of Israel on college campuses and at the United Nations and throughout the media and politics. It is time for Leftists to reject the treatment of Israel as a pariah, or Jews as bloodthirsty murderers, and time instead to welcome Israel into the community of nations as a full member, subject to the same criticism and praise as any other nation.
by Alan Krinsky, The Huffington Post, July 20, 2010
Israel continues to be the demon poster-child of the Left. The prime example of a repressive regime and abuser of human rights. On the Left, people became outraged and agitated over Israel more than over any other cause. Israel's supposed villainy will bring out protestors on cold, rainy days in a way no other issue can. Many of these people are earnest, but perhaps misled.
In most ways, my own politics tend to be Liberal-Left: I support single-payer, universal healthcare, I opposed the war in Iraq and the Bush-Cheney "imperial presidency," I even voted twice for Ralph Nader. However, like French philosopher Bernard Henri-Lévy, I differ on Israel and reject the demonization of Israel, whether at the United Nations, in the world media, or among American and European Leftists.
If my fellow Leftists or even Liberals think that the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement will help bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as peace to the Middle East and harmony to the community of nations, they are sadly mistaken. There is a difference between criticism and demonization, and the campaign against Israel is of the latter type. Criticism, and there is much of it within Israel's own healthy democracy, can result in positive change. But the focused attempt to demonize Israel, not undertaken against any other nation, is aimed at delegitimizing Israel and undermining its very existence, as if the problems of the world were the fault of the Israelis—the fault of the Jews—and if they would only go away, all would be better.
Not only is this a sorry illusion, but this concerted assault on Israel itself betrays the principles of the Left. Here, then, are 8 reasons Leftists should be Pro-Israel (or, at least, Pro-Peace rather than Anti-Israel):
1. Human Rights. The Left fights for human rights in the world. Even if one thinks Israel or its soldiers guilty of human rights violations (and I am not willing at the outset to grant this point), there is no international or historical comparison that could reasonably rank Israel among the worst criminals of the world or of history. Whether we look at the scale of the conflict, the numbers of lives lost, or the treatment of the press or of dissidents, there are far too many examples of bloodshed and persecution dwarfing anything done by Israel against the Palestinians over the last four decades since the Six Day War, when Israel was attacked by its neighbors. Even Arab treatment of Palestinians, such as in Jordan's Black September massacre, caused thousands of deaths, possibly more in 10 days than in four decades of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And how can we compare Israel to Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or the Chinese crackdown on Tibet and Tiananmen? Or the disappearances and death squads of Latin America Square or the killing fields of Pol Pot? Let alone the genocide pursued by Hitler or Stalin's murderous reign? Let us be clear: genocide is the attempt to exterminate an entire people and culture; this is not what has happened to the Palestinians, and it is not the goal of Israeli policy. By contrast, the explicit aim of Hamas is to eliminate Israel. So, if we support human rights and oppose persecution, ought we not first to focus our efforts on the places where we find the worst situations? Can anyone rationally claim that among these places, let alone the most horrendous of all, is a small nation on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea?
2. Internationalism. Leftists tend to support internationalism. One would think that the United Nations would be the world body most dedicated to furthering this aim. But how is it that Israel, this small nation, has become such a central concern? From 2003-2010, there have been more than 900 human rights actions against Israel at the U.N.; the next closest is Sudan at just under 400. Israel is the only member of the U.N. to be excluded from any of the five regional groups. And should not all on the Left oppose the absurdity of the so- called Human Rights Council, whose members include such paragons of humanitarianism as China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kyrgyzstan? How can Leftists stand silent when the Turkish Prime Minister denounces Israel for human rights crimes while then promising that the Kurds will "drown in their own blood," in a conflict with human rights abuses on both sides and tens of thousands individuals killed? If Gaza is not the ideal place to live, if the Gazans are suffering, nevertheless the photos in The New York Times and elsewhere and the testimony of reporters clearly demonstrate that Gazans are not starving, their store shelves are not empty, whether for food or consumer goods; as difficult as the situation may be, it is simply not the pinnacle of human rights disasters, and Israel is thus not deserving of international condemnation above all other nations in the world.
3. Peace. Leftists want peace. In the Middle East and elsewhere. The polls make clear that, overwhelmingly, Israelis desire peace with their neighbors; the difficult sacrifices, including the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza make this evident. Israelis are prepared for a secure, two-state solution, to live side-by-side in peace. Meanwhile, the stated goal of its enemies is to end its existence. A simple thought-experiment should make the matter starkly clear: If tomorrow Hamas and other Palestinian groups unilaterally put down their weapons, what would follow? Peace. If Israelis unilaterally put down their weapons, what would follow? Millions of dead or exiled Jews. Anyone on the Left who does not recognize this is living in denial. Leftists should support peace and not live in denial.
4. Anti-Authoritarianism. Leftists oppose authoritarianism and dictatorship and instead support popular, democratic rule. Israel maintains a vibrant, parliamentary democracy, with a broad range of views represented, much more so than in the United States, for example. Indeed, Arabs parties and Communists have long had representatives voted into the Israeli Knesset. Can we imagine such representation, as well as the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech in Israel's Arab neighbors? In the Gaza ruled by Hamas? In Egypt or Syria or Saudi Arabia? By opposing Israel and supporting groups like Hamas, the Left is not supporting a liberation struggle but rather the effort to replace the Middle East's only democracy with yet another repressive dictatorship. Do Leftists really desire such an outcome? How can the one major effort to boycott, divest, and sanction be aimed at a democratic nation like this? As Bernard Henri-Levy has written at the Huffington Post of the "Confusion of an era when we combat democracies as though they were dictatorships or fascist States. This maelstrom of hatred and madness is about Israel. But it also concerns, as we should be well aware, some of the most precious things established in the movement of ideas in the last thirty years, especially on the left, and these are thus imperiled."
5. Human Dignity and Equality. The Left fights for the values of dignity and equality. Are these traits exemplified more by Israel or its neighbors? Look at how much Israelis value the life of a single soldier, in the willingness to trade hundreds of prisoners for one soldier, and even to trade prisoners to recover their dead for proper burial. Look at the rules of engagement of the Israeli Defense Forces, at how the IDF calls and leaflets civilians to warn them; does any other military do such a thing? In terms of equality and human rights, compare the state of women's and gay and lesbian rights in Israel with that in the rest of the Middle East. And in terms of human dignity, do people on the Left think so little of Palestinian dignity that they are willing to claim Palestinians have "no choice" but to turn themselves into homicidal-suicidal bombers to kill Israeli children? Can we not expect more of people? Treating Palestinians like helpless victims does less than recognize their human dignity.
6. Anti-Discrimination. Leftists oppose sexism, racism, and any similar sort of discrimination. And so, Leftists do or ought to oppose anti-Semitism in the same way. And yet, Leftists too often give a pass to anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism or anti-Israel sentiment. The playwright David Mamet has written in the Huffington Post as follows: "Yet most of the Western Press, European and American, pictures Israel as, somehow the aggressor, and the Israelis as somehow inhuman, and delighting in blood." As Mamet has elaborated in his book The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred, and the Jews, this is nothing less than a reworking of the old Blood Libel against the Jews--except this time, instead of being accused of using non- Jewish blood to bake matzah, the Jews are accused of spilling blood for no reason other than gratuitous pleasure. Leftists ought to be vigilant in distinguishing between constructive criticism of Israel and dehumanizing caricatures of Jews.
7. Self-Defense. Only the most uncompromising pacifists oppose the right to self-defense, and certainly most Leftists uphold this right. At least when Palestinians are doing the defending. Why are Israelis exempt from this right? How many Leftists would sit idly by while rockets rained down on their towns and families, with their children traumatized? And if we said, oh, but people are only killed occasionally, would that minimize your commitment to protect your family? Only Jews are expected to lay down their weapons and offer their throats. How dare the Jews have the chutzpah to fight back?!
8. Progress. We want movement on Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli peacemaking. Yet, demonizing Israel, singling it out, as is done at the UN and on college campuses will do little to advance peace. We all know, have all known for decades the basic outlines of a peace settlement. The Israelis have been prepared for this and have prepared their citizens. The Left should be pressuring Palestinians to accept peace and to stop teaching their children that Jews are monsters after their blood. This sort of pressure might bring some progress.
It was long ago time for Leftists to tear down the poster that features Israel as the demon-child of human rights abuse and repression. It is time for Leftists to become outraged not over Israel, but over the distortions and demonization of Israel on college campuses and at the United Nations and throughout the media and politics. It is time for Leftists to reject the treatment of Israel as a pariah, or Jews as bloodthirsty murderers, and time instead to welcome Israel into the community of nations as a full member, subject to the same criticism and praise as any other nation.
Why the Mosque should not be built at Ground Zero
The Strongest Horse
By Dennis Hale
Why it will be good for Muslims if the Ground Zero Mosque is stopped.
The plan to build a mosque and Islamic center at the site of the 9/11 attacks is one of those rare events that is more important for what it portends than for what it does. To build a mosque on the spot where three thousand people died in the name of Islam would be deeply offensive; but what seems even more important about this event is what it teaches - about those who are building the center, about the non-Muslims who are supporting them. As President Obama might have put it, this is a "teaching moment." What can we learn?
Despite the fog that surrounds so many controversies these days, a number of things are clear enough by now that all whose eyes are open should be able to see them without difficulty.
The mosque is hugely unpopular, all over the country (by about 70 percent). It is unpopular not simply because it is a mosque at Ground Zero, but because the people who are building it are far too close to the ideology of al-Qaeda - a fact which they have demonstrated, over and over again, by their statements and by their associations. The public has noticed this, although their leaders have not. Certainly, the official media doesn't know (the New York Times, for example, claims that for his entire career, Rauf has been trying to "reconcile Islam with America and modernism", a truly preposterous claim), and it's apparently not known to the folks in the White House, either - but it manages to be true nonetheless.
Here is what the Times and the White House do not know about Imam Faisal Rauf and his partners, and about what they called, revealingly, their "Cordoba Initiative."
Imam Rauf, an Egyptian born in Kuwait, is the son of the founder of the Islamic Center of New York, whose leaders have consistently been telling their congregants that someone other than Muslims was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. (Rauf is on the Board of the ICNY, and has never interfered with this teaching.) The first candidate, naturally, was "the Jews." Then it was the United States government. Then it was just "someone" other than Muslims. Rauf himself has said that the United States was "to blame" for 9/11 - a statement just a shade more nuanced than blaming it on "the Jews". (It's also what bin Laden said.)
Rauf's father was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a friend of its founder, Hassan al-Banna, and Rauf's professional and political connections are all to the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas support network in the United States: the Council on American Islamic Relations; the Muslim American Society; the Islamic Society of North America; the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Three of these organizations were unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing trial - which produced the now famous (in some circles) Brotherhood memo from 1993 describing their goal in America: "eliminating and destroying . . .Western civilization from within . . . so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious . . . ."
Accordingly, Rauf has always refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization, insisting that "terrorism is complicated." He eagerly promotes the imposition of shari'a law on American Muslims, and eventually on non-Muslims as well. He has spent a lot of time in Malaysia, getting an education in religious law from the lunatic anti-Semite who used to be the nation's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad. Rauf's business partners have included agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he says he might secure financing. He will also accept financing from Saudi Arabia, but he has refused so far to say where his actual pledges have come from, if any. It is unlikely that he could raise $100 million for this project anywhere else but the Gulf.
Just in case there might have been some room for doubt about their intentions, Rauf and his partners named the Ground Zero project after the Cordoba Mosque in Spain, which displaced the last Christian church in that city after the 8th century Muslim conquest. (There were still Christians; just no more churches.) It has long been an orthodox Muslim practice to build mosques where Allah's enemies have been defeated (e.g., the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus). The Cordoba Initiative is intended to be a monument to yet another famous Islamic victory. It is, in fact, a 9/11 Memorial, built by the enemy.
That's what the controversy teaches about the builders. What does the controversy tell us about their supporters?
First, they are a minority, and this is something of a surprise. The fault line in this controversy has broken considerably to the left of the political center, and the doubters must include many people who voted for Barack Obama. The Anti-Defamation League, for example, has joined the opposition (though not Alan Dershowitz, normally a partner of the ADL). The official guardians of morality in the mainline Protestant churches are all on board, but it is not at all clear how many of their congregants are with them.
Evangelical Christians are opposed, mostly, but so are many Democrats, who are usually at odds with the "Christian Right". Harry Reid opposes it, and so does Howard Dean, who even criticized fellow-Democrats for "demonizing" the center's critics.
Second, we have learned that there are many people in the leadership of the nation's religious, cultural, and political institutions who simply will not look at the evidence about Imam Rauf, or any other Muslim leader or organization, no matter how clear or damning that evidence is. This is a form of irresponsibility that borders on the criminal.
Included in this indictment, unfortunately, is the State Department, which is even now sending Rauf on a good-will tour to the Muslim world. The amply demonstrated fact that most of the major Muslim organizations in this country are Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas affiliates and apologists comes to many Americans, over and over again, as news - and then quickly disappears down the memory hole. For a certain kind of liberal, as for birds, the world is born again every morning.
A favorite argument of the Center's supporters is that if "Muslims can't build mosques, then we are no longer living in a free country." Yet the principle of religious freedom is embedded in the very Constitution Imam Rauf has promised to replace with the Quran, ASAP. There is a word for that; the word is "sedition," and if Imam Rauf is a naturalized American citizen, then he was lying when he took his oath of allegiance, and ought to be deported. And no critic of the Cordoba Initiative has argued that "Muslims" in general should not be able to build mosques. Their ire is directed at this group, and this project, at this particular place.
Given the fecklessness of America's elites, what must American Muslims, standing on the sidelines, be thinking? Supporters of the Center talk as if Muslims were united in its defense, but that is far from the case. "Make no mistake," said the courageous Dr. Zudi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, "this Islamic center is not a spiritual statement but a global political one in the name of Islam." Rahel Raza, one of the founders of the Canadian Muslim Council, testified against the plan at the Community Board hearings in New York - after which, she says, the Center's financial backer, Sharif Gamal, threatened her over the telephone. The director of Al-Arabiya TV, Abd Al-Rahman al-Rashid, said that he couldn't "imagine that Muslims want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime."
Many American Muslims - how many we have no sure way of knowing - are alienated from the Muslim Brotherhood network that runs so many of the country's Muslim institutions. They have no desire to see this network score yet another victory. Yet other Muslim-Americans on the sidelines are undoubtedly more conflicted. They may have doubts about Faisal Rauf, but they may also be drawn by the power of orthodoxy, which has always appealed to those unimpressed by easy, half-way answers to life's most difficult questions. This group is much bigger, almost certainly, than the group determined to modernize Islamic practice and doctrine. They are not yet committed to the radicals, either, but are up for grabs - not just in America, but all over the world.
This group in particular needs to understand that support for shari'a is sedition in a liberal democratic republic, and that the movement to impose it in the West is a political and cultural dead end, a non-starter - a certain route to political isolation and irrelevance (if not deportation). We should work with real moderate Muslims to isolate and disable the fake moderates like Rauf and others from the Brotherhood front groups, in order to stop them from passing their ugly teachings to the next generation - and to set an example for those still on the sidelines.
Yet we are doing exactly the opposite. Imam Rauf is not the only Islamist with good connections inside the government, the press, the universities, and the churches. He has hundreds if not thousands of comrades, in the Defense Department, Homeland Security, the FBI, and in state and local law enforcement. This makes the pious moralizing of the mosque's defenders doubly dangerous: it enables the enemy, and demoralizes those American Muslims who hope for a different kind of life from the life lived by most Muslims abroad.
This means that the debate over what gets built at Ground Zero is not just a debate among Muslims, and neither is the larger debate about Muslim reform. True enough, there is a war going on inside the Muslim community, a struggle for the soul of Islam and for the future of American Muslims, and that war will have to be fought mostly by Muslims. But it is not a war between equals, and it is not a war in which Americans can be neutral. The Islamists have on their side money, influence, and a ruthless determination to get their way, no matter who has to be hurt. They have already taken over, with Saudi money, most of the mosques in America - one reason why so many American Muslims are "unmosqued" and worship in private. The radicals have also planted themselves inside the government, and have won the admiration and support of the political, religious, and media elites. We have essentially said to the true moderates: You are on your own, and out of luck; the bad guys are running the store.
Bid Laden once said that when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally prefer to ride with the strong horse. By caving in to the likes of Rauf and his triumphalist Cordoba cronies, we are letting Muslim Americans know who the strong horse is. And it ain't us.
They will not forget.
Dr. Dennis Hale is a professor of political science at Boston College and a lay eucharistic minister in the Episcopalian Church. He is a member of the APT's Board of Directors.
The Internal Revenue Service recognizes Americans for Peace and Tolerance as a 501c3 non-profit corporation. If you would like to donate to our cause, you may send a check to APT, 15 Main St. Suite 118, Watertown, MA 02472 or donate online:
By Dennis Hale
Why it will be good for Muslims if the Ground Zero Mosque is stopped.
The plan to build a mosque and Islamic center at the site of the 9/11 attacks is one of those rare events that is more important for what it portends than for what it does. To build a mosque on the spot where three thousand people died in the name of Islam would be deeply offensive; but what seems even more important about this event is what it teaches - about those who are building the center, about the non-Muslims who are supporting them. As President Obama might have put it, this is a "teaching moment." What can we learn?
Despite the fog that surrounds so many controversies these days, a number of things are clear enough by now that all whose eyes are open should be able to see them without difficulty.
The mosque is hugely unpopular, all over the country (by about 70 percent). It is unpopular not simply because it is a mosque at Ground Zero, but because the people who are building it are far too close to the ideology of al-Qaeda - a fact which they have demonstrated, over and over again, by their statements and by their associations. The public has noticed this, although their leaders have not. Certainly, the official media doesn't know (the New York Times, for example, claims that for his entire career, Rauf has been trying to "reconcile Islam with America and modernism", a truly preposterous claim), and it's apparently not known to the folks in the White House, either - but it manages to be true nonetheless.
Here is what the Times and the White House do not know about Imam Faisal Rauf and his partners, and about what they called, revealingly, their "Cordoba Initiative."
Imam Rauf, an Egyptian born in Kuwait, is the son of the founder of the Islamic Center of New York, whose leaders have consistently been telling their congregants that someone other than Muslims was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. (Rauf is on the Board of the ICNY, and has never interfered with this teaching.) The first candidate, naturally, was "the Jews." Then it was the United States government. Then it was just "someone" other than Muslims. Rauf himself has said that the United States was "to blame" for 9/11 - a statement just a shade more nuanced than blaming it on "the Jews". (It's also what bin Laden said.)
Rauf's father was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a friend of its founder, Hassan al-Banna, and Rauf's professional and political connections are all to the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas support network in the United States: the Council on American Islamic Relations; the Muslim American Society; the Islamic Society of North America; the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Three of these organizations were unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing trial - which produced the now famous (in some circles) Brotherhood memo from 1993 describing their goal in America: "eliminating and destroying . . .Western civilization from within . . . so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious . . . ."
Accordingly, Rauf has always refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization, insisting that "terrorism is complicated." He eagerly promotes the imposition of shari'a law on American Muslims, and eventually on non-Muslims as well. He has spent a lot of time in Malaysia, getting an education in religious law from the lunatic anti-Semite who used to be the nation's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad. Rauf's business partners have included agents of the Islamic Republic of Iran, where he says he might secure financing. He will also accept financing from Saudi Arabia, but he has refused so far to say where his actual pledges have come from, if any. It is unlikely that he could raise $100 million for this project anywhere else but the Gulf.
Just in case there might have been some room for doubt about their intentions, Rauf and his partners named the Ground Zero project after the Cordoba Mosque in Spain, which displaced the last Christian church in that city after the 8th century Muslim conquest. (There were still Christians; just no more churches.) It has long been an orthodox Muslim practice to build mosques where Allah's enemies have been defeated (e.g., the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus). The Cordoba Initiative is intended to be a monument to yet another famous Islamic victory. It is, in fact, a 9/11 Memorial, built by the enemy.
That's what the controversy teaches about the builders. What does the controversy tell us about their supporters?
First, they are a minority, and this is something of a surprise. The fault line in this controversy has broken considerably to the left of the political center, and the doubters must include many people who voted for Barack Obama. The Anti-Defamation League, for example, has joined the opposition (though not Alan Dershowitz, normally a partner of the ADL). The official guardians of morality in the mainline Protestant churches are all on board, but it is not at all clear how many of their congregants are with them.
Evangelical Christians are opposed, mostly, but so are many Democrats, who are usually at odds with the "Christian Right". Harry Reid opposes it, and so does Howard Dean, who even criticized fellow-Democrats for "demonizing" the center's critics.
Second, we have learned that there are many people in the leadership of the nation's religious, cultural, and political institutions who simply will not look at the evidence about Imam Rauf, or any other Muslim leader or organization, no matter how clear or damning that evidence is. This is a form of irresponsibility that borders on the criminal.
Included in this indictment, unfortunately, is the State Department, which is even now sending Rauf on a good-will tour to the Muslim world. The amply demonstrated fact that most of the major Muslim organizations in this country are Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas affiliates and apologists comes to many Americans, over and over again, as news - and then quickly disappears down the memory hole. For a certain kind of liberal, as for birds, the world is born again every morning.
A favorite argument of the Center's supporters is that if "Muslims can't build mosques, then we are no longer living in a free country." Yet the principle of religious freedom is embedded in the very Constitution Imam Rauf has promised to replace with the Quran, ASAP. There is a word for that; the word is "sedition," and if Imam Rauf is a naturalized American citizen, then he was lying when he took his oath of allegiance, and ought to be deported. And no critic of the Cordoba Initiative has argued that "Muslims" in general should not be able to build mosques. Their ire is directed at this group, and this project, at this particular place.
Given the fecklessness of America's elites, what must American Muslims, standing on the sidelines, be thinking? Supporters of the Center talk as if Muslims were united in its defense, but that is far from the case. "Make no mistake," said the courageous Dr. Zudi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, "this Islamic center is not a spiritual statement but a global political one in the name of Islam." Rahel Raza, one of the founders of the Canadian Muslim Council, testified against the plan at the Community Board hearings in New York - after which, she says, the Center's financial backer, Sharif Gamal, threatened her over the telephone. The director of Al-Arabiya TV, Abd Al-Rahman al-Rashid, said that he couldn't "imagine that Muslims want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime."
Many American Muslims - how many we have no sure way of knowing - are alienated from the Muslim Brotherhood network that runs so many of the country's Muslim institutions. They have no desire to see this network score yet another victory. Yet other Muslim-Americans on the sidelines are undoubtedly more conflicted. They may have doubts about Faisal Rauf, but they may also be drawn by the power of orthodoxy, which has always appealed to those unimpressed by easy, half-way answers to life's most difficult questions. This group is much bigger, almost certainly, than the group determined to modernize Islamic practice and doctrine. They are not yet committed to the radicals, either, but are up for grabs - not just in America, but all over the world.
This group in particular needs to understand that support for shari'a is sedition in a liberal democratic republic, and that the movement to impose it in the West is a political and cultural dead end, a non-starter - a certain route to political isolation and irrelevance (if not deportation). We should work with real moderate Muslims to isolate and disable the fake moderates like Rauf and others from the Brotherhood front groups, in order to stop them from passing their ugly teachings to the next generation - and to set an example for those still on the sidelines.
Yet we are doing exactly the opposite. Imam Rauf is not the only Islamist with good connections inside the government, the press, the universities, and the churches. He has hundreds if not thousands of comrades, in the Defense Department, Homeland Security, the FBI, and in state and local law enforcement. This makes the pious moralizing of the mosque's defenders doubly dangerous: it enables the enemy, and demoralizes those American Muslims who hope for a different kind of life from the life lived by most Muslims abroad.
This means that the debate over what gets built at Ground Zero is not just a debate among Muslims, and neither is the larger debate about Muslim reform. True enough, there is a war going on inside the Muslim community, a struggle for the soul of Islam and for the future of American Muslims, and that war will have to be fought mostly by Muslims. But it is not a war between equals, and it is not a war in which Americans can be neutral. The Islamists have on their side money, influence, and a ruthless determination to get their way, no matter who has to be hurt. They have already taken over, with Saudi money, most of the mosques in America - one reason why so many American Muslims are "unmosqued" and worship in private. The radicals have also planted themselves inside the government, and have won the admiration and support of the political, religious, and media elites. We have essentially said to the true moderates: You are on your own, and out of luck; the bad guys are running the store.
Bid Laden once said that when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally prefer to ride with the strong horse. By caving in to the likes of Rauf and his triumphalist Cordoba cronies, we are letting Muslim Americans know who the strong horse is. And it ain't us.
They will not forget.
Dr. Dennis Hale is a professor of political science at Boston College and a lay eucharistic minister in the Episcopalian Church. He is a member of the APT's Board of Directors.
The Internal Revenue Service recognizes Americans for Peace and Tolerance as a 501c3 non-profit corporation. If you would like to donate to our cause, you may send a check to APT, 15 Main St. Suite 118, Watertown, MA 02472 or donate online:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)