Rick Sanchez is a bungler when it comes to anti-Semitic rantings, as compared to a New York gubernatorial hopeful, a Boston archbishop and a suburban Philadelphia English professor.
After the Cuban-American CNN anchor was fired over offensive comments, these professional anti-Semites shamed him with their anti-Jewish slurs. One blamed the Jews for slavery, another bashed Israel for oppressing Arabs and a third warned Jews that his Muslim siblings could demolish Israel - peacefully, if possible.
Sanchez was griping during an interview about the lack of diversity on cable channels and comedian Jon Stewart’s jabs at his anchoring style when, told that Stewart is Jewish, he blurted out that “everybody that runs CNN is a lot like Stewart.”
As if Sanchez had thrown down a gauntlet, Jimmy McMillan must have felt challenged to prevail over him while running for governor of New York as founder of the Rent is Too Damn High Party. He had just upstaged Democratic candidate Andrew Cuomo and Republican rival Carl Paladino during a debate on Monday, Oct. 18.
McMillan once accused Jewish landlords of inflating rents in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg section. He apologized for this smear on his Web site and then dug a deeper hole by telling The New York Daily News: “Jews were slave masters. They enslaved my people. You can’t call me anti-Semitic.”
There were Jewish slave masters, but Christians obviously held most slave master roles. There were also Jewish abolitionists and later rabbis who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Nelson Mandela commended South African Jews for their efforts to end apartheid.
Slogging deeper into the anti-Semitic mud was Cyrille Salim Bustros, an archbishop in the Greek-Melkite church, an Eastern Rite church whose bishops attended the Vatican’s annual Middle East synod, according to The New York Times. He headed a committee of Middle East bishops that released a statement calling for a two-state solution so the Arabs in Israeli territories would have “an independent and sovereign homeland where they can live with dignity and security” and “the state of Israel will be able to enjoy peace and security within internationally recognized borders.”
The Oct. 23 statement also proclaimed that “recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable.”
Bustros, whose church is in or near the heavily Jewish Boston suburb of Newton, Mass., injected his own comment: “The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians. Sacred scripture should not be used to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestine.”
Bustros has gall to lecture Jews when it was acceptable to use sacred scripture to accuse Jews of killing Jesus, massacring Jews and Muslims during the Crusades and murdering and torturing Jews and Muslims in Spain.
The bishops conveniently forget that the Arabs have no independent state because their so-called leaders - first Yasser Arafat in 2000 and more recently Mahmoud Abbas - have refused reasonable offers for such a state. Or that Israel was attacked from Gaza and southern Lebanon after evacuating those areas.
Israeli spokesman Yigal Palmor said in response, “I think this ambiguity should be lifted by authorized voices from the Vatican.”
Grand champion for anti-Semitic rants in recent weeks is Kaukab Siddique, a Muslim associate professor of English at Lincoln University in Chester County, Pennsylvania. His standout line at an anti-Israel rally on Labor Day in Washington, D.C.: “For the Jews, I would say, ‘See what could happen to you if the Muslims wake up.’ And I say to the Muslims, ‘Dear brothers and sisters, unite and rise up against this hydra-headed monster which calls itself Zionism.”
When The Philadelphia Daily News contacted him, he responded in an e-mail: “When I refer to the ‘Jews’ I am referring to the current leadership of the ‘state of Israel’ and to their major supporters, not to the Jewish race as a whole…I am not anti-Semitic…I am certainly not hostile to, nor do I discrimate against the Jewish people because of their lineage.”
That’s comforting, but as a professor who teaches English, shouldn’t he know from the outset that a speaker or writer must be clear in his/her communications? If he is speaking only about Israeli leaders, wouldn’t he limit his references to Israeli leaders?
If he is “not hostile to…the Jewish people,” then we must wonder why he once said: “Mohammed has taught us not to follow Jews but to go against them in all things. We are against the Jews because they have usurped Palestine and they take interest on loans and have built up the exploitative economic structure.”
This last quote was supplied by the Anti-Defamation League, which emphasizes that the Labor Day speech was nothing new for Siddique, who predictably denies that the Holocaust occurred.
Fortunately, the ADL is protesting the Vatican’s association with the Greek bishops’ statement, and Pennsylvania lawmakers and other state officials have been questioning Lincoln University officials as to whether the professor mixed his job with his anti-Israel politics; the university receives state funds.
That these bigots could go as far as they did is abhorrent. Talk about a race to the bottom.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Is it safe? Overreaching against terrorism
“We are safer today as a result of these convictions.”
So proclaimed U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of Manhattan after four Newburgh, N.Y., men were convicted of plotting to bomb two shuls in the Bronx’s Riverdale section and firing missiles at military planes taking off from a base outside Newburgh.
These guys deserved to be convicted, but they needed to conspire with the FBI to commit these crimes. They were motivated to murder their fellow Americans in the name of Allah, but they lacked for supplies and skills until an FBI informant guided them through the process and provided them with the deactivated bombs and missiles to carry out this terrorist act. Are we safer?
In Brooklyn and Manhattan, sizeable crowds outmatched five members - count ‘em, five - of the Westboro Baptist Church who taunted Jews and gays in a series of demonstrations. The Westboro gang tends to be outnumbered wherever they go. Are we safer?
In Jerusalem, the Israeli government decided to require new citizens who are not Jewish to pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Is Israel safer?
They are all legitimate concerns - homegrown terrorism, bigotry and potential treason. However, each situation constitutes a sideshow which distracts attention from the main issue, wastes resources and potentially bring about new problems.
The FBI responded to the bomb plot in a manner likely designed to make a big splash - four would-be terrorists nabbed in one of the few plush outer-borough neighborhoods left in New York City. Newspaper reports, quoting some unnamed sources, suggested that the feds had a solid case when the defendants picked up the bombs and missiles in Stamford, Conn., which would have precluded any need to follow through with the mock bombings in Riverdale.
Most galling was Bharara’s self-congratulatory words on Oct. 18: “Homegrown terrorism is a serious threat, and today’s convictions affirm our commitment to do everything we can to protect against it.” The FBI moved further than “everything” in counteracting terrorism. Media reports noted that the FBI picked the neighborhood for the crimes and relayed that choice to the defendants through their informant.
As one letter-writer asked, why Riverdale? Westchester County, located between Riverdale and upstate Newburgh, is home to dozens of large, expensive synagogues. Surely the FBI would never choose Riverdale where a “terrorist” act in New York would magnify the event and broadcast to the world that the FBI was doing “everything we can to protect against it.”
Many NYC police officers provided backup when they could have been deployed elsewhere in the city stopping real crimes.
Finally, the FBI endangered the lives of every person in the vicinity by taking the case this far. Suppose one of these guys shot up the street and shot a resident passing by the scene. The FBI made provisions to prevent a shootout, but what if they missed something? Anything could have gone wrong and they should have known that.
The five members of the Westboro Baptist Church, the same Kansas-based group that protests soldiers’ funerals, were met by 125 counter-demonstrators at one stop, The Brooklyn Paper reported. In one instance, Jewish Assemblyman Dov Hikind tried to knock down some church signs, including one reading, “God hates Israel,” according to The New York Jewish Week.
Good people should respond even when such a strange, bigoted group is that small, but was Hikind’s reaction necessary? Now the Westboro five can broadcast how they were harassed, and they would be right.
Israel has amended its citizenship oath so it requires non-Jews to pledge their loyalty to a state that is Jewish. Cabinet members are especially concerned that West Bank males will marry Israeli women as an excuse to embed themselves in Israel so they can one day carry out terrorist acts.
Valid concern, but this change in the oath does nothing more than antagonize the Arab world and embarrass Jews in Israel, America and elsewhere. How hard would it be to check out this guy’s background? It would be a big red flag if the guy is already married, and an excuse to deport them.
These actions are examples of overreaching, to put it mildly. It does not make me feel safer.
So proclaimed U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of Manhattan after four Newburgh, N.Y., men were convicted of plotting to bomb two shuls in the Bronx’s Riverdale section and firing missiles at military planes taking off from a base outside Newburgh.
These guys deserved to be convicted, but they needed to conspire with the FBI to commit these crimes. They were motivated to murder their fellow Americans in the name of Allah, but they lacked for supplies and skills until an FBI informant guided them through the process and provided them with the deactivated bombs and missiles to carry out this terrorist act. Are we safer?
In Brooklyn and Manhattan, sizeable crowds outmatched five members - count ‘em, five - of the Westboro Baptist Church who taunted Jews and gays in a series of demonstrations. The Westboro gang tends to be outnumbered wherever they go. Are we safer?
In Jerusalem, the Israeli government decided to require new citizens who are not Jewish to pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Is Israel safer?
They are all legitimate concerns - homegrown terrorism, bigotry and potential treason. However, each situation constitutes a sideshow which distracts attention from the main issue, wastes resources and potentially bring about new problems.
The FBI responded to the bomb plot in a manner likely designed to make a big splash - four would-be terrorists nabbed in one of the few plush outer-borough neighborhoods left in New York City. Newspaper reports, quoting some unnamed sources, suggested that the feds had a solid case when the defendants picked up the bombs and missiles in Stamford, Conn., which would have precluded any need to follow through with the mock bombings in Riverdale.
Most galling was Bharara’s self-congratulatory words on Oct. 18: “Homegrown terrorism is a serious threat, and today’s convictions affirm our commitment to do everything we can to protect against it.” The FBI moved further than “everything” in counteracting terrorism. Media reports noted that the FBI picked the neighborhood for the crimes and relayed that choice to the defendants through their informant.
As one letter-writer asked, why Riverdale? Westchester County, located between Riverdale and upstate Newburgh, is home to dozens of large, expensive synagogues. Surely the FBI would never choose Riverdale where a “terrorist” act in New York would magnify the event and broadcast to the world that the FBI was doing “everything we can to protect against it.”
Many NYC police officers provided backup when they could have been deployed elsewhere in the city stopping real crimes.
Finally, the FBI endangered the lives of every person in the vicinity by taking the case this far. Suppose one of these guys shot up the street and shot a resident passing by the scene. The FBI made provisions to prevent a shootout, but what if they missed something? Anything could have gone wrong and they should have known that.
The five members of the Westboro Baptist Church, the same Kansas-based group that protests soldiers’ funerals, were met by 125 counter-demonstrators at one stop, The Brooklyn Paper reported. In one instance, Jewish Assemblyman Dov Hikind tried to knock down some church signs, including one reading, “God hates Israel,” according to The New York Jewish Week.
Good people should respond even when such a strange, bigoted group is that small, but was Hikind’s reaction necessary? Now the Westboro five can broadcast how they were harassed, and they would be right.
Israel has amended its citizenship oath so it requires non-Jews to pledge their loyalty to a state that is Jewish. Cabinet members are especially concerned that West Bank males will marry Israeli women as an excuse to embed themselves in Israel so they can one day carry out terrorist acts.
Valid concern, but this change in the oath does nothing more than antagonize the Arab world and embarrass Jews in Israel, America and elsewhere. How hard would it be to check out this guy’s background? It would be a big red flag if the guy is already married, and an excuse to deport them.
These actions are examples of overreaching, to put it mildly. It does not make me feel safer.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Jewish roots of new leader of British Labour Party: Merely a technicality?
Ed Miliband could become the second Jewish-born prime minister of Britain any time in the next few years through either parliamentary elections or earlier, with the possible collapse of the current governing coalition.
Unlike Benjamin Disraeli, Miliband can openly practice Judaism if he chooses. Actually, the 40-year-old Miliband chose to be an atheist. Disraeli was baptized as a Christian at the age of 13 and counted himself as an Anglican. He was elected to Parliament before 1858 when Jews were first permitted to hold office there.
The very idea Miliband was born into a Jewish family will probably infuriate many Israel advocates even more once they learn of his Middle East attitudes. They will dismiss his Jewish roots as a technicality.
Upon his election as the new leader of Britain’s enfeebled Labour Party, Miliband delivered a maiden speech on Sept. 27 that is certain to antagonize much of the pro-Israel crowd. That will make him the second leading British politician - after current Prime Minister David Cameron - to issue upsetting comments about Israel. From a transcript, Miliband says at the tail end of his speech:
“There can be no solution to the conflicts of the Middle East without international action, providing support where it is needed, and pressure where it is right to do so. And let me say this, as Israel ends the moratorium on settlement building, I will always defend the right of Israel to exist in peace and security. But Israel must accept and recognize in its actions the Palestinian right to statehood.
“That is why the attack on the Gaza Flotilla was so wrong.
“And that is why the Gaza blockade must be lifted and we must strain every sinew to work to make that happen. The government must step up and work with our partners in Europe and around the world to help bring a just and lasting peace to the Middle East.”
Strain every sinew?
If he leads Labour once a political opportunity is ripe, Miliband will present liberal British Jews with the same kind of dual loyalty test that American Jews are enduring under President Obama’s tenure. They generally endorse Obama’s progressive policies, but they are either confused by or boiling over his approach to Israel.
Labour was ousted from power when the Conservatives surged in last May’s parliamentary elections and fell short of winning a majority of seats. The Conservatives entered into a shaky alliance with the Liberal Democrats, thus displacing Labour after 13 years in power under prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Ed’s older brother David, who was foreign minister under Brown, was the presumed heir to Brown and ran for the leadership post among a field of five candidates. The more liberal Ed was one of the other four candidates and edged out David in a narrow election.
Both their parents fled Hitler and made their mark in Britain despite their relatively brief family history there. Their late father, Ralph, arrived in 1940, nearly 60 years after Disraeli died. Disraeli became prime minister twice, the first time only for a matter of months in 1868 and the second time for six years, from 1874 to 1880. Queen Victoria admired Disraeli and detested opposition leader William Gladstone.
Ed campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq war, which David supported, and the need for deeper reforms. His policies are very liberal, as outlined in his speech, and like President Clinton he does not know when to shut up. A printed transcript of his repetitive speech runs 21 pages.
His father, a socialist scholar, was a professor at the London School of Economics and became one of Britain’s most acclaimed left-wing intellectuals. His mother, Marion Kozak, was a supporter of Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Ed cohabits with girlfriend Justine Thorn, who is pregnant with their second child, and they plan to marry.
Cameron preceded Miliband with offensive remarks about Israel last July 27 when he visited Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara. Cameron wants Britain to conduct business with Turkey, and Erdogan persists in seeking an apology from Israel for the deaths of nine Turkish blockade-runners on the sea outside Gaza on Memorial Day.
Cameron said, “The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp…The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. I have told Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous.”
Both Miliband and Cameron conveniently forget that Israel established the blockade to prevent smugglers from using the sea to sneak weapons into Gaza. Why should Israel allow access to a hostile territory? Both the current prime minister and his potential replacement dismiss Hamas’ devotion to Israel’s destruction.
Also, neither Cameron nor Miliband expressed any sympathy for Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who was kidnapped by terrorists and presumably held captive in Gaza for the last 51 months.
Neither of these guys know what they’re talking about when discussing Israel. Cameron was downright abrasive when he blasted Israel. Miliband at least voiced his Middle East views in a more subdued manner. Granted that Israel is not immune from criticism, but they fail to understand the dangers facing Israel.
The Brits rightfully griped about contending with President Bush for eight years. Now supporters of Israel must contend with Cameron and Miliband. What can we expect once they strain every sinew?
Unlike Benjamin Disraeli, Miliband can openly practice Judaism if he chooses. Actually, the 40-year-old Miliband chose to be an atheist. Disraeli was baptized as a Christian at the age of 13 and counted himself as an Anglican. He was elected to Parliament before 1858 when Jews were first permitted to hold office there.
The very idea Miliband was born into a Jewish family will probably infuriate many Israel advocates even more once they learn of his Middle East attitudes. They will dismiss his Jewish roots as a technicality.
Upon his election as the new leader of Britain’s enfeebled Labour Party, Miliband delivered a maiden speech on Sept. 27 that is certain to antagonize much of the pro-Israel crowd. That will make him the second leading British politician - after current Prime Minister David Cameron - to issue upsetting comments about Israel. From a transcript, Miliband says at the tail end of his speech:
“There can be no solution to the conflicts of the Middle East without international action, providing support where it is needed, and pressure where it is right to do so. And let me say this, as Israel ends the moratorium on settlement building, I will always defend the right of Israel to exist in peace and security. But Israel must accept and recognize in its actions the Palestinian right to statehood.
“That is why the attack on the Gaza Flotilla was so wrong.
“And that is why the Gaza blockade must be lifted and we must strain every sinew to work to make that happen. The government must step up and work with our partners in Europe and around the world to help bring a just and lasting peace to the Middle East.”
Strain every sinew?
If he leads Labour once a political opportunity is ripe, Miliband will present liberal British Jews with the same kind of dual loyalty test that American Jews are enduring under President Obama’s tenure. They generally endorse Obama’s progressive policies, but they are either confused by or boiling over his approach to Israel.
Labour was ousted from power when the Conservatives surged in last May’s parliamentary elections and fell short of winning a majority of seats. The Conservatives entered into a shaky alliance with the Liberal Democrats, thus displacing Labour after 13 years in power under prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Ed’s older brother David, who was foreign minister under Brown, was the presumed heir to Brown and ran for the leadership post among a field of five candidates. The more liberal Ed was one of the other four candidates and edged out David in a narrow election.
Both their parents fled Hitler and made their mark in Britain despite their relatively brief family history there. Their late father, Ralph, arrived in 1940, nearly 60 years after Disraeli died. Disraeli became prime minister twice, the first time only for a matter of months in 1868 and the second time for six years, from 1874 to 1880. Queen Victoria admired Disraeli and detested opposition leader William Gladstone.
Ed campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq war, which David supported, and the need for deeper reforms. His policies are very liberal, as outlined in his speech, and like President Clinton he does not know when to shut up. A printed transcript of his repetitive speech runs 21 pages.
His father, a socialist scholar, was a professor at the London School of Economics and became one of Britain’s most acclaimed left-wing intellectuals. His mother, Marion Kozak, was a supporter of Jews for Justice for Palestinians. Ed cohabits with girlfriend Justine Thorn, who is pregnant with their second child, and they plan to marry.
Cameron preceded Miliband with offensive remarks about Israel last July 27 when he visited Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara. Cameron wants Britain to conduct business with Turkey, and Erdogan persists in seeking an apology from Israel for the deaths of nine Turkish blockade-runners on the sea outside Gaza on Memorial Day.
Cameron said, “The situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp…The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. I have told Prime Minister (Benjamin) Netanyahu we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous.”
Both Miliband and Cameron conveniently forget that Israel established the blockade to prevent smugglers from using the sea to sneak weapons into Gaza. Why should Israel allow access to a hostile territory? Both the current prime minister and his potential replacement dismiss Hamas’ devotion to Israel’s destruction.
Also, neither Cameron nor Miliband expressed any sympathy for Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit, who was kidnapped by terrorists and presumably held captive in Gaza for the last 51 months.
Neither of these guys know what they’re talking about when discussing Israel. Cameron was downright abrasive when he blasted Israel. Miliband at least voiced his Middle East views in a more subdued manner. Granted that Israel is not immune from criticism, but they fail to understand the dangers facing Israel.
The Brits rightfully griped about contending with President Bush for eight years. Now supporters of Israel must contend with Cameron and Miliband. What can we expect once they strain every sinew?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)