Welcome back to America, ambassador.
Michael Oren, who grew up in northern New Jersey before moving to Israel, experienced firsthand the crude tug-of-war between advocates for Israel and the Arabs.
The newly-minted Israeli ambassador to the United States was shouted down by a group of Arab students at the University of California, Irvine, on Monday, Feb. 8. The criminal disruption exemplifies - but hardly exceeds - the vicious nature of many recent incidents arising from the Israeli-Arab conflict. You are not in West Orange any more, Michael Oren.
The debate in America and our Canadian neighbor has been anything but civil discourse. While neither side is pure, the pro-Arab corner can praise itself for employing perhaps 80 percent of the disgusting tactics that characterize the conflict.
The 11 thugs who were arrested after disrupting Oren’s talk are altar boys compared to some of their compatriots in Manhattan, Toronto, Philadelphia and Miami Beach. They habitually employ tasteless tactics, level broad-based accusations, distort the facts, compare Israel to Nazi Germany, commit low-level criminal offenses and downright lie.
The incident at UCI is appalling, but there have been far worse episodes - some a matter of personal experience. When Oren spoke, intruders had spread out through the audience of 500 and interrupted him 10 times. “Israel is a murderer,” one shouted. “How many Palestinians did you kill?” cried another.
Oren left the stage after the first four outbursts and returned 20 minutes later to withstand six more verbal assaults before dozens of jeering students stormed out to conduct a demonstration outside, according to The Los Angeles Jewish Journal and other media sources.
The reception at UCI should have been a cakewalk for the ambassador. Oren grew up in the suburb of West Orange, west of Newark, before moving to Israel, and survived a Syrian ambush in Lebanon in 1982 while serving as a paratrooper. He also served in the two-front war against Hamas and Hezbollah in 2006 and last year’s invasion of Gaza. In between, he wrote two best-selling books, “Six Days of War” and “Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East.”
The hecklers at UCI also face possible disciplinary action, which could include expulsion.
That same night, in nearby Los Angeles, a small group of demonstrators were escorted out of a room at the UCLA School of Law after they filed into line in front of an Israeli speaker, legal advisor Daniel Taub, and stood in silence with signs taped to their stomachs reading “Turn Your Backs on War Crimes,” the Journal reported. Taub spoke about the Goldstone report.
The California events reflect a long tradition of offensive conduct. Early in the past decade, activists chose Miami Beach’s Holocaust memorial for an anti-Israel demonstration that afforded comparisons of Israeli tactics to Hitler’s storm troopers.
Outside Philadelphia’s Israeli consulate, protesters burned an Israeli flag and marched for a mile to Independence Hall, tying up rush-hour traffic. Pro-Arab students at the University of Pennsylvania crafted Israeli-style checkpoints on campus to prevent other students from moving freely between classes, forcing them to discover how the poor Palestinians feel when they must wait at checkpoints on the West Bank.
They chose Israel anniversary festivals in Boston and San Francisco to gather en masse outside the festival sites and make certain that attendees could hear their taunts. If memory serves, Jews at the Boston site had to pass through a gauntlet of demonstrators to reach the event site.
These activists have disrupted pro-Israel speakers at other venues, including Benjamin Netanyahu in Canada a few years before he was elected prime minister of Israel last year.
Several months ago, Jewish students at York University in Toronto were chased by dissidents to the campus Hillel office, and these ruffians surrounded the place and would not let them leave. In Berkeley, Calif., pro-Arab supporters vandalized a site associated with Jewish students. Did I mention my personal experiences? I’ll summarize:
At Times Square last year, I was part of a small counter-protest after more than 700 protesters against the Gaza war had formed. The 30 of us were kept a block away, yet a few hundred of them surged to the corner across from us taunting and shouting at us. “Shame on you!” a chorus screamed at one point. A few held aloft some shoes, as did the Iraqi who tossed his shoes at President Bush, and someone tossed a few small objects across the street at us.
At a government office, a senior manager tacked up a poster on a bulletin board that depicted a Palestinian flag accompanied by the words, “There will be no peace until there is justice.” She posted a similar sign two days later. Jewish employees, myself included, regarded these signs as anti-Israel and filed complaints with an anti-discrimination agency. The agency rebuffed us, contending that this was a free-speech issue even though she knowingly created a hostile environment.
What to do? Above all, press law enforcement authorities to swiftly enforce the law when these goons so much as jaywalk. As noted above, colleges and employers should impose disciplinary action and victims should inquire about complaints with anti-discrimination agencies. Offenders who are not citizens should be referred to immigration.
If they want “justice” so badly, let us by all means give them justice.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Hamas was prime culprit in Gaza attack
The United Nations’ Goldstone report is little more than a melodramatic sideshow, yet it has evolved into somewhat of a battle cry for advocates of the poor Palestinians. Now they can wave the report in the air and compare the Israel Defense Forces to Hitler’s storm troopers.
Israel’s invasion of Gaza more than a year ago amounts to a far more nuanced episode. Israeli leaders and their advocates in the United States and elsewhere must cease being so defensive. There are reasonable responses to be found. To its credit, Israel has made a respectable comeback with its formal response to the report; it was composed of a UN commission headed by former South African Justice Richard Goldstone.
Israel’s needs to expand on its reason for attacking Gaza; explain why civilians were victimized; take the UN to task for its sweeping and unsupported accusations; apologize for refusing to cooperate with investigators; acknowledge mistakes; and take a hard look at its military operations.
Israel’s foremost lapse was its understated characterization of the three-week war that began in late December 2009. Israel’s persistent line was its goal of stopping rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel. How does that sound in the context of what ensued? Hamas clearly commits an act of war by firing thousands of missiles, but must Israel respond by killing 1,400 people that includes a countless number of civilians? Israel could not even meet its objective - eliminating Gaza’s threat of firing more missiles.
If I believed that was Israel’s main reason, I would have taken to the streets in protest.
It does not take a military strategist to figure out why Israel invaded Gaza. Hamas, which controls Gaza, was obviously building a war machine intended to damage and perhaps one day destroy Israel as a proxy for Iran.
It makes sense. Arab extremists have been trying to drive the Jews into the sea long before the state of Israel was created. A century later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledges the destruction of Israel as he engineers the development of a nuclear device. Hamas has been habitually smuggling weapons into Gaza for years, kidnapped an Israeli soldier in 2006 and seized control of Gaza the following year in a violent coup. All the while, they progressively fired rockets with greater ranges into Israel.
Israel had to react forcefully. They probably sought to weaken Hamas as much as possible, and they likely succeeded for the time being. Unfortunately, Hamas is believed to be rebuilding its arsenal, which would mean that another confrontation is inevitable.
When Israel swooped in, they fought an enemy that infiltrated the public at large. Hamas forced civilians to act as human shields, causing them to be caught in the crossfire. Israel had to choose between the safety of Gaza civilians and that of Israeli civilians.
The commission wrecked its credibility when it accused Israel of deliberately killing civilians without producing sufficient evidence. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz fired off a detailed analysis of the report to the U.N. Secretary General complaining of “the distortions, misuses of evidence and bias of the report and those who wrote it.”
Dershowitz tackles the report’s reference to Israeli officials who proclaimed that Israel should bombard Gaza’s infrastructure. Maybe some Israeli leaders and extremists feel that way, but how does this mindset translate to public policy? There is no hard evidence that this notion is equivalent to the Israeli government’s tactics.
Dershowitz hotly disputes this allegation, and so should Israel. The U.N. must be placed on the hot seat for this.
Nonetheless, Israel undermined its credibility by refusing the commission’s request for cooperation. It makes Israel look guilty, and in turn Goldstone and his investigators might believe the worst. Prosecutors tend to come down very hard on evasive suspects.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that Israel produced a formal response conceding that the IDF was spurred to examine its actions in part by pressure from the Goldstone report and various human rights groups. “We take a look at ourselves and where we were right and where mistakes were made,” said Capt. Barak Raz. “I can’t deny that these reports also contributed to our ability to be made aware.”
Israel’s response reveals that it launched 150 separate investigations that were either initiated by the army or in reaction to complaints from Arab civilians and other outside sources. So far, 36 probes led to criminal prosecutions that include 19 involving shooting toward civilians and 17 linked to using civilians as human shields, mistreating detainees and theft, according to JTA.
Israel’s decision to conduct 36 prosecutions does not indict the entire IDF, but it compounds the disclosure after the 2006 war that Israel’s military is plagued by severe problems. At the time, reservists could not find ammunition and supplies, and they lacked sufficient training for the fighting in which they participated. On three occasions in recent years, terrorists slipped through boundaries of military bases to kill or kidnap IDF soldiers.
It is no wonder if the IDF misfired, literally, during the latest hostilities. Whatever the cause, transgressions on Israel’s part cannot be justified. The IDF is due for a housecleaning.
The issues involved with the Goldstone report still amount to a sideshow. Had Hamas lived in peace with Israel, we would not be squabbling over a Goldstone report today.
Israel’s invasion of Gaza more than a year ago amounts to a far more nuanced episode. Israeli leaders and their advocates in the United States and elsewhere must cease being so defensive. There are reasonable responses to be found. To its credit, Israel has made a respectable comeback with its formal response to the report; it was composed of a UN commission headed by former South African Justice Richard Goldstone.
Israel’s needs to expand on its reason for attacking Gaza; explain why civilians were victimized; take the UN to task for its sweeping and unsupported accusations; apologize for refusing to cooperate with investigators; acknowledge mistakes; and take a hard look at its military operations.
Israel’s foremost lapse was its understated characterization of the three-week war that began in late December 2009. Israel’s persistent line was its goal of stopping rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel. How does that sound in the context of what ensued? Hamas clearly commits an act of war by firing thousands of missiles, but must Israel respond by killing 1,400 people that includes a countless number of civilians? Israel could not even meet its objective - eliminating Gaza’s threat of firing more missiles.
If I believed that was Israel’s main reason, I would have taken to the streets in protest.
It does not take a military strategist to figure out why Israel invaded Gaza. Hamas, which controls Gaza, was obviously building a war machine intended to damage and perhaps one day destroy Israel as a proxy for Iran.
It makes sense. Arab extremists have been trying to drive the Jews into the sea long before the state of Israel was created. A century later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledges the destruction of Israel as he engineers the development of a nuclear device. Hamas has been habitually smuggling weapons into Gaza for years, kidnapped an Israeli soldier in 2006 and seized control of Gaza the following year in a violent coup. All the while, they progressively fired rockets with greater ranges into Israel.
Israel had to react forcefully. They probably sought to weaken Hamas as much as possible, and they likely succeeded for the time being. Unfortunately, Hamas is believed to be rebuilding its arsenal, which would mean that another confrontation is inevitable.
When Israel swooped in, they fought an enemy that infiltrated the public at large. Hamas forced civilians to act as human shields, causing them to be caught in the crossfire. Israel had to choose between the safety of Gaza civilians and that of Israeli civilians.
The commission wrecked its credibility when it accused Israel of deliberately killing civilians without producing sufficient evidence. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz fired off a detailed analysis of the report to the U.N. Secretary General complaining of “the distortions, misuses of evidence and bias of the report and those who wrote it.”
Dershowitz tackles the report’s reference to Israeli officials who proclaimed that Israel should bombard Gaza’s infrastructure. Maybe some Israeli leaders and extremists feel that way, but how does this mindset translate to public policy? There is no hard evidence that this notion is equivalent to the Israeli government’s tactics.
Dershowitz hotly disputes this allegation, and so should Israel. The U.N. must be placed on the hot seat for this.
Nonetheless, Israel undermined its credibility by refusing the commission’s request for cooperation. It makes Israel look guilty, and in turn Goldstone and his investigators might believe the worst. Prosecutors tend to come down very hard on evasive suspects.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that Israel produced a formal response conceding that the IDF was spurred to examine its actions in part by pressure from the Goldstone report and various human rights groups. “We take a look at ourselves and where we were right and where mistakes were made,” said Capt. Barak Raz. “I can’t deny that these reports also contributed to our ability to be made aware.”
Israel’s response reveals that it launched 150 separate investigations that were either initiated by the army or in reaction to complaints from Arab civilians and other outside sources. So far, 36 probes led to criminal prosecutions that include 19 involving shooting toward civilians and 17 linked to using civilians as human shields, mistreating detainees and theft, according to JTA.
Israel’s decision to conduct 36 prosecutions does not indict the entire IDF, but it compounds the disclosure after the 2006 war that Israel’s military is plagued by severe problems. At the time, reservists could not find ammunition and supplies, and they lacked sufficient training for the fighting in which they participated. On three occasions in recent years, terrorists slipped through boundaries of military bases to kill or kidnap IDF soldiers.
It is no wonder if the IDF misfired, literally, during the latest hostilities. Whatever the cause, transgressions on Israel’s part cannot be justified. The IDF is due for a housecleaning.
The issues involved with the Goldstone report still amount to a sideshow. Had Hamas lived in peace with Israel, we would not be squabbling over a Goldstone report today.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
An unwanted loyalty test in Mass. election
Jewish voters had Martha Coakley’s back.
The special Jan. 19 election in Massachusetts to fill the vacancy left by Sen. Edward Kennedy’s death was evidence once again that Jewish voters passed an unwanted loyalty test.
As a Democrat, Coakley offered to bolster President Obama in pursuing progressive measures long supported by American Jews. Republican Scott Brown threw his lot in with a political party that promises unmistakable backing for Israel; Obama is on shaky ground in this arena.
Brown swept affluent suburbs of Boston where turnout was high while Coakley performed well in urban areas with low turnout, despite being edged out by Brown statewide, according to The Boston Globe.
In towns with a strong Jewish presence, Coakley trounced Brown in Newton 23,456 to 11,352 where turnout was 63 percent and took Sharon 4,461 to 3,536 with turnout at 66 percent, as evidenced by The Globe‘s rundown of individual towns. Brookline voters backed Coakley 15,264 to 5,217; turnout was 49 percent. Coakley also took Needham, Wellesley and Framingham, all towns with a strong Jewish presence.
Brown won the adjacent North Shore towns of Marblehead (5,285 to 4,657) and Swampscott (3,222 to 3,121), both of which comprise a large number of Jewish residents.
We can only speculate why Brown won these last two towns. Maybe many Jews there are fed up with Obama because of his careless approach to Israel, or they simply oppose his domestic policies.
Most American Jews would embrace Obama’s domestic agenda, but are at best confused by the president’s Israeli initiatives, setting up Jews for an inadvertent dual-loyalty test. That test was probably played out to some degree in Massachusetts. American Jews have not had this problem recently until Obama ran for president.
Many Americans believe that Jews wield heavy influence on presidents and Congress on Israel’s behalf, without questioning Israel‘s policies. That impression could apply to the minority of Jews who operate pro-Israel lobbying groups, but not to the vast majority of American Jews. Jews usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates by a range of 75 to 80 percent. If Jews support hawkish Israeli policies and the invasion of Iraq, why would they have voted for Al Gore and John F. Kerry?
To be clear, most Jews who vote for Democrats or moderate Republicans are in solid support of Israel, but they do not condone Israel’s actions that they believe are misguided.
Jews have for decades voted for Democrats or seemingly moderate Republicans for their liberal or centrist positions on progressive issues. Centrist and liberal Jews took for granted that presidential candidates for both major parties support Israel, if in different ways. The more hawkish Jews, who probably comprise 20 percent of America’s Jewish population, only trust the Republicans to be in Israel’s corner.
Until Obama ran for president, the vast majority of Jews had the best of both worlds in
Democratic candidates - staunch support for Israel and a progressive domestic agenda. Most
Jewish voters are with Obama on the domestic side, but they legitimately wonder about his stance on Israel. His administration attempted to intimidate Israeli leaders; vaguely compared the Arabs to pre-Civil War slaves; ignored recent Middle East history; and acted as if a peace settlement could be reached by waving a magic wand.
Right-wing Jews have made up their minds about Obama, but other Jews must take a hard look at the situation. Domestic concerns directly affect us all, but Israel also has a fundamental effect on Jews. Israel remains a refuge for Jews, and more than 5 million of my people live there. We expect the United States to be there for Israel so long as it is in the right.
Fortunately, Obama has softened his stance with Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is no pushover. Besides, the Palestinian Authority refuses to negotiate with Israel because it wants what Israel is unlikely to allow.
Maybe it is best if it stays that way. Who needs a loyalty test?
The special Jan. 19 election in Massachusetts to fill the vacancy left by Sen. Edward Kennedy’s death was evidence once again that Jewish voters passed an unwanted loyalty test.
As a Democrat, Coakley offered to bolster President Obama in pursuing progressive measures long supported by American Jews. Republican Scott Brown threw his lot in with a political party that promises unmistakable backing for Israel; Obama is on shaky ground in this arena.
Brown swept affluent suburbs of Boston where turnout was high while Coakley performed well in urban areas with low turnout, despite being edged out by Brown statewide, according to The Boston Globe.
In towns with a strong Jewish presence, Coakley trounced Brown in Newton 23,456 to 11,352 where turnout was 63 percent and took Sharon 4,461 to 3,536 with turnout at 66 percent, as evidenced by The Globe‘s rundown of individual towns. Brookline voters backed Coakley 15,264 to 5,217; turnout was 49 percent. Coakley also took Needham, Wellesley and Framingham, all towns with a strong Jewish presence.
Brown won the adjacent North Shore towns of Marblehead (5,285 to 4,657) and Swampscott (3,222 to 3,121), both of which comprise a large number of Jewish residents.
We can only speculate why Brown won these last two towns. Maybe many Jews there are fed up with Obama because of his careless approach to Israel, or they simply oppose his domestic policies.
Most American Jews would embrace Obama’s domestic agenda, but are at best confused by the president’s Israeli initiatives, setting up Jews for an inadvertent dual-loyalty test. That test was probably played out to some degree in Massachusetts. American Jews have not had this problem recently until Obama ran for president.
Many Americans believe that Jews wield heavy influence on presidents and Congress on Israel’s behalf, without questioning Israel‘s policies. That impression could apply to the minority of Jews who operate pro-Israel lobbying groups, but not to the vast majority of American Jews. Jews usually vote for Democratic presidential candidates by a range of 75 to 80 percent. If Jews support hawkish Israeli policies and the invasion of Iraq, why would they have voted for Al Gore and John F. Kerry?
To be clear, most Jews who vote for Democrats or moderate Republicans are in solid support of Israel, but they do not condone Israel’s actions that they believe are misguided.
Jews have for decades voted for Democrats or seemingly moderate Republicans for their liberal or centrist positions on progressive issues. Centrist and liberal Jews took for granted that presidential candidates for both major parties support Israel, if in different ways. The more hawkish Jews, who probably comprise 20 percent of America’s Jewish population, only trust the Republicans to be in Israel’s corner.
Until Obama ran for president, the vast majority of Jews had the best of both worlds in
Democratic candidates - staunch support for Israel and a progressive domestic agenda. Most
Jewish voters are with Obama on the domestic side, but they legitimately wonder about his stance on Israel. His administration attempted to intimidate Israeli leaders; vaguely compared the Arabs to pre-Civil War slaves; ignored recent Middle East history; and acted as if a peace settlement could be reached by waving a magic wand.
Right-wing Jews have made up their minds about Obama, but other Jews must take a hard look at the situation. Domestic concerns directly affect us all, but Israel also has a fundamental effect on Jews. Israel remains a refuge for Jews, and more than 5 million of my people live there. We expect the United States to be there for Israel so long as it is in the right.
Fortunately, Obama has softened his stance with Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is no pushover. Besides, the Palestinian Authority refuses to negotiate with Israel because it wants what Israel is unlikely to allow.
Maybe it is best if it stays that way. Who needs a loyalty test?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Arab silence speaks volumes
‘My father hated his enemies more than he loved his sons’
- Omar bin Laden, son of guess-who
We still worry, correctly, that extremists will commit terrorist acts here, in Israel and various western nations, but consider the plight of those who must live among these fanatics.
I have never believed that the Arab world is monolithic, though it seems that way much of the time. Many Arabs hardly qualify as bomb-throwing terrorists. Rather, many are themselves terrorized into silence and collaboration. Such conditions were bluntly described or strongly indicated in a succession of independent articles published within a few weeks’ time.
The reports can inflame an intense level of outrage against terrorists and their leaders. These extremists scare average people into keeping quiet or even endangering their lives. Ordinary Arabs must live among these murderers, illustrating how frustrating the circumstances there can be.
Omar bin Laden’s experiences of being raised, or mis-raised, by Osama bin Laden is evidence enough of the cruelty with which these lunatics treat not only their neighbors but their own family members. Among other instances, Omar’s old man lent credence to a punch line in which Arab dads lament that their children “blow up so soon.” This nutcase wanted Omar and his brothers to go on suicide missions, and Omar was on the front lines in a civil war in the 1990s, according to the Associated Press.
“I nearly lost my life so many times. People may ask why I left my father,” said Omar, who co-authored the book “Growing Up bin Laden.” “I left because I did not want anyone to choose my destiny…And I believe I chose correctly, for I chose life. I chose peace.”
Does he sound like a terrorist? I would feel comfortable with this bin Laden as my next-door neighbor.
People in Gaza were denied the chance to have their say when 80 foreigners took part in the Gaza Freedom March to protest Israel’s blockade in early January. Reporter Amira Hass wrote in Ha’aretz, a daily Israeli newspaper, that Hamas security officials maintained tight control over both the visitors and their own people.
She wrote, “During the march itself, when Gazans watching from the sidelines tried to speak with the visitors, the stern-faced security men blocked them. ‘They didn’t want us to speak to ordinary people,’ one woman concluded.”
Another passage from Hass’s account: “In meetings without the security men, several activists got the impression that non-Hamas residents live in fear, and are afraid to speak or identify themselves by name. ‘Now I understand that the call for “Freedom for Gaza” has another meaning,’ one young man told me.”
In a Jan. 6 New York Times article in reference to a video program depicting life in Gaza, 28-year-old Awatif Aljadili offhandedly says, “We have to talk with each other. But many here are afraid of talking with Israelis. They will be accused of being spies.”
They are open to meeting Israelis, she is saying, but that would jeopardize their safety. It is well documented that many Arabs were murdered if they were suspected of collaborating with Israel.
Interviews in The Jewish Week suggested mixed attitudes toward Israelis, and even positive views seemed to be grudging. Ghazi Najav, 45, of Nablus says in a Jan. 1 article, “There is a fear of going backward. We don’t have a military compatible with Israel. I don’t want to see more Palestinian young men die.”
Adds Sabri Sabri, also of Nablus: “People are fed up with intifadas. People want to live a normal life.”
Arabs quoted in these accounts appear to be motivated by disgust with their own extremists, war-weariness, common sense and even good will. Their voices offer hope that they represent a large proportion of Arabs in Israel’s territories and elsewhere. If only they and Israelis can reach one another.
On an interpersonal basis, many Arabs might get along well with Jews if we had the chance to get to know one another. That also includes those on both sides who harbor bitter feelings. Reports I have read in the past, along with limited personal experience, have provided a foundation for this belief.
I genuinely feel sorry for Arabs who are good people caught in the middle. They are prisoners of their society.
How do we bridge the gap that divides us? Hamas rules Gaza with an iron hand. Israel’s sole strategy to eliminate Hamas is to kill thousands of innocent people along with the terrorists. Most other Arab lands are ruled by unelected leaders because it is very possible that the winner of any pending election will behave like dictators themselves. Look at Iran.
It is hard to be hopeful when the inmates still run the asylum.
- Omar bin Laden, son of guess-who
We still worry, correctly, that extremists will commit terrorist acts here, in Israel and various western nations, but consider the plight of those who must live among these fanatics.
I have never believed that the Arab world is monolithic, though it seems that way much of the time. Many Arabs hardly qualify as bomb-throwing terrorists. Rather, many are themselves terrorized into silence and collaboration. Such conditions were bluntly described or strongly indicated in a succession of independent articles published within a few weeks’ time.
The reports can inflame an intense level of outrage against terrorists and their leaders. These extremists scare average people into keeping quiet or even endangering their lives. Ordinary Arabs must live among these murderers, illustrating how frustrating the circumstances there can be.
Omar bin Laden’s experiences of being raised, or mis-raised, by Osama bin Laden is evidence enough of the cruelty with which these lunatics treat not only their neighbors but their own family members. Among other instances, Omar’s old man lent credence to a punch line in which Arab dads lament that their children “blow up so soon.” This nutcase wanted Omar and his brothers to go on suicide missions, and Omar was on the front lines in a civil war in the 1990s, according to the Associated Press.
“I nearly lost my life so many times. People may ask why I left my father,” said Omar, who co-authored the book “Growing Up bin Laden.” “I left because I did not want anyone to choose my destiny…And I believe I chose correctly, for I chose life. I chose peace.”
Does he sound like a terrorist? I would feel comfortable with this bin Laden as my next-door neighbor.
People in Gaza were denied the chance to have their say when 80 foreigners took part in the Gaza Freedom March to protest Israel’s blockade in early January. Reporter Amira Hass wrote in Ha’aretz, a daily Israeli newspaper, that Hamas security officials maintained tight control over both the visitors and their own people.
She wrote, “During the march itself, when Gazans watching from the sidelines tried to speak with the visitors, the stern-faced security men blocked them. ‘They didn’t want us to speak to ordinary people,’ one woman concluded.”
Another passage from Hass’s account: “In meetings without the security men, several activists got the impression that non-Hamas residents live in fear, and are afraid to speak or identify themselves by name. ‘Now I understand that the call for “Freedom for Gaza” has another meaning,’ one young man told me.”
In a Jan. 6 New York Times article in reference to a video program depicting life in Gaza, 28-year-old Awatif Aljadili offhandedly says, “We have to talk with each other. But many here are afraid of talking with Israelis. They will be accused of being spies.”
They are open to meeting Israelis, she is saying, but that would jeopardize their safety. It is well documented that many Arabs were murdered if they were suspected of collaborating with Israel.
Interviews in The Jewish Week suggested mixed attitudes toward Israelis, and even positive views seemed to be grudging. Ghazi Najav, 45, of Nablus says in a Jan. 1 article, “There is a fear of going backward. We don’t have a military compatible with Israel. I don’t want to see more Palestinian young men die.”
Adds Sabri Sabri, also of Nablus: “People are fed up with intifadas. People want to live a normal life.”
Arabs quoted in these accounts appear to be motivated by disgust with their own extremists, war-weariness, common sense and even good will. Their voices offer hope that they represent a large proportion of Arabs in Israel’s territories and elsewhere. If only they and Israelis can reach one another.
On an interpersonal basis, many Arabs might get along well with Jews if we had the chance to get to know one another. That also includes those on both sides who harbor bitter feelings. Reports I have read in the past, along with limited personal experience, have provided a foundation for this belief.
I genuinely feel sorry for Arabs who are good people caught in the middle. They are prisoners of their society.
How do we bridge the gap that divides us? Hamas rules Gaza with an iron hand. Israel’s sole strategy to eliminate Hamas is to kill thousands of innocent people along with the terrorists. Most other Arab lands are ruled by unelected leaders because it is very possible that the winner of any pending election will behave like dictators themselves. Look at Iran.
It is hard to be hopeful when the inmates still run the asylum.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The word for J Street: irrelevance
Where’s a J Street when you really need one?
For a very long time, I could not voice differences over Israeli policies without being shouted down by hard line advocates for Israel. It was very difficult to defend Israeli policies. The military undertook operations that seemed excessive and settlements were built amid a hostile Arab population in Gaza and the West Bank.
I could have benefited from the supportive presence of a strong organization willing to raise legitimate concerns about Israel. None existed. Now we have J Street, which bills itself as “the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement” and lobbies Congress and President Obama to take positions that are considered leftward of those stances supported by most other pro-Israel organizations.
A series of events transformed my thinking on Israel, as said events transformed the thinking of many on the right. The most agonizing moment came during summer 2005 when Israel evacuated all settlements in Gaza, thus eliminating the threat to the lives of settlers and troops there. I fume whenever I recall reports of Arabs burning down the synagogue structures that were left behind, and then they subsequently launched rockets into southern Israel.
There are still times when criticism against Israel is merited, but now I am on the same page with one-time adversaries on most key issues. I have been close to the point where I do not care what Israel does.
So why does J Street inject itself into such a volatile situation? J Street offers a new take on the theory that some groups outlive their usefulness. J Street would have been helpful prior to the Gaza evacuation, but J Street’s usefulness vanished before J Street was even created.
Israel’s new ambassador, Michael Oren, launched a frontal assault on J Street in Cherry Hill, N.J., a Philadelphia suburb, while addressing a convention of Conservative synagogue leaders on Dec. 7. The weekly Forward reported that Oren called J Street “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream.
“This is not a matter of settlements here (or) there. We understand there are differences of opinion. But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people. This is no joke.”
Perhaps Oren’s outburst was more forceful than necessary. On its Web site, J Street denies that it is the disloyal monster portrayed by its detractors. However, a single word defines J Street: irrelevance.
I objected to some Israeli policies a decade ago despite the peacemaking strides of Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak. Israel played with fire by allowing settlements in Gaza and the more isolated reaches of the West Bank. I was willing to support the creation of a Palestinian state even with its capital in East Jerusalem if it would produce a peace settlement. When Ariel Sharon was prime minister, I was appalled by Israel’s fierce military incursions that contributed to a skyrocketing casualty rate.
Circumstances changed my perspective.
Nearly two years ago, J Street joined a sprawling network of Jewish advocacy organizations that tend to trip over one another and prove themselves useless when some important issues arise. The money spent on their bureaucratic operations can be better directed to Jewish social-service needs. To be fair, many of these organizations serve the Jewish people well in numerous ways, but not all the time.
Most of these organizations take moderate or hawkish positions on Israeli issues that can change with circumstances and political arrangements here and in Israel. J Street sets itself apart by firmly urging the creation of a Palestinian state and sending mixed messages on whether the Arabs should control East Jerusalem. I might be able to find common ground with J Street to eliminate West Bank settlements, but existing organizations share this view.
J Street’s arguments collapse against the backdrop of the past decade. Israel offered the Arabs an independent state with no strings attached during the 2000 Camp David summit, despite the lies of the late Yasser Arafat. Arafat rebuffed the offer and facilitated a war against Israel, and then refused an expanded offer shortly before President Clinton left office. After Sharon defeated Barak for prime minister in February, 2001, he intensified the hostilities which mainly played out in Gaza and the West Bank. Most civilian casualties were caused by terrorist bombings and other attacks within Israel proper and the bulk of military casualties occurred in the territories.
Sharon presided over the Gaza evacuation in 2005, eliminating concerns about settlements being retained there amid hostile neighbors. Arabs responded by burning synagogues and greenhouses, and then firing rockets into Sderot and other towns in southern Israel. They provoked a two-front war in 2006 after kidnapping a soldier near Gaza and two soldiers in or near southern Lebanon. That effectively delayed plans to evacuate settlements in the West Bank.
Both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have built war machines, and Hamas provoked Israel into another fight last year. The leadership of Fatah in the West Bank has shaky support and Hamas persists with its intent to destroy Israel. Have I mentioned Iran’s threat to demolish Israel with a nuclear device?
These events helped satisfy my prime concerns about Israeli policies. Israel no longer controls land in Gaza and its attention to West Bank settlements was diverted by military conflicts. Flaws with the military infrastructure were exposed during the 2006 war and some improvements were implemented, though probably not enough.
It is foolish to take fixed positions on issues that will be subject to negotiations between Israel and the Arabs. All parties should be open to the question of an independent Palestinian state and consider all pros and cons. Yet, J Street adamantly supports a state while right-wing groups such as the Zionist Organization of America adamantly oppose it. Too many questions must be answered.
As for Jerusalem, Arab leaders must justify why they need any part of it. Israel fought for control of East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it shortly after that war. I cannot see why they need any section of Jerusalem.
I presume that J Street and myself share common ground on arguments for evacuating some West Bank settlements, but existing organizations share these concerns.
Perhaps it should be comforting that J Street is here for me now. Not that I need it.
For a very long time, I could not voice differences over Israeli policies without being shouted down by hard line advocates for Israel. It was very difficult to defend Israeli policies. The military undertook operations that seemed excessive and settlements were built amid a hostile Arab population in Gaza and the West Bank.
I could have benefited from the supportive presence of a strong organization willing to raise legitimate concerns about Israel. None existed. Now we have J Street, which bills itself as “the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement” and lobbies Congress and President Obama to take positions that are considered leftward of those stances supported by most other pro-Israel organizations.
A series of events transformed my thinking on Israel, as said events transformed the thinking of many on the right. The most agonizing moment came during summer 2005 when Israel evacuated all settlements in Gaza, thus eliminating the threat to the lives of settlers and troops there. I fume whenever I recall reports of Arabs burning down the synagogue structures that were left behind, and then they subsequently launched rockets into southern Israel.
There are still times when criticism against Israel is merited, but now I am on the same page with one-time adversaries on most key issues. I have been close to the point where I do not care what Israel does.
So why does J Street inject itself into such a volatile situation? J Street offers a new take on the theory that some groups outlive their usefulness. J Street would have been helpful prior to the Gaza evacuation, but J Street’s usefulness vanished before J Street was even created.
Israel’s new ambassador, Michael Oren, launched a frontal assault on J Street in Cherry Hill, N.J., a Philadelphia suburb, while addressing a convention of Conservative synagogue leaders on Dec. 7. The weekly Forward reported that Oren called J Street “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments. It’s significantly out of the mainstream.
“This is not a matter of settlements here (or) there. We understand there are differences of opinion. But when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion. You are fooling around with the lives of 7 million people. This is no joke.”
Perhaps Oren’s outburst was more forceful than necessary. On its Web site, J Street denies that it is the disloyal monster portrayed by its detractors. However, a single word defines J Street: irrelevance.
I objected to some Israeli policies a decade ago despite the peacemaking strides of Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak. Israel played with fire by allowing settlements in Gaza and the more isolated reaches of the West Bank. I was willing to support the creation of a Palestinian state even with its capital in East Jerusalem if it would produce a peace settlement. When Ariel Sharon was prime minister, I was appalled by Israel’s fierce military incursions that contributed to a skyrocketing casualty rate.
Circumstances changed my perspective.
Nearly two years ago, J Street joined a sprawling network of Jewish advocacy organizations that tend to trip over one another and prove themselves useless when some important issues arise. The money spent on their bureaucratic operations can be better directed to Jewish social-service needs. To be fair, many of these organizations serve the Jewish people well in numerous ways, but not all the time.
Most of these organizations take moderate or hawkish positions on Israeli issues that can change with circumstances and political arrangements here and in Israel. J Street sets itself apart by firmly urging the creation of a Palestinian state and sending mixed messages on whether the Arabs should control East Jerusalem. I might be able to find common ground with J Street to eliminate West Bank settlements, but existing organizations share this view.
J Street’s arguments collapse against the backdrop of the past decade. Israel offered the Arabs an independent state with no strings attached during the 2000 Camp David summit, despite the lies of the late Yasser Arafat. Arafat rebuffed the offer and facilitated a war against Israel, and then refused an expanded offer shortly before President Clinton left office. After Sharon defeated Barak for prime minister in February, 2001, he intensified the hostilities which mainly played out in Gaza and the West Bank. Most civilian casualties were caused by terrorist bombings and other attacks within Israel proper and the bulk of military casualties occurred in the territories.
Sharon presided over the Gaza evacuation in 2005, eliminating concerns about settlements being retained there amid hostile neighbors. Arabs responded by burning synagogues and greenhouses, and then firing rockets into Sderot and other towns in southern Israel. They provoked a two-front war in 2006 after kidnapping a soldier near Gaza and two soldiers in or near southern Lebanon. That effectively delayed plans to evacuate settlements in the West Bank.
Both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon have built war machines, and Hamas provoked Israel into another fight last year. The leadership of Fatah in the West Bank has shaky support and Hamas persists with its intent to destroy Israel. Have I mentioned Iran’s threat to demolish Israel with a nuclear device?
These events helped satisfy my prime concerns about Israeli policies. Israel no longer controls land in Gaza and its attention to West Bank settlements was diverted by military conflicts. Flaws with the military infrastructure were exposed during the 2006 war and some improvements were implemented, though probably not enough.
It is foolish to take fixed positions on issues that will be subject to negotiations between Israel and the Arabs. All parties should be open to the question of an independent Palestinian state and consider all pros and cons. Yet, J Street adamantly supports a state while right-wing groups such as the Zionist Organization of America adamantly oppose it. Too many questions must be answered.
As for Jerusalem, Arab leaders must justify why they need any part of it. Israel fought for control of East Jerusalem in 1967 and annexed it shortly after that war. I cannot see why they need any section of Jerusalem.
I presume that J Street and myself share common ground on arguments for evacuating some West Bank settlements, but existing organizations share these concerns.
Perhaps it should be comforting that J Street is here for me now. Not that I need it.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Insanity defense could snag justice
‘Naveed Haq’s intention was to frighten Jews…The jury held that holding extremist views does not make you insane, but it does make you dangerous’
- King County (Wash.) Prosecutor Dan Satterberg
With two trials, Naveed Haq could not snow his second Seattle jury with an insanity defense.
After 2 ½ days of deliberations, a more prudent jury convicted Haq last Tuesday, Dec. 15, of aggravated murder and seven other offenses in the murder of Pamela Waechter and the wounding of five other women inside the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on July 28, 2006.
Haq is at least the third thug to employ the insanity defense after killing or assaulting Jews. All three defendants were convicted, but Haq came close to getting away with his crimes when the first jury deadlocked in June 2008 and the judge declared a mistrial. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, which by legal tradition means he could not distinguish between right and wrong. Haq believes there is nothing wrong with killing Jews.
Imagine what Adolf Hitler could have done with the insanity defense had he lived to stand trial. In San Francisco a few years ago, a defendant who assailed Nobel Prize-winning author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel was found guilty in spite of using the insanity defense. In March 1994, Lebanese-born Rashid Baz murdered Ari Halberstam, 16, and critically wounded another Jewish teen-ager in a school vehicle on the Brooklyn bridge. He exercised his right to claim insanity, but a jury compelled him to take responsibility for his acts by convicting him.
The insanity defense is dangerous. True, this legal instrument is more complicated than the right-from-wrong standard, but we have reached the point where a person can be acquitted simply because s/he believes it is justified to murder someone who belongs to a given minority group.
Among Jewish victims alone, the line of reasoning that saved Haq the first time could have protected the Georgians who lynched Leo Frank in 1915; the Ku Klux Klan members who slaughtered three civil rights workers in 1964 (two were Jewish, one was black); and the teen-ager who fatally plunged a knife into Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights in 1991.
Pam Waechter, a campaign director for the Seattle Federation, was at least the ninth Jew to be murdered in the United States because they were Jews. Waechter converted to Judaism when she married years earlier, but Haq made no such distinction when he entered her building and killed her because of his anger against Jews.
In his first trial run with the justice system, so to speak, Haq lucked out when Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas declared a mistrial after a jury deadlocked over 14 of 15 charges against him. Haq did not dispute charges that he shot Ms. Waechter to death and seriously wounded five other women inside the Federation building; Federation raises and allocates funds for Jewish causes. Haq would have gotten away with murdering a Jew had the entire jury agreed with the attorney’s arguments.
After the second trial, jurors said they were not provided with evidence that Haq was insane and in fact heard taped jailhouse statements from Haq that he regretted none of his acts and was proud to be a martyr, a typical honor for Islamic terrorists. Fortunately, the jury dismissed any possible arguments that Haq saw nothing wrong in killing Jews, but a different jury could have interpreted it differently.
Haq was not mad at the world but specifically at Jews because of their supposed oppression of his Muslim brethren in the Middle East, as he told witnesses. His shooting spree did not result from a spontaneous explosion of outrage. Media reports in The Seattle Times and The Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s coverage describe a methodical progression of events which led to the slayings.
I developed strong doubts about the insanity defense after covering criminal trials on and off for a few daily newspapers. In Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, a mother claimed religious motives for attempting to murder her children, one by one. The prosecutor demonstrated that the defendant committed the crimes in a meticulous manner, yet the jury bought her insanity defense.
It is inherent that anyone who commits a crime must be mentally unstable. A person in their right mind automatically knows that a criminal act is wrong and recognizes there is always a strong chance of getting caught and facing prosecution.
Nor is it convincing that a defendant should be excused for their acts if they cannot distinguish right from wrong or do not understand the nature and quality of their acts. Haq did in fact shoot six women, one fatally, even though he did not believe he was wrong to harm these people.
A defendant’s state of mind should be taken into account during sentencing because such conditions as emotional duress could trigger a person’s criminal acts, but not the process of determining guilt. He shot those six women, no question about it.
In both of his trials, the defense was persuasive in establishing that Haq suffered from serious mental-health problems, which included being on medication and having a history of child abuse; he was a self-proclaimed Muslim of Pakistani ancestry. Even his background fails to meet standards as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Haq’s reasoning should repulse anyone who is specifically concerned with anti-Semitism and generally with bigotry.
Haq singled out Jews. Since when does use of medication or experience with child abuse provoke someone to pick and choose among ethnic and religious groups? As JTA reported, Haq told a 911 operator, “I’m not upset at the people. I’m upset at your foreign policy. These are Jews. I’m tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East.”
The Seattle Times reported these additional comments from Haq to the 911 operator: “I want these Jews to get out. I don’t care…just want to make a point…all the media’s being controlled by Jews. I’m sick and tired of it…Patch me into CNN.”
Obviously, he must have drawn on his upbringing and mental-health history to believe it was not wrong to kill Jews. Hitler could have exploited this argument.
The prosecution was methodical in proving, well, how methodically Haq carried out his plans. JTA reported that Haq went on the Internet two weeks before his shooting spree to research Jewish organizations. He got directions to the Federation building from Mapquest. He drove 227 miles from his home in eastern Washington to kill Ms. Waechter and injure her colleagues. Some were Jewish, some were not. Along the way, he test-fired the two handguns he brought with him. To gain entrance into the building, he kidnapped a 14-year-old girl and started firing when he reached the Federation’s second-floor reception area.
Dayna Klein, who was pregnant at the time, testified that Haq shot her in the arm when she covered her abdomen with her arm to protect her unborn child. The wound left her without use of the arm. Klein coaxed him into talking with 911 operators. Police officers testified that Haq surrendered to police without further incident.
Haq saw nothing wrong in shooting these women because they were Jews or worked at a Jewish facility. Such a belief could still help any defendant attain an acquittal in the future, and that endangers all of us.
- King County (Wash.) Prosecutor Dan Satterberg
With two trials, Naveed Haq could not snow his second Seattle jury with an insanity defense.
After 2 ½ days of deliberations, a more prudent jury convicted Haq last Tuesday, Dec. 15, of aggravated murder and seven other offenses in the murder of Pamela Waechter and the wounding of five other women inside the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle on July 28, 2006.
Haq is at least the third thug to employ the insanity defense after killing or assaulting Jews. All three defendants were convicted, but Haq came close to getting away with his crimes when the first jury deadlocked in June 2008 and the judge declared a mistrial. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, which by legal tradition means he could not distinguish between right and wrong. Haq believes there is nothing wrong with killing Jews.
Imagine what Adolf Hitler could have done with the insanity defense had he lived to stand trial. In San Francisco a few years ago, a defendant who assailed Nobel Prize-winning author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel was found guilty in spite of using the insanity defense. In March 1994, Lebanese-born Rashid Baz murdered Ari Halberstam, 16, and critically wounded another Jewish teen-ager in a school vehicle on the Brooklyn bridge. He exercised his right to claim insanity, but a jury compelled him to take responsibility for his acts by convicting him.
The insanity defense is dangerous. True, this legal instrument is more complicated than the right-from-wrong standard, but we have reached the point where a person can be acquitted simply because s/he believes it is justified to murder someone who belongs to a given minority group.
Among Jewish victims alone, the line of reasoning that saved Haq the first time could have protected the Georgians who lynched Leo Frank in 1915; the Ku Klux Klan members who slaughtered three civil rights workers in 1964 (two were Jewish, one was black); and the teen-ager who fatally plunged a knife into Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights in 1991.
Pam Waechter, a campaign director for the Seattle Federation, was at least the ninth Jew to be murdered in the United States because they were Jews. Waechter converted to Judaism when she married years earlier, but Haq made no such distinction when he entered her building and killed her because of his anger against Jews.
In his first trial run with the justice system, so to speak, Haq lucked out when Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas declared a mistrial after a jury deadlocked over 14 of 15 charges against him. Haq did not dispute charges that he shot Ms. Waechter to death and seriously wounded five other women inside the Federation building; Federation raises and allocates funds for Jewish causes. Haq would have gotten away with murdering a Jew had the entire jury agreed with the attorney’s arguments.
After the second trial, jurors said they were not provided with evidence that Haq was insane and in fact heard taped jailhouse statements from Haq that he regretted none of his acts and was proud to be a martyr, a typical honor for Islamic terrorists. Fortunately, the jury dismissed any possible arguments that Haq saw nothing wrong in killing Jews, but a different jury could have interpreted it differently.
Haq was not mad at the world but specifically at Jews because of their supposed oppression of his Muslim brethren in the Middle East, as he told witnesses. His shooting spree did not result from a spontaneous explosion of outrage. Media reports in The Seattle Times and The Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s coverage describe a methodical progression of events which led to the slayings.
I developed strong doubts about the insanity defense after covering criminal trials on and off for a few daily newspapers. In Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, a mother claimed religious motives for attempting to murder her children, one by one. The prosecutor demonstrated that the defendant committed the crimes in a meticulous manner, yet the jury bought her insanity defense.
It is inherent that anyone who commits a crime must be mentally unstable. A person in their right mind automatically knows that a criminal act is wrong and recognizes there is always a strong chance of getting caught and facing prosecution.
Nor is it convincing that a defendant should be excused for their acts if they cannot distinguish right from wrong or do not understand the nature and quality of their acts. Haq did in fact shoot six women, one fatally, even though he did not believe he was wrong to harm these people.
A defendant’s state of mind should be taken into account during sentencing because such conditions as emotional duress could trigger a person’s criminal acts, but not the process of determining guilt. He shot those six women, no question about it.
In both of his trials, the defense was persuasive in establishing that Haq suffered from serious mental-health problems, which included being on medication and having a history of child abuse; he was a self-proclaimed Muslim of Pakistani ancestry. Even his background fails to meet standards as a mitigating factor in sentencing. Haq’s reasoning should repulse anyone who is specifically concerned with anti-Semitism and generally with bigotry.
Haq singled out Jews. Since when does use of medication or experience with child abuse provoke someone to pick and choose among ethnic and religious groups? As JTA reported, Haq told a 911 operator, “I’m not upset at the people. I’m upset at your foreign policy. These are Jews. I’m tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East.”
The Seattle Times reported these additional comments from Haq to the 911 operator: “I want these Jews to get out. I don’t care…just want to make a point…all the media’s being controlled by Jews. I’m sick and tired of it…Patch me into CNN.”
Obviously, he must have drawn on his upbringing and mental-health history to believe it was not wrong to kill Jews. Hitler could have exploited this argument.
The prosecution was methodical in proving, well, how methodically Haq carried out his plans. JTA reported that Haq went on the Internet two weeks before his shooting spree to research Jewish organizations. He got directions to the Federation building from Mapquest. He drove 227 miles from his home in eastern Washington to kill Ms. Waechter and injure her colleagues. Some were Jewish, some were not. Along the way, he test-fired the two handguns he brought with him. To gain entrance into the building, he kidnapped a 14-year-old girl and started firing when he reached the Federation’s second-floor reception area.
Dayna Klein, who was pregnant at the time, testified that Haq shot her in the arm when she covered her abdomen with her arm to protect her unborn child. The wound left her without use of the arm. Klein coaxed him into talking with 911 operators. Police officers testified that Haq surrendered to police without further incident.
Haq saw nothing wrong in shooting these women because they were Jews or worked at a Jewish facility. Such a belief could still help any defendant attain an acquittal in the future, and that endangers all of us.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
On your way, 'Christian' lawyers
So, a religious group for aspiring attorneys claims the right to discriminate. A law school refuses to accept the organization if it will not accept gays and other so-called heathens. The victims of this group’s discriminatory policies are unlikely to seek membership in this organization.
There is a joke in here somewhere. Correction: We can assemble a rollicking monologue out of this which writes itself. It is nonetheless a grave matter when an organization discriminates against any group since Jews and others could ultimately be affected.
In San Francisco, a public law school withdrew recognition of a chapter of the Christian Legal Society as a school organization because of its refusal to comply with school policy barring discrimination against religion, sexual orientation and related grounds.
If the society complies, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco - part of the University of California - would allow it to use meeting space, bulletin boards and other school services as it does for 60 existing student groups.
However, the society will only permit students to become voting members or assume leadership positions if they affirm the group’s orthodox Christian beliefs and disavow “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” according to The New York Times. That would include “sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.”
The society sued for its right to discriminate and was rebuffed last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. On Monday, Dec. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the society’s appeal.
Filing a lawsuit is an instinctive action for an attorney, one would think. Actually, a responsible attorney would not attempt to violate the policies of its host to begin with.
Ironic that an anti-gay group would organize in America’s homosexual capital. Then again, these law students will be challenged by a test of temptation to rival their bar exams.
Obviously, the very people who are not welcome by the society would have no perceptible reason to join, so there does not seem to be any likely possibility of a problem.
There is the principle, of course. It is a public university, and therefore the school leadership cannot permit discrimination. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn put it this way: “Groups that wish to engage in discrimination should not expect public subsidies.”
Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which filed a brief in support of the law school’s case.
Especially, any law school student who would join a discriminatory organization is making a categorical argument for why they should pursue another line of work.
The legal system was created to allow the pursuit of justice on the basis of the law and the facts of a given case. The Christian Legal Society bases its policies on its interpretation of the Bible. Its beliefs are far removed from more liberal Christian denominations.
The pursuit of justice must inherently be flexible. An attorney, like any professional, must be imaginative and aggressive, and not let an unconfirmed philosophy get in the way of a good case.
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would not hire an attorney who would join an organization like the Christian Legal Society.
“Christian” lawyers have their employment opportunities. Some will get jobs with conservative organizations and Republican politicians. They will win some religious-oriented cases; there are times that they have been in the right. The Bush administration’s Department of Justice was filled with “Christian” lawyers.
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are among the “Christian” lawyers named to the U.S. Supreme Court by recent Republican presidents. Many from this mold were recommended and/or confirmed to lower court judgeships.
That does not make them quality attorneys.
The Christian Legal Society is no poor victim. This is the second time that one of its chapters filed legal action to challenge their college host’s policies. Their pockets must be fairly deep if they can afford to file lawsuits.
Law schools are supposedly training grounds for men and women to play by the rules. An organization that discriminates does not play by the rules. That makes them dangerous.
There is a joke in here somewhere. Correction: We can assemble a rollicking monologue out of this which writes itself. It is nonetheless a grave matter when an organization discriminates against any group since Jews and others could ultimately be affected.
In San Francisco, a public law school withdrew recognition of a chapter of the Christian Legal Society as a school organization because of its refusal to comply with school policy barring discrimination against religion, sexual orientation and related grounds.
If the society complies, Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco - part of the University of California - would allow it to use meeting space, bulletin boards and other school services as it does for 60 existing student groups.
However, the society will only permit students to become voting members or assume leadership positions if they affirm the group’s orthodox Christian beliefs and disavow “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” according to The New York Times. That would include “sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.”
The society sued for its right to discriminate and was rebuffed last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. On Monday, Dec. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the society’s appeal.
Filing a lawsuit is an instinctive action for an attorney, one would think. Actually, a responsible attorney would not attempt to violate the policies of its host to begin with.
Ironic that an anti-gay group would organize in America’s homosexual capital. Then again, these law students will be challenged by a test of temptation to rival their bar exams.
Obviously, the very people who are not welcome by the society would have no perceptible reason to join, so there does not seem to be any likely possibility of a problem.
There is the principle, of course. It is a public university, and therefore the school leadership cannot permit discrimination. The Rev. Barry W. Lynn put it this way: “Groups that wish to engage in discrimination should not expect public subsidies.”
Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which filed a brief in support of the law school’s case.
Especially, any law school student who would join a discriminatory organization is making a categorical argument for why they should pursue another line of work.
The legal system was created to allow the pursuit of justice on the basis of the law and the facts of a given case. The Christian Legal Society bases its policies on its interpretation of the Bible. Its beliefs are far removed from more liberal Christian denominations.
The pursuit of justice must inherently be flexible. An attorney, like any professional, must be imaginative and aggressive, and not let an unconfirmed philosophy get in the way of a good case.
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would not hire an attorney who would join an organization like the Christian Legal Society.
“Christian” lawyers have their employment opportunities. Some will get jobs with conservative organizations and Republican politicians. They will win some religious-oriented cases; there are times that they have been in the right. The Bush administration’s Department of Justice was filled with “Christian” lawyers.
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are among the “Christian” lawyers named to the U.S. Supreme Court by recent Republican presidents. Many from this mold were recommended and/or confirmed to lower court judgeships.
That does not make them quality attorneys.
The Christian Legal Society is no poor victim. This is the second time that one of its chapters filed legal action to challenge their college host’s policies. Their pockets must be fairly deep if they can afford to file lawsuits.
Law schools are supposedly training grounds for men and women to play by the rules. An organization that discriminates does not play by the rules. That makes them dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)