The day after news broke that a Catholic archbishop suggested that Judaism has been displaced, Abe Foxman fired off a letter to Cardinal-elect Kurt Koch, the newly appointed president of Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.
Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote on Oct. 25: “We write to protest the shocking and outrageous anti-Jewish comments made by Greek Melkite Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros in connection with the final communique of the Bishops Synod on the Middle East.
“By stating that God’s covenantal promise of land to the Jewish people ‘was nullified by Christ’ and that ‘there is no longer a chosen people,’ Archbishop Bustros is effectively stating that Judaism should no longer exist. This represents the worst kind of anti-Judaism, bordering on anti-Semitism…We urge that you swiftly and publicly correct Archbishop Bustros’s shocking and damaging statements.”
On Oct. 21, The Philadelphia Daily News reported that a Pakistani-born Muslim professor at Lincoln University called on attendees at a Labor Day rally in Washington, D.C., to “stand united to defeat, to destroy, to dismantle Israel - if possible by peaceful means.” Lincoln, historically a suburban Philadelphia university serving African-American students, is partially state funded.
While Pennsylvania officials have raised questions with the university, representatives of five Jewish organizations were slated to meet on Oct. 28 to devise a response plan, according to The Jewish Exponent of Philadelphia.
Funny that it took Foxman one day to formulate a strategy.
The contrast between the two situations highlights two issues involving the Jewish advocacy community: anxiety at challenging anti-Semitism linked to African-Americans and the frailties of Jewish organizations.
It is painfully obvious that people are reluctant to contend with bias originating with a group which itself has faced bigotry. Jews have had this problem with anti-Semitism in the black community.
A passage from the Oct. 28 Exponent reinforces such a concern: “Several sources expressed concern that, if Jewish organizations acted too rashly, the whole issue could be seen through a black-Jewish lens and become a flashpoint for inter-ethnic tensions.”
Notice that these “several sources” refuse to identify themselves for publication. What is so terrible about what they say here?
Let’s be adults. Certainly, we are aware that no single person or institution represents the entire black community. Jews have valid reasons to detest or distrust Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton Jr. and Jesse Jackson, but few Jews lump all African-Americans with them.
When a sensitive situation arises, a Jewish advocacy group needs to move swiftly and firmly assert its concerns, but approach the subject in a respectful manner. Organizations like the ADL and the American Jewish Committee were created in part to challenge anti-Semitism, which was far more prevalent years ago.
Of course, the evolving of these groups quelled manifestations of anti-Semitism so that there is much less of it today.
So what if an African-American individual or institution is the focus of an inquiry? If the subject of a complaint is wrong, they will back off. Some may wave the race card when they are first confronted with a reaction, but the agency must remain resolute in pursuing the matter. Bigots are bullies, no matter what their race or religion, and bullies crumble - sooner or later - in the face of strength and power.
Consider, too, how Catholic church officials might feel if they learned about the slower pace applied to the Lincoln case. They could question if this is a case of anti-Catholic bias.
Jewish organizations have yet to respond to an African-American candidate for governor of New York, Jimmy McMillan, who singled out Jews for keeping slaves in an interview with a New York City newspaper. I know for certain that the ADL received at least one complaint about McMillan.
On a personal level, I complained to the ADL some years ago that an African-American senior manager at my office posted Israel-bashing signs on her bulletin board. If the ADL did anything, I was not aware of it.
The Lincoln matter is already improving. State Sens. Daylin Leach and Anthony H. Williams, respectively Jewish and African-American, initially raised questions with university officials if they were aware of Siddique’s anti-Israel attitudes when he was hired and later granted tenure. They also asked if Siddique’s “anti-Semitic diatribes” are part of his course instruction, according to the News.
One state official also asked the university to inquire if Siddique used Lincoln’s resources for his anti-Israel politics, according to another news report.
In a follow-up article, the Exponent reported that representatives of the Jewish organizations met with Lincoln President Ivory Nelson, who repudiated Siddique’s comments and agreed to plan an educational program.
Nelson said no action could taken against Siddique so long as he separated his outside politics from his job.
Ilana Krop Wilensik of the American Jewish Committee told the Exponent, “They abhor what happened, but find themselves in a bind because their hands are virtually tied with what they can and what they can’t do.”
Reading between the lines, Lincoln officials could fear that Siddique will file legal action if he is disciplined or fired.
The Lincoln matter also points to longstanding concerns that the Jewish community is served by many Jewish organizations whose responsibilities overlap, and despite that these groups at times neglect to act on some issues. The guarded reaction, and lack thereof, to black anti-Semitism is a glaring example of their flaws.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Anti-Semitic rants too damn high-strung
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.
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.
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?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Memo to Time Mag: No caution, no 'peace'
Editors at Time Magazine may be unfairly accused of anti-Semitism, but they are reckless with their semantics. As experienced journalists, they should understand that misleading language can be dangerous.
The magazine’s Sept. 13 cover headline - “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” - brought its editors condemnation from supporters of Israel. The Anti-Defamation League slammed the Time article for stressing Israelis’ inclination to make money.
Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight, a staunch gentile supporter of Israel, called Time “anti-Semitic” because of the headline and its accompanying article inside which contends that Israelis are apathetic toward the peace process with the Arabs.
Karl Vick, the writer, indeed succeeds in reaching this conclusion. Who can blame the Israelis? Hostilities resulted from the offer of a Palestinian state in 2000 and withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Personally, I long ago ceased understanding what Israel gets out of negotiating a pact with Arabs over Israel’s territories.
Vick and his editors made three mistakes. First, a Time spokesman boasted that the article is a scoop. Oh yeah? A Newsweek article reached the same conclusion last January.
The article carelessly states: “They’re otherwise engaged; they’re making money; they’re enjoying the rays of late summer.”
No doubt that claim is factually true for many Israelis, but the phrase “they’re making money” is delicate wording when applied to Jews, who have been stereotyped as greedy throughout the ages.
The most gaping blunder is the headline, which presumes that Israel is apathetic to peace.
“Peace” is not what Israelis need from Arabs in the territories. They already have a relative level of peace within Israel proper. Terrorist bombings from the West Bank ended after the security barrier started going up. Rocket attacks from Gaza and southern Lebanon dwindled after recent military confrontations with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Time would have been more factual, if tedious, had they composed this headline: “Why Many Israelis Don’t Care About Reaching Terms.”
The word “peace” is tossed around too casually in the context of this conflict, and Time is far from alone in committing this offense. “Peace” has evolved as shorthand for a process that is too convoluted to be reduced to a single five-letter word. It allows for a catchy phrase, but Time editors may disdain letting the facts get in the way of a good headline.
The only objective that seems plausible is the handover of land - namely, Gaza and the West Bank - so the Arabs can form their own society. That’s fine, but a treaty will not ensure “peace” and “peace” need not be achieved through a treaty. Even if it agrees to a near-perfect deal, Israel must still worry about Iran’s nuclear designs and the ongoing arms build-up in Gaza and southern Lebanon.
The same obstacles persist - security needs, excessive Arab demands, settler resistance, Hamas’ control of Gaza and right-wing pressures within the Israeli government.
Hawkish advocates for Israel will insist that the West Bank is not peaceful, but what do the settlers expect when they choose to live amid a hostile population? “Peace” can only be accomplished there by removing the settlers, even unilaterally; expelling the Arabs; or negotiating a pact that is fully enforced. Israelis who live in Israel proper care about West Bank “peace” when their sons and daughters in uniform are assigned to protect the settlements.
For the record, it would be valuable if an accord is reached, but it is still a feat that most Israelis can live without…in peace. Violence can erupt at any time, as was the case with riots in east Jerusalem and the murder of four settlers in recent weeks. Even if a “peace” treaty is ever implemented.
The magazine’s Sept. 13 cover headline - “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” - brought its editors condemnation from supporters of Israel. The Anti-Defamation League slammed the Time article for stressing Israelis’ inclination to make money.
Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight, a staunch gentile supporter of Israel, called Time “anti-Semitic” because of the headline and its accompanying article inside which contends that Israelis are apathetic toward the peace process with the Arabs.
Karl Vick, the writer, indeed succeeds in reaching this conclusion. Who can blame the Israelis? Hostilities resulted from the offer of a Palestinian state in 2000 and withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. Personally, I long ago ceased understanding what Israel gets out of negotiating a pact with Arabs over Israel’s territories.
Vick and his editors made three mistakes. First, a Time spokesman boasted that the article is a scoop. Oh yeah? A Newsweek article reached the same conclusion last January.
The article carelessly states: “They’re otherwise engaged; they’re making money; they’re enjoying the rays of late summer.”
No doubt that claim is factually true for many Israelis, but the phrase “they’re making money” is delicate wording when applied to Jews, who have been stereotyped as greedy throughout the ages.
The most gaping blunder is the headline, which presumes that Israel is apathetic to peace.
“Peace” is not what Israelis need from Arabs in the territories. They already have a relative level of peace within Israel proper. Terrorist bombings from the West Bank ended after the security barrier started going up. Rocket attacks from Gaza and southern Lebanon dwindled after recent military confrontations with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Time would have been more factual, if tedious, had they composed this headline: “Why Many Israelis Don’t Care About Reaching Terms.”
The word “peace” is tossed around too casually in the context of this conflict, and Time is far from alone in committing this offense. “Peace” has evolved as shorthand for a process that is too convoluted to be reduced to a single five-letter word. It allows for a catchy phrase, but Time editors may disdain letting the facts get in the way of a good headline.
The only objective that seems plausible is the handover of land - namely, Gaza and the West Bank - so the Arabs can form their own society. That’s fine, but a treaty will not ensure “peace” and “peace” need not be achieved through a treaty. Even if it agrees to a near-perfect deal, Israel must still worry about Iran’s nuclear designs and the ongoing arms build-up in Gaza and southern Lebanon.
The same obstacles persist - security needs, excessive Arab demands, settler resistance, Hamas’ control of Gaza and right-wing pressures within the Israeli government.
Hawkish advocates for Israel will insist that the West Bank is not peaceful, but what do the settlers expect when they choose to live amid a hostile population? “Peace” can only be accomplished there by removing the settlers, even unilaterally; expelling the Arabs; or negotiating a pact that is fully enforced. Israelis who live in Israel proper care about West Bank “peace” when their sons and daughters in uniform are assigned to protect the settlements.
For the record, it would be valuable if an accord is reached, but it is still a feat that most Israelis can live without…in peace. Violence can erupt at any time, as was the case with riots in east Jerusalem and the murder of four settlers in recent weeks. Even if a “peace” treaty is ever implemented.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Some suburbs feast as cities starve
The contrast is infuriating.
The loss of nearly $7 million in state funds to Jewish social service agencies in New York City will mean cuts in services to the poor, elderly and immigrants and layoffs of employees who operate those services, according to a New York Jewish Week article.
The city of Newton, Mass. - home to many former Jewish New Yorkers, interestingly - is now served by a $197-million high school which The Boston Globe reports is the most expensive school ever built in Massachusetts. With the known exception of California, it sounds as if Newton North High School may be the most expensive school built in most states.
This scenario exemplifies not only America’s multiple societies but also the Jewish community’s multiple societies. The economic gap in general widens as more people lose jobs, government budgets unravel and charities contend with greater demands and reduced revenues. On Sept. 16, the Census Bureau reported that 44 million Americans struggled below the poverty line in 2009 - a 4 million boost from the previous year.
The New York/Newton contrast sharpens the clarity of this situation. Middle class flight to the suburbs persists. At one time the suburbs were the places where our rich cousins lived. Now most of our friends and relatives have moved there. Even those of us who remain within a city’s borders could one day move there. Those suburbs that were once a foothold for city expatriates is now an anchor, and many others departed their respective metropolitan areas altogether.
Left behind are the most vulnerable citizens. The cities lose tax revenues and their former inhabitants now invest their taxes to build their new communities.
Especially, they ensure that their children can attend quality schools. Seeking a good education is a traditional characteristic of the Jewish people. So it stands to reason that the residents of Newton, Mass., pop. 83,000, would support construction of Massachusetts’ most expensive school.
Newton is a wealthy place that is home to possibly the largest number of Jews in any town close to Boston. It is also a very liberal city that habitually votes for Democrats. It is the only city in the country that has elected black candidates for mayor, governor and president. Republican Sen. Scott Brown won the majority of Massachusetts votes last January, but Newton voters rejected him out of hand.
Many Jews in the Boston suburbs hail from New York City and vicinity. Democratic U.S. Rep. Barney Frank and the late author and professor Howard Zinn, respectively from Bayonne, N.J., and Brooklyn, had moved to Newton. Alan Dershowitz grew up in Brooklyn and joined the Harvard University faculty. Jewish New Yorkers who attend college there often remain. While visiting Brandeis University, I met an elderly couple who said they moved from New York to Waltham to be near their daughter.
In Newton, Jews from New York along with neighbors who are not Jewish or not from New York authorized spending $197.5 million to build a 413,000-square-foot facility that features two theaters, an Olympic-size pool, a print shop, an auto body shop, two gymnasiums and a student café, according to the Globe. Massachusetts Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill proclaimed Newton North a “poster child” for the need to transform the system for constructing schools.
On Manhattan’s Lower East Side, America’s most historic Jewish neighborhood, the United Jewish Council is losing $600,000 in state earmarks which means five agency layoffs and cuts to transportation programs that aid the elderly in making medical and other appointments, senior home care and a health care advocacy coalition, according to the Jewish Week article.
A loss of up to $120,000 to the Council of Jewish Organizations of Flatbush, in Brooklyn, resulted in two layoffs and elimination of a computer literacy program that helped housewives and others return to the workforce. “Now they are up the creek,” Rabbi Yechezkel Pikus, the agency’s director, told the newspaper.
The Bronx Jewish Community Council’s $200,000 loss will prompt future staff reductions, but immediate layoffs can be offset because of previous cuts in staff, executive director Brad Silver told Jewish Week. Silver is responsible for the main JCC and satellite facilities that aid some of New York’s poorest Jews in Co-Op City, Pelham Parkway, Parkchester and the Concourse-North Bronx area.
This money was previously doled out to social service agencies under a legislative earmark program which Gov. David Paterson vetoed, due to the state’s funding crunch. Agencies large and small under the UJA-Federation of New York umbrella are losing $7 million as a result, The Jewish Week reported.
What may be the saving grace for these agencies is the coverage area of the UJA-Federation of New York, the Jewish charity which partially funds these programs. It also serves affluent counties such as Westchester to the north and Long Island’s Nassau and Suffolk counties. What would Federation have done without suburban donors?
If we do the math, this $7 million is a drop in the bucket for Newton taxpayers, not that residents were unanimous in supporting the scope of the new school. Now there are questions as to the challenges in paying off Newton North.
The principle of sharing the wealth has been progressively threatened by a refusal to tax the rich more fairly and the unexpected emergence of city and state deficits. President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress faced defiance from Republicans and some Democrats in restoring higher federal income tax rates for the wealthy.
Arguments against raising taxes for the rich make little sense. Some of the largest numbers among the wealthy live in metropolitan areas that consistently vote Democratic, particularly New York and Los Angeles. Most suburbs close to New York and Los Angeles are represented in the House of Representatives by Democrats.
We do not begrudge the people of Newton the opportunity to support their community resources, but they are feasting while New York agencies starve, somewhat literally at that. Some balance is in order here.
The loss of nearly $7 million in state funds to Jewish social service agencies in New York City will mean cuts in services to the poor, elderly and immigrants and layoffs of employees who operate those services, according to a New York Jewish Week article.
The city of Newton, Mass. - home to many former Jewish New Yorkers, interestingly - is now served by a $197-million high school which The Boston Globe reports is the most expensive school ever built in Massachusetts. With the known exception of California, it sounds as if Newton North High School may be the most expensive school built in most states.
This scenario exemplifies not only America’s multiple societies but also the Jewish community’s multiple societies. The economic gap in general widens as more people lose jobs, government budgets unravel and charities contend with greater demands and reduced revenues. On Sept. 16, the Census Bureau reported that 44 million Americans struggled below the poverty line in 2009 - a 4 million boost from the previous year.
The New York/Newton contrast sharpens the clarity of this situation. Middle class flight to the suburbs persists. At one time the suburbs were the places where our rich cousins lived. Now most of our friends and relatives have moved there. Even those of us who remain within a city’s borders could one day move there. Those suburbs that were once a foothold for city expatriates is now an anchor, and many others departed their respective metropolitan areas altogether.
Left behind are the most vulnerable citizens. The cities lose tax revenues and their former inhabitants now invest their taxes to build their new communities.
Especially, they ensure that their children can attend quality schools. Seeking a good education is a traditional characteristic of the Jewish people. So it stands to reason that the residents of Newton, Mass., pop. 83,000, would support construction of Massachusetts’ most expensive school.
Newton is a wealthy place that is home to possibly the largest number of Jews in any town close to Boston. It is also a very liberal city that habitually votes for Democrats. It is the only city in the country that has elected black candidates for mayor, governor and president. Republican Sen. Scott Brown won the majority of Massachusetts votes last January, but Newton voters rejected him out of hand.
Many Jews in the Boston suburbs hail from New York City and vicinity. Democratic U.S. Rep. Barney Frank and the late author and professor Howard Zinn, respectively from Bayonne, N.J., and Brooklyn, had moved to Newton. Alan Dershowitz grew up in Brooklyn and joined the Harvard University faculty. Jewish New Yorkers who attend college there often remain. While visiting Brandeis University, I met an elderly couple who said they moved from New York to Waltham to be near their daughter.
In Newton, Jews from New York along with neighbors who are not Jewish or not from New York authorized spending $197.5 million to build a 413,000-square-foot facility that features two theaters, an Olympic-size pool, a print shop, an auto body shop, two gymnasiums and a student café, according to the Globe. Massachusetts Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill proclaimed Newton North a “poster child” for the need to transform the system for constructing schools.
On Manhattan’s Lower East Side, America’s most historic Jewish neighborhood, the United Jewish Council is losing $600,000 in state earmarks which means five agency layoffs and cuts to transportation programs that aid the elderly in making medical and other appointments, senior home care and a health care advocacy coalition, according to the Jewish Week article.
A loss of up to $120,000 to the Council of Jewish Organizations of Flatbush, in Brooklyn, resulted in two layoffs and elimination of a computer literacy program that helped housewives and others return to the workforce. “Now they are up the creek,” Rabbi Yechezkel Pikus, the agency’s director, told the newspaper.
The Bronx Jewish Community Council’s $200,000 loss will prompt future staff reductions, but immediate layoffs can be offset because of previous cuts in staff, executive director Brad Silver told Jewish Week. Silver is responsible for the main JCC and satellite facilities that aid some of New York’s poorest Jews in Co-Op City, Pelham Parkway, Parkchester and the Concourse-North Bronx area.
This money was previously doled out to social service agencies under a legislative earmark program which Gov. David Paterson vetoed, due to the state’s funding crunch. Agencies large and small under the UJA-Federation of New York umbrella are losing $7 million as a result, The Jewish Week reported.
What may be the saving grace for these agencies is the coverage area of the UJA-Federation of New York, the Jewish charity which partially funds these programs. It also serves affluent counties such as Westchester to the north and Long Island’s Nassau and Suffolk counties. What would Federation have done without suburban donors?
If we do the math, this $7 million is a drop in the bucket for Newton taxpayers, not that residents were unanimous in supporting the scope of the new school. Now there are questions as to the challenges in paying off Newton North.
The principle of sharing the wealth has been progressively threatened by a refusal to tax the rich more fairly and the unexpected emergence of city and state deficits. President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress faced defiance from Republicans and some Democrats in restoring higher federal income tax rates for the wealthy.
Arguments against raising taxes for the rich make little sense. Some of the largest numbers among the wealthy live in metropolitan areas that consistently vote Democratic, particularly New York and Los Angeles. Most suburbs close to New York and Los Angeles are represented in the House of Representatives by Democrats.
We do not begrudge the people of Newton the opportunity to support their community resources, but they are feasting while New York agencies starve, somewhat literally at that. Some balance is in order here.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
A Jones keeps up with the goons of August
Hillary Clinton is spot on here: That now-canceled Koran bonfire in Gainesville, Fla., pop. 126,000, would have been a “disrespectful, disgraceful act.” So was the U.S. Senate’s majority vote in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq.
Sure, the Rev. Terry Jones probably would have provoked Muslims around the world had he burned a pile of Korans on the his church’s property on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy. As provocations go, the catastrophic invasion of a Muslim nation trumps a stunning Koran-burning any day.
Clinton, whose vote as New York’s junior senator helped make Bush’s provocation possible, must share the blame for the creation of this new monster. After all, Jones joins a long line of Americans and others from supposedly civilized nations who have incited the Muslim world in recent years. They were especially active during their summer vacation in a drive, so it seems, to trigger World War III.
A bit ironic that World War I hostilities opened in August 96 years ago and Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.
Our government is no less responsible for inciting Muslim violence than Jones and the other goons of August. The Afghanistan operation might have been necessary, but Bush and Congress were repeatedly warned that the Iraq invasion could produce a bloody quagmire. It sure did, and despite President Obama’s pronouncement that we have turned the page, it is far from over. Congress had its chance nearly eight years ago to assess the risks of entering Iraq, but in quick order majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to give Bush authorization.
While Clinton was not alone in voting for this measure, her condemnation of Jones - in her present position as Secretary of State - was both contemptible and laughable at the same time.
I try not to throw up a person’s past mistakes at them, but I nearly lost it as I learned how so many people who helped make Jones denounced him. Sarah Palin’s gross hypocrisy was expected, but Clinton is a far more accomplished person. General David Petraeus never publicly warned of the prospect of Iraq’s chaotic aftermath, yet here he is alerting us that the burning might jeopardize our troops.
Even the Vatican weighed in against Jones, a few years after Pope Benedict XVI spent part of a speech to quote a passage that denigrated Islam. He was not worried about provoking the Muslim world at that time. We will not count the Crusades and the Inquisition against the modern-day church.
Jones could especially draw inspiration from the assorted goons of August who abrasively assailed the proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero; a taxi passenger who charged in the stabbing of his driver in Manhattan after asking if he is a Muslim; a suspected arsonist who set fire to construction equipment on the planned site for expansion of a Murfreesboro, Tenn., mosque; and opponents to mosque proposals in small towns never stung by Islamic violence.
Across the Atlantic, a right-wing mob threw rocks, bottles and a smoke bomb at police in Bradley, England, which contains a large Muslim community; a bank official in Berlin accused Turkish immigrants of exploiting Germany’s social welfare system; and an ultra-Orthodox rabbi sermonized that God should strike “these Ishmaelites and Palestinians with a plague, these evil haters of Israel.”
For the record, many lovers of Israel like myself never heard of this rabbi; many opponents of the Manhattan mosque are genuinely concerned solely about its location; and the hoodlums in England and the Berlin banker are in the minority in their countries.
We were all as relieved as Hillary Clinton when Jones called off his bonfire, but Jones did not emerge in isolation. All this hypocrisy should, well, burn us up.
Sure, the Rev. Terry Jones probably would have provoked Muslims around the world had he burned a pile of Korans on the his church’s property on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy. As provocations go, the catastrophic invasion of a Muslim nation trumps a stunning Koran-burning any day.
Clinton, whose vote as New York’s junior senator helped make Bush’s provocation possible, must share the blame for the creation of this new monster. After all, Jones joins a long line of Americans and others from supposedly civilized nations who have incited the Muslim world in recent years. They were especially active during their summer vacation in a drive, so it seems, to trigger World War III.
A bit ironic that World War I hostilities opened in August 96 years ago and Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1, 1939.
Our government is no less responsible for inciting Muslim violence than Jones and the other goons of August. The Afghanistan operation might have been necessary, but Bush and Congress were repeatedly warned that the Iraq invasion could produce a bloody quagmire. It sure did, and despite President Obama’s pronouncement that we have turned the page, it is far from over. Congress had its chance nearly eight years ago to assess the risks of entering Iraq, but in quick order majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to give Bush authorization.
While Clinton was not alone in voting for this measure, her condemnation of Jones - in her present position as Secretary of State - was both contemptible and laughable at the same time.
I try not to throw up a person’s past mistakes at them, but I nearly lost it as I learned how so many people who helped make Jones denounced him. Sarah Palin’s gross hypocrisy was expected, but Clinton is a far more accomplished person. General David Petraeus never publicly warned of the prospect of Iraq’s chaotic aftermath, yet here he is alerting us that the burning might jeopardize our troops.
Even the Vatican weighed in against Jones, a few years after Pope Benedict XVI spent part of a speech to quote a passage that denigrated Islam. He was not worried about provoking the Muslim world at that time. We will not count the Crusades and the Inquisition against the modern-day church.
Jones could especially draw inspiration from the assorted goons of August who abrasively assailed the proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero; a taxi passenger who charged in the stabbing of his driver in Manhattan after asking if he is a Muslim; a suspected arsonist who set fire to construction equipment on the planned site for expansion of a Murfreesboro, Tenn., mosque; and opponents to mosque proposals in small towns never stung by Islamic violence.
Across the Atlantic, a right-wing mob threw rocks, bottles and a smoke bomb at police in Bradley, England, which contains a large Muslim community; a bank official in Berlin accused Turkish immigrants of exploiting Germany’s social welfare system; and an ultra-Orthodox rabbi sermonized that God should strike “these Ishmaelites and Palestinians with a plague, these evil haters of Israel.”
For the record, many lovers of Israel like myself never heard of this rabbi; many opponents of the Manhattan mosque are genuinely concerned solely about its location; and the hoodlums in England and the Berlin banker are in the minority in their countries.
We were all as relieved as Hillary Clinton when Jones called off his bonfire, but Jones did not emerge in isolation. All this hypocrisy should, well, burn us up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)