What follows is an edited excerpt from testimony delivered at a hearing of the Canadian Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism this month.
My attention has been drawn to the disturbing phenomenon of overt Jew hatred in high schools, especially those with high populations of students from countries where Jew hatred is officially sanctioned in the law of their countries of origin. As a case in point I offer one particularly disturbing story, because I believe it points to wider issues of concern for the educational system and for our society. It involves a Jewish teacher in an Ontario French high school whose name I cannot reveal because she fears physical retaliation.
"Miriam" had taught in French language schools in the 1970s and 1980s in schools with large Lebanese Christian populations without incurring any anti-Semitism. In her current career she works amicably with Muslims. A child of Holocaust survivors, Miriam is demonstrably neither racist nor anti-Muslim.
In 2001 Miriam started teaching at a school largely populated by children of refugees, mainly from Djibouti and Eritrea, countries where there are no Jews but where hatred of Jews is deeply entrenched in the culture. During the academic year of 2002-2003 Miriam started to encounter anti-Semitic taunts from students, such as "Does someone see a Jew here, someone smell a Jew? It stinks here." When she reported this and similar insults to the principal, the principal did not follow up. Indeed, the principal seemed more concerned about the students' sensibilities than hers. The principal instructed teachers not to offend their Muslim students; they were not to look students in the eye, they were not to gesture with the forefinger to bid them approach and they were not to interfere with male students who were physically aggressive to male teachers.
During the invasion of Iraq, moments of silence were held in the classroom. Cultural presentations involved only Muslim culture and no Canadian content. Students were allowed to leave assembly during the playing of the national anthem. The crisis of this story occurred when Miriam admonished a student for wearing a Walkman in class. The student screamed at her: "I don't have to listen to you; you are not a person, you are nothing, you do not exist as a person." When Miriam demanded he accompany her to the principal's office, the student followed her down the hall yelling, "Don't speak to me, don't look at me, you are not human, you are a Jew."
Although the student was ultimately suspended for 10 days, his parents expressed puzzlement about the punishment since, they patiently explained, the teacher was after all Jewish. They complained about the severity of the punishment to the school board.
There were no sensitivity courses laid on for the students or the parents. When, over her objections, the offending student and another guilty of the same offence were returned to Miriam's class, she decided she could no longer work under such circumstances. She contacted the Hate Crime Unit of the local police and reported everything.
The School board treated Miriam as the source of the problem and asked her to retire. A top litigator told Miriam she had an excellent case for a lawsuit but fearing for her family's safety under the glare of publicity, she decided not to sue. Lest you assume Miriam was paranoid or Islamophobic or that this was an isolated case of a few bad apples: In 2004, the year Miriam left, a full 60 out of 75 francophone teachers asked for a transfer, not because of anti-Semitism but because of anti-Westernism, a growing discomfort in other areas for which anti-Semitism is the proverbial canary in the mine. French-Canadian children had already stopped enrolling and as I understand it, the school is now virtually all-Muslim, including the teachers and principal.
There are many immigrants entering Canada from countries where overt Jew hatred is endemic to the culture and even officially sanctioned in law. When they arrive here, it is somehow assumed they will absorb Canadian values, but they don't and their toxic attitudes persist. Instead of confronting their bigotry, this principal and the school board chose not to apply long-standing normative codes of behaviour and human rights law.
An instinctive political correctness set in. Out of fear of being labeled racist or Islamophobic those in charge stifled their commitment to professional ethics and behaviour codes reflecting Canadian standards of pluralism and respect. Imagine a reverse situation. Imagine if the aggressors and bigots were heritage Canadians harassing a Muslim teacher with these hateful words. It would have been a cause celebre and the media would have called for an investigative inquiry into the origins of the serious social problem represented by these racialized students and their families.
If preventative measures are not taken, if it is not made clear in no uncertain terms through education and persuasive push-back in this school and all schools where there are critical masses of students arriving from countries drenched in anti-Semitism, Jew hatred will metastasize in those cultural communities that consider it a norm, increasing exponentially. There are many such schools in Britain and Europe where the atmosphere is so strained and hostile to anyone but Islamic kinship groups that they are simply no-go fiefdoms -Islamic mini-societies within the larger culture. We mustn't think that can't happen here, because it can. It is happening already. bkay@videotron.ca
It's remarkable how easy it is for Middle Eastern dictatorships to fool the West. Iran has been stringing along Europe and the United States for seven years on the pretense that it is ready to make a deal on its nuclear weapons' drive. The Palestinians persuade the West that they really do want to make peace but just need a better offer. And so on. Sometimes the foolishness is due to ideology or bias, but ignorance is often a major factor. The assumption that Middle East dictatorships or Islamist revolutionaries really want to be moderate, that they're just victims and everything is the West's fault, or that a solution of conflicts is just a concession away overwhelms anything like a sense of history, research, or comprehension of what's going on.
Here’s an example, only one among hundreds. What makes it so symbollic is because it would have been so easy to get this story right. Since Bashar al-Asad inherited the family dictatorship eight years ago, there have been an endless stream of stories on how he is a really nice guy and just wants to be friends. Stories about the regime's sponsorship of terrorism and extremism--visible in every speech Bashar and his colleagues make in Arabic and all that appears in the Syrian state-controlled media--don't get much coverage. Neither does the fate of democratic dissidents.
Syria, of course, is a brutally repressive dictatorship where non-violent dissenters are consistently arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. It also sponsors terrorism in all directions, against Americans and Iraqis in Iraq; against Lebanon where it murdered about a dozen people in recent years including former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri; against Israel by sponsoring Hamas and Hizballah; and periodically against Jordan.
But the comedy of errors regarding MIddle East drama never ends. Now a Guardian columnist praises the launch of a new English-language newspaper in Syria, Baladna English, as “the latest stage in the liberalization of Syria's media.”
In this case, it might be worth asking who owns this new, supposedly independent newspaper? Answer: The son of Bahjat Suleiman, formerly the head of [wait for it] Syrian intelligence, named in the international investigation as a prime suspect in the Hariri murder, and a close pesonal friend of the dictator. In fact, Bahjat was one of the main architects of Bashar al-Asad's consolidation of power.
And what was the previous stage in the “liberalization of Syria’s media”? The creation of the first “ďndependent” Syrian newspaper in Arabic, al-Watan. And who owns that one? Rami Makhluf, the regime's top money guy and brother of the powerful current head of Syrian intelligence, Hafiz! Oh yes, he’s also a cousin of President Bashar al-Asad.
Here’s the write-up on Rami from the U.S. Treasury Department:
“Rami Makhluf is a powerful Syrian businessman who amassed his commercial empire by exploiting his relationships with Syrian regime members. Makhluf has manipulated the Syrian judicial system and used Syrian intelligence officials to intimidate his business rivals...[and is] one of the primary centers of corruption in Syria.”
This is the face of press freedom for Syria? No wonder many in the West can’t identify terrorists, sponsors of terrorism, tyrants, and dedicated enemies.
For even more on this story see From Beirut to Bayside.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). RSS 2.0: http://blogname.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Jewish liberalism and American exceptionalism
A couple of readers sent me Norman Podhoretz's Wall Street Journal article on why Jews are liberals and asked me to comment on it. In the article, Podhoretz writes of his hopes that 'buyer's remorse' will lead some of the 78% of American Jews who voted for Barack Hussein Obama to become conservatives. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that he hopes in vain.
Much of the article is taken up by Podhoretz's description of Liberalism as Judaism. That's an issue I have discussed many times, and he does a nice job of summarizing it. He makes one small mistake about Jewish law. There are three sins that a Jew must allow himself to be killed rather than commit: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations (not just incest) and murder.
But I'd like to discuss something toward at the end of the article.
Of course in speaking of the difference between left and right, or between liberals and conservatives, I have in mind a divide wider than the conflict between Democrats and Republicans and deeper than electoral politics. The great issue between the two political communities is how they feel about the nature of American society. With all exceptions duly noted, I think it fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and, even factoring in periodic economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.
In this realm, too, American Jewry surely belongs with the conservatives rather than the liberals. For the social, political and moral system that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings throughout the centuries over the face of the earth.
The Jewish immigrants who began coming here from Eastern Europe in the 1880s were right to call America "the golden land." They soon learned that there was no gold in the streets, as some of them may have imagined, which meant that they had to struggle, and struggle hard. But there was another, more precious kind of gold in America. There was freedom and there was opportunity. Blessed with these conditions, we children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these immigrants flourished—and not just in material terms—to an extent unmatched in the history of our people.
What I am saying is that if anything bears eloquent testimony to the infinitely precious virtues of the traditional American system, it is the Jewish experience in this country. Surely, then, we Jews ought to be joining with its defenders against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the philosophical principles, the moral values, and the socioeconomic institutions on whose health and vitality the traditional American system depends.
Barack Obama and his friends on the radical left reject the notion of American exceptionalism. By throwing their lot in with Obama, many American Jews also reject the notion that the United States of America is an exceptional place and that it is different than any other country in the World. But as Podhoretz points out, the American Jewish experience has been different than any other Jewish experience in the nearly 2000-year old Jewish diaspora. The Jewish experience in the United States of America is yet another aspect of American exceptionalism.
But there was another, more precious kind of gold in America. There was freedom and there was opportunity. Blessed with these conditions, we children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these immigrants flourished—and not just in material terms—to an extent unmatched in the history of our people.
For an American Jew to deny American exceptionalism and to deny the unique opportunities that the American experience has granted him or her - as compared with what Jews had and have in other parts of the diaspora - strikes me as a lack of hakarat hatov (recognizing one who has done good for us), which may be the most basic Jewish tenet of interpersonal relations.
One Iranian political figure has told a Western intermediary that the Obama administration may have unwittingly encouraged the regime's power grab by sending two letters to Khamenei before the June election. The first, delivered through Iran's mission to the United Nations, was a general invitation to dialogue. Khamenei is said to have taken a month to answer, and then only in vague terms. A second Obama administration letter reiterated U.S. interest in engagement. According to the Iranian political figure, this may have emboldened Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to think they had a free hand on June 12.
In other words, seeing how weak Obama is, Khameni and Ahamdinejad figured they could get away with stealing the election.
But Iran is taking advantage of what it perceives as Obama's weakness in another way. Writing in the New York Post, Amir Taheri explains why Iran may 'talk' to the United States.
Meanwhile, some pundits are preparing the ground for an acceptance of the Islamic Republic as a nuclear power -- advising the president to "whistle and walk away" from an issue over which he has little control.
Tehran strategists see all this as a signal that the United States is no longer determined to prevent Iran from building the bomb. At a Thursday press conference, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran's nuclear project is no longer "a subject for negotiations."
Yet one issue divides Tehran's strategists: Should Ahmadinejad press for "total victory" over the United States, or offer Obama "a diplomatic fig leaf"?
The more radical view is that Iran should seize the chance provided by Obama's "strategic retreat." "The emperor is naked," says Hassan Abbasi, a theoretician for the Revolutionary Guard. "Obama's election showed that America has no stomach for a fight."
Hussein Shariatmadari, the regime's leading public intellectual and editor of Kayhan, Iran's main daily newspaper, agrees. His editorials argue that the world has already entered the "post-American era" and that the Islamic Republic must act as the "leading power" for creating a new world order.
Others disagree.
Dr. Manuchehr Muhammadi, a Foreign Ministry adviser, believes that Iran should respond "in a positive way." He argues that humiliating Obama could produce a backlash -- as President Jimmy Carter's humiliation by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini helped Ronald Reagan's victory.
Supporters of a positive response to Obama cite other reasons why Iran shouldn't reject his offer: The president has gone out of his way to apologize for real or imagined wrongs that America has done to Iran and the Muslim world, and turned the heat on Israel -- especially on the sensitive issue of Jewish settlements.
Most important, perhaps, Obama has decided to terminate the US presence in Iraq as quickly as possible without seeking a special relationship. That leaves the way open for Iran to assert its position as the dominant influence in Iraq.
Taheri concludes that Iran will likely offer Obama 'something' to buy more time.
Does anyone really think that under these circumstances Obama could present a credible military option in a matter of a few months? Could Obama present a military option that would convince Iran to change course? I'd say it's highly doubtful.
And there's a big difference between Carter and Obama regarding the 'humiliation' claim: When Khomeini humiliated Carter, Carter was in the last year of his term. Obama has three years to go. There's plenty of time for Khameni to humiliate Obama without worrying about a backlash.
On the other hand, one would think that the Iranians don't want to do anything that would stop President Obama from withdrawing US troops from Iraq.
In any event, it is clear that the Iranians believe that they are in the catbird seat. And at least with respect to the US, they probably are.
Former Mossad head says Iran can only be stopped militarily
Former Mossad chief Danny Yatom told Army Radio on Wednesday night that Iran's drive for nuclear weapons can only be stopped by military action that the United States is unlikely to approve.
According to the former intelligence chief, the "world needs to understand - an Iranian bomb poses a risk to its safety."
However, he added, he could not see "a U.S.-led world ready to take risks involved in striking Iran's nuclear facilities."
U.S. envoy to the United Nations Susan Rice said Wednesday that the United States intended to study carefully Iran's proposals for resolving its nuclear standoff with the West, submitted earlier that day, and said she hoped its offers would be constructive.
"We hope that what is contained in that response is a serious, substantive and constructive response to the P5 + 1 proposal," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told reporters after a meeting of the UN Security Council. "We will study the content carefully."
While they are 'studying,' Israel may have to act. We are quickly reaching the point where there is no choice.
Tuesday Aug 25, 2009
Rosner's Domain:Israeli and Palestinian majorities do not believe peace is within reach
The latest Israeli-Palestinian poll of the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace is now available online. On the eve of Netanyahu's meeting with special envoy George Mitchell, it's worth some close examination. Here, for example, is what Israelis and Palestinians think about settlement-blocks and about Jerusalem - those areas in which Israel doesn't really want to halt construction:
Among Palestinians 48% support or strongly support and 50% oppose or strongly oppose an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with the exception of some settlement areas in less than 3% of the West Bank that would be swapped with an equal amount of territory from Israel in accordance with a map that was presented to the Palestinian respondents. The map was identical to that presented to respondents in December 2008, when support for this compromise, with its map, stood at 54% and opposition at 44%. Among Israelis 47% support and 48% oppose a Palestinian state in the entirety of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip except for several large blocks of settlements in 3% of the West Bank which will be annexed to Israel. Israel will evacuate all other settlements, and the Palestinians will receive in return territory of similar size along the Gaza Strip. In December 2008, similarly 46% of the Israelis supported this component while 48% opposed it.
In the Palestinian public 31% support and 68% oppose a Jerusalem compromise in which East Jerusalem would become the capital of the Palestinian state with Arab neighborhoods coming under Palestinian sovereignty and Jewish neighborhoods coming under Israeli sovereignty. The Old City (including al Haram al Sharif) would come under Palestinian sovereignty with the exception of the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall that would come under Israeli sovereignty. In December 2008, an identical compromise obtained 36% support and 63% opposition. Among Israelis, 34% agree and 62% disagree to this arrangement in which the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem including the old city and the Temple Mount will come under Palestinian sovereignty, the Jewish neighborhoods including the Jewish quarter and the Wailing Wall will come under Israeli sovereignty, East Jerusalem will become the capital of the Palestinian state and West Jerusalem the capital of Israel. In December 2008, 40% supported this arrangement and 60% opposed it.
No wonder that:
Palestinians and Israelis do not consider it likely that an independent Palestinian State will be established next to the State of Israel in the next five years. 68% of the Palestinians and 69% among Israelis think that chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian State next to the State of Israel are non-existent or low; 30% and 28% respectively believe the chances are medium or high.
Avigdor Lieberman was merely speaking for the majority.
THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE OWNER ... At least that's what my lawyer told me, but he was drinking pretty heavily at the time so...
COPYRIGHT HARDIN REPUBLIC, LLC 2009, 2010. All Rights Reserved.
A couple of readers sent me Norman Podhoretz's Wall Street Journal article on why Jews are liberals and asked me to comment on it. In the article, Podhoretz writes of his hopes that 'buyer's remorse' will lead some of the 78% of American Jews who voted for Barack Hussein Obama to become conservatives. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that he hopes in vain.
