FYI: I have some family matters to attend to Sunday and Monday. Back to the blog on Tuesday, I hope. (No funny business till I get back, Mr. Ahmadenejad.)
The novel and The Book: It was with great interest--and an ache in my heart--that I read this piece in The Guardian by Orhan Pamuk. Pamuk is the Turkish novelist who should have won the Nobel Prize for Literature this year, but who lost out to Harold Pinter because the Swedish Academy chose to award politics--more specifically, Pinter's anti-Americanism--over literary merit. In the Guardian piece, adapted from a speech Pamuk gave last weekend in Germany, where he accepted a prize from the German book trade, Pamuk urges Europe to embrace "the other"--Turkey, the nation that keeps knocking on Europe's door, only to be turned away time after time.
Pamuk, raised in a secular, middle-class household where novels were devoured and adored, says that it is the novel which has given Europe a sense of itself as a place which values culture, civilization, humanity. It is the novel, more than any other artform, which takes us out of ourselves and, in so doing, sets us free.
...The history of the novel is the history of human liberation: by putting ourselves in others' shoes, by using our imaginations to free ourselves from our own identities, we are able to set ourselves free. So Defoe's great novel conjures up not just Robinson Crusoe but also his slave, Friday. As powerfully as Don Quixote conjures up a knight who lives in the world of books, it also conjures up his servant Sancho Panza. I enjoy reading Anna Karenina, Tolstoy's most brilliant novel, as a happily married man's attempt to imagine a woman who destroys her unhappy marriage, and then herself. Tolstoy's inspiration was another male novelist who, though he himself never married, found his way into the mind of the discontented Madame Bovary. In the greatest allegorical classic of all time, Moby-Dick, Melville explores the fears gripping the America of his day - and particularly its fear of alien cultures - through the intermediary of the white whale.
It was there that I got my first pang, and realized that Pamuk was about to let me down. I was right:
Contrary to what most people assume, a novelist's politics have nothing to do with the societies, parties and groups to which he might belong - or his dedication to any political cause. A novelist's politics rise from his imagination, from his ability to imagine himself as someone else. This power makes him not just a person who explores the human realities that have never been voiced before - it makes him the spokesman for those who cannot speak for themselves, whose anger is never heard, and whose words are suppressed. A novelist may (like me) have no real reason to take an interest in politics as a young man, or if he does, his motives may end up mattering very little. Today we do not read the greatest political novel of all time, Dostoevsky's The Devils, as the author originally intended - as a polemic attacking Russian westernisers and nihilists; we read it instead as a novel that reflects the Russia of its day, that reveals to us the great secret locked inside the Slavic soul. This is a secret that only a novel can explore. Obviously, we cannot hope to come to grips with themes this deep merely by reading newspapers and magazines, or by watching television. To understand what is unique about the histories of other nations and other peoples, to share in unique lives that trouble and shake us, terrifying us with their depths, and shocking us with their simplicity - these are truths we can glean only from the careful, patient reading of great novels.
Let me add that when Dostoevsky's devils begin to whisper into the reader's ear, telling him of a secret rooted in history, a secret born of pride and defeat, shame and anger, they are illuminating the shadows of Dostoevsky's history, too. Behind this recognition is a despairing writer who loves the west and despises it in equal measure, a man who cannot quite see himself as a westerner but is dazzled by the brilliance of western civilisation, who feels himself caught between the two worlds.
Here we come to the east-west question. Journalists are exceedingly fond of the term, but when I see the connotations it carries in some parts of the western press, I'm inclined to think it would be best not to speak of the east-west question at all. Because what it means most of the time is that the poor countries of the east should bow to everything the west and the US might happen to offer them. There is also a strong suggestion that the culture, the way of life, and the politics of places like the one where I was raised provoke tiresome questions, and an expectation that writers like me exist to offer solutions to the same tiresome questions.
But of course there is an east-west question, and it is not simply a malicious term invented and imposed by the west. The east-west question is about wealth and poverty, and about peace. In the 19th century, when the Ottoman empire began to feel itself overshadowed by an ever more dynamic west, suffering repeated defeats at the hands of European armies and seeing its own power slowly wane, there emerged a group of men who called themselves the Young Turks; like the elites that would follow in later generations, not excluding the last Ottoman sultans, they were dazzled by the superiority of the west, so they embarked on a programme of westernising reforms. The same logic lies at the heart of the modern Turkish republic and Kemal Atatürk's westernising reforms. Behind this same logic lies the conviction that Turkey's weakness and poverty stem from its traditions, its old culture, and the various ways it has organised religion. Coming as I do from a middle-class, westernised Istanbul family, I must admit that I, too, sometimes succumb to this belief, which is, though well-intended, a narrow and even simple-minded way of seeing things.
Westernisers dream of transforming and enriching their country and their culture by imitating the west. Because their ultimate aim is to create a country that is richer, happier, and more powerful, they can also be nativist, and - say what you will - powerfully nationalistic: certainly we can see these tendencies in the Young Turks and the westernisers of the young Turkish Republic. But as westward-looking movements, they remain deeply critical of certain basic characteristics of their country and culture: though they might not do so in the same spirit and the same style as western observers, they, too, see their culture as defective, sometimes even worthless. This gives rise to another very deep and confused emotion - shame - and I see shame reflected in some responses to my novels and to my own perceived relations with the west. When we in Turkey discuss the east-west question, when we talk of the tensions between tradition and modernity (which, to my mind, is what the east-west question is really all about), or when we prevaricate over our country's relations with Europe, the question of shame is always lurking between the lines.
When I try to understand this shame, I always try to link it with its opposite, pride. As we all know: wherever there is too much pride, and whenever people act too proudly, there is the shadow of the other's shame and humiliation. Wherever there is someone who feels deeply humiliated, we can expect to see a proud nationalism rising to the surface.
Pamuk spends the remainder of his speech talking about the wonders of the human imagination as it reveals itself in the novel, and longs for his country to be allowed into the club which brought this most magnificent of human endeavours. Otherwise, Turkish nationalists, drenched in the shame of another rejection, will have no choice but to fall back on their "nationalistic" repsponses to events. In essence, Pamuk's argument boils down to this: let us in, and let your beautiful novels civilize our cranky nationalists and reinstill lost pride, or reject us and suffer the consequences:
We've arrived at a point where we must choose between the power of a novelist's imagination and the sort of nationalism that condones burning his books. Over the past few years, I have spoken a great deal about Turkey and its EU bid, and often I've been met with grimaces and suspicious questions. So let me answer them here and now. The most important thing that Turkey and the Turkish people have to offer Europe and Germany is, without a doubt, peace; it is the security and strength that will come from a Muslim country's desire to join Europe, and this peaceful desire's ratification. The great novelists I read as a child and a young man did not define Europe by its Christian faith but by its individuals. It was because they described Europe through heroes who were struggling to free themselves, express their creativity and make their dreams come true, that their novels spoke to my heart. Europe has gained the respect of the non-western world for the ideals it has done so much to nurture: liberty, equality and fraternity. If Europe's soul is enlightenment, equality and democracy, if it is to be a union predicated on peace, then Turkey has a place in it. A Europe defining itself on narrow Christian terms will, like a Turkey that tries to derive its strength only from its religion, be an inward-looking place divorced from reality, and more bound to the past than to the future.
Pamuk concludes the piece with these words:
Since my novel Snow was published, every time I've set foot in the streets of Frankfurt I've felt the ghost of Ka, the hero with whom I have more than a little in common, and I feel as if I am truly seeing the city as I have come to understand it, as if I have somehow touched its heart. Mallarmé spoke the truth when he said that "everything in the world exists to be put into a book". The book best equipped to absorb everything in the world - without doubt - is the novel. The imagination - the ability to convey meaning to others - is humanity's greatest power, and for many centuries it has found its truest voice in novels.
So moving. And yet, so untrue. While Mallarmé may have had a point about everything in life existing to be put in a book, nowhere in his speech does Pamuk mention the one book--the one competing book--which can negate the power of the novel. That book is the Koran, for some a work of fiction, but for many others a book of divinely-revealed truth which contains everything an individual needs to live his life, and which, to a significant and vocal (and explosive) portion of those who believe this to be so, overrides all other narratives, both fictional and non-fictional. Thus, it is not, as Pamuk says, the differences between rich and poor, or modernists and traditionalists which divides the world. It is the chasm between those who thirst for and thrive on the kind of freedom which the novel represents, and those who believe that the Koran is the only book worth reading.
The irony is that Pamuk himself is caught in just such a divide. He will soon face trial for defaming his country. His crime: He spoke the truth about Turkey's role in the genocide of Armenians--a truth that "nationalists", i.e. "traditionalists", i.e. true believers who want to take Turkey back from the secularists--are unwilling to hear. And if Pamuk really believes that exposing such people to the wonderful world of European literature is the way to turn them into lovers of freedom, he needs to put down the novels, delightful and spiritually enriching though they may be, and read up on concepts like "submission" and "jihad" and "infidels" and "dhimmis" and "Dar al Islam". Only then can he tender an informed opinion as to whether his homeland should be allowed into the European fraternity.
Bombs in New Delhi market kill 49: Wiccans? Buddhists? Seventh Day Adventists?
Sikhs?
Update: As expected, none of the above.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's interior monolgue: Crikey! You make one little map-cleaning comment, and the whole world jumps down your throat and does the macarena in your lower intestine. It's not like I said something new, or rude, or uncalled for. Who out there wouldn't be happy to see a world with a few fewer Zionists in it? (Vlad? Kofi? Back me up here.) Who among us wouldn't like to see the Jews finally get their just desserts? (You know, I could really go for one of those cigar-shaped baklavas about now--the kind that's stuffed with chopped pistachio nuts and dripping with honey? But I digress...Focus, Mahmoud, focus.)
But okay. For the sake of shalom bayit, I'm willing to play along. Here goes: When I said I wanted to wipe the Jews off the map, I wasn't making a specific threat about my intention to press a button and launch a nuke aimed at Tel Aviv. It was more like a generic, non-specific threat. Something along the lines of "at some point in the future, you name the date and time, let's all work together to ensure justice is done for our humiliated Palestinian brothers, oppressed these many years by brutal Jewish Zionist colonial apartheid occupiers."
Hey, I don't make the rules of the jihad. I'm merely a squeaky cog in a much larger and very ancient well-oiled machine.
It's like our late leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a man who was as eloquent as he was wise, used to say: "Kill the Jews!"
Words to live by, my friends. Words to live by.
Torture and the search for justice: There was a time not too long ago when the Saudis refused to acknowledge that Wahabism, the toxic ideology they had sent out into the world, had returned to home base. Part of the Saudi rationale for exporting Wahabism--along with extending the reach of their version of Islam--was to keep the seethers occupied in foreign domains so as not to interfere with the high life enjoyed by the Saudi royals. A bunch of do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do layabouts, and iredeemably corrupt to boot, the royals were convinced that the world was large enough to keep the seethers from their doorstep.
It didn't work, of course. The seethers were outraged that these hypocritical slugs were the custodians of Islam's holiest sites, and were determined to throw the blighters out.
For a long time, the Saudis chose to ignore the obvious--the better to maintain the pretence that all was copacetic in the Magic Kingdom, and that anything that disturbed the perfect picture was the result of outside, non-Muslim agitators. So when things started blowing up, authorities were forced round up some culprits to take the rap.
That's what happened to William Sampson. Sampson, a Canadian-English consultant for a Saudi company, had been working in Saudi Arabia for two years. One night in 2000, there was a knock at the door at his house in Riyadh, and he was hauled away by Saudi police. He was accused of being involved in a turf war between Western bootleggers, a war which had resulted in several cars in the Western compound being blown up.
The charge was completely fabricated, of course. Sampson was friendly with someone who ran a "social club" where alcohol was served, but that was the extent of his connection to any turf war. In fact, the turf war in question was not between phantom bootleggers but between the seethers and the Royals, but it would require a few more explosions--these more blatant and difficult to disguse--before the Saudis would finally notice that "the war on terror" had washed up on their shores.
Wiliam Sampson was a casualty--almost a fatality--of Saudi Arabia's willful blindness. For months on end, he was tortured in the most horrific manner possible until, unable to endure it any longer, he signed a confession acknowleging his "crimes". He was tried and convicted in a Saudi kangaroo court, and would have been executed had there not been a zero-hour exchange for some Saudi nationals being held at Guantanamo.
The current issue of Macleans, the Canadian newsmagazine, has a detailed--and stomach-turning--account of Sampson's prison ordeal. He has documented it all in his book, Confessions of an Innocent Man: Torture and Survival in a Saudi Prison. Here's a sample of what he endured:
Much of the book consists of a meticulous reconstruction of marathon beatings interrupted only by Muslim calls to prayer, and meal breaks. Sampson says he was chained up, standing, to his cell door, and prevented from sleeping for days, which led to terrifying hallucinations of giant spiders crawling throughout his cell. He was hung upside down from a metal bar while interrogators whipped the soles of his feet with a bamboo cane or pounded his legs, back, and genitals with an axe handle. Sometimes, he was hog-tied, whipped and kicked. Others, he was punched in the kidneys, and had his testicles squeezed until he wailed in agony.
Sampson describes a surreal merry-go-round in which his accusers tortured him, then lectured him on the depravity of his crimes, then tried to cajole him into confessing. When he insisted he was innocent, that he had killed no one and was not a spy, his captors would explode in rage and begin the cycle anew. Finally, after six days without sleep and in constant pain, Sampson was broken. "I screamed and begged to confess, to tell them what they wanted to hear, but my entreaties seemed to fall upon deaf ears," Sampson writes. "The beating continued, blows fell across my feet, buttocks, and scrotum, no matter how loudly I screamed my willingness to comply." When the abuse finally stopped, Sampson was told to write out an admission that he planted and detonated the bomb that killed British engineer Christopher Rodway.
He hoped that with this confession, even if it was false, his agony would stop. Though he knew he would almost certainly be sentenced to death by beheading, he was beyond fear -- death would be a release from the hell he found himself in. But for Sampson the greatest pain and indignity was yet to come. Shortly after he made his first confession, Sampson claims he was dragged to an interrogation room where two Saudi "investigators" raped him. When he lost control of his bowels after the assault, his attackers shoved his face into the mess and severely beat him yet again. It was "the violation of my last vestige of physical and thus psychological integrity," he writes. "When finally I was lowered to the floor, I was a gibbering tear-sodden wreck, with no resemblance to what had once been a man." Sampson had written before about physical beatings, but his horrifying account in the book is the first time he has revealed any sexual abuse while in prison.
Over the next several months, the torture sessions continued as his captors demanded more and more detail be added to his confessions, dragging more innocent men into an implausible plot of revenge and espionage, dictated by his tormentors. Finally, he was forced to say he was a British spy working to destabilize the Saudi regime. Again and again Sampson was dragged into a private room, bound, beaten until his legs, back and genitals were a collage of black and purple bruises, then returned to his solitary cell.
Sampson reserves a large portion of his contempt for Canadian embassy officials, whose actions--or more accurately, inactions--extended his torturous ordeal:
Throughout this time, Sampson hoped Canadian embassy officials might be the advocates and protectors he so desperately needed, but he was sorely disappointed. His first visit with Canadian officials came more than a month after his arrest. His torturers attended the meeting and warned Sampson not to let on he was being ill-treated. He did as he was told. In this meeting and others to follow, Sampson came to distrust the embassy officials, sensing that they believed he was guilty and were interested only in fulfilling their most basic responsibilities. They refused, for example, to accept Sampson's power of attorney and later, when he became defiant and abusive to his captors, they chided him for his rudeness. He saw the embassy staff as ineffectual, self-serving bureaucrats, not a potential lifeline to the outside world. Eventually he refused to meet with Canadian officials and the lawyer they had assigned to his case.
And the Canadian government hasn't been any better. After his release, he and the others incarcerated for the trumped-up charge sought their government's assistence in seeking redress for their treatment--treatment which the Saudis say Sampson made up. Canada, in typical wuss-like fashion, is reluctant to stand up for the rights of its citizens if it brings us into conflict with scary Islamist regimes. (Just ask Zahra Kazemi's son, still seeking justice for his mother who was imprisoned, tortured, raped and murdered by officials in Iran.).
Now, Sampson and the others are looking to a British court for justice. Unfortunately, it may be hard to find. According to Time Magazine's Canadian edition, which has a cover story on Sampson , "Sampson and his legal team learned with dismay that the British government will be intervening in the case—on the Saudi side."
Sounds like justice may not only be delayed; it may be deferred--indefinitely.
Card shark: No need to worry, folks. Michael Jansen, a writer for the Deccan Herald assures us that Ahmadinejad is no Hitler. One can distinguish the Jew-hating Austrian-born totalitarian from the Jew-hating Iranian totalitarian because the latter meant his genocidal comments rhetorically, not as an announcement of his murderous plans. They were merely a "handy card" up his sleeve in his ongoing rivaly with Hashemi Rafsanjani, the man he defeated and replaced as president of the Islamist dystopia:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for the removal of Israel from the map of the globe is nothing new. When he made his controversial statement he simply reiterated the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the revered founder of the Islamic republic. Ahmadinejad, a neophyte in foreign affairs, clearly had no notion of the resonance of his words, particularly in the West, where the policy makers and public, sensitised by the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis, have roundly condemned his remarks. Indeed, Israel is comparing him to Hitler. But his is hardly fair because Ahmadinejad's assertions are rhetorical rather than statements of intention.
Iran specialists argue that Ahmadinejad, a radical conservative, was simply engaging in verbal outbidding in a struggle for power with former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, the man who had been expected to win the presidential election...
Were one argumentative, one could point out that until the Final Solution finally got underway, the words of Adolf Hitler, another "radical conservative", were also considered "rhetorical".
Deconstructing Ahmadinejad: A host and correspondent on Australian radio deconstruct Ahmadinejad's "cryptic" remaks and the massive Third Reich-like rally which followed:
MARK WILLACY: Well this is an annual event, and it marks what the Iranians call "Jerusalem Day", which falls on the final Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan.
It's designed to show solidarity with the Palestinians and their struggle against Israel, and today we saw tens of thousands turn out in Tehran alone, and we had one media agency saying that across the country more than a million people came out onto the streets.
And in Tehran itself we had demonstrators shouting "death to Israel", "death to the Zionists", and many carried banners which read "Israel should be wiped off the map".
Now that's the slogan first heard from the leader of the Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Khomeini many years ago, and it's controversially been revived this week as we now know, by the new Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: Well how did the President defend himself against making those comments?
MARK WILLACY: Well, Mr Ahmadinejad attended the anti-Israel rally in Tehran and he was asked about this remark. He replied that what he had said, that Israel should be wiped off the map was a "just remark", as he says.
He said his words were the Iranian people's words, and he said that westerners were free to condemn him for those comments, but he basically dismissed the reaction and the condemnation of the west as invalid.
Of course it's no secret that Iran does not believe in Israel's right to exist, but for the past decade, particularly under the presidency of the moderate Mohammad Khatami, we haven't heard that sort of rhetoric, that ferocious rhetoric from Tehran.
So it's bad timing all round for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well, because just hours after he said Israel should be wiped off the map, a Palestinian suicide bomber killed five civilians in an Israeli city...
Yes, Mark, it sure is crappy timing that just as Ahmadinejad was making his map-wiping comments, an oppessed Palestinian was taking him at his word. Mind you, were we to listen to Ahmadinejad's side of things, his remark was just a just remark. You know, like "Arbeit macht frei" or "Jews control the world" or for that matter, "Allah Akbar". Just a comment. An opinion. An in-joke among Iranians concerned about oppressed Palestinians, deprived of their land and displaced by those awful dhimmis. Hence the need for another annual event: The World Without Zionism conference, chockfull of workshops on Jew-elimination make-work projects. It was at this conference that the Iranian president made--or should we say "revived"--the comment about effacing Jews from the map.
But move along, y'all. Nothing to get worked up about here.
A river runs through it: A New York Times headline waxes poetic about the latest oil-for-food disclosures, describing The Many Streams That Fed the River of Graft to Hussein.
Yup. Those greedy oil-for-food hogs were certainly rollin’ in it:
Left a good job in accounting.
Workin’ off my butt ev’ry night and day.
But I never saw the good side of the city
Till I hitched a ride on the oil-for-food sleigh.
Big wigs kept on stealin’.
Oil hogs kept on dealin’.
Thievin’, thievin’, thievin’ on the river…
And like old man river, the thieving just kept rolling along:
Oil graft river.
That oil graft river.
Gushed for the greedy
And stiffed the needy.
It just kept flowin’
It kept on flowin’ along.
Saddam built castles.
Saddam built mosques.
And never worried
About the costs.
That oil graft river
He kept it flowin’ along.
You and me
We sweat and strain.
Work for our dollars and hardly complain.
Silly us. Missed the boat—
Saddam’s oily scam’s no longer a-
Flow-oat.
We get weary
Of UN corruption.
Which, like that river,
Flows with no interruption.
It still keeps flowin’.
It just keeps flowin’ along.
And now Saddam’s in the dock, lamenting what he’s lost:
By the river named Eu-phra-tees.
Where I once ruled
And raked it in
Without even tryin’.
By the river named Eu-phra-tees.
Where I once ruled
And raked it in
Without even tryin’.
I was wicked,
Carried away by thievery
Enamoured of my success.
Thought I’d be on top
For decades yet,
Not stuck in this awful mess…
I was wicked.
Carried away by lunacy.
Empowered by the UN.
Now I’ll never get to kill anyone again.
Let the words of my mouth and the iniquites of my heart
Remind the world of what a thug I am. (Repeat)
By the river named Eu-phra-tees
Where I once ruled
And raked it in
Without even tryin’…
Quack, quack: Ahmadinejad's comments may have been directed at the uppity Zionists (the nerve of them to transcend their dhimmitude when they're supposed to be eternally lowly and servile!), but an Iranian nuke has just as good a chance as hitting Paris or Madrid or Milan as it does Tel Aviv.
The Jews, once again, may be the proverbial canary in the coal mine, but as this article points out, all of Europe is a sitting duck.
Fury at Iran: After Kofi Annan's tepid response to the Iranian President's call for genocide (Kofi said he was "dismayed"), it is heartening to read the at least one world leader is well and truly inscensed: From the Melbourne Herald Sun:
Tony Blair for the first time held out the prospect of military action against Iran last night after it called for the destruction of Israel.
A furious British Prime Minister condemned comments from the hardline leader of an Islamic state the US claims is developing nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
Describing his "revulsion", and in terms reminiscent of the early build-up to the war on Iraq, a visibly angry Mr Blair said European countries would be holding talks with the US and other allies about a possible response.
He said Iran was making a "very big mistake" if it thought the world would ignore such comments because it was distracted by other events.
"To anybody in Europe knowing our history, when we hear statements like that made about Israel it makes us feel very angry, it's just completely wrong," he said. "And it indicates and underlines, I am afraid, how much some of those places need reform themselves."
Mr Blair made no direct reference to military action, which Britain had previously always insisted was not on the agenda.
"Ask yourself: A state like that, with an attitude like that, having a nuclear weapon?" he said.
Now, what are you going to do about it, Mr. Blair? Actions--especially when you'll dealing with insane Islamists on the cusp of nuclear capablily--always speak louder than words.
Update: While Tony is "furious" and Kofi is "dismayed", the Arab/Muslim world is eerily silent on the subject.
Hmm. I wonder why.
The exception, of course, is the Iranian press, which is all gung-ho for the Exterminate the Jews Project, round 2, and is calling for a fatwa against Israel.
Update: Seems Blair has taken action. He had the British ambassador to the UN submit a statement, to be issued the Security Council. The statement "strongly condems" the Iranian President's genocidal remarks.
The Security Council, being the Security Council, is discussing it.
Update: The Security Council condemns Ahmadinejad's statement; Ahmadinejad stands by it.
Never say never: It is both ironic and fitting that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his map-cleaning remarks during Holocaust Education Week. An annual event featuring speakers, films and the testimony of Holocaust survivors (whose ranks grow more depleted with each passing year), it is intended to teach the public about the horrors of the Jewish genocide so that it will never be repeated.
That's the plan, at least. Whether a week of educational outreach which attracts a largely Jewish audience (preaching to the choir, so to speak) can have the desired effect is, by now, rather moot. One has a sense these days that, despite all the reminders about the Holocaust--all the museums and memorials and monuments and ceremonies; all the books and films and speakers and testimonies--the world is no further ahead in its understanding of the Jewish people and the meaning of the pan-European effort to destroy them. How can it be, when the same dementias and pathologies are still around, fueling the desire of Jew-haters--this time centred primarily in the Muslim/Arab world--to perpetrate another Jewish genocide?
The cry after the Holocaust was "Never Again", and the organizers of Holocaust education weeks and other measures designed to raise awareness about the Holocaust had no doubt hoped that their work would serve to innoculate the world against the recurrence of the genocidal virus. Sadly, that has not happened. It might be helpful, no, more than that, it is crucial, during this Holocaust Education Week, to acknowledge the limits of rational discourse in an irrational world--a world in which Jew-hatred is endemic and eternal. We must realize that, unless drastic action is taken immediately, there's a very real chance the anguished cry of "Never Again" will, like the anguished cries of Jews murdered during the Holocaust, fall on deaf ears. As vital and meaningful as it is to memorialize the six million dead, it isn't enough to protect us, the living Jews, from another genocide.
Melanie nails it: The invaluable (and fearless) Melanie Phillips exposes the world's hypocisy in condemning Iran's latest genocidal announcement while condoning the continuing efforts by the Palestinians--the civilized world's pets-- to undermine and destroy the Jewish state:
With its customary hypocrisy, the alleged civilised world has recoiled in horror at the declaration by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’. So he’s a genocidal, Jew-hating maniac. So what’s new? Iran has never made any secret of its intention to annihilate Israel. It exports demented anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hatred to the Muslim world, it funds terrorists to murder as many Jews as possible (see the most recent victims this week in Hadera) and it is racing to build a nuclear weapon so that it can expeditiously carry out its professed aim to eradicate the Jewish nation state.
All this the world has known; and yet it has sat on its hands, occasionally extricating them to be wrung over Iran’s accelerating nuclear programme before resorting to the tried and tested strategy of maximum uselessness, diplomacy through the United Nations — fresh from that organisation’s triumph in disarming (not) that other threat to the world, Saddam Hussein; for which failure the head of its nuclear watchdog, Mohamed al Baradei, was doubtless awarded the Nobel Prize by a grateful Swedish establishment and wider world for whom America, not Iran, appears to be the greatest enemy of civilisation.
So Iran continues merrily on its diabolical way, murdering Israelis here, murdering Iraqis there, serenely building its apparatus of mass destruction while the alleged civilised world looks at Iraq and looks at President Bush and sucks its teeth and settles down to wait for the new Jewish holocaust wrapped in the mantle of sanctimonious opposition to pre-emptive action, and with Israel well on the way to being itself safely delegitimised and dehumanised. After all, are we not told by allegedly civilised people in Britain and Europe that it would have been better had Israel not been created?
How seriously can we take those expressions of horror at Israel’s putative annihilation, when those very same people lionise the Palestinians who are committed to precisely the same objective but whose every word and deed reinforcing that genocidal aim is sanitised or simply ignored? Since the Gaza pull-out, Israel has all but disappeared from the media radar. Why? Because the hacks only get excited when Israel behaves in a way they can condemn...
The past is prologue: If history has taught us anything--and given the way events seem to be unfolding these days, I often doubt it has--it's that when Jew-hating leaders who use Jew-hatred to rally their people to a totalitarian cause say they want to kill Jews, it behooves us to take them at their word. Thus, when an Iranian president says he wants to wipe Jews off the map and follows it up with huge anti-Jewish street protest (shades of the Third Reich) in his capital city, we can be fairly certain he isn't looking to sit down in a friendly confab to hash out his differences with Ariel Sharon. He's looking to expunge the Jewish presence from Allah's land. Only this time, he won't have to resort to banally evil assembly-line murder. He can go right to the main event and destroy the Jews with one judiciously-aimed nuked. (That he would also murder a significant number of Muslims is apparently seen as an unfortunate but necessary side effect--collateral damage in the larger jihad.)
But wait. Maybe we're going a bit overboard here. Maybe Ahmadinejad isn't really bent on genocide. Maybe all he wants is to rattle a few sabres to, you know, kickstart the peace process.
Yeah, that's the ticket. From ABC News:
On Friday the Iranian embassy in Moscow tried to soften the impact of Ahmadinejad's comment.
"Mr. Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak in sharp terms and engage in a conflict," the Iranian embassy in Moscow said in a statement following a wave of international criticism.
It added that Ahmadinejad "underlined the key position of Iran, based on the necessity to hold free elections on the occupied territories."
So you see, Iran, arguably the most repressive regime in the world, doesn't really want to wipe Israel (that rebuke to Allah's promises to the Prophet) off the map. What it really wants is to ensure that free and fair democratic election are held in the West Bank and Gaza. (Although, since Gaza is no longer "occupied" it would be more accurate to refer to the occupied territory.)
Democracy über alles, as they say.
Update: Looks like the embassy official got it wrong because the President is standing by his words.
Sense and sensibility: The lead editorial in the Globe and Mail condemns Ahmadinejad's genocidal housekeeping comments about wiping Jews off the map and notes the response of world leaders to his revolting words:
On the day an Iranian-backed terrorist group claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing that killed five people and injured 21 others in the Israeli town of Hadera, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was spewing out a despicable message of hate that lends ideological weight and emotional support to those who plot such murderous attacks. It is shocking to hear that any public figure in the Middle East today could still espouse the destruction of Israel. But it is positively frightening when it comes from the head of a government that is determined to develop the capacity to make nuclear weapons.
At a conference in Tehran appropriately titled The World Without Zionism, Mr. Ahmadinejad launched into one of his rants against the U.S. government, accusing it of using Israel "as a fort to spread its aims in the heart of the Islamic world." Then, summoning the memory of the late Ayatollah Khomaini, leader of the Iranian revolution, he declared: "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." Palestinians, he added, "will wipe this stigma from the face of the Islamic world."
The virulently anti-Semitic remarks recall Nazi depictions of Jews as a kind of virus that must be eliminated. It would be easy to dismiss Mr. Ahmadinejad as a crackpot, but the problem is that he reflects a pathological strain of thought in the Middle East that fuels hard-line sentiment, encourages suicide bombers and makes it harder to resolve legitimate Palestinian grievances at the negotiating table. Israelis are right to question the value of concessions if they cannot ensure lasting peace and security.
World leaders were quick to condemn his genocidal views and remind Tehran that there would be consequences. Prime Minister Paul Martin called the outburst "beyond the pale." Russia, which has opposed Western calls for action over Iran's refusal to abandon nuclear development, called the statements "unacceptable." Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said flatly, "We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process . . ."
Iran responded with the truculent defiance that has characterized the regime since the surprise victory in June's presidential election by the one-time radical student leader. This is, after all, a government that finances and openly praises suicide bombers as religious martyrs.
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan reminded member states that Israel has "the same rights and obligations as every other member." That isn't nearly good enough. It would be going too far to suspend Iran's membership in the world body over its blatant disregard of the UN charter, as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has proposed. But Mr. Annan could make a strong statement by cancelling a planned visit to Tehran and joining Western leaders in pushing for concerted action to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions. Meanwhile, more sensible voices in the Middle East must make much more noise to drown out Mr. Ahmadinejad and other war-mongering hard-liners.
Ah, yes. Those much-vaunted "sensible voices". As if King Abdullah of Jordan and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt (for I presume those are the biggest guns in the arsenal of sensible voices to which the editorialist refers) could make headway with the mullahs and their jihadi designs. As if the president of an Islamist totalitarian dystopia, who, after all, is merely the frontman, the ventriloquist's dummy, can be reasoned with in a rational manner. As if tyrants and tyrannies can be disarmed (and disarmed) with a few sensible words.
All I can say is, "I'm dismayed" that the Globe hasn't looked to the historical record. If it had, it might have noticed how ineffective "sensible" voices have always been in the face of pure evil.
No, what's required is not a sensible discussion with a few "moderate" Arab leaders, but a concerted effort on the part of the world to ensure that Iran--which, once again has made its genocidal intentions clear--is never allowed to develop the weapons which will enable it to fulfill its goals.
One must question whether such an effort is even possible on a planet which awards Nobel Peace Prizes to feckless nuclear watchdogs who have so far done squat to foil the mullahs' plans.
Le mot (un)juste: You can always count on charismatic international dynamo, Kofi Annan, to rise to the occasion. Take, for example, his response to the remarks made yesterday by Iran's new president. Echoing a genocidal maniac of an earlier age, Mahmoud Lastnamerhymeswithjihad boldy asserted that Israel, that blot on an otherwise impeccable Arab landscape, should be "wiped off the map".
Kofi responded to this call for mass murder not with "outrage", not with "disgust". No, such heightened emotions are simply not within the unflappable diplomat's repertoire. Kofi said he was "dismayed"
"I'm dismayed". That's what you say when your child gets a "B" in math instead of the"A" you know he's capable of. That's what you say when Baskin-Robbins is sold out of your favourite ice cream flavour on a warm day in July. That's what you say when you can't fit into that dress you wanted to wear to your high school reunion. "I'm dismayed". "I'm pertubed". "I'm most distressed and quite downcast at this unfortunate and unexpected turn of events."
When a loony-tune jihadi suffused with delusions of Shia grandiosity says he wants to slaughter 5.3 million Jews, you should be frikkin' ballistic with rage.
Gee, Kofi, what's it take to get you really upset?
I know: How 'bout a big old hole where the Zionist entity used to be.
Update: Another unflappable diplomat, Foggy Bottom flak Sean McCormack, has rejected Israel's call to have Iran expelled from the UN for its genocidal comments. "Iran is a member of the United Nations," says McCormack . "What I think we would encourage instead is Iran to start behaving in a responsible manner as a member of the international community."
He also wants them to quit pretending they want to light office buildings in Tehran when what they really want to do is build nukes to obliterate Israel; to stop supporting terrorism; and to no longer oppress their own people.
Sure thing, Ace. And while you're at it, why not ask them to send a goodwill team to the next Maccabiah games?
It's the crude, dude: You have to hand it to Saddam. Not only was he raking it in from the UN scam known as Oil-for-Food. He was also earning a good coin on side by demanding kickbacks from the corporations--over 2,000, according to the Volker Report--who sidled up to the oily trough. From The Telegraph:
More than 2,000 companies taking part in the United Nations oil-for-food programme paid illegal surcharges and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, an inquiry has found.
Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has delivered a fifth and final report, which details how thousands of companies and individuals around the world were involved in illegal transactions to circumvent the UN programme.
The New York Times newspaper said three members of the UN-established Independent Inquiry Committee had confirmed that the report would show that "the country with the most companies involved was Russia, followed by France."
The 500-page report said companies in 66 countries paid kickbacks on selling Iraq humanitarian goods and companies from 40 countries paid surcharges on oil contracts but the UN Security Council took little action.
The program, which began in December 1996 and ended in 2003, was aimed at easing the impact of UN sanctions imposed in 1990 after Baghdad's troops invaded Kuwait. It achieved considerable success in feeding Iraqis, and allowed Iraq to sell oil in order to pay for food, medicine and other goods.
Preferential treatment was given to companies from France, Russia and China, the report says, all permanent members of the Security Council, who were more favorable to lifting the 1990 sanctions than the America and Britain...
I think that's what George Costanza on the Seinfeld show (now a quaint relic from that blissfully ignorant Clintonian era) would have called "double dipping".
As for those who've long insisted "it's all about the oil", turns out they have a point. Only it's not about America's desire to get its mitts on Saddam's crude. It's about France, Russia and China's desire to keep the oily--and very lucrative--spigots open for as long as possible.
Update: And lest you think that only two-bit, slimeball companies were doing business with Saddam, the Volker Report mentions such corporate giants as Volvo, Siemens and Daimler-Chrysler.
Both side now: The BBC, ever the unbiased, "t"-word-eschewing media outlet, notes that Israeli and Palestinian newspapers have fundamentally different takes on yesterday's suicide bombing in Hadera:
Newspapers in Israel and the Palestinian territories are sharply divided over the reasons for and ramifications of Wednesday's suicide attack in the northern Israeli town of Hadera, in which several people died.
In Israel, a sense of anger and frustration is manifest, together with recriminations against both the Israeli and Palestinian governments, which are accused of a failure to tackle terrorism effectively.
Palestinian commentators argue that such attacks are inevitable and will continue as long as Israel continues to maintain its stranglehold on Palestinian areas. They point to the fact that the latest attack came after Israeli troops killed an Islamic Jihad leader on Monday.
The Beeb then offers a few excepts from these newspapers to highlight the difference of opinion.
Reminds me of the time Cherie Blair insisted that suicide bombers, the poor dears, have no other way to express their frustration at the stranglehold Israel maintains over Palestinian areas than by exploding whichever Israeli civilians happen to amble into their path.
After all, killing a leader of a terrorist organization which seeks to obliterate the sovereign Jewish presence on land claimed by Arabs is exactly the same as a jihadi in the grip of hateful fantasies blowing himself up in a crowded marketplace. And anyone who suggests otherwise lacks the Beeb's steely resolve to remain completely and utterly unbiased.
Fulla's world: The front page of the Globe and Mail has a story about Fulla, the Muslim world's answer to Barbie. The fetching but modestly-dressed Fulla comes with a selection of head scarves and her own little prayer rug, unlike that Western slut who wears skimpy outfits designed to bewitch unsuspecting males and lure them into illicit carnal relations, which the men of her family will be compelled to act against so as to restore the family's honour, besmirched by a disobedient harlot, with her painted face and her sexual wiles who...
Oh, sorry. Don't know what came over me. Give me a sec to compose myself.
Deep breath.
There. Much better.
Anyway, the Globe article neglects to mention that Fulla comes in a singing version. When you press her prayer mat, you'll hear the following song:
I’m a Barbie girl
In a Muslim world.
I’m Wahabi.
Join the clubi.
You can’t brush my hair.
It’s hiding under there.
Wear a burka.
When I worka.
(Come along, Fulla,
You’re so cool-a.)
I’m a Barbie girl
In a Muslim world.
When I get vexed
Put on my semtex.
I have never kissed
An awful Zionist.
Allah hates ‘em.
Incinerates ‘em.
(Come along, Fulla
You’re so cool-a.
Come along, Fulla
Muslims rule-a…)
Nellie Ahmadin”jihad” and the boys sing:
Nellie: We’re gonna wipe the Jews right off o’ the map.
We’re gonna wipe the Jews right off o’ the map.
We’re gonna wipe the Jews right off o’ the map.
And kill ‘em all today.
The world will come to thank us
When the Zionists are dead.
We’ve had enough, we want a change
It’s time to ride ‘em off our range.
Rub ‘em out of the region
And put Arabs there instead.
Mullahs: Oho! Those Jews have got it coming.
They had a good long run.
We’ll lob a nuke at Tel Aviv
The end will be a great relief.
Make the world safe for jihad
And extend Dar al-Islam.
Nellie: I’m gonna wipe the Jews right off o’ the map.
I’m gonna wipe the Jews right off o’ the map.
I’m gonna wipe the Jews right off o’ the map.
Let’s kill ‘em all today.
I may be genocidal
But it’s not like I’m insane.
It’s not a quirk to do God’s work
And Jew-hate don’t corrode the brain.
I’ll rant and spew like A. Hitler
So his work won’t be in vain…
Q&A on A-J: In its ongoing effort to spread truth throughout the world, Al That Jaz gives viewers a chance to consult an expert in the field of world affairs.
Today's query comes from a befuddled fan in France who wants to know "What's at the core of the conflict between the West and the Muslim world?"
Dear Dr. Kareem or Sheikha Sajida…
You keep discussing Iraq war, the Israeli Palestinian conflict- Why not search for the true reasons and the core of the conflict between the West and the Muslim and the Arab world?
I’m a Muslim American living in France and I’d truly love to hear your answers on this issue.
Is it the West’s interference under the guise of “liberation” and “modernisation?” Or is it the greed of many corrupt Arab regimes that made them tilt towards the West at the expenses of their people?
Thanks for your time
Mahatma from France
To which the expert responds:
Dear Mahatma,
You’ve aroused a very important subject indeed, although I believe that Iraq war and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians solve part of the riddle.
I do admit that many Arab leaders are more concerned with their own interests. I do believe that some of them even sold their nations to the West to win their support and avoid unexpected penalties if the agenda of any of the world superpowers, and I don't only mean the United States, wasn't implemented.
But apart from the greed and blindness of those leaders is the West crave for control and hegemony. Countries like the U.S., Britain and Israel do not wish for the rise of more powerful states that would threaten their interests and split the influence they have over the world.
Another fact that plays a key role in shaping the West strategy towards the Arabs or the Muslim world is the natural resources. Most of the Arab and the Muslim countries sit on massive oil reserves, which the West has no intention to lose.
Hope this has ended your confusion.
Sheikha Sajida
On behalf of Dr. Kareem
What a relief it has nothing whatsoever to do with that jihad we've all heard so much about.
Update: In another informative Q&A, this one from a few days ago, Sheikha Sajida on behalf of Dr. Kareem (just where is that Dr. Kareem--he seems to be AWOL) comiserates about Israel's inexorable landgrab:
Dear Dr. Kareem…
They just keep taking and taking and cutting away Palestinian lands, that very soon Israel will have it all.
They keep faking excuses taking Palestinian lands and putting Berlin wall on it. Ever since the Israelis stole their way to Palestine, there has been nothing but trouble and fighting.
I believe those invaders have this plan from the beginning and step by step, they seem to accomplish it by provoking attacks and playing the victim with the support and help of Washington.
They are just a group of greedy lying stealers trying to make mega money and military bases in the Middle East.
Space
Dear Space,
Israel’s continuous land grab is an absolute travesty of international laws and UN resolutions, but still fails to attract the world nations’ attention to take action and save the Palestinians and stand on their side once.
I’m afraid the world, including the Middle East has become accustomed to the Israeli atrocities and brutal strategy in the occupied territories.
We shouldn’t turn a blind eye to Israel’s tactics specially the coming period, where the Jewish state feels protected with it’s latest move of withdrawing from Gaza Strip, which I call “temporary withdrawal”.
By giving the withdrawal the form of a goodwill gesture, Israel now will move ahead with its agenda to swallow as much Palestinian lands as possible, without having to worry about an international community's condemnation.
Sheikha Sajida
On behalf of Dr. Kareem
Apparently, neither Space nor Sheikha Sajida on behalf of Dr. Kareem have ever bothered to look at a map. If they had, they might have noticed that the Arabs control a vast amount of land while the Jews control a minute amount of land.
But it seems even that is too much for some people. Just ask the Islamic dystopia's new president. He wants to expunge all traces of the miniscule Zionist entity from the map.
Georgie Porgie pudding and pie/Got himself caught in a terrible lie: Christopher Hitchens in FrontPage Magazine manages to reign in his glee--a bit--at the apparent implosion of dapper gasbag George Galloway. George, who impressed the New York Times and others with his silver-tongued legerdemaine in front of the U.S. Senate back in May, seems to have been suffering from some unknown brain ailment which affected his ability to discern truth from fiction (my explanation for his odd behaviour). As a result, he may have perjured himself when recounting his exploits--or lack thereof--with Baathist brigand, Saddam Hussein. George has previously insisted that he did not benefit financially from that association. Au contraire, said a Senate report, which offered a detailed account of how Georgie and the ex-Mrs. Georgie helped themselves to some of Saddam's oily lucre.
After detailing George's infamy, including how he may have been undone by former amigo, Saddam flunky Tariq Aziz, Hitchens wonders if those who had hailed the "maverick" MP's Senate performance and anti-war stance will now have the courage to set the record straight:
Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well.
Yet they will, Hitch. Just as soon as apes and pigs learn to fly.
Huzzah for the Lords!: In a bracing display of common sense, the British Upper House has voted to scrap the bill which would have made it illegal to say anything unduly critical about Buddhists, Wiccans and Seventh Day Adventists. Oh, and also about Muslims. From the Times Online:
MINISTERS sounded a retreat on their plans for a contentious new law to outlaw incitement to religious hatred last night as the Lords inflicted a crushing defeat by throwing out the Bill.
Peers voted by 260 to 111 to tear up the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill and replace it completely with text that severely limited its scope and added safeguards for free speech.
The scale of the defeat would have been larger still had it not been for an last-minute offer from a Home Office Minister to attempt to find a compromise within the next fortnight.
Baroness Scotland, of Asthal, QC, admitted that “there are issues which we found difficult” and pleaded with peers to give her time to try to bring forward amendments at its report stage.
Opposition to the Bill, which has been led by an eclectic alliance including evangelical Christian groups and the comedian Rowan Atkinson, is likely to intensify after her admission of doubts within the Government over the Bill...
Border orders: Condi Rice wants Israel to loosen up it borders to that the Palestinians can get on with the business of building their new state. From Ha'aretz:
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested Tuesday that Israel must loosen controls at border crossings to allow freer passage for Palestinians and economic development in areas that would one day be an independent Palestinian state.
Rice spoke in the Canadian capital of Ottawa a day after reports that a top Middle East envoy had criticized Israel for moving too slowly on negotiations to open borders around the Gaza Strip.
Israel withdrew troops and settlers from Gaza over the summer after nearly 30 years. The territory, now under Palestinian control, is on the other side of Israel from the larger Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank, and Palestinians must cross Israel or go through Egypt to pass between the two areas.
"It is very clear that the crossings issues need to get resolved," Rice said.
She did not specifically call on Israel to change its border policies, but did not dispute the findings of envoy James Wolfensohn that Israel was stalling in the restoration of movement across the borders.
Sure thing, Condi. And if some semtex-clad seethers manage to slip across the newly-relaxed borders and blow up a slew of Jews, that's a small price to pay for ensuring the economic success of the nascent Palestinian state.
Tales from the crypt: Well, that Palestinian reconstruction project is finally underway. The first announced project: a massive shrine to late, great leader, Yasser Arafat, the thuggish kleptocrat who, in the words of the Christian Science Monitor, "forged the identity" of his people.
Wish someone would give them a genuine identity, one that involved a desire to co-exist peacefully with the Jews. From the Jerusalem Post:
The Palestinian Authority, which in recent years has been facing a severe financial crisis, has decided to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in build a large and magnificent mausoleum for former PA chairman Yasser Arafat.
The new stately structure will replace the current burial site, which is located in the Mukata "presidential" compound in Ramallah. The project is financed by the PA Ministry of Finance, which has refused to reveal the costs. However, sources here estimated the cost of the project at over one million dollars.
Entitled Mausoleum of Yasser Arafat, the project is being carried out by the Palestinian construction company Midmac and under the auspices of the PA's Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction [PECDAR].
PA Minister of Housing Mohammed Shtayyeh said a museum and a mosque will be attached to the mausoleum, adding that the new structure had been designed solely by Palestinian architects.
The museum will include Arafat's personal belongings, such as his keffiyeh and pistol, as well as other items he used during his work. As for the mosque, it will have enough space for 250 people and could also be used as a conference hall.
According to the plan, Arafat's tomb will be turned into a 12-meter-high chamber built with Jerusalem stones. A 19-meter-high monument, also decorated with Jerusalem stones, will be constructed next to the chamber, which will be surrounded by a garden stretching over a six-dunam plot.
To allow visitors free access to the site, the PA is planning to open a new gate in the southern part of the Mukata with a Jerusalem stone tiled path leading straight to the structure, which is due to be completed by May 2006.
In a related development, the entire Mukata compound is to be renovated under the terms of an agreement signed Tuesday between the PA and the United Nations Development Program [UNDP].
Japan will finance the project, estimated at more than $10 million...
Mausoleum of Yasser Arafat, huh? Catchy title. Bet they needed a few dozen focus groups to arrive at that one.
And so nice of the Japanese to foot the bill for the Mukata renovation. What, are they hoping to get the sushi concession or something?
Fill in the blanks--The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) turned the obdurate, stiff-necked Jews into apes and ----: A bunch of the faithful have gathered in newly-liberated Gaza for a competition which tests students' knowledge of the Koran. From BBC news:
An international competition testing Muslim students' knowledge of the Koran is underway in Gaza, with participants from 20 countries taking part.
The al-Aqsa International Competition for the Holy Koran sees a panel of Muslim clerics posing questions to 70 competitors over a five day period.
Entrants are asked to recite Koranic verses from memory with the winners sharing $73,000 (£41,000) in prizes.
The competition was opened in Gaza City by Palestinian officials on Sunday.
Over 700 people, including leaders of Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, attended a cultural centre for the launch of the event.
Participants have travelled from countries including Senegal, Nigeria, Holland and Arab states to take part.
Celebrations
"The aim of this is to show our respect to the holy book of the Koran and to create a new generation of believers who are following the rules of the Koran," Yousef Salameh, Palestinian minister of religious affairs, told the Associated Press news agency.
Mr Salameh also praised the non-Arabic speakers among the competitors for their knowledge of the Koran.
The minister said the competition formed part of Palestinian celebrations taking place following Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
"We pray to God that next year, God willing, the competition will take place in the Al-Aqsa Mosque in holy Jerusalem," Mr Salameh added.
Palestinians hope to see East Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent Palestinian state.
Next year in Jerusalem, as they say.
Timber!: The UN has always seen itself as a force for good in the world, even when evidence (Oil-for-food! Thuggish regimes preside over the Human Rights Commission! UN peacekeepers rape the locals! Etc, etc. etc...) shows that to be a myopic vision at best, and completely blind at worst. Now, though, the UN wants to buff up its tarnished image, and one of the best ways to do that is to change the way it relates to the Jewish state. Seems the UN and Is have been estranged of late, what with all that undue international focus on a speck of Jewish sovereignty floating in a sea of hostile Arabs. The UN's new kindler, gentler approach to Israel has been touted by no less a source than the New York Times. But an article by Jonathan Tobin the the JWR suggests that, for the time being, it's more a matter of optics than of genuine change.
That's because no matter how many tea parties Israeli envoys are invited to, U.N. anti-Zionism is grounded in more than just the hard hearts of so many of the delegates and permanent employees there.
It's at the United Nations and its agency offices around the globe where hatred of Israel is not merely an opinion.
There, it is institutionalized in committees and agencies that exist to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state and to provide forums for those who wish to attack it.
Tobin says the UN has "an infrastructure of hate" which has yet to be dismantled. At the head of the hateful conga line: UNRWA, the organization which has done more than any other to perpetuate and normalize the Palestinian refugee situation. UNRWA
is the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, created in 1949 ostensibly to aid Palestinian refugees. All other refugees around the world since then have depended on the U.N. High Commission for Refugees for help. Only the Palestinians have their own U.N. agency. But unlike every other refugee problem, the Palestinians were not resettled but rather kept in place (through the good offices of their own U.N. agency) so as to better facilitate the ongoing war to destroy Israel.
Over the years, UNRWA morphed from being a group merely dedicated to aiding the siege of Israel to one whose employees in places like Gaza were themselves affiliated with terrorist groups, such as Hamas.
And that's only one of many institutionalized efforts to undermine the Jewish state, ones which, writes Tobin, " have served to fuel the conflict". And because Jew-hatred has proven to be such a lucrative pursuit, with so many corrupt employees of these agencies diverting money into their own pockets, it's hard to see how this endemic moral erosion can ever be reversed. At this point, the rot has probably spread too far, compromising the viability of the entire structure.
The Beeb comes full circle: As al Jazeera prepares to lauch its English language station, the BBC struggles to play catch-up.
Ironic really, since so many BBC journalists who worked for the Arab-language radio arm--the Beeb's first foreign language venture launched way back in the late 1930s--have in recent times gone on to work for...al Jazeera: From the Beeb website, of course:
The BBC's first foreign language radio service was launched in 1938. It was in Arabic. Sixty seven years later the first BBC funded foreign language TV service is to be launched.
Again it will be in Arabic.
The political background has changed. In 1938 the British Government was concerned about Italy's Radio Bari broadcasting anti-British propaganda to the region.
But the need for a strong BBC presence across the Middle East remains as strong as ever. However, while the radio service has around 12 million listeners increasingly it is satellite television that is becoming the main source of news.
However, the BBC has already had a go at running an Arabic language TV service. It fell apart in the 1990s following a series of editorial conflicts with its Saudi backed funders.
It did though leave an interesting legacy, a pool of trained Arabic journalists who went on to become the core of a new broadcaster, the Qatar based al-Jazeera.
Al-Jazeera is famous for its broadcasts of recordings of Osama bin Laden. And the US Government has been critical of the broadcaster for its coverage of events in the middle east but its had a dramatic impact on the spread of free speech across the region.
Al-Jazeera has meant that this new BBC venture will be launched in to a very different media World...
A very different media World, no doubt; one in which the U.K.'s dhimmified national broadcaster sees an Arab propogandizer as somehow contributing to the spread of free speech. (Free to spread Jew-hatred and loony conspiracy theories, more like.) But a world which once again faces a very real totalitarian threat.
Here be dragons: Not long ago, I expressed my anxiety about the most dangerous global threats in a humourous couplet: Avian vectors and fanatics who kill/If the flu don't get you then the jihad will. I can't say my anxiety was appeased any by reading Mark Steyn latest piece in the Telegraph. Like me, Steyn isn't too exercised about the Naomi Klein No Logo crowd's self-righteous freak-out re: the global machinations of American multinationals. He's worried about those other dragons--the ones which breathe actual fire and which may prove far more difficult to slay:
...In a globalised economy, the anti-glob mob and the eco-warriors want us to worry about First World capitalism imposing its ways on bucolic, pastoral, primitive Third World backwaters. But globalisation cuts both ways, and the peculiarities of the backwaters can leap instantly to the First World - just because someone got on a plane.
Indeed, when you look at it that way, the biggest globalisation success story of recent years is not McDonald's or Disney, but Islamism: the Saudis took what was 80 years ago a severe but obscure and unimportant strain of Islam practised by Bedouins in the middle of a desert miles from anywhere and successfully exported it to the heart of Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Leeds, Buffalo. It was a strictly local virus, but the bird flew the coop. And now, instead of the quaintly parochial terrorist movements of yore, we have the first globalised insurgency.
What's the bigger threat? A globalisation that exports cheeseburgers and pop songs or a globalisation that exports the fiercest and unhealthiest aspects of its culture? Far too many American conservatives still think the dragons are at the far fringes of the map - that, in the 21st century, America can be a 19th-century republic untroubled by the world's pathogens because of its sheer distance from them...
Steyn's point is that the global village is a mighty small place these days, and the threats we perceive as being remote and thus non-threatening are much closer than we think. That got me thinking. When I was in journalism school many moons ago, there was a term we used to refer to events that were so far away, so removed from our field of awareness, that they might as well have been occurring on another planet. The term was "Afghanistanism".
Afghanistan doesn't seem so remote anymore.
Update: Today's unintentionally amusing bird flu headline--Parrot quarantined next door to foot and mouth farm.
I usually attend the Royal Winter Fair every year (an annual event which, this year for the first time, may not allow poultry to be exhibited because of fears over bird flu). I've seen goats, sheep, cows, horses, pigs, chickens, ducks and turkeys, but I have yet to see a single foot or mouth on display. I trust farms devoted to the pedal and the oral exist only in the British Isles.
Money changes everything: George Galloway, the leader of the satirically-named Respect Party, is in hot water again. Galloway has successfully fended off charges that he had his hand out during the UN-Saddam Hussein joint financial project known as Oil-for-Food. So far, he was won a libel suit against the Telegraph and demonstrated his debating skills, forged in the crucible of the British House of Commons, to the tongue-tied yokels of the U.S. Senate (at least, that's how the exchange was portrayed by media outlets like the New York Times). Now, however, new evidence has surfaced which seems to suggest that George may have been less than forthcoming about his involvement in the oily scheme. From BBC News:
George Galloway has rejected claims he lied under oath to the US Senate committee which accused him of receiving oil cash from Saddam Hussein.
The Respect MP ridiculed the senators' claims during a hearing in May.
Now they say fresh evidence links him and his estranged wife to Iraq's oil-for-food programme. Mr Galloway and his wife both deny the allegations.
Mr Galloway said: "I am ready to fly to the US today... to face such a charge (perjury) because it is simply false."
The US Senate committee claims to have found £85,000 in Iraqi oil money in the bank account of his estranged wife Dr Armineh Abu-Zayyad.
The MP could face criminal charges if he is found to have given false testimony to the committee on 17 May...
Couldn't happen to a nicer fascist blowhard.
Phobes and philes: Daniel Pipes takes on the neologism "Islamophobia" in the National Post. (The piece is secreted, unfortunately, behind the Post's firewall.) Pipes points out that the term was coined in 1996 "by a self-proclaimed 'Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia'". It was supposed to describe prejudice against Muslims--a Muslim version of "anti-Semitism (even though that term was intended to pertain to a Jew's race, not his religion, and was invented by a German anti-Semite in the late 19th Century). But this purported "phobia", a pathological and irrational fear of Muslims and their faith, has been used to target and marginalize those, like Pipes, who have criticized Islam and the violent acts performed in its name.
Pipes is the first to say that he is not Islamophobic, even though he has been labeled as such by Sheema Khan in The Globe and Mail (and by many others who don't have a bully pulpit in Canadian media). What he is is an "Islamism-ophobe". That is, he has been critical of and vigilant against "radical Islam, the ideology, not Islam the religion". Apparently, Pipes sees a clear distinction between the two, although those up to speed on the concept of jihad might have some difficulty separating the two, especially since Islam the ideology--the jihad ideology--is an integral aspect of the faith as mentioned in the Koran and practised by Allah's Prophet. I'm not sure how you extricate the one from the other except to say that, since the concept of jihad is central and eternal to Muslim doctrine, you can't. It's a matter of whether the faithful choose to act on it, as they have in most periods of history since the religion's founding. Hence the reason, if we care to notice, why so much of the world is Islamic.
In any case, Pipes's insistence that he is only challenging the political aspect of Islam won't make an iota of difference to the outraged chorus which greets his every word. Unlike him, his critics aren't in the business of splitting hairs. They lump all critics of Islam together--those with valid fears and insights, as well as those who are out-and-out racists (or, more accurately ,"religiousists", to coin another neologism--and it's uncear how many real religiousists there are out there. Likely far fewer than there are said to be). In this way, critics such as Pipes can be tarred with the racist brush--and dismissed as haters. And who in society is going to give creedence to anything a racist Islamophobe has to say? (The only kind of hatred many of those screaming "Islamophobe" are willing to accept is the kind spawned by their perceived humiliation at the hands of Zionists/Crusaders.) Moreover, shout the word loud enough and long enough, and you drown out what he has to say, as Pipes was drowned out by those in the audience when he visited the University of Toronto a while ago. To them, Pipes, the man who has always been careful to limit his criticism to radical Islam, not Islam itself, is on par with an Ernst Zundl, a full-on, raving hate-monger.
Could it be because the real irrationality on display here is not being demonstrated by those like Pipes, who seem eminently reasonable, but by those who see any criticism of Islam as ipso facto a racist swipe? And try as he might, there is no way that Pipes, in his calm, reasonable way, can convince them otherwise. First of all, they don't want to hear about it. Second of all, they write unhinged pamphlets which don't cite his actual words but words they have put in his mouth. And those words are indeed racist. Completely bogus, of course, but then so is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and that hasn't stopped it from being the The Da Vinci Code of the Muslim world--a work of enduring fascination, one which, even though you think everyone must have read it by now, manages to retain its position on the bestseller list. And Protocols--a tract that has been called "a warrant for genocide"--has been around a lot longer and done a lot more damage than The Da Vinci Code. Currently, an edition of "Protocols" is on display at the Frankfurt Book Fair, courtesy our friends in Iran. They brought it along as an example of their cutting edge (and I mean that literally) publishing industry, as well as the cerebral discourse taking place in their Islamic republic.
Pipes concludes his piece in the Post by calling for a moratorium on the use of "Islamophobia" and its variations ("Islamophobe"; "Islamophobic"). "Muslims should dispense with this discredited term and instead engage in some earnest introspection," he writes. That could start with the recognition that those who have legitimate fears about rubbing shoulders on public conveyances with jihadis who pack their clothing and footwear with explosives are not racists (well, maybe some of them are, but most are just minding their own business as they attempt to get from point A to point B). They are merely terrified infidels who would prefer to live out their lives in quiet desperation here on earth rather than being used as an angry jihadi's shortcut to Paradise.
In fact, perhaps the more accurate term for what's going on here isn't "Islamophobia" but "jihadophilia". It's the jihadophiles we really have to worry about. Remove them from the picture, and I have no doubt that the problem of "Islamophobia" would soon fade away.
A map of the Arab world: In a review of the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, New York Times writer Edward Rothstein notes its sensitive approach to a touchy subject:
The museum seems to reflect that in its efforts at conciliation and unification. Constructing Arab-American identity means accommodating differences both within the community and with its adopted society. Even on so raw a subject for Arab loyalties as Israel, unusual moderation is evident. Though Palestine is named one of 22 Arab countries on an "Arab World Map" (and is given the boundaries of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip), the museum's commentary refers to this Palestinian "state" with objective propriety: "The lack of political resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has hindered its establishment."
First off, as yet there is no Arab country called Palestine. Let's call it a work in progress. Second, it's nice of them to limit its boundries to Gaza and the West Bank but, really now, who are they kidding (except, maybe, gullible, p.c. NYT writers)? (The map tells the tale, doesn't it? Israel as a sliver of Jewish sovereignty, a blot on the Arab landscape, spoiling the picture of complete Arab control over the region.)
Next, love the statement--or should I say understatement--about the reason for the slow progress of Palestinian statehood. It's a brilliant example of stating the obvious while, at the same time, speaking in the blandest language possible so as to cause no offense and offer absolutely no insight into a complex situation.
Toxic twins: They're young (13-years-old). They're pretty. They're blonde. They like to wear matching t-shirts with smiley faces which, with a few subtle additions--moustache and swatch of hair--make Smiley look like Hitler. They're singers Lynx and Lamb Gaede, the Olson twins of Aryan nationalism, otherwise known as white supremacism. (link via Drudge)
Lynx and Lamb come by their hatred honestly. Their dad likes to wear a swastika belt buckle and has adorned the family home with Nazi paraphernalia. The girls think all the Nazi stuff is cool, because, you know, Nazis stood up for the whole white race, which is what they are. White, that is. Really, really white. About as white as you can be without being an albino.
Now the telegenic twins are making videos as musical duo "Prussian Blue". (The Prussian alludes to their German heritage--why begs the question, why didn't they call themselves the Bismarks?). One of their more recent offerings is a musical tribute to Hitler's secretary, Rudolph Hess. (Rudy decamped to the U.K. rather early in WWII, and after the war spent the remainder of his days moldering away in Spandau prison, thus inspiring that Johnny Cash song "I'm stuck in Spandau Prison, and time keeps draggin' on"--but I'm sure the video doesn't cover that part of his career). I haven't heard seen the video yet--it doesn't seem to be on MuchMusic's current rotation--but I managed to get the lyrics to the video their video that's now in production. It's a reworking of a Cyndi Lauper classic from way, way back in the 80s:
Wake up, roll outta bed
Our daddy says,
“Girls, you gotta hear what Hitler said.
Sing for the whites, stand up for your race.”
And girls just wanna sing hay-ate,
Yeah, girls just wanna sing hate.
“You got the looks,
That’s how it begins.
Just look what it’s done
For those Olson twins.
Mega bucks--that could be your fate.
So girls, you wanna sing hay-ate,
Oh girls you wanna sing hate.”
(Girls they wanna, they wanna sing hate,
Girls, they wanna sing hate.
They just wanna, they just wanna-ha-ha,
Girls just wanna sing hate.)
Firm friends: A "spontaneous" demonstration by "tens of thousands" of Syrian protestors, including a large contingent of school children let out of classes so they could join in, has taken to the streets on Damascus and Aleppo today. They are protesting the UN report which holds Syria responsbile for the murder of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri.
Them's fightin' words for the Baathists, who have sent their supporters out to protest this unfounded, Zionist/American allegation which defames and threatens the sovereign, peace-loving nation of Syria. And if you don't believe them, just ask their Palestinian compadres. From Reuters:
Chanting anti-U.S. slogans, tens of thousands of Syrians protested on Monday against a U.N. inquiry they say unfairly blames Damascus for the killing of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.
The government-sponsored protests in Damascus and the northern city of Aleppo came on the eve of a U.N. Security Council meeting to discuss the findings amid demands by the United States and Britain for action against Syria.
Demonstrators, waving Syrian flags and pictures of President Bashar al-Assad, said Washington instigated the U.N. probe to pile pressure on Syria for its struggle against Israel and opposition to the 2003 invasion of neighbouring Iraq.
"The pressures have escalated since America entered Iraq and now its Syria's turn because its a symbol of Arab resistance," said Wasim Badour, an travel executive among the protesters in Damascus...
The demonstrations in Damascus coincide with the start of a state campaign to rally Syrian public opinion against the U.N. report it says is politically motivated and does not provide enough evidence to indict any officials.
"Excuse me Mr Mehlis, the report did not convince me and it only serves Zionist and American goals," a banner at the rally in Damascus said. "We reject these false testimonies in the report," another banner said.
Scores of supporters of radical Palestinian groups based in Syria also joined demonstrators in the square in the capital.
"A thousand salutes to those who are fighting against the Americans in Iraq," chanted a young man from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) which was also implicated of playing a role in the Hariri killing.
Yikes. Who did they get to write those less than euphonious banners? Harold Pinter?
The great divide: I woke up this morning to a discussion on CBC radio between Andy Barrie, the local morning guy, and a Muslim producer on the show. They were talking about the divide within the Muslim community in Ontario which has sprung up--or at least, become more evident--in the aftermath of the province's rejection of sharia law tribunals. The tribunals would have been legal authority to adjudicate matters pertaining to family law. But, after a vocal protest, the Premier decided to get rid of all religious arbitration, and now, says the producer, the Muslim community has been split in two. On one side of the divide: fundamentalists and leaders like Mohamed Elmasry who believe that sharia law is the law, the only law Muslims are allowed to accept. On the other side: moderate Muslims, many from places in the Arab world where sharia has been or is now in effect, and who have purposely--and purposefully--left those places to escape that law and find freedom in Canada. These Muslims are the ones who sounded the alarm, organized the protests, and, along with some outraged non-Muslim women, successfully fought the legal sanctioning of sharia.
The fundamentalists, explained the Muslm producer, are angry, frustrated and hurt that the Liberal government has rebuffed them. Traditionally, Muslims vote for the Liberal Party, and to have that party reject them in this way is taken as a personal rejection of their religion. They're not so thrilled with the NDP either, because, aside from Marion Boyd, the former NDP attorney-general who penned the report calling for sharia arbitration in Ontario, none of the NDPs rushed in to defend it when it was under threat because of the protests.
Andy Barrie, squishy Ceeb creature that he is, tried to emphasise that, just because Muslims tend to vote en masse for the Liberals, that doesn't mean they comprise one large, homegenous block of like-minded sharia lovers. And just because, say, a Mohamed Elmasry tells Muslims that unless they follow sharia to the letter, they can't consider themselves Muslims, that doesn't mean that Muslims have to listen to him. It's just one man's opinioin, right? It's not like he's the Pope or anything, added Andy helpfully.
True enough, said the producer. Mo is no Pope. But here's the problem: some of the people on the sharia-observing end of the divide are roughing up people on the moderate end of the divide. Called them "self-hating Muslims" and, even worse, apostates. Vandalized their cars. Made it uncomfortable for them to attend "certain" mosques. (Interesting to hear about these hostile acts on the radio considering there's been no mention of it in other media outlets.)
"Apostasy", piped up Andy, who seemed to snap to attention at the the sound of a buzzword that's been ricocheting through the ether lately (or perhaps Andy's a closet jihad watch reader). "Doesn't that get you a death sentence under sharia?"
Sure does, said the producer. Still, both agreed that all the tumult is a sign of the "healthy debate" within the Muslim community. (I'm sure someone who's been roughed up by a true believer might beg to differ.) It's healthy to air your differences, said the producer, because at the end of day, everyone comes together in a spirit of "religious cohesion". During the holy moth of Ramadan, for instance, mosques are crammed with people on both ends of the divide.
As usual with these kind of superficial CBC radio discussions, the listener is left with many unanswered questions. Like: Do moderate Muslims avoid "certain" mosques during Ramadan as well as the rest of the year? And: Are Canadian authorities aware of these "certain" mosques and paying attention to what's being preached there? And: If moderates are afraid to speak up for fear of being physically or verbally abused, won't that have a negative effect on the healthy debate by silencing many of the voices on one side? And: when are we going to stop pretending that sharia law is in any way compatible with Western civilization?
I would say stay tuned, but, this being the Ceeb, there's no assurance such questions will ever be addressed.
The abominable Fisk: Oh frabjous day! Robert Fisk had penned a War and Peace-length tome about the history of the Middle East as seen through the eyes of an unhinged moonbat--and Newsweek magazine has panned it. Sort of:
Oct. 31, 2005 issue - In one of three meetings veteran British Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk had with Osama bin Laden, the latter tried to convert him to Islam. A "brother" dreamed that "you came to see us one day on a horse," bin Laden told him, adding that "you wore a robe like us. This means you are a Muslim." Finding the revelation "terrifying" and struggling to come up with an objective response, Fisk highlighted the importance of his role as a journalist, whose job it is to "tell the truth"—whatever his faith. "If you tell the truth," bin Laden said with a smile, "that means you are a good Muslim."
In "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East" (1,328 pages. Fourth Estate), an epic account of the region from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to the present, Fisk offers an intensely personal version of the "truth." Critics who have long accused the author of an anti-American, anti-Israel agenda will find nothing here to contradict their views: the first two names listed in the acknowledgments are late Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
What no one can deny, however, is Fisk's extraordinary on-the-ground experience. He has covered the region for more than 25 years, first with the London Times and now The Independent. Perhaps the only Western foreign correspondent to shun e-mail as well as the Web, Fisk, 59, drew on a personal archive of "more than 350,000 documents and notebooks and files."
The first-person narrative provides a rich tapestry of the contemporary Middle East. From the chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s to the bloodbath in Algeria a decade later; from life in Afghanistan under Taliban rule to a Baghdad blitzed by U.S. missiles, Fisk's subject is the arrogance of power, and the torture and general suffering that result.
Yet despite his engagingly thorough tour of the region's turmoil, he does not increase our understanding of its causes. Jews were given a homeland "and the millions of Arabs and Jews of the Middle East are now condemned to live with the results." That is as deep as it gets. Worse, Arabs in this book are always the passive victims—of Israeli brutality, local dictators and their supporters in the West. No Arab is ever held to account...
Smells like a U.K. bestseller to me.
Praising the diaspora: In the London Review of Books, Eric Hobsbawm, that wily old Marxist, waxes rhapsodic about the success of the Jewish diaspora. (Yeah, Eric. It was so successful that the Nazis got the rest of Europe to sign on to its "Let's kill all the Jews" project. A clear sign of the limits of secularism and emancipation, I'd say. Not to mention the raison d'etre for establishing a Jewish State.)
It's not until the final paragraph, however, that the eminence grise (grise in the sense of being elderly, not necessarily influential) of British historians shows his hand. He means to praise the Jewish diaspora at the expense of Israel as a sovereign Jewish nation:
The paradox of the era since 1945 is that the greatest tragedy in Jewish history has had two utterly different consequences. On the one hand, it has concentrated a substantial minority of the global Jewish population in one nation-state: Israel, which was itself once upon a time a product of Jewish emancipation and of the passion to enter the same world as the rest of humanity. It has shrunk the diaspora, dramatically so in the Islamic regions. On the other hand, in most parts of the world it has been followed by an era of almost unlimited public acceptance of Jews, by the virtual disappearance of the anti-semitism and discrimination of my youth, and by unparalleled and unprecedented Jewish achievement in the fields of culture, intellect and public affairs. There is no historic precedent for the triumph of the Aufklärung in the post-Holocaust diaspora. Nevertheless, there are those who wish to withdraw from it into the old segregation of religious ultra-Orthodoxy and the new segregation of a separate ethnic-genetic state-community. If they were to succeed I do not think it will be good either for the Jews or for the world.
"The virtual disappearance of the anti-semitism and discrimination of my youth"? What drugs is Hobsbawm taking, and more to the point, where can I get some?
Unless I'm mistaken, Hobsbawm, in his own sly, subtle way, is suggesting that the newly segretated separate ethnic-genetic-state-community is a failure. As such, it would be better for all concerned, especially the Jews, if it were dismantled and its Jewish inhabitants scattered to the winds of a new diaspora--where, as we all know, Jews have always found much more acceptance.
One need only look to the example of how Jews are currently viewed and accepted in the U.K. to see how valid that idea is.
Alert the ACLU: I'd like to talk for a moment about a genuine wrong being perpetrated against a specific group. I speak, of course, about the National Hurricane Center, and its unconscionable policy of refusing to give storms names beginning with the final three letters of the alphabet.
Frankly, it is exclusionary and letterphobic to pass over "X", "Y" and "Z", and give the new storm now forming in the Atlantic the name "Alpha". What happened to Xena?
And Yolanda?
And Zelda?
Decent names all, and certainly worthy of consideration by the NHC.
Unless we are prepared to combat this alphabetic prejudice, who knows what letters may be excluded in future? What if the NHC decides to skip over "M" or "P", or, in a moment of madness, to eschew all the vowels?
No. I say it's time to stand up for the ignored but worthy letters; to affirm that X,Y and Z have the same rights as all the other letters. The integrity of the NHC--and our alphabet--depend on it.
Thank you for your time.
Lost in translation: And speaking of fascist outfits (see post below), an Islamic Jihad leader is miffed because U.S. President George W. Bush seems to have a clear bias in favour of Israel. Sounding like a latter-day Tommy Smothers ("Mom always liked you best"), Abdel Halim Ezel Dein says America is violating its role as honest broker in the peace process. At least, I think that's what he's saying. The story, from Xinhua, seems to have been translated by someone who's first, second and even third language is not English. For instance, what to make of this perplexing line?
These proofs assure the Jihad movement attitude for not guaranteeing on the US position that will never get out of supporting the Jewish entity, he added.
As far as I can tell, A.H.E.D. wants to know why the President had stopped taking about the timetable for Palestinian statehood, as well as (in Xinhua's fractured but amusing locution) "about obliging Israeli occupation to stop building settlements and its daily crimes."
But wait, there's more:
Bush is trying to provoke for disturbance among the Palestinian people through calling Abbas to disarm the resistance armed men, he added.
Our people and the factions don't need any instructions or lessons from an order that proofed clear hate and hostility to the Arab and Islamic countries, stressed Ezel Dein.
Now I'm confused. Does A.H.E.D. want America to butt in or butt out?
Just kidding. Even with the shaky translation, it's clear that he wants Bush to put the brakes on Israel while adopting a laissez-faire attitude toward the Palestinians, even as the various excitable factions jockey for position in the new "democratic" state.
A woman's place: Perusing the Hamas Covenant over my morning toast and tea--a great way to start the day, I always say--I noticed this particularly unhinged passage about the crucial role women play in getting rid of the Zionist interlopers. It manages to combine they typically demented trope about shadowy and not-so-shadowy groups (the Rotary Club?) in thrall to Zionist conspirators with some helpful hints on home economics. (Hey, Hamas: why not combine the two into one neat package? You could call it "The Protocols of the Elders of Martha Stewart". Well, she is trying to take over the world, isn't she):
The Role of the Moslem Woman:
Article Seventeen: The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated.
Article Eighteen: Woman in the home of the fighting family, whether she is a mother or a sister, plays the most important role in looking after the family, rearing the children and embuing them with moral values and thoughts derived from Islam. She has to teach them to perform the religious duties in preparation for the role of fighting awaiting them. That is why it is necessary to pay great attention to schools and the curriculum followed in educating Moslem girls, so that they would grow up to be good mothers, aware of their role in the battle of liberation.
She has to be of sufficient knowledge and understanding where the performance of housekeeping matters are concerned, because economy and avoidance of waste of the family budget, is one of the requirements for the ability to continue moving forward in the difficult conditions surrounding us. She should put before her eyes the fact that the money available to her is just like blood which should never flow except through the veins so that both children and grown-ups could continue to live.
In its emphasis on a woman's life being centred in the home, the better to pop out as many warriors as possible for the coming battle, the Hamas Charter sounds remarkably similar to ideas promulgated by another fascist outfit. I believe its policy was captured in the slogan "Kinder, Kirche, Kuchen".
I wonder how that would sound in Arabic.
Damning report: As Tony Blair stands resolute against the infinitesimal fringe of aberrant terrorists, a leaked document casts doubt on the effectiveness of his governments' anti-terror measures. The document, an 11-page critique of current efforts, is unremitting in its scorn for Blair's efforts, calling them weak, unfocused and ineffectual. From the Sunday Times:
The document says the policy is mired in confusion, with “little effective co-ordination” and no clear leadership. It adds that there is “little confidence” in the ability of the security apparatus to tackle the problem and that “it is very difficult to demonstrate that progress has been made”.
In its conclusions, the 11- page review states: “The strategy is immature. Forward planning is disjointed or has yet to occur. Accountability for delivery is weak. Real world impact is seldom measured.” The plan’s objectives are dismissed as “vague”.
The findings are based on interviews with dozens of officials in Whitehall charged with protecting the country from terrorist attack. Quoting a litany of their criticisms, the memo says: “Activity is not connected or coherent. Who’s in charge? We measure meetings and reports, not real world impact.”
Sounds like typical government bureaucracy--pushing paper, going to meetings, writing reports, keeping very busy while actually doing very little. If it's any comfort to Tony (which it probably isn't) Paul and the pumphouse gang up in Ottawa are doubtless engaged in more or less the same modus operendi--to much the same effect.
The Comeback Kid?: Svend Robinson, the former NDP M.P. who resigned after pocketing a $64,000 diamond ring (he quickly returned it when he realized the theft had been caught on tape), is pondering a return to politics. Svend once famously tried to cross a checkpoint into Ramallah for an unannounced confab with Yasser Arafat, a man whom he held in the highest regard, only to be turned back by Israeli soldiers who didn't know who the heck he was. ("Don't you know me? Svend Robinson? Yasser rocks! Jews suck! What? I still have to go back?")
Svend figures he's paid his debt to society, and even though he admits to being bipolar--the reason, he claims, for his heist--he's willing, ready and able to reassume office. Provided, of course, the constituents of Vancouver Centre are foolish enough to give him a tumble. From the Ceeb website:
Robinson said he's had a lot of encouragement to return.
"People inside the NDP, for sure, but also a lot of folks outside, including many who say they voted Liberal in the last federal election, but they say that it's time for change in Vancouver Centre," said Robinson.
I could be way off base here, Svend, but I doubt a bipolar kleptomaniac is the kind of change they had in mind.
Oh what a tangled web: Claudia Rosett is chasing down another UN scandal, this one involving--get this--the UN Procurement Department, Saddam Hussein, a shadowy private company and a businessman from Liechtenstein with ties to al Qaeda. From Fox News:
NEW YORK — The scandal engulfing the United Nations Procurement Department (search) now appears to be bottomless. It also shows signs of growing more sinister, especially where it involves a mysterious private company called IHC Services (search), which did big business with the procurement department until it was removed from U.N. rosters in June.
New details of how dark the scandal could prove to be have emerged from the private sale of IHC on June 3, 2005, just as the procurement scandal was about to break. It now appears that while doing business with the U.N., IHC had links both to Saddam Hussein’s old sanctions-busting networks, and to a Liechtenstein-based businessman, Engelbert Schreiber, Jr., known among other things for his ties to a figure designated by the U.N. itself as a financier of Al Qaeda (search).
Registered in New York State, with offices in New York City and Milan, IHC has been involved in possibly hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of business with the U.N. since the mid-1990s, serving both as a direct supplier and as a go-between for a wide variety of other contractors. This work has included IHC’s signing or helping to broker contracts for supplies ranging from portable generators to rations for U.N. peacekeeping troops in such trouble spots as West Africa and the Middle East..
The journey is the destination: Bret Stephens in the WSJ ponders the Palestinians' descent into barbarism. He concludes that all the "humiliations" they've been forced to endure--"the checkpoints, the closures, the petty harrassments"--have little to do with it:
Consider a statistic: In the first nine months of 2005 more Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians than by Israelis--219 to 218, according to the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Interior, although the former figure is probably in truth much higher. In the Gaza Strip, the departure of Israeli troops and settlers has brought anarchy, not freedom. Members of Hamas routinely fight gun battles with members of Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas's ruling political party. Just as often, the killing takes place between clans, or hamullas. So-called collaborators are put to the gun by street mobs, their "guilt" sometimes nothing more than being the object of a neighbor's spite. Palestinian social outsiders are also at mortal risk: Honor killings of "loose" women are common, as is the torture and murder of homosexuals.
Atop this culture of violence are the Hamas and Fatah leaders, the hamulla chieftains, the Palestinian Authority's "generals" and "ministers." And standing atop them--theoretically, at least--is the Palestinian president. All were raised in this culture; most have had their uses for violence. For Arafat, those uses were to achieve mastery of his movement, and to harness its energies to his political purpose. Among Palestinians, his popularity owed chiefly to the fact that under his leadership all this violence achieved an astonishing measure of international respectability...
Abbas, says Stephens, has neither the will nor the wherewithal to confront these violent men, and instead wants to tame the by inviting it into the political arena; apparently, he's has never seen those cinematic sandal epics in which Romans are devoured by lions.
And if Palestinians are seeking the dignity they say will only come with statehood--a statement, says Stephens, they often repeat "like a mantra"--they are unlikely to find it in the kind of nation they are now creating--or at least, pretending to create:
Should a Palestinian state ever come into existence in Gaza and the West Bank, it will be a small place, mostly poor, culturally marginal, most of it desert, rock, slums and dust. One can well understand why Arafat, a man of terrible vices but impressive vanities, spurned the offer of it--and why his people cheered wildly when he did. Their dignity has always rested upon their violence, their struggle, their "prisoners of freedom."
For Mr. Abbas, the problem is that statehood and dignity are not a package. They are a choice. And if history is any guide, the choice he must make is not one he is likely to survive.
Groin and bear it: You're an unremarkable, somewhat nerdy, definitely horny Muslim Canuck with jihadi-tendencies, and, as far as you can tell, your future can follow one of two paths:
- You can resign yourself to a life of tedium, sitting in some anonymous cubicle like a lab rat in a maze, submitting to a marriage arranged by your parents to a second cousin with a trace of a moustache imported from back home (the girl, not the moustache, although the two seem to be a package deal); or
- You can sign up for a life of adventure, shooting guns, killing infidels and, if you're really lucky, ending up a martyr in Paradise being serviced by 72 incorporeal, virginal babes, all of whom resemble either Pamela Anderson or Angelina Jolie, or are an intriguing combination of both.
Not surprisingly, a few adventuresome lads have opted for the latter. From the CBC website:
The opposition parties pressed the government on Friday to do something about reports that Canadians have joined the insurgents fighting in Iraq.
Conservative foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day wanted to know why the prime minister hasn't "condemned the actions of Canadians who have joined this band of terrorist thugs and murderers who are murdering and killing innocent people in Iraq?"
Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said the government does "condemn any Canadian who would choose to become an insurgent and join the insurgency in Iraq." The problem is there isn't much it can do about it.
On Thursday reports surfaced about the ranks of the insurgents being bolstered by Canadians. Not many, fewer than 10, according to the head of Canada's spy agency, but more are planning to go.
James Judd, the director of Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, revealed Thursday that some of the foreign fighters in Iraq battling coalition troops are Canadians. He said there aren't many, but more are expected to join...
Not much you can do about it, eh, Annie? What about trying to win their hearts and minds?
And groins.
Update: The lead character sings the showstopper from the musical Annie Get Your Gumption:
A boy has his urgins,
And knows where to find some virgins
Who will satisfy each urge he’s ever had.
And we can’t compete with houris
Who inflame jihadi furies
No, we can’t save a lad from jihad.
A life killing kafirs
Is so much more than IT offers
So they run off to join up in old Baghdad.
And if martyrdom’s a bust
They’ll all come running back to us.
No, you can’t save a lad from jihad.
From ji-ha-ad
From ji-ha-ad.
No you can’t save a lad from jihad.
Once he’s found his true mission
He will be in no condition
To decide if the i-dea’s good or bad.
And you know he won’t falter
‘Cause his goal will never alter.
No, you can’t save a lad from jihad.
A boy’s love is mighty
For a houri sans a nightie
Who can offer an eternity unclad.
And who's nowhere near as touchy
As his cousin from Karachi
With the dash of a ‘stache
And no sensual panache.
No you can’t save a lad from jihad.
The most genteel of hates:
Our discomfort with the Jewish tribe
Goes back to Hugh of Lincoln.
You drained the poor lad of his blood.
My word! What were you thinkin’?
The sanguinary flatbread soon adorned your seder plates.
And thus began the most genteel of hates.
We know it’s somewhat rude to say:
We’ve always found you odd.
What with your funny little ways
And the fact that you killed God.
Though we expelled you for a time
The feeling ne’er abates.
But ebbs and flows,
That most genteel of hates.
That Bard, old Will, you must confess,
Described you to a “t”.
His Shylock-- venal, greedy, cruel,
As dreadful as can be.
No quality; no mercy, he deserved his sorry fate
And justified that most genteel of hates.
Our long romance with Araby
Was tinged with the exotic,
And was, like fagging days at school,
A touch homoerotic.
All those thrilling desert vistas
And commanding potentates.
Helped emphasise that most genteel of hates.
Lord Balfour, it is true to say,
Helped get the whole ball rolling
He couldn’t help the virtues of a Jewish state extolling.
But now, as we can plainly see,
'Twas all a huge mistake
That exacerbates
The most genteel of hates.
O. Mosley and his Blackshirts,
Such a handsome bunch of chaps.
He warned us not to go to war
To save those Jewish saps.
“The Fuhrer, he knows what is best;
Look at all that he creates.
(Including that most un-genteel of hates.”)
The Mandate era, what a trial—
Jews making all that clamour
To be let in to a swamp, a pit;
Good heavens, such a drama!
We held you off as best we could,
But still you congregate,
And contribute to
That most genteel of hates.
And now, at last, we’re unconstrained by genteel politesse.
You bloody Jews have made the world a bloody awful mess.
You flattened Rachel Corrie, turned your State into Transvaal,
And if we had a choice we’d never speak to you at all.
But listen to catantas which recount your infamy,
And smugly loathe the Zionists,with much self-righteous glee.
And grant knighthoods to some Muslims as their hatred escalates
And combines, you see,
A synergy,
Which builds and conflagrates
And feeds into
That most genteel of hates.
Quacking ducks on the Jordanian tube: Jordanians are being treated to some action-packed TV viewing--timed especially to co-incide with Ramadan. A new Jordanian TV channel is airing a series called "Diaspora"--produced a few years ago by Hezbollah TV-- which purports to dramatize the real story of Zionism. And by "real", of course, I mean it trots out the usual canards (ho hum), including that hoary old favourite about Jews using the blood of a juicy young Christian to add piquancy to their holiday comestibles.
Good thing Jordan is a "moderate' Arab nation (although one chock full of angry, Jew-hating Palestinians; angry because they want their own state--or at least, another Palestinian state in addition to the one they have in Jordan), and has diplomatic relations with Israel. Otherwise, you might think they had it in for Jews or something. From MEMRI:
For Ramadan 2005, the new Jordanian TV channel Al-Mamnou' is airing the Syrian-produced TV series Al-Shatat ("Diaspora").(1) The series, which was first aired on Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV during Ramadan 2003, purports to tell the story of Zionism from 1812 up to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, and, like the Egyptian series Knight Without a Horse(2) that was aired during Ramadan 2002, depicts a "global Jewish government" that is described in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It also depicts the notorious blood libel - Jews slaughtering a Christian child to use his blood for Passover matzos. Al-Shatat was also aired by two Iranian channels during Ramadan 2004.
Prior to this broadcast, Al-Mamnou' TV board chairman Walid Al-Hadidi told the Jordanian news agency Petra that the channel would be airing the series. He also told the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat that the channel would be broadcasting from several other Arab countries as well as from Italy.(3)...
The ADL has more on this scintillating series, which has already been shown several times on Arab TV. It shows a still of a crucial scene in which Jews gather to plot their takeover of the world.
One quibble with this otherwise faultless versimilitude: where's the schnapps and pickled herring? No meeting of Zionist conspirators would be complete without herring and schnapps, the official refreshments of the Zionist Occupation Government.
Update: Reading about the TV series has inspired me to repost the theme song to "ELDERS!", my musical version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (although it could just as easily be a musical version of Diaspora:
Elders! The Theme Song
Older Jews from every nation
Bent on global domination
Power is our inspiration
We like smoked meat, too.
Behind the scenes as many fear, a
Broader reach than Al Jazeera
Media’s our plaything, we’re a
Cunning bunch of Jews
Chorus:
Elders! Elders!
Raising Cain and hell, there’s
No doubt that
We really rule the world.
In the shvitz is where we’re sharing
Plotting over pickled herring
Chutzpah, pluck and lots of daring
Make the job a breeze.
Schnapps provides the lubrication
For lubricious machinations.
And much-needed stimulation
For our frenzied schemes.
Chorus:
Elders! Elders!
Raising Cain and hell, there’s
No doubt that
We really rule the world.
Look behind, you’ll never find us
Search in vain, you’ll just remind us
Plots that link and ties that bind us
Bring you to your knees.
Chorus (one last time, starting slowly and building in speed and enthusiasm):
Elders! Elders!
Raising Cain and hell, there’s
No doubt that
We really rule the world.
A tale of two Rachels: Tom Gross has a piece about anti-Semitism in the U.K. as exemplified by the different way they've responded to the deaths of two Rachels: Rachel Corrie, the ISM volunteer who was accidentally killed by an Israeli bulldozer when she tried to stop it from destoying tunnels through which oppressed Palestinian terrorists were smuggling weapons with which to kill Jews; and Rachel Thaler, a young Israeli murdered by a suicide bomber. From The Spectator:
Rachel Thaler, aged 16, was blown up at a pizzeria in an Israeli shopping mall. She died after an 11-day struggle for life following a suicide bomb attack on a crowd of teenagers on 16 February 2002.
Even though Thaler was a British citizen, born in London, where her grandparents still live, her death has never been mentioned in a British newspaper.
Rachel Corrie, on the other hand, an American radical who died in 2003 while acting as a human shield during an Israeli anti-terror operation in Gaza, has been widely featured in the British press. According to the Guardian website, she has been written about or referred to on 57 separate occasions in the Guardian alone, including three articles the Saturday before last.
The cult of Rachel Corrie doesn’t stop there. Last week the play, My Name is Rachel Corrie, reopened at the larger downstairs auditorium at the Royal Court Theatre (a venue which the New York Times recently described as ‘the most important theatre in Europe’). It previously played to sold-out audiences at the upstairs theatre when it opened in April. (It is very rare to revive a play so quickly.)
On 1 November the ‘Cantata concert for Rachel Corrie’ — co-sponsored by the Arts Council — has its world premiere at the Hackney Empire.
But Rachel Thaler, unlike Rachel Corrie, was Jewish. And unlike Corrie, Jewish victims of Middle East violence have not become a cause célèbre in Britain. This lack of response is all the more disturbing at a time when an increasing number of British Jews feel that there has been a sharp rise in anti-Semitism...
Update: And for those who hate Zionist oppressors and love music, there's still time to buy your tickets for the world premiere of "The Skies are Weeping", the cantata composed in blessed memory of Saint Rachel, who died because she loved peace and despised the Occupation. The concert even has its own blog, which includes an expression of heartfelt support from Noam Chomsky, one of the evening's sponsors. The other sponsors include a who's who of British moonbats, including John Pilger, Julie Christie and recent Nobel prize winner, Harold Pinter.
Hero worship: Even though he's a brutal thug who had her husband executed, Saddam Hussein is the the apple of his eldest daughter Raghad's eye. Standing stalwartly beside her dad in his time of need, Raghad insists Saddam is just about the swellest father a gal could ever have. From Zaman Online:
Saddam’s eldest daughter Raghad Saddam Hussein, who lives in Jordan, said her father stood before the court during his trial on Wednesday as a courageous man who is never to surrender.
It was the most wonderful thing I've seen in my life. He was the most wonderful and courageous father," Raghad Saddam Hussein said in a telephone interview with the pan-Arab satellite channel, Al-Arabiya TV. "He is a man who never surrenders. He's a hero, and he will remain a hero," she said...
Raghad seems to have some creepy separation issues, for which I recommend some intensive family therapy. But they better get a move on--Saddam may be swinging from a noose before Raghad has a chance to resolve her problems.
How to build an Islamic dystopia: Here's how: Do your utmost to remove every last trace of the following--freedom, foreign-influences, and above all, fun.
At least, that's Iran's Supreme Cultural Revolution Council's road map to Shangi-La. From the Globe and Mail:
Tehran has slapped a ban on foreign films deemed to be "feminist," "secular" or pro-American, press reports said yesterday.
The ruling by the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, a watchdog headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, came as the hard-line leader said he wanted to see Iran become an "ideal society founded on the Koran."
The council declaration states that "the distribution and screening of foreign films which promote secular, feminist, liberal or nihilist ideas and degrade Oriental culture are banned," the Shargh newspaper said.
Also forbidden are movies that feature "violence, narcotics consumption and propaganda for the world oppression" -- a term reserved for arch-enemy the United States. AFP
Iran is kind of like Las Vegas, only without all the sin and where all the showgirls are encased in burkas.
Wacking Rafik: I don't know about you, but I have some mighty helpful brothers-in-law. Three, to be exact. Syrian mobster-in-chief, Bashar Assad, also has a helpful brother-in-law. So helpful, in fact, that he helped him unload an uppity politician in Lebanon who was giving the Assad mob some agita. As head of his family, Assad, channeling Tony Soprano, assigned his brother-in-law the delicate task of getting rid of this impediment to Syrian domination of its next-door neighbour.
"No sweat, Bashy," said his bro-in-law, a prominent General. "It's as good as done. Soon, Rafik will be sleepin' wid da fishes, just like Big Pussy."
Unlike the Sopranos, though, the Assad clan had the misfortune to play out its issues on a world stage, and now the UN is taking it to task for its role in the murder. From the Times Online:
THE UN last night accused Syria of involvement in the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, setting the stage for a showdown with Damascus.
The unprecedented inquiry, led by the German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, implicated General Assef Shawkat, the brother-in-law of President al-Assad of Syria and his military intelligence chief in the plot to murder Mr Hariri.
One witness told the inquiry that two weeks before the assassination General Shawkat forced a scapegoat, who was later killed, to record a videotape claiming responsibility for the suicide bombing...
The Assad clan proves the truth of that old addage: The family that slays together, stays together.
Update: Descriptive headline--Syria snarls at UN Hariri report.
Snarls. Like an enraged Rottweiler.
A beautiful mind: In a chilling development, Noam Chomsky was recented voted the world's top intellectual. Since the poll was conducted by the Guardian--a newspaper whose readers share his political orientation--that's not such a surprising result. Revolting, depressing: yes. Surprising: definitely not.
The National Post is conducting a similar survey. Called "Beautiful Minds", it is supposed to help Canadians identify who they believe to be our "most important 'public intellectual'". (I guess it would be hard to include all the "private intellectual" because, well, they're hidden.)
Today's candidate is Irshad Manji, the self-styled Muslim refusenik who is striving to change her religion from within. Here's the pitch by Salim Mansur, a political science professor at Western University:
When Irshad Manji's The Trouble with Islam swiftly climbed the best-seller list in the fall of 2003, she found herself thrust into the Canadian and international spotlight.
Since then, Manji has become a key Muslim voice on the world stage, striving to explore a culture and civilization whose inward collapse has given rise to a militant creed at war with the modern world. Along with her book, commentaries appearing in The New York Times, the Washington Post, Time magazine, the National Post, The Globe and Mail and elsewhere have left fundamentalist Muslims furious.
Manji's book is partly polemics and partly a frank effort to describe the Muslim faith she was born into. Having journeyed through the culture shaped by that faith, she has acquired insights into the Islamic world that only an insider could possess. She knows instinctively and by experience the plight of Muslim women within a traditional culture that often tends toward misogyny. As someone who came of age in Canada -- her parents were compelled to migrate from Uganda, then under the control of notorious despot Idi Amin -- Manji is very much the face of the new Canada as well.
Her emergence as a serious scholar and critic of Islam could not have been better timed. In the post-9/11 world, there is an urgently felt need to understand what Tunisian scholar Abdelwahab Meddeb described as "the malady of Islam." Manji's writings have met this need. Even as her views have sparked controversy, her voice has articulated the concerns felt by countless Muslims -- particularly younger ones -- who are aghast at the violence that has occurred in the name of their religion.
A public intellectual, in my view, is one who walks into the sound and fury of contemporary discord, stakes out his or her turf, and engages opponents by putting forward informed and well-reasoned arguments. It requires stamina, a love of learning, a gift for elegant writing, wit, intelligence and, above all, courage.
Manji has ably demonstrated those attributes. But it is her courage, in particular, that distinguishes her from her peers.
The world of Islam has long been engaged in an ugly and violent internal conflict. It is only in the final decades of the last century that this conflict has gone global. Those who face the greatest individual threat are Muslims who publicly question the nature and direction in which their faith is headed, and who are unwilling to assign blame to outsiders for the malady within. Manji has not allowed any fear of retribution to silence her.
In this regard, she is in the company of Muslim women such as Fatima Mernissi of Morocco, Assia Djebar of Algeria, Shirin Ebadi and Azar Nafisi of Iran, Asma Jehangir of Pakistan, Aymaan al-Hirsi (sic) of Somalia and Taslima Nasrin of Bangladesh, who similarly have defied threats from their religious compatriots to speak of human rights and freedom. And she has emerged as the composite face of a new generation with whom rests the hope for Muslim reformation.
Manji is indeed a brave woman, one who travels with burly bodyguard to protect her from co-religionists who see her as an apostate and may wish to silence her. And it is encouraging to see women spearheading the drive to haul Islam into the modern world, (even though a number of them, like Ali Hirsi and Nasrin, were so sickened by treatment of women in their countries or origin that they see no prospect for reforming Islam and have renounced it). However, that's an entirely Western view. When you consider the place of women in Islam, and the fact that the majority of Muslims, while not actively engaged in violent jihad, believe in the literal truth of the Koran as God's final, perfect, unalterable revelation, it's unlikely that many Muslims will listen to what Manji and the other women have to say. (For that matter, where are the male voices of genuine reform? Not the faux-moderates like Tarik Ramadan who have a hidden agenda.The sincere male reformers. The only one I can think of is Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress, but he's more or less a lone voice and has had to brave the obloquy of fellow Muslims who have sought to marginalize him as an apostate.)
Thus, Manji and the rest of the reformers face an uphill battle of Matterhorn-like proportions: How to extricate the peaceful, pre-hejira passages of the Koran from the later, jihad-minded ones, especially when the later ones are said to abrogate the earlier ones. (When I say "earlier" and "later", I'm talking about the sequence of events as they are thought to have unfolded historically. That's often different that the sequence of events in the Koran, which is organized from longest verse to shortest verse, giving it a rather capricious, post-modernist construction with no real beginning, middle or end.) That's a conundrum that Ms. Manji and others calling for an Islamic reformation have yet to figure out.
Driving Mr. Oppenheimer: As an passionate and omnivorous reader, I have a house full of books I have yet to get to, with several more always on reserve at the local library. Since I can't possibly read everything, I like to take my books out for a test drive before committing to them. If the drive is congenial--the story, whether fictional or non-fictional, intriguing, the prose style compelling and laced with insight and wit--I will probably decide to read it through to the end. If not, I chalk it up to taste and timing, and go on to something else. And there's always something else.
Yesterday, I took J. Robert Oppenheimer out for a spin. J. Robert has a new biography called American Prometheus, written by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. And since I've always found him a fascinating character, and read a positive review about the book, probably in the New York Times Book Review, I reserved it at the library.
I knew I was in trouble when I read this in the introduction:
Oppenheimer's story also reminds us that our identity as a people remains intimately connected with the culture of things nuclear. "We have had the bomb on our minds since 1945," E.L. Doctorow has observed. "It was first our weaponry and then our diplomacy, and now it's our economy. How can we suppose that something so monstrously powerful would not, after forty years, compose our identity? The great golem we have made against our enemies is our culture, our bomb culture--its logic, its faith, its vision."
In an earlier incarnation, pre-9/11, pre-wised-up, I might have been bowled over by this self-loathing load of codswallop; moved, even, by the Doctorow's mordant insight into the destructiveness of American culture.Today, this kind of stuff seems so foolish, so wrong-headed, that I can only take a deep breath and move on.
I haven't decided whether J. Robert and I will be able to go the distance, but given that his biographers seem to be of the same mindset as E.L. Doctorow, I have my doubts.
Blessed are the peacemakers: Abbas is set to meet Bush today to air his ongoing complaints for the desperate straits his people find themselves in. Lawlessness, despair, corruption, a sick culture which abhors Jews and reveres terrorists: Yup, quite an ugly picutre, and Abbas knows exactly the Van Gogh to blame for the sprawling canvas. No, not the one who was murdered in Amsterdam by a jihadi loony. The Zionists who, as we all know, are to blame for everything. Everything bad, that is. From Ha'aretz:
Ahead of his Thursday meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of strengthening Palestinian factions other than the ruling Fatah movement by isolating the Gaza Strip after the disengagement and expanding settlements in the West Bank.
"Israel's lack of regard for the road map is having a powerfully negative effect on Palestinian society at an extremely critical time in our democratic development," he wrote in a piece published by The Wall Street Journal on Thursday.
"There is a struggle under way for the hearts and minds of the Palestinian people between the moderates and the fundamentalists," Abbas wrote.
He said he had created "a climate of peace" since his January election and that polls consistently show a majority of Palestinians wanted to live in a state at peace beside Israel.
"Yet this climate of peace needs the help of the U.S. and the international community: For without sustained pressure on the Israeli government to sit down and negotiate, Israel will only bolster those within Palestinian society who do not share the majority's desire for peace," he wrote.
"Unfortunately, Palestinians cannot pursue the Road Map alone," he said, referring to a U.S.-devised peace plan calling for Palestinian statehood in Gaza and the West Bank beside a secure Israel.
"Israel has created obstacles in the face of a full and unconditional return to the negotiating table and acted as if Israel can resolve the Middle East conflict unilaterally."
That Mo--such a peacenik. There he is, willing to sit down and hash out his differences with the Jews and what does he get? A cold shoulder and unilateralism. Hardly a recipe for side-by-side statehood.
Oh well. I'm sure he'll get a much warmer reception in Washington, especially since he went out of his way to use the State Department's favourite expression--"hearts and minds". That's bound to endear you with Condi, Karen, and the can't-we-all-just-get-along bunch down at Foggy Bottom.
Update: The meeting went swimmingly, with Bush praising Abbas for his democratic outlook but urging him, nonetheless, to crack down on extremists.
If I'd invested a dollar at compound interest every time an American President or Secretrary of State asked a Palestinian leader to act against terrorists, I'd be one rich Jew.
My (un)Fair Columnists: Sniff. Life just isn't the same since Mo and Tom started hiding behind that firewall:
I’d grown accustomed to their space.
I miss the way they'd like to spin.
I’d grown accustomed to their shtick,
Which sometimes made me sick.
Their wit, oh please,
Those lame analogies
Were second nature to me then.
And now will never be again.
They were supremely fiskable,
And ‘bout as smug you can get.
Surely there are others to replace them both,
And yet,
I’d grown accustomed to their words,
Accustomed to their voice.
Accustomed to their space.
Robin Hood in reverse: Claudia Rosett, the Wall Street Journal writer whose persistent digging exposed the rot that was oil-for-food, has uncovered what might well be the next oily scandal. This one is in another oil-rich nation whose authorities are siphoning all the profits into their own pockets: the Republic of Congo (the smaller nation beside the former Zaire, which is now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo. Most confusing, no?) Apparently, all sorts of creative thievery has been occurring in the Congo--the details of which are outlined in the article. As an overview, it would be fair to say it's more or less same old, same old--the corrupt and greedy take advantage of the downtrodden and poor. The poor remain poor, no matter how rich their country is in natural resources, or how much aid is thrown at them by international agencies, because their dreadful leaders keep stealing all the cash.
Ms. Rosett concludes this sorry tale with the following rueful words:
What jumps out here is that such policies as debt relief may sound good, but in practice they can prove far from simple. And our global aid institutions--the U.N., the IMF, the World Bank--however eager to celebrate Poverty Eradication Day, Week, Month or Decade, are in no way equipped to cope with, or even care about, some of the more complex realities and byways of modern global trade and finance. Somewhere between the heartfelt impulse to help the poor and the complexities of tracking the actual money, there has to be a better distinction made between dollars for dictators, and policies that actually help the poor.
Amen to that. Are you listening Bono and Sir Bob?
Analyze this: I was perusing Wikipedia's entry on 9/11 conspiracy theories, and, after making my way through the usual crackpot conjectures ("4,000 Jews told to stay home"; "anyone with a Jewish-sounding name, even if not actually Jewish, warned to stay home"--okay, I made that one up; "Ariel Sharon warned to stay home"--you get the drift) I discovered that the Church of Scientology has honed in on the real culprits:
- The Church of Scientology claims that the 9/11 hijackers were brainwashed by psychiatrists, who were the real masterminds behind the attacks [29], despite the fact that none of the hijackers ever visited psychiatrists.
M'kay.
Then again, psychiatrists--aren't a lot of them...Jewish?
Selective protection: UNESCO, the UN's cultural agency, is poised to protect the voices of cultural minorities like the Berbers, Kurds, Maronites and Copts.
Oh, wait. Make that "is poised to protect" the rest of the world from the cultural hegemony of the U.S. From the Ceeb website:
Canada is a key player at UNESCO headquarters in Paris this week, as the United Nations cultural agency is poised to enact a convention on protecting cultural diversity worldwide...
The goal of the proposed convention, formally titled the Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expressions, is to protect a nation's cultural diversity and its culture from any negative effects of globalization. It also seeks to promote a country's ethnic traditions and minority languages.
According to the draft text, cultural expressions are "distinctive" and countries should be allowed "to maintain, adopt, and implement policies and measures that they deem appropriate for the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions on their territory."
The member states of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization overwhelmingly support the draft text, which has been in negotiation and amended for several years. However, vocal objections have come from the U.S., which rejoined the UN agency in 2003 after leaving almost two decades ago when it accused UNESCO of anti-American bias and corruption.
U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO Louise Oliver has complained about not having enough time to discuss the text, which she has called "ambiguous" and "open to wide misinterpretation," or to propose a series of further amendments.
"Under the provisions of the convention as drafted, any state, in the name of cultural diversity, might invoke the ambiguous provisions of this convention to try to assert a right to erect trade barriers to goods or services that are deemed to be cultural expressions," Oliver told the Associated Press...
The main concern from the U.S. is that if ratified, the convention could prove to be a barrier against U.S. cultural exports and drastically affect its powerhouse film, music and book industries.
UNESCO's 191 member states vote on the convention text Thursday. If approved, it will then need to be ratified by 30 separate member states within the next year to take effect...
Saddam in the dock: Saddam Hussein's trial is finally underway, but the former tyrant-in-chief seems a bit confused about his current status. From Middle East Times:
Update: Looks like Saddam and his attorney have a little more time to ponder his defence. The trial has been adjourned until November 28.
Update: Amir Taheri says Saddam's trial must not be rushed. If it proceeds in an unhurried manner, it will give Arabs a crucial learning opportunity, after which they will have to decide where their allegiances lie: with the former despot who still sees himself as a Arab world's savioiur, or with those seeking to establish a democracy in his former fiefdom. From the Times Online:
...What is at stake is more than the fate of a despot and his entourage. Iraq and, beyond it the Arab world, where the remnants of pan-Arabism regard Saddam Hussein as their champion, need a prolonged, dispassionate, and judicially impeccable lesson in history and political ethics.
According to Khalil al-Dulaimi, who heads Saddam’s team of Arab lawyers, the fallen despot intends to cast himself in the role of “the defender of pan-Arab values”. This should be welcomed by the judges, for it would allow the exercise to assume a greater role: putting on trial the military-security model of statehood that has been the most popular in the Arab world since the Egyptian coup d’état of 1952. Far from being an aberration, Saddam Hussein was an archetypal figure of the modern Arab despotic regimes based on the military and the security services. His kind of despotism was imposed on a dozen Arab nations at different times and is still in power in Libya, Syria and Sudan. In its 50 years of existence, this form of government has provoked ten large wars, including the longest of the last century: the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88 that stole more than a million lives...
For fans of brute force and Arab grandiosity, it's likely to be an exceptionally tough choice.
Update: Seems the trial was adjourned not to give anyone more time but because too many witnesses were afraid to show up. In an unintentionally amusing display of understatement, Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin said, "We're going to work on this issue for the next sessions."
Lots of luck with that one, Judge.
Pinter's political prize: Jacob Laskin and Patrick Devenny have a piece in FrontPage Magazine writes about Nobel laureate Harold Pinter. They pay particular attention to Pinter's "pathological hatred" for America--a hatred that caught the attention of, and was rewarded by, the Swedish Academy:
So irrational was Pinter’s disdain for America that when U.S. troops liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s invading armies, Pinter’s response was to pen a scatological and rabidly anti-American poem that did little for his reputation as a writer of serious verse. (A brief excerpt: “Hallelullah!/It works./We blew the s--t out of them./We blew the s--t right back up their own ass/And out their f---ing ears./It works./We blew the s--t out of them….”)
To appreciate the source of Pinter’s anti-American animus, one need only consider his 1993 declaration: ''I believe the United States is a truly monstrous force in the world,” he explained at the time. The following year, Pinter alleged in the New York Review of Books that the United States was the moral equivalent of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. It would not be the last time that Pinter, whose political vocabulary is conspicuously limited, would invoke the analogy of Nazi Germany. Indeed, any review of Pinter’s political writings reveals his belief that the United States is the modern incarnation of the Third Reich. “The U.S. is really beyond reason now. It is beyond our imagining to know what they are going to do next and what they are prepared to do. There is only one comparison: Nazi Germany,” he has said. Elaborating, Pinter added, “Nazi Germany wanted total domination of Europe and they nearly did it. The U.S. wants total domination of the world and is about to consolidate that.” Readers will not be startled to learn that Pinter regards the Guantanamo Bay detention center as a modern day concentration camp. It is thus on a par with America’s prison system, which, as Pinter informed the BBC is 2002 interview, is actually “a vast gulag.”
But America isn't the only target of Pinter's scorn. In thrall to conspiracy theories, those demented evaluations which tie up all the loose ends by identifying Jews as the source and embodiment of the world's evil, Pinter isn't too fond of Great Satan's little buddy, Israel, either:
Not content to traffic in mere anti-Americanism, Pinter is also a notorious conspiracy theorist. In 1988, he wrote in the British Independent that “There are emergency plans for America to take over this country.” He meant it: “I am not talking wildly,” Pinter insisted. Furthermore, by the illogical extension favored by Pinter and the far-Left, America’s allies share in the supposed “crimes” of the United States, making them justifiable targets for wild-eyed conspiracies.
Topping the list is Israel. Jewish by birth, Pinter reviles the Jewish state. In 1988, Pinter joined other English Jews in signing a letter of condemnation against Israel’s policy of “might, force and beatings” against the Palestinian Arabs – a policy that existed only in the febrile imagination of Pinter and his ideological brethren. With his typical contempt for the facts, Pinter has also claimed that Israel has used nuclear weapons against the Palestinians. “Israel has these weapons and has used them,” Pinter assures the dwindling population of readers who still take him seriously. Like the United States, Israel for Pinter is not so much a state as a symbol, an all-powerful force that controls events on a global scale. Thus, in November 2002, Pinter blamed Israel for almost all the violence currently plaguing the world when he charged that Israel’s supposed injustice toward the Palestinians was “the central factor in world unrest.”
Yet Pinter and the Swedish Academy seem to agree there's only one truly malevolent superpower at work today:
But it is the United States that occupies center stage in Pinter’s conspiratorial worldview. As Pinter sees it, “The USA is intent on controlling the world and the world’s resources.” In opposing the liberation of Iraq, Pinter claimed that the U.S. was bent on global conquest. “It is obvious, however, that the United States is bursting at the seams to attack Iraq. I believe that it will do this – not just to take control of Iraqi oil – but because the U.S. administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal.” Less measured was Pinter’s proclamation, in 2002, that “Bush and company are determined, quite simply, to control the world and the world's resources. And they don't give a damn how many people they murder on the way.” As during the first Gulf War, Pinter put the sentiment in verse, in a January 2003 poem facetiously entitled “God Bless America.” (Sample stanza: “Here they go again/The Yanks in their armoured parade/Chanting their ballads of joy/As they gallop across the big world/Praising America’s God.”)
When William Faulkner accepted his Nobel literary prize in 1950, he said in a stirring speech he was certain that man would not only endure; he would prevail. One hopes that the same cannot be said of the Swedish Academy's appalling taste in politics and literature.
Barriers to peace: Cockeyed optimists and peace-in-our-timers, bless their hearts, always want to take life's lemons and turn them into lemonade. Thus, a disengagement from Gaza which pumps up the self-importance of Islamic supremacists, spurring them on to a frenzy of destruction--that's seen as an opporutnity to restart the peace process as set out in the road map to Nowheresville. A devastating earthquake in the disputed region of Kashmir--that's seen as a chance for Hinudus and Muslims to set aside their longstanding differences and come together, like an old Coke commercial, in the spirit of harmony and brotherhood.
The thing about being a cockeyed optimist is that you're always confused--like the writer of this VOA story--when the lemonade remains rancid:
Headline: India, Pakistan No Closer on Kashmir Despite Earthquake Dipolomacy
The October 8 earthquake that hit both India and Pakistan triggered hopes that the shared tragedy would bring the two adversaries closer, and give momentum to the recent thaw in their ties. There have been tentative efforts to reach out to each other, but the sensitive issue of the divided region of Kashmir still remains a hurdle between the rivals...
A very high hurdle, indeed.
Sanitizing--and shilling for--Al That Jaz: The Globe and Mail has an article about The unlikely new face of TV's Al-Jazeera. The face belongs to Josh Rushing, a former U.S. Marine who, as a spokesman for the U.S. military, was not always thrilled with A-J's coverage. However, that all changed when Rushing got a taste of the spotlight, appearing as a leading character in the documentary about A-J called Control Room. Now, in a spirit of "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em", Josh has hooked up with what Globe freelancer Orly Halpern calls "an impressive array of top-notch journalists from CNN, ABC, BBC Fox, AP, Reuters and others" at the new English-language channel of Osama's favourite network. Starting this spring, they will be presenting what they hope will be "the most balanced reporting of international news"--"from the Arab perspective", of course. (A cynic might point out that the concepts of "balanced" and "Arab perspective" are about as compatible--and palatable--as pickles and ice cream.)
Don't worry, though. Just because Josh has switched sides, so to speak, it doesn't mean he'll be giving up his independence: "I'll be the same person I was in Control Room," he says. "I'll listen to the other side, but I still hold strong beliefs about the best of what America stands for."
Well, I must say that's a relief.
Still, just because he's planning to remain the rugged individualist we all know and love, it doesn't mean he isn't willing to perform some P.R. for his new employers:
Now, Mr. Rushing says the bad rap that Al-Jazeera has in North America is the result of "misinformation," partly because people don't understand the language.
Like many others who joined Al-Jazeera International, Mr. Rushing believes that it truly will be objective.
"When we come out in English, they'll be surprised how objective it is," he said. "They'll probably be disappointed it's not more controversial. This is going to be the best and most credible news source in the world."
Josh will be one of a united nations of dhimmis who've signed up for a hitch with 'AJ2', their nickname for the station. (The nick, no doubt, helps maintain the illusion of independence from AJ1, their Arab mothership). Managing Director Nigel Parsons says the channel wil employ "people of all colours, nationalities and religions", including a number of "Jewish people".
Even "Jewish people", huh? Can you say "tokenism"? Can you say "self-loather"?
Hey, I'm a Jewish person; I can string the occasional sentence together. Maybe the can shoot some shekels in my direction when the network sets up a news bureau in Canada. All that stands in the way is a licence and carrier and, after that, look out CEEB:
Mr. Parsons said he hoped that one day Al-Jazeera International would be the "default" channel for Canadians. In the meantime, he hopes that "people might look at CBC and then say, 'Hey, let's see what Al-Jazeera is saying.' "
Pardon me while I shudder violently for several seconds....There, that's better.
While continuing to make definite headway in the northern section of the continent, A-J is having a harder time cracking the U.S. market:
Finding a carrier in the United States has been difficult. "North America is certainly one of our harder markets," Mr. Parsons said. "We would only ask that we are judged on our own merit. We are not an anti-Israeli channel. We are a bridge to communication and understanding."
From an Arab perspective, of course.
Plamegate, in brief:
Judith Miller was sent to the slammer
For her part in the Plame name blame drammer.
But when asked for notations
To back her revelations
All Judy could do was to stammer.
Update: The Washington Post questions the unseemly haste with which many Miller's journalistic confreres have turned on her.
Best in fiction: Time Magazine lists what two of its critics have identified as the 100 best novels written in English since 1923.
Some of the choices seem a bit off to me--Judy Blume? Margaret Mitchell?--but then, it's hard for me to judge: I've only read 47 of them.
The law(yer) is an ass: Marc Henzelin, the Swiss lawyer who was asked but declined to act as Saddam's defense attorney, compares the upcoming proceedings--unfavourably--with the Nuremburg trials. From Swiss Info:
S.Z.: The trial of Saddam has been likened to the Nuremberg tribunals at the end of the Second World War.
M.H.: The two tribunals can only be compared in part. In both cases it is the victors holding court over the losers.
But the difference is that the trials of Nuremberg had a historic goal. They wanted to get as close as possible to the truth about the Nazi crimes.
S.Z.: What about the trial of Saddam Hussein?
M.H.: It is the exact opposite. The trial focuses on a small part of the criminal record of the Iraqi regime, and the Iraqi population feels highly emotional about it.
But it is not possible to perceive the dimensions of the Iraqi rule of terror in the trial.
I think it is all about justifying the United States' invasion of Iraq and to string Saddam Hussein up sooner rather than later without asking too many questions.
Well, Marc, maybe he can pull a "Hermann Goering" and save them all the trouble.
Blue man group: Mark Steyn, hilarious as always, on Smurfs, air-strikes and fighting the good fight. Here's just a taste to whet your appetite, from The Australian:
I YIELD to no one in my disdain for the UN and all its works, but I did find myself warming to UNICEF the other day. Last week, on Belgian television, the UN children's agency premiered the first adult movie featuring the Smurfs. By adult, I don't mean it was a blue movie. Only the characters were blue. But it was an adult movie in the sense that the Smurfs were massacred during an air strike on their village, until in the final scene only Baby Smurf remained, weeping alone, surrounded by wall-to-wall Smurf corpses. It's the first Smurf snurf movie.
Well, I thought, say what you like about the UN, but any organisation that wants to bomb the Smurfs can't be all bad. Not like those wimps at that British municipal council who banned Piglet the other day because some Muslim found him offensive. Why didn't they just make some blockbuster video nuking the Hundred Acre Wood and leaving Pooh to die in a radioactive Heffalump pit?
My mistake. Apparently UNICEF made the short film as a fundraiser to highlight how children are the principal victims of war. As Baby Smurf wails amid the shattered ruins, we see the words: "Don't let war affect the lives of children."
Oh, well. It's not clear from the Smurf carnage whether their village is a sovereign jurisdiction - the ultimate blue state - or whether they're merely some hapless minority within a multi-ethnic nation, the Kosovars to Spongebob Squarepants's Slobodan Milosevic. But either way the warplanes come and blue body parts are exploding all over the village.
Good luck to UNICEF and all. But I can't help thinking that, if you're that concerned for children in war zones, you might have done something closer to what real conflict is like in those places. In Rwanda, Sudan and a big chunk of West Africa, air strikes are few and far between. Instead, millions get hacked to death by machetes. Even on the borders of EUtopia, hundreds of thousands died in the Balkans in mostly low-tech, non-state-of-the-art ways...
The frog at 50: Everyone's favourite fabric amphibian, Kermit the frog, is turning 50, and to celebrate, he's painting the Big Apple green.(link via USA Today)
Love the photos, Kermie, but I'm puzzled: Isn't Sesame Street in NYC?
Party animals: The Baathists are throwing a shindig in honour of the kick-off of Saddam's trial--think of it as a kind of fascist tailgate party--and they want all their compadres to attend. From Reuters:
Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party called on Iraqi insurgents to launch attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces at the start of the deposed leader's trial, according to a Web posting.
"Greet the leader at his public appearance in court with bullets and mortars of death against legitimate targets and strike at occupying forces, their equipment and bases," said the Baath statement posted on a pro-insurgency Web site. "Strike at the army and security forces of the agent regime and its leaders and it traitorous figures," said the statement issued on Monday.
The statement -- addressed to Iraqis, Arabs and "Baathist comrades and Mujahideen resistance fighters" -- could not be authenticated. It was not posted on the main pro-insurgency Web sites, which mostly carry messages from al Qaeda in Iraq and other Islamist insurgents.
The Baath statement denounced the trial, which begins on Wednesday, as illegal and said Saddam would turn the tables on his accusers.
"The dear leader Saddam Hussein ... will make a stand on the 19th of this month for justice, freedom and defiance, as a fighting leader, a jihadist resister, a patriotic Iraqi, an Arab nationalist, and a progressive humanist," the statement said.
It has obviously escaped their attention that "dear leader" was actually a barbaric mass-murdering thug who was so full of himself that he erected jibungous eponymous mosques and opened a vein so a Koran could be inscribed in his blood. But hey, one Sunni's adored leader is another person's monster--hence the necessity for justice to prevail at the monster's trial.
Jihad in Kashmir: You know how Muslims and Hindus were supposed to come together in a spirit of brotherhood and co-operation after the devastating earthquake?
Guess that's not happening. From VOA:
Suspected Islamic militants in Indian Kashmir have shot and killed the education minister in a raid that left several other people dead or injured. The latest violence in the divided Himalayan region comes as Indian authorities struggle to get relief to areas damaged by last week's earthquake.
Indian officials say a group of militants hurled grenades as they launched a daring daylight raid Tuesday on a high security residential complex for state ministers in Kashmir's summer capital Srinagar.
After exchanging fire with security guards, the militants broke into the house of State Education Minister Ghulam Nabi Lone, and shot him dead.
Social Welfare Minister Gulam Hassan Khan, who also lives in the compound, described what happened.
Mr. Khan says he heard shooting. His bodyguard told him militants had entered the complex and ordered him to stay inside and lock the door. He says he later heard of the fatal attack on Lone.
The raid is the most brazen attack in Indian Kashmir since the October 8 earthquake killed at least 1200 people in the Indian controlled area and more than 50,000 in the Pakistani controlled sector...
It's hard to extend a hand in friendship when all the jihadis wants to do is cut it off.
We're number 14!: Canada's reputation has taken another hit. In a survey of "transparency", i.e. freedom from corruption and honesty in government practices, in nations of the world, Canada has sunk to a new low. We're not quite down there with Third World backwaters like Chad and Haiti, but given the kind of Liberal corruption we've been dealing with the past few years (soon to be detailed at length when Justice Gomery finally hands down his much anticipated--and much delayed--report) we might just get there. From the Globe and Mail:
Canada has again slipped, this time to 14th place, on an international index of ethical governments because of a "marked increase" in the perceived level of corruption in the government.
Once regularly ranked fifth -- with high scores that placed it in a club with perennial leaders such as Finland, New Zealand, and Denmark -- Canada has for three years been sliding on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, to be released today.
The drop has coincided with the recurring effects of the federal sponsorship scandal, which erupted in 2002 and shook federal politics in 2004 and again this year, but the TI study does not examine the cause of the decline.
The index is based on surveys of analysts and business people. The survey is a proxy for measuring actual corruption, which the TI organization says would be difficult and would produce unreliable results that could not be compared from country to country.
Canada has not only dropped in ranking among countries, but its score without comparison to others has fallen, signalling that its reputation as a country with clean government has been dented...
Good times: Relax, folks. Despite what you may have read in the paper, things are looking up. From the Globe and Mail:
Despite the daily horrors in Iraq and seemingly regular spasms of terrorist-sponsored violence, the world is a much more peaceful place than it was a little more than a decade ago, a new study says.
Since the end of the Cold War, the number of armed conflicts has declined by more than 40 per cent, while the number of the deadliest conflicts -- those involving more than 1,000 battle-related deaths -- has dropped by 80 per cent, said the Human Security Report, which was released here yesterday.
"Over the past dozen years, the global security climate has changed in dramatic, positive and largely unheralded ways," the report states.
"Civil wars, genocides and international crises have all declined sharply. International wars, now only a small minority of all conflicts, have been in steady decline for a much longer period, as have military coups and the average number of people killed per conflict per year.
However, there is one "dark spot":
The one dark spot, not surprisingly, is international terrorism, which has been on the rise since the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001, though the death toll from such attacks is only a tiny fraction of war casualties.
Hate to be party-pooper, but isn't "international terrorism"--and the "tiny fraction of war casualties' it has wrought--merely a facet of the larger violent jihad. You know, the one responsible for the larger proportion of war casualties in places like Iraq and Sudan?
Sounding the homonyms: In his story about everyday life in Teheran, Timothy Garton Ash (see story below) mentions how adept Iranians have become at practising taqiyah. Taquiyah is the Shia concept which sanctions the telling of falsehoods to the enemy, provided it furthers the aims of Islam. Iranians fed up with their intrusive and oppressive leaders are using taqiyah in a different way, of course: as a self-protective measure to keep the State at bay and retain some semblance, small though it may be, of personal freedom.
I was struck by how much taqiyah sounded like tekiyah, the first sound made by the shofar during the Rosh Hashanah service. An article in the Voice of America about a shofar competition held earlier this month explains the significance of tekiyah and the other shofar sounds:
There are only three types of traditional shofar blasts, each of them meant to evoke a certain spiritual attitude or relationship one can have with God. The first type is a simple long note, called "tekiyah." "The other," says Rabbi Rosenbaum, "is the 'truah' which is a series of very short staccato sounds that sound like fierce sobbing where you can't catch your breath." The third kind of blast is called the 'shevarim,' which is broken, and a little slow, like gentle weeping, or a wail.
"All of them are meant to put awe and fear into the hearts of man, that we hear them and we say 'why is this sounding?'" says the rabbi. The reason, he says, is that Rosh Hashana -- the Jewish New Year -- is approaching. "Rosh Hashana is the day we Jews believe that God judges all humankind - Jews and non-Jews alike - individually and as a people."
As finalist Allen Willner of Los Angeles listens to his eight-year-old son practice his own shofar, he explains that it is the spirit of Rosh Hashana as expressed by the shofar, rather than the shofar technique itself, that he has tried to pass on to his boy. "The shofar is supposed to make a person feel like they should correct the things they did wrong and pray to God that hopefully God will give them a good year and pray to God that they should be good people in the coming year," he says.
According to Mr. Willner, the sound of the shofar can bring people close to God in ways that great words, or even great deeds cannot. "You can feel elated, and you can feel sad and you can hear the grief," he says. "You can hear the crying that some people engage in because they have misfortunes. You can feel just so joyous that your prayers are reaching up to God. All at the same time!" Experiencing the shofar, Mr. Willner says, "is a primal event.
The sound of the shofar: a primal event, a blast of truth. Thus, it might be said of the Jewish tekiyah and the Shia taqiyah that not only are they homonyms; they are opposites.
Timothy in Wonderland: Timothy Garton Ash writes in the New York Review of Books about his encounters with Iranians on their home turf. Life in a modern mullocracy can be confusing, what with having to conform to totalitarian restrictions in public but letting loose once in private, all the while praying there isn't a 3 a.m. knock on your door and you disappear forever into the maw of the state.
Yup, life in an Islamist dystopia is certainly a study in contrasts:
...Most memorably, I had long, intense conversations with some of the young Iranians who make up the majority of the country's population. I see their earnest faces before me as I write, especially those of the women, framed in the compulsory Islamic head scarf, the hijab, which they somehow manage to convert into an accessory of grace and quiet allure.
At a rooftop restaurant in the wondrous city of Esfahan, I witnessed the continuity of Persian culture, with a singer chanting verses from the fourteenth-century poet Hafez while local diners peered up at the blue, cream, and turquoise dome of the Sheikh Lotfallah mosque, illuminated against the night sky. (You do not often hear verses from Chaucer being sung in an English pub.) More typically, I was plunging through the heat, dust, eye-stinging pollution, and kamikaze traffic of Tehran, that anarchic city of 12 million people, whose drivers treat every traffic circle as an invitation to play the American game of chicken, only swerving to avoid one another's fenders with millimeters to spare. Or sometimes not swerving.
I also got a taste of life behind the high garden walls of the houses of the middle and upper class, where the hijab immediately comes off and opinions are scathingly contemptuous of the aging revolutionary Islamic zeal of the country's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Within minutes of my arrival at one such house, bikini-clad women were teasingly inviting me to come naked into the swimming pool, while the men offered me a drink from a bottle marked "Ethanol 98% proof."
These encounters illustrated a trait, apparently of long pedigree, to which my Iranian interlocutors constantly drew my attention: the contrast between what Iranians say outside and what they say inside those high walls. Double-talk as a way of life. I have never been in a country where so many people told me I should not believe what people said. (Taken strictly, a self-defeating proposition.) Again and again they pointed to the Shiite custom of taghiye, by which believers are entitled to lie in defense of their faith. Today's nonbelievers have their own taghiye.
Iranians also warned me that theirs is a country rich in superstition— sometimes conveyed by very modern means. In the middle of a Tehran traffic jam, my driver received a text message on his cell phone. It asked him urgently to pray for the return of the hidden imam, the Shiites' twelfth imam or mahdi, who supposedly went into hiding some 1127 years ago. A secular intellectual wondered aloud whether a society so rife with mendacity and superstition is at all susceptible to understanding through reason...
It's ba-aack: The recent surge in Palestinian violence in the West Bank is being called a "return of the intifiada". From the Australian:
THREE Israelis were shot dead and four others wounded in two drive-by shootings on the West Bank at the weekend as the Palestinian intifada, which had been tapering off over the past year, appeared to spring back to life in the wake of Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
Israel reimposed restrictions on Palestinian movements and blockaded West Bank cities following the shootings.
Israeli officials said there would be no renewal of peace talks unless Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suppressed militant groups, including Hamas.
Restrictions on the Palestinian population had been eased in recent months, particularly in the past week because of the Islamic holiday of Ramadan.
The commander of Israeli forces on the West Bank, Yair Golan, said: "This has taken us two years backwards." ...
Now, would that be a return of the second intifada, in which case we might call it "2nd intifada, Part II, or the start of a whole new third intifada? Or maybe it's all part and parcel of the same uprising, in which case we might most accurately call it the first intifada, Part III.
Oh, heck. Why don't we call it what it really is: part of WWJ--the worldwide jihad?
The poetics of hate: Robert Fulford has a piece in the National Post about “the two Harold Pinters” (as always, accessible on the Web only to subscribers). The first Harold Pinter is the acclaimed dramatist, a master of menace whose dialogue is terse, bleak, blackly comical and fraught with expressive pauses. The second Harold Pinter is an acclaimed poet, but this acclaim is based not on the quality of the poetry—which any half-way literate person can clearly see is crap—but on the spirit behind the poetry: the angry, vituperative writer, overcome by an overwhelming and abiding hatred for America.
Hate is what animates Pinter’s poetry, and, since this particular animus is shared by much of Europe’s intelligentsia, including, no doubt, the Swedish academy who gave him the prize, it was this aspect of Pinter’s work which likely helped tipped the vote in his favour.
I was thinking about the Pinter approach to hate-poetry and thinking how poorly it compares to the hate-poetry of another poet: T.S. Eliot. Co-incidentally, I happen to be reading Anthony Julius’s examination of Jew-hatred in Eliot’s poetry, and a close reading of both poets reveals the obvious: even when he was writing disgusting things about Jews, T.S. Eliot was a real poet, perhaps one of genius. Harold Pinter, on the other hand, Nobel literary and Wilfred Owen judges to the contrary, is not. (One is reminded of the Truman Capote quip about Jack Kerouac’s work: “That’s not writing. That’s typing.”)
The difference? A little matter of nuance, phrasing, impact and general literary adroitness. The difference, you should forgive the analogy, between a surgical knife and a machete. Here, for instance, is one of Eliot’s most famous poetic bits of Jew-hatred, from the poem with ‘Burbank with a Baedeker, Bleistein with a Cigar’:
The rats are underneath the piles;
The jew is underneath the lot.
Money in furs.
As Julius points out, in these few brief lines, Eliot achieves what it would take a writer of hateful prose page upon page to achieve. In fact, a polemicist might never be able to get there, because the same effect cannot be achieved through discursive writing. Consider what is being conveyed here so deftly and succinctly: the poet’s contempt for and dismissal of “the jew”, i.e., “the Jews”, who don’t even merit an upper case letter; the Jews’ lowly place in the scheme of things—they are the lowest of the low, lower even than lowly rats under lowly piles; their implicitly vermin-like qualities, bringing disease into the body politic; their crassness and vulgarity, swanning around in expensive furs—rats in mink clothing.
Or how about these lines from the poem ‘Gerontion’:
And the jew squats on the window sill, the owner,
Spawned in some estaminet of Antwerp,
Blistered in Brussels, patched and peeled in London.
Again, lower-case, lower down, “the jew” as less than human; “spawned”, not born in some estaminent (which is apparently an impromtu cafe that sprung up behind the lines during WWI, the subtle implication being that the Jews are responsible for the Great War); sponging off the jewels (in some cases, the literal jewels, like those that pass through the hands of Jewish diamond purveyors in Antwerp) of European civilization; blistering, patching and ruining that civilization.
Compare that to Pinter’s America-hate poem, ‘Democracy’:
There's no escape.
The big pricks are out.
They'll fuck everything in sight.
Watch your back.
Sorry, Hal, you're not even in the same ballpark, much less the same league as Thomas Stearns.
Ah, you say, but Eliot and Pinter are merely products of—and reflect the differences between—their times. True enough. In Eliot’s time, Jew-hatred, especially English Jew-hatred, was far more subtle. Not that there was anything particularly subtle about lines like “Rachel nee Rabinowitz/Tears at the grapes with murderous/Paws”, but it was still thought impolite to discuss one’s prejudices in public. Ironically, it was this reticence, combined with reverence for Eliot’s place in the poetic and intellectual firmament, which enabled him to insert to much outright Jew-hatred into his poetry without being condemned for it. In fact, until Julius first published his book in 1995—it was his PhD thesis—Eliot’s anti-Semitism was like the proverbial pachyderm in the parlour: it was obviously there, but it was something most critics chose to ignore because, well, because that’s T.S. Frikken’ Eliot you’re talking about there, matey. The Holy of Holies. The Sultan of Symbolism. The Grand Poobah of Modernism. The man who wrote ‘The Waste Land’ and ‘The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock’ (the poem whose language I found so intoxicating that I once memorized the whole thing). Eliot can’t be inserting outright anti-Semitism, because that would mean dragging something real into something which is purely the product of symbolism—which must mean that the anti-Semitism, too, is not real but symbolic. And if Eliot did inject bonafide Jew-hatred into these poems, that must negate or at least seriously diminish their literary worth—and we certainly don’t want to do that.
Julius’s argument, which seems downright obvious, even though it came as such a shock at the time, was that Jew-hatred and literary merit are not mutually exclusive. Eliot’s poems—like Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice— are anti-Semitic works of art. As such, despite their inherent hatred, they will continue to endure.
The same cannot be said of Pinter's America-hate poems. Yes, they are the product of a less overtly genteel era (although there was nothing genteel about the Nazis, whose views about Jews more or less accorded with those of Eliot, and were certainly in line with those of Eliot’s mentor and editor, crazy old Uncle Ez Pound.) But poems like ‘Democracy’ are of no lasting literary value. They are blistering, but ephemeral, empty vessels into which Pinter can decant his longstanding hatred for America. They have the staying power of today’s headlines and will not endure beyond the here and now.
Instead of honouring Pinter, the Wilfred Owen prize committee should have given the nod to the late Edwin Starr. At least his “WAR!...huh...good God y'all/What is it good for?/Absolutely nothing...say it again” has stood the test of time.
One more thought: There’s another enduring work full of poetry and Jew-hatred, one which long predates The Merchant of Venice. It’s called the Koran.
Shivering in the sukkah: The Jewish fesitival of Sukkot is set to begin at sundown tonight. It's the holiday during which Jews are supposed to erect and dine in a temporary structure which, except for a thin layer of greenery (or "schach", a word which always sounds to me like someone trying to clear his throat), is open to the skies.
Usually, eating in the sukkah is a most pleasant experience. This year, however, with a whole extra month thrown into the mix (the Jewish calender, which is lunar-based, adds another month of "Adar" on leap years, so there's an Adar 1 and an Adar 2), we're celebrating the holiday much later in the season. I'm sure that taking in the open air in the desert climate of ancient--and for that matter, modern-day--Israel is most convivial. But frankly, unless one is a boy scout on an autumnal camping trip, no one was meant to dine al fresco in Canada in mid-October.
Sad sacks at the Ceeb: Just listening to the Ceeb radio newcast at the top of the hour. The newschick sounded downright woeful reading the story about how Iraqis have likely voted in favour of the Constitution, especially since all the Ceeb pundits had insisted the Sunnis would stay away in droves.
Not that they're biased or anything.
Update: And speaking of bias, check out the way those spinsaniacs at AP put their distincive take on this story:
Israeli troops shot and killed a top Islamic Jihad militant during a shootout in the West Bank on Sunday afternoon, Palestinian and Israeli officials said.
Palestinian hospital officials said Nihad Abu Ghanim, 27, died after being shot in the head, abdomen and chest. Abu Ghanim was the top Islamic Jihad militant in the northern West Bank town of Burkin near Jenin.
Israeli military officials said that Abu Ghanim was killed when Israeli troops during a routine patrol in the northern West Bank spotted an armed Palestinian. A gunfight broke out, and he was shot and killed, the officials said.
Meanwhile, Palestinian gunmen traveling in a speeding car opened fire at a crowded bus stop in a West Bank intersection on Sunday, killing three Israelis and wounding four others, before fleeing the scene, officials said.
Less than an hour later, Palestinian gunmen opened fire on an Israeli vehicle in another part of the West Bank, wounding one Israeli, Army Radio and police said...
Let's see. Headline suggesting that violence "erupted" out of the blue, with equal provocation from both sides: check. Excessive detail as to entry sites of Zionist bullets: check. Egregious mention of hot button code word, site of fantasized Zionist massacre: check. Mention of Palestinian killings buried lower down in the story, leaving the impression that Israeli action the more crucial one: check. (Notice there's no word on how many bullets were pumped into each of the murdered Israelis, nor in which parts of the body they were shot.)
Too bad the I.J. guy wasn't an elderly, wheel-chair-ridden cleric. That could have netted him a whole lot more sympathy.
Rhyme but no reason: Seattle (thick as a) Post-(un)Intelligencer headline: White House, CIA play blame game on Iraq.
Shouldn't that be "White House, CIA play Plame name blame game on Iraq?"
If you're gonna put rhyming words in a headline, I say you may as well go all out.
Misplaced concern: Human rights groups are mighty perturbed because they think the Butcher of Bagdhad, soon to go on trial for his abhorent crimes, may not receive his full contingent of, well, you know what. From Reuters:
Three days before Saddam Hussein goes on trial for crimes against humanity, human rights groups have raised profound concerns about the independence of the court trying him and whether it meets international standards.
Among other issues, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have expressed unease about limits on the ability of the accused to mount a defence, the burden of proof, political sway over the court and use of the death penalty.
Questions also surround the fact the Iraqi government has passed new laws governing the court, but has not yet brought them into force. Those new statutes could take effect in the next few days, or after the trial begins, raising further doubts about the clarity of procedures.
Saddam and seven others are due to appear in court on October 19 on charges of premeditated murder in the deaths of more than 140 Shi'ite men from the village of Dujail, north of Baghdad, following a failed attempt on the then-president's life in 1982...
I know. Why don't the Rights wranglers request a change of venue to a court which does meet international standards? Say, the International Court of Justice in the Hague?
Update: More A.I. mishegas. From the Ceeb website:
Amnesty International plans to urge Ottawa to change its controversial security certificate system during a meeting of the UN human rights committee.
Amnesty International Canada, based in Ottawa, is to present a paper urging more open treatment of suspects when the UN committee meets in Geneva on Monday.
The security certificates, introduced as part of stricter counter-terrorism measures, allow the government to indefinitely detain non-citizens without charge or trial without releasing all the evidence against them...
And a Jew-hater shall lead them: Ten years after the first Million Man March (is that a genuine number; did someone actually do a head count?) National of Islam's self-styled caliph, former calypso crooner Louis Farrakhan convened a second go-round. Here's how the Seattle Times described the event:
Proceeding with little of the advance controversy of 10 years ago — mostly over the leadership of Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan, the main convener this time as last — the Millions More Movement also succeeded in presenting a more complete portrait of black America, and its leadership, in a united front.
"We have seen an unprecedented gathering of the leaders of black America coming together to speak with one voice," Farrakhan declared. "The whole spectrum of black thought was represented on this stage ... . This tells us that a new day is dawning in America."
"If there is a million, or less, or more, the meaning of this day will be determined by what we do tomorrow to create a movement, a real movement among our people."
The agenda was broad, ranging from reparations for slavery to the creation of a national black board of education, black control of the businesses that serve the black community and the creation of an independent black political movement.
And here's part of Minister Farrakhan's past broad agenda, as outlined by the Anti-Defamation League:
Flanked by prominent civil rights and political figures at the October 1995 Million Man March, Louis Farrakhan urged Black men to take responsibility for their families and their communities. Mainstream leaders and organizations extended invitations to meet with him, believing that he had shed his extremist clothing. Unfortunately, as he has made clear time and time again since the march, Minister Farrakhan is more interested in the company of despots and more comfortable with the language of bigots than he is in reaching out to the mainstream.
Since the march, Minister Farrakhan and Nation of Islam representatives under his direction, have renewed their attacks on the Jewish community and on whites in general. Furthermore, in January 1996, Minister Farrakhan met with, and heaped praise upon, the rogue leaders of several terrorist nations, including Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadaffi of Libya. The last year has also seen Minister Farrakhan defend right-wing extremist groups known for their apocalyptic and anti-Semitic beliefs.
The ADL goes on to mention some of the Minister's stirring words made not long after the first Million Man shindig:
- On Jews: And you do with me as is written, but remember that I have warned you that Allah will punish you. You are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood. You are not real Jews, those of you that are not real Jews. You are the synagogue of Satan, and you have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. But I warn you in the name of Allah, you would be wise to leave me alone. But if you choose to crucify me, know that Allah will crucify you. -Savior's Day Speech, Chicago, February 25, 1996
- On the Jewish myth: [U]ntil Jews apologize for their hand in that ugly slave trade; and until the Jewish rabbis and the Talmudic scholars that made up the Hamitic myth -- that we were the children of Ham, doomed and cursed to be hewers of wood and drawers of water -- apologize, then I have nothing to apologize for. -Interview in Swing magazine, October 1996
- On the Hezbollah: They call them terrorists, I call them freedom fighters. No one asks why they would do such a thing. Why would they do such a thing? What has driven them to this point? That's what the UN, the U.S. and Europe doesn't want to deal with because the Zionists have control in England, in Europe, in the United States and around the world. -District Council 33 Union Hall, Philadelphia, April 22, 1996
Intolerance is no less acceptable because it emanates from someone whose ancestors may have been slaves. Sadly, the mainstream media seems prepared to make exceptions for those who preach Jew-hatred--and certainly wouldn't do anything as gauche as pointing out the intolerance to their audiences--so long as the person practising the intolerance has the proper credentials; i.e., as long as, like Harold Pinter, he's on the same side of the political continuum as the mainstreamers; as long as, like Minister Farrakhan or Holocaust-denier par excellence, Mahmoud Abbas, he belongs to a minority group with a keen sense of its ongoing victimization; and as long as he, she or they are not white, Jewish, Israeli, or Republican, or any combination thereof.
Where did you say?: Nazi rioters have run amuck in that acknowledged hotbed of fascist activity...Toledo, Ohio. From ABC News:
TOLEDO, Ohio Oct 16, 2005 — Protesters at a white supremacists' march threw rocks at police, vandalized vehicles and stores and cursed the mayor for allowing the event.
Mayor Jack Ford said when he and a local minister tried to calm the rioters Saturday, they were cursed and a masked gang member threatened to shoot him. At one point, the crowd reached 600 people, officials said.
Rioters set fire to 86-year-old Louis Ratajski's neighborhood pub, Jim & Lou's Bar, but he and his nephew escaped the flames.
"To be honest with you, there weren't enough police to take care of them," he said.
At least 65 people were arrested and several police officers were injured before calm was restored about four hours later.
Ford blamed the rioting on gangs taking advantage of a volatile situation. He declared a state of emergency, set an 8 p.m. curfew through the weekend and asked the Highway Patrol for help.
"It's exactly what they wanted," Ford said of the group that planned the march, which was canceled because of the rioting.
At least two dozen members of the National Socialist Movement, which calls itself "America's Nazi Party," had gathered at a city park to march under police protection. Organizers said they were demonstrating against black gangs they said were harassing white residents...
Bet they're not too fond of Jewish residents, either. Wonder how they feel about the local Muslim population, given the long-standing sympathies between Jew-haters in both camps.
On a personal note, I once drove through Toledo. Until then, the only thing I really knew about it was that it was the home town of Corporal Klinger, the hirsute cross-dresser bucking for a Section 8 on the TV show M*A*S*H, as well as Jamie Farr, the hiruste actor who played him. It was also the subject of a comical and highly insulting John Denver song (Saturday night in Toledo, Ohio is like being nowhere at all/All through the day, how the hours rush by/You sit in the park and you watch the grass die). Now I know it's the site of a lot more excitement than previously believed.
I don't recall such Nazi reverly in small-town America since the nutbars marched through Skokie way back when.
To be succint: Family obligations will make it difficult for me to do much blogging today. But after surveying the headlines on googlenews, I'm fairly confident I can summarize the current situation thus:
Avian vectors
And fanatics who kill:
If the flu don’t get you
Then the jihad will.
Fed up with flu news:
Every days brings more stories anew
Re impending pandemics of flu.
And this torrent of words
Is both for the birds
And to scare the pure crap out of you.
Bloody voter: Guess who was allowed to cast a ballot in the referendum on Iraq's constition? If you guessed Saddam Hussein, the despot formerly known as "the Butcher of Baghdad", without whose removal there would be no vote, you'd be right.
No word yet as to whether he actually voted, but it he did, it's safe to assume he's not fan of the new constitution. I hear he'd only agree to vote at all if they let him open a vein and write the official document in his blood.
The despot who came in from the cold?: The Bush Administration thinks it can "Gadaffi" (that's a verb) Syrian dictator Bashar Assad: that is, turn an an arrogant, unco-operative rogue into a chastened, semi-co-operative rogue. The Americans are willing to welcome Assad into the fold (and enable him to avoid punishing sanctions) if he satisfies the following conditions. From the Times Online:
- Cooperate fully with investigation into Rafik Hariri's assassination and hand over any supects for trial
- Cease all further interference in Lebanese affairs
- Halt funding, planning and training of Iraqi insurgents on Syrian territory
- Stop support for militant groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad
Something tells me the offer if likely to meet with a frosty reception in Damascus. Should Assad accept it, he will look like America's capon, a visual which is unlikely to cement his already perilious leadership position in Syria. Since he is already perceived to be far less of a strongman than his late father, a more charismatic tyrant of whom he is but a pale, chinless imitation, agreeing to these terms would be tantamount to signing his own death warrant.
But I'm sure that possiblity has already occured to Washington.
Learning through jihad: One good thing--in fact, the only good thing--about the jihad: it can help expand your awareness of geography. For instance, until the jihadis ("rebels", "militants" or whatever non-inflammatory euphemism preferred by public broadcasters like the Beeb and Ceeb and wire services like Reuters) attacked and killed scores of people in Russia the other day, I never knew there was an independent nation in the Caucasus called Kabardino-Balkaria. Seems this particular region of the world has had it's run-ins with jihadis in the past. From Kommersant, an English-language Russian website:
The history of the formation of the modern nations of the North Caucasus began in the 15th century. Tatar-Mongolian invasions influenced the settlement patterns of local peoples living within the region.
The ancestors of the Adygeans, Kabardins, and Cherkessians [known historically as the Circassians], who inhabited the coasts of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, were known as the Adyge. The Balkar nation formed as the result of the blending of North Caucasian and Alanic tribes with Bulgars and Kipchaks who had settled in the Caucasian foothills.
Closer relations between the Kabardins and Russia began forming in the 16th century. Ivan IV [Ivan the Terrible] gave the Kabardins Russian citizenship, built the first Russian fortress (Tersky) on the Terek River, and together with the Kabardins carried out several campaigns against the Crimean khans.
The territory of Kabarda and Balkaria was the site of clashes between Russian, Crimean, and Turkish interests. Kabarda joined Russia in 1557, a union that was further strengthened by Ivan the Terrible's marriage to the Kabardin princess Mariya Temryukovna. Balkaria was annexed to Russia in 1827; and Kabarda and Balkaria became part of Terek Region in the 1860s. Ties with central Russia were consolidated in the 1870s with the completion of the railway connecting Rostov and Vladikavkaz.
Following the Revolution of the 1917, Kabarda and Balkaria became administrative districts of the Mountain (Gorskaya) ASSR in 1924, and the Kabardin Autonomous Region was formed in the same year as part of the RSFSR. Balkaria was subsequently detached from the Mountain ASSR and joined to the Kabardin Autonomous Region, and the combined region was reorganized into the Kabardino-Balkar Autonomous Region. In 1991, the region passed a Declaration of sovereignty proclaiming the former autonomous region a part of Russia.
Live and learn, as they say.
Rex on Hal: Rex Murphy casts a baleful eye at the versifications of the most recent Nobel laureate, Harold Pinter. From the Globe and Mail:
I have been reading some poems on the Iraq war by this year's Nobel Prize winner, Harold Pinter. They are called poems only by courtesy of how they look in print. Any talented 15-year-old could write as well. They are short, blunt, angry and perfectly pleased with themselves. One that I think may be cited in a newspaper will give a little of their flavour. It's called The Special Relationship: "The bombs go off /The legs go off /The heads go off/The arms go off/ The feet go off/ The light goes out/ The heads go off/ The legs go off/ The lust is up/The dead are dirt/ The lights go out/ The dead are dust/A man bows down before another man/ And sucks his lust."
Others are more rough, use the almost obligatory raw language that accompanies protest these days, and convey a fierce zeal against America and George Bush.
I can very easily see that if someone shares Mr. Pinter's view of that war, then reading Mr. Pinter's poems will produce a delightful sensation -- but it is not the delightful sensation that accompanies genuine poetry. It is, rather, the sensation of being confirmed in a view already held.
Mr. Pinter's verse operates as an endorsement to feelings and attitudes already fully developed in those readers who agree with him. It is not exploratory. As such the works are much closer in category to slogans...
Rex contrasts Pinter's jejune screeds with the work of an anti-war poet of an earlier era, Wilfred Owen. A First World War poet of the first rank, Owen, writes Murphy
struggles upward toward his subject. One may almost see him craving to find the unique set of words, the singular rhythms and images, which alone an attempt to communicate the desolation, horror and pity of his vast subject.
Unfortunately, we live in an Pinteresque era with eschews metaphor, insight and astonishing flights of poetic language in favour of the brusque grunts of an angry and not especially adept poet. (Murphy says the poems could have been written by a 15-year-old. I'd say 12 is more like it.) Pinter won his prize for his politics, not his literary gifts. And the Nobel is not the first to applaud his stance. In what is perhaps the ultimate irony--and ultimate indignity to the memory of a truly great poet--Pinter's war poems were recognized earlier this year with the Wilfred Owen award.
I wonder: had the poems been written by Joe Blow and not a noted dramatist with a political grudge, would anyone on an award committee have given them a second glance?
Buddies in bad times: This Cox & Forkum corker appears as the political cartoon in today's National Post:
Today's RoP roundup: A glance down the googlenews home page reveals several stories pertaining to the infinitesimal fringe of troublemakers in an otherwise peaceful religion:
Life would be so boring without the jihad.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha: That's the sound of me chortling over the quarter-page ad in yesterday's Globe and Mail touting the return, post-strike, of World Report, Ceeb radio's nightly newscast. The ad features a quote by an unnamed "CBC Radio Fan". The anonymous fan gushes, "We have only one unbiased voice in Canada, and it is the CBC."
If, by unbiased, one means a default setting tilted precipitiously leftward--not coincidentally, the default setting of most CBC staff and an ungodly percentage of Canucks--you too would see the Ceeb as fair-minded; how could you not, when all you'd likely be hearing were your own views being parroted back to you? But for those who don't cotton to the "America/Israel bad; Canada/EU/moonbats/Palestinians good shtick of an alternate universe in which Noam Chomsky is a hero and it's rude to call terrorists terrorists lest one offend them and their fans, the Ceeb is about as "unbiased" as, well, as that publicly-funded broadcaster across the pond, the Beeb.
That the Ceeb would dare print such an ad in a non-satirical setting shows how severe is its disconnect between self-perception and reality.
For more on the Ceeb and its unbiased coverage, consult cbcwatch.
More late breaking news--from yesterday: The Thursday Globe and Mail reported that in a new survey, most Canadians believe that our national policy of multiculturalism helps protect us against extremism. At the same time, most believed that a Canadian’s primary allegiance should be to Canada, and not from wherever they happened to come.
A baffling result, given that multiculturalism seems to have assisted the rise of the very extremism Canadians are so worried about, precisely because it's a policy which has encouraged people to maintain their own cultures at the expense of blending into the larger Canadian landscape.
Oh well. Who was it who said that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds?
In the same edition of the Globe, a very large mind is on view: Tariq Ramadan. The Globe describes him thus:
Tariq Ramadan, named twice by Time magazine as one of the 21st century's key innovators, is a visiting professor at St. Antony's College, Oxford, and a senior research fellow at the Lokahi Foundation. He speaks today in advance of the Institute for Research on Public Policy's symposium on Diversity and Canada's Future.
Makes the esteemed professor sound like a pretty good guy, a voice of modernism and moderation, no? One would never know from this blurb that Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood—not exactly the Rotary Club—and wasn’t allowed to take up a position at an American university last year due to his having expressed some less than moderate opinions back in Europe.
Anyway, even without having read about the recent poll, Ramadan is bright enough to sense the direction the wind is blowing in Canada. Recently, the Premier of Ontario gave a thumbs-down to the introduction of sharia law in the province, and Canadians seem to be holding their breath, waiting for some jihadi Paradise-seeker to set his eternal vacation plans in motion on a public transit system in a Canadian city, like some religious zanies did in London not too long ago. So Ramadan has penned a piece in Canada’s national newspaper (the piece is entitled Muslims: To thine own selves be true) in which he attempts to allay our fears. And if one is in an allay-able frame of mind, he would probably succeed; I checked today’s paper and there wasn’t one letter to the editor commenting on the piece. However, when I read it, certain paragraphs struck me as being extremely problematic. For example:
A new phase is occurring in the evolution of Canadian Muslim youth, and it raises important questions about how they look at their society.
They are going to need more than a simple discourse on integration. They will have to move beyond the notion of a patchwork of communities living together but not connecting with each other. They will need to know that Canada's social and political systems and culture are theirs. They will need to believe that they can embrace it fully, simultaneously retaining their own sense of self and of identity. To be able to say: "I can incorporate everything that's not opposed to my religion into my identity," and to assert that "anything not explicitly forbidden by Islamic principles is permissible" is an intellectual revolution.
For youth to say this means that they understand that while they respect universal immutable values, they have multiple and moving identities. Young Muslims must go beyond the "minority complex" trap -- to look at themselves as being Canadian citizens and forget about being a minority. (Let's acknowledge that it is a contradiction in terms to speak of "minority citizenship.") To some Muslims, this is still a world of "us" and "them." Such feelings stem from a lack of self-confidence. We in the West need a new kind of Islamic education to forge a self-confidence constructed not by seeing others as potential enemies but through a deeply understood idea of oneself.
While Ramadan seems to be urging Muslims to integrate into their new societies, he is telling them that, first and foremost, they Muslim remain true to their faith. Those universal values he refers to are different to Muslims and non-Muslims: Our values aren’t based on the Koran and sharia law. But as we know from reading other of Ramadan’s statements, that is the only kind of “universalism” which a practising Muslim can accept. So if our laws happen to be at variance with these laws—which, in many cases, they are—then our laws are bound to come second.
How do I know this? Because for some time now I have been engrossed in “a new kind of Islamic education to forge a self-confidence” in my ability to understand the history of Islam, the enduring role of jihad, and the true intentions of those who would try to placate me with a Sheherezade-like recitation of fables about the one true faith.
Sorry, Mr. Ramadan, I don’t buy it. Had you truly wanted young Muslims to integrate into Western societies like Canada, you would be advising them to put the laws of the land above the laws of their faith. That you haven’t, and that you wouldn’t, leads me to believe that what you really want to do is lull us nice, multiculti-minded Canadians into a false sense of security about the aims and motivations of "the small fringe", to use Tony Blair’s post 7/7 phrase, of true believers who will remain true to the “universalism” of the jihad. You know, the one your grandpapa was so committed to.
Poetry in motion: Kudos to the Swedish Academy. For the second time in two years they’ve cocked a snook at the U.S. and its imperialistic designs by awarding the Nobel Prize for Literature, the most coveted and esteemed literary prize on the planet, to an unreconstructed America-hater.
Last year, the prize went to a little-known and even less-read Austrian named Elfriede Jelinek. The bashful Ms. J., a shrinking violet who was most uncomfortable being shoved into the Nobel spotlight, had concocted several pornographic confections in which Bondage and Domination was integral to the action. But what may have really impressed the Academy was Ms. Jelinek’s way with invective, which she hurled with malicious, delicious glee at the regime identified as the most dangerous in the world—the one spearheading the fight against the jihad. (The part about jihad is my addition; funny how it rarely shows up in the America-haters' oevre. Woeful ignorance or intentional blindness? Or both?)
I won’t bore you with a review of this toxic and mostly incoherent work; after reading it through—twice—all I could glean was that Ms. J. was mighty peeved that the U.S. has caused all that killing in Iraq because it wanted to get its gas-guzzling, neo-con mitts on all that oil. (Hardly an original concept, but one still revered as a blistering insight in certain quarters.)
At least one Swedish judge diverged from the general consensus of his fellow literateurs and, to show his dismay at Ms. Jelinek’s selection, resigned from the august body. Admittedly, it was a little after the fact—just a few days before the announcement of this year’s winner which, as everyone knows by now was not Philip Roth or Margaret Atwood or Orhan Pamuk or even that Syrian poet with one name (and no, it isn’t Diddy). The winner was…………………………………………
Well, you know who. The British dramatist whose most eloquent use of language involves not so much what’s said as what isn’t said. In the………excruciating…………….often oppressive………occasionally torturous……….spaces ……he leaves….between words……..phrases……and…….lines of dialogue.
Okay, enough of that. We all know the man of the hour is Harold Pinter. (In Michael Billington’s 1996 biography of Pinter, which I just happened to have on my bookshelf, the playwright says he was inspired to adopt the pregnant pause—his trademark and most identifiable contribution to modern drama—after he saw a performance by American comedian, and master of the dramatic pause (for comedic purposes), Jack Benny. (One gets the sense in reading this, though, that Pinter may have been giving the fawning Billington’s leg a right tug.)
The Swedes say they decided to give him the award for a body of work in which he "uncovers the precipice under everyday prattle and forces entry into oppression's closed rooms.” Okay then. I don’t know about you, but I’ve searched high and low under everyday prattle, and even under some prattle that occurs less frequently, say, on a weekly or a yearly basis, and I have yet to uncover a single precipice. But maybe I’m not looking hard enough. Then again, I’m not a Nobel Prize-winning dramatist, nor am I a member of panel of highly pretentious literary judges whose way with words connotes what can only, and unfortunately, be described as a collective tin ear. Oh well. It probably sounds a lot better in the original Swedish.
Along with all his precipice-uncovering and closed room-bursting-into, the Academy hailed Pinter because he “restored theater to its basic elements: an enclosed space and unpredictable dialogue where people are at the mercy of each other and pretense crumbles." Having sat through several of Pinter’s nasty pieces of dramaturgy (query: does there exist a sympathetic, non-fucked-up character in all of Pinterdom?), I must concur. Naked stages. Naked emotions. Or emotions so pent up that they erupt suddenly and unexpectedly, which, after sitting through scene after scene of those boring, annoying, seemingly endless pauses, comes as a great relief. People talking to each other in seeming non sequitars in spare, often absurdist dialogue a la Beckett, the better to keep the audience disoriented and unsettled; the better to make them think they are witnessing a drama which offers unique insight into the wretched human condition.
Not a barrel of laughs, our Hal. Especially not these days. Diagnosed three years ago with throat cancer, he doesn’t expect to live long enough to write another play. But what’s really been pushing his buttons in recent years is the appearance on the scene of a maniacal American Commander-in-Chief determined to broaden American hegemony by pursing a bloody and bloody-minded was on Iraqi civilians. The War in Iraq has left Hal unhinged. In a series of broadsides, attacks, mutterings, sputterings, rants, fulminations, and yes, even poems (many of which you can read on his website) he has demolished the nefarious Bushitler, the Doomeister fueled by delusions of evangelical grandure who is driving us e’er closer to, to coin a phrase, the precipice. In most of these pieces, Pinter seethes with the same kind of pure rage which animates a jihadi, minus all that stuff about restoring the caliphate, of course. (A few years ago, Mark Steyn had a hilarious piece about Pinter’s bizarre performance in front of a bunch of school kids during a Christmas assembly. In an effort which long predated the Unicef Smuf short, Pinter traumatized the moppets with an off-the-cuff rendition of all the horrible things that would befall Santa’s unwitting reindeer if Bush ever got hold of them.) In the process, he has become a poster boy for what Charles Krauthammer, a trained psychiatrist, has called Bush Derangement Syndrome. A man in the grip of a particularly extreme case of B.D.S., Pinter seems fated to end his days drowning in a pool of his own bile.
Tragic, really. Nice of those Swedish chaps to give him a boost with their little award. Too bad it’s mostly for his latter-day vituperations than for his decades of literary output.
In closing, I post two poems, one by a Nobel Prize winner, the other, not. I trust you’ll be able to tell which is which.
Here’s the first:
Democracy
There's no escape.
The big pricks are out.
They'll fuck everything in sight.
Watch your back.
Whoa. A masterpiece of brevity, if I do say so myself.
And the second poem:
An unhesitant ranter named…..Pinter
On U.S.-hate was hardly a………….stinter:
”Their cold calculations
And bold machinations
Will doom us to...nuclear……………………………………………………….winter.”
Update: Pinter, the anti-Israel Jew
From the ridiculous to the sublime: Is there a literary term for the opposite of bathos? If so, I would use it to describe what will be unfolding tonight and tomorrow. Jews around the world will be beseeching their maker to give them another year of life--because unlike some others, Jews cherish and value life--and inscribe their names in a heavenly volume of those who will live to see another new year. Not everyone will make it, of course. Some will die by fire; some by water. Some, perhaps a lot, by avian flu, if, as the experts have been endlessly warning this is the year it finally crosses over to humans. Some by jihad. Some as the result of unstable tectonic plates. Yom Kippur is a Jew's last chance to persuade God to give him or her another chance. Sometimes it works. And sometimes, as the deaths of six million Jews in the Holocaust attests, it doesn't work.
I wish all my fellow Jews observing Yom Kippur an easy fast, and hope that God takes note of their prayers and incribes them in the Book of Life.
Logging off for now and hope to return on Friday.
The guilty pleasure of periodical bathos: Vanity Fair magazine has an absolutely hilarious cover story on gamine fatale, Paris Hilton. It's a hoot reading intellectuals like Naomi Klein and Camille Paglia deconstruct the vapid, decidedly un-intellectual Paris. (The article admits to Paris's intellectual, er, limitations, but insists she has "street smarts". Since she managed to parlay her image into more than $7 million for herself last year, I guess that's true. However, when the article offers the following bon mot as evidence of her "self-reflection"--"The nightclub scene is a very dark, bad scene, and I think dating someone involved in that, you're going to have problems"--you wonder how she mustered the neurons to do it.)
Anti-globalization diva Naomi on Paris: "She's always smiling, she never says much of anything, she's totally uncontroversial...Paris Hilton is like a palate cleanser. She's like, as semiotics would say, an empty signifier, so you can project absolutely anything onto her, which is the perfect situation for branding."
Uber-dyke Camille on Paris (and Britney--who invited that tramp into the piece?): "Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are sort of the twin daughters of Madonna. Britney has the performance side of Madonna, but what she lacks is what Paris Hilton has, and that is the ability to communicate with the still camera. She feels the Zeitgeist..."
Okay, Camille, but her popularity mushroomed because of her "performance" in a brief live action flick, and you have to admit "the Zeitgeist" isn't exactly what she was feeling in that one.
While V.F. profiler Krista Smith may think citing these intellectuals lends gravitas to her light-as-air subject, all it really does is dumb down the smarties by having them bloviate about insipid Paris in the context of their oft-stated obsessions (the "evil" capitalistic marketplace, for Klein; Madonna and other female icons of popular culture, for Paglia). That said, it's all quite deliciously bathetic.
Oh, and joke's on Graydon Carter, the V.F. editor and inveterate Bush-basher who's been having a run of bad luck of late. First, his magazine lost a libel suit in a British court to Roman Polanski (detailed at length in the current issue). Now, the cover of his October issue showing a topless Paris squshing her boobies together to create actual cleavage (no doubt assisted by some creative retouching) refers to the cover girl's impending nuptials--two weeks after she broke up with her "simple Greek Zillionaire with the same first name", as V.F. gushingly describes him.
Bad timing, Graydon. And if I were you, I'd be nervous. Paris (the male one) may decide to sue you for that "simple" crack.
No brainer: An assinine suggestion for dealing with the jihadis from, where else?, the New York Times. (link via Martin Kramer) The writer, Bernard Haykel, seems to think that since the jihadis don't feel the war in Iraq is doing much to boost their public image with other Muslims, what with all the exploding of Iraqi civillians in mosques and markets and all, they might be convinced to take another tack. Unfortunately, it is one no less perilous to infidels:
The simple fact is that many jihadis believe the war in Iraq is not going well. Too many Muslims are being killed. Images of that slaughter, conveyed by satellite television and the Internet throughout the Muslim world, are eroding global support for the jihadi cause. There are strong indications from jihadi Web sites and online journals, confirmed by conversations I have had while doing research among Salafis, or scriptural literalists, that the suicide attacks are turning many Muslims against the jihadis altogether.
The movement's leadership is sensitive to Muslim public opinion. Mr. Zarqawi's mentor, Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi, has denounced the campaign against Shiites as un-Islamic. Other prominent radical Islamists have advanced similar criticisms. And in a letter made public last week, Al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, cautioned Mr. Zarqawi against particularly gruesome executions and attacks on Iraqi civilians for fear of their negative impact on the global jihadi cause.
To be sure, the alternatives these critics recommend are no less violent. Rather, many of the movement's dissidents suggest that jihadis diminish their efforts in Iraq and revert to spectacular attacks in the West, like those that took place on Sept. 11. These, such thinkers maintain, are singularly popular among Muslims and the only effective means of doing long-term damage to the West.
Still, Western governments should encourage the debate among jihadis because, if the promise of absolute salvation through suicide attacks is thrown into question by some within the jihadi movement, potential recruits may come to doubt the wisdom of engaging in such tactics...
It's unclear how Haykel makes the leap from jihadis discussing violent tactics amongst themselves to their doubting the wisdom of waging violent jihad. To do so they would have to reject certain key passages in the Koran, an unlikely eventuality, to say the least.
Western governments shouldn't be encouraging debate among jihadis. They are a lost cause, and such a wasted effort would be akin to, say, FDR during WWII encouraging debate among Nazis. In any case, the jihadis seem to be disagreeing about methodology, not doubting the belief that martyrdom is a Muslim's highest calling and a one way ticket to Paradise. No, there's little Westerners can do to cause dissension in jihadi ranks because, well, because we're lowly infidels and Satan's minions: They're not going to listen to us. The only effective encouragement is likely to come from other Muslims, who will become so disgusted by sight of Muslim killing Muslim--as is currently happening in Iraq--that they will take drastic steps to curtail their blood-thirsty co-religionists.
Then again, how many millions of Muslims were killed by other Muslims in that interminable war between Iran and Iraq?
Peace in our times: I believe the following story speaks for itself. From Xinhua:
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres envisioned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas someday winning the Nobel Peace Prize for a future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel Radio said Tuesday.
Peres, himself a Nobel peace laureate, spoke one day after Hebrew University professor Robert Aumann was named co-winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize for Economics for his work on game theory.
Asked by the radio whether, despite current difficulties in the peace process, he could imagine Sharon and Abbas becoming Nobel peace winners someday, Peres replied "Certainly, yes."
"I very much hope that will happen," Peres said, adding "I wish them not only the prize, but also the reasons for the prize."
Peres received the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize, along with late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for the Oslo Accords which was signed in 1993...
Out of their smurfin' minds: UNICEF, the United Nations agency which assists lots of oppressed Palestinian children, has come up with a unique way to shill for funds: scare the bejeezus out of kids. Viewers of a Belgian newscast were recently treated to a preview of a new UNICEF animated short film featuring those lovable, irrepresible Smurfs. Only, instead of showing the blue characters cavorting in Smurfland and getting up to all sorts of mischief, the film showed happy, dancing Smurfs getting attacked by falling bombs. After that, according to the story in the Washington Times,
The Smurfs scatter and run in vain from the whistling bombs, before being felled by blast waves and fiery explosions. The final scene shows a scorched and tattered Baby Smurf sobbing inconsolably, surrounded by prone Smurfs.
The final frame bears the message: "Don't let war affect the lives of children."
Ooo, powerful stuff. Too powerful, in fact, for the many Belgian children who happened to be up at 9:00 to catch it. And, being up, who were broadsided by this unexpected take on some beloved cartoon characters.
Phillipe Henon, a flak for UNICEF Belgium, explained that the agency had set out to shock people (that is, adult people, not kids, whom they assumed would be in the land of Nod by 9 o'clock) out of their torpor. The 'CEFers had concluded that conventional appeals showing suffering Third Worlders had lost their power to motivate potential donors to dip into their pockets.
Brilliant idea, Phillipe (not really). Too bad you managed to traumatize an entire generation of Belgian youngsters in the process.
Update: Here's a photo of my least favourite Smurf, a character much beloved by the UN (click on first photo).
Eurabia marches on: The EUnuchs have forced Britain to water down EU anti-terrorism legislation. From This is London:
Home Secretary Charles Clarke is set to accept diluted EU anti-terror plans after losing a clash of wills with the European Commission and Euro-MPs.
His bid to use Britain's EU presidency to push for the toughest-possible to track terrorist activities through email and mobile phone data has come up against protests that the move breaches civil liberties.
The most Mr Clarke can expect is progress towards a deal to force Internet and telecoms companies to retain phone email traffic data for a maximum of one year.
Britain would like service providers in all 25 member states to be obliged to keep the data for much longer, with Mr Clarke warning against delaying action because of euro-bureaucracy...
Anyone counting on the EU to impede the progress of the jihad may as well don their funny dhimmi costume right now. Either that or proclaim one's allegiance to the o.t.f. (see first post of the day) in the presence of some true believers.
At least it's not "Bartolo Rectum": The Yankees are out of the World Series, no thanks to a pitcher who was forced to leave the game in the second inning due to a shoulder injury. His name: Bartolo Colon.
Some names don't translate too well into English, do they?
Plain speaking: Daniel Pipes applauds George W. Bush for finally naming the enemy. In the four years after 9/11, the enemy was identified as a tactic--"terrrorism"--and the effort to defeat it a war on that tactic. For the first time, an American President has eschewed the euphemism and spoken plainly: the enemy, he said, is radical Islam.
A bold move forward, says Pipes, but not nearly far enough. From FrontPage Magazine:
...The detailed texture of Bush’s speech transforms the official American understanding of who the enemy is, moving it from the superficial and inadequate notion of “terrorism” to the far deeper concept of “Islamic radicalism.” This change has potentially enduring importance if finally, 26 years later, it convinces polite society to name the enemy.
Doing so means, for example, that immigration authorities and law enforcement can take Islam into account when deciding whom to let enter the country or whom to investigate for terrorism offences. Focusing on Muslims as the exclusive source of Islamists permits them finally to do their job adequately.
Despite these many advances, Bush’s speech is far from perfect. His quoting the Koran harks back to 2001, when he instructed Muslims about the true nature of their faith; his comment about extremists distorting “the idea of jihad” unfortunately implies that jihad is a good thing.
Most serious, though, is his limiting the “radical Islamic empire” (or caliphate) to just the Spain-to-Indonesia region, for Islamists have a global vision that requires control over non-Muslim countries too – and specifically the United States. Their universal ambitions certainly can be stopped, but first they must be understood and resisted. Only when Americans realize that the Islamists intend to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shari’a will they enter the fourth and final era of this war.
Update: Former New York mayor Ed Koch castigates the New Dhimmi Times for its response to Bush's speech. From RealClear Politics:
On October 6th, President Bush delivered a superb speech on international terrorism. It is because our President has been willing to stand up to international terrorism and so many leaders in the Democratic Party have not been willing to do so, that caused me and millions of others to cross party lines and support him in the last presidential election and cheer his victory; notwithstanding that I did not then, nor do I now, agree with him on a single domestic issue, ranging from his proposals to reform Social Security and to changing our tax structure. For me, the single most important issue the world faced in 2001 and now, trumping all other issues, is international terrorism. President Bush’s willingness in the face of all the attacks, so many unfair and ad hominen, to continue to stand up and exhort the world to continue the ongoing battle against international terrorism is why I admire and respect him so much. Would that my party produced such a leader that I could similarly follow. I know that will happen someday.
The President’s recent speech on international terrorism was magnificent. The text of the President’s entire speech, delivered at the National Endowment for Democracy on October 6th, can be obtained from the White House.
The New York Times in two foolish editorials published on the next day, October 7, 2005, sought to denigrate the President instead of trying to add to our security by strengthening him in his leadership when he has taken on the ferocious, often insane, Islamic terrorists who believe they have the right to kill every infidel -- Christians, Jews, Hindus, et.al. The terrorists want to reestablish the Caliphate from Spain to Indonesia and impose militant aggressive Islam on the world. Osama bin Laden’s top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, wrote a 6,000 word letter, not intended for public consumption, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Queda’s leader in Iraq, the latter having earlier called for the killing of civilian Shiittes in Iraq and the killing of Christians and Jews worldwide.
Shouldn’t the Times editorials have referred to those terrorist dangers and, in particular, the grand plan of bin Laden which the letter describes. The Times news article quoting the official who provided the briefing to the Times, reports the letter was a “comprehensive and chilling strategic vision for Qaeda.”...
Dead as a doornail: Mikhail Gorbachev--remember him?--wants Russians to hold off on plans to bury Communist icon, Vladimir Illich Lenin. Lenin currently lies in all his embalmed glory--looking quite hale for someone without a pulse--above ground, a reminder of a deadly era in Russian history (one of many). Gorby thinks any move to bury him right now would be "hasty".
Hasty? The guy's been dead since 1924.
Desert storms: Last night I tuned in to the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer--the bland, unriveting newscast that is a throwback to the pre-CNN era when there were few visual bells and whistles and news was intoned by grim-visaged father figures like Chet Huntley and Walter Cronkite. After dozing though most of the soporific proceedings (admittedly, made even more soporific by the cold medication I had just taken--but really, even without the Neo-Citran, Jim Lehrer can hardly be termed a dynamo), I was briefly roused by Richard Rodriguez's closing commentary.
Rodriguez surveyed the sorry state of the three fraternal "desert religions" and concluded there was much amiss with them all. Bizarre alliances, like the one between fundamentalist Christians and Zionists. The intrusion of religion into secular areas, like education, where the religious-minded are trying to impose notions of "intelligent design". The alarming sight of "super churches" where thousands of Born-Againers crowd together in huge arenas for glitzy and overwrought services that are more like rock concerts than sites of contemplative worship. The irony of seeing religious leaders--Muslim, Orthodox Jewish and Christian--come together in Jerusalem, but only to express their mutual, religiously-based contempt for homosexuality. Muslim clerics who think they have God's go-ahead to kill infidels (which Rodriguez was quick to balance with a cleric who condemned the killing of civilians, infidel though they might be).
Rodriguez also cited an unnamed poll (which I was unable to find on the Internet) in which the majority of Americans said they "admired Muslims". No, not because of their ardor for their beautiful, peaceful religion, but for their ability to practise it in a public way in a public place. The visual was of row upon Muslim worshippers in prayer formation in some unidentified outdoor space. The implication was that American Chistian fundamentalists are jealous because lots of Muslims live in places where there is no separation between religion and the state--and that's the real evangelical agenda. (Rodriguez didn't mention if the poll asked Americans how they felt about other less "admirable" aspects of Islam.)
In other words, Rodriguez put a pox on all the desert houses, painting them as equally irrational, intolerant and inconsistent.
Well, far easier to do that than admit that some religions are inherently more irrational, intolerant and inconsistent than others; seems to me that, whatever else they may be involved in, Christian and Jewish believers aren't blowing themselves to Kingdom Come in the name of their desert God. Also, dissing and dismissing them all is a good way to distance yourself from the spectre of a triumphalist, supremacist faith, practised by a large segment of mankind, which has jihad as a central tenet.
As for Rodriguez himself? He says he's a Catholic who takes Communion every Sunday. But given what's happening in the world today, he feels much more comfortable aligning himself with agnostics and atheists.
In so doing, Rodriguez has fallen into the trap of those who revile religion: he foolishly assumes that, because they've eschewed God, the faithless are likely to be more enlightened and less given to oppressive ideologies than the faithful. That is patently absurd. If nothing else, the history of the calamitious 20th Century shows that political movements devoid of a Deity, like communism and fascism, can be just as deadly--and often, even deadlier--than anything a jihadi could come up with.
Instant Islam: One of the drawbacks of living in a Cold War-era Communist country--apart from the drabness of living quarters, the paucity of consumer goods and being forced to live under the watchful eye of a state apparatus given to suspicion and paranoia-- was the difficulty one faced when one wanted to leave. Getting in was a far easier prospect that getting out, and once inside one of these dystopias, there were few avenues open to those who wanted to escape--unless you were, say, Barishnikov or an Olympic athlete who could defect during a visit to the West.
I was reminded of this era when reading a story on Islam Online. (Doesn't everyone start the day by taking a dip in I.O.?) The article recounts the heartwarming "return" of three Ukrainian women to the one true faith (which I like to call the o.t.f., for short), just in time for Ramadan. This is the first woman's experience:
After much soul-searching, Mariam Kersanchik, 19, embraced the Muslim faith at the Islamic Cultural Center in Kiev, the Federation of Social Organizations (ARRAID), the Muslim umbrella body in the country, said in a statement e-mailed to IslamOnline.net Monday, October 9.
Kersanchik started her odyssey at the young age of 13, but was told then she could not revert to any religion as she was born Christian.
Later she discovered her Jewish origin and started reading about Judaism, but never found her destination in that religion and detested a rabbinical rule that she had to wait for 10 years to embrace the Jewish faith.
Kersanchik then was attracted to Islam and delved deep into this religion, which came under the spotlight after the 9/11 attacks.
She was delighted when a Muslim friend told her she can embrace Islam at anytime with no preconditions..
No muss, no fuss, no need to embark on a grueling course of study, and, above all, no need to wait. Getting into Islam is easy-peasy. But perhaps, in deciding to "revert" to the o.t.f., Ms. Kersanchik should have considered how easy it is to get out.
Prospects for peace: While the quartet keep pressing Israel to make peace in our time by adhering to a the route in the roadmap, the Israeli economist who just won the Nobel Prize for economics offers a more realistic appraisal of the situation. From CNN:
The Israeli professor who won a Nobel prize on Monday for his research on strategy and conflict had few words of comfort for compatriots wondering when their decades-old fight with the Palestinians would end.
"It's been going on for at least 80 years and as far as I can see it is going to go on for at least another 80 years. I don't see any end to this one, I'm sorry to say," Robert Aumann told reporters when asked about prospects of achieving peace...
Beautiful Maidens: 72 of 'em to be exact, the number said to be awaiting a shahid in Paradise. (Good thing they're incorporeal because, after blowing his body to bits, so is the shahid.) Beautiful Maidens is also the title of a television show now being broadcast in the the Middle East. The premise of the show: life in a Saudi residential compound being targeted by terrorists looking for love in all the wrong places--i.e. the afterlife.
One of the show's writers, Abdullah Bjad, is a former seether who has seen the error of his ways. He wrote the show with a specific purpose in mind. From My Way:
"The series is aimed at those who have not made up their minds about terrorism yet," he said, puffing on a cigarette in his studio in Damascus.
"We want to tell them that Islam is a religion of tolerance, peace and dialogue," he added. "It's not a religion of violence."
Noble ambition; dubious premise; tough sell. Especially in a part of the world where many admire the motives, if not necessarily the tactics, of the jihadis. The show is eliciting lots of response, some positive, but far more negative. The criticism comes from those who think it casts Islam in a poor light:
The programs, which began last Tuesday on the first day of the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan, have come under a blistering attack on the Internet in Arabic language chat rooms.
The critics are demanding the Saudi-owned and Dubai-based Middle East Broadcasting Corporation, a popular Arabic satellite television station that bought the show and broadcasts it across the region, cancel it.
Others lambasted its Syrian Muslim director and producer, Najdat Anzour, as an infidel for tarnishing the image of Islam. But still others have praised the groundbreaking series...
As per usual in the Arab world, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and you can count on the seethers--the squeakiest wheels on the planet--drowing out the low-key voices of the praisers.
Israel implicated in internecine issues: Those dastardly Israelis! Pretending that their disengagement in Gaza was for the collective good of their people, when all along the real aim was to pit Palestinian against Palestinian.
Don't believe me? It says so in an impeccable source: an article by Graham Usher in Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram:
...Over the following seven days, Israel renewed its policy of assassinating militants, bombing civilian infrastructure and arresting Palestinians in mass sweeps, all methods tried and tested throughout the Intifada. For the first time since the 1967 War, it used artillery to clear entire regions in Gaza and flew F-16s to trigger sonic booms at a rate of one every two hours.
The aim of the onslaught was two-fold. In Gaza it was intended to sow fear among the civilian population, creating a popular groundswell for the PA to "act" against Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In the West Bank the purpose was to wreck Hamas as an electoral force. Of the 415 Palestinians Israel arrested last week, 250 were Hamas members, most of them civilian cadre, including 14 local government candidates and 15 campaign managers. The sweep also netted political leaders Hassan Youssef, Mohamed Ghazzal and Ahmed Haj Ali, all three driving forces behind the turn to elections in the movement.
The rain brought its harvest. By 24 September, Hamas leader in Gaza, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, announced an end to all military operations from the Strip. And on 27 September instructions were issued to Gaza's Palestinian police to "arrest any person" not in uniform. Both decisions were taken unilaterally, without consultation and in response to the Israeli attacks. And both lay the seeds for confrontation...
Usher has left out a few telling details--like Hamas's post-withdrawal jubilations, culminating in the torching of several abandonned synagogues. Also, its assertion that the disengagement connoted a great victory for the strategy of terrorism, which it now planned to use in "liberating" the West Bank and Jerusalem (and, in keeping with its mission statement, eventually the rest of Israel).
Now, it may well be that Israel was looking for a way to convince Abbas to stand up to Hamas, something which he has steadfastly refused to do, preferring to bring the terrorists (and their religious derangements) into the political fold: certainly, Israel would prefer if the Palestinian leadership took care of the Hamas problem instead of off-loading the messy job on Israel. But you would never know from reading this article that Hamas is a jihadi terrorist outfit whose squabbles with the P.A. long predate the Gaza withdrawal and will likely continue for a long time to come, with or without Israeli stratagems to instigate trouble between "brothers".
Update: WorldNet Daily has an exclusive interview with Hamas bigwig, Mahmoud Al-Zahar. Dr. Zahar is labouring under the misimpression that his gang of thuggish, Jew-hating jihadis are "freedom fighters" in the tradition of America's founding fathers. In other places, delusions on this scale might land you in a padded room under heavy sedation. In the P.A. they are merely an unremarkable part of the political landscape. Here's an except from the interview:
WND: Dr. Al-Zahar, you're the leader of Hamas, which has attacked and killed a large number of Israeli civilians. Are you a terrorist?
Mahmoud Al-Zahar |
Al-Zahar: If I am a terrorist then there is a need to change the history of America and all of Europe. In this case we must call all the freedom fighters of America, like George Washington, a terrorist. Same for Charles de Gaulle, who fought against the occupation of France. Was he also a terrorist? From [U.S. President George W.] Bush's point of view I am a terrorist, but America which kills children is not a terrorist state? Israel, which has already killed more than 4,800 Palestinians, with more than a third of that number being children, this is also not terrorism from Bush's point of view. Unfortunately, history is being written in dirty ink through a dirty vision.
WND: OK, then what is terrorism?
Al-Zahar: Terror is the use of mass-destruction weapons against innocent and weak people to impose on them your policies and political facts and solutions...
I want to ask about what happened [when America pounded the caves in 2001 during operations in Afghanistan] at Tora Bora? And what happened and is still happening in Fallujah? Are the Americans shooting chocolates and biscuits on the local and innocent population? No, they are shooting missiles...
Self-loathing peaceniks: William Shawcross on peace activists who decry American's actions in Iraq but are eerily--and amorally--silent about the wretched things Arabs are doing to other Arabs. From the Los Angeles Times:
IT SEEMS UNLIKELY that many of the so-called peace marchers who trooped through Washington and London two weekends back listened on Thursday — at least not with an open mind or sympathy — to George Bush's cogent explanation of why coalition troops are fighting and dying in Iraq.
You did not see in those demonstrations, after all, many banners reading, "Support Iraq's New Constitution," "No to Jihad" or "Stop Suicide Bombers." The crimes committed daily against the Iraqi people by other Arabs who wish to re-enslave them seem to be of little interest to Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and their followers. Rage against the daily assaults on children, women, anyone, by Islamo-fascists and ordinary national fascists is not fashionable. Only alleged American crimes are cool to decry.
It's hard to think of a more graphic illustration of the horror the U.S.-led coalition is fighting in Iraq than the mass murder on Sept. 26, in which terrorists disguised as policemen (a New York Times headline called these butchers "fighters") burst into a primary school in Iskandaria, south of Baghdad, seized five teachers (all Shiites) and shot them dead. Children stood weeping through this atrocity.
Why do crimes like this make so little impression on those Americans and Europeans who want the coalition to abandon Iraq? The demonstrators think of themselves as moral, but it is hard to think of any policy more amoral than abandoning Iraq to such an enemy...
Old habits in the new Afghanistan: Afghanistan has come a long way since the Taliban tried to transform it into a model Islamic uptopia. Since Western forces chased out the Salafists, women have far more rights. They can once again go to school and appear in public without fear of being punished for what, in other non-Islamic, non-fascist states is considered ordinary behaviour.
Yup, a lot has changed in modern Afghanistan...Except, of course, for the stuff that hasn't. From the CBC website:
An aide to Afghan President Hamid Karzai denounced two women for appearing "half naked" last week in a beauty contest and fashion show. Mohaiuddin Baloch - a religious adviser to Karzai - said the actions of the two women are illegal under Islamic law.
Sutara Bahramia appeared in a bikini at the Miss Earth beauty pageant in Manila. Vida Samadzai wore a bra and loose skirt at a fashion show in India.
Both of the women have lived outside Afghanistan for many years - though they have both represented Afghanistan in pageants.
"I heard that they have come out half naked in public. Curse be to those who appear this way in front of the public," said Baloch.
Last week Baloch was in the news for jailing the editor of an Afghan women's magazine.
The editor had questioned the harshness of sentences handed out under Shariah law. He also said that Muslims who reject their faith should not be punished.
Afghanistan is a conservative Islamic country even after the overthrow of the Taliban. Under the Taliban women were barred from education and working outdoors.
Oh, that Baloch--such a way with words. Cursing out women who don't even live in his country for their un-Islamic activities. Working hard to to extend the reach of sharia beyond his own borders. Correcting those who dare question divine law.
Ain't freedom grand?
Iran responds: Iran has been slow to react to the news of ElBaradei's Peace prize, shocked, no doubt by committee's awarding the coveted prize to the watchdog which has done so little actual watching. The mully-bullies have finally figured out, though, that the award is kind of an insult to their them, and may serve to hinder--or at least, slow down--their nuclear plans. The m.-b.s have thus returned to their default setting: lobbing warnings at their opponents. From Reuters:
Iran warned Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei on Sunday not to let the policies of the U.N. atomic watchdog be steered by superpowers that want Tehran hauled before the U.N. Security Council.
Iran was slow to react to the awarding of this year's peace prize to ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which he heads. The IAEA has been investigating U.S. charges that Tehran is seeking nuclear arms.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, who declined to comment when ElBaradei won the award on Friday, offered guarded praise in Iran's first official response.
"We congratulate Mr ElBaradei ... but he should try not to let the IAEA fall into the hands of the great powers," he told a news conference.
The IAEA has been investigating Iran's nuclear program for almost three years and last month its 35-member board of governors passed a resolution which could see Tehran's case referred to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions...
Given the speed of the investigation and the intensity of IAEA reaction to Iran's failure to co-operate (the case "could" be refered to the Security CounciI--then again maybe it won't) the mullahs don't have much to worry about.
A modest proposal: Stuck in quagmire? Can't seem to find a way out? The San Francisco Chronicle suggests the U.S. let the Arabs ride to the rescue:
In Washington last month, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, warned the Bush administration that Iraq is hurtling toward disintegration, a development that he said could drag the region into war.
It seems clear that two trends pose a very serious danger to the Arab world.
First, a Sunni-Shiite civil war (which is, in fact, already raging) could spill over into the gulf and beyond with disastrous consequences for the stability of the states concerned.
Second, a dismembered Iraq would no longer be able to serve as a counterweight to Iran, thus dealing a serious blow to Arab regional security.
For these two reasons alone, an Arab initiative to end the conflict is urgently required.
What form could it take? Some leading European countries, confronting the difficulty of concerted action by their 25-member union, are talking of forming a core group within the European Union. The Arabs face a similar dilemma. The 22-member Arab League is too big and too divided for effective action in spite of the efforts of its excellent Secretary-General, Amr Mousa.
An Arab core group -- consisting, for example of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco -- might be better placed to devise a strategy to help the United States, Britain and the suffering Iraqis out of the current quagmire.
Such a four-member core group could (a) hold a summit of their heads of state in, say, Abu Dhabi; (b) call for a three month-long truce in Iraq; (c) set a firm date for the withdrawal of foreign forces; and (d) invite all Iraqi parties and communities -- whether Shiite, Sunni, Kurd or Turkman, as well as nationalist, non-confessional and secular groups -- to send representatives to a grand conference in a neutral venue to thrash out a formula for power-sharing and revenue-sharing in a new Iraq...
Yeah, I'm sure the Arabs can shake off their inertia and hatred long enough to drag the U.S. out of the "quagmire".
Hey, maybe we can get the Nobel committee to give the Arab League a Peace prize. You know, as incentive.
Elbow room: The despised occupiers are gone, the locals are triumphant but, asks an article on the Beeb website, is Gaza, now devastated, worth rebuilding?
Depends who you ask. If, like Alan Johnston, the writer of the piece, you follow around a Palestinian named Badr who laments the ruined landscape--for which he blames Israel, natch--you might have some doubts:
Like everyone in Gaza, Badr hopes that the wastelands of the settlements can be redeveloped.
 |
 The concrete points that formed the great star shape are now no more than ragged stumps 
|
"I want to see new factories," said Mohammad Saloot, as he and his children scoured the streets for scrap in what used to be the community of Neve Dekalim.
"I want to see new projects - so that we get jobs."
"There needs to be a lot of investment. It would be a big loss if it stays like this," said Mohammad, looking around at the mounds of broken masonry.
Nearby stood the remains of Neve Dekalim's huge synagogue, built in the shape of a towering Star of David.
For the settlers, it had been the centre of their spiritual world. Now it is just one more scene of utter destruction.
It has been partially blown up. The concrete points that formed the great star shape are now no more than ragged stumps.
Graffiti on a wall reads: "Israel's gone to hell."
The Beeb piece makes it sound like Gaza is far too constricting for some folks. Bet they can find exactly the kind of Lebensraum they're seeking over in Israel.
Update: How ironic. Here's how Wikipedia defines "Lebensraum":
Lebensraum (from the German for "living space") is an idea that was used to justify the expansionist politics of Nazi Germany. It was similar to the American philosophy of Manifest Destiny and the Israeli settlements policy.
No bias there, right?
Look for the silver lining: The latest word is that the terrible earthquake in Kashmir yesterday has killed at least 30,000 people. The sheer number of casualties makes one shake one's head at the cruelty of nature and the randomness of human tragedy. Some folks, though, are trying to look at the bright side. They belive this horrible event will help bring Hindus and Muslims together in the spirit of brotherhood and shared hardship. From News 24:
The shared tragedy confronting India and Pakistan in disputed Kashmir could pay dividends for the fragile peace process, experts said on Sunday after a massive earthquake left thousands dead there.
"It will certainly help in furthering the peace process," former Indian foreign secretary and ambassador to Washington Lalit Mansingh told AFP.
Joint relief efforts could boost confidence, Mansingh said, noting that Indian and Pakistani civilians as well as the troops that face off across the Kashmiri border had lost their lives in Saturday morning's massive quake.
"This is a common tragedy. There is nothing political about this. It can help bring people together," Mansingh added.
The nuclear-armed rivals are engaged in a peace process that has seen two major rounds of talks since January 2004 focused on divided Kashmir - the trigger for two of their three wars since 1947.
Both countries claim the scenic Himalayan region in full.
India accuses Pakistan of training, arming and funding an Islamic rebellion, a charge Islamabad denies. It admits, however, to extending "moral, political and diplomatic support" to Kashmiris seeking independence from India.
More than 40,000 people have been killed since the outbreak of the insurgency in Indian Kashmir in 1989...
Mr. Mansingh, cockeyed optimist that he is, has failed to consider the one factor which always seems to get in the way of these brotherhood projects: five letter word, starts with "j".
Riviera reveries: Had Saddam played his cards rights--which, being the preening, overweening scoundrel he was, he couldn't manage to--he might have ended his days soaking up the sun on the Cote D'Azur. Instread, of course, he ended up dirty and smelly in a rat's hole in Iraq. But had he been a little better at Texas Hold'em, Saddam could have decamped to one of two properties which the Sunday Times reports he owned in the south of France. Skinhead squatters have taken up residence and added their own unique decorating touches to one of them (hint: they're not exactly Martha Stewart), but both remain valuable pieces of real estate. And while he would have missed all the fun times back home--gassing Kurds, his interchangeable lookalike underlings, opening a vein so a Koran could be written in his blood, flunkies who delighted in unloading enemies of the regime by inserting them feet first into plastic shreaders, the assorted hijinks of sons Uday and Qusay ("oho, such cut-ups")--Saddam would undoubtedly have felt very comfortable in his new digs:
...France’s strict privacy laws combined with the Côte d’Azur’s comfortable climate have made it the bolthole of choice for dictators in retirement. Residents have included Mobutu Sese Seko, the Zairean dictator, and Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier of Haiti.
Had Saddam chosen a life of exile on the Corniche du Paradis Terrestre — literally the “Corniche of Earthly Paradise” — his neighbours would have included various Arab potentates, notably the Emir of Qatar.
On the same road, behind high walls topped by video surveillance cameras, is a house owned by the sister of the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. One of Osama Bin Laden’s brothers also owns a house on this so-called “billionaire’s hill” overlooking the bay.
If Saddam had tired of the Arab ambience, he could have rubbed shoulders with the international jet set — singers Tina Turner and Bono have homes on the Riviera — and the presence of the “butcher of Baghdad” would no doubt have given a special frisson to parties during the Cannes film festival...
For this they get a prize?: An editorial in yesterday's Boston Herald questions the wisdom of choosing Mo ElBaradei and crew to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The editorial calls the selection--which seemed to hinge not on past performance but on what the recipients might do in the future, given the right encouragement--a "mockery". I prefer the word "travesty", but why quibble over semantics:
At first blush it seemed like some kind of bad joke, a prank hatched in Oslo to embarrass the Nobel Committee. But, no, it's just the Nobel Committee managing at once to express its contempt for the United States in general and the Bush administration in particular and make a mockery once again of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Mohamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency were announced as winners of the 2005 prize yesterday.
``At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation. This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work of the IAEA and its director general,'' the committee said, apparently conceding that the award isn't based on what the agency has accomplished - which is precious little - but what it might accomplish.
In fact, the nuclear non-proliferation effort has lost ground on ElBaradei's watch. Not that he managed to screw up single-handedly. Heavens no! He had lots of help from the hapless United Nations and Secretary General Kofi Annan.
For two years the United States has warned about the development of nuclear weapons in Iran and asked that the Security Council impose sanctions. Last month the IAEA passed a resolution warning Iran that it would make such a recommendation if Iran wasn't more forthcoming about its nuclear program.
IAEA inspectors were expelled from North Korea in 2002 even as that country continued to rattle its nuclear sabres. Only the current six-party talks have a prayer of accomplishing anything.
The world has become a more dangerous place while ElBaradei and the IAEA looked on. For this they get a prize.
Yasmin's diary: Every so often I like to dip into British periodical, the New Statesman, just to see what the other side is thinking. In the current edition, I came across the following snippet in Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's Diary. The diary is a regular feature in which the writer recounts some events and experiences which she thinks are interesting (and sometimes are):
Mike Leigh's perceptive new play, Two Thousand Years at the National Theatre, is about a contented north London secular Jewish family that is unsettled when the son, Josh, a brooding man in his late twenties, unexpectedly exchanges safe cultural Jewishness for devout Judaism. In any number of middle-class Muslim homes, exactly the same panic breaks out as their young suddenly embrace "true" Islam, get into costume (puce hijabs, white caps) and douse the house with blessed orders and deadly sanctimony.
I have also seen the Tara Arts production of The Merchant of Venice, which is directed by the talented Jatinder Verma. In his hands, Shylock becomes a man agonised. Reviled by supremacist Christians, Shylock is driven to destructive vengeance - again, a state of mind that modern-day Muslims understand exactly.
In so many ways, Muslims and Jews are cultural siblings, but the Muslim Council of Britain doesn't understand these deep connections. It wants to scrap Holocaust Memorial Day, an abysmal call, even by its own low standards. I have a far better idea: dim, obtuse and agents of division, let's scrap the MCB instead.
When I first read this entry I thought: "How refreshing--a woman with a Muslim-sounding name who sees Jews as 'cultural siblings' (whatever that means) and has no time for the inanities of the Muslim Council of Britain." Then I re-read it and realized that, while Ms. A-B's heart may be in the right place, her head is in a bit of a muddle. She believes, for example, that "exactly the same panic breaks out" in Jewish and Muslim households when a son finds God. Wrong. In a Jewish household, while parents may be confused about their son's choice and ignorant about his newly-adopted religious practices, they can be fairly certain that the most incendiary activity he'll become involved in will be a heated discussion with his Rebbe about some arcane piece of Torah lore. In a Muslim household, there's always the fear that their son will be persuaded by a jihad-minded religious leader to pack a substantial amount of explosives into a rucksack and detonate himself in a public place. I suggest that this engenders a much greater and much different kind of "panic".
Then there's Ms. A-B's observation about The Merchant of Venice. Can she really believe there's a parallel between Shylock and today's Muslims? Let's see:
- Shylock--a standard anti-Semitic stereotype, albeit with a high literary gloss, who manifests all the hated characteristics of a hated people. Cunning. Cruel. Money-grubbing. Driven to seek revenge on the Christians who've wronged and reviled him.
- Modern-day radical Muslims--driven by their understanding of the Koran's jihad ideology to trounce the infidel and conquer as much of the world as they can for the one true faith.
Nope, don't think the analogy works too well.
Totalitarian admiration society: Ah, the brotherhood of tyrants. It manifests itself in so many interesting ways. Take, for example, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's deep-seated admiration for Ayatollah Khomeini. Not since Stalin signed that pact with Hitler have a Communist and a fascist seemed so preternaturally close--even though in this instance one of them is dead. (Obviously, Stalin and Hitler are also defunct, but they were alive and malign when they forged their agreement.) From IranMania (an aptly named site--and incidentally, the whimsical use of the question mark is theirs, not mine):
The second edition of the Spanish translation of Imam Khomeini?s biography was recently published in Venezuela, the Persian service of the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported.
?This edition of the book has a print run of 1,000 copies,? Iranian ambassador to Venezuela told IRNA.
The book?s first edition was published last March in Venezuela and it was dedicated to former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Ahmad Sobhani added.
He noted that the founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, is a known personality in Venezuela and Latin America. The book has been published in response to the request by the enthusiasts.
Venezuela?s universities and other higher education organizations also keep the book as part of their curriculum, he stated.
Sobhani went on to say that the book?s first edition was sponsored by the Political Studies Center of Venezuela Foreign Ministry and Iran?s embassy in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, cooperated in publishing the second edition of the book, translated by Pedro Gual in 209 pages.
The third edition of the book, containing several pictures of Imam Khomeini, is scheduled to be published in Venezuela at the end of 2005, he said in conclusion.
Well, they do have their mutual loathing of America (a.k.a. Great Satan) in common.
Opportunity of a lifetime--and beyond: Looking for a way to combine your interest in jihad with your talents in public relations and media production? Have I got a job for you:
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Al Qaeda has put job advertisements on the Internet asking supporters for help putting together its Web statements and video montages, an Arabic newspaper reported.
The London-based Asharq al Awsat said on its website this week that the terrorist network had "vacant positions" for video production and for editing statements, footage and international media coverage about militant activities worldwide.
The paper said the Global Islamic Media Front, a Web-based organization linked to Al Qaeda, would "follow up with members interested in joining and contact them via e-mail."
The paper did not say how applicants should contact the Global Islamic Media Front.
Al Qaeda supporters widely use the Internet to spread the group's statements through dozens of Islamist sites where anyone can post messages.
The advertisements, however, could not be found on Islamist sites where extremist groups post their statements.
Moo-Moo in the Promised Land?: Is Libya's addlepated potentate getting set for a "surprise" visit to Israel? Maybe. Maybe not. From Albawaba:
Is Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi set to pay an historic visit to Israel? 
Palestinian sources have claimed that press circles in the Libya reported that "Israel and Libya have agreed on a surprise visit by Muammar Gaddafi to Israel, this following a failure to arrange a visit of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to Tripoli."
The sources added that the Libyan ruler has recently spokes about his desire to visit Israel while meeting members of an American delegation. According to the reports, Gaddafi said during the meeting that his visit will help in normalizing relations between Israel and Arab and Islamic countries.
The sources said Gaddafi is expected to hold meetings with several Arab leaders before he visits Israel, in order to obtain legitimization for the visit.
In recent years, there have been press reports about possible establishment of ties between Israel and Libya. Last year, an Israeli parliament member, Ephraim Sneh, said Gaddafi could forge ties with Israel.
Sneh, who met the Libyan leader's son during 2004, was quoted as saying "Gaddafi has made a strategic decision, and he is not a man of small steps".
His remarks came amid media reports that Israeli and Libyan officials met in Europe to discuss the issue.
But Libya, which has never recognized Israel and called for its destruction, has denied all these reports.
If memory serves, the variously-spelled dictator suggested a "one-state solution" for the problems, to be renamed "Isratine".
Update: Moo-Moo's visit to the entity (were such a thing actually to occur) is unlikely to garner him any fans in the "tine" half of the equation. Palestiinian Media Watch, an invaluable window into the bizarre and irrational landscape of the Palestinian media, has a post about how Palestinians are displeased by recent signs of Arab/Muslim rapprochement with Israel. Their media have likened the contact to Arabs consorting with prostitutes, with the Israelis, of course, in the role of beckoning whore.
Jihad? What Jihad?: You know that War on Terror we've heard so much about? Al Jazeera, the authoritative yet moderate voice of the jihad, says it's all a figment of Bush's imagination:
In another attempt to rally the world’s fading support for his war in Iraq, President Bush said yesterday that the U.S. had thwarted 10 terrorist plots since the Sept. 11 attacks.
The White House released a list of the attacks that have been thwarted, including plans for Sept. 11-like attacks on American soil.
The U.S.'s war on Iraq and effort to justify it by fabricating intelligence and selling it to the world’s media is a part of a larger American plan to extend its economy over the world and controlling the world’s oil, according to an article in the Russian broadsheet Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
The U.S. is enacting a shameful farce before the entire world; this farce is mingled with much bloodshed and terrorising nations instead of “fighting terror.
In practice everything is happening as in the [Ivan] Krylov [19th century Russian writer] fable: "You are to blame because I am hungry." The Iraqis are suffering simply because their country has the world's second largest proven reserves...
So remember, folks--there were no WMDs, it's all about the oil, and the world's problems would evaporate if America would only endeavour to feed the poor.
And, oh yeah, did you know that George W. Bush thinks he's on God's speed dial? (I'm sure I'm not the first to point out the fortuitous timing of this story, following Bush's rousing speech. Purely co-incidental, no doubt.)
Nuclear hijinks: While Mo ElBararadei and the gang were keeping tabs of sorts on the proliferation of nuclear arsenals, lots of nuclear skullduggery was occurring in plain view. That's the conclusion of an MI5 report obtained by the Guardian. According to the report, hundreds of organizations--including universities and Pakistan's high commission in London--have been striving mightily for some time to help the bad guys go nuclear:
The determination of countries across the Middle East and Asia to develop nuclear arsenals and other weapons of mass destruction is laid bare by a secret British intelligence document which has been seen by the Guardian.
More than 360 private companies, university departments and government organisations in eight countries, including the Pakistan high commission in London, are identified as having procured goods or technology for use in weapons programmes.
The length of the list, compiled by MI5, suggests that the arms trade supermarket is bigger than has so far been publicly realised. MI5 warns against exports to organisations in Iran, Pakistan, India, Israel, Syria and Egypt and to beware of front companies in the United Arab Emirates, which appears to be a hub for the trade.
The disclosure of the list comes as the Nobel peace prize was yesterday awarded to Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN watchdog responsible for combating proliferation. The Nobel committee said they had made the award because of the apparent deadlock in disarmament and the danger that nuclear weapons could spread "both to states and to terrorist groups".
The MI5 document, entitled Companies and Organisations of Proliferation Concern, has been compiled in an attempt to prevent British companies inadvertently exporting sensitive goods or expertise to organisations covertly involved in WMD programmes. Despite the large number of bodies identified, the document says the list is not exhaustive...
Memo to the Nobel committee: Looks like you're too late.
Having a baby can be a scream: The title, I believe, of an old Joan Rivers book. As I recall, Joan touted what she called a "Jewish delivery"--that is, knock me out and wake me when it's over. Apparently, Kelly Preston and her husband John Travolta, both devout Scientologists, aren't familiar with the tome. The Travoltas, upon hearing the good news that Katie Holmes has Tom Cruise's bun in her oven, have offered the mother-to-be the following sage advice. From Ireland Online:
Scientology couple John Travolta and Kelly Preston are urging Katie Holmes to have a 'silent birth' when she delivers fiance Tom Cruise's baby next year and follow the church's strict doctrines.
Scientologists believe children should be brought into the world without any fuss and be allowed to quietly get used to their surroundings. That means no music, no chatting and no expressions of pain from the mother.
Preston explains: "It's just because everything in moments of pain is really recorded and you want to have that (the birth) peaceful and clear of sort of suggestions or different words that can then affect them (babies) in their future."
So remember, Katie: as you're passing something the size of a watermelon through something the size of a garden hose, try to keep it down, 'kay?
Just call him Dhimmi Frost: Veteran broadcaster David Frost has announced that he's signing on with the Islamic CNN (a.k.a. Jihad TV, a.k.a. Al That Jaz). (link via Drudge)
David Frost--you mean that toothy gasbag who interviewed Nixon way, way back in the 70s (as my son refers to the era in which the first Star Wars movie appeared)? I thought he was dead.
A playground divided: In case you thought anti-Israel propaganda was solely the domain of media on the mid-to-hard left, an article in the Times Onlines disabuses you of that notion. It all about how those nasty Israelis have built their nasty old wall right through the middle of a Palestinian playground--where Palestinian moppets like to cavort and frolic in their adorable Jew-loathing (oops, my characterization, not the Times') way--out of pure malice:
PALESTINIAN children returned to their school after the weekend to find that a 24ft concrete wall had been built through the playground, leaving the classrooms on one side and the football pitch and volleyball court on the other.
The Anata boys’ high school play area now lies on the Israeli side of the towering wall of prefabricated concrete blocks, which is part of its controversial 435-mile “security barrier”. The land will be annexed by the Jewish settlement of Pisgat Zeev.
“It’s made life hell,” Mahdi Hamdan, 15, one of the 800 pupils at the school, said. “There’s no normal learning, no normal education. Israel put the wall here to let us know they control us, to show there’s nothing we can do to get our freedom or resist.”
“We feel like we’re in a prison,” Hisham Mahmud, also 15, said. “School isn’t what it used to be. We used to stay after lessons to play football, but now we go straight home to avoid friction with the soldiers.” The barrier has blotted out the sunlight from some classrooms. It has also led to the abrupt cancellation of the soccer league.
The construction workers, accompanied by soldiers, appeared without warning, triggering clashes with some pupils and villagers. The soldiers responded with teargas and stun grenades and a number of arrests were made.
Youssef Elayan, the school principal, said that the Palestinian Authority’s Education Ministry had filed a complaint in Jerusalem’s High Court, but he was adamant that the Israeli authorities could easily have chosen a different path.
“For sure it could have been built elsewhere,” he said. “It is obvious there were lots of places it could have been built. But they put it here out of spite.”
Israel maintains that the separation barrier — a combination of concrete, razor wire, ditches and electronic fence — is vital to keep out Palestinian suicide bombers. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in suicide attacks in the past five years. Israel says that the barrier, less than half complete, has cut attacks significantly.
But as sections of it snake their way through and around Jerusalem’s outlying fringes, it is having many unintended detrimental effects on the Jewish and Palestinian populations of what Israel deems its “eternal and undivided capital”...
How dare those Israelis think of Jerusalem as their "eternal and undivided capital" when it is also so coveted by dar al Islam?
The threads of mind woven in the Koran: Forget al Qaeda. These days it seems the jihadis we really have to worry about are freelancers--like the Bali bombers--who are engaged in ad hoc acts of terror. These zealots take their marching orders not from Osama or one of his higher-ups, but directly from the final, perfect revelation itself. From the New York Times:
A senior Indonesian counterterrorism official said Thursday in an interview that the bombers seemed to have been "jihadists" without previous involvement in terrorist acts that would have brought them to the attention of the authorities.
A former senior member of Jemaah Islamiyah, the radical Islamic organization here, who has defected and is helping the government, said he did not recognize any of the men, the official said. The heads of the presumed bombers were severed in the blast, and pictures of them have appeared on television and in newspapers. The official spoke on condition that he not be identified, because he is not the authorized spokesman for his agency.
The Bali attack, which in addition to the 3 bombers killed 19 people, most of them Indonesians, in separate explosions at three restaurants, seems indicative of the way in which terrorism is shifting, terrorism experts say.
It was less sophisticated, complex, costly and deadly than the terrorist operation in Bali three years ago, in which a van loaded with explosives exploded in front of a nightclub, killing 202 people. And the organizations that financed the earlier attack, Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah, have been severely weakened.
Yet the terrorist threat remains, while presenting a different challenge from when Al Qaeda provided training, financing and direction.
"Outside of the Middle East and North Africa, this is the first time we have seen suicide bombers walk into a restaurant and blow themselves up à la Israel," said a senior Western official who has closely monitored terrorist groups and activities for the last four years.
"It is only a matter of time before what you saw in Bali on Saturday night happens in a Western country," he said. The official spoke on condition that his name and country not be used, a condition imposed by most individuals of his position with access to intelligence information.
The threads between the London, Madrid and Bali attacks are not organizational, he said: "They are threads of the mind."
The terrorists have a common world view, a shared ideology. There is no evidence of outside direction, he said, and that makes fighting them challenging in a different way. He argued further that small attacks could add up to a devastation equal in some ways to large, catastrophic ones by eating away at people's security and at the economy.
These attacks should be seen less as a change in tactics than "a demonstration of another capability," said a security adviser with experience in the public and private sectors. He declined to be identified, in part for security reasons and because he has close ties to Western law enforcement agencies that would not be as willing to share information with him if they knew he talked to reporters.
In the London bombings it is not clear who may have been behind the bombers. Here, the main suspects as the masterminds are Azhari Husin, a skilled bomb-maker, and Mohamad Noordin Top, a charismatic recruiter and fund-raiser, who are thought to be operating on their own.
In that sense, their personal terrorist trajectories mirror the evolution of terrorism. They began as members of Jemaah Islamiyah and acted on direction from Al Qaeda, but officials here and elsewhere say they now form ad hoc groups to carry out attacks.
They have a large pool of men to recruit from. Thousands of young Indonesian men have been indoctrinated at religious schools in hatred of the West and of Jews. Some 300 Indonesian men trained in Afghanistan before the fall of the Taliban, and another 300 or so have trained at Jemaah Islamiyah camps in the Philippines. Training continues at the Philippine camps, but on a smaller scale, the officials say...
Then again, maybe al Qaeda just want us to think it isn't pulling the strings. (Whoa--I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. In that vein, did you know there's a religious conspiracy to take over the world that's neither secret nor Jewish?)
Terrorism tongue twister: Try saying this quickly, three times--"Rubber Baby Buggy Bombers".
The Bush Whisperer: Big brouhaha today over remarks George W. Bush suppposedly made in the presence of the P.A.'s Deputy P.M. Nabil Shaath. Shaath insists that, in a 2003 meeting between Bush and Abbas, which Shaath witnessed, Bush said he had a direct pipeline to the Big Guy upstairs. From Reuters:
In advance excerpts from the (BBC) television series "Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs" to be broadcast this month, Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan'.
"And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did.
"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And by God I'm gonna do it'."
Shaath, who was the P.A. foreign minister at the time, says he didn't take the President literally: "It was really a figure of speech (by Bush). We felt he was saying that he had a mission, a commitment, his faith in God would inspire him ... rather than a metaphysical whisper in his ear."
Two possibilities here:
-
-
Shaath is fibbing, in which case, he would hardly be the first Palestinian to exhibit a tenous and somewhat fanciful grasp of reality (Jenin, anyone?).
In either case, the story is clearly intended to discredit Bush, to make it seem that Dubya, the crackpot Crusader, is leading the charge to Armageddon. The annecdote--does it really matter if it's true?-- confirms the worst fears of his naysayers: that the jihad is little more than a figment of Dubya's addled, evangelical imagination, and all would be well in the world if not for him.
And if you believe that, you're probably one of those hopeless cases who thinks that jihad is the internal, individual struggle to strive in the path of God.
Update: The San Francisco Chronicle headline says it all: Bush said God told him to invade Iraq, Arab leaders say.
Quick now: on a scale of one to ten, and taking into account Bush's awareness of his audience's sensitivities to the whole Crusader scenario (and the incredibly negative reaction when he used the word "crusade" after the 9/11 attacks), how plausible is it that the President of the U.S. would tell two Arab Muslim leaders, "I'm driven with a mission from God"?
Update: Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn discuss the quote:
HH: Now, a comment. I don't know how deep we can go into this BBC press release in my hand right now. God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers, announcing a major three part series on BBC-2, elusive piece. They quote Palestinian officials as saying President Bush said to all of us I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan, and I did. And then God would tell me, George, go and fight the enemy, the tyranny in Iraq, and I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, go to the Palestinians in their state, and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East, and by God, I'm going to do it. Do you believe for a moment that that's other than total undeniable nuttiness?
MS: That quote comes from the so-called Palestinian foreign minister, and I think he's completely concocted off the top of the head. I think these people don't realize that actually, there's a kind of level of plausibility you have to have when you...I mean, I'm a journalist, and I know plenty of journalists who in the course of their careers, like to tweak and improve a quote every so often. You know, the guy doesn't say quite what you want him to say, so you give it a nudge that's a little more pithily expressed. There's a lot of journalists who do that. They're not meant to do it, but the trick, if you're going to pass off fake quotes, is they shouldn't be so obviously fake. And this one is.
Mobel Prize: Congrats are due to Mohamed ElBaradei who, in the tradition of Jimmy Carter--another stoneless milquetoast who had trouble standing up to Iran--finagled a Nobel Peace Prize out of those guys in Norway.
Way to go, Mo!
Update: The Ceeb calls ElBaradei a "shy but dogged campaigner for non-proliferation."
"Dogged"--Funny, that's what I call him too.
Update: ElBaradei says the prize will give him and his impotent agency a much needed "shot in the arm" which will help him deal with nuclear miscreants like Iran and North Korea.
Maybe so, but only if it's a shot of Viagra.
Update: Mo ElBee sings an old ring-a-ding classic (covered more recently by Robbie Williams):
How lucky can one guy be?
To have some Norwegians pick me.
They all fell for my charm:
Ain’t that a shot in the arm?
The honour was keenly sought
It shows that they like me a lot.
Seems I’m doing no harm:
Ain’t that a shot in the arm?
My head keeps reelin’
You’ll never know what I’m feelin’
Winning a prize so appealin’.
My life is wonderful.
I don’t need to raise no alarm
When asking them all to disarm
I’m so shy
Just a guy with a shot in the arm…
Update: The Times points to ElBaradei's failure and says awarding him the prize isn't a shot in the arm but a slap in the face--of America:
Giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Mohamed ElBaradei is a slap in the face for the United States.
That was surely the motivation; it is hard to see any other reasons for the award to him, shared with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In the past eight years, they have failed to detect covert nuclear programmes in at least three countries - and failed to get diplomatic purchase on the problems when others have finally brought them to light. That does not amount to a contribution to world peace.
The single judgment which ElBaradei has got right in his eight years as Director-General of the IAEA is the one most provocative to the US: that Iraq, in 2003, had no significant nuclear programme.
But to be fair to the US, it never put much weight on the Iraqi nuclear programme two years ago. It did believe that Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons posed an immediate threat, but thought the nuclear work was probably rudimentary. Any nuclear threat lay in the future, in Saddam Hussein’s known interest in acquiring the capability.
The IAEA’s "success" in not exaggerating the threat of Iraq in 2003 is compromised by the number of times it has missed a threat entirely: Saddam's nuclear programme before 1991, the Libyan and Iranian programmes and the "nuclear supermarket" run by A Q Khan, the Pakistani scientist.
It was also slow to sound the alarm about North Korea’s conversion of its civil nuclear power into a weapons programme.
The greatest recent incident of tension between nuclear powers - the stand-off between India and Pakistan after the 1998 nuclear tests - was left to the US and Europe to tackle.
In North Korea, the IAEA has been sidelined as the US, China and Japan have taken the lead, together with South Korea and Russia...
You mean to tell me the noble Norwegians would stoop to politics in awarding their high-minded prize?
Shocking.
Update: A blogger for the Guardian tackles the issue from a different perspective (natch), lauding the Norwegians for being brave enough to "stick out their necks". (Shots in the arm, slaps in the face, sticking out necks--I sense a recurring theme here.) As the Guardian blogger sees it, it's not so much about slapping Dubya's face as it is about endorsing the UN and its modus operendi:
Coming after the oil-for-food report and a spike in UN bashing, largely from the US right, the award to the IAEA, a UN agency, is also a boost to the world organisation and an endorsement of the principles of multilateral diplomacy.
Precisely.
Update: My last word on the subject for today:
Mo ElBee has expressed his humility
That the Norwegians affirmed his ability.
But his IAEA,
I’m sorry to say,
Is an exercise in futility.
"Less" is more: UN's feckless, spineless, clueless, useless, toothless nuclear Chihuahua, Mohamed ElBaradei, is in contention for a Nobel Peace Prize. (link via Atlas Shrugged)
To which the only rational retort is: "Really, on which planet?"
Mark an "X" beside the terrorist of your choice: The Palestinians, lucky buggers, will have even more choice in their upcoming elections. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade--rivals to terror outfit Hamas--has announced plans to throw its black mask (you know, the one with the eye slits) in the ring. From the Jerusalem Post:
Although it has been added to the US State Department's official list of foreign terrorist groups, the armed wing of the ruling Fatah party, Aksa Martyrs Brigades, is planning to run in the next elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council.
The group's decision is likely to embarrass Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, who is already under heavy pressure from Israel to prevent Hamas from participating in the vote. Moreover, it is understood that the US and the European Union are opposed to the participation of Hamas and other terrorist groups in the elections.
Abbas, according to some of his aides, is seriously considering postponing the parliamentary elections slated for next January because of ongoing anarchy in PA-ruled areas, and fears that Hamas would make a strong showing...
When is enemy of your enemy not your friend?: When the enemy of your enemy is Iran. From the Financial Times:
Not so long ago, London appeared to enjoy an almost cordial relationship with Iran. Tony Blair, prime minister, regularly despatched Jack Straw, his foreign secretary, to cultivate ties with the Islamic republic in the run-up to the Iraq war and again, afterwards, when Britain played a lead role in ensuring Tehran's nuclear ambitions were kept on hold.
But the relationship is becoming confrontational. Mr Blair on Thursday bluntly warned Tehran not to interfere in Iraq and declared that he would not be intimidated by Iran's efforts to put pressure on London over the nuclear dispute.
Mr Blair said he believed, though was not certain, that Iran was supplying weapons technology to Iraqi insurgents who have carried out bomb attacks on western forces, killing eight British soldiers in the last few months. Similar allegations have been made over the past year by US officials.
The prime minister's comments moved Britain closer to long-standing US hostility towards the Islamic republic...
Drat! If you can't count on a totalitarian jihadi theocracy these days, who can you count on?
Good thing Jack Straw has abandonned the effort to cultivate ties with the Islamic republic and has moved on to forging bonds with secular Turkey.
Not a pretty picture: The following is one of several cartoons featuring the Twin Towers from Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram. This one I thought particularly noxious:
Refresh my memory: How much jizya does the U.S. fork over every year to our friends, the Egyptians? Doesn't seem to buy a whole lot of good will these days, does it?
Quote of the day: From the preface to the new edition of T.S. Eliot, anti-Semitism, and literary form, by Anthony Julius:
When the world becomes too variously complex to grasp, simplifications are felt to be necessary. Anti-Semitism is the great simplifier. As the French ideologue Charles Maurras put it: 'Everything seems impossible, or frightfully difficult, without the providential arrival of anti-Semitism, through which all things fall into place and are simplified.' It is anti-Semitism's versatility, and what gives it such resilience, that it can embrace such contradictory imaginings. It appeals to Left and Right; it offers solutions to every social ill; it knows the secret of human misery.
Oink, oink: While I am a member of a tribe which eschews the porcine--specifically, the ingestion of pig flesh--I admit to being somewhat baffled by the over-the-top Muslim reaction to the piggish. In FrontPage Magazine, Robert Spencer remarks on how, slowly but surely, all traces of pigs are being removed from public view in Britain, a sop to Muslims deeply offended by the mere sight of the porine. As a result, such icons of English culture as Piglet, you know, the sweet little character from Winnie the Pooh?, and all pigs, both past and present, animated, literary, even decorative and porcelain, are disappearing.
Spencer's piece gives rise to some semi-mirthful possibilities, like:
- actor Kevin Bacon forced to change name to Kevin Beefry for overseas audiences;
- "This Little Piggy" no longer permitted to go "to market" or "wee, wee, wee all the way home" as nursery rhyme expunged from Mother Goose;
- Wilbur, the pig from children's favourite, Charlotte's Web, changed into rooster for British editions of book;
- Boss Hogg in "Dukes of Hazzard" movie given more benign, less incendiary name--Boss Frogg;
- Muppet diva Miss Piggy axed, but, with minor adjusments to nose and removal of ears, remade as new chubby blonde character, Miss Suha;
- "Th-th-th-th-that's all folks--Porky Pig missing in action from old Warner's Bros. cartoons.
But it also elicits this much more serious query: If the seethers succeed in divesting the British scene of inanimate pigs, how long will it be before they demand the removal of the, to them, even more offensive human version of "pigs"--as a certain people of the book are described in God's final, perfect revelation to mankind?
But don't worry. It'll never happen in the U.K., nicht wahr?
No-fly zone: One unforseen consequence of trying to blow up infidels on airplanes: it's making it harder for Muslims to get to Mecca. Canada, for example, is set to introduce a "no-fly list". The list would include the names of those who may be tempted to ignite their dynamite-packed sneakers or engage in other explosive behaviour while on board an aircraft. Naturally, the prospect of such a list, which would make it difficult for some of the faithful to fulfill one of their holy duties, it causing a bit of agita in the expected quarters. Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, is planning to launch a legal challenge to the list. According to the brief article in the Globe and Mail, Mo has a few questions for the authorities. He wants to know: how many people will be on the list; if they'll be notified (presumably, before they try to board a plane); how long a person named on the list can expect to remain on it; and, once on it, how they can get their names removed.
Crucial questions all, especially if you're a jihadi trying to co-ordinate your trip to Mecca with your regular jihad activities.
PENing conspiracies: An editorial in the Globe and Mail condemns PEN Canada for selecting Paul William Roberts to receive the Paul Kidd Courage Award for bravery in journalism. The "bravery" being acknowledged here: Roberts' "brave" assertion, in a number of overwrought, conspiracy-minded works, that America is a vile superpower attempting to seize control of the planet.
Here are are few of Roberts' intrepid but deranged statements as cited in the editorial:
- "Iraq is a key part of a plan for world domination whose origins go back a decade."
- Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, the event that precipitated the Gulf War, "cannot be held against Saddas as the wanton, naked act of agression that it is popularly conceived to have been."
- Washington may have deliberately fabricated a terrorist threat so as to "have a national demon to replace the defeated Soviet Red Peril."
And there you have it. Anti-Americanism of the most virulent kind, and, sadly, worthy of a grandiose award up here in the Great Fatuous North. No actual bravery involved, of course, as Roberts and those applauding his "achievements" are merely expressing popular and widely-held sentiments--"preaching to the converted", to employ the Globe's worn-out phrase. The editorial notes that it would be far more impressive if PEN Canada had chosen someone whose views were contrary--bravely contrary--to its own.
Tizzy over Turkey: Are they in? Are they out? My head is spinning from all the diplomatic--and not so diplomatic--machinations going on over in Brussels. To steady myself, I've reworked an old Dave Edmunds tune:
You want to sign up with that “Christian” country club
But you’ve too many seethers, aye, that is the rub.
We hear you knocking
But you can’t come in.
We hear you knocking
Go back where you been.
You’ve wanted in for more than nigh on forty years
But you can’t seem to quell our fundamental fears.
We hear you knocking
But you can’t come in.
We hear you knocking
Go back where you been.
You’ve threatened if we snub you they’ll be hell to pay.
But we may go ahead and do it anyway.
We hear you knocking
But you can’t come in.
We hear you knocking
Go back where you been.
Jack Straw et al belive that Turkey’s bit will work.
Because of changes wrought by Kemal Ataturk
We hear you knocking
But you can’t come in.
We hear you knocking
Go back where you been.
But Austria suspects the Turks have other plans
Because of past experience with Ottomans.
They hear you knocking
But you can’t come in.
They hear you knocking
And they know where you been…
Library vignette: So I'm waiting in line to check out the book I've reserved at the library--Bernard Goldman's 100 People Who are Screwing Up America--and I strike up a conversation with the woman behind me. Nice woman, obviously Jewish (she's standing with her pre-adolescent, kippa-wearing son), like me making a quick dash to the local bookhaus before the start of Rosh Hashanah. The library staff are busy for the moment, which gives us a chance to chat. Several minutes into the conversation she notices my book.
"That looks interesting," she says, clearly unfamiliar with Goldman or his work.
She picks up the book, scans it for a second or two and quips, "Who else is screwing up America, besides the President, of course?"
Almost simultaneously I say, "Wrong political slant", and she drops the book as if it's made of kryptonite. Which I guess to her it is.
No further conversation ensued.
Pray for Katie: Holmes, that is. She's gone and gotten herself pregnant by a man who thinks severe post-partum depression can be remedied by taking vitamins and doing sit-ups.
Can she at least have an epidural, Tom?
Shana Tova: On today's agenda: Make the brisket (a seven pound slab of beef--courtesy our friend in the kosher beef biz--cooked slowly with onion, garlic, rosemary, red wine). Cook the chicken soup (onion, garlic, carrots, celery, bay leaf). Make the matzoh balls for the chicken soup (open the package; mix in oil and egg--okay, so I cheat a bit here). Later on, veggies, potatoes and other side dishes yet to be determined. Cakes--already baked and frozen (made with apples picked fresh from my own apple trees).
I love Rosh Hashanah. It's so delicious!
Signing off now until after the holiday. Returning bright and early Thurday morning. Wishing you and yours a happy, healthy, sweet and peaceful New Year.
The Caliphate movement: FrontPage Magazine has an interview with scholar Paul Marshall. He's written a book about "extreme sharia"--the intepretation of Islamic law which is tied to a larger totalitarian Islamist agenda:
Marshall : I’ve spent a good chunk of the last three years in many parts of the Muslim world interviewing people about Sharia. One thing I quickly learned was that Muslims mean very different things when they use the term. Sharia's root meaning is "the way" or "path to the water" and to most Muslims it implies doing God's will, not necessarily imitating the Taliban. In , polls show 67 percent support for "Sharia" but only 7 percent objecting to a woman head of state. There it seems to means something like the American polling term "moral values." Polling in shows a similar pattern: 80% support for Sharia combined with 80% support for equality of men and women.
To many Muslims, criticism of Sharia as such sounds strange because, much as they might disagree with stoning adulterous women or cutting off the hands of thieves, the word implies “justice” or “goodness.” So I use the phrase ‘extreme Sharia’ to describe the laws implemented by the Saudis, and others throughout the world.
FP. Tell us the importance of Sharia in the context of the world situation today.
Marshall : The state enforced imposition of retrograde Sharia law is central to the project of Islamist terrorists worldwide, whether in , , or . Their explicit, continually reiterated, program is, in brief, to restore a politically unified worldwide Muslim community, the ummah, ruled by a single ruler, a Caliph, governed by the most reactionary version of Islamic law, Sharia, and organized to wage jihad on the rest of the world. We are in a battle with what is most accurately called the Caliphate movement.
A key element of their program and appeal is the replacement of democracy, legislatures and “man-made law” with what they regard as the immutable divine law declared by God to Mohammed...
Intelligent explanation: In the Globe and Mail's Letters to the Editor, a University of Toronto professor saves me the trouble of articulating my position on "intelligent design":
Professor Kenneth Miller is right: creation and evolution are not incompatible (Does God Wear A Lab Coat? -- Oct.1). When He created space, time, matter and energy, the creator (God) also created the marvellous natural laws (the laws of physics, chemistry and mathematics) that govern them. These natural laws contain elements of randomness and probability that are just what is needed to produce natural selection and evolution. Evolution is provided for in the scientific view of creation: God created evolution. After the Big Bang, the universe unfolded according to God's laws. No further intervention on the creator's part need be postulated after the starting shot to account for the present state of the universe. Is that not the ultimate in intelligent design?
To be succint: evolution and natural selection is intelligent design.
What, you thought the Big Guy had a bunch of angels beavering away at a giant AutoCAD in the sky?
Ripples in a poisoned pond: The Globe and Mail has an article about Ahmed Said Khadr, the accolyte of Osama bin Laden who poisoned the minds and lives of so many Canadian Muslims. According to the article, the malign influence of this one man "touched nearly everyone under investigation in Canada for terrorism.
Straw of Eurabia: Not long ago, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insisted that there was no fundamental difference between the Islam and the West. Of course, this is less a rational statement than a mercenary one: Straw is striving mightily to convince the EU, some of whom remain unconvinced, that it would be a grand idea to let Turkey join their exclusive party. Turkey, a secular Muslim nation which has been sliding back into the beckoning arms of Allah, has been knocking on the door for more than 40 years, and until now, Europe has been reluctant to let it in--precisely for that reason.
To listen to the Straw Man, though, there's no problemo. Turkey, he says, is "clearly a European nation". And to refuse entry to this clearly European entity would be to invite "a so-called clash of civilisations". Straw is worried about the "theological-political divide" we're all heard so much about and contends it will be bridged if Turkey is embraced in the fold instead of "pushed the other way".
The other way being the Islamic way--the way Turkey, being Islamic, is likely to go whether or not it is allowed into the EU.
All of which begs the most pertinent question: Would allowing Turkey in make Turkey more European or Europe more Islamic?
I think we all (and by "we all" I mean everyone but Jack Straw and the other EUrabian EUnuchs) knows the answer to that one.
Update: Turkey's Prime Minister Tanyip Erdogan wants in to the "Christian club" (query: are any of these EUnuchs actually practising Christians?). And if you don't let him in, there'll be dire consequences. From CNN:
"Those in the EU who cannot digest Turkey being in the EU are against the alliance of civilizations. What I declare is this: the costs resulting from all this will be paid by them," said Erdogan, adding that he was not "bluffing".
"I appeal to the EU leaders -- I invite them all ... to show good sense for the sake of global peace and stability," he said.
True Lies: Mark Steyn has a biting and droll shellacking of the media (doesn't he always?) in the Chicago Sun-Times. On this occasion, it's for the way the media marched in lockstep following Hurrican Katrina, falling for every fabrication it was fed.
Among those who ardently saluted the "Blame Bush" bandwagon: retired Texas gasbag Dan Rather, who applauded every false step and lie because it put the hatred Bush administration in the worst possible light:
...Yet Hurricane Dan professed himself delighted with his successors. "They took us there to the hurricane," he told Larry (King). "They put the facts in front of us and, very important, they sucked up their guts and talked truth to power."
Er, no. The facts they put in front of us were wrong, and they didn't talk truth to power. They talked to goofs in power, like New Orleans' Mayor Nagin and Police Chief Compass, and uncritically fell for every nutso yarn they were peddled. The media swallowed more bilge than if they'd been lying down with their mouths open as the levee collapsed. Ten thousand dead! Widespread rape and murder! A 7-year-old gang-raped and then throat-slashed! It was great stuff -- and none of it happened. No gang-raped 7-year-olds. None.
Most of the media are still in Dan mode, sucking up their guts and congratulating themselves about what a swell job they did during Katrina. CNN producers were advising their guests to "be angry," and there was so much to get angry about, not least the fact that no matter how angry you got on air Anderson Cooper was always much better at it. And Mayor Nagin as well. To show he was angry, he said "frickin'" all the frickin' time so that by the end of a typical Nagin soundbite you felt as if you'd been gang-fricked. "That frickin' Superdome," he raged. "Five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."
But nobody got killed by a hooligan in the Superdome. The problem wasn't rape and murder, but the rather more prosaic lack of bathroom facilities. As Ben Stein put it, it was the media that rioted. They grabbed every lurid rumor and took it for a wild joyride across prime time. There was a real story in there -- big hurricane, people dead -- but it wasn't enough, and certainly not for damaging President Bush...
Remembering Phil: Ron Rosenbaum has an appreciation of an all-but-forgotten folkie--and one of the semial influences on my life--singer-songwriter Phil Ochs. What stimulated Rosenbaum's reverie of Ochs was the Martin Scorscese's documentary about Bob Dylan, No Direction Home, shown last week and this week on PBS:
I know there’s a lot of Dylan in the air these days, and I’m happy about that. But after seeing Scorsese’s No Direction Home, I found myself thinking about someone else, an almost-forgotten contemporary of Dylan: Phil Ochs.
Let me explain. For some reason, I had the good fortune to watch a screening of the Scorsese documentary up at PBS with one of my lit-crit faves, John Leonard. I’d been a fan of his ever since college, when I read his underappreciated black-comic novel, Crybaby of the Western World (somebody should reissue it), and I’ve come to admire the way that his prose in The Nation and The New York Review of Books has become, to use a Dylan analogy, critical language gone electric. There was one stretch a while back when his remarkable reviews of Pynchon, Roth and Bellow made them suddenly new for me by the sheer force of his will and wit.
And when it comes to Dylan matters, I even admire his support for the pro-folkie, Joan Baez wing of the culture that Dylan left behind (expressed in Mr. Leonard’s beautiful NYRB essay on David Hajdu’s Positively 4th Street)—even though I’m a pro-electric-Dylan guy myself and don’t see the need to disparage one to appreciate the other. But it matters that someone like Mr. Leonard cares about such things.
In any case, in the course of watching the three-and-a-half-hour, two-part Scorsese Dylan documentary in the PBS screening room, it occurred to me that I should express the gratitude I felt to John Leonard and tell him how much his work—especially the way he opened up non-academic lit-crit writing to a kind of inspired, allusive, pun-intensive playfulness—meant to me over the years. Not that it should matter to him, but it mattered to me.
And I felt gratitude to Dylan, too. Even though the story’s been told over and over (and over) again, Scorsese’s focus on how much Dylan persisted in his electric vision despite its bitter unpopularity among his folkie base was inspiring. He was onto something, he knew it, and he wasn’t going to let go of it because of some envious carpers.
So there I was: leaving PBS, thanking John Leonard, walking down Ninth Avenue, grateful to Dylan. In an “attitude of gratitude” mode, as some friends of mine might say. And I found myself thinking about someone else who deserves my gratitude, props from us all. Someone on the folkie scene who was probably burned for good by being too close to the wheel on fire that was Dylan.
I was thinking of Phil Ochs. I was thinking of his beautiful, perfect song, “There But for Fortune,” and how much gratitude I had for it. How it probably changed my life, or my way of thinking about life. And I was thinking about what I might have said to Phil at that dinner we’d had in L.A. not long before he killed himself.
You all remember Phil Ochs, right? Anyone … ? Bueller? (About half the people I asked recently didn’t.) Back when Dylan was just becoming Dylan, Phil Ochs was a rising star on the folkie protest-song scene before Dylan eclipsed all other stars. His anti-war anthems like “I Ain’t Marching Any More” galvanized people at Vietnam-era rallies. He also did quieter, more personal folkie ballads that showed considerable singer-songwriter talent—“Changes” and “Pleasures of the Harbor,” for instance.
And then there was this one beautiful, perfect song which was, perhaps on the surface, political—but on a deeper, far more primal and powerful level, a song that was pre-political, even spiritual: “There But for Fortune.”
“There But for Fortune”: It was a kind of ur-politics with a killer melody, one of those songs that forever inscribed itself, melody and meaning, on some deep level of the self—well, of my self when I first heard Joan Baez sing it. But Phil’s version is, if possible, even more haunting.
I know that in some ways it shaped the way I think about politics more than any written document, it carried such a powerful emotional truth.
By all rights, that song should have been enough...
Sigh. Now I'm feeling all misty-eyed and nostalgic, and I can't even go listen to any Ochs because I gave away all my vinyl eons ago.
I wonder, can you get Pleasures of the Harbor on CD?
Home, sweet (floating) home: The Dutch, who know a thing or two about living below sea-level, have come up with an ingenious solution for high waters: amphibious houses. Here's a photo of a floating city. Could this be the new New Orleans? (link via Der Spiegel Online)
 |
|
Dura Vermeer
|
Handling Hamas: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has stated over and over that he has no plans to disarm Hamas, fearing that such a move would spark a civil war. Problem is, Hamas has become even too insufferable for Abu Mazen. From Reuters:
GAZA, Oct 2 (Reuters) - A Palestinian policeman was killed on Sunday in a Gaza gunbattle with Hamas militants in the worst outbreak of factional fighting since Israeli troops withdrew from Gaza last month, Palestinian police sources said.
They said 27 other people were wounded in the fighting that erupted after dark in Gaza City, among them three policemen.
Both police and militants accused the other of sparking the confrontation which began with a dispute that escalated into a gunbattle that spread to two Hamas strongholds in and near Gaza City.
Police sources said the policeman was killed after militants fired rocket-propelled grenades and tried to storm a police station in Shati refugee camp.
The infighting underscored the challenges facing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to consolidate control in Gaza and came days after Palestinian police launched a campaign to prevent militants from carrying weapons on the streets.
Israel has insisted Palestinians disarm militants as a condition to resuming peace talks under a U.S.-backed road map plan that calls for Palestinian statehood in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Fear and loathing of Ariel Sharon: Europe has a bit of a problem with Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. An informative article in the Middle East Quarterly sheds light on why this is so (hint: it has something to do with Jew-hatred):
The death of Palestinian Authority chairman Yasir Arafat together with Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's commitment to withdraw from the Gaza Strip may have injected new momentum into Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, but European attitudes toward Israel continue to deteriorate. This antagonism has many causes—anti-Americanism, media antipathy toward the Jewish state, a perception that Israel is an outgrowth of colonialism, and anti-Semitism. An almost irrational hatred of Sharon, though, has catalyzed many of them, channeling anti-Zionism to new levels. The European obsession with Sharon increasingly makes its involvement in Arab-Israeli diplomacy more a hindrance than a help.
Many Europeans doubt that Israelis want peace, yet they believe Palestinians do.[1] In November 2003, for example, a European Union-commissioned survey found that an average of 59 percent of Europeans saw Israel as posing a threat to world peace, more than felt the Islamic Republic of Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, or Pakistan to be dangers.[2] Some 35 percent of Europeans believe that the Israel Defense Forces intentionally target Palestinian civilians.[3] Almost half of Frenchmen and Germans surveyed recently believe the White House should exert more pressure on Israel; less than one fifth want to see more pressure on the Palestinians. (American attitudes are nearly the opposite).[4] In another European poll, 39 percent agreed that "Israel's treatment of Palestinians is similar to South Africa's treatment of blacks during the apartheid regime."[5] Fourteen percent felt Palestinian terrorism to be justified, and even those who did not agree believed Israel's response to terrorism to be "excessive."[6] Almost half felt that Israel was not an "open and democratic society."[7]
The European antipathy toward Israel informs policies. Western European diplomats privately vilify Sharon and argue that the onus should be upon Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians,[8] often without regard to Israel's security needs or right to exist as a Jewish state. European obsession of Sharon permeates public opinion, the press, and diplomacy. The consequences of Europe's problem with Sharon extend beyond academic debate and image. The demonization of Sharon has translated into a further decline of European support not only for Israel's security, but also for its legitimacy as a Jewish state. With media animosity toward Sharon shaping European public opinion, European diplomats have staked out positions that have undercut the efficacy of their diplomacy and international efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
This just in: Religion--and more specifically, evangelical Christiany--makes for unhealthy societies. It says so right in the Los Angeles Times:
It's official. Too much religion may be a dangerous thing.
This is the implication of a study reported in the current issue of the Journal of Religion and Society, a publication of Creighton University's Center for the Study of Religion. The study, by evolutionary scientist Gregory S. Paul, looks at the correlation between levels of "popular religiosity" and various "quantifiable societal health" indicators in 18 prosperous democracies, including the United States.
Paul ranked societies based on the percentage of their population expressing absolute belief in God, the frequency of prayer reported by their citizens and their frequency of attendance at religious services. He then correlated this with data on rates of homicide, sexually transmitted disease, teen pregnancy, abortion and child mortality.
He found that the most religious democracies exhibited substantially higher degrees of social dysfunction than societies with larger percentages of atheists and agnostics. Of the nations studied, the U.S. — which has by far the largest percentage of people who take the Bible literally and express absolute belief in God (and the lowest percentage of atheists and agnostics) — also has by far the highest levels of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
This conclusion will come as no surprise to those who have long gnashed their teeth in frustration while listening to right-wing evangelical claims that secular liberals are weak on "values." Paul's study confirms globally what is already evident in the U.S.: When it comes to "values," if you look at facts rather than mere rhetoric, the substantially more secular blue states routinely leave the Bible Belt red states in the dust...
Right. Because, as everyone knows, L.A. is the repository of morality and "values" in America, and those who deign to disagree with those "values" are rednecks from red states who mate with their cousins and are obsessed with Jesus.
Torture in Turkey: Count your lucky stars you're not suffering from a debilitating mental condition in Turkey. If you were, you'd be in store for some harrowing--not to mention barbaric--treatment. From the International Herald Tribune:
Turkey's psychiatric system, the group found, makes widespread and indiscriminate use of unmodified electric shock therapy - electroshock that is administered without muscle relaxants or anesthesia. Such therapy is frightening, painful, and dangerous. Electroshock therapy can be useful against some mental diseases, but Turkey uses it on nearly a third of its patients with acute mental disorders, including children. The group quoted the director of the electroconvulsive therapy center at one hospital as saying the therapy is effective only without anesthesia because patients need to feel "punished."
Turkey should immediately ban unmodified electric shock therapy and limit the use of modified therapy to cases in which it is medically indicated. It should never be used as a first resort, and never on children.
It will be more difficult to reform Turkey's practice of warehousing retarded or mentally ill children. Investigators found giant buildings - supposedly rehabilitation centers - filled with children confined to their cribs or living in total inactivity. When children begin the self-destructive behaviors that are a product of such boredom and abandonment, staff members tape plastic bottles over their hands so the children cannot use them. The staff in one institution told investigators that children who cannot feed themselves are left to starve to death.
How can such medieval practices thrive in a modern country? One reason is that these institutions are virtually hidden. In addition, Turkey lacks a widespread culture of rights, and its citizens do not often challenge the practices of a state that has at times given them good reasons for fear.
Condi speaks: In contrast to her bland words following yesterday's attack in Bali, Condi gave a rousing, flag-waver of a speech at Princeton University on Friday. Here are a few of her thoughts:
"In a world where evil is still very real, democratic principles must also be backed with power in all its forms: Political and economic, cultural and moral, and yes, sometimes military."
"If you believe, as I do and as President Bush does, that the root cause of September 11 was the violent expression of a global extremist ideology, an ideology rooted in the oppression and despair of the modern Middle East , then we must seek to remove the very source of this terror by transforming that total region."
"Some would argue that this broad approach to the problem is making the world less stable by rocking the boat and wrecking the status quo. But this presumes the existence of a stable status quo that does not threaten global security. This is not the case.
"We must recognise, as we do in every other region of the world, that liberty and democracy are the only guarantees of true stability and lasting security."
Stirring words indeed. But I have to question whether the U.S. really believes it can "remove the very source of this terror" when the source is "an ideology rooted" in the Koran.
Blah, blah, blah: An infinitesimal fraction of true believers, mistiniterpreters of the world's most inherently peaceful and conciliatory religion, lashed out at the "Israel" of Southern Asia yesterday, leaving 26 dead and over 200 injured. Bali, a tiny enclave of infidelism on land claimed by dar al Islamists, was attacked by two or more Paradise queue-jumpers who could no longer tolerate all that fun and frivolity going on in their midst, especially after had sent Bali sinners the same sort of message three years.
What's wrong with you infidels? Can't you hear?
Following the attack, the leaders of the Western world--or, as the report in Forbes puts it, "nations like Australia tha supported the Iraq" war as well as "those who opposed it"-- issued the usual post-suicide-attack bromides. Jacques Chirac said he was "stunned and saddnened". Condi Rice said the U.S. condemned the bombings and promised, "We will continue to work together in our common fight against terror." Tony Blair said "We stand by Indonesia at this difficult time."
Adding in his two cents' worth (the usual value of his musings), Kofi Annan called on authorities to quickly apprehend "the perpertators of this cowardly attack."
Were I an ardent jihadist, I would laugh at these pallid, ineffectual words--the collective wisdom of the leaders of dar al Harb.
Fitting headline: Jewish inventor of Valium, 97, dies peacefully.
Of course he does.
Loving and loathing America: Amir Taheri is a writer/commentator who usually has something insightful to say about the current political scene. But I think he's missed the boat with this piece in the New York Post. Taheri, who comes from Iran, says there's no need for Karen Hughes to act as a cheerleader for American in the Arab world; Arabs already love America:
Start with the tangibles. America is by far the largest pole of attraction for Arab foreign investment at all levels, from public-sector funds to small private savings accounts. The most conservative estimates put the value of Arab assets in the United States at over $4.5 trillion, which puts the Arab countries just behind Britain, Japan and Holland as the biggest investors in the U.S. economy.
The United States is also one of the top three trading partners of virtually all Arab states. In fact, many U.S.-made goods (cars, for example) that don't sell anywhere else still enjoy robust markets in Arab countries.
Then, too, America has been the No. 1 foreign tourist destination for Arabs since the 1980s, and has remained so despite restrictions imposed on Arab visitors after 9/11. Arabs from all walks of life and of all political sensibilities also love to send their children to study in America. And when it comes to seeking medical treatment, no country competes with the United States in attracting well-heeled Arabs.
If she takes time to stroll in Arab capitals, Hughes would be struck by the ubiquitous presence of things American. It is possible to spend a holiday in most Arab capitals without moving out of the orbit of American-franchised hotels, restaurants, tourist services and banks. A stroll in modern shopping malls would reveal a population wearing American-style clothing, including baseball caps, with Motorola mobile phones pressed to ears, as New Orleans jazz plays in the background. She could sip one of those coffees the choice of which requires a PhD at a Starbucks, or indulge herself in a Hagen-Dazs of her choice.
More than 70 percent of what's broadcast on Arab TV stations (including those regarded as "obsessively anti-American") is U.S.-made; 80 percent of the films shown in Arab cinemas are made in Hollywood. There are more than two dozen English dailies, all using the American version of the language. Go through them, and you see that much of the content comes from U.S. agencies and syndication services.
Even Arabic-language newspapers serve as outlets for American journalism. More than half of all major articles in the two main pan-Arab daily newspapers come from The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek and Time magazines and other U.S. publications. Some American columnists have become household names in most Arab countries.
Hughes is also bound to be struck by the number of Arab decision-makers with American educational or business backgrounds and/or connections...
No, if Arabs hate America--which, as Taheri has already stated, they don't, it's because of the hatred whipped up and exported by Americans:
In Arab newspapers, the bulk of the material that could be classified as anti-Bush and/or anti-American is translated from U.S. sources. Stroll in the streets where books and video and audio tapes are on sale at the curbsides and you will see that 90 percent of the items vilifying America come from American, French and British authors.
No Arab anti-American has produced anything like the conspiracy theories that American intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Scott Ritter, Seymour Hersh and Edward Said, to name a few, have put on the markets everywhere, including the Arab world.
Taheri then lists some acts of these egregious self-loathers, among them:
* Two years ago, a group of Americans appeared in Arab capitals to stop people in the bazaars to "apologize for the Crusades," although the United States didn't even exist when those wars were fought between Europe and the Middle East.
* Before the liberation of Iraq, scores of Americans came to Baghdad to offer themselves as "human shields" for Saddam Hussein. No Arab was so foolish.
* This month, a group of 30 American professors turned up in Tehran and Damascus to describe the United States as "a rogue state on the rampage".
* Bianca Jagger, presented as ambassador for UNICEF and "a leading thinker," has been in the region telling astonished audiences that the United States is the source of all evil in the world. (By the way, isn't UNICEF supposed to be apolitical?)
* One American professor recently published an op-ed in The New York Times relating his trip to Iran, where he was "disappointed" to see that students not only did not hate George W. Bush but, horror of horrors, also craved for an American-style democracy instead of an Islamist utopia.
* The anti-Bush demonstrations that Arabs watch on TV take place in Washington, San Francisco and Seattle, not in any Arab city.
The problem with Taheri's thesis is that he's left out a crucial piece of the picture: the jihadis. While it is true that Western self-loathing--and the efforts of the useful idiots of the hard Left--is of inestimable aid to those wishing to spread the jihad, without the jihad, there would be no terrorism, and without terrorism, there would be no War on Terror. The jihad is the key. And just because Arabs in Arab lands enjoy drinking Mochaccinos and indulging in double scoops of Rocky Road doesn't mean that some of them aren't also interested in the purported delights of the world to come. They may not have participated in anti-Bush demonstrations in Arab cities, but, then, that event was organized by and for Western self-loathers. The seethers have their own kind of "demonstrations". They rampage through the streets of Islamabad in the wake of false reports that a Koran has been flushed down a toilet. They hurl vegetables and furniture at a Jewish woman running for re-election in a London riding. They torch Jewish synagoues in Gaza after crowing about how terrorism has allowed them to reclaim their territory. These events are entirely of their own invention, requiring neither a Noam nor a Bianca to set them in motion; requiring only a fanatical belief in Islamic supremacy and the inevitablity of God's promise to the Prophet.
Benedict reaches out: This time, to the Jews. From the Times Online:
ISRAEL’S President is to visit the Pope at the Vatican next month in a move marking a new era of reconciliation between the Roman Catholic and Jewish faiths after centuries of hostility.
The state visit by Moshe Katsav to the Holy See on November 17 has no precedent. “This is an historic event, the first such visit in 2,000 years; this is history in the making,” Oded Ben-Hur, the Israeli Ambassador to the Holy See, said yesterday.
Pope Benedict’s decision to invite the head of the Jewish state to the Vatican will be seen as his latest move to fulfil his inaugural pledge to reach out to other faiths.
The German-born Pope, who was briefly and involuntarily a member of the Nazi Youth, is particularly conscious of the need to mend fences with Judaism, and made a point of visiting a rebuilt synagogue which had been destroyed by the Nazis during his visit to Cologne in August...
It's heartening to see the Vatican reach out to the Jews, historically, a people it's been inclined to disdain. It would be even more heartening if, the next time a papal spokesman listed the nations that have been subjected to terrorism, he would be so catholic as to include the Jewish state.
Template by Splinder.com | header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de