FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about an embarrassing videotape of Barack Obama speaking at a party for Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi. Well, Khalidi’s done it again by joining an appeal to raise funds for an American boat that will try to break the blockade of Gaza. And just in case anyone might fail to see the connection, they’re calling the boat “The Audacity of Hope”.

FresnoZionism.org has obtained a top-secret transcript of a recent telephone conversation between the President and Khalidi. Although we journalists — like the LA Times, which still keeps its tape locked up — must protect our sources, I can guarantee that in some possible universe  every word of it is entirely accurate:

Barack Obama: Ahlan Rashid!

Rashid Khalidi: Barack! Good to hear from you. Why don’t you come over for some of Mona’s hummus, like you used to?

BO: Well, you know. I have to be careful of my associations. Those right-wing neocon Zionist bloggers would have a field day if I did that. Which is why I called…

RK: You mean you want me to whack some Zionists? Just say the word, Barack. I’ll give Marzook a call. Itbach al yahud —

BO: No! Don’t do that. But actually, it does have to do with the pesky Jews.

RK: Al-Yahud qalab’na! We know how to handle them. Just fire some rockets into Montgomery County. I can —

BO: Please. I’m in enough trouble already. Why do you have to call your Gaza boat “Audacity of Hope?” You might as well name it “Barack’s Gaza Love Boat.” Here I am trying to make the Jews forget the fact that my administration has been the most anti-Israel one since 1948 — before the midterm elections — and you drag me into this!

RK: We must break the horrific blockade! Gaza is an open-air prison! People are suffering! You can see how bad it is here and here.

BO: But I thought the Zionists had ended restrictions on consumer goods… and even the UN thinks there shouldn’t be any more flotillas.

RK: Bah. Everybody knows that the UN is dominated by the Zionists. Look at how the Goldstone report accused Hamas of firing rockets at civilians!

BO: Well, anyway, this makes me look bad.

RK: Barack, you are not thinking right. There are huge shortages in Gaza. Like four-inch steel pipe. We are entirely out of four-inch pipe! And we need ball bearings — how are we expected to create local industry that can launch — er, export — its products without these things? Not to mention the need to send our people to Iran for terrorist training — I mean, vocational education.

BO: Now Rashid, you know how I feel about the Palestinian cause. That’s why you supported me for the Senate, and then for the Presidency. But can’t it wait until November?

Technorati Tags: Rashid Khalidi, Obama, Gaza, Audacity of Hope

The plan to build a ‘Ground Zero mosque‘ literally overlooking the site of the destroyed World Trade Center has brought the question of the meeting of Islam and the West to the forefront in a way that  even 9/11 and the terror attacks in Madrid, the London, Bombay, etc. themselves did not (if you haven’t read the post linked above, please do so).

The murderous attacks were clearly the work of fanatics. Although they were done in the name of Islam, it was possible to believe that the perpetrators were acting against normative Islam. It was said that they had ‘hijacked’ Islam for their nefarious purposes. Indeed, this appears to be the official position of much of the media, the government of the US and its legal and law enforcement agencies. The case of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, whose crime is being explained as a result of mental illness, is an example.

Americans have a passionate commitment, expressed in the Bill of Rights, to free exercise of religion. And the reaction to the historical treatment of blacks in our society — a national trauma — has made anything that even comes close to a negative general statement about any racial, ethnic or religious group a violation of taboo so extreme that the violator is instantly ostracized (although an exception is apparently beginning to be made for left-wing antisemitism). This is one reason for the popularity of the ‘hijacked’ metaphor.

Organized Muslim groups in the US such as CAIR and ISNA have been quick to present any criticism of Islam in general or any warning that political Islam could be a danger to our free society as ‘islamophobia’, a form of racism. People like Geert Wilders are called right-wing extremists or worse, as are ‘anti-Jihadist’ bloggers like Robert Spencer. It’s harder to attack Aayan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim who came to criticize Islam — particularly in connection to the position of women — from within, so while she is admired for her courage her ideas are mostly ignored.

There are also practical reasons to speak kindly of Islam. There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, they control much of the oil supply, and there are a large number of them who are prepared to respond to perceived defamation of Islam quite violently. There’s nothing that has more of a ‘chilling effect’ on speech than a credible threat to behead the speaker.

Unlike Wilders and some others, Daniel Pipes doesn’t believe that violent extremism is inherent in Islam (although this doesn’t keep him from being called an ‘Islamophobe’ and requiring police protection when he speaks). Pipes thinks that the texts of Islam can in principle be interpreted peacefully, but that the radical, expansionist interpretations that characterize the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian mullahs has recently gained ascendancy as the definition of normative Sunni and Shia Islam respectively.

Although there is only a small fraction of the Muslim ummah who are prepared to act violently in defense of — or in offense for — Islam, there is a growing number who provide moral and material support for them, because they believe that the truest, purest form of Islam is the most radical form. Unfortunately, the major Islamic organizations in the US are aligned with radical movements like the Muslim Brotherhood.

This also turns out to be the case with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the head of the “Cordoba Institute” which is spearheading the building of the Ground Zero mosque. And if Rauf espouses the expansionist radical Islam of the Ikhwan (brotherhood), then we can answer the question that I asked in my previous post about the mosque:

Does Abdul Rauf represent a moderate, conciliatory, tolerant Islam … or is he following in the tradition of the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, who built the Dome of the Rock over the ruins of the Second Temple in 692 CE? Is it a work of peace or a triumphal celebration of a successful act of war?

The Islam of the Ikhwan is more than ‘just a religion’. It is even more than ‘just a fundamentalist religion’. In addition to what we normally think of as ‘religious’ things requiring tolerance — practices of worship, ritual, moral codes, beliefs about a deity or afterlife, etc. — there are other features which the West cannot afford to tolerate.

They include a political program, a program to expand the borders of Islamic domination, and a legal, political and social system — Shaaria — which is diametrically opposed to the principles of an enlightened society (and the US Constitution), since

• It institutionalizes the superiority of Muslims over other religions, and men over women. It calls for the subjugation of Jews and Christians and the murder of ‘polytheists’ (for example, Hindus) who refuse to accept Islam.
• It is incompatible with democratic government. Decisions are made by religious authorities.
• It is opposed to personal liberty in social matters, even prescribing a death penalty for adulteresses and homosexuals.

And more.

Abdul Rauf’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood implies that this project is not a project of peaceful, tolerant Islam, because that is not the Islam of the Brotherhood. It is an Islam of conquest and the imposition of Shaaria in the conquered territory.

For the brotherhood, the horrific terrorist attacks perpetrated around the world by Muslims were not ‘crazy’, but rather expressions of the purest and most admirable faith. And, similarly, we too need to see them as ideological and purposeful acts of radical Islam.

The Ground Zero mosque is intended to be a symbol of the defeat of the United States of America by the forces of radical Islam. Westerners often treat symbolism and ideology as unimportant. What counts are practical things like a healthy economy, etc.

But the behavior of Muslims in the Middle East — the Palestinians are a good example — where time after time ideology and symbolism has trumped what we think of as common sense — should be a warning to us.

Thousands of ordinary New Yorkers took part in a demonstration against the plan to construct the mosque last month. They get it. Why don’t our leaders (including the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg) and most of the media?

Demonstration against proposed Ground Zero mosque, June 2010 (photo: El Marco, LookingAtTheLeft.com)

Technorati Tags: Islam, Ground Zero Mosque, Muslim Brotherhood, Shaaria, Feisal Abdul Rauf

Every time I think that I can’t be surprised by the things Jews do and say, I come across something like this:

A 25-year-old environmental activist named Hillary Lehr from Oakland, California, said she no longer wanted to visit the Reform synagogue she’d attended as a child because its pro-Israel stance was casually embedded into ritual life, from prayers for the Jewish state to tzedakah boxes for the Jewish National Fund. “I want to de-Zionize my synagogue because it’s not about being a Zionist, it’s about Judaism,” Lehr said. “There’s a generation that’s ready to go back to those religious and spiritual spaces. I want to say to my rabbi, ‘I want to come back to my spirituality and I want there to be space for all of us because we’re all Jews.’ ”

Yes, yet another group of anti-Israel Jews. Described as “first major gathering of the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network,” the 2010 “U.S. Assembly of Jews” was held in Detroit this summer.

Since the founding of the Jewish state, Jewish anti-Zionists have fallen mostly into two groups: observant Jews who believe that Judaism teaches that they may return to the land of Israel only when the Mashiach takes them there, and highly secular left-wing ideologues who think that Jewish nationalism is just another bourgeois detour away from international anti-colonial solidarity.

But these people, although closer to the latter than the former, insist that they are Jewish not just by culture or tradition, but  because they observe some form of Judaism:

[Aaron] Levitt helped start a non-Zionist minyan this year called Page 36 with fellow Jewish pro-Palestinian activists including a young Reconstructionist rabbi, Alissa Wise [about whom I wrote last year – ed] — not, he said, because he ultimately wants to pray only with political comrades, but as a kind of stopgap measure while truly “Zionist-neutral” congregations remain few and far between. At the same time, he added, the minyan was inspired by frustration with what he sees as a lack of interest among many of his coreligionist political comrades in aspects of spirituality and peoplehood [but a people without a state! – ed] that go beyond Jewish-flavored universalist politics.

Two points:

One is theological. The Torah, on which all streams of Judaism — no matter how orthodox or liberal — are based in some way, is a story about a three-sided relationship between God, the Jewish people and the land of Israel. Regardless of one’s concept of God or the origin of the Torah, it’s impossible to read the Torah and ignore the land. The anti-Zionist Satmar Hasidim and the vile Neturei Karta don’t deny this, they just interpret the relationship differently from Zionists. And secular Marxists have no interest at all in ‘das Opium des Volkes‘.

So one wonders exactly what’s Jewish about Hillary and Aaron’s Judaism. Liberal Judaism without the land of Israel is indistinguishable from Unitarianism, it seems to me, which explains why so many Unitarians used to be Jews.

The second point is that the members of the “International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network” have the same problem that all Jews have: the antisemites (including the Jewish ones) don’t like them:

“Folks like us get it from both sides,” said a 27-year-old Jewish religious professional at the conference who requested anonymity because, she said, she feared repercussions if her views became known. “We’re not loyal enough to the Jews and we’re not pure enough for the anti-Zionists.”

The use of the word ‘pure’ is suggestive. It has a definite racial connotation, intended or not.

“It’s startling how much easier it is to bring my politics to Jewish spaces than to bring my Jewishness here,” said a participant active in the Boston minyan scene who wanted to remain anonymous because she hopes to apply for Hebrew school teaching jobs. “The organizers kept asking, ‘What is the material benefit this will have? How is this going to end Zionism?’ And it was like, we don’t want to justify why we pray.”

It’s not enough, apparently, for a Jew to support the Palestinian cause. It’s also necessary to purge any commitment to Judaism in order for a Jew to feel welcomed on today’s Left — as the professionally obnoxious Michael Lerner found out when he got the cold shoulder from the International ANSWER coalition in 2003 after he objected to left-wing antisemitism.

I wonder why, of all the causes available, they have to choose this one. Despite thinking about this for the past few years, I still don’t have a satisfying answer.

It certainly can’t be because Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO exhibit the liberal, tolerant viewpoint that they find so lacking at their local synagogues!

Technorati Tags: Judaism, anti-Zionism, Palestinian activism

At various times — for example, this May — the ‘moderate’ Palestinian Authority has promised to stop incitement. In fact, back in 1993 the Oslo accord required that the PLO, soon to be raised from a terrorist gang to a government by the US and a naive Israeli government, would stop incitement.

So what’s incitement? In the words of Palestinian Media Watch, it’s behavior like this — all of which has been observed in the past two months, since Mahmoud Abbas’ most recent  promise to end it:

• The PA continues to teach on PA educational TV that Israeli cities across the entire country, including Jaffa and Haifa, are Palestinian cities.
• The official [PA] media deny Israel’s right to exist by using terminology to refer to Israel as “the homeland occupied in ’48.”
• The conflict with Israel is defined by PA-appointed political and religious leaders not as territorial but as Ribat — a religious war for Allah.
• The PA senior religious leader demonizes Jews as the “enemies of God.”
• PA TV host: “The Jews are our enemies, right?”
• The PA continues to honor terrorists [by naming streets, schools, etc. after them].
• [A] PA-Fatah leader defends “the right to return to the armed conflict.”
• [A] PA-Fatah leader explains negotiations as “a tactical decision, i.e., a temporary, defensive decision.”

PMW has it all on video here, especially including the programming for children.

Does this inspire confidence that the PA intends to join in a peaceful two-state solution which will end the conflict? Is this what you would tell your people if you were on the verge of making peace? I didn’t think so.

Remember, we are talking about the PA/Fatah/PLO. The people that the US is supporting and arming (so they can ‘fight terrorism’). The people with whom we are having a ‘peace process’. Not Hamas, whose media — particularly children’s programming — is far worse.

Here’s a music video with a catchy tune, directed at young Palestinian shaheed material (er, teenagers). According to PMW, PA TV broadcast it live on June 4, 2010, and then on June 24, July 9, July 13, July 16, and yesterday, July 20.

Doesn’t it make you feel peaceful?

Technorati Tags: Palestinian media