Will educated and progressive Americans ever start to recognize that the Islamic concept of a global caliphate is fueling thousands of Islamist terrorists, all of whom have explosives and some of whom have nuclear weapons? This stark reminder that many people fail to understand that evil and injustice truly exist comes from Phyllis Chesler, the well known personality, emerita professor psychology, psychotherapist, and feminist leader in her new book, An American Bride in Kabul.

Why does the Islamic world refuse to accept and observe international declarations on equality of women, human rights, and fundamental freedoms? On December 8, 1948 the UN General Assembly (UNGA) spoke of the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. It proclaimed a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.

In the Islamic world no such achievement has been attained. The inferior state of women in Islamic countries is well known. The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted by the UNGA on December 18, 1979 called on nations to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal systems, and to end discrimination against women in political and public life, as well to ensure equality in education, health, and employment.

In spite of this declaration, gender inequalities remain entrenched in many societies. Women are often denied access to basic education and health care, suffer violence and discrimination, face occupational segregation, lack empowerment, and experience considerable gender gaps. States have not revoked their laws, or altered their customs, that discriminate on the basis of sex and gender bias.

In Islamic countries culture and tradition as well as sharia law are responsible for limiting the fundamental rights of women. The resulting stereotypes and norms explain the legal, political, and economic constraints preventing advancement of those rights. Change of social and cultural patterns are essential to eliminate the prejudices and the practices based on the idea of the inferiority of women.

There are many reasons for this unwillingness to draw attention to the refusal of Islamic countries to provide rights of women. One is the use of the concept of cultural relativism, the view, with some few exceptions, that all cultural beliefs are equally valid or at least that no one is superior to others in regard to individual or collective behavior. But in the globalized world today the argument advanced by spokesmen at the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) that "What might seem to be discriminatory in the eyes of some might not be discriminatory in the eyes of others" is unacceptable. Should anyone now approve of incest, cannibalism, female genital mutilation, or honor killings of women?

In her new book, Phyllis Chesler argues that honor-related violence against women and gender apartheid are human rights violations and cannot be justified in the name of cultural relativism or religious custom, or political correctness. This is wisdom learned from her romantic adventure more than 50 years ago. In her extraordinary, beautifully written story she recounts the short period of her life when at age 20 she, a nice Jewish girl from Brooklyn, NY, married an Afghan fellow student, a Muslim, and went with him to his home and wealthy family in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Chesler opens the book dramatically with a startling sentence, "I once lived in a harem in Afghanistan." But this is a tease since she explains that the harem simply meant women's private quarters, not a brothel as pictured in Hollywood films. She admired the country, or perhaps the image, of Afghanistan. She had, and perhaps still has, a fondness for exoticism, of perfumed gardens, and high ceremonial communal meals.

This naïve, romantic Jewish adventurer immediately encountered reality. Her American passport was taken from her and was never returned. She, the wife of an Afghan, had no rights as an American, and was to be trapped as property in a household in which her father-in-law had three wives. She had no privacy, she was starved, and was a virtual prisoner who was only able to escape by luck when she was ill which led her father-in-law to get her an exit visa to the U.S. The seemingly Westernized husband had been transformed into a uncaring if internally tortured individual. Her acute realization was that her "unexpected house arrest was not as shocking as my husband's refusal to acknowledge it as such." She now portrays him as a man torn between religious and family traditions and his appreciation of Western values.

Chesler's new understanding of callousness, violence, and sexual inequality propelled her not only into feminist activism when she returned to the U.S., but also to political understanding. She recognized the falsity of the Islamic charges against the West. Gender and religious apartheid in Afghanistan were indigenous to the region; they were not the result of Western imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, racism, or military occupation. She observes that the Islamists such as the Afghan Taliban want to turn the clock back to the seventh century. 

The book is an absorbing account of an extraordinary love story which in a sense has never ended. She provides a vivid account of the exotic culture to which she was exposed, and indeed appreciates some of it. But the memoir is valuable as a firsthand account of the reality of the life of a woman, and the discrimination she and Muslim women face, in an Islamic society. Indeed, it is an indirect warning to those women prepared to marry Muslim men.

This is not a political or history book though she does discuss the impoverishment of Jews, and Hindus, in the 1930s, and the cordial relationship between Nazi Germany and Afghanistan, which sheltered Nazis after World War II. The book is important in two respects. Chesler reprimands the politically-correct cultural relativists who are not only unwilling to criticize but actually defend traditional practices such as honor killings and also the wearing of niqab (face masks) and burqas (veil), which she calls "a sensory deprivation chamber." These masks and veils are now seen in the U.S.; Afghanistan has thus landed in the West while the West is still deployed in hostilities in Afghanistan.

Perhaps most important is Chesler's account of the impact of 9/11 which did more than bring back memories of her days in Afghanistan. She now speaks to the world about the difference between freedom and tyranny, about the presence of "bad" Muslims, the disgraceful demonization of Israel, and the danger of radical militant Islam. One can only hope that the politically correct and the cultural relativists in the West will take heed.

Michael Curtis is author of Jews, Antisemitism, and the Middle East.

First published in the American Thinker.

Only 2% of Stamp Collectors are Women. There used to be an advertisement that claimed that a certain brand of beer could reach parts of the world that other beers could not reach. I also once read of a certain traveller's ambition, which was to reach somewhere where no Nescafé had ever been drunk.

There is something more ubiquitous in the modern world, however, than beer and instant coffee: it is grievance. No degree of privilege or good luck can quell it entirely. It springs now much more eternal in the human heart than mere hope.

I happened quite by chance to pick up The Philosophers' Magazine the other day, and opened it to a short article entitled Philosophy's problem with sexism. It was no different from an article that might have been entitled Philately's problem with sexism (only 2 per cent, perhaps, of stamp collectors are women) or Herpetology's problem with sexism.

I supposed one might have expected, or at least hoped for, better from philosophers. Among other statistics cited in the article was that 'less [i.e. fewer] than 20 per cent' of people employed in philosophy departments were women, and that 'just 3.6 per cent of citations in top journals are of the work of female philosophers.'

Sally Haslanger, a professor of philosophy at the MIT, was quoted to the effect that these statistics prove that women are prevented from succeeding by, inter alia, 'stereotype threat' and 'micro-aggression.'

However, there is hope on the horizon, at least according to Jennifer Saul, professor of philosophy at Sheffield. Apparently the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will henceforth ensure 'the citation of women and other underrepresented groups.'

There's progress for you! Henceforth philosophers will consider not what is said but the demographic characteristics of who says it. A banality will cease being such so long as it emerges from the mouth or pen of a member of a favoured [i.e. previously disfavoured] group. A profundity will cease being such if it emerges from the mouth or pen of a member of a disfavoured [i.e. previously favoured] group. We may expect a philosophical golden age to emerge.

Hitherto, philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it. Haven't I heard that somewhere before? Weren't policies once followed in quite a large part of the world based upon this blinding insight? But then, as the man(!) who had the insight said elsewhere, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. 

First published in the Salisbury Review.

Winnie and Nelson Mandela with Joe Slovo

Neither Israel's President Shimon Peres nor Prime Minister Benaymin Netanyahu could attend the state funeral for the late South African President and liberation leader, Nelson Mandela.  According to the Jerusalem Post  they cited finance and security reasons instead sending a delegation headed by  Speaker Yuli Edelstein and  Knesset members as noted:

Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein flew Monday night to the memorial service, along with the first female Ethiopian MK Pnina Tamnu-Shata (Yesh Atid), as well as MKs Dov Lipman (Yesh Atid), Nitzan Horowitz (Meretz), Gila Gamliel (Likud Beytenu) and Hilik Bar (Labor).

If you wonder why Israel's Peres and PM Netnayahu didn't join 90 world leaders in attending the late Nelson Mandela's state funeral, look no further than this  column  in the Jerusalem Post by Michael Freund, "Misrepresenting Mandela".  It also struck me as indicative of the current ANC leadership that they would marginalize the late Helen Suzman, the lone member of the Progressive Party in the Pretoria Government of Botha, as the fiery oppoinent of Apartheid, suggesting that she had not done anything during her 13 years solitary role as opponent of Apartheid,  See this April  2013 Mail & Guardian article,  "ANC: Helen Suzman didn't act against apartheid". 

Freund's Jerusalem Post, op ed,  "Misrepresenting Mandela" chronicles his support for Israel's enemies, the late Muammar Gaddafi and Yassir Arafat, as well as, convicted Puerto Rican terrorists here in the US.  Let us also not forget that he was an avowed Communist penning a pamhplet to that effect.  Go no further  than his ANC comrade Joe Slovo, whom the New York Times in its 1995 obituary labeled him as an "Anti-Apartheid Stalinist".  Note this comment about the pivotal role that Slovo claimed:

But the men forged a friendship that grew into an unshakable political alliance. Over the years Mr. Slovo and other white Communists assumed influential places in the African National Congress. Mr. Slovo often said that his party's greatest role was in steering the A.N.C. away from black nationalism to a doctrine of nonracialism.

"The culture of nonracialism is now deeply embedded," he said in a recent interview, surveying the prospects of racial conflict in the future. "That has a great deal to do with the Communist Party."

Freund's assessment of Mandela's legacy is best captured in his conclusion:

Mandela was flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation.

Read what Freund chronicles as the late Mandela's track record in his Jerusalem Post  column.:

Fundamentally Freund: Misrepresenting Mandela

Mandela was flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation.

Former South African President Nelson Mandela Photo: REUTERS/Elmond Jiyane/GCIS

Imagine a person who planned acts of sabotage and incited violence, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians and damage to public property.

A man who embraced brutal dictators throughout the Third World, such as Libya’s Gaddafi and Cuba’s Castro, singing their praises and defending them publicly even as they trampled on the rights and lives of their own people.

A person who hugged Yasser Arafat at the height of the intifada, hailed Puerto Rican terrorists who shot US Congressmen, and penned a book entitled, How to be a good Communist.

Picture all this and, believe it or not, you will be staring at a portrait of Nelson Mandela.

The death of the South African statesman last week has elicited an outpouring of tributes around the world, with various leaders and media outlets vying to outdo one another in their praise of the man.

Highlighting his principled stand against apartheid, and his firm determination to erect a new, post-racial and color-blind South Africa, many observers have hailed Mandela in glowing terms, as though he were a saint free of blemish and clean of sin.

But such accolades not only miss the mark, they distort history in a dangerous and damaging way and betray the legacy of Mandela himself.

Take, for example, the editorial in The Dallas Morning News, which likened Mandela to Moses and labeled him “the conscience of the world.”

And then there was Peter Oborne, the UK Telegraph’s chief political commentator, who wrote a piece entitled, “Few human beings can be compared to Jesus Christ. Nelson Mandela was one.”

Even taking into account Mandela’s astonishing accomplishments and harrowing life story, he is far from being the angel that much of the media is making him out to be.

After all, in 1961, Mandela co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), the armed wing of the African National Congress, which undertook a campaign of violence and bloodshed against the South African regime that included bombings, sabotage and the elimination of political opponents.

Indeed, in his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela justified a car-bomb attack perpetrated by the ANC in May 1983 which killed 19 people and wounded over 200, including many innocent civilians, asserting that, “such accidents were the inevitable consequence of the decision to embark on a military struggle.”

His record of support for the use of violence and terror was such that even the lefties at Amnesty International declined to classify him as a “political prisoner” because “Mandela had participated in planning acts of sabotage and inciting violence.”

No less distasteful was Mandela’s unbounded affection for international rogues, thugs and killers.

Shortly after his release from prison in February 1990, he publicly embraced PLO chairman Yasser Arafat while on a visit to Lusaka, Zambia. The move came barely a month after a series of letter-bombs addressed to Jewish and Christian leaders were discovered at a Tel Aviv post office.

Three months later, on May 18, 1990, Mandela decided to pay a visit to Libya, where he gratefully accepted the International Gaddafi Prize for Human Rights from dictator Col. Muammar Gaddafi, whom he referred to as “our brother.”

While there, Mandela told journalists, “The ANC has, on numerous occasions, maintained that the PLO is our comrade in arms in the struggle for the liberation of our respective countries. We fully support the combat of the PLO for the creation of an independent Palestinian state.”

The following month, on his first visit to New York in June 1990, Mandela heaped praise on four Puerto Rican terrorists who had opened fire in the US House of Representatives in 1954, wounding five congressmen.

“We support the cause,” Mandela said, “of anyone who is fighting for self-determination, and our attitude is the same, no matter who it is. I would be honored to sit on the platform with the four comrades whom you refer to” (New York Times, June 22, 1990).

Even in later years, he maintained a fondness for those who used violence to achieve their aims.

In November 2004, when Arafat died, Mandela mourned his old friend, saying that “Yasser Arafat was one of the outstanding freedom fighters of this generation.”

Now you might be wondering: why is any of this important? It matters for the same reason that the historical record matters: to provide us and future generations with lessons to be learned and pitfalls to be avoided.

By painting Mandela solely in glowing terms and ignoring his violent record, the media and others are falsifying history and concealing the truth.

They are putting on a pedestal a man who excused the use of violence against civilians and befriended those with blood on their hands.

By all means, celebrate the transformation that Mandela brought about in his country, the freedom and liberties that he upheld, and the process of reconciliation that he oversaw. But to gloss over or ignore his failings and flaws is hagiography, not history.

And that is something Mandela himself would not have wanted.

In 1999, after he stepped down as South African president after one term in office, he said, “I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with weaknesses, some of which are fundamental, and a man who is committed, but nevertheless, sometimes he fails to live up to expectations.”

Sure, we all need heroes, figures who seem to soar above our natural human limitations and inspire us to strive for greatness.

But Mandela was not Superman. He was neither born on Krypton nor did he wear a large letter “S” on his chest along with a red cape.

He was a flawed human being, full of contradictions and shortcomings, a man who alternately extolled violence and reconciliation according to whether it suited his purposes to do so.

And that is how it would be best to remember him.

Burak Bekdil: "A Great Islamic Democracy"

According to the EU minister, Egemen Ba???, “it is indisputable that Turkey is now closer than ever to EU standards in terms of democracy, human rights and economic developments.” According to the foreign minister, Ahmet Davuto?lu, “Turkey is not a second-class democracy” – against which this columnist once wrote that Turkey must walk a long way and reform its crippled electoral democracy to earn that title.

According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, Turkey is a hybrid regime, a ranking that comes below “flawed” democracy. But in an interview with the Italian daily Corriera della Sera in 2010, President Barack Obama referred to Turkey as “a great Islamic democracy.” 

Why did/does Mr. Obama not refer to his own country, or to his western European allies as “great Christian democracies?” Or why did he not refer to Turkey simply as “a democracy?” Why did democracy come with a religious prefix in Turkey’s case? Events after the Obama interview have powerfully illustrated that the president’s wording was not arbitrary.

In a speech during the weekend, the popular, elected leader of the great Islamic democracy once again roared about what he understands about democracy, “Whatever my nation wants, whatever direction it wishes… shall be implemented.” That is the heart of the matter with “a great Islamic democracy.” 

Now, to test the merits of his great Islamic democracy, Mr. Erdo?an can put to referendum a number of subjects: Should Abdullah Öcalan, leader of the PKK, be hanged? Should Turkey invade the rest of Cyprus? Should the government abolish the income tax? Should the price of gasoline be reduced by 80 percent? Salaries be doubled? Non-Muslim Turks be expelled and their properties confiscated to be distributed to Muslim Turks? Apostates be jailed?

In fact, “whatever my nation wishes…” is a populist politician’s nicely-wrapped wording for the great Islamic democracy which a prominent Islamic intellectual described in his column recently. Hayrettin Karaman, a professor of theology and a columnist for the pro-government Yeni ?afak, wrote that, “The governments cannot protect, through law and order, any behavior the majority would dislike or view as harmful, illegitimate and ugly. The minority will have to give up some freedoms (disapproved of by the majority). The remedy… is democracy with a reference to Islam. Otherwise, the majority, whose values could be violated by the minority, will have a right to apply the neighborhood pressure [on the minority] (“Ignoring the majority,” Hayrettin Karaman, Yeni ?afak, Nov. 8, 2013).”

This seriously problematic understanding of democracy is perfectly legitimate for Mr. Erdo?an, as evidenced by his governance regarding issues that most Muslim Turks would probably view as “ugly, harmful and illegitimate,” like alcohol, dissent, opposite-sex dating, co-ed housing and even rock music. 

But who, how and with what authority will decide what does and what does not look “ugly, harmful or illegitimate” for the majority? Ten referenda every week? And where is the pluralism and diversity that makes a democracy a democracy? But that’s precisely what separates a democracy from an Islamic democracy or, as in Mr. Karaman’s wording, “a democracy with a reference to Islam.” 

Turkey is a great Islamic democracy; not a great democracy or even a democracy. And it is a “great” Islamic democracy, not just because Mr. Obama opted for his usual euphemism when dealing with the Middle East, but because that adjective denotes Turkey’s better democratic credentials than all of the Muslim countries in its region.

There is one problem, though, about the present state of Turkey’s great Islamic democracy, a major fault that may have prompted Mr. Karaman to complain about the minority’s “ugly, harmful and illegitimate” behavior. It is still too little Islamic, or too secular with millions of drinkers, protestors and crumbs of law.

For instance, in Mssrs. Erdo?an and Karaman’s Islamic democracy, journalist/lawmaker Mustafa Balbay could have been hanged by popular vote because of his “ugly, harmful and illegitimate behavior.”

Luckily, in the ¾ pious and ¼ secular Turkey, Mr. Balbay is –temporarily- free and will be paid compensation of $1.40 for each day he spent in prison because the Constitutional Court ruled that his lengthy imprisonment amounted to a violation of the law and of his right to be elected.

December/11/2013

On Saturday evening December 7, my daughter took me to the annual concert of Handel’s Messiah by the Hartford Symphony and the Hartford Chorale in Hartford’s utterly magnificent Bushnell Theatre. The Bushnell seats 2,800 people, every seat of which was taken. Hannah goes almost every year with her husband, son or daughter.  This year it was my turn.

Although I have listened to the Messiah many times, both at home and in concert, as I listened this year I once again marveled at the beauty, intricacy and complexity of the work, with its many voices, instruments, and emotions that Handel had flawlessly woven into a single harmonious work. Truly, it is one of the greatest musical works ever composed. I said to Hannah, “In our time, Handel might have been a designer of highly complex software.” Had Handel not been a believer, he could never have used his brain to compose this work. It was a plus for all of us that Handel lived at a time when one could truly believe. We would all be impoverished had Handel never been among us.

I attend services faithfully on the Sabbath and Holy Days at my congregation in Fairfield, Connecticut. Many of my best friends are members, but listening to the Messiah reminded me that, like much of Christian music, the Messiah is awesomely triumphant and nowhere as much so as in the Hallelujah Chorus and the choral finale. There is little of triumph in Jewish music, partly because our history has hardly been triumphant, but there is something else at work in the Messiah. It proclaims more beautifully and triumphantly than any other piece of music I know Christ’s victory over death, which if true, is the ultimate triumph. From the Messiah’s open lines, we know what is coming:

Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.

Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins. 

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.  (Isaiah 40:1-3)

Handel’s message is clear:  to partake of Christ’s resurrection is the ultimate comfort.

However, for Christians, Handel’s Messiah also proclaims another triumph, one that has echoed tragically over the years, Christianity’s triumph over Judaism. Some would say that it was no triumph, but the revelation of Judaism’s inner meaning, but that, of course, is not the way traditional Jews see it:

Why do the nations so furiously rage together and the peoples imagine a vain thing

…against the Lord and his anointed?

He that sitteth in heaven shall laugh; the Lord shall hold them in derision (Psalm 2:1-2)

Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;

Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel (Psalm 2:4)

When these verses were written, the Psalmist had in mind idolaters who worship a “vain thing,” but that is not what Handel meant or what Handel’s audiences understood. It was my people, who included the Psalmist, who, according to Handel, the Lord shall “hold in derision.”

The history of religion is my academic field. I understood clearly what both the Psalmist and Handel meant, yet I stood respectfully, as is traditional, when the Hallalujah chorus was sung and I was glad to see an audience of almost three thousand and a chorus and orchestra numbering in the hundreds rejoicing in this celebration of Christian faith and strength. I did so in full knowledge of the sufferings my people often endured under Christendom.

In today’s world, I welcome healthy expressions of Christian strength and fear Christian weakness. In spite of the refusal of Western political elites to recognize, what is all too obvious, that Christianity is under determined attack by a segment of Islam that seeks by subversion, terror, and dissimulation permanently to undermine the Western political order and its Christian roots. Whatever its faults, Christianity is capable of a saving power, therapeutic in its effects, that is difficult or impossible to find in Islam, the healing power of critical self-reflection.

From The Gatestone Institute, by Khaled Abu Toameh here,

Print

Send

Comment

RSS

Share:

In a recent visit to Jerusalem, where I visited and prayed at Al-Aqsa, it occurred to me that perhaps we, the Arabs and Muslims, are the ones causing harm to Al-Aqsa, and not, as we claim, the Jews.

"You see these scaffoldings? They [the officials] put them up to claim maintenance work is being done in order to beg donors for money. These scaffoldings have been here for years with nothing done....The sheikh here just takes photos of them to show to donors. Look at the donation boxes here; they collect an average of one million shekels ($284,000) per month. We have no idea where that money goes...The poor and the needy never see any of it." — Members of the Muslim security staff of Al-Aqsa Mosque

The Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, was built on the Temple Mount -- which is the holiest site in Judaism, where the Temple that was destroyed nearly 2000 years ago stood.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque has been one of the items at the center of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Almost every known Arab political organization has vowed "to liberate Al-Aqsa from the Jews." In a recent visit to Jerusalem, where I visited and prayed at Al-Aqsa, it occurred to me that perhaps we, the Arabs and Muslims, are the ones causing harm to Al-Aqsa, and not, as we claim, the Jews.

The Al-Aqsa Mosque, located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. (Image source: Godot13/WikiMedia Commons)

In 1948, when the Jordanian government occupied Judea and Samaria, the Al-Aqsa Mosque was placed under the Jordanian Waqf Ministry, which oversees Islamic sites. In 1967, when Israel won the Six-Day-War and regained control over Jerusalem, it did not take control of Al-Aqsa. Instead, Israel transferred control of the mosque to the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf [trust], an independent religious body to oversee the Islamic holy sites there.

The Hashemite regime in Jordan continued to pay the salaries of the managers and the staff members of Al-Aqsa, in accord with what Jordan's King Hussein described in 1988 as a religious duty he had inherited as the alleged descendent of the prophet Muhammad.

Israel's responsibility has been limited to providing security and, when necessary, conducting patrols and searches. In addition, the Israeli security forces conduct a strict policy of refusing to allow non-Muslims -- including Israeli Jews -- into Al-Aqsa except for tourism purposes and only at certain hours of the day.

Upon entering the silver-domed mosque, one can quickly notice how neglected the mosque is, and badly in need of maintenance, with dirty walls, dust-covered ceilings and worn-out chairs, including the one on which the Imam sits. Fire equipment, tossed randomly in a heap in a corner, looks as if it has not been touched in a long time.

When they were asked about the shocking condition of the mosque, its staff members, although audio-recorded, spoke on the condition of anonymity:

"The officials themselves and the staff members are the reasons," one of the Mosque's Muslim security staff said. "This chaos and indifference rolls down from the senior officials here who enjoy huge salaries compared to the average staff member."

He pointed at scaffolding stretching to the Mosque's dome, "You see these scaffoldings? They [the officials] put them up to claim maintenance work is being done in order to beg donors for money. These scaffoldings have been there for years with nothing done... The sheikh here just takes photos of them to show to donors. "

He points to two large donations boxes at the center of the mosque. "Look at the donation boxes here; they collect an average of one million shekels ($284,000) per month. We have no clue where that money goes...The poor and the needy never get any of it."

At the center of Al-Aqsa, two glass cupboards exhibit tear gas shells used by the Israeli police during riots of the first Palestinian Intifada, which began in 1987. "We've had these since the first Intifada," an Arab security guard said. "The managers here use these to make visitors sympathize and give donations, they are beggars' tools, that is what they are."

At the mosque's washrooms where worshipers get cleansed according to Islamic precepts, graffiti on the wall states: "Sheikh Azzam Al-Khateeb has destroyed Al-Aqsa." Al-Khateeb is the mosque's general manager, who handles all financial and administrative affairs.

The custodians of the washrooms did not allow photos taken of the graffiti. Nonetheless, an elderly man beckoned and said: "They are slackers, we just have slackers in this place ... This mess you see here is our responsibility; the wrongdoers are from us...among us... We cannot properly pray here, they [the staff] are bad people."

When asked to name names, he refused, but said, "The wrongdoers are from our own folks, son. We are the ones who have destroyed Al-Aqsa... I have worked with the Jordanians, with the Jews, and the Palestinians, I have seen them all, and I know what is really happening."

Another of Al-Aqsa's custodians said: "There are no more Muslims left in the world who care for Al-Aqsa.... The money comes from Jordan not to the poor people, but just to be handed to those running it. They are all thieves. Al-Aqsa is like a plate of food that all dogs are attacking for a bite.... All of those inside the Waqf are thieves.... They all blame each other while actually they are working together. You should see the trash that mounts up here during Ramadan [when people come to visit]; the officials are not committed to their responsibility at all. All the donations and aid money paid for Al-Aqsa by Arab states do not filter here; we do not see any of it here. Jordan provides the money for salaries here, but it provides zero accountability for the staff handling the money."

Another staff member joins the discussion: "Jordan and all Arab countries that give money to Al-Aqsa must be collecting much more donations than what they actually give out, otherwise, trust me, they wouldn't be giving anything at all. Look at the washrooms, the government of Turkey provided $2 million dollars to fix and expand those, and then Al-Aqsa's administration collected $2 million more in donations [for the project]...still, nothing was ever fixed or built."

When a group of staff members having lunch was asked why Al-Aqsa was in such a poor state, one of them answered: "You should ask Azzam Al-Khatib [Al-Aqsa's manager]; ask him why Al-Aqsa is dirty and full of flies. All Arab countries donate money for Al-Aqsa; ask Azzam Al-Khatib where does that money go?!" Another man said: "We do not even have proper loudspeakers for the worshipers to hear the Imam. Would those Jews do that to us if Al-Aqsa were under their management?"

A staff member at the nearby Dome of the Rock, where the Quran states that Prophet Muhammad ascended to the sky and met God, said: "The staff here is careless, they play a role in all of this bad state of affairs." He added, "This is all the fault of the Jews; they are to blame for all of this."

When asked how the Jews were responsible for the dirty walls, the worn out furniture, and the neglected facilities, he did not answer.

At the Al-Aqsa Mosque manager's office, located within the mosque, there were no executive staff members with whom to meet. I was told no one was there.

Repeated calls to Al-Aqsa's designated office at the Palestinian Authority Waqf Ministry, to request a comment, were never answered, not a single time.

As a practicing Muslim, I was sad to hear that those managing Al-Aqsa were more concerned with donations and their personal welfare rather than with the mosque itself.

Which prompts the question: Is Al-Aqsa is an Islamically sacred site, or is it a tool to collect donations by trying to elicit global Islamic sympathy -- just a goose that lays golden eggs for its managers?

It seems that it is we Arabs and Muslims who are harming Al-Aqsa, not Israel or the Jews.

From the Mirror

The defence case for Michael Adebowale, accused of the murder in Woolwich of Fusilier Lee Rigby had been expected to begin. Mr Justice Sweeney told the jury there was 'good reason' why the case could not continue today but did not give any further explanation.

The case resumed this morning with David Gottlieb formally closing the defence case for the first defendant Michael Adebolajo. Mr Justice Sweeney then told the jury they would not be sitting for the rest of the day.

He said: "I am very sorry you have been kept waiting. Having discussed matters with counsel and for good reason, we can in fact go no further today. That therefore means I am going to release you for the rest of the day."

From INN (h/t: Jihadwatch)

Two Turkish tourists could face up to two years in prison for giving Nazi salutes outside the site of the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp in Poland.

The Turkish nationals - who according to Turkey's Zaman news site are a man and woman, both aged 22 - are apparently studying history at Budapest university in neighboring Hungary.

They reportedly took pictures of each other making the offensive gestures underneath the infamous "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work makes you free") sign, which stands at the entrance to the former death camp. The sign was one of the first - and for many, the last - things which the camp's estimated 1.1 million victims, approximately 90% of whom were Jewish, saw upon arrival, after being offloaded from crowded cattle carts.

The pair will likely face charges for publicly promoting Nazi symbols in public, which is a criminal offense in Poland.

Rising anti-Semitism

This is not the first time Turkish students have been arrested for displays of fascism at the site of a former Polish concentration camp.

In a similar incident in October, two Turkish university students were arrested at the site of the Majdanik death camp after giving Nazi salutes to a group of Israeli students and shouting "Heil Hitler".

The two protested their innocence at the time, saying they had only meant the gestures "as a joke".

This latest incident once more shines a spotlight on growing anti-Semitism in Turkey, a phenomenon which has forced many young Turkish Jews to leave the country and which many analysts blame on the ruling Islamist AKP party, whose own leading officials have actively engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric.

In July, Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister accused "Diaspora Jewry" of orchestrating the "Gezi Park" anti-government protests. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has a long history of anti-Semitic and racist remarks, including collectively comparing Jews to "Nazis" during his term as the mayor of Istanbul.

And in May, a shocking documentary revealed alarming levels of anti-Semitism among Turkish immigrant youths in Holland, where growing anti-Semitism has been blamed largely on the country's growing Muslim population.

There is a tiny theatre in the little town in which I live and its programme offers a depressing insight into the taste of the English provincial public, and which supports my contention that we are about to enter the first era in history of the ageing adolescent. The next three productions at the theatre are to be Homage to the Bee Gees, Homage to Abba, and Homage to Elvis (the latter, of course, for the really old). Arrested development is never very attractive.

Recently, however, there was a put on a farce by Keith Waterhouse and Willis Hall called Who's Who?, written in 1972. It is a sub-Feydeau bedroom farce in which two men, Mr White and Mr Black, meet in a Brighton hotel for what was then called 'a dirty weekend' with their respective mistresses, whom each of them mistakes for the other's wife. I went to it not in the expectation of seeing a masterpiece, but to support the theatre in its valiant but unavailing attempt to put on real plays rather than 'concerts' by fantasists who ape the epic bad taste of past stars of popular music. 

As I expected, it wasn't a very good play to put it mildly. I cannot recall a single witty line in it; the dialogue was Feydeau weighed down by suet pudding. I doubt that the authors themselves would have counted it among their best works.

Nevertheless it was not without historical interest, for although only 40 years old it spoke of a way of life as different from ours as that of any Trobriand Islander. For it assumed that marriages were permanent, mothers-in-law were dragons, and extra-marital affairs in hotels were unusual, dangerous and difficult to conduct. There were still co-respondents in divorces, and presumably that once famous sartorial accoutrement of infidelity, the correspondent's shoes. To obtain a divorce, fault on one side or the other still had to be proved; and hotels still employed 'hotel detectives' to sniff out illicit liaisons taking place in them.

I need hardly say that this is a mental world away from what we take for granted now.

First published in the Salisbury Review.

Lee Smith here.

From the London Evening Standard

Opening his defence from the witness box, Michael Adebolajo said he regretted nothing and insisted “I am a soldier, I am a soldier, I am a  soldier”.

Asked what he thought should happen to him now, he replied that he should be “ransomed back to the Mujhadeen”, freed to an Islamic state or killed.

He said he was “disgusted” by the Iraq war and blamed the then Prime Minister Tony Blair for the death of one of his friends killed in an explosion.Adebolajo sat calmly in the witness box between the judge and the jury. He was in place dressed in a tunic jacket buttoned to the neck and surrounded by three seated prison officers when the eight-woman, four-man jury filed into court.

Asked by his barrister David Gottlieb for his name, he replied  in a low voice, Mujaahid Abu Hamza, although he had been referred to in court by his birth name.

Questioned about al-Qaeda, Adebolajo told the jury: “I consider them as a mujhadeen group. I love them, they are my brothers, I have never met them but I love them, I consider them my brothers in Islam.” He went on: “I consider myself a mujhadeen, I hope.”

Earlier he told the jury that he drew his political opinions from Allah and the Koran and “not what the majority of people say.” “Most non-Muslims hate my guts because of my actions but that’s not my concern. My concern is: Does Allah love me?”

Adebolajo said he didn’t know 100 per cent that Lee Rigby was a soldier. But he added: “There were some steps that we took before we set out that day. I prayed and begged Allah that we did not target anyone outside the military. . . It continues to be my hope that the life of this one soldier might indirectly save the lives of many, many people both in the Muslim lands and this country. If you die truly and sincerely hoping for Allah’s pleasure than you will be considered a shaheed [martyr].”

The court heard that Adebolajo is married and has six children, including a seven-year-old boy.

He said that, growing up in Romford, the “vast majority” of his friends were white British, and one, Kirk Redpath, joined the Army and was later killed in Iraq.

Adebolajo said he had converted to Islam in his first year at Greenwich University where he was studying building surveying but did not complete his degree. He told the jury: “My religion is everything.

When asked about his attitude to people in authority, he said: “Generally speaking, I don’t get along with them, generally. In most instances I don’t get along with authority, except for my mother and my father.”

As ground rules were set out for his giving evidence, including not speaking over the judge, he said: “I don’t believe in the law.”

He became increasingly emotional, his head rocking from side to side  as he told the court: " . . . The British and Americans and French... Allah commands me that I fight them."

Adebolajo has asked to be known as Mujaahid Abu Hamza in court, while Adebowale has asked to be called Ismail Ibn Abdullah.

The case continues.

I have been on an underground train travelling through east London when something similar happened. It's an established technique in Israel against Jews walking their home districts. I doubt that an ASBO will be enough and I doubt that the courts will admit that the motive is well beyond hooliganism. These yobs’ are juvenile jihadists.

From the Birmingham Mail

A gang of baby-faced thugs – including one aged just 13 – have been banned from two Birmingham neighbourhoods for throwing rocks at terrified passersby. The schoolboy yobs struck fear into the hearts of law-abiding residents in Washwood Heath and Bordesley Green and laughed at the law despite being arrested dozens of times.

They also hurled racial insults at community members, vandalised buses and verbally abused other passengers.

None of the thugs was older than 15 and the youngest – 13-year-old Sajeer Khan – looked younger still on a West Midlands Police mug shot. Now Khan, his brother Kabir, 15, and Hamza Shafiq, 14, have all been hit with three-year anti-social behaviour orders banning them from parts of Washwood Heath and Bordesley Green.

Hassan Hussain, also 15, was banned from the same areas unless he was accompanied by his father.

The orders, which imposed overnight curfews on the Khans and Shafiq, were imposed after Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard the gang, who all live in Alum Rock, caused months of misery.

Clockwise from top left: Hamza Shafiq, Hassan Hussain, Kabir Khan and Sajeer Khan

Listen to the Voca People behind this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6EYrqIn0yI.

A tip of the titfer to Bare Naked Islam for this one.

You can read, and find those passages where he holds back, or mis-diagnoses, or fails to come to grips with the effect of the immutable ideology of Islam, and the attitudes to which that ideology naturally gives rise even among those who, suffused with its atmosphere, cannot throw off its influence; only a complete break will do.

Here.

Fred Leder, from Fairfield, Connecticut issued a challenge for me to respond to a thought experiment.  He asked that I play  the role  of  Israel’s Prime Minister confronted with a deepening divide with the Obama Administration over the latter’s engagement with nuclear Iran and simultaneously endeavoring to  facilitate a final status  agreement resolving the dilemma of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  This thought experiment challenge came on the cusp of the 10^th Annual Saban Forum at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC with the topic: “Discussing U.S.-Israel Relations in a Dynamic Middle East”.

 Major appearances by key figures in this Forum included Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, US Secretary of State Kerry, President Obama and Israeli PM Netanyahu.

Watch their respective Saban Forum presentations and Question and Answer sessions here:

Webcast Sessions of the 2013 Saban Forum

Leder laid out the following challenge:

I challenge you to a thought experiment, ala Einstein:

If you were the PM of Israel and the following hypothesis were accepted as fact:

1.       Barack Obama has essentially made it impossible for Israel to attack Iran, thereby insuring that Iran will have nuclear weapons.

2.        Barack Obama has no regard for the safety and security of Israel.  Further, he appears to be committed to some kind of parity between Islam and the West.

3.       Barack Obama has spoken in favor of a border between Israel and another Arab country to be called Palestine based on the 1949 Armistice Line, with minor adjustments to be negotiated. All Jews outside of that border, 500,000 people, would have to be moved to 1949 Israel with US Security guarantees.

Given these hypotheticals and given that you are charged with the safety and security of the majority of the world’s Jews, what do you do? 

My role as the hypothetical Israeli PM in this exercise is based, in part, on the following opinion poll findings of fellow Israeli citizens as recently reported by the Washington Post.

The key findings are:

A monthly poll carried out by the Israel Democracy Institute in Tel Aviv, one of the most respected surveys in the country,  found that 77 percent of Israelis do not believe that the agreement between Iran and the world powers [P5+1] will lead in the end of what Israel suspects is an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The survey also assessed Israeli opinion on Israel’s relationship with the United States and other potential allies. In response to a question on who is Israel’s greatest ally, 71 percent of Israelis said they believed the United States to be Israel’s most loyal and important ally.

Earlier this year a Gallup poll of Americans indicated support for Israel was at an all time high, while support for the Palestinians was flat in the low teens:

Americans' sympathies lean heavily toward the Israelis over the Palestinians, 64% vs. 12%. Americans' partiality for Israel has consistently exceeded 60% since 2010; however, today's 64% ties the highest Gallup has recorded in a quarter century, last seen in 1991 during the Gulf War. At that time, slightly fewer than today, 7% sympathized more with the Palestinians.

Noting results by political affiliation, Gallup reported:

Consistent with prior years, Republicans are substantially more likely than Democrats to favor the Israelis, 78% vs. 55%, with the preferences of independents -- currently 63% …

Support for Israel has increased among all three party groups since 2001, but particularly among Republicans and independents. The percentage sympathizing more with the Israelis has increased by 18 percentage points among Republicans (from 60% to 78%) and by 21 points among independents (from 42% to 63%). By comparison, Democrats' support has increased four points (from 51% to 55%).

Republicans' sympathy with Israel spiked to 77% in February 2003, likely associated with the run-up to the Iraq war, when Israel supported U.S. aspirations to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Against this background here is what I would suggest as a hypothetical role playing Israeli PM.

Dealing with the Iranian Nuclear Threat.

As Prime Minister, I know that notwithstanding the Obama Administration’s agenda of engagement with a nuclear Iran seeking a final agreement, the reality is that it is not achievable.   I would adopt a multiple pronged approach to assure that Israel’s sovereign right to protect its people is preserved.  

• First, I would continue to directly lobby key members of Congress seeking passage of additional sanctions to both preserve and increase economic pressure on the Islamic regime under pending Amendment to the US Defense Appropriation legislation.     
• Second, I would direct my  military and strategic intelligence services to undertake a comprehensive covert program to disable the Iranian nuclear program and its means of weapons delivery directly or indirectly through terrorist proxies; Hezbollah, Palestine Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
• Third, I would suspend all military and strategic intelligence cooperation with the US.
• Fourth, I would instruct the Ministry of Defense to change the codes of their radars and IAF planes, so that the US can't track flight operations and thus allow Israel to attack Iran through Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan.
• Fifth, I would launch an international public diplomacy initiative directed at the IAEA to obtain  Iran’s signature on the 1994 Nuclear Safety Agreement, which Israel has already signed.  This should  be coupled with demands to inspect Iranian facilities for adherence to earthquake construction, operations and maintenance standards. 
• Sixth, I would ramp up funding and support of Iranian civil polity opposition via enhanced Farsi language programming, secure I satellite access and internal communications to foster regime change.
• Seventh, I would expand rapprochement with Putin and Russia to bring economic pressure on the  EU via coordinated natural gas policies to force the EU to relent on  use of tied trade restrictions tied to  anti-settlement policies.

On the Palestinian intransigence regarding a possible final status agreement

As Prime Minister I would adopt a pro-active approach recognizing that the current PA leadership is plagued with corruption that seeks to delegitimize Israel through an active international boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. The multi-pronged approach would have the following elements.

• First, a pro-active public diplomacy campaign documenting the evidence of undemocratic practices and diversion of foreign funding contributions by the President of the Palestinian Authority and PLO-Fatah leadership.  Moreover, the PA as currently constituted does not meet the definition of statehood  under the 1933 Montevideo Convention. 
• Second, conduct of active Lawfare to bring suit in international and American jurisdictions for recovery of assets contributed by state sponsors of terrorism in commission of crimes of violence against Israeli and Jewish citizens. 
• Third, promotion of Jordan with the requisite natural resources to foster repatriation and absorption of several generations of residents in UNWRA refugee camps in Jordan, the PA, Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. 
• Fourth, abandon the UNWRA donor support program and replacement it with a regional Marshal Plan for development of Jordan backed by the Saudis and the Gulf Emirates. 
• Fifth,  hold  free and fair elections for a Parliament in Jordan with a secular non-Sharia based Constitution. 
• Sixth, expand the existing Israeli-Jordanian Free Trade Agreement with the US coupled with creation of private sector investment programs emphasizing light industrial manufacturing, energy development, commercial agricultural production, and water resource development.
•  Seventh, maintain and expand internal security arrangements for Judea and Samaria.  
• Eighth, amend existing treaties with Jordan covering control of  the frontier between the two states. 
• Ninth, transfer of control over Gaza to Egypt under possible amendments of the 1979 Camp David Accords.

These are entirely my own views and not those of the State of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Kingdom of Jordan, Republic of Egypt or the US Government.  Comments and reactions are cordially invited.

The al-Qaeda takeover

Op-ed: Security arrangements suggested by Americans are irrelevant to Salafi Spring era

Even Israel may become dangerous for Kerry

Iraqi Shi'a, now in control in Baghdad thanks to the American military, have made clear they are not going to help in the sanctions against Iraq, and do not interfere with Iranian interference in Syria. They are friends to Iran, though they would like American military aid to "fight Al Qaeda" or, rather, to fight the Sunnis.

And in that other major theatre of American operations and squandering (of men, materiel, morale), Afghanistan, the inimitable Karzai, in Teheran today, signed a pact with his neighbor and new best friend. You can read about it on the Internet, or you can wait until tomorrow's newspaper. Why disturb your Sunday night?