Jewish-Muslim dialogue, a necessity
PROMPTED BY THE DOCUMENTARY "THE MONSTER AMONG US"
Mike Ghouse, Dallas, Texas
The Jewish Community Center in Dallas recently screened a documentary about Anti-Semitism in Europe called, “The Monster among us”, produced and directed by Dallas filmmakers Allen and Cynthia Mondell. Watching this film (as well as other films in the past) and listening to the responses of the audience has confirmed my belief that one of the primary obstacles to peace is simply inadequate communications stemming from the unwillingness to see another point of view.
If you find this article offensive, please clarify with me before you draw your conclusions, it is our obligation to repair the world. Prior to publication of this article my Jewish, Christian and Muslim friends have reviewed it to ensure it meets the intent as close as it can and it is to improve communications and a civil dialogue. The producers of the movie have reviewed and shared their point of view, which is included in the essay verbatim.Muslims should participate in Jewish events and vice-versa. Staying away from each other will not contribute towards peace-making that both communities so deserve. We have to come together without conditions and learn each others concerns and clarify mis-information and together find solutions. If we don’t, the who will?
Anti-Semitism is hate for Jews, and to his credit, the producer acknowledged in his comments that both Muslims and Jews are facing this abuse in Europe. As responsible citizens, we need to stand up against hate towards every one. I cannot have peace if others around me aren't peaceful.
To borrow a sentence from my friend Sheila Musaji “these films are to be viewed as opportunities for dialogue and not to further distance ourselves from the other.” We need to consciously guard ourselves from despair and disorientation and focus on hope and goodness to humanity that includes you and I.
I challenge the Muslim and Jewish community to watch this film together with a focus on just the film and its content, we must carry a civil dialogue and learn to take the jolts, then we would have developed the capacity to embark on finding a solution to the crux of the world problem - security of Jews and hope for the Palestinians, together we have an opportunity to find solutions. I am planning to have a showing of the film with a panel of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others, if you wish to attend, please confirm via an email to: confirmattendance@gmail.com . Sponsorships of a neutral place for 300 People and refreshments are invited.
Continue to read the arcticle by clicking:
http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/Articles/Jewish-Muslim-dialogue-a-necessity.asp
You are welcome to write you comments at the end of the article, all civil comments will be posted.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Where Jews and Arabs get along
.
Peace hinges on hope for Palestinians and security for Israel. Anything short of justice will not produce lasting peace. You cannot have peace when other's don't, you cannot be secure when other aren't. It is as simple as that. Peace is a two way street... you cannot blame the other and expect peace to happen, effort must be plural without keeping a score. http://peaceforisrael.blogspot.com/2007/11/peace-in-israel-palestine.html
Mike Ghouse
______________________________________________
Where Jews and Arabs get along
This Israeli village shows that peace is possible.
By Deanna Armbruster
from the August 19, 2008 edition
Oasis of Peace, Israel - In Israel, there is a village where Arabs and Jews live as neighbors. Both groups endeavor to create a just society that can be a model for peace in the region.
What's it called? "Oasis of Peace." Though the town's name gives the impression that it's some sort of magical, idealistic utopia, the people living there are challenged daily and deeply by the reality of an intractable, painful, and violent conflict. Like anything worth attaining, peace comes with hard work.
There are fears that the village will somehow threaten the 5.4 million Jews in Israel and 5.1 million Palestinian Arabs in the area. It won't. Only one couple, living there now for more than 25 years, is mixed. The other 54 nonmixed families are Jewish, Muslim, and Christian; they share strong convictions about their own identities, but have made a determined effort – for more than three decades – to live alongside one another and thus affect society.
Much can be learned from Neve Shalom, its Hebrew name, or Wahat al-Salam as it's called in Arabic, about inter-faith relations.
In the local Jewish-Arab primary school, children study one another's faiths with natural curiosity. Students break the fast together at Ramadan, share a sukkah booth at the festival of Sukkot, and exchange small gifts at Christmas. And dialogue begins, but never ends, in its Pluralistic Spiritual Center where discussions transcend religion to recognize that this conflict is not Torah versus Koran versus Bible.
The difficulties lie when the issues of the conflict are placed on the table.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a political strife between two national groups about land, resources, security, freedom, equality, power, identity, and justice. Productive dialogue must include recognizing this and not limiting the conflict exclusively to inter/intra-religious issues.
Seeking a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a look at the big picture. The ultimate goal should be to create stability for Israelis and Palestinians so they may live securely and freely alongside one another in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.
That means building common ground, sharing narratives, and acknowledging the pain and suffering of others. Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, and Christians need to show a willingness to recognize one another. It ultimately means seeing an enemy as an equal in humanity. Easier said than done.
Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the leading domino to seeing any meaningful dialogue between the Arab world and the West. Without such a catalyst, dialogue will be slow. And dialogue provides the forum for understanding and for seeking resolutions; resolutions do not come without talking.
The West needs to learn more about Islam not because it's the faith of "our enemies" but because, like the children in Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam, it's the faith of our neighbors.
Just as the village of "Oasis of Peace" is doing, we need to move beyond seeing Arabs as people who are inherently scary. We paint adversarial facades to create enemies, but we must challenge ourselves to break stereotypes, question basic assumptions, and raise awareness. Beyond that, the West needs to learn about the economic, political, social, and cultural conflicts facing the region.
The issues between the West and East are not just those of religion, but of political dynamics, struggles for resources, self-interest, independence, and power relations. As we begin to understand this, we will strengthen those relationships.
There are another 500 families on a waiting list who want to move to the "Oasis of Peace." This fall, 15 of these families will break ground on their plots and begin to build new homes and new futures. They are coming with loads of goodwill and perhaps little understanding of the great challenges that they will confront.
But they offer the world a ray of hope. The residents of this small village are single-handedly removing obstacles by demonstrating that peace is within the grasp of people who seek it and are willing to sacrifice their bias so that all may share prospects of peace.
As they provide the example to those in the region it will soon be up to the rest of us to follow their lead.
• Deanna Armbruster is the executive director of the American Friends of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam and the author of "Tears in the Holy Land: Voices from Israel and Palestine." This article is part of a series on Jewish-Muslim relations written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Reference: http://peaceforisrael.blogspot.com/2007/11/peace-in-israel-palestine.html
Peace hinges on hope for Palestinians and security for Israel. Anything short of justice will not produce lasting peace. You cannot have peace when other's don't, you cannot be secure when other aren't. It is as simple as that. Peace is a two way street... you cannot blame the other and expect peace to happen, effort must be plural without keeping a score. http://peaceforisrael.blogspot.com/2007/11/peace-in-israel-palestine.html
Mike Ghouse
______________________________________________
Where Jews and Arabs get along
This Israeli village shows that peace is possible.
By Deanna Armbruster
from the August 19, 2008 edition
Oasis of Peace, Israel - In Israel, there is a village where Arabs and Jews live as neighbors. Both groups endeavor to create a just society that can be a model for peace in the region.
What's it called? "Oasis of Peace." Though the town's name gives the impression that it's some sort of magical, idealistic utopia, the people living there are challenged daily and deeply by the reality of an intractable, painful, and violent conflict. Like anything worth attaining, peace comes with hard work.
There are fears that the village will somehow threaten the 5.4 million Jews in Israel and 5.1 million Palestinian Arabs in the area. It won't. Only one couple, living there now for more than 25 years, is mixed. The other 54 nonmixed families are Jewish, Muslim, and Christian; they share strong convictions about their own identities, but have made a determined effort – for more than three decades – to live alongside one another and thus affect society.
Much can be learned from Neve Shalom, its Hebrew name, or Wahat al-Salam as it's called in Arabic, about inter-faith relations.
In the local Jewish-Arab primary school, children study one another's faiths with natural curiosity. Students break the fast together at Ramadan, share a sukkah booth at the festival of Sukkot, and exchange small gifts at Christmas. And dialogue begins, but never ends, in its Pluralistic Spiritual Center where discussions transcend religion to recognize that this conflict is not Torah versus Koran versus Bible.
The difficulties lie when the issues of the conflict are placed on the table.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a political strife between two national groups about land, resources, security, freedom, equality, power, identity, and justice. Productive dialogue must include recognizing this and not limiting the conflict exclusively to inter/intra-religious issues.
Seeking a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a look at the big picture. The ultimate goal should be to create stability for Israelis and Palestinians so they may live securely and freely alongside one another in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.
That means building common ground, sharing narratives, and acknowledging the pain and suffering of others. Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, and Christians need to show a willingness to recognize one another. It ultimately means seeing an enemy as an equal in humanity. Easier said than done.
Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the leading domino to seeing any meaningful dialogue between the Arab world and the West. Without such a catalyst, dialogue will be slow. And dialogue provides the forum for understanding and for seeking resolutions; resolutions do not come without talking.
The West needs to learn more about Islam not because it's the faith of "our enemies" but because, like the children in Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam, it's the faith of our neighbors.
Just as the village of "Oasis of Peace" is doing, we need to move beyond seeing Arabs as people who are inherently scary. We paint adversarial facades to create enemies, but we must challenge ourselves to break stereotypes, question basic assumptions, and raise awareness. Beyond that, the West needs to learn about the economic, political, social, and cultural conflicts facing the region.
The issues between the West and East are not just those of religion, but of political dynamics, struggles for resources, self-interest, independence, and power relations. As we begin to understand this, we will strengthen those relationships.
There are another 500 families on a waiting list who want to move to the "Oasis of Peace." This fall, 15 of these families will break ground on their plots and begin to build new homes and new futures. They are coming with loads of goodwill and perhaps little understanding of the great challenges that they will confront.
But they offer the world a ray of hope. The residents of this small village are single-handedly removing obstacles by demonstrating that peace is within the grasp of people who seek it and are willing to sacrifice their bias so that all may share prospects of peace.
As they provide the example to those in the region it will soon be up to the rest of us to follow their lead.
• Deanna Armbruster is the executive director of the American Friends of Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam and the author of "Tears in the Holy Land: Voices from Israel and Palestine." This article is part of a series on Jewish-Muslim relations written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).
Reference: http://peaceforisrael.blogspot.com/2007/11/peace-in-israel-palestine.html
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Exploiting the Muslim- Jewish divide
Exploiting the Muslim- Jewish divide
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-almarayati26-2008jun26,0,392276.story
From the Los Angeles Times Another wedge issue Exploiting the Muslim- Jewish divide is the wrong way to win votes.
By Salam Al-Marayati and Steven B. Jacobs
June 26, 2008
There's a disturbing trend in this 2008 election. We are witnessing the manipulation and exploitation of Muslim-Jewish differences by political candidates in pursuit of votes. As advocates for our respective communities, we believe it's in America's interest that it stop.
It appears that the political logic of the candidates and their handlers calls for winning Jewish American support at the expense of Muslim American voters. This takes the shape of aggressive outreach to the Jewish community while Muslims go ignored. That strategy may be politically expedient, but it is inherently flawed. Muslims see their exclusion as a betrayal of American values, and many Jews are alarmed by the parallels to their own historical political exclusion.
American Jews are all too familiar with institutionalized bigotry. In the late 1940s and 1950s, Rep. John Rankin opposed the immigration of Holocaust survivors, and he opposed integration. In that McCarthyite, anti-Communist era, politicians clamped down against those who they thought threatened the changing fabric of America -- namely, Jews. Now, Muslims are on the receiving end of similar suspicions, this time in the name of fighting terrorism.
Muslims today are political scapegoats associated with global tragedies including terrorism and war. Against this dismal backdrop, politicians are apparently deeming Muslim voters political pariahs; any endorsement from national Muslim groups is tantamount to a kiss of death.
Just one day after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped out of the Democratic race, Sen. Barack Obama rushed to receive the blessing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Last week, his campaign volunteers rushed to remove Muslim women wearing head scarves from a Detroit rally. Though Obama apologized, Muslims felt stung by a candidate supposedly running on a platform of inclusion and change.
But the snubs aren't limited to Obama. Sen. John McCain recently dismissed a Muslim American businessman from an important campaign committee. In March, McCain visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem but made no similar visit to the adjacent Muslim holy site, the Dome of the Rock. And although both candidates have made frequent stops at churches and synagogues, neither has made a campaign stop at a mosque.
Put on the spot about turning their backs on Muslim voters, politicians may argue that they can't afford to lose Jewish support, implying that the Jewish community would oppose any politician who associates with Muslims.
To be sure, the politicians aren't inventing a division between Muslims and Jews. We acknowledge the tension between our communities created by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And yet it is also clear that Jews and Muslims should be natural allies in countering xenophobia and hysteria. We both suffer from scapegoating as fear works against common sense in our political culture. Whether it is anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, we both know the face of bigotry.
The issue of excluding Muslims to get Jewish votes is not about ensuring domestic security, it is about cowardly politics. It is about playing to fears, not processing facts. It is about the canard that Muslims and Jews have been fighting since ancient times and nothing will change. It is about blaming both for America's problems. We Muslims and Jews, along with all people of faith, represent the spirit of God. There is much that binds us together. It is in the spirit of this shared history, and our common interests, that we must stand against these divisions being created by the candidates.
Abraham Lincoln argued against the politics of fear, holding out hope for the 'better angels of our nature.' Our presidential candidates must display such higher thinking in the coming months. Likewise, we -- American Jews and Muslims -- must do the same.
Salam Al-Marayati is the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Steven B. Jacobs, a rabbi, is the founder of the Progressive Faith Foundation. Both are members of the Abrahamic Faiths Peacemaking Initiative.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-almarayati26-2008jun26,0,392276.story
From the Los Angeles Times Another wedge issue Exploiting the Muslim- Jewish divide is the wrong way to win votes.
By Salam Al-Marayati and Steven B. Jacobs
June 26, 2008
There's a disturbing trend in this 2008 election. We are witnessing the manipulation and exploitation of Muslim-Jewish differences by political candidates in pursuit of votes. As advocates for our respective communities, we believe it's in America's interest that it stop.
It appears that the political logic of the candidates and their handlers calls for winning Jewish American support at the expense of Muslim American voters. This takes the shape of aggressive outreach to the Jewish community while Muslims go ignored. That strategy may be politically expedient, but it is inherently flawed. Muslims see their exclusion as a betrayal of American values, and many Jews are alarmed by the parallels to their own historical political exclusion.
American Jews are all too familiar with institutionalized bigotry. In the late 1940s and 1950s, Rep. John Rankin opposed the immigration of Holocaust survivors, and he opposed integration. In that McCarthyite, anti-Communist era, politicians clamped down against those who they thought threatened the changing fabric of America -- namely, Jews. Now, Muslims are on the receiving end of similar suspicions, this time in the name of fighting terrorism.
Muslims today are political scapegoats associated with global tragedies including terrorism and war. Against this dismal backdrop, politicians are apparently deeming Muslim voters political pariahs; any endorsement from national Muslim groups is tantamount to a kiss of death.
Just one day after Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped out of the Democratic race, Sen. Barack Obama rushed to receive the blessing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Last week, his campaign volunteers rushed to remove Muslim women wearing head scarves from a Detroit rally. Though Obama apologized, Muslims felt stung by a candidate supposedly running on a platform of inclusion and change.
But the snubs aren't limited to Obama. Sen. John McCain recently dismissed a Muslim American businessman from an important campaign committee. In March, McCain visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem but made no similar visit to the adjacent Muslim holy site, the Dome of the Rock. And although both candidates have made frequent stops at churches and synagogues, neither has made a campaign stop at a mosque.
Put on the spot about turning their backs on Muslim voters, politicians may argue that they can't afford to lose Jewish support, implying that the Jewish community would oppose any politician who associates with Muslims.
To be sure, the politicians aren't inventing a division between Muslims and Jews. We acknowledge the tension between our communities created by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And yet it is also clear that Jews and Muslims should be natural allies in countering xenophobia and hysteria. We both suffer from scapegoating as fear works against common sense in our political culture. Whether it is anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, we both know the face of bigotry.
The issue of excluding Muslims to get Jewish votes is not about ensuring domestic security, it is about cowardly politics. It is about playing to fears, not processing facts. It is about the canard that Muslims and Jews have been fighting since ancient times and nothing will change. It is about blaming both for America's problems. We Muslims and Jews, along with all people of faith, represent the spirit of God. There is much that binds us together. It is in the spirit of this shared history, and our common interests, that we must stand against these divisions being created by the candidates.
Abraham Lincoln argued against the politics of fear, holding out hope for the 'better angels of our nature.' Our presidential candidates must display such higher thinking in the coming months. Likewise, we -- American Jews and Muslims -- must do the same.
Salam Al-Marayati is the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Steven B. Jacobs, a rabbi, is the founder of the Progressive Faith Foundation. Both are members of the Abrahamic Faiths Peacemaking Initiative.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Is It Pandering to Jews?
Is It Pandering to Jews or Scapegoating Them
By: Rosenberg, M. J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moderators Note:
With Friends like Bush, Israel don't need enemies.
President Bush got down and dirty and insinuated that Negotiating is tantamount to appeasement and hence Obama is naïve! Wow, who is talking?
Who is the appeaser here? It is Bush's condescending attitude that is the capstone of appeasement. He goes into the Knesset and makes "appeasement statements" to please his gang of Neocons, I am sure not all the Knesset members applauded heartily as his policies have spelled disaster, but I am glad they gave the respect for our President, that Mr. Bush did not deserve. Continued: http://www.theghousejournal.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-bush-enemy-of-israel.html
Barack Obama licking the lobby:
The man who stood for pluralism and inclusiveness has shamefully fallen from grace. His rhetoric about not giving an inch to the lobbyists sounds farce, fake and sham. The American media will give him a pass, they do not have the freedom to question his licking, nor the guts to go at it.Israel Lobby was needed in the mid-sixties to protect Israel from the rhetoric of annihilation, and now they have gone in the opposite direction, their presence has continually put Israel in conflict and further away from peace.
Continued: http://theghousejournal.blogspot.com/2008/06/barack-licking-lobby.html
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@aol.com
---------------------------------------------
Is It Pandering to Jews or Scapegoating Them: Plus McCain's Sterling Endorsement of Talking to Hamas
http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=2347
If I did not know better I would think that there is some conspiracy out there to produce an anti-Semitic backlash in a country, this country, that has been relatively free of that scourge since its founding.
Think about it. President Bush went to Israel to celebrate its 60th anniversary, a nice gesture and one in keeping with a President who personal proclivities are strongly pro-Israel even if his policies have not done Israel much good.
He used his visit there not just to salute our friend and ally but to promote confrontation with Iran, an idea that is utterly unpopular in the United States (to put it mildly) but is an applause producer in Israel. In fact, he went before the Israeli Knesset to denounce Americans who favor negotiations with Iran before resorting to war. He was clearly referring to Sen. Obama although Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates hold the same views and they work for Bush!
Bush told the Knesset: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along....We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.'"
The Nazi Germany-Iran analogy is, of course, ridiculous. As Bush notes, the senator in question was speaking after Germany had invaded Poland and triggered World War II. It had already dismantled Czechoslovakia and annexed Austria. It was also the most powerful military force in Europe and, at that time, was militarily more powerful than the United States.
Bush is comparing Iran to that. What country has Iran invaded? We invaded the country next door but, so far as I know, Iran has invaded nobody, attacked nobody. It issues ugly threats and may be working on a nuclear weapon. The key word is "may" considering that our intelligence agencies found that it is not currently working on a bomb. (If it is, Israel will handle it. Israel is not Masada. It is not helpless).
Furthermore, Iran has repeatedly indicated a willingness to negotiate a "grand bargain" with us. If Bush really wanted to help Israel, he would at least consider the Iranian offer. Accept the Islamic regime and, in exchange, the Iranians stop meddling in Iraq, stop backing Hezbollah, stop threatening and libeling Israel, and allow inspection of its nuclear facilities to ensure that they are not being used for military purposes. Bush has refused even to discuss this offer.
In any case, Bush went to Israel --a country legitimately worried about what Iran may be up to -- to vehemently denounce Americans who are not ready to rush to war before trying negotiations. It is hard to imagine anything more unseemly. (Just imagine how Bush would holler if Bill Clinton denounced American policies in front of a foreign parliament).
I understand that Bush is no student of history but he should know that he picked precisely the wrong place for saber rattling against Iran. I don't care whether or not the Israelis applauded; they are concerned with their security and not necessarily ours. They are also worried sick about Iranian intentions.
Bush knows that public opinion here (including, overwhelmingly, Jewish public opinion) is strongly against attacking Iran. So is Congress. To rule out negotiations, to ridicule those who advocate them, without offering any realistic plan to deal with the Iranian problem is to toy with the emotions of the people of Israel. And for what: to stick it to the Democrats. This is hardly the behavior of Israel's "best friend."
From an American (specifically an American Jewish viewpoint), Bush is playing with fire. He is sending the message that the reason America would go to war with Iran is because Iran threatens Israel. He's probably said it a half a dozen times. Asked why Iran is a threat to the United States, he says, "its leader wants to destroy Israel."
Imagine if FDR had said that the reason the United States had to prepare for war with Germany was to save the Jews of Europe.
Just that charge alone - coming from the likes of Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee - made it impossible for Roosevelt to aid the allies the way he wanted to. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, he would never have been able to convince Americans to risk their kids in what was then called a "foreign war." If FDR had been perceived as having gone to war "for the Jews," Philip Roth's vision of pogroms here at home would not be relegated to the fiction section.
Americans do not send their sons and daughters to war for other countries. That is why the Bush administration made up the Iraq-9/11 connection. Americans would not go to war for oil, or to remove "the dictator" or to strengthen Israel (all goals of the neoconservatives).
They will only go to war if they believe we are threatened. Israel knows that and has never asked the United States to fight its wars for it. So when Bush tells Israelis that he is ready for war on Israel's behalf, he is giving currency to an idea that harms Israel. And Jews.
To their credit, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and a host of others condemned Bush's remarks as offensive and inappropriate. Not surprisingly, Joe Lieberman chimed in to agree with Bush.
Like Bush, he cavalierly justifies is hawkish views on Iran by referring to Israel. He has also been leading the charge against Barack Obama for being, you guessed it, being pro-Hamas based on the fact that some Hamas official compared Obama to JFK and said he'd vote for Obama.
That raises another question. Why is Hamas suddenly an American political news story? Hamas is not Al Qaeda. It is not at war with the United States. It is at war with Israel.
Why have candidates suddenly made attitudes toward Hamas some kind of litmus test?
Obama has made it clear, over and over again, that he would not negotiate with Hamas as has Hillary Clinton.
The only one of the three Presidential candidates who has ever said anything remotely pro-Hamas is the candidate Joe Lieberman supports. After Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2007, McCain said the United States should negotiate with them.
According to today's Washington Post, Mc Cain said of Hamas: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice. . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. "
Nonetheless, some people want to talk about Hamas. Maybe it's to tap into some particularly dim donors who can be duped into believing that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton has a secret affinity for Islamic terrorists.
But it's an incendiary tactic. All it does is make Americans wonder what is it with American Jews. Why do candidates pay so much attention to a tiny sliver of the electorate? And why does this sliver of the electorate care only about issues relating to Israel and not America?
The answer is that they don't. American Jews vote based on the same issues their neighbors vote on. Israel is one of them--but because every candidate supports the US-Israel relationship and the Israel aid package, it is not a voting issue. (Even when Israel is a factor, Jews support Presidential candidates committed to the two-state solution and negotiations. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all received three-quarters of the Jewish vote--including Florida).
No state is going to tip over Hamas. And even if Dade or Broward Counties could be moved by issues relating to Israel, it would still be wrong for candidates to do these full-court suck-ups. It is wrong to talk to American Jews as if we are foreigners. It is not only insulting and disrespectful. It also has the potential of making our fellow Americans start thinking we are somehow alien. And we all know how fond many Americans are about aliens nowadays.
So, the next time you hear some candidate--and Democrats do it just as much as Republicans--shooting his mouth off about Hamas or Ahmedinejad to a Jewish audience, tell him that he just lost your vote.
And skip those ridiculous "debates" where a Jewish Democrat argues with a Jewish Republican over who can do more for Israel. They are as serious as a Mel Brooks film, though not quite as funny. Candidates should stop exploiting Israel. Israel and the Holocaust are not slogans to toss around to raise campaign money.
As for those hell-bent on attacking Iran, let them find an American rationale for their war. The Iraq war wasn't fought for the Jews. The next war, if God forbid there is one, won't be either.
There is a fine line between pandering and scapegoating.
IF YOU WANT TO see how this emphasis on Israel plays out in the media, watch Chris Matthews take down a right-wing talk show host from California last night. Two things to note, one the LA talk show host knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about history. But watch Matthews. He is a friend of Israel and of Jews but he cannot understand why these right-wingers keep bringing up Israel. He simply does not get it. This all goes to my point that these strident partisans (Jews included) who keep using Israel as a political football are harming Jews. That may not be their intent. Their intent is helping their candidate. It is just that they are not worrying about fomenting anti-semitism. They should be. Watch it HERE
The opinions and views articulated by the author do not necessarily reflect those of Israel e News.
By: Rosenberg, M. J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moderators Note:
With Friends like Bush, Israel don't need enemies.
President Bush got down and dirty and insinuated that Negotiating is tantamount to appeasement and hence Obama is naïve! Wow, who is talking?
Who is the appeaser here? It is Bush's condescending attitude that is the capstone of appeasement. He goes into the Knesset and makes "appeasement statements" to please his gang of Neocons, I am sure not all the Knesset members applauded heartily as his policies have spelled disaster, but I am glad they gave the respect for our President, that Mr. Bush did not deserve. Continued: http://www.theghousejournal.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-bush-enemy-of-israel.html
Barack Obama licking the lobby:
The man who stood for pluralism and inclusiveness has shamefully fallen from grace. His rhetoric about not giving an inch to the lobbyists sounds farce, fake and sham. The American media will give him a pass, they do not have the freedom to question his licking, nor the guts to go at it.Israel Lobby was needed in the mid-sixties to protect Israel from the rhetoric of annihilation, and now they have gone in the opposite direction, their presence has continually put Israel in conflict and further away from peace.
Continued: http://theghousejournal.blogspot.com/2008/06/barack-licking-lobby.html
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@aol.com
---------------------------------------------
Is It Pandering to Jews or Scapegoating Them: Plus McCain's Sterling Endorsement of Talking to Hamas
http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=2347
If I did not know better I would think that there is some conspiracy out there to produce an anti-Semitic backlash in a country, this country, that has been relatively free of that scourge since its founding.
Think about it. President Bush went to Israel to celebrate its 60th anniversary, a nice gesture and one in keeping with a President who personal proclivities are strongly pro-Israel even if his policies have not done Israel much good.
He used his visit there not just to salute our friend and ally but to promote confrontation with Iran, an idea that is utterly unpopular in the United States (to put it mildly) but is an applause producer in Israel. In fact, he went before the Israeli Knesset to denounce Americans who favor negotiations with Iran before resorting to war. He was clearly referring to Sen. Obama although Secretary of State Rice and Secretary of Defense Gates hold the same views and they work for Bush!
Bush told the Knesset: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along....We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.'"
The Nazi Germany-Iran analogy is, of course, ridiculous. As Bush notes, the senator in question was speaking after Germany had invaded Poland and triggered World War II. It had already dismantled Czechoslovakia and annexed Austria. It was also the most powerful military force in Europe and, at that time, was militarily more powerful than the United States.
Bush is comparing Iran to that. What country has Iran invaded? We invaded the country next door but, so far as I know, Iran has invaded nobody, attacked nobody. It issues ugly threats and may be working on a nuclear weapon. The key word is "may" considering that our intelligence agencies found that it is not currently working on a bomb. (If it is, Israel will handle it. Israel is not Masada. It is not helpless).
Furthermore, Iran has repeatedly indicated a willingness to negotiate a "grand bargain" with us. If Bush really wanted to help Israel, he would at least consider the Iranian offer. Accept the Islamic regime and, in exchange, the Iranians stop meddling in Iraq, stop backing Hezbollah, stop threatening and libeling Israel, and allow inspection of its nuclear facilities to ensure that they are not being used for military purposes. Bush has refused even to discuss this offer.
In any case, Bush went to Israel --a country legitimately worried about what Iran may be up to -- to vehemently denounce Americans who are not ready to rush to war before trying negotiations. It is hard to imagine anything more unseemly. (Just imagine how Bush would holler if Bill Clinton denounced American policies in front of a foreign parliament).
I understand that Bush is no student of history but he should know that he picked precisely the wrong place for saber rattling against Iran. I don't care whether or not the Israelis applauded; they are concerned with their security and not necessarily ours. They are also worried sick about Iranian intentions.
Bush knows that public opinion here (including, overwhelmingly, Jewish public opinion) is strongly against attacking Iran. So is Congress. To rule out negotiations, to ridicule those who advocate them, without offering any realistic plan to deal with the Iranian problem is to toy with the emotions of the people of Israel. And for what: to stick it to the Democrats. This is hardly the behavior of Israel's "best friend."
From an American (specifically an American Jewish viewpoint), Bush is playing with fire. He is sending the message that the reason America would go to war with Iran is because Iran threatens Israel. He's probably said it a half a dozen times. Asked why Iran is a threat to the United States, he says, "its leader wants to destroy Israel."
Imagine if FDR had said that the reason the United States had to prepare for war with Germany was to save the Jews of Europe.
Just that charge alone - coming from the likes of Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee - made it impossible for Roosevelt to aid the allies the way he wanted to. Had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, he would never have been able to convince Americans to risk their kids in what was then called a "foreign war." If FDR had been perceived as having gone to war "for the Jews," Philip Roth's vision of pogroms here at home would not be relegated to the fiction section.
Americans do not send their sons and daughters to war for other countries. That is why the Bush administration made up the Iraq-9/11 connection. Americans would not go to war for oil, or to remove "the dictator" or to strengthen Israel (all goals of the neoconservatives).
They will only go to war if they believe we are threatened. Israel knows that and has never asked the United States to fight its wars for it. So when Bush tells Israelis that he is ready for war on Israel's behalf, he is giving currency to an idea that harms Israel. And Jews.
To their credit, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and a host of others condemned Bush's remarks as offensive and inappropriate. Not surprisingly, Joe Lieberman chimed in to agree with Bush.
Like Bush, he cavalierly justifies is hawkish views on Iran by referring to Israel. He has also been leading the charge against Barack Obama for being, you guessed it, being pro-Hamas based on the fact that some Hamas official compared Obama to JFK and said he'd vote for Obama.
That raises another question. Why is Hamas suddenly an American political news story? Hamas is not Al Qaeda. It is not at war with the United States. It is at war with Israel.
Why have candidates suddenly made attitudes toward Hamas some kind of litmus test?
Obama has made it clear, over and over again, that he would not negotiate with Hamas as has Hillary Clinton.
The only one of the three Presidential candidates who has ever said anything remotely pro-Hamas is the candidate Joe Lieberman supports. After Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2007, McCain said the United States should negotiate with them.
According to today's Washington Post, Mc Cain said of Hamas: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice. . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. "
Nonetheless, some people want to talk about Hamas. Maybe it's to tap into some particularly dim donors who can be duped into believing that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton has a secret affinity for Islamic terrorists.
But it's an incendiary tactic. All it does is make Americans wonder what is it with American Jews. Why do candidates pay so much attention to a tiny sliver of the electorate? And why does this sliver of the electorate care only about issues relating to Israel and not America?
The answer is that they don't. American Jews vote based on the same issues their neighbors vote on. Israel is one of them--but because every candidate supports the US-Israel relationship and the Israel aid package, it is not a voting issue. (Even when Israel is a factor, Jews support Presidential candidates committed to the two-state solution and negotiations. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all received three-quarters of the Jewish vote--including Florida).
No state is going to tip over Hamas. And even if Dade or Broward Counties could be moved by issues relating to Israel, it would still be wrong for candidates to do these full-court suck-ups. It is wrong to talk to American Jews as if we are foreigners. It is not only insulting and disrespectful. It also has the potential of making our fellow Americans start thinking we are somehow alien. And we all know how fond many Americans are about aliens nowadays.
So, the next time you hear some candidate--and Democrats do it just as much as Republicans--shooting his mouth off about Hamas or Ahmedinejad to a Jewish audience, tell him that he just lost your vote.
And skip those ridiculous "debates" where a Jewish Democrat argues with a Jewish Republican over who can do more for Israel. They are as serious as a Mel Brooks film, though not quite as funny. Candidates should stop exploiting Israel. Israel and the Holocaust are not slogans to toss around to raise campaign money.
As for those hell-bent on attacking Iran, let them find an American rationale for their war. The Iraq war wasn't fought for the Jews. The next war, if God forbid there is one, won't be either.
There is a fine line between pandering and scapegoating.
IF YOU WANT TO see how this emphasis on Israel plays out in the media, watch Chris Matthews take down a right-wing talk show host from California last night. Two things to note, one the LA talk show host knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about history. But watch Matthews. He is a friend of Israel and of Jews but he cannot understand why these right-wingers keep bringing up Israel. He simply does not get it. This all goes to my point that these strident partisans (Jews included) who keep using Israel as a political football are harming Jews. That may not be their intent. Their intent is helping their candidate. It is just that they are not worrying about fomenting anti-semitism. They should be. Watch it HERE
The opinions and views articulated by the author do not necessarily reflect those of Israel e News.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Bush - An enemy of Israel
Is Bush, an enemy of Israel?
With Friends like Bush, Israel don't need enemies.
President Bush got down and dirty and insinuated that Negotiating is tantamount to appeasement and hence Obama is naïve! Wow, who is talking?
Who is the appeaser here? It is Bush's condescending attitude that is the capstone of appeasement. He goes into the Knesset and makes "appeasement statements" to please his gang of Neocons, I am sure not all the Knesset members applauded heartily as his policies have spelled disaster, but I am glad they gave the respect for our President, that Mr. Bush did not deserve.
He and his ilk, have duped the Americans, Israelis and the Palestinians for nearly 60 years with that kind of rhetoric, and their propaganda machinery goes to work full time to make his look like a hero.
The Neocon gang talks peace, but don't mean it. Their plans have failed badly, and they still don't get it. They are no good for Israel, Palestine or America, their actions and words have are the root cause of terror and turmoil in the world. The more they talk about terrorizing the little nations, the more dangerous they make it for Israel, with Friends like Bush, Israel don’t need enemies.
I do hope the average Americans and the Israelis remind these guys on the Election Day that they are out of touch with the reality and that they have brought nothing but misery. They are failures in the international relations.
Why are they afraid to talk? Is it because talking would bring a solution, and bring an end to their eternal itch to be destructive? They still have time to negotiate for peace and become genuine peace makers. As Mother Teresa said once, “If you want to make peace, go talk to your enemies, you don't make peace with friends”.
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@aol.com
# # #
Negotiating isn't appeasement
By J. Peter Scoblic May 17, 2008
In a speech to the Israeli parliament Thursday, President Bush took a swipe at Barack Obama for his willingness to negotiate with evil regimes.
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.
The modern conservative movement was founded in no small part on the idea that presidents Truman and Eisenhower were "appeasing" the Soviets. The logic went something like this: Because communism was evil, the United States should seek to destroy it, not coexist with it; the bipartisan policy of containment, which sought to prevent the further spread of communism, was a moral and strategic folly because it implied long-term coexistence with Moscow. Conservative foreign policy guru James Burnham wrote entire books claiming that containment -- which, after the Cold War, would be credited with defeating the Soviet Union -- constituted "appeasement."
Instead, conservatives agitated for the rollback of communism, and they opposed all negotiations with the Soviets. When Eisenhower welcomed Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev to the United States in 1959, William F. Buckley Jr., the right's leader, complained that the act of "diplomatic sentimentality" signaled the "death rattle of the West."
Conservatives even applied this critique to one of the most dangerous moments in human history: the Cuban missile crisis, during which the United States and the Soviet Union nearly came to nuclear blows over Moscow's deployment of missiles 90 miles off the American coast. When President Kennedy successfully negotiated a peaceful conclusion to the crisis, conservative icon Barry Goldwater protested that he had appeased the Soviets by promising not to invade Cuba if they backed down.
The Soviets withdrew their missiles in what was widely seen as a humiliation to Khrushchev, but Goldwater believed that Kennedy's diplomacy gave "the communists one of their greatest victories in their race for world power that they have enjoyed to date." To Goldwater, it was far preferable to risk nuclear war with the Soviets than to give up our right to roll back Fidel Castro.
Indeed, conservatives considered virtually any attempt to bring the arms race under control as a surrender to communism. When the SALT I agreement capping nuclear arsenals came to Capitol Hill, conservative Rep. John Ashbrook (whose presidential candidacy Buckley supported in 1972) said that "the total history of man indicates we can place very little reliance on treaties or written documents. This is especially true when the agreements are with nations or powers which have aggressive plans. Hitler had plans. Chamberlain's Munich served only to deaden the free world to reality. The communists have plans. SALT will merely cause us to lower our guard, possibly fatally."
A few years later, Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the elected face of the burgeoning neoconservative movement, charged President Carter with "appeasement in its purest form" for negotiating SALT II, which set equal limits on the number of U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles and bombers.
Ronald Reagan, whose election in 1980 was seen as the culmination of the conservative movement, dubbed SALT II "appeasement" as well, but the trope would come back to bite him. Although Reagan pleased the right enormously during his first three years in office with his military expansion, his call for rollback and his advocacy of missile defenses, conservatives reacted with horror once he began serious negotiations with the Soviets. When he and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which for the first time eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, Buckley's National Review dubbed it "suicide." The Conservative Caucus took out a full-page newspaper ad saying "Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938." It paired photos of Reagan and Gorbachev with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler.
Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability -- each of these things helped protect the United States and end the Cold War. And yet, at the time, conservatives thought each was synonymous with appeasement.
The Bush administration has been little different, refusing for years to talk to North Korea or Iran about their nuclear programs because it wanted to defeat evil, not talk to it. The result was that Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon and Iran's uranium program continued unfettered. (By contrast, when the administration negotiated with Libya -- an act that its chief arms controller, John Bolton, had previously derided as, yes, "appeasement" -- it succeeded in eliminating Tripoli's nuclear program.)
Alas, John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback," and now he dismisses the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given conservatism's historical record, Obama's inclination to negotiate seems only sensible. When will conservatives learn that it is 2008, not 1938?
J. Peter Scoblic, executive editor of the New Republic, is the author of "U.S. vs. Them: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,647492.story
With Friends like Bush, Israel don't need enemies.
President Bush got down and dirty and insinuated that Negotiating is tantamount to appeasement and hence Obama is naïve! Wow, who is talking?
Who is the appeaser here? It is Bush's condescending attitude that is the capstone of appeasement. He goes into the Knesset and makes "appeasement statements" to please his gang of Neocons, I am sure not all the Knesset members applauded heartily as his policies have spelled disaster, but I am glad they gave the respect for our President, that Mr. Bush did not deserve.
He and his ilk, have duped the Americans, Israelis and the Palestinians for nearly 60 years with that kind of rhetoric, and their propaganda machinery goes to work full time to make his look like a hero.
The Neocon gang talks peace, but don't mean it. Their plans have failed badly, and they still don't get it. They are no good for Israel, Palestine or America, their actions and words have are the root cause of terror and turmoil in the world. The more they talk about terrorizing the little nations, the more dangerous they make it for Israel, with Friends like Bush, Israel don’t need enemies.
I do hope the average Americans and the Israelis remind these guys on the Election Day that they are out of touch with the reality and that they have brought nothing but misery. They are failures in the international relations.
Why are they afraid to talk? Is it because talking would bring a solution, and bring an end to their eternal itch to be destructive? They still have time to negotiate for peace and become genuine peace makers. As Mother Teresa said once, “If you want to make peace, go talk to your enemies, you don't make peace with friends”.
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@aol.com
# # #
Negotiating isn't appeasement
By J. Peter Scoblic May 17, 2008
In a speech to the Israeli parliament Thursday, President Bush took a swipe at Barack Obama for his willingness to negotiate with evil regimes.
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.
The modern conservative movement was founded in no small part on the idea that presidents Truman and Eisenhower were "appeasing" the Soviets. The logic went something like this: Because communism was evil, the United States should seek to destroy it, not coexist with it; the bipartisan policy of containment, which sought to prevent the further spread of communism, was a moral and strategic folly because it implied long-term coexistence with Moscow. Conservative foreign policy guru James Burnham wrote entire books claiming that containment -- which, after the Cold War, would be credited with defeating the Soviet Union -- constituted "appeasement."
Instead, conservatives agitated for the rollback of communism, and they opposed all negotiations with the Soviets. When Eisenhower welcomed Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev to the United States in 1959, William F. Buckley Jr., the right's leader, complained that the act of "diplomatic sentimentality" signaled the "death rattle of the West."
Conservatives even applied this critique to one of the most dangerous moments in human history: the Cuban missile crisis, during which the United States and the Soviet Union nearly came to nuclear blows over Moscow's deployment of missiles 90 miles off the American coast. When President Kennedy successfully negotiated a peaceful conclusion to the crisis, conservative icon Barry Goldwater protested that he had appeased the Soviets by promising not to invade Cuba if they backed down.
The Soviets withdrew their missiles in what was widely seen as a humiliation to Khrushchev, but Goldwater believed that Kennedy's diplomacy gave "the communists one of their greatest victories in their race for world power that they have enjoyed to date." To Goldwater, it was far preferable to risk nuclear war with the Soviets than to give up our right to roll back Fidel Castro.
Indeed, conservatives considered virtually any attempt to bring the arms race under control as a surrender to communism. When the SALT I agreement capping nuclear arsenals came to Capitol Hill, conservative Rep. John Ashbrook (whose presidential candidacy Buckley supported in 1972) said that "the total history of man indicates we can place very little reliance on treaties or written documents. This is especially true when the agreements are with nations or powers which have aggressive plans. Hitler had plans. Chamberlain's Munich served only to deaden the free world to reality. The communists have plans. SALT will merely cause us to lower our guard, possibly fatally."
A few years later, Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, the elected face of the burgeoning neoconservative movement, charged President Carter with "appeasement in its purest form" for negotiating SALT II, which set equal limits on the number of U.S. and Soviet nuclear missiles and bombers.
Ronald Reagan, whose election in 1980 was seen as the culmination of the conservative movement, dubbed SALT II "appeasement" as well, but the trope would come back to bite him. Although Reagan pleased the right enormously during his first three years in office with his military expansion, his call for rollback and his advocacy of missile defenses, conservatives reacted with horror once he began serious negotiations with the Soviets. When he and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, which for the first time eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons, Buckley's National Review dubbed it "suicide." The Conservative Caucus took out a full-page newspaper ad saying "Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938." It paired photos of Reagan and Gorbachev with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler.
Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability -- each of these things helped protect the United States and end the Cold War. And yet, at the time, conservatives thought each was synonymous with appeasement.
The Bush administration has been little different, refusing for years to talk to North Korea or Iran about their nuclear programs because it wanted to defeat evil, not talk to it. The result was that Pyongyang tested a nuclear weapon and Iran's uranium program continued unfettered. (By contrast, when the administration negotiated with Libya -- an act that its chief arms controller, John Bolton, had previously derided as, yes, "appeasement" -- it succeeded in eliminating Tripoli's nuclear program.)
Alas, John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback," and now he dismisses the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given conservatism's historical record, Obama's inclination to negotiate seems only sensible. When will conservatives learn that it is 2008, not 1938?
J. Peter Scoblic, executive editor of the New Republic, is the author of "U.S. vs. Them: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America's Security."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,647492.story
Friday, May 16, 2008
Israel at 60; a Land of Hope
Happy birthday Israel!
The following article on the subject is the the first article I have read in 16 days.... (due to: http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2008/05/gods-grace-for-najma-ghouse.html ) because my friend Joe asked, I read it, and I am glad I read it.
It is one of the best pieces I have seen to project the Jewish side of the human experience and endurance. I have written quite a few comments along the same lines.
I just wrote http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-stoking-anti-semitism.html and I hope you can see some sense in the piece I wrote last November http://peace-palestine-israel.blogspot.com/2007/11/peace-in-israel-palestine.html . I have to complete a full presentation on the subject of Peace for Israel and Palestine and it touches along the same lines Joe has written below. And this
There is a dire need for the Palestinians to understand the trauma the Jewish people have endured and the Israelis to understand the hopelessness, pain and anguish of the Palestinians. The leadership on both sides has focused on bullying each other and cowing each other down.... that is inhuman and has failed, yet they don't get it. We need a human approach - to step forward. I hope to write that piece some time this year.
The one sentence that I need to understand is the "the armies of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, attacked Israel. Five countries, with combined populations of 25 million, declared war on the State of Israel , with population of 600,000." I need to understand the background on this particular aspect and hope to learn it from both sides of the issue.
Sadly, we the Americans cannot bring peace to the Middle east because we do not have the genuine disposition to see another point of view nor do we have the emapthy for the Palestinians or truly understand the security needs of the Jews. Yet we talk about peace without meaning it. It is time we focus on justice to bring about sustainable peace to the Jews and the Palestinians.
Mike Ghouse
# # #
Israel at 60 - A Land of Hope
Joe Samuels
May 14, 1948. Tears of joy mixed with tears of fear. After the longest exile ever endured by any people, the Jews now had their own State. Then the war broke out. Oops? The war broke out? How does a war break out? Is it lightening from the sky that starts a forest fire? Someone must start a war. On that day, May 14, 1948 while the Israelis were dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv and rejoicing the birth of their nation, the armies of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, attacked Israel. Five countries, with combined populations of 25 million, declared war on the State of Israel, with population of 600,000. That was a traumatic time that changed my life forever. I was 18 years old in Baghdad. The tears of fear drowned the tears of joy. A year later I was smuggled safely out of Iraq. I was lucky.
For centuries, Jews were dispersed all over the world, wandering from one place to another in search of safety and a place to live, always a minority. It was a history of suffering, adding new words to a lexicon of tragedy: expulsion, disputation, forced conversion, inquisition, ghetto, Dthimitude, and pogrom. Jews were suspended between memory and hope, sustained by the promise that God will bring them back. Although they no longer lived in the land, the land lived in them.
Throughout the years, they returned to the Promised Land. In the 15th and the 16th centuries, Jews came from Spain and Portugal. In the 17th century, they came from Ukraine after the massacre of 1648.
In 1879, a disturbing phenomenon appeared. It was given a new name: anti-Semitism. After the Russian Pogrom of 1881 and the Dreyfus trial in 1895 in France, Jewish leaders such as Theodor Herzl, warned that Europe was becoming unsafe.
Then came 1933 and the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Anti-Semitism was at the heart of his campaign and laws against the Jews were enacted. Gradually Jews were deprived of their rights, jobs and their freedom. They were spoken of as lice, vermin, and a cancer to be surgically removed from the body of the German nation. Millions of Jews were in danger. Nation after nation shut its doors. On the vast surface of the earth there was not one inch of land Jews could call home.
As the smoke of war cleared in 1945, as the Russians entered Auschwitz and the British Bergen Belsen, people began to understand the enormity of what had happened. A third of the world Jewry had gone up in flames. One and a half million children had been murdered.
When the war was over, Jewish refugees couldn’t enter the land. On November 29, 1947 the UN voted to partition the land between its Jewish and Arab population. While the Jews accepted, the Arabs refused. After 2000 years of wandering the State of Israel came into being. Was this the hand of God or the work of human beings? Surely it was both. The tears of joy drowned the tears of fear.
A homeless, penniless refugee, I arrived in Israel, like others from Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Morocco, and Afghanistan. Holocaust survivors and refugees came from over 100 countries and spoke 80 languages. They came from Russia when it opened its doors. They came home to the land of hope, Israel. In few short weeks, after my arrival in Israel, I found work; and a place to stay. I was free and equal citizen. I was no more a refugee.
The Jews accepted every partition proposal, the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the Peel Commission in 1937, and the UN in 1947. After Israel victory in the 6 Day War in 1967, Israel again proposed land for peace. The Arab countries gathered in Khartoum declared: no negotiation, no recognition and no peace. Only two countries have since made peace treaties with Israel, Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. The peace treaty on the lawn of the white House, in September 1993 lasted less than a year. A wave of suicide bombers struck in restaurants, buses, parks, schools, shopping malls and busy streets.
Had the Arab leaders accepted the UN partition plan instead of launching a war, to seize all the land, an independent Palestinian-Arab state would now exist alongside Israel. There would have been no Palestinian refugees. If Arab countries had not expelled their Jewish citizens, there would have been no Jewish refugees from Arab countries either. Israel was never far from war, or the threat of war, terror, or the threat of terror. It fought wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Israel is a tiny country home to a tiny group of people. It is the size of the Belize or the State of New Jersey and is one sixth of 1% that of the Arab lands.
Judaism is the oldest western religion. It is twice as old as Christianity, three times as old as Islam, yet there are 82 Christian countries, 56 Muslim countries but only one Jewish State.
How do Israelis live with the constant threat of violence and war, and create a thriving democracy, that excels in agriculture, science, medicine and technology? How did the Jews survive for a hundred generations to build a country from the ashes of the Holocaust? The answer is faith, hope and the refusal to believe or act as victims.
Israel’s National Anthem Hatikvah, means the Hope. Israel is the land of hope. At 60, Israel’s journey is not yet over, and will not be, until peace, Shalom, Salam will come. Peace is a duet and can’t be done solo by Israel alone. Until the Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, the chance for peace is slim. So, for the sake of the Israelis, for the sake of the Palestinians, for the sake of God, humanity and the future generations let us all pray and hope for peace.
The following article on the subject is the the first article I have read in 16 days.... (due to: http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2008/05/gods-grace-for-najma-ghouse.html ) because my friend Joe asked, I read it, and I am glad I read it.
It is one of the best pieces I have seen to project the Jewish side of the human experience and endurance. I have written quite a few comments along the same lines.
I just wrote http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-stoking-anti-semitism.html and I hope you can see some sense in the piece I wrote last November http://peace-palestine-israel.blogspot.com/2007/11/peace-in-israel-palestine.html . I have to complete a full presentation on the subject of Peace for Israel and Palestine and it touches along the same lines Joe has written below. And this
There is a dire need for the Palestinians to understand the trauma the Jewish people have endured and the Israelis to understand the hopelessness, pain and anguish of the Palestinians. The leadership on both sides has focused on bullying each other and cowing each other down.... that is inhuman and has failed, yet they don't get it. We need a human approach - to step forward. I hope to write that piece some time this year.
The one sentence that I need to understand is the "the armies of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, attacked Israel. Five countries, with combined populations of 25 million, declared war on the State of Israel , with population of 600,000." I need to understand the background on this particular aspect and hope to learn it from both sides of the issue.
Sadly, we the Americans cannot bring peace to the Middle east because we do not have the genuine disposition to see another point of view nor do we have the emapthy for the Palestinians or truly understand the security needs of the Jews. Yet we talk about peace without meaning it. It is time we focus on justice to bring about sustainable peace to the Jews and the Palestinians.
Mike Ghouse
# # #
Israel at 60 - A Land of Hope
Joe Samuels
May 14, 1948. Tears of joy mixed with tears of fear. After the longest exile ever endured by any people, the Jews now had their own State. Then the war broke out. Oops? The war broke out? How does a war break out? Is it lightening from the sky that starts a forest fire? Someone must start a war. On that day, May 14, 1948 while the Israelis were dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv and rejoicing the birth of their nation, the armies of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, attacked Israel. Five countries, with combined populations of 25 million, declared war on the State of Israel, with population of 600,000. That was a traumatic time that changed my life forever. I was 18 years old in Baghdad. The tears of fear drowned the tears of joy. A year later I was smuggled safely out of Iraq. I was lucky.
For centuries, Jews were dispersed all over the world, wandering from one place to another in search of safety and a place to live, always a minority. It was a history of suffering, adding new words to a lexicon of tragedy: expulsion, disputation, forced conversion, inquisition, ghetto, Dthimitude, and pogrom. Jews were suspended between memory and hope, sustained by the promise that God will bring them back. Although they no longer lived in the land, the land lived in them.
Throughout the years, they returned to the Promised Land. In the 15th and the 16th centuries, Jews came from Spain and Portugal. In the 17th century, they came from Ukraine after the massacre of 1648.
In 1879, a disturbing phenomenon appeared. It was given a new name: anti-Semitism. After the Russian Pogrom of 1881 and the Dreyfus trial in 1895 in France, Jewish leaders such as Theodor Herzl, warned that Europe was becoming unsafe.
Then came 1933 and the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Anti-Semitism was at the heart of his campaign and laws against the Jews were enacted. Gradually Jews were deprived of their rights, jobs and their freedom. They were spoken of as lice, vermin, and a cancer to be surgically removed from the body of the German nation. Millions of Jews were in danger. Nation after nation shut its doors. On the vast surface of the earth there was not one inch of land Jews could call home.
As the smoke of war cleared in 1945, as the Russians entered Auschwitz and the British Bergen Belsen, people began to understand the enormity of what had happened. A third of the world Jewry had gone up in flames. One and a half million children had been murdered.
When the war was over, Jewish refugees couldn’t enter the land. On November 29, 1947 the UN voted to partition the land between its Jewish and Arab population. While the Jews accepted, the Arabs refused. After 2000 years of wandering the State of Israel came into being. Was this the hand of God or the work of human beings? Surely it was both. The tears of joy drowned the tears of fear.
A homeless, penniless refugee, I arrived in Israel, like others from Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Morocco, and Afghanistan. Holocaust survivors and refugees came from over 100 countries and spoke 80 languages. They came from Russia when it opened its doors. They came home to the land of hope, Israel. In few short weeks, after my arrival in Israel, I found work; and a place to stay. I was free and equal citizen. I was no more a refugee.
The Jews accepted every partition proposal, the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the Peel Commission in 1937, and the UN in 1947. After Israel victory in the 6 Day War in 1967, Israel again proposed land for peace. The Arab countries gathered in Khartoum declared: no negotiation, no recognition and no peace. Only two countries have since made peace treaties with Israel, Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. The peace treaty on the lawn of the white House, in September 1993 lasted less than a year. A wave of suicide bombers struck in restaurants, buses, parks, schools, shopping malls and busy streets.
Had the Arab leaders accepted the UN partition plan instead of launching a war, to seize all the land, an independent Palestinian-Arab state would now exist alongside Israel. There would have been no Palestinian refugees. If Arab countries had not expelled their Jewish citizens, there would have been no Jewish refugees from Arab countries either. Israel was never far from war, or the threat of war, terror, or the threat of terror. It fought wars in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Israel is a tiny country home to a tiny group of people. It is the size of the Belize or the State of New Jersey and is one sixth of 1% that of the Arab lands.
Judaism is the oldest western religion. It is twice as old as Christianity, three times as old as Islam, yet there are 82 Christian countries, 56 Muslim countries but only one Jewish State.
How do Israelis live with the constant threat of violence and war, and create a thriving democracy, that excels in agriculture, science, medicine and technology? How did the Jews survive for a hundred generations to build a country from the ashes of the Holocaust? The answer is faith, hope and the refusal to believe or act as victims.
Israel’s National Anthem Hatikvah, means the Hope. Israel is the land of hope. At 60, Israel’s journey is not yet over, and will not be, until peace, Shalom, Salam will come. Peace is a duet and can’t be done solo by Israel alone. Until the Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, the chance for peace is slim. So, for the sake of the Israelis, for the sake of the Palestinians, for the sake of God, humanity and the future generations let us all pray and hope for peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)