For Israel There Is Only One Choice: A Jewish Majority At All Costs!

The PLO Representative to the United States, Maen Rashid Areikat, spoke today at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University. Mr. Areikat was asked by my friend whether he believed that the current US sponsored Peace effort, towards a two state solution was more plausible then a one state solution?

Mr. Areikat responded with standard diplomatic circumlocution, that Israel has three choices.
1. Become an apartheid state, by both refusing to negotiate for a Palestinian State and preventing West Bank Palestinians from achieving full Israeli citizenship.
2. Accept a two state solution.
3. A one state solution, by giving West Bank residents full Israeli citizenship.

But I disagree Israel has only one choice:

From Areikat’s perspective, the creation of Israel alienated an entire population, and he is right.
Perhaps this population caused its own downfall and continues to miss opportunities, -failed leadership and corruption etc.- but as any cognitive psychologist will tell you it is perception not reality that is important.
It is equally true that regardless of the justness of Israel’s position the Palestinians are not going away.

But Mr. Areikat, like so many others, misses the underlying point. Israel is not just another nation where citizens define their allegiance by rooting for their national-sports team. Israel is not just a state where Jews are a majority. It is a place defined by its Jewish majority.

To repeat:

For 2000 years the worlds Jews, and their resourcefulness, were at the whim of tyrants, imams, and popes. True in the Ottoman Empire, Muslim ruled Iberia (Spain),15th century Poland, and 19th century Germany Jews were allowed to live in peace, but they were never equal citizens. And as we know now their safety was as transient, as the laws that protected them. It is also true that America, my country, has been unwavering in its protection of its Jewish minority, but even here Jews are constantly reminded by the likes of Helen Thomase, Mel Gibson, and Oliver Stone -to name a few- that America the beautiful can be high-jacked by ugly Americans.

Now Jews finally have a state, not a decaying dessert kingdom, but a developed, and pluralistic nation in the very same geography of our ancient homeland. A place where I, an American, can choose to move and thrive and where my fellow Jews who are being firebombed and beaten (usually by disaffected un-integrated [Chancellor Angela Merkel anyone] Muslim immigrant-youth)are now running.

So why should Israel's support a two state solution only to be hedged in by a proven enemy from every side?
1967 borders?!
You mean to say Israel should allow itself to be effectively split in half? Because 1967 borders=20; 20 miles wide at its most narrow point, which is also smack in the middle of Israel. Dismantling settlements?!
You mean to say that Israel should force 325,000 Jews from their homes? Isn't that exactly what Palestinians claim happened to them?

Worse why should Israel support a one state solution only to lose its Jewish majority and place itself in the hands -once again- of a people who, justly or otherwise, have been taught to hate and have murdered out of hate?
Indeed even if they were peace loving Europeans (ahem hem) why take the chance?

I know, the moral arguments coming from the left and Muslims are compelling.
But from my perspective this is not about who is the bigger victim of circumstance or whether Israel deserves all the world’s condemnation, it's not even about the moral issues of "occupation".

It's about Israel's mission to preclude another 2000 years of forced subjection to unfettered human hate. Jews are no longer defenseless. For this reason Israel has only one choice, a Jewish Majority at all costs!

This 9/11: Islam Needs ChaBaD!

Many Muslims, including a close friend, argue that Islam is not violent, suicidal, or expansionist. Yet people like me, see the reality. Homicide bombings, stoning, insult laden mosque building, and little self criticism. Which one is it?

Some of these said acquaintances have concluded that even if some Muslims are genuinely opposed to the hate and pain that their coreligionists cause it is because they are “reform” Muslims or they are afraid of discrimination and would otherwise be quick to support the hate.

I do not agree with this absolute bifurcation. Nor do I not subscribe to the following proposal out of naiveté or even unwarranted optimism –on the contrary as a lover of America and a proud Jew I cannot forgive, nor close my eyes to the unrepentant terror and hate that Islam-inspired extremism has directed against my nation and people. Rather I make the following assertions based on my personal experience with scrupulous orthodox-Muslims who proudly acknowledge that their religion has a violent past and even seeks to convert others, but who are also adamantly opposed to both Sunni motivated Saudi extremism and Shia instigated terror.

Furthermore these same Muslims concede that they -peace and Koran loving Muslims- are not doing enough to fight this real corruption within the ranks of their coreligionists or preventing the insidious/misguided acts by moderate Muslims (such as the ground zero mosque). Then again, they justly contend, they do not have the oil of Iran or Saudi Arabia to propagate their view.

It is to these Muslims that I address the following suggestion:

To be clear I offer this suggestion not as a patronizing snob but as a religious Jew who has seen with my own eyes how ChaBaD, an uncompromising cadre of orthodox Jews who focus on the Jewish believe in unqualified acts of goodness and kindness, has revolutionized and revitalized international Judaism. Not through trying to convince other orthodox streams of Judaism to mimic them but by reaching out to largely secular world Jewry with words of inspiration, lessons in fundamental Jewish practice like charity, "love thy neighbor", acts of goodness and kindness, and heartfelt prayer. This all the while accurately emphasizing that this is not a form of “Judaism-lite” but rather essential practice; a prerequisite to Torah/Rabbinic-true Judaism.

Does this mean that ChaBaD obscures that orthodox Judaism is opposed to same-sex marriage, abortion (under most circumstances), and the expulsion of Jews from parts of Israel? Does it mean that ChaBaD Jews are apolitical and do not have strong, even offensive, personal beliefs? No and no. What it means is that the focus of outreach and study is on the affirmative practice of fundamental Judaism to the best of the individual’s ability.

The upshot is that even the most hard-core ultra-orthodox Jews have recognized the validity of ChaBaD’s efforts and focus, and have themselves been reinvigorated and strengthened in the practice of Jewish principles like love thy neighbor (irrespective of religious practice or background) and general acts of goodness.

I believe that if orthodox Muslims (not easy to dismiss reform/apologist) began a movement that focused on spreading the positive FUNDAMENTALS of Islam to their secular Muslim brothers and sisters -not a watered down presentation offered by “Muslims at heart” but a Koran true message taught by practicing main stream orthodox Muslims that focused on charity, prayer, and belief in their creator- ChaBaD-like results could be achieved.

Likewise, as in the ChaBaD approach, the outreach should not target the hard headed extremists THAT DO GATHER in some mosques and educate the unwary youth regarding all those kaufers (infidels) and how the world is out to destroy Islam. Rather it should focus on secular Muslims; those that know their religion only as it is depicted by Al Jazeera, Memri, Drudgereport, or the New York Times –if at all.

True orthodox Muslims believe that they must proselyte non-Muslims and that defaming the prophet is wrong, but so do Christians. The point is that Muslims can be true to their religion and offer a purely positive message to those around them. The face of Islam need not be defined by incendiary community-center projects, flag burning, or threats against the expression of free speech. On the contrary devout Muslim-Americans who seek what Islam demands –peace- should grasp the opportunity, economic and political, that America offers.

Indeed if you, American-Muslims, gathered to fight extremism through education, the totality of America would put its powerful shoulder to the same wheel and support you to the benefit of all.

The Ground Zero Imam is Suffering from CGS

Many outside the Liberal American Jewish community have labeled Richard Goldstone, author of the infamous UN/Muslim/leftist sponsored Goldstone report, a self hating Jew. However Goldstone, and a cadre of staunchly pro-Palestinian Jews, adamantly deny the claim. Usually Goldstone and co. defend the report by asserting, “biased results be damned” we had the best of intentions and besides “honest” criticism is necessary for Israel’s good”.

Riiight...

Still the observer should never underestimate the propensity for individuals -whose actions are reprehensible- to dodge and swerve on the way to justifying their actions. (Indeed it is only when Goldstone verbalized his justification for the abysmal bias endemic in his “balanced” report can we gain insight into the extent of his twisted reasoning). Perhaps Goldstone actually did have “good” intentions. However good intentions do not automatically justify ones actions, and in the Goldstone’s case his verbalized defense belied his acclaimed intellectual prowess.

How did he get so far in life, how did he become the prominent human rights arbiter, how was he able to disguise his deeply rooted turmoil ? Frankly your guess is as good as mine, but Goldstone was/is more an unwitting dimwit, then a calculated co-conspirator.

How is this relevant to the ground zero Mosque, uh I mean amorphous “community center” ?

Well the Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has been under attack for some time for his decision to build a Muslim institution two blocks from ground zero. Many ask why here, why cause communal disharmony? Rauf responds that he didn’t know this would offend so many, and besides, he continues, we have constitutional right to (as do neo-nazis who have a right to offend). But months ago, before the explosion of community animus, Rauf rebuffed the advice to move to a different location. So he knew and stuck to his insolent plan anyway, why? As this question has never been satisfactorily answered many conclude that he is duplicitous and is motivated by insidious Islamic principles.
The accusations -to many to count- are compounded by the fact that this imam is considered a Muslim moderate. This places the most peaceful of Muslims in the camp of terror and hate. On the other hand, according to a NYT article (August 20), he presides over mixed worship, unconditionally condemns violence, and even supports Israel (how did that happen!).

So which is it? Is he a closet Mullah spearheading a covert takeover of America. Or is he unwitting fool, a tool of the “anonymous” sponsors who recognized his gullibility and offered to sponsor his peaceful 100 million dollar project?

It may very well be that Rauf, like Goldstone, is a credulous idiot with good intentions. If that’s the case I suggest we label this noxious habit CGS.

The Imam is exhibiting symptoms of Chronic Goldstone syndrome.

The, Reality, Psychology, and the Future: Three Thoughts on the Pakistan Deluge

ONE, The Sad Reality:

Why has there not been a upwelling of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan?
When Israel defends itself and stops a flotilla dead in its track, the Muslim world erupts in anger, millions are raised to support further flotillas, and the UNGA is enveloped in yet another wave of anti-Israel fervor.

When a man publishes a caricature of Muhammad, people are murdered, embassies are burned, the Muslim world seethes, and religious fatwa’s are published by the dozen.

Why has there not been a surge of Muslim support for the people of Pakistan? Where are the fatwa’s declaring it obligatory for Muslims to help? Where are the public demonstrations in Indonesia, France, and the UK demanding foreign aid and/or focusing attention on the plight of millions? Where are the furious leftist of Huffington post, fundraisers of apartheid week, and the organizers of anti-Israel boycott campaigns?

20 MILLION people are HOMELESS!

Western news reports claim that the flood will halt NATO operations and allow the Taliban to regroup. But do they realize that the situation is far more dire? Al Qaida, the Taliban, and myriad other “fringe” Islamic extremists pray daily for such “opportunities”. While the secular government of Pakistan continues the trend –evident in their failure to eliminate the Pakistan Taliban- of acting against Pakistan's best interests, the murderers have begun pouring millions of dollars into relief efforts, replacing the government and establishing their grip on every day Pakistan.

Instead of the moderate Muslims community galvanizing to help the people of Pakistan, never mind helping affirm a peaceful image of Islam that their funds would foster in Pakistan, they are barely audible. Are they waiting for the next flair-up against Israel to muster their resources ad raise their voices?

Yes, I am intimately familiar with inter-group dynamics; how people tend to react when an outsider challenges an insider. Yes all groups rage when one of their own is attacked. But that there is such a discrepancy between the extraordinary resources used to fight the outsider and the pittance being offered amongst insiders (at Friday Mosque collections etc.). The inexplicable gap between the myriad articles published in the Muslim press regarding the ground zero mosque (please see Turkish English daily Hurriyet for a sampling ) and the few referencing the plight of Pakistani's.


For all peace loving people, people that believe that most Muslims want peace, the tepid Islamic support for their suffering brothers and their rage towards outsiders is...


TWO, The Self Defeating Psychology:

Why hasn't India jumped on the opportunity to help Pakistan’s flood victim and itself, by promoting stability on its border? Doesn't India have the most to lose if Pakistan descends completely into the hands of the Islamic extremists? Why hasn’t India offered a substantial relief package to Pakistan?


Another Question:

Why is it that the Muslim regimes of the Middle East do not embrace the opportunity in their midst. Imagine Israeli drip-technology irrigating the arid desserts of Syria, or its desalination plants replenishing Yemen's thinning water sources. Would not an (energy starved?) Iranian partnership with Israel developing solar technology serve Iran’s interest more than its current quasi-suicidal attempt at becoming a nuclear regime? Or an Erdogan who used Turkeys, then relatively, neutral position to foster peace, instead of exacerbating tensions in the middle-east in a mad attempt at consolidating his political power. Yes the Muslim street is full, and full of rage, but not because of Israel but rather because there are no jobs. Israel can drive the middle-east into the 21st century and in the process stabilize a slew of tottering illegitimate regimes -even eliminate the need for them.

But that requires peace, and peace requires a measure of humility.

Humility like that shown by Obama, (the leader of the greatest country the world has ever seen) when he stooped down to Iran,( a nation that served the Sun and Moon when it last experienced greatness), and declared “we will extend our hand if you unclench your fist”. Or the humility of Israel when it repeatedly ignores the homicidal mantras and monologues of its neighbors proclaiming it desires peace, and backing up that deceleration by heart-wrenching actions like expelling its own citizens, TWICE. Or the humility of Ataturk’s Turkey when it openly accepted aid from Israel after the devastating earthquakes, and then said thank you.

When will the majority of the middle-east shake off the antiquated and self-destructive culture of ego and put their own best interest before their misplaced self-importance (see the Arab mind 1973, by Raphael Patai)? When will the larger middle-east accept reality and harness its intrinsic potential?

Was Obama criticized for reaching out to Iran, even called weak? Yes. Were Israeli leader criticized and threatened when they forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, or when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon, in their imprudent hope for peace? Yes, but they acted because they put their own self interest BEFORE PRIDE, if only the other side would have seen the reality of a peaceful opportunity instead of the mirage of Israeli weakness.

It is the psychology of Pakistan and most of the Middle-East to worship the delusional self-image despite the decaying body. To destroy 60 years of positive relations because you were humbled, in Davos, in front of the world. To even consider rejecting aid from India because that may foster the image of Pakistan’s inferiority.

So India offered a diminutive 5 million dollars, and Pakistan has yet to accept it (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pakistan-says-yet-to-decide-on-india-s-aid-offer-45186)...

THREE, The Frightening Future:

Will Pakistan become the next Iran?

After all the Islamic extremists used the upstanding Pakistan middle class –led by the supreme- court and jurists- to force the secular Musharraf’s resignation. Just as Khomeini fooled the moderate bazzar (the Iranian middle-class) into thinking he was rebelling against the corruption, and not replacing a secular tyrant with a adultery stoning Islamic tyranny ( Khomeini’s Ghost, Coughlin, 2009). It goes without saying that are differences that go beyond culture such as Pakistan long standing inability to centralize control over all its territory and the lack of a figure, such as Khomeini, who has the respect and fealty of the majority of the country.

Still no one believed that Khomeini could overthrow the Western-backed Shah, or that a theocratic regime in Iran would still be in power 30 years after its revolution. Indeed it is exactly this type of “G-dly punishment” (no doubt a consequence of Pakistan supporting pro-western activities) disaster that could catapult an Islamic tyranny/theocracy into power. Just try imagining a nation run by an Iran-like oligarchy WITH NUKES!

Not After 9/11, NOW! Why are Anti-Mosque Protests Sweeping Across America ?

I remember walking through Manhattans Mid-town weeks after 9/11 and I was both dismayed and proud of what I encountered. The protesters were advocating against going to war.
What we didn't see was wide-spread attacks on Muslims. On the contrary most political and religious leaders defended Islam and their American followers. Americans are proud of that too.

Almost 10 years later a new Mosque/community center has been proposed and approved by NYC only blocks away from a ground zero monument yet to be completed. To the families of victims it is seen as the ultimate insult, however legal, to the memory of their loved ones and many regular-Americans agree.

Then we saw The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1) published an article exposing the growing trend of anti-Mosque protests highlighting the blatant arguments to suppress religious freedom. The NYT articles point was intended not only to expose a troubling trend but also to conflate the non-racist arguments against the ground zero mosque with the racist protests elsewhere; with the intent of discrediting the arguments against the ground zero mosque.
Yet the fact remains, after 9/11 there was little anti-Islam activity, whereas, now Mosque building across Amercia –reflecting a constitutional right to practice religious freedom- is being challenged!

Recently I have been called a bigot by a reader of my blog who opposed my article questioning the reasoning of building a Mosque so close to ground zero. The full essay can be viewed at http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/between-mosque-and-hard-place.html. But the thesis is that Muslims know there are questions about their beliefs and anger against the actions committed by people who claim to be Muslims. So I asked why not avoid insulting people? What was gained by using religious freedom to again victimize the victims? Did they expect such an actions to strengthen the harmony between Americas religious communities? My conclusion was that whatever the intentions, they forced the average American to choose between a Mosque -representing religious freedom- and a hard place -representing the insult and disregard that victims of 9/11 feel.

Indeed after 9/11 there was no “choice”, every community, except for a few who exercised their freedom to dance in New Jersey as the towers and people burned, gathered together and denounced the suicide-murder. For most Americans, like myself, it was another instance of the triumph of American exceptionalism -rationality and law trumped irrational anger and frustration, and there were no wide-spread attacks on Muslim-American community. After all Muslim were also lost in the inferno of hate, many spoke out against the terror, their religion was victimized by their suicidal coreligionists.

Yet now Americans turn on their tv’s and they see Muslims completely rejecting the feelings of many good and honest Americans. The same America that elected a Black president and refused to blame Islam for Fort Hood the attempted Christmas-day bombing, despite 9/11… Muslim-Americans like Farreed Zakaree, the CNN anchor and writer who returned an ADL award, because the ADL DID recognize the legitimacy, however irrational, of the victims feelings and opposed the mosque ON THOSE GROUNDS.

Muslim-Americans the overwhelming majority who espouse peace could have come out and declared
“WE ARE A PEACFUL RELIGOUN WE BELIEVED THIS MOSQUE WOULD FOSTER UNDERSTANDING AND HARMONY, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE AND THE STILL TRAUMATIZED VICTIMS, ESSPECIALY CONSIDERING RECENT AMERICAN HISTORY, WE WILL FIND A LESS SENSATIVE AREA IN LOWER MANHATTAN FOR THIS MOSQUE.”
Instead Muslims told me that they opposed the Mosque because of the unnecessary disunity it causes, but now support it because they feel under attack. But I say this is not the way you respond to an attack in America. Not one major America-Muslim organization publicized and acknowledged the feelings of the victims. Not one organization said “you know what we understand”!
Indeed America refuses to blame American-Muslims for the horror committed in its name, and I believe it will continue to do so.

When Americans saw American-Muslims going out of their way to insult America. They said “perhaps Muslims don’t understand the pain this mosque is causing”, let us explain it to them -dissuade them from using this location. That didn’t work. So then they asked “is this what we can expect from the Muslim-American community in the future”? To deliberately insult, like the fringe racists who now feel free to openly stand in front of Mosques with dogs at their side hurling insults? To use freedom of religion to create disharmony amongst religious communities? To be unable to adjust to real concerns by deeply hurt people? To add insult to injury and label the emotionally injured who ONLY remember their children and parents and call them bigots!!! Is this a religion of understanding is this a community which has leaders that understand that the law is a means for coexistence not an ends on to itself?

Of course protesting in front of mosques simply because they are Muslim institutions is wrong. Of course the Mosque/community center is legal, and Muslims are free to build anywhere the law allows them! Of course American-Muslims, (except the American-Muslims that provided support to the 9/11 hijackers) are not to blame for 9/11 and to blame them is wrong! Of Course!

But do Muslim-Americans understand that this Mosque will achieve the what the hijackers were unable to achieve, wide-spread religious conflict? Do Muslim-Americans not feel the grief that so many Americans victimized by 9/11 feel?

Then again by now the Mosque supporters realize what they are doing and continue to act, if they didn't at the onset.

If that is the case it does not make Mosque protesting outside of the ground zero mosque right, but it certainly explains it.

Soft drinks, Circumcision, and Burka’s: Beware of the slippery slope!

In light of the accelerating burka bans sweeping across Europe and parts of the Arab world, I decided to resurrect this post.

One of the most common legal and philosophical arguments heard in today's classrooms is the refrain "its a slippery slope". For example if we ban trans-fat for health reasons what will the health argument be used for next -perhaps red meat?

However, the slippery slope has recently exited the classroom and inundated the western hemisphere. Governor Paterson (D-NY)is pushing a bill to tax soft drinks in New York, after all soft drinks are unhealthy.

And why not? If we already tax cigarettes at 300 percent and banned trans-fat from restaurant chains, why shouldn't the government combine health concerns with revenue interests and tax soft drinks? We, the healthy consumers who enjoy the occasional steak, should not be surprised if we are asked for ID next time we enter a steak house!

Yet the slippery slopes of New York are relativity innocuous. Four major countries in Western Europe have recently moved to ban burkas (burqa or burkha). In France, Britain, Italy, and even in Holocaust-handicapped Germany public surveys have shown majority support of a total ban on the full body covering worn by Muslim women (update: Syria passed a law banning burkas in universities).

Why? France's president Sarkozy summed it up when he stated that "the burkas message of a women's segregation from larger society is antithetical to Western notions of equality and liberty". Some reading this post may ask two questions.

1. Does this indicate Mendel is pro-burka?
2. Whats wrong with banning the Islamist burka?

First of all I am not a fan of the burka nor the extremism it represents.
Second, this is of real concern to all of us.

In liberal England parents have been sued for circumcising their son. Additionally, a Jewish school is being forced to accept children who were defined as Jewish by the government in opposition to the Orthodox Rabbis Halachic (Jewish law) decision.
In both these cases the government contends that the actions they overturned were antithetical to Western values. What's next, no Shabbos-observance on Saturday or crucifixes around the neck?

The fact of the matter is that certain arguments, though having merit, create hazards that we only recognize after the fact.
Beware of the slippery slope!

America Will Gain Nothing By Linking Terror with Islam

A recent Washington Post article "Obama at Odds with Petraeus Doctrine on Islam" completely misses the opportunity to shed light on an important question. Should America tie Islam to the war on terror? The essay starts auspiciously enough with an overview of Obama's policy on this matter, referencing secretary Brennan's publicized “new” approach to the war on terror. This revamped policy included removing all references to Islam, because America doesn’t want to legitimize the perception that America is fighting a war with Islam. It also replaced the war on terror with the war on Al-Qaeda. This contradicts elements of a manual co-authored by Patraeus in 2006 which states emphatically that Islam is related to the war.

Instead of the author focusing on presenting a perspective on the underlying question, he unabashedly relished the opportunity to reveal yet another rift between the administration and the military. This “exposé” follows General McCrystal's recent resignation after his criticism of the administration was published in Rollingstone magazine. But what about the question: Should America link the war on terror with Islam?

The Bush era defense department, under Donald Rumsfeld and then Robert Gates, argued that ignoring the obvious roots of Al-Qaeda extremist ideology negatively affected the war effort. Bush did make it clear on a number of occasions that the war was not on the totality of Islam but rather on an aberrant extremist strand that attacked America. However they never really defended this position, nor did they, openly, challenge the right-wing conservatives in their own party who propagated the claim that the war on terror was actually a war between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West. The electorate did not miss this and Obama’s campaign accentuated the negative by ignoring Bush’s nuanced position while painting the entire Republican party with the brush of the conservative view. Obama claimed that we needed to engage with the Muslim world, not alienate them by tying Islam to terror or the war as Bush did (though he didn’t).

The current administration’s approach is not without merit. For one thing if America's electorate missed the nuance in the Republicans position it’s a sure thing that Muslim-majority countries did as well. Obama removed all ambiguity, that could otherwise be construed by extremist elements in the Muslim world as evidence that America was waging a war on Islam. Unlike Bush’s more nuanced position, Obama emphatically declared America’s war is no way related to Islam. Obama supports this position by asserting that there is no advantage to referencing the connection, even if there is one.

Indeed this is the crux of the issue, both Obama and Bush agree. Most Muslims do not adhere to extremist Islam doctrine to the extent of committing/condoning terror. However for Obama America gains nothing by referencing Islam. Conversely, Bush argued that so long as terror is perpetrated by Muslims the war can be construed as relating to Islam and must be acknowledged as such.
To what ends? To force the moderates to take a side? To punish the various Muslim communities for not preventing the terror that emanates from it? To galvanize the American public against a common foe? For the sake of truth?

Or to point out that the moderate Muslim world has failed in suppressing the extremists, and to some extent they are directly responsible (please see blog post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/roots-of-modern-terrorism.html), for allowing their religion to be hijacked. In other words just as Bush’s position was ambiguous the moderate Muslims position is opaque. Thus even if the moderate Muslim (as Bush tried at the other end) attempts to be nuanced, and publicly declares terror is contrary to Islam, people, ignorant or otherwise, will make a connection because Muslims are still perpetrating terror. But the Bush policy of motivating moderate-Muslims to speak, by supporting a nuanced position, has not worked. Instead it has been used as ammunition in this country and in Muslim-majority countries against American policy.

Put otherwise Obama is right. Not because the terror is not linked to Islam, but because America will gain nothing by linking terror to Islam.

Between a Mosque and a Hard Place

Let’s say that Christians decided that it is important to have a Church overlooking Dachau, a German concentration camp where 100,000s of Jews and others were exterminated . Would that be wrong?

On one hand just because the Nazi’s of Germany happened to be both from a Christian nation and expressing an extreme manifestation of Antisemitism is not a reason to besmirch the whole Christian faith 60 years later.

At the same time it would be in very bad taste and completely unnecessary. Not because the Church was directly responsible for the Holocaust, but because there is an association. Thankfully the Church has not placed Jews in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between commonsense-respect or being labeled anti-Christian.

Yet what would happen if the Church did insist on building a towering church overlooking Dachau BEFORE the actual Dachau memorial was constructed, say in 1955? Then Jews would be forced to choose between being seen as unjustly stereotyping all Christians or feeling that the memory of their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters was not receiving the respect it deserved. After all most individuals visiting the site would easily make a hurtful connection between the Cross, Antisemitism, and the Nazis.

Why then have some in the American-Muslim community placed us, average Americans, in the uncomfortable and unnecessary position of choosing between the victims of horrific Islamic-terror and our values of absolute tolerance?

Who gains from building a Mosque 15 stories above the site of ground-zero, BEFORE ground-zero and the wounds that it opened recover? Bigots will become more bigoted, stereotypes will be affirmed, and many victims will feel once again victimized. Is there no location available for 100 million elsewhere in Manhattan?

How can the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba (this term has very sinister connotations, accidentally?) Initiative, be so sure that they can raise the 100 million necessary to follow thru on this project? Are there so many supporters of this project IN our country? If not who is funding this and why?

Perhaps it is a ploy to “reveal” Americas anti-Muslim and hypocritical nature, and was never intended to actually be built, or even a right-wing conspiracy to galvanize anti-Muslim sentiment in America. Or a left-wing conspiracy to force America to accept Islam while affirming American values to the rest of the world.

Whatever the warped meaning, they, whoever they are, have put us between a Mosque and a hard place.

The roots of Modern Terrorism:

I was both shocked and unsurprised by a recent Fatwa (religious decree) authored by one of the most prestigious Muslim scholars in England, Sheikh Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri. Ul-Qadri claims that

“Today’s tragedy is that terrorists, murderers, mischief-mongers and rioters try to prove their criminal, rebellious, tyrannous, brutal and blasphemous activities as a right and a justified reaction to foreign aggression under the garb of defense of Islam and national interests,” (jposthttp://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169984) This blanket statement shocked.

He continues by stating that "It can in no way be permissible to keep foreign delegates under unlawful custody and murder them and other peaceful non-Muslim citizens in retaliation for interference, unjust activities and aggressive advances of their countries,”(jposthttp://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169984)This qualification is what engendered my lack of surprise.

What makes this Fatwa just another piece of paper, is that it confirms the usual semantic contortions of past Fatwas. For example, the refrain that Jihad can not be waged against peaceful non-Muslims is just another way of saying "innocent civilians". A term used and abused by myriads of past Fatwas.

Putting aside the fact that, for most of the civilized world-the statement that "one can not murder innocent people"- is superfluous, the phrase peaceful/innocent is ambiguous at best. After all who is a "civilian/peaceful" human?

Perhaps reserve soldiers who are not serving are not innocent? Maybe every American tax-payer is not peaceful because they pay for the military? One could say that children of tax payers, because they strengthen the family and therefore a society which supports a war, are not civilians?!

Thus this Fatwa is unsurprising, and will likely have little affect on curbing terror. Both because of its ambiguity and because militant Muslims couldn't care less about some Imams ambiguous statement.

The real question is why the ambiguity? At best, the Imam is simply reflecting the ambiguity of the Koran. At worst the Imam is intentionally leaving a loop-hole for acts of terror! BUT WHY?

Indeed if the Imam did make a blanket statement it would have to include Israeli civilians. I wonder whether the Imam realizes this and would rather just be ambiguous for the sake of justifying terror against Israel?! It is a scary notion, but it must be explored.

Until the Imam's of today recognize that Israeli civilians are just as innocent as British, Arab, and American civilians, I would argue that, EVERYONE WILL SUFFER THE SCOURGE OF ISLAMIC TERROR. MOST OF ALL MUSLIMS WHO ARE THE MAIN VICTIMS OF ISLAMIC TERROR. After all the Imam may intend to provide the loophole to only target Israelis but it will be exploited to target all.

The roots of modern terrorism, specifically the type that intentionally targets and kills civilians, started in Israel and will continue to affect ALL civilians. Until IMAMS acknowledge what they know and issue a FATWA against all terrorism. They must proclaim a BLANKET FATWA:

For those that scream "oh but the only weapon Muslims have is terror" know this!

Colonial era American-patriots and British-mandate era Jewish-fighters attacked British forces ONLY (that parallel is often overlooked)BUT NEVER DID THEY INTENTIONALLY TARGET CIVILIANS, DESPITE THE OVERPOWERING FORCE OF THE BRITISH THEY WERE VICTORIOUS.

To defeat modern terror those partly responsible for it, namely the Imams and their undefined fatwas, must recognize the price of not challenging terror targeting Israel.

A Muslim/Jewish Coalition?

Is it possible to create a Muslim/Jewish coalition, in America?
I believe there is the potential IF we address two key questions.
But before that...

This question requires a definition of what is a Muslim, or Jew.

As I am Jewish, I can best address the definition of what it is to be a Jew. Of course even this definition could be challenged on many levels, be it as it may.

A Jew is the child of a Jewish mother, or has converted to Judaism following the orthodox process.
A Jew believes in one G-d, and that love of a fellow person is the most important factor governing human-human and human-God relationships.
A Jew believes in the veracity of the oral tradition.

Yet what is more important to a Jew, the sanctity of marriage, abortion, or Israel?

To crystallize this question. If a Muslim said "I will join your Jewish coalition defending traditional values, IF you withdraw your blind support from Israel" how would a Jew respond?

Probably by trying to compromise, or separate the two.
But in my case I would have to say no to that condition. Many Jews wouldn’t.

A Muslim -according to the prominent American-Muslim scholar of Law Abou El Fadl- believes in the five pillars of Islam. For those familiar with the Maimonides 13 principles of Jewish faith...

To be a Muslim one needs to follow these practices.
A Muslim believes that there is one G-d and his greatest and last prophet was Muhammad.
A Muslim believes that one needs to pray to G-d every day, as far as five times a day that seems to be the dominant practice but a minority disputes that.
A Muslim believes in caring for the needy (poor, widows, orphans).
A Muslim believes in purification through fasting.
A Muslim believes in the "Hajj" or pilgrimage to Mecca, if possible.

If a Jew approached a Muslim and said stop supporting the Palestinians blindly and we will join your coalition to uphold traditional values, how would the Muslim respond?

One of my Muslim friends tells me that he would join the coalition and avoid the issue. But is that the dominant Muslim response?

Yet please take a moment and review the above core beliefs. Then ask yourself this question.

Is it more important to Judaism for us to uphold society’s traditional values or for us to weaken that coalition by our
inability to find the common ground with Muslims/Jews? I don’t know but I think it is a legitimate question.
The point is that many of us put our superficial beliefs ahead of our core beliefs.

Why?

Another point, we often make the mistake of calling others hypocrites. In the sense that how can one person believe in something and then not carry it out? How can a Jew who was given the bible which states "love you neighbor like yourself" (Leviticus 19:18, [perhaps not incidentally 18 is the numerical equivalent in Hebrew of the letters chet and yud CHAI=life, i.e. life can only be achieved by following this principle]) support Israel which is ostensibly not loving its neighbors? OR if Muslims really believed in caring for the needy then how can they target children?

As if we never strike out or speak about others behind their backs!. Hypocrisy is by definition cynical; IF it is to carry the common social stigma attributed to it, but I digress.

The point here is that we should not use the argument that if one supports what we deem terrorism or if one supports what we deem an occupation that these people are not good people who we could work with on other levels. THIS IS NOT HYPOCRISY IT IS WELL INTENTIONED AND IF WE ARE TO ARGUE THAT INTENTIONS DON'T COUNT THEN WE ARE SUPPORTING THE GOLDSTONE REPORT (please see post on Goldstone)

Yet these two issues are often buried in the guise of self righteousness or even strong FEELINGS of right and wrong, but if we always relied on our feeling we wouldn’t need a Bible or a Koran, would we?

Finally there are already segments of the Jewish and Muslim community working on common issues, yet this post was written to those that are perhaps held back from appreciating the value of cooperation by faulty assumptions, some of which I point out above.

Either way one rung in the ladder towards global unity is to find a common space where Jews and Muslims can stand AND speak the same language. Perhaps it is the language of Abraham who believed in one G-d AND traditional social values. After all we have a tradition that both are the sons of Abraham. As to the variations in religious practice, when the Messiah/al-Mahdi comes we will know.