Monthly Archives: February 2009

Stoughton Jews embrace Dutch racist Geert Wilders

Another Islam-bashing event at Congregation Ahavath Torah in Stoughton, Massachusetts on February 27, 2009, courtesy of JTA, reprinted in the Baltimore Jewish Times. It truly irks me when Jews act like neo-Nazis:

plugin:youtube

STOUGHTON, Mass. (JTA) – In his home continent, Dutch politician Geert Wilders is something of a pariah, banned from the United Kingdom and facing prosecution in the Netherlands for his harsh views of Islam.

His calls to end immigration from Muslim countries and ban the Koran – he compared it to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and said it incites to violence – have earned him broad condemnation in Europe and forced him under the protection of a security detail, a rarity for Dutch leaders.

But in some quarters of the American Jewish community, Wilders is more akin to a hero. At the very least, he was greeted as such by about 250 people last week at a Conservative synagogue in this Boston-area town.

The boisterous crowd at the Ahavath Torah Congregation gave Wilders, who heads the Dutch Party for Freedom and serves in the parliament, a standing ovation and shouted “Bravo” at the conclusion of his speech.

In an event co-sponsored by the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project and the Republican Jewish Coalition, Wilders made his only synagogue appearance on his recent tour of the United States, where he appeared on cable news networks and radio talk shows, spoke at the National Press Club and held a private showing of his anti-radical Islam film “Fitna” for senators and their staff on Capitol Hill.

The Middle East Forum’s director, Daniel Pipes, said he doesn’t agree with Wilders that the Koran should be banned. But he does believe that Wilders should be able to publicly present that view, which is why his organization co-sponsored the talk and is raising funds for Wilders’ legal defense.

“I don’t need to agree with him to see the importance of him making his arguments,” Pipes said.

Wilders is among a small number of European political figures who have spoken out forcefully about the impact of Muslim immigration and what they see as a religion irrevocably at odds with Western values. In the Netherlands, renowned for its liberalism and tolerance, the debate has often been particularly fraught.

A former parliamentary colleague of Wilder’s, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, was forced into hiding for her work on a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women. Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker and Hirsi Ali’s partner, was murdered on an Amsterdam street in 2004. Pim Fortuyn, another Dutch politician outspoken about immigration and Islam, was murdered in 2002.

In Europe, where freedom of speech laws are generally more restrictive – Holocaust denial, for example, is widely outlawed – figures like Wilders have pushed the boundaries of acceptable discourse. But in the United States, with its comparatively looser speech laws, the violence and intimidation directed at Islam’s harshest European critics is seen by some as allowing radical viewpoints to flourish.

“If our collective voice is impeded from speaking” or “shut down,” said Pipes, then “the way is paved for radical Islam to move ahead.”

Pipes says hate speech laws, which also have been used to prosecute Holocaust deniers in Europe, are a bad idea.

“I believe in the First Amendment,” he said.

Republican Jewish Coalition executive director Matt Brooks takes a similar position, saying that while he also opposes banning the Koran, he believes Wilders’ views should still be given a hearing.

“If we only had speakers we agree with 100 percent of the time, it would be a very small universe of speakers,” Brooks said.

Bjorn Larsen, whose International Free Press Society arranged Wilders’ U.S. tour, said the Dutch politician was invited personally by the rabbi at Ahavath Torah, Jonathan Hausman.

Hausman would not speak on the record to JTA about the event.

Security was tight in Stoughton, with bags being checked and guards for Wilders. After a showing of “Fitna,” Wilders said the Koran is being used as a justification for “hatred, terrorism and violence against the world,” and he outlined how he believes the rise of Islam in Europe is threatening the traditional Judeo-Christian values of the West.

A staunch supporter of Israel who once lived on a moshav, Wilders also proclaimed solidarity with the Jewish state.

Israel “is receiving the blows for all freedom-loving people,” he said. “We are all Israel. We have to defend our freedom.”

Wilders noted that while he was banned from the United Kingdom despite being a member of the Dutch parliament and carrying an E.U. passport., the head of Hezbollah was allowed to enter the country.

“This is Europe today,” he said.

There were no protests at Wilders’ speech – there was little advance publicity – and many in the crowd were sympathetic to his arguments. Andrew Warren of Sharon said he wanted to judge for himself whether Wilders is xenophobic, and said afterwards that Wilders had not crossed the line.

“The unfortunate reality is that a lot of troubling passages in the Koran are being embraced by militant ideology,” Warren said.

Louise Cohen of Brookline described Wilders as a hero and a man of courage.

“What’s disturbing to me is that no one has said that there is anything in his movie that is false,” she said.

While unaware of Wilders’ call to ban the Koran, Cohen said his film makes a case that the Koran is a hate document.

That view troubles Ron Newman, who said Wilders took certain verses from the Koran that appeared to promote violence and used them to generalize about all of Islam.

Saying that a similar approach could be used with portions of the Torah, Newman cautioned that the line of reasoning could be used to produce an anti-Semitic film.

“I don’t like that being done to us,” he said. “I don’t support people who do that to others.”

Nonetheless, as a staunch supporter of free speech, Newman said the attempt to squelch Wilders’ film and the refusal to allow him into Great Britain is a travesty.

Israel is not a democracy

checkpoint

In his recent letter defending Israel’s assault on Gaza, Irving Fradkin again maintains that Israel is blameless for human rights abuses which have received widespread international condemnation. He also attempts to sell Israel as a modern democracy as one reason for Americans to support it. Enough has been said about Gaza, but I would like to refute Dr. Fradkin’s rosy image of Israel as a democracy like ours with a few facts.

jordan

Dr. Fradkin claims that “Arabs and Israelis there have equal rights.” Perhaps this is just a Freudian slip, but Arab Israelis are Israelis. Palestinians in occupied territories clearly do not enjoy the same human rights as Israelis. However, Fradkin’s portrait of happy Arabs in Israel is totally distorted. Because of institutionalized racism, Arab Israelis do not have the same rights to own property or exercise freedom of speech or assembly. Wages for Arab citizens are 30% lower. Nor do Arabs now even have full electoral rights. Two weeks ago, the Central Elections Committee in Israel banned the Arab parties Ta’al and Balad from running in recent election. Avigdor Lieberman has openly called for revoking Arabs’ citizenship and called for “transfer” – forced deportations of Arabs. This is a more realistic picture of life for Arab Israelis.

Dr. Fradkin writes that Israel “wants peace and wants to share land peacefully with the Arabs.” But go to the Knesset’s website at http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm and look at the Likud’s platform: “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.” Now look at a map and you’ll notice that all of the West Bank is west of the Jordan River. Where do Israeli hardliners want Palestinians to live? Jordan and Egypt. Forced deportations are not the same as peaceful sharing.

He writes “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.” First of all, unlike Turkey, a secular democracy which Dr. Fradkin fails to mention, Israel is a theocracy: a “form of government which defers not to civil development of law, but to an interpretation of the will of a God as set out in religious scripture and authorities.” It has no constitution. Its laws are selectively enforced along racial and religious divisions – or ignored altogether. It has major human rights problems, including the use of torture. Israel has press censorship. If all this is a democracy, then let’s call Pakistan a democracy too.

This was published in the Standard Times on February 17, 2009
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/20090217/opinion/902170339

Applying Pressure on Israel

For those who work for peace in Israel and Palestine, there are a number of strategies for applying pressure on Israel. Divestment is one, while boycotts and sanctions are others.

Divestments

ahava-london

Divestments can be divided into those concerning (1) Israeli businesses based on illegal settlements (such as the well-known cosmetics line, Ahava), (2) American or international companies whose products are used for oppressive means (for example, the militarized Caterpillar tractors used to bulldoze Palestinian homes), or (3) all Israeli companies. The Global BDS movement, for example, has demonstrated cases of companies which have been forced to move out of settlements into undisputed territory. I am generally supportive of divestments, but would caution against calls for divestment of all Israeli companies, particularly if their only crime is being a subsidiary of an international company. Of course, many of these international companies are subsidiaries of military contractors which profit enormously from continuing oppression and human suffering. This is a tricky area which needs some kind of litmus test.

Boycotts

251

Boycotts can similarly be divided into (1) academic, sports and cultural boycotts and (2) consumer boycotts. While I have read the arguments for restricting Israeli cultural connections with the U.S., “human” boycotts punish even progressive Israeli voices – athletes who want to promote peace, non-Zionist Israeli history professors, or Israeli film makers who try to depict the truth. We have already seen in the case of Tariq Ramadan, who was denied a visa to the United States to teach for a semester, or in the case of the Israeli tennis player Shahar Pe’er, how these forms of punishment can be applied to hurt individuals. I oppose punishing civilians for their government’s positions (Americans would be unable to travel anywhere if this were the case). I am opposed to any form of ideological purity tests applied to individuals, whether they are Avigdor Lieberman’s loyalty oaths for Arabs, or ways of exempting people with “correct” views from boycotts. We have had some experience with this in our own history. These were the HUAC hearings in the Fifties. I am certain this view differs from many who are working for peace in the Middle East.

boycott_bloody_orange

Rather than limit the contact of Israelis in the United States, I would like to see the expansion of Palestinian contacts with the U.S. While www.pacbi.org makes some valid points about the exceptionally free access that Israelis, many of them dual-nationals, have in the United States, only stepped-up cultural and political contacts with Palestinians will counteract this. We need a more free exchange of ideas, not more restrictions on them. In the case of consumer boycotts, however, I believe that Israel must feel the pinch of the world’s disapproval of its policies, so I am in favor of boycotts of all Israeli products as long as the Occupation continues. This is something that does not target an Israeli citizen individually, but is something he has the power to change.

I believe that, as a political tactic, a boycott must be easily explained or understood to be adopted by the public. PACBI has issued a clarification of how to consider various types of boycotts. While this is a good start, it demonstrates the complexity of explaining cultural boycotts to the public.

340x

Sanctions

Sanctions are perfectly justified, since Israel is in violation of so many international, U.S. export control, and even its own laws that we have lost count. There are many kinds of sanctions, among them: (1) military, (2) economic, and (3) diplomatic. Tactically, boycotts and divestments may distract us from concentrating on sanctions, which, to me, are the most powerful forms of demonstrating disapproval of Israel’s policies and actions. The most effective sanction we could apply is to completely withdraw all military aid from Israel. The United States has no business propping up any government which commits human rights abuses, whether it is in Pakistan, Egypt or Israel. For this reason, Americans must cut all military aid to Israel and eliminate economic cooperation projects, including cooperative energy programs.

IAF_F-16D_B40_Israel

Israel’s current military expenditures, the highest per capita in the world, are approximately $14 billion a year and roughly 7.3% of its GDP. Israel has over 150 defense industries, with revenues of $3.5 billion. Yet Americans are paying for between one-third and one-half of Israel’s military budget, or subsidizing Israel’s GDP by 2.5% or more. The only way to reverse Israel’s extreme right turn is to place these military burdens on their own shoulders. This can be a painful reminder to Israeli voters of how expensive their misadventures in the Occupied Territories have become (just like our own disaster in Iraq). In any case, Americans should not be responsible for bailing out Israel. In regard to diplomatic sanctions, however, it is not productive for any country (for example, Venezuela) to cut off relations with Israel. Peace only happens when enemies talk. And Israel has a lot of enemies. Besides, doesn’t it accomplish more to call in the Israeli ambassador weekly for a well-publicized dressing-down?

Shutting down Guantanamo

In a recent letter, Henry Nichols argues for keeping Guantanamo Bay open, wants to keep using torture, and complains that detainees moved to the US will be given trials on the mainland. For a former prison guard and policeman, Mr. Nichols displays an alarming contempt for the American legal system and our Constitution.

Nichols certainly favors the word “animal” to describe the detainees, but he apparently doesn’t know who they really are. According to a study of 517 detainees by Mark Denbeaux, a professor at Seton Hall University School of Law and legal counsel to two of them, only 8% of the detainees can be identified as al Qaeda fighters and only 5% had been arrested by US forces. 86% had been arrested “somewhere”, by “somebody”, for “something” – and that’s about all we have been told. Of course we want to keep really dangerous people locked up, but we really should know who they are first and what they are charged with. Many of the lawyers like Denbeaux who have defended detainees have expressed their disgust with what are basically kangaroo courts following on the heels of torture.

A recent scandal in Britain concerning US pressure on the UK to suppress reports of the torture of Binyam Mohamed, a British national, point out the illusion of military justice at Guantanamo. Even if we do not presume their innocence, we still can’t claim a detainee is guilty until he has been tried in a real court system. Richard Clark, President Bush’s former counter-terrorism expert, has pointed out that several detainee cases have already been tried in the United States in real courts. The sky has not yet fallen.

Mr. Nichols then makes the amusing argument that placing these suspects in a conventional prison among the main prison population would raise costs – as if costs alone should determine whether justice is sought. Aside from the inadvisability of doing this, apparently he hasn’t considered the costs of running a completely dedicated supermax prison in Cuba.

Finally, let’s not forget: if the United States makes a practice of holding foreign nationals (and even some Americans, in violation of the Constitution) in prisons without trial – it will not be long before Americans begin popping up as inmates without rights in foreign prisons. Do we really want to go down this road?

I have jury duty in a few weeks, and as I sit in the jury room in Taunton, bored and wishing I were somewhere else, I will remember the rights that our Constitution defends. And how people like Mr. Nichols are all-too willing to destroy them without a single thought.

This was published in the Standard Times on February 11, 2009
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/20090211/opinion/902110355

Cheap Bastards

No, not you bean counters in Boston and in local town governments. I’m referring to every citizen of this fine state.

Boston just announced a cut of 900 jobs, including over 400 teaching positions. This is a 5.5% cut, or $107 million out of $833 million in Boston’s school budget, and a 6.2% reduction of the city’s 6500 teaching positions.

This all sounds reasonable until you hear that the city budget shortfall is estimated to be $140 million next year. As usual, schools are going to assume 75% of the burden.

In 1980 some cheap bastards – actually, we Massachusetts voters – voted for a referendum which capped property taxes at 2.5%. Proposition 2 1/2 thus became Massachusetts General Law Chapter 59 Section 21. For 28 years this law has guided the downward spiral of town and city services. In these hard times Proposition 2 1/2 will ensure that the downward spiral will end in death. Cynical banalities like “the schools just couldn’t compete” or “it’s time to privatize” will be uttered over the grave. And we will then look to casinos and corporations to come up with the money.

Wait a minute! Aren’t we currently bailing out the corporations?

Never mind. We’ll talk excitedly about how the new Duncan Donuts Academy, the Harrah’s Charter Schools, the McDonald’s pre-schools, and the Marvel Comics and National Enquirer libraries are providing services we used to pay for ourselves.

And all because we continue to be the same kind of cheap bastards the people on our block were 28 years ago. People who expect someone else to do it, someone else to pay for it, someone else to step up to do the right thing.

If there’s anything we can agree on in this consumer culture, it’s this: you get what you pay for. By paying for nothing, we get nothing. No future for our children, no future for young people, no stability for the elderly, no common dreams that bind our society. Proposition 2 1/2 has done enough damage. Repeal Massachusetts General Law 59 Section 21.