Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Good Intentions and a "Progressive" Ethos Go Wildly Awry

What's happening in Sweden

A Little Piece of the Trudeaupia in the Arab World?

Did you know there was a "Canadian Bilingual School" in, of all places, Kuwait?

No?

Neither did I until an ad for it showed up on, of all places, my blog.

(BTW, the two languages involved aren't English and French but are English and Arabic.)

Met Museum's Exhibition That Trumpeted the Glorious (and Largely Mythical) "Diversity" of Medieval Jerusalem, Blames Christians for "Perverting" the Concept of "Jihad," Turning It Violent

Writing on the Mosaic site, Steven Fine describes how--and why--this sleight-of-hand/historical falsification was accomplished (my bolds):
How, then, did the exhibition reconcile the idea of Holy War with the idea of medieval Jerusalem as a multicultural beacon? First, as one moved through the gallery, the idea of “wag[ing] battle in the name of God against those perceived as infidels” became more limited and attenuated. The main practitioners of this form of warfare, it emerged, were the Christian Crusaders who arrived from Europe “to claim Jerusalem as rightfully theirs,” a campaign that ended in victory in 1099 “with the merciless slaughter of the city’s inhabitants.” And indeed, most of the artifacts in this gallery were associated with the Crusaders or invoked them: a 12th-century charcoal image of a military “saint” on horseback, a 12th-century marble capital showing a rider trampling his enemy underfoot, a 13th-century tomb of a French knight, a 12th-century map of Crusader Jerusalem, and so forth. 
The gallery “Holy War” was thus really meant to be an intrusion, an anomaly. The Crusader conquest of Jerusalem was, we were to think, a kind of one-off example of “extreme ethnic and religious cleansing.” But what, then, of the Islamic reconquest of the city, and what of the role of Islamic jihad in general? Strikingly, only one significant artifact in this gallery was associated with Islam: a gilded Treatise on Armor from early-12th-century Syria that “belonged to Saladin, famed to this day for bringing an end to European control of Jerusalem” and for “rededicat[ing]” its Islamic sites. Was Saladin, then, also involved in Holy War? Not according to the curators, who write in the catalog that it was the Crusaders who “fueled” the idea of Holy War, turning jihad—until then a concept of spiritual struggle alone—into one of military struggle. So the Crusaders not only introduced Holy War, they also caused Muslim leaders to distort their own religious teachings by adopting a kind of Holy War in response. 
If this argument sounds familiar, it should: a similar argument has gained much traction in recent years among those who regard 9/11 and other Islamist terrorist attacks as a form of deserved blowback for prior Western offenses against Muslims. Intent on its own version of this judgment, the exhibition portrayed the Crusaders as both the single exception to, and the primal cause of any further disruption of, the multicultural paradise of medieval Jerusalem. 
Well, at least, for once, no one blamed the Jews.

Then again, no one had to, for the message re the enduring importance of "diversity" in Jerusalem, a message which ignores how Christians have been ethnically cleansed from Bethlehem by Saladin's heirs, is both implicit and explicit.

Lindsay Lohan Says She Was "Racially Profiled" at Airport for Wearing a Head Scarf

"Racially profiled"?!?

Exactly what, um, "race" does she think she is?

Kay's Way

While some Jews (you know the kind) continue to push for the passage of the Liberal government's "anti-Islamophobia" motion, Barbara Kay, with this one pithy paragraph, puts 'em all in their place:
I do not wish to be told by a petition or by the recommendations of a study based on that petition what I must think — or say in a considered and thoughtful way — about any ideology or belief system in deference to the sensibilities of a specific group in order to earn a seal of non-Islamophobic approval from agenda-driven advocacy groups and their political allies.
You said it, sister!

Update: Jewish-Muslim groups asks Trudeau to defeat motion condemning Islamophobia

Judy Feld Carr Asks: Why Did Past Liberal Governments Refuse to Allow Entry to Persecuted Syrian Jews?

As Syrian refugees continue to pour into Canada, the woman who singlehandedly--and secretly--rescued Syrian Jews back when other Liberal governments were in power offers up a crucial history lesson. (It's condensed into a letter to the editor of The Canadian Jewish News. Since you won't find it online, I have copied it from the non-virtual version of the paper that came to my door this morning.)
Canada not a model state
I read with shock Mira Sucharov's column "We must remember that we were once strangers in Egypt." (Feb. 9)
I could not believe the praise this columnist was giving to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who tweeted "To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadian will welcome you, regardless of your faith."
The praise continues with Rabbi Dan Moskovitz describing Canadian immigration policy as a "model for the world."
Did she and her supporters not have any knowledge about the refusals of every single consecutive Canadian Liberal government to allow the admission of even one individual Syrian Jew into this country?
The Jewish community was suffering incredible restrictions in Syria, not being allowed to leave, being incarcerated in prison dungeons and tortured for even trying to escape, being watched and monitored constantly in their homes and synagogues by the Syrian secret police, the Muhabarat, only because they were Jews.
On behalf of the then-Canadian Jewish Congress, during the years when I was doing the secret rescue, I met with every Liberal minister of foreign affairs and immigration to ask them, literally to beg them, to allow a few Syrian Jews, some orphans and single young women to come to Canada and barring that, just to allow them to enter Canada temporarily for a few weeks until I could make other arrangements for them.
I was paying ransoms to buys these Jews. This took place not in the 1940s, but as late as 2001.
In the dozens of meetings with ministers and their associates, I was questioned about how I knew so much about the Syrians Jewish community and was accused on a few occasions of being an agent of a foreign government.
Nothing could be further from the truth. During those dangerous years of the rescue, I was able to quietly and secretly, with enormous difficulties and threats to my life, to bring out 3,228 Jews from the horror of Syria. Five Syrian Jews were admitted into Canada during the tenure of a Conservative government.
That was the grand total, Ms. Sucharov.
Judy Feld Carr
Toronto

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Wish I Could Go

Image

Students Who Celebrate "Israeli Apartheid Week" Are So Stupid That They Believe the Jews' Connection to the Land Goes Back a Mere Hundred Years

Here's the proof:
Save the date!
13th Annual Israeli Apartheid Week
Toronto, March 13-17, 2017

100 YEARS OF SETTLER COLONIALISM,
100 YEARS OF POPULAR STRUGGLE FOR JUSTICE

Mark your calendars! The 13th Annual Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) will take place in Toronto from March 13 to 17.

First launched in Toronto in 2005, IAW has grown to become one of the most important global events in the Palestine solidarity calendar. This year, IAW will take place in more than 150 cities across the globe. The week aims to raise awareness about Israel's ongoing practices of apartheid, occupation, and dispossession against the Palestinian people. Lectures, films, and creative performances will build support for the Palestinian Boycott, Divest...ment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

This year’s IAW will reflect on 100 years of resistance to settler colonialism across historic Palestine since the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The Week will also link the history of Palestinian resistance to the struggles of the Indigenous peoples on whose territories we live, work, and study, and who are resisting settler colonial violence and dispossession. Our speakers this year will include Vijay Prashad, Lee Maracle, and Hind Awwad, among others.

Israeli Apartheid Week in Toronto is organized by Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA), the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA), the University of Toronto Graduate Students’ Union (UTGSU) BDS Committee, Faculty for Palestine, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 3902 BDS Committee.

The full program will be made available soon at www.apartheidweek.org and www.uoftdivest.com/iaw17.

To endorse Israeli Apartheid Week in Toronto, or to make a donation, contact: saia.opirg.uoft@gmail.com or divest@utgsu.ca.
Like I said. Stupid with a capital "S
Judaism's holiest site--and FYI, IAW Jew-haters, it's a lot older than both the
Balfour Declaration and Islam. That means that the Jews were there first--
and are therefore earlier indigenes than the Palestinians.


The Anne Frank Center's Crummy Response to Trump's Anti-Anti-Semitism Statement

The Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect--yes, that's what it's really called--doesn't have much, um, respect for Trump's latest statement condemning anti-Semitism; the organization says it amounts to Trump making us Jews "settle for crumbs of condescension."

Funny, that's what I thought we were doing every time Barack Obama held a White House seder even as he was doing his utmost to undermine that pesky Jewish state (so rapacious; so colonialist; so unprogressive; so G-damned Joooish).

But then, being in the "mutual respect" business and not the anti-Judenhass/Zionhass biz, the center would never cavil about those sorts of "crumbs".

Bloviating Ayatollah Alert

Iran's supreme leader backs 'holy intifada' to destroy 'cancer' Israel

Cruise Control

It is more than a little disheartening to learn, via Robert Spencer, that Trump's new NSA pick, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, appears to be as out to lunch re core Islamic teachings and their impact on today's jihadis as anyone in the Obama White House.

A commenter on the JW post directs our attention to a 22-year-old article by Conor Cruise O'Brien. O'Brien was weighing in on the war in Algeria, but his words, stated clearly and without the sort of equivocation that is evident in much contemporary writing about Islamic terrorism, retain their currency. O'Brien explains that:
"Fundamentalist Islam" is a misnomer which dulls our perceptions in a dangerous way. It does so by implying that there is some other kind of Islam, which is well disposed to those who reject the Koran. There isn't. 
Islam is a universalist, triumphalist and political religion. It claims de jure dominion over all humanity; that is God's will. The actual state of affairs, with unbelievers of various sorts dominating most of the world, is a suspension of God's will and a scandal to the faithful. The world is divided between the House of Islam and the House of War, meaning the rest of us. 
For more than two centuries now, the House of War has been in the ascendant, and the House of Islam has been abased. The remedy for this unnatural and intolerable state of affairs is jihad. Jihad is defined as "the religious duty imposed on all Muslims to wage war upon those who do not accept the doctrines of Islam". The Prophet Mohamed himself not merely preached but waged jihad. God's word, dictated to the Prophet and preached by him, is binding on all Muslims, and his example is their inspiration. 
In the glorious centuries of expansion, the jihad carried Islam from Arabia, to the west as far as the Atlantic; to the north as far as Vienna; to the south as far as the Sahara and down the east coast of Africa to Madagascar; and to the east across Persia and the Indian subcontinent into part of China and Indonesia. 
What is going on today in the Muslim world is not the advent of some aberrant thing called Islamic fundamentalism but a revival of Islam itself - the real thing - which Western ascendancy and Westernised post-Muslim elites no longer have the capacity to muffle and control. The jihad is back.
Furthermore, O'Brien reminds us that the "jihad-is-an-aberration-of Islam/ISIS-isn't-Islamic" schtick purveyed by the likes of Obama, Kerry and, sad to say, Trump's latest National Security Advisor, is hardly a new phenomenon:
In denouncing the hijacking of an Air France jetliner by four young Algerians, the US government has carefully avoided linking the crime to the Muslim religion. The hijacking was "a grave terrorist crime" for which there can be no justification whatsoever, said the State Department spokesman, Michael McCurry, implicitly rejecting the hijackers' claim to be acting in the name of Islam. 
That the claim of a group of Muslims to be acting in the name of Islam, is rejected by an unbeliever, speaking for other unbelievers, will do little to reduce the credibility of the claim, in the eyes of other Muslims. 
President Clinton's personal approach to this matter appears to be governed by a kind of woozy ecumenism, fairly prevalent among Western liberal churchmen. As the president told the Jordanian Parliament in October: "After all, the chance to live in harmony with our neighbours and to build a better life for our children is the hope that binds us all together. Whether we worship in a mosque in Irbid, a baptist church like my own in Little Rock, Arkansas, or a synagogue in Haifa, we are bound together in that hope." 
"All the great religions are the same" is the idea. Only they aren't. The Clintonian world view observes the hard specificity of Islam. The Prophet Mohamed did not offer his followers a chance to live in harmony with their neighbours. He taught them to fight their neighbours, if they were unbelievers, and kill them or beat them into submission. And it is futile to say of those Muslims who faithfully follow those teachings today that their actions are "not intrinsically related to Islam". 
We are facing an Islamic revival. The pro-Western rulers of the Maghreb and the Middle East know this, and know that their own stance is increasingly unacceptable to their peoples.
O'Brien's conclusion:
How the West should cope with the Islamic revival is a complex matter. But one thing is clear: we can never get it right if we go on trying to believe that there is something called "Islamic fundamentalism" which is somehow not intrinsically related to Islam itself.
Wow. Just...Wow.

It is shocking to read this in 2017 knowing that it was published five years before Bin Laden's barbaric boychiks struck New York City on that fateful September day in 2001. And it is depressing as hell to know that, despite all that has happened since, most people are as clueless as ever about the Islamic revival, and, indeed, are big fans of "woozy ecumenism." And that amounts to a form of cultural and civilizational suicide.