Israel report on Gaza War rejects charges one by one
Ynetnews: Israel published an official 160-page report on Operation Cast Lead, the military offensive launched in the Gaza Strip in January.
Jerusalem Post: Defending Israeli actions, the government report said it was not meant to be an "assertion of infallibility," but rejected the charges one by one, attributing excessive damage and casualties to understandable wartime mistakes.
The report said Israel is investigating about 100 complaints and has opened 13 criminal inquiries. A military statement Thursday said criminal cases under investigation now number 15.
Ynetnews: Thursday's report holds Hamas responsible for the need for military operation, citing that the incessant rocket fire on Israel's south made a military strike inevitable, and that Israel did not violate international law.
In the report, Israel admits that despite taking precautionary measures, many Palestinian civilians were wounded and killed during the operation and severe property damages was inflicted.
Nevertheless, the reports states that civilian casualties and property damage do not, by themselves, constitute a violation of international law.
Hamas rocket fire was aimed at civilian population rendering it a clear violation of international law, while Israel's strikes were aimed at Hamas military targets and therefore did not breach it, said the report.
The report, dubbed "Israel's statement of defense," said that "Israel had both a right and an obligation to take military action against Hamas in Gaza to stop Hamas’
almost incessant rocket and mortar attacks upon thousands of Israeli civilians and its other acts of terrorism.
"Israel was bombarded by some 12,000 rockets and mortar shells between 2000 and 2008, including nearly 3,000 rockets and mortar shells in 2008 alone… These deliberate attacks caused deaths, injuries, and extensive property damage; forced businesses to close; and terrorized tens of thousands of residents into abandoning their homes."
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Israel to Palestinian Authority: All issues are on the table. Come talk
Israel's Deputy FM Ayalon interview on AlJazeera TV
July 28, 2009
Ayalon: We call upon the Palestinians to come to the table and speak to us, at any level they want, anywhere they want, without preconditions. ... all issues are on the table, and we do understand that no solution will be arrived at without discussing everything, including Jerusalem.
Source
July 28, 2009
Ayalon: We call upon the Palestinians to come to the table and speak to us, at any level they want, anywhere they want, without preconditions. ... all issues are on the table, and we do understand that no solution will be arrived at without discussing everything, including Jerusalem.
Source
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Is U.S. reconciled to a nuclear Iran? part 2
More evidence the Obama Administration isn't going to do much about Iran.
Asked by NBC's David Gregory if the effort to keep North Korea from going nuclear had failed, Mrs. Clinton answered, "No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages." In other words, two nuclear tests and a stockpile of seven or eight nuclear weapons are no longer enough to join the club.
The Washington Times Tuesday, July 28, 2009
EDITORIAL: Defining the threat away
The traditional threshold for a country to join the nuclear-weapons club is straightforward. Any state that tests a nuclear weapon gets in. However, on Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed more exclusive membership requirements.
Asked by NBC's David Gregory if the effort to keep North Korea from going nuclear had failed, Mrs. Clinton answered, "No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages." In other words, two nuclear tests and a stockpile of seven or eight nuclear weapons are no longer enough to join the club. Tough luck Pyongyang, you've been blackballed.
This would simply be an exercise in semantics if it weren't for the probability that Iran will soon test its own nuclear weapon. This administration, like its predecessor, has said that an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability would be unacceptable. But if Iran conducts a nuclear test sometime in the coming months, that apparently will not indicate the failure of diplomacy any more than the North Korean tests have. Faced with defeat, the State Department will define it away.
The Obama administration's willingness to accept the inevitability of a nuclear Iran could not be clearer. Mrs. Clinton said that if Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen." Yes, the United States will do "everything [it] can to prevent [Iran] from ever getting a nuclear weapon," she said. But failing that?
The secretary of state said that even a nuclear-armed Iran would be thwarted. Its pursuit of regional hegemony is "futile," she argued, because the "security umbrella" the United States would extend over the region would negate the advantages Iran seeks from atomic weaponry. Iran "won't be any stronger or safer because they won't be able to intimidate or dominate as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon," she said last week.
Tehran seems perfectly content with the futility of its pursuit. Iran has made substantial progress on uranium enrichment necessary for constructing a nuclear weapon, and most estimates agree that it will be able to construct and test a weapon within the year. Meanwhile, countries such as Israel that cannot protect their territory and people with semantic shields are preparing to take action. Israel's apparent state of readiness to exercise the military option against Iran -- and America's clear lack of readiness -- underscores the credibility gap in the U.S. position that all options are on the table. Israel is communicating a credible threat of force to Tehran, a necessary element in coercive diplomacy that the U.S. posture explicitly lacks.
The American "umbrella strategy" is purely defensive and thus more likely to encourage Iran's leaders than dissuade them. The Obama administration states firmly that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be unacceptable but at the same time indicates it will accept that. Nuclear Iran is not faced with massive retaliation but passive accommodation. That's not much of a deterrent.
------
hat tip to israelmatzav.blogspot.com
Asked by NBC's David Gregory if the effort to keep North Korea from going nuclear had failed, Mrs. Clinton answered, "No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages." In other words, two nuclear tests and a stockpile of seven or eight nuclear weapons are no longer enough to join the club.
The Washington Times Tuesday, July 28, 2009
EDITORIAL: Defining the threat away
The traditional threshold for a country to join the nuclear-weapons club is straightforward. Any state that tests a nuclear weapon gets in. However, on Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed more exclusive membership requirements.
Asked by NBC's David Gregory if the effort to keep North Korea from going nuclear had failed, Mrs. Clinton answered, "No, I don't think so, because their program is still at the beginning stages." In other words, two nuclear tests and a stockpile of seven or eight nuclear weapons are no longer enough to join the club. Tough luck Pyongyang, you've been blackballed.
This would simply be an exercise in semantics if it weren't for the probability that Iran will soon test its own nuclear weapon. This administration, like its predecessor, has said that an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability would be unacceptable. But if Iran conducts a nuclear test sometime in the coming months, that apparently will not indicate the failure of diplomacy any more than the North Korean tests have. Faced with defeat, the State Department will define it away.
The Obama administration's willingness to accept the inevitability of a nuclear Iran could not be clearer. Mrs. Clinton said that if Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we're not going to let that happen." Yes, the United States will do "everything [it] can to prevent [Iran] from ever getting a nuclear weapon," she said. But failing that?
The secretary of state said that even a nuclear-armed Iran would be thwarted. Its pursuit of regional hegemony is "futile," she argued, because the "security umbrella" the United States would extend over the region would negate the advantages Iran seeks from atomic weaponry. Iran "won't be any stronger or safer because they won't be able to intimidate or dominate as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon," she said last week.
Tehran seems perfectly content with the futility of its pursuit. Iran has made substantial progress on uranium enrichment necessary for constructing a nuclear weapon, and most estimates agree that it will be able to construct and test a weapon within the year. Meanwhile, countries such as Israel that cannot protect their territory and people with semantic shields are preparing to take action. Israel's apparent state of readiness to exercise the military option against Iran -- and America's clear lack of readiness -- underscores the credibility gap in the U.S. position that all options are on the table. Israel is communicating a credible threat of force to Tehran, a necessary element in coercive diplomacy that the U.S. posture explicitly lacks.
The American "umbrella strategy" is purely defensive and thus more likely to encourage Iran's leaders than dissuade them. The Obama administration states firmly that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be unacceptable but at the same time indicates it will accept that. Nuclear Iran is not faced with massive retaliation but passive accommodation. That's not much of a deterrent.
------
hat tip to israelmatzav.blogspot.com
Friday, July 24, 2009
DMARC rejects WBC message of hatred toward Jews
In a letter in today's Des Moines Register, The Des Moines Area Religious Council publicly rejects the message of hate directed toward the Jewish community by the Westboro Baptist Church.
The JCRC of the Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines is grateful to DMARC for issuing its statement. To DMARC, thank you.
-- Mark Finkelstein, JCRC Director, Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines
July 24, 2009 Letter to the Editor, Des Moines Register
Help neighbors, reject message of hate
It has come to our attention that a group from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., plans to further its hate-filled agenda today by picketing the Iowa Jewish Historical Society in Waukee.
We are an interfaith organization through which local people from 10 different religions have discovered indescribable joy in coming together for more than 50 years to learn about each other and to assist our neighbors.
Out of a shared commitment to doing good, we partner with many other organizations, both faith-based and secular, to provide food, child-care subsidies, housing and energy assistance and mentoring to whomever needs our help.
The vile, anti-Semitic message that Westboro Baptist plans to bring to our community has been heralded by the advance distribution of a press release setting out in some detail their disturbing, hate-filled agenda.
We reject this congregation's message. In addition, we pledge to use this afternoon to do something decent and caring beyond the good we already do every day - and we invite everyone in Des Moines to join us.
In particular, we encourage you to reach out the open hand of friendship to our Jewish neighbors who have so unfairly and so often been the target of this kind of abuse.
- The Rev. Sarai Schnucker Rice, executive director,
and The Rev. Dr. John Holcombe, president, administrative cabinet,
Des Moines Area Religious Council, Des Moines
The JCRC of the Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines is grateful to DMARC for issuing its statement. To DMARC, thank you.
-- Mark Finkelstein, JCRC Director, Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines
July 24, 2009 Letter to the Editor, Des Moines Register
Help neighbors, reject message of hate
It has come to our attention that a group from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., plans to further its hate-filled agenda today by picketing the Iowa Jewish Historical Society in Waukee.
We are an interfaith organization through which local people from 10 different religions have discovered indescribable joy in coming together for more than 50 years to learn about each other and to assist our neighbors.
Out of a shared commitment to doing good, we partner with many other organizations, both faith-based and secular, to provide food, child-care subsidies, housing and energy assistance and mentoring to whomever needs our help.
The vile, anti-Semitic message that Westboro Baptist plans to bring to our community has been heralded by the advance distribution of a press release setting out in some detail their disturbing, hate-filled agenda.
We reject this congregation's message. In addition, we pledge to use this afternoon to do something decent and caring beyond the good we already do every day - and we invite everyone in Des Moines to join us.
In particular, we encourage you to reach out the open hand of friendship to our Jewish neighbors who have so unfairly and so often been the target of this kind of abuse.
- The Rev. Sarai Schnucker Rice, executive director,
and The Rev. Dr. John Holcombe, president, administrative cabinet,
Des Moines Area Religious Council, Des Moines
Thursday, July 23, 2009
'Fatah has never recognized Israel'
Jul. 22, 2009 Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
Fatah has never recognized Israel's right to exist and it has no intention of ever doing so, a veteran senior leader of the Western-backed faction said on Wednesday.
Rafik Natsheh, member of the Fatah Central Committee who also serves as chairman of the faction's disciplinary "court," is the second senior official in recent months to make similar statements regarding Israel.
Natsheh is also a former minister in the Palestinian Authority government who briefly served as Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Earlier this year, Muhammad Dahlan, another top Fatah figure, said that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist despite the fact that it is the largest faction in the PLO, which signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.
Natsheh's remarks came days before Fatah's general assembly that is slated to take place in Bethlehem on August 4.
The assembly, the first in two decades, is expected to bring some 1,500 Fatah delegates together to discuss ways of reforming the faction and holding internal elections.
One of the topics on the conference's agenda is whether Fatah should formally abandon the armed struggle and recognize Israel's right to exist.
"Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist," Natsheh said, "nor have we ever asked others to do so." His comments, which appeared in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi, came in response to reports according to which Fatah had asked Hamas to recognize Israel as a precondition for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government.
"All these reports about recognizing Israel are false," Natsheh, who is closely associated with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said. "It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel."
Asked about calls for dropping the reference to armed struggle from Fatah's charter, Natsheh said: "Let all the collaborators [with Israel] and those who are deluding themselves hear that this will never happen. We'll meet at the conference [in Bethlehem]."
Natsheh stressed that neither Fatah nor the Palestinians would ever relinquish the armed struggle against Israel "no matter how long the occupation continues." He said that Fatah, at the upcoming conference, would reiterate its adherence to the option of pursuing "all forms" of an armed struggle against Israel.
Another senior Fatah representative, Azzam al-Ahmed, confirmed that his faction would renew its pledge to pursue the armed struggle against Israel during the conference.
"The Fatah conference won't obliterate the "resistance option," he said."Fatah has been the target of a conspiracy to liquidate it ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority. The elimination of Fatah means the end of the revolutionary era which began in 1965 [when Fatah was founded]." He said that, more than four decades later, Fatah's main strategy and goals remain unchanged.
The decision to convene the conference in Bethlehem has triggered a crisis in Fatah. Many Fatah living in Arab countries have protested Abbas's decision, saying it was inconceivable that the parley be held under "Israeli occupation." They are still demanding that the conference be held in an Arab country to avoid a situation where Israel would try to prevent some delegates from arriving in Bethlehem.
Meanwhile, there is growing concern in Fatah that Hamas would not permit hundreds of Fatah activists from leaving the Gaza Strip to attend the conference. Senior Fatah officials said that the conference would be called off if Hamas stopped the Fatah members from leaving the Gaza Strip.
The officials said that Fatah leaders have been talking to Syria and Egypt about the possibility that Hamas might prevent their men from traveling to the West Bank. "We made it clear to the Egyptians and Syrians that the conference would not be convened without the Fatah members from the Gaza Strip," a Fatah official in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277865155&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Jul. 22, 2009 Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
Fatah has never recognized Israel's right to exist and it has no intention of ever doing so, a veteran senior leader of the Western-backed faction said on Wednesday.
Rafik Natsheh, member of the Fatah Central Committee who also serves as chairman of the faction's disciplinary "court," is the second senior official in recent months to make similar statements regarding Israel.
Natsheh is also a former minister in the Palestinian Authority government who briefly served as Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Earlier this year, Muhammad Dahlan, another top Fatah figure, said that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist despite the fact that it is the largest faction in the PLO, which signed the Oslo Accords with Israel.
Natsheh's remarks came days before Fatah's general assembly that is slated to take place in Bethlehem on August 4.
The assembly, the first in two decades, is expected to bring some 1,500 Fatah delegates together to discuss ways of reforming the faction and holding internal elections.
One of the topics on the conference's agenda is whether Fatah should formally abandon the armed struggle and recognize Israel's right to exist.
"Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist," Natsheh said, "nor have we ever asked others to do so." His comments, which appeared in an interview with Al-Quds Al-Arabi, came in response to reports according to which Fatah had asked Hamas to recognize Israel as a precondition for the establishment of a Palestinian unity government.
"All these reports about recognizing Israel are false," Natsheh, who is closely associated with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, said. "It's all media nonsense. We don't ask other factions to recognize Israel because we in Fatah have never recognized Israel."
Asked about calls for dropping the reference to armed struggle from Fatah's charter, Natsheh said: "Let all the collaborators [with Israel] and those who are deluding themselves hear that this will never happen. We'll meet at the conference [in Bethlehem]."
Natsheh stressed that neither Fatah nor the Palestinians would ever relinquish the armed struggle against Israel "no matter how long the occupation continues." He said that Fatah, at the upcoming conference, would reiterate its adherence to the option of pursuing "all forms" of an armed struggle against Israel.
Another senior Fatah representative, Azzam al-Ahmed, confirmed that his faction would renew its pledge to pursue the armed struggle against Israel during the conference.
"The Fatah conference won't obliterate the "resistance option," he said."Fatah has been the target of a conspiracy to liquidate it ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority. The elimination of Fatah means the end of the revolutionary era which began in 1965 [when Fatah was founded]." He said that, more than four decades later, Fatah's main strategy and goals remain unchanged.
The decision to convene the conference in Bethlehem has triggered a crisis in Fatah. Many Fatah living in Arab countries have protested Abbas's decision, saying it was inconceivable that the parley be held under "Israeli occupation." They are still demanding that the conference be held in an Arab country to avoid a situation where Israel would try to prevent some delegates from arriving in Bethlehem.
Meanwhile, there is growing concern in Fatah that Hamas would not permit hundreds of Fatah activists from leaving the Gaza Strip to attend the conference. Senior Fatah officials said that the conference would be called off if Hamas stopped the Fatah members from leaving the Gaza Strip.
The officials said that Fatah leaders have been talking to Syria and Egypt about the possibility that Hamas might prevent their men from traveling to the West Bank. "We made it clear to the Egyptians and Syrians that the conference would not be convened without the Fatah members from the Gaza Strip," a Fatah official in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1248277865155&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Is U.S. reconciled to a nuclear Iran?
Israel slams Clinton statement on nuclear Iran
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent, and The Associated Press 7/22/09
A key minister in the Israeli government criticized U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement on Tuesday that Washington would provide "a defense umbrella" for its allies in the Middle East in the event that Iran develops nuclear weapons.
Dan Meridor, Israel's minister for secret services, told Army Radio that [Clinton's] comments imply a willingness to reconcile with the eventuality of a nuclear-armed Iran.
"I heard, unenthusiastically, the Americans' statement that they will defend their allies in the event that Iran arms itself with an atomic bomb, as if they have already reconciled with this possibility, and this is a mistake," Meridor told Army Radio. "Now, we don't need to deal with the assumption that Iran will attain nuclear weapons but to prevent this."
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent, and The Associated Press 7/22/09
A key minister in the Israeli government criticized U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement on Tuesday that Washington would provide "a defense umbrella" for its allies in the Middle East in the event that Iran develops nuclear weapons.
Dan Meridor, Israel's minister for secret services, told Army Radio that [Clinton's] comments imply a willingness to reconcile with the eventuality of a nuclear-armed Iran.
"I heard, unenthusiastically, the Americans' statement that they will defend their allies in the event that Iran arms itself with an atomic bomb, as if they have already reconciled with this possibility, and this is a mistake," Meridor told Army Radio. "Now, we don't need to deal with the assumption that Iran will attain nuclear weapons but to prevent this."
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Follow the Maccabiah games on video!
Take a moment and see the vitality of the young Jewish athletes from all over the world participating in the Maccabiah games in Israel! Wow!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Hamas not dedicated enough for Hizb ut-Tahrir
Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is holding its convention now in Chicago,
considers Hamas insufficiently dedicated to liquidating Israel.
Hiz ut-Tahrir expects that under a renewed Caliphate, Islam will return to the path taken under Omar's Khilafah" that established and consolidated the authority and rule of Islam over Palestine and ruled that the yahood will not reside in this blessed land." Yahood = a derisive term for Jew. //Mark Finkelstein
Hizb ut-Tahrir Media Office Official Website
Source: www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info June 26, 2009
The Hamas Regime is imitating the Fatah Regime at every step!
considers Hamas insufficiently dedicated to liquidating Israel.
Hiz ut-Tahrir expects that under a renewed Caliphate, Islam will return to the path taken under Omar's Khilafah" that established and consolidated the authority and rule of Islam over Palestine and ruled that the yahood will not reside in this blessed land." Yahood = a derisive term for Jew. //Mark Finkelstein
Hizb ut-Tahrir Media Office Official Website
Source: www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info June 26, 2009
The Hamas Regime is imitating the Fatah Regime at every step!
This is Palestine; its solution does not lie in extending a hand of cooperation towards America and negotiating a two-state solution with the Jewish State. ... Hence the recognition of the 2-nations within Palestine will not give the Jewish entity any legitimacy under Islam, since Fatah and Hamas do not represent either Islam or Muslims, but they are merely a part of the Islamic convoy deviated from the correct path.
Interfaith Alliance of Iowa: Proposed school policy on religion "ambiguous, unbalanced."
The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa's Exec. Dir., Connie Ryan Terrell, penned an excellent op ed about a North-west Iowa school district's desire to formulate a new policy on religion in the public schools. Connie finds the proposed policy "ambiguous and unbalanced." She concludes: "In policy and practice, schools must exercise extreme caution to protect the religious [freedom] of all..." //Mark Finkelstein
Guest column: Clarify, balance religious-liberties policy
CONNIE RYAN TERRELL is executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa. Contact: connie @interfaithalliance iowa.org • July 18, 2009 Des Moines Register
The Spencer school district is discussing a new public policy on religious liberty. It is admirable for the school board to tackle the contentious issue and attempt to craft a policy that defines the role of religion in a public-education setting and clarifies the meaning of religious freedom and expression.
The problem with the proposed policy is that it is ambiguous and unbalanced. The school board needs to return to the drawing board.
The policy states, "School will permit the graduating class to choose whether to have an invocation and or benediction to be given by student volunteer in non-proselytizing and nonsectarian manner." Why is it OK to put religious freedom up for a vote? Is it OK for the majority to win just because there are more? It is not the business of public schools to promote religion, even if everyone present unanimously believes.
If we allow public prayer at a graduation, a ceremony intended for all students, whose religion is honored? Evangelical or mainline Christians? Orthodox or Reform Jews? Unitarian Universalists, Sikhs, Muslims or Hindus? Whose religious freedom is irrelevant at a public-school event?
Several items in the policy are ambiguous, including "Distribution of Religious materials on School Grounds." Who can distribute materials? Does this include outside organizations? Are materials from any religion welcome? Can a teacher distribute religious brochures to students?
Perhaps of gravest concern is the policy section "Religion in the Curriculum." It's not because the school board wants religion to be included in curriculum, but because of the unbalanced description. Although the policy states, "Approach must be academic, not devotional," there is no balance in the electives or curriculum to be offered including "The Bible in History and Literature" and "Critic of Darwinism, a Scientific Approach." In the Darwin class, the only suggested text is "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe, a pro-creationism book not accepted by the science community. Does the school board show its hand by the examples cited and those excluded?
If the school board wants to provide "Religion in the Curriculum" in a balanced fashion, then cover the myriad of religious beliefs in "Religion and History," including the history of those who question or reject religion. If the desire is to provide a class on "Evolution vs. Creationism," do so as a political science or debate class and include examples of resources from across the spectrum of opinion.
One point in the policy where we can find common ground is "For many years public education has often gone too far in excluding religious influences for fear of offense. The purpose of this policy is to restore balance to the issues." Religion is an important element of society and history. Teaching about religion is important for students to receive a well-rounded education. However, the statement should also acknowledge that prior to the trend to exclude religion altogether, public schools allowed religion to have too much influence. Finding real balance is critical.
Public schools may teach about religion in a world-religions class, but they cannot teach a Bible study class. Schools may include songs with religious text at a concert, but the program should be diverse and cover an array of religious and secular music. In policy and in practice, schools must exercise extreme caution to protect the religious rights of all people regardless of religious belief, including those who choose no religion. In all areas, the personal beliefs and private expression of all students and staff are protected, with or without a policy.
Two great equalizers commonly valued in this country include our dedication to religious freedom and our commitment to provide a quality, public education for all children. Respecting the greatness of both and how they can complement one another is critical in this conversation.
When the religious freedom of each person is protected, it makes for a healthy democracy and a successful public-education system.
Guest column: Clarify, balance religious-liberties policy
CONNIE RYAN TERRELL is executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa. Contact: connie @interfaithalliance iowa.org • July 18, 2009 Des Moines Register
The Spencer school district is discussing a new public policy on religious liberty. It is admirable for the school board to tackle the contentious issue and attempt to craft a policy that defines the role of religion in a public-education setting and clarifies the meaning of religious freedom and expression.
The problem with the proposed policy is that it is ambiguous and unbalanced. The school board needs to return to the drawing board.
The policy states, "School will permit the graduating class to choose whether to have an invocation and or benediction to be given by student volunteer in non-proselytizing and nonsectarian manner." Why is it OK to put religious freedom up for a vote? Is it OK for the majority to win just because there are more? It is not the business of public schools to promote religion, even if everyone present unanimously believes.
If we allow public prayer at a graduation, a ceremony intended for all students, whose religion is honored? Evangelical or mainline Christians? Orthodox or Reform Jews? Unitarian Universalists, Sikhs, Muslims or Hindus? Whose religious freedom is irrelevant at a public-school event?
Several items in the policy are ambiguous, including "Distribution of Religious materials on School Grounds." Who can distribute materials? Does this include outside organizations? Are materials from any religion welcome? Can a teacher distribute religious brochures to students?
Perhaps of gravest concern is the policy section "Religion in the Curriculum." It's not because the school board wants religion to be included in curriculum, but because of the unbalanced description. Although the policy states, "Approach must be academic, not devotional," there is no balance in the electives or curriculum to be offered including "The Bible in History and Literature" and "Critic of Darwinism, a Scientific Approach." In the Darwin class, the only suggested text is "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe, a pro-creationism book not accepted by the science community. Does the school board show its hand by the examples cited and those excluded?
If the school board wants to provide "Religion in the Curriculum" in a balanced fashion, then cover the myriad of religious beliefs in "Religion and History," including the history of those who question or reject religion. If the desire is to provide a class on "Evolution vs. Creationism," do so as a political science or debate class and include examples of resources from across the spectrum of opinion.
One point in the policy where we can find common ground is "For many years public education has often gone too far in excluding religious influences for fear of offense. The purpose of this policy is to restore balance to the issues." Religion is an important element of society and history. Teaching about religion is important for students to receive a well-rounded education. However, the statement should also acknowledge that prior to the trend to exclude religion altogether, public schools allowed religion to have too much influence. Finding real balance is critical.
Public schools may teach about religion in a world-religions class, but they cannot teach a Bible study class. Schools may include songs with religious text at a concert, but the program should be diverse and cover an array of religious and secular music. In policy and in practice, schools must exercise extreme caution to protect the religious rights of all people regardless of religious belief, including those who choose no religion. In all areas, the personal beliefs and private expression of all students and staff are protected, with or without a policy.
Two great equalizers commonly valued in this country include our dedication to religious freedom and our commitment to provide a quality, public education for all children. Respecting the greatness of both and how they can complement one another is critical in this conversation.
When the religious freedom of each person is protected, it makes for a healthy democracy and a successful public-education system.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Diplomats: Iran has means to test bomb in 6 months
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 5:56 PM EDT, July 17, 2009
VIENNA - Iran is blocking U.N. nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring of its atomic program while advancing those activities to the stage that the country would have the means to test a weapon within six months, diplomats told The Associated Press Friday.
The diplomats emphasized that there were no indications of plans for such a nuclear test, saying it was highly unlikely Iran would risk heightened confrontation with the West -- and chances of Israeli attack -- by embarking on such a course.
But they said that even as Iran expands uranium enrichment, which can create fissile nuclear material, it is resisting International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to increase surveillance of its enrichment site meant to keep pace with the plant's increased size and complexity.
More
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 5:56 PM EDT, July 17, 2009
VIENNA - Iran is blocking U.N. nuclear agency attempts to upgrade monitoring of its atomic program while advancing those activities to the stage that the country would have the means to test a weapon within six months, diplomats told The Associated Press Friday.
The diplomats emphasized that there were no indications of plans for such a nuclear test, saying it was highly unlikely Iran would risk heightened confrontation with the West -- and chances of Israeli attack -- by embarking on such a course.
But they said that even as Iran expands uranium enrichment, which can create fissile nuclear material, it is resisting International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to increase surveillance of its enrichment site meant to keep pace with the plant's increased size and complexity.
More
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Anonymous, faceless and unverifiable -- hearsay -- accusations are being made against the Israel Defense Forces's [IDF] role during Israel's Gaza operation. In response, the IDF asserts that all allegations are investigated and offenders are punished.
Many IDF soldiers feel a deep sense of injustice at how some are misrepresenting them and the IDF. Hear soldiers tell their stories, on the grassroots website below.
www.soldiersspeakout.com/
Here's one testimony:
Pinchas, age 29, is a Politcal Science student. He served in an elite IDF infantry unit and today performs almost 70 days of reserve service each year. During the operation against Hamas in Gaza, his unit was called to duty for additional service. Pinchas speaks about finding rocket launchers in a Palestinian ambulance and escorting a terrorist bomb-maker who then helped the soldiers discover explosives which were hidden under civilian facilities such as schools and clinics.
Many IDF soldiers feel a deep sense of injustice at how some are misrepresenting them and the IDF. Hear soldiers tell their stories, on the grassroots website below.
www.soldiersspeakout.com/
Here's one testimony:
Pinchas, age 29, is a Politcal Science student. He served in an elite IDF infantry unit and today performs almost 70 days of reserve service each year. During the operation against Hamas in Gaza, his unit was called to duty for additional service. Pinchas speaks about finding rocket launchers in a Palestinian ambulance and escorting a terrorist bomb-maker who then helped the soldiers discover explosives which were hidden under civilian facilities such as schools and clinics.
Rabbi Kaufman's Internet Radio Show Today
From: DKaufman@aol.com [mailto:DKaufman@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:52 AM
To: DKaufman@aol.com
Subject: Rabbi Kaufman's Internet Radio Show Today
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:52 AM
To: DKaufman@aol.com
Subject: Rabbi Kaufman's Internet Radio Show Today
Today on The Whole Megillah, I will be talking about the President's Meeting with Jewish Leaders this week, the debate between Alan Dershowitz and Melanie Phillips, Iran, the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the Uighurs in China. We'll check in on Honduras and I'll discuss the terminated CIA Al-Qaeda termination program. You may know a bit about each of these, but you haven't heard the whole story until you hear it on The Whole Megillah. 2-4 pm Central Time on www.macsworldlive.com
David Jay Kaufman
Rabbi
Temple B'nai Jeshurun
Des Moines, Iowa
Rabbi
Temple B'nai Jeshurun
Des Moines, Iowa
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Clinton urges Arabs to make gestures now toward Israel
Published: 07.15.09
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday urged Arab states to make immediate gestures toward Israel in a bid to improve prospects for Middle East peace.
"We are asking those who embrace the (2002 Saudi-sponsored peace) proposal to take meaningful steps now," Clinton said after urging the Arabs to "prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel's place in the region." (AFP)
Published: 07.15.09
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday urged Arab states to make immediate gestures toward Israel in a bid to improve prospects for Middle East peace.
"We are asking those who embrace the (2002 Saudi-sponsored peace) proposal to take meaningful steps now," Clinton said after urging the Arabs to "prepare their publics to embrace peace and accept Israel's place in the region." (AFP)
Community welcomes Judy Deutch as President of the Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines
At the Jewish Federation's annual meeting on July 12th, Judy Deutch was installed as President. She succeeds Neil Salowitz in the position.
Pictured: On behalf of the Federation, Judy thanks out-going President Neil Salowitz for his exemplary service.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
The President meets with Jewish leaders.
Gets Jewish support on peace push, questions about style
July 14, 2009 Excerpt
WASHINGTON (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) -- Top Jewish organizational leaders expressed support for President Obama's Middle East peace strategies at a White House meeting but said the president must do a better job of showing he expects hard work from all sides, not just Israel.
Obama’s meeting Monday afternoon with 16 Jewish leaders from 14 groups comes after weeks of tense exchanges between the Obama administration and Israel’s government over freezing Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank, prompting expressions of "concern" from some U.S. Jewish organizational leaders.
"The view was expressed among the organizations at a minimum there was concern about an imbalance in pressures placed on Israel as opposed to on the Palestinians and Arab states," Alan Solow, the chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told JTA. "The president indicated he had a sensitivity to the perception of that imbalance and had to work harder to correct that perception."
Gets Jewish support on peace push, questions about style
July 14, 2009 Excerpt
WASHINGTON (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) -- Top Jewish organizational leaders expressed support for President Obama's Middle East peace strategies at a White House meeting but said the president must do a better job of showing he expects hard work from all sides, not just Israel.
Obama’s meeting Monday afternoon with 16 Jewish leaders from 14 groups comes after weeks of tense exchanges between the Obama administration and Israel’s government over freezing Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank, prompting expressions of "concern" from some U.S. Jewish organizational leaders.
"The view was expressed among the organizations at a minimum there was concern about an imbalance in pressures placed on Israel as opposed to on the Palestinians and Arab states," Alan Solow, the chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told JTA. "The president indicated he had a sensitivity to the perception of that imbalance and had to work harder to correct that perception."
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Israeli PM: 'Let's make peace -- both diplomatically and economically'
Jerusalem Post, July 12,
Palestinian recognition of the Jewish nature of Israel is an essential condition to peace, as well as their willingness to relinquish the demand that the descendents of Palestinian refugees be allowed to resettle in the Jewish state, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday.
“The key to peace lies in explicit and unequivocal recognition of Israel as the Jewish state on the part of the Palestinians. They must once and for all give up the demand to resettle inside of Israel the descendents of the refugees,” Netanyahu said during a Jerusalem memorial ceremony marking 105 years since the death of Theodor Herzl.
According to Netanyahu, the leaders of the Palestinians must say, “We have had enough of this conflict; we recognize Israel as Jewish; we will live alongside you in true peace.
“As soon as that is stated,” Netanyahu continued, “a huge window to peace will be opened.”
Jerusalem Post, July 12,
Palestinian recognition of the Jewish nature of Israel is an essential condition to peace, as well as their willingness to relinquish the demand that the descendents of Palestinian refugees be allowed to resettle in the Jewish state, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday.
“The key to peace lies in explicit and unequivocal recognition of Israel as the Jewish state on the part of the Palestinians. They must once and for all give up the demand to resettle inside of Israel the descendents of the refugees,” Netanyahu said during a Jerusalem memorial ceremony marking 105 years since the death of Theodor Herzl.
According to Netanyahu, the leaders of the Palestinians must say, “We have had enough of this conflict; we recognize Israel as Jewish; we will live alongside you in true peace.
“As soon as that is stated,” Netanyahu continued, “a huge window to peace will be opened.”
Friday, July 3, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Dershowitz: Getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel's security.
Has Obama Turned on Israel? Settlements, rockets and Iran.
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2009
Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch. Jewish Americans voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama over John McCain in part because the Obama campaign went to great lengths to assure these voters that a President Obama would be supportive of Israel. This despite his friendships with rabidly anti-Israel characters like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and historian Rashid Khalidi.
At the suggestion of Mr. Obama's Jewish supporters -- including me -- the candidate visited the beleaguered town of Sderot, which had borne the brunt of thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas. Standing in front of the rocket shells, Mr. Obama declared: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." This heartfelt statement sealed the deal for many supporters of Israel.
Now, some of them apparently have voters' remorse. According to Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, "President Obama's strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes." I hear the same thing from rank-and-file supporters of Israel who voted for Mr. Obama.
Are these fears justified? Rhetorically, the Obama team has definitely taken a harsher approach toward Israel compared to its tone during the campaign. But has there been a change in substance about Israel's security? In answering this question, it is essential to distinguish between several aspects of American policy.
First there are the settlements. The Bush administration was against expansion of West Bank settlements, but it was willing to accept a "natural growth" exception that implicitly permitted Israel to expand existing settlements in order to accommodate family growth. The Obama administration has so far shut the door on this exception.
I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. "Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally," he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build "up" rather than "out." This seems fair to both sides, since it would preserve the status quo for future negotiations that could lead to a demilitarized Palestinian state and Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish one -- results sought by both the Obama administration and Israel.
A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel. It may be a different position from that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is not a difference that should matter to most Jewish voters who support both Mr. Obama and Israel.
The differences that would matter are those -- if they exist -- that directly impact Israel's security. And in terms of Israel's security, nothing presents a greater threat than Iran.
The Obama administration consistently says that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But prior to the current unrest in the Islamic Republic, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel frightened many supporters of Israel in May by appearing to link American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli actions with regard to the settlements.
This is a disturbing linkage that should be disavowed by the Obama administration. Opposition to a nuclear Iran -- which would endanger the entire world -- should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.
The current turmoil in Iran may strengthen the Obama administration as it seeks to use diplomacy, sanctions and other nonmilitary means to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. But if these tactics fail, the military option, undesirable and dangerous as it is, must not be taken off the table. If the Obama administration were to shift toward learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempt to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets as a last resort, that would be troubling indeed. Thankfully, the Obama administration's point man on this issue, Dennis Ross, shows no signs of weakening American opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran.
A related threat to Israeli security comes from Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. For years, these terrorist groups have disrupted life in Israel by firing rockets at civilians. The range of their weapons now extends to Israel's heartland, including Tel Aviv. The Israeli Defense Forces must retain the ability to prevent and deter rocket fire, even if it comes from behind human shields as it did in southern Lebanon and Gaza. There is no evidence of any weakening of American support for Israel's right to defend its children from the kind of rocket attacks candidate Obama commented on during his visit to Sderot.
There may be coming changes in the Obama administration's policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state. Successful presidential candidates often soften their support for Israel once they are elected. So with Iran's burgeoning nuclear threat, it's important to be vigilant for any signs of weakening support for Israel's security -- and to criticize forcefully any such change. But getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel's security.
Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "The Case for Moral Clarity" (Camera, 2009).
Has Obama Turned on Israel? Settlements, rockets and Iran.
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2009
Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch. Jewish Americans voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama over John McCain in part because the Obama campaign went to great lengths to assure these voters that a President Obama would be supportive of Israel. This despite his friendships with rabidly anti-Israel characters like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and historian Rashid Khalidi.
At the suggestion of Mr. Obama's Jewish supporters -- including me -- the candidate visited the beleaguered town of Sderot, which had borne the brunt of thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas. Standing in front of the rocket shells, Mr. Obama declared: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." This heartfelt statement sealed the deal for many supporters of Israel.
Now, some of them apparently have voters' remorse. According to Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, "President Obama's strongest supporters among Jewish leaders are deeply troubled by his recent Middle East initiatives, and some are questioning what he really believes." I hear the same thing from rank-and-file supporters of Israel who voted for Mr. Obama.
Are these fears justified? Rhetorically, the Obama team has definitely taken a harsher approach toward Israel compared to its tone during the campaign. But has there been a change in substance about Israel's security? In answering this question, it is essential to distinguish between several aspects of American policy.
First there are the settlements. The Bush administration was against expansion of West Bank settlements, but it was willing to accept a "natural growth" exception that implicitly permitted Israel to expand existing settlements in order to accommodate family growth. The Obama administration has so far shut the door on this exception.
I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. "Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally," he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build "up" rather than "out." This seems fair to both sides, since it would preserve the status quo for future negotiations that could lead to a demilitarized Palestinian state and Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish one -- results sought by both the Obama administration and Israel.
A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel. It may be a different position from that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is not a difference that should matter to most Jewish voters who support both Mr. Obama and Israel.
The differences that would matter are those -- if they exist -- that directly impact Israel's security. And in terms of Israel's security, nothing presents a greater threat than Iran.
The Obama administration consistently says that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But prior to the current unrest in the Islamic Republic, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel frightened many supporters of Israel in May by appearing to link American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli actions with regard to the settlements.
This is a disturbing linkage that should be disavowed by the Obama administration. Opposition to a nuclear Iran -- which would endanger the entire world -- should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.
The current turmoil in Iran may strengthen the Obama administration as it seeks to use diplomacy, sanctions and other nonmilitary means to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. But if these tactics fail, the military option, undesirable and dangerous as it is, must not be taken off the table. If the Obama administration were to shift toward learning to live with a nuclear Iran and attempt to deny Israel the painful option of attacking its nuclear targets as a last resort, that would be troubling indeed. Thankfully, the Obama administration's point man on this issue, Dennis Ross, shows no signs of weakening American opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran.
A related threat to Israeli security comes from Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. For years, these terrorist groups have disrupted life in Israel by firing rockets at civilians. The range of their weapons now extends to Israel's heartland, including Tel Aviv. The Israeli Defense Forces must retain the ability to prevent and deter rocket fire, even if it comes from behind human shields as it did in southern Lebanon and Gaza. There is no evidence of any weakening of American support for Israel's right to defend its children from the kind of rocket attacks candidate Obama commented on during his visit to Sderot.
There may be coming changes in the Obama administration's policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state. Successful presidential candidates often soften their support for Israel once they are elected. So with Iran's burgeoning nuclear threat, it's important to be vigilant for any signs of weakening support for Israel's security -- and to criticize forcefully any such change. But getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel's security.
Mr. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard. His latest book is "The Case for Moral Clarity" (Camera, 2009).
Egyptian/ International Music Festival demands no singing in Hebrew; no references to being Jewish. This is anti-Semitism. //Mark Finkelstein
[The Music Fest ] required [participants from the interfaith group] to eliminate biographical references to members’ religions. This meant that Alberto Mizrahi, cantor of Chicago’s historic Anshe Emet Synagogue, could not refer to himself as a hazan, and GATC could describe itself as comprising only “different musical trends,” not different religious backgrounds.
Harmony Silenced at Egyptian Music Fest
By Alex Weisler issue of July 10, 2009. Forward.com
Wendy Sternberg was thrilled when the organization she founded, Genesis at the Crossroads, was invited to perform at the eighth annual International Music Festival at Egypt’s Alexandria Library.
She looked forward to achieving the goals of her group, which seeks to bridge cultures in conflict through the arts and prides itself on stellar musicianship and cross-cultural dialogue. Genesis would present master classes to Egyptian musicians and help the Alexandria Library become an established site for Arm Them With Instruments, a program that provides donated musical instruments to war-torn areas. Genesis’s musical troupe, the Saffron Caravan, would close the festival with a piece written by Sherif Mohie Eldin, one of Egypt’s foremost modern composers.
The music festival is hosted annually in Egypt at the library, a major cultural institute built for $220 million in 2002 near the site of the original library of Alexander the Great to revive the ancient library’s symbolism of Egypt’s commitment to learning and world culture.
Yet, despite her dream of the festival as a perfect fit with Genesis’s aims, Sternberg pulled out on June 4, after her group was barred from performing in Hebrew and from describing the religious backgrounds of its members in festival literature.
The more she thinks about it, Sternberg says, the sadder she becomes.
“All of this beauty just never got off the ground,” she told the Forward. “Working together to make it happen got nipped in the bud when this whole issue of omitting religious references came about.”
Sternberg said Genesis was informed a year ago that performing songs in Hebrew would be viewed by the Egyptian public as an extension of a Zionist agenda.
“You can love music and not be a Zionist,” Sternberg said. “The arts are safe. To really embrace the diversity is our greatest asset.”
Even at that, the situation was acceptable but not desirable, Sternberg said. Though the group’s Jewish members were upset, GATC decided to replace Hebrew songs with others in Ladino and Arabic.
“I was extremely angry, actually, like, ‘Why waste my time talking about this?’” said Howard Levy, a Grammy-winning pianist and harmonica player and the Saffron Caravan’s musical director. The main point for his group, he said, is to have the cultures blend and merge.
The real trouble arose when Sternberg received an e-mail May 24, informing her that GATC would be required to eliminate biographical references to members’ religions. This meant that Alberto Mizrahi, cantor of Chicago’s historic Anshe Emet Synagogue, could not refer to himself as a hazan, and GATC could describe itself as comprising only “different musical trends,” not different religious backgrounds.
That demand, Sternberg says, struck at the core of her group’s purpose and identity.
When Sternberg asked American University Islamic studies professor Akbar Ahmed for advice, she said he told her, “Walk away.”
Ahmed told the Forward he reminded Sternberg that moderate Muslims must speak out for dialogue among the three Abrahamic faiths — Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
“But if one party or another is not involved, the notion of an Abrahamic dialogue is not realized,” he said.
Sternberg outlined her position in a May 25 e-mail to five staff members of the Alexandria festival: GATC had accepted the restrictions on Hebrew songs out of respect for the current political climate, but would not agree to omit all religious references.
“We welcome a conversation with you to either further pursue this summer’s opportunity with you without diluting Genesis at the Crossroads’ mission and message, or to close this chapter without our involvement in your 2009 festival,” Sternberg wrote in the message.
Eldin’s reply came a few days later, Sternberg said, in just three words: “Thank you. Goodbye.”
Eldin was not in Alexandria at press time and could not be reached for comment.
Levy, who has performed openly as a Jew in Jordan, Syria and Morocco, was disappointed to be judged on his background and not on his musicianship.
The GATC saga is not the library’s first brush with controversy. Egyptian Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni — a leading contender in the upcoming vote to determine the next head of UNESCO, the United Nations’ cultural arm — told the Egyptian parliament in June 2008 that if Israeli books were found in Egypt’s acclaimed Alexandria Library, “I will burn them myself.”
Although GATC’s Alexandria Library saga has concluded, Sternberg said her mission may be stymied for at least a few months as she tries to regroup and move forward from a project she had concentrated on for 18 months.
Contact Alex Weisler at weisler@forward.com
[The Music Fest ] required [participants from the interfaith group] to eliminate biographical references to members’ religions. This meant that Alberto Mizrahi, cantor of Chicago’s historic Anshe Emet Synagogue, could not refer to himself as a hazan, and GATC could describe itself as comprising only “different musical trends,” not different religious backgrounds.
Harmony Silenced at Egyptian Music Fest
By Alex Weisler issue of July 10, 2009. Forward.com
Wendy Sternberg was thrilled when the organization she founded, Genesis at the Crossroads, was invited to perform at the eighth annual International Music Festival at Egypt’s Alexandria Library.
She looked forward to achieving the goals of her group, which seeks to bridge cultures in conflict through the arts and prides itself on stellar musicianship and cross-cultural dialogue. Genesis would present master classes to Egyptian musicians and help the Alexandria Library become an established site for Arm Them With Instruments, a program that provides donated musical instruments to war-torn areas. Genesis’s musical troupe, the Saffron Caravan, would close the festival with a piece written by Sherif Mohie Eldin, one of Egypt’s foremost modern composers.
The music festival is hosted annually in Egypt at the library, a major cultural institute built for $220 million in 2002 near the site of the original library of Alexander the Great to revive the ancient library’s symbolism of Egypt’s commitment to learning and world culture.
Yet, despite her dream of the festival as a perfect fit with Genesis’s aims, Sternberg pulled out on June 4, after her group was barred from performing in Hebrew and from describing the religious backgrounds of its members in festival literature.
The more she thinks about it, Sternberg says, the sadder she becomes.
“All of this beauty just never got off the ground,” she told the Forward. “Working together to make it happen got nipped in the bud when this whole issue of omitting religious references came about.”
Sternberg said Genesis was informed a year ago that performing songs in Hebrew would be viewed by the Egyptian public as an extension of a Zionist agenda.
“You can love music and not be a Zionist,” Sternberg said. “The arts are safe. To really embrace the diversity is our greatest asset.”
Even at that, the situation was acceptable but not desirable, Sternberg said. Though the group’s Jewish members were upset, GATC decided to replace Hebrew songs with others in Ladino and Arabic.
“I was extremely angry, actually, like, ‘Why waste my time talking about this?’” said Howard Levy, a Grammy-winning pianist and harmonica player and the Saffron Caravan’s musical director. The main point for his group, he said, is to have the cultures blend and merge.
The real trouble arose when Sternberg received an e-mail May 24, informing her that GATC would be required to eliminate biographical references to members’ religions. This meant that Alberto Mizrahi, cantor of Chicago’s historic Anshe Emet Synagogue, could not refer to himself as a hazan, and GATC could describe itself as comprising only “different musical trends,” not different religious backgrounds.
That demand, Sternberg says, struck at the core of her group’s purpose and identity.
When Sternberg asked American University Islamic studies professor Akbar Ahmed for advice, she said he told her, “Walk away.”
Ahmed told the Forward he reminded Sternberg that moderate Muslims must speak out for dialogue among the three Abrahamic faiths — Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
“But if one party or another is not involved, the notion of an Abrahamic dialogue is not realized,” he said.
Sternberg outlined her position in a May 25 e-mail to five staff members of the Alexandria festival: GATC had accepted the restrictions on Hebrew songs out of respect for the current political climate, but would not agree to omit all religious references.
“We welcome a conversation with you to either further pursue this summer’s opportunity with you without diluting Genesis at the Crossroads’ mission and message, or to close this chapter without our involvement in your 2009 festival,” Sternberg wrote in the message.
Eldin’s reply came a few days later, Sternberg said, in just three words: “Thank you. Goodbye.”
Eldin was not in Alexandria at press time and could not be reached for comment.
Levy, who has performed openly as a Jew in Jordan, Syria and Morocco, was disappointed to be judged on his background and not on his musicianship.
The GATC saga is not the library’s first brush with controversy. Egyptian Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni — a leading contender in the upcoming vote to determine the next head of UNESCO, the United Nations’ cultural arm — told the Egyptian parliament in June 2008 that if Israeli books were found in Egypt’s acclaimed Alexandria Library, “I will burn them myself.”
Although GATC’s Alexandria Library saga has concluded, Sternberg said her mission may be stymied for at least a few months as she tries to regroup and move forward from a project she had concentrated on for 18 months.
Contact Alex Weisler at weisler@forward.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)