PrintI know this is the president's ambition. But the thought that he has already forged it is pretension of the highest order. In fact, it can be his ambition only if he believes the task is, in some actual sense, easy and actually doable. He capsulizes this in his address at West Point thus: "a new beginning ... that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity." Yes, indeed, yes, we can.
I don't know about you. But whenever I hear the phrase "cycle of violence" or "cycle of conflict," I reach for my book of cliches of which, believe it or not, there are plenty. I assume on the evidence that there are several in the West Wing of the White House.
The conceit in Obama's speech is that we are fighting only Al Qaeda and the Taliban and fighting them only in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (He has conveniently put Iraq out of mind, except for its uses as a reproach to George Bush.) The president does admit that the peril probably already extends to Yemen and Somalia. This is not a surprise. It is already almost a decade since the Islamists' deadly attack on the USS Cole in the port of Aden. And it is more than a decade and a half since the American army's Operation Restore Hope in Somalia was blown to shreds with the killing of dozens of our soldiers and the withdrawal of virtually all U.S. personnel from the country. He says that where "Al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold ... they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships." It is hard to imagine the jihadists seeing this as a credible threat.
I am not an expert in Islamic politics. Of course, I studied it, formally and informally, with eminent scholars, starting out with the greatest of them all, Elie Kedourie. I half suspect that I know more about Islam and the Arabs than President Obama. Nothing he has said leads me to think otherwise. You can judge me by what you know. But don't credit the president with knowing more than he has shown. What he has not shown may be prejudices that even he understands are really leftist ideological blinders.
Let's hold Obama only to what he himself has said. In fact, let's hold him to what he said at West Point last week. His audience was, of course, respectful. He is, after all, their commander-in-chief, as he reminded them twice. But they did not brim with enthusiasm. (Read the elegant TNR piece by Professor Elizabeth D. Samet of the U.S. Military Academy, written just after the president delivered the speech.) They applauded him only when he, so to speak, applauded them and bowed not to the emperor of Japan or the monarch of Saudi Arabia but to the soldiers' American inheritance in fighting for the freedom of others.
I suspect that the assembled men and a few women thought that Obama's definition of the adversary--here, I myself trim; isn't it really "enemy?"--was rather thin. "A group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world's great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents." If only the men of Al Qaeda were only a group of extremists. And the Taliban, the same.
In the last few days alone, these "extremists" have blown up a train (and maybe even a nightclub with over 100 dead) in Russia, massacred fifty-odd civilians in the Philippines, bombed a Somali medical school graduation and killed some 22 students with their instructors (this is the country's second medical school class in 20 years), executed a suicide attack on a mosque in Pakistan with at least 40 gone to the creator and, in the guise of a government, continued the persecution of democrats and moderate Muslims in Iran.
I believe that there is an epidemic of extremism in Islam. Not all extremists become jihadists, of course. But many do. And they do so quietly and surreptitiously. We already know that the security agencies simply ignored the terrorist education of Dr. Hasan. We know that a Palestinian agitator--a Jerusalemite, no less--infiltrated the Obamas' first White House state dinner. But we are also assured that he was a flake, with dozens of civil suits against him. OK, leave him off the list. But do remember that a resentful Palestinian nationalist, also a native Jerusalemite, assassinated Robert F. Kennedy in a kitchen of Los Angeles' Ambassador Hotel. He, however, was a Christian. OK, leave him off the list, too. At your peril.
The fact is, as Barack Obama refuses to grasp, Islam needs to shoulder responsibility for what is done in its name. For what is not rejected--in most cases, not at all rejected--by the sages of present-day Islam. Since the president has taken to lecture Americans about "one of the world's great religions," which I believe it to be, he might also take to studying why so many of its elders in schools of theology and other authoritative men have embraced, publicly embraced, the gangsters in their midst.
COMMENTS (54)
If "so many of its elders in schools of theology and other authoritative men have embraced, publicly embraced, the gangsters in their midst", maybe it's because of Islam itself, "one of the world's great religions," as Peretz so piously intones. Let's start with the Koran and the tawdry life of its prophet Mohamed, whom Muslims believe to be the "ideal" or "perfect" man.
If "so many of its elders in schools of theology and other authoritative men have embraced, publicly embraced, the gangsters in their midst", maybe it's because of Islam itself, "one of the world's great religions," as Peretz so piously intones. Let's start with the Koran and the tawdry life of its prophet Mohamed, whom Muslims believe to be the "ideal" or "perfect" man.
"They applauded him only when he, so to speak, applauded them and bowed not to the emperor of Japan or the monarch of Saudi Arabia but to the soldiers' American inheritance in fighting for the freedom of others."
Perhaps Obama does not consider bowing to feudal rulers and hailing American inheritance in fighting for the freedom of others as mutually exclusive. I think he truly believes in the power of words to change unpleasant or irreconcilable realities.
It can be done, in fiction.
There is this story about a nineteenth century British rag that used to publish sensational novels in weekly serialized installments. The story was written from one week to the next and only the author knew how ... view full comment
"They applauded him only when he, so to speak, applauded them and bowed not to the emperor of Japan or the monarch of Saudi Arabia but to the soldiers' American inheritance in fighting for the freedom of others."
Perhaps Obama does not consider bowing to feudal rulers and hailing American inheritance in fighting for the freedom of others as mutually exclusive. I think he truly believes in the power of words to change unpleasant or irreconcilable realities.
It can be done, in fiction.
There is this story about a nineteenth century British rag that used to publish sensational novels in weekly serialized installments. The story was written from one week to the next and only the author knew how he was going to resolve the knotty problems that he had himself set up in the previous chapter.
In one such case, the author ended his weekly chapter with his hero in a breath-stopping situation, hanging with both arms in a pit, snakes snipping at his feet, on one side a roaring lion, on the other two crooks with their guns aimed at him.
When the author failed to submit the next week's chapter, the editor suspected that he had gone on one of his drinking binges. The editor asked other writers to provide the necessary installment but they were all stymied. They had no idea how to get the hero out of the pit, and away from the menacing snakes, lion and killers. The paper was issued with an apology to the readers for missing that week’s episode.
Finally the author showed up. "How are you going to continue this story"? wailed the editor.
"What's the problem?"
The author inserted a sheet of paper into the typewriter and started typing the next chapter:
"Once out of the pit, our hero..."
___________
BTW, Marty, David Ignatius reports about a simulation game in which he was present, recording the following results:
" The U.S. team -- unable to stop the Iranian nuclear program and unwilling to go to war -- concluded the game by embracing a strategy of containment and deterrence. The Iranian team wound up with Russia and China as its diplomatic protectors. And the Israeli team ended in a sharp break with Washington."
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/12/05/who_wins_in_irans_nucl...
I wonder how much of Obama's aspirations for a "new Beginning Between America and the Muslim World" depend on and are calculated to bring about just such a sharp break.
I read Samet's piece as commended by Peretz.
I guess it was "elegant" alright, but I didn't get from what she wrote what she thought of
Obama's speech nor how what she wrote fits in with I understand is the idea that puts together his post.
I read Samet's piece as commended by Peretz.
I guess it was "elegant" alright, but I didn't get from what she wrote what she thought of
Obama's speech nor how what she wrote fits in with I understand is the idea that puts together his post.
I also found Marty's reference to Samet's piece a bit odd. I like her article a lot, and I thought that she effectively caught the atmosphere in West Point now, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the way they are and young army officers knowing something about their immediate and medium-term futures. She wrote:
Service academies theoretically provide safe audiences for the Commander-in-Chief. But to look into the eyes of the people you are sending to war, when what you hope to do is forge a world in which young people, as Truman put it in the language of a veteran artilleryman of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, “won’t have to go and be cannon fodder,” is, I think, an act of honest ... view full comment
I also found Marty's reference to Samet's piece a bit odd. I like her article a lot, and I thought that she effectively caught the atmosphere in West Point now, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the way they are and young army officers knowing something about their immediate and medium-term futures. She wrote:
Service academies theoretically provide safe audiences for the Commander-in-Chief. But to look into the eyes of the people you are sending to war, when what you hope to do is forge a world in which young people, as Truman put it in the language of a veteran artilleryman of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, “won’t have to go and be cannon fodder,” is, I think, an act of honesty. President Obama’s challenge was twofold of course: to articulate a policy and to attend to an audience that would be directly, materially affected by that policy in ways they can see only too well and in ways they cannot even imagine.
Samet's piece is a snapshot of a moment, a C-in-C who may -- again, may -- connect with the new officers as a result of a certain generational shift of language and style that has seen off an older generation of political figures, but also a president with a set of options that are almost uniformly grim, where choosing the least grim is a duty but not necessarily one that will be rewarded. He was speaking to those who will try to carry out the least grim option.
Oh dear, not again. Would someone at TNR's IT support please look into this -- I blocked off the middle para (the quote from Samet) with the html codes for italics, and suddenly now everything is in italics.
Oh dear, not again. Would someone at TNR's IT support please look into this -- I blocked off the middle para (the quote from Samet) with the html codes for italics, and suddenly now everything is in italics.
Yes ironyroad, it is all your fault. Can't you curb your enthusiasm for italics when you write these comments?
Yes ironyroad, it is all your fault. Can't you curb your enthusiasm for italics when you write these comments?
“Since the president has taken to lecture Americans about "one of the world's great religions," which I believe it to be, he might also take to studying why so many of its elders in schools of theology and other authoritative men have embraced, publicly embraced, the gangsters in their midst.”
It’s not that complicated, Marty.
Many of these theologians are green with envy at the power their Muslim colleagues have and wouldn’t mind sharing a little of it themselves.
After all hundreds of years of enlightenment doctrine in the west has made them the butt of jokes. Now all of the sudden with the rise of militant Islam they can claim to act as mediators of the spirit and hope to get a lit ... view full comment
“Since the president has taken to lecture Americans about "one of the world's great religions," which I believe it to be, he might also take to studying why so many of its elders in schools of theology and other authoritative men have embraced, publicly embraced, the gangsters in their midst.”
It’s not that complicated, Marty.
Many of these theologians are green with envy at the power their Muslim colleagues have and wouldn’t mind sharing a little of it themselves.
After all hundreds of years of enlightenment doctrine in the west has made them the butt of jokes. Now all of the sudden with the rise of militant Islam they can claim to act as mediators of the spirit and hope to get a little respect out of their new enterprise.
These theologico-politicos are complicit in the militancy they want to explain and excuse.
Is Tariq Ramadan such an elder?
"Over the last two decades Islam has become connected to so many controversial debates – violence, extremism, freedom of speech, gender discrimination, forced marriage, to name a few – it is difficult for ordinary citizens to embrace this new Muslim presence as a positive factor."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/29/swiss-vote-ba...
Is Tariq Ramadan such an elder?
"Over the last two decades Islam has become connected to so many controversial debates – violence, extremism, freedom of speech, gender discrimination, forced marriage, to name a few – it is difficult for ordinary citizens to embrace this new Muslim presence as a positive factor."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/29/swiss-vote-ba...
Tariq likes to sound moderate when he is not talking about homosexuals or women. And yet there is this tidbit.
"The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol."
Well, I knew it, it's the fault of the Jews after all.
Take that ADL. That'll learn you to side with the devil.
Tariq likes to sound moderate when he is not talking about homosexuals or women. And yet there is this tidbit.
"The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol."
Well, I knew it, it's the fault of the Jews after all.
Take that ADL. That'll learn you to side with the devil.
"I half suspect that I know more about Islam and the Arabs than President Obama." Maybe, but what matters are the conclusions you draw from what you know. "Islam needs to shoulder responsibility for what is done in its name." Sorry Marty, there is no Pope of Islam, no central authority that speaks for all of Islam (yes, the Shia's have their Ayatollahs, but they are in the midst of their own war between themselves in Iran). Your assertions that it must do so will not do the slightest good, in fact it is likely to do harm since it will do nothing but put moderate Muslims on the defensive (as I get when people prattle on about diddling Priests, or past sins of the Church, don't pin that shit o ... view full comment
"I half suspect that I know more about Islam and the Arabs than President Obama." Maybe, but what matters are the conclusions you draw from what you know. "Islam needs to shoulder responsibility for what is done in its name." Sorry Marty, there is no Pope of Islam, no central authority that speaks for all of Islam (yes, the Shia's have their Ayatollahs, but they are in the midst of their own war between themselves in Iran). Your assertions that it must do so will not do the slightest good, in fact it is likely to do harm since it will do nothing but put moderate Muslims on the defensive (as I get when people prattle on about diddling Priests, or past sins of the Church, don't pin that shit on me). There are only two possible things non-Muslims can do to defeat Muslim extremism. One, ban Islam, force the people to convert, and those that refuse to kill them.
Obviously, outside of places like Serbia we aren't going to go that route. The other way is to stop buying Middle Eastern oil. No money from oil, no money to buy guns. Obviously Afghanistan is different since they have opium, and we aren't going to fix that, but that is one of the reasons why we have to stay there. Besides, building up Kabul could show the benefits of modernization.
Communism died because it went broke, where it exists today is either in name only, or two absolute shitholes, like Cuba or North Korea, and ain't nobody looking to emulate either of them.
Write about this, your protege Al Gore gets that we have to get off our addiction. Put your resources to this, instead of ranting and raving. Honestly, you write like a snark filled 18 year old.
By the way, the nightclub was an accident, some knucklehead juggled fireworks, the owner was an idiot who thought a long hanging thatched ceiling gave ambiance. And in the Philippines, it was the Mayor killing off his rival and associates, it was tribal, Muslim killing muslim done for petty partisan politics. And your bringing the Salahis into it was just infantile, like everywhere you look you see Muslim conspiracies. Shit is bad enough without going ridiculously overboard. Radical Islam is a cancer, the available evidence to suggest that is enough without screwing it up by creating connections to random events.
But Noga, I love italics.
But Noga, I love italics.
"But Noga, I love italics."
But surely, ironyroad, you can exercise some measure of self-denial when it comes to indulging this unprosperous love?
"But Noga, I love italics."
But surely, ironyroad, you can exercise some measure of self-denial when it comes to indulging this unprosperous love?
irony, the are called quotation marks. See, Noga used them above for the exact same reason you used italics. Honestly, I don't care either way, but it seems to annoy others.
irony, the are called quotation marks. See, Noga used them above for the exact same reason you used italics. Honestly, I don't care either way, but it seems to annoy others.
jackson dyer said:
quoting Marty: "'Since the president has taken to lecture Americans about "one of the world's great religions," which I believe it to be, he might also take to studying why so many of its elders in schools of theology and other authoritative men have embraced, publicly embraced, the gangsters in their midst.'" end quote.
It’s not that complicated, Marty.
Many of these theologians are green with envy at the power their Muslim colleagues have and wouldn’t mind sharing a little of it themselves.
After all hundreds of years of enlightenment doctrine in the west has made them the butt of jokes. Now all of the sudden with the rise of militant Islam they can claim to act a ... view full comment
jackson dyer said:
quoting Marty: "'Since the president has taken to lecture Americans about "one of the world's great religions," which I believe it to be, he might also take to studying why so many of its elders in schools of theology and other authoritative men have embraced, publicly embraced, the gangsters in their midst.'" end quote.
It’s not that complicated, Marty.
Many of these theologians are green with envy at the power their Muslim colleagues have and wouldn’t mind sharing a little of it themselves.
After all hundreds of years of enlightenment doctrine in the west has made them the butt of jokes. Now all of the sudden with the rise of militant Islam they can claim to act as mediators of the spirit and hope to get a little respect out of their new enterprise.
These theologico-politicos are complicit in the militancy they want to explain and excuse.
Very perceptive and insightful, jackson, thank you.
Should I say, oh leave me alone!! and run from the room in a flood of tears?
Should I say, oh leave me alone!! and run from the room in a flood of tears?
"The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol."
Where (if anywhere) and what (if anything) is the evidence that would validate this remarkable (sic) assertion?? Or is it public musing, speculating, crystal-balling? or, simply made-up by the virulently anti-semitic, creative imagination?
It's this sort of alleged 'facts' that get my blood boiling, even knowing some of the history of libels and slanders anti-semites bandy about, as if it were an idle entertainment.
"The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol."
Where (if anywhere) and what (if anything) is the evidence that would validate this remarkable (sic) assertion?? Or is it public musing, speculating, crystal-balling? or, simply made-up by the virulently anti-semitic, creative imagination?
It's this sort of alleged 'facts' that get my blood boiling, even knowing some of the history of libels and slanders anti-semites bandy about, as if it were an idle entertainment.
"Should I say, oh leave me alone!! and run from the room in a flood of tears?"
What's wrong with tears?
BTW, ironyroad, I watched "Portrait of a lady" yesterday and I was kind of surprised at how often Nicole Kidman dissolves into very becoming tears throughout the movie. I don't recall Henry James' heroine being so prone to crying. As a James specialist, do you agree with the movie?
"Should I say, oh leave me alone!! and run from the room in a flood of tears?"
What's wrong with tears?
BTW, ironyroad, I watched "Portrait of a lady" yesterday and I was kind of surprised at how often Nicole Kidman dissolves into very becoming tears throughout the movie. I don't recall Henry James' heroine being so prone to crying. As a James specialist, do you agree with the movie?
Noga, I'm enough of an expert that I haven't read Portrait in around 20 years -- catching up with all the other novels, you know -- but I agree with your impression. Isabel Archer is, in my recollection, a rather self-controlled and, at bottom, somewhat prim lady.
Noga, I'm enough of an expert that I haven't read Portrait in around 20 years -- catching up with all the other novels, you know -- but I agree with your impression. Isabel Archer is, in my recollection, a rather self-controlled and, at bottom, somewhat prim lady.
"The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol."
By what reasoning are those words by Tariq Ramadan saying that the Swiss minaret-ban is the fault of Swiss Jews? If anything, it credits the Swiss Jews with deterring the anti-Muslim actions of the UDC from going further than they did. Ramadan specifically discusses who should be blamed:
"Who is to be blamed? I have been repeating for years to Muslim people that they have to be positively visible, active and proactive within t ... view full comment
"The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol."
By what reasoning are those words by Tariq Ramadan saying that the Swiss minaret-ban is the fault of Swiss Jews? If anything, it credits the Swiss Jews with deterring the anti-Muslim actions of the UDC from going further than they did. Ramadan specifically discusses who should be blamed:
"Who is to be blamed? I have been repeating for years to Muslim people that they have to be positively visible, active and proactive within their respective western societies. In Switzerland, over the past few months, Muslims have striven to remain hidden in order to avoid a clash. It would have been more useful to create new alliances with all these Swiss organisations and political parties that were clearly against the initiative. Swiss Muslims have their share of responsibility but one must add that the political parties, in Europe as in Switzerland have become cowed, and shy from any courageous policies towards religious and cultural pluralism. It is as if the populists set the tone and the rest follow. They fail to assert that Islam is by now a Swiss and a European religion and that Muslim citizens are largely "integrated". That we face common challenges, such as unemployment, poverty and violence – challenges we must face together. We cannot blame the populists alone – it is a wider failure, a lack of courage, a terrible and narrow-minded lack of trust in their new Muslim citizens."
Though Ramadan includes Swiss Muslims themselves among those who should be blamed -- arguing that they should be more proactive within Swiss society -- nowhere does he say that Swiss Jews are to blame.
"The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol." Tariq Ramadan
"Where (if anywhere) and what (if anything) is the evidence that would validate this remarkable (sic) assertion?? Or is it public musing, speculating, crystal-balling? or, simply made-up by the virulently anti-semitic, creative imagination?"Tgossard
He is at the very least making a distinction between the Swiss attitude towards Jews (they are supposed to be sensitive) and towards Islam ( to whom they are insensi ... view full comment
"The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol." Tariq Ramadan
"Where (if anywhere) and what (if anything) is the evidence that would validate this remarkable (sic) assertion?? Or is it public musing, speculating, crystal-balling? or, simply made-up by the virulently anti-semitic, creative imagination?"Tgossard
He is at the very least making a distinction between the Swiss attitude towards Jews (they are supposed to be sensitive) and towards Islam ( to whom they are insensitive).
Now Ramadan has a history of making these mealy mouthed (covert) antisemitic comments.
http://agircontrelaguerre.free.fr/article.php3?id_article=32
for those who can read French
and for those who don’t:
“Islamism Goes Mainstream: My evening with Tariq Ramadan” By Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2173736/
see also
http://philosemitism.blogspot.com/2009/08/rotterdam-fires-tariq-ramadan-...
"The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol." Tariq Ramadan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/29/swiss-vote-ba...
Notice also that Ramadan never gave a source for his assertion that "the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic ... view full comment
"The minarets are but a pretext – the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol." Tariq Ramadan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/29/swiss-vote-ba...
Notice also that Ramadan never gave a source for his assertion that "the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews..."
I also have a little problem with Ramadan's sincerity when he concludes:
"That we face common challenges, such as unemployment, poverty and violence – challenges we must face together...."
Tariq isn't known as someone who cares about such mundane issues and I suspect that he is just using the current economic crisis for his own purposes.
Tgossard: Here is your evidence from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: just a few days after the election the UDC's members were calling for bans on Jewish and Muslim cemeteries.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/03/1009507/swiss-leader-calls-for-je...
Tgossard: Here is your evidence from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: just a few days after the election the UDC's members were calling for bans on Jewish and Muslim cemeteries.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/03/1009507/swiss-leader-calls-for-je...
"Mainstream politicians and religious leaders across Europe have reacted with dismay to the anti-minaret vote.
According to the Swiss online daily Tagesanzeiger, Darbellay also wants to ban the wearing of burkas, head-to-toe veils worn by some fundamentalist Muslim women."
Sweden a EU member bans Kosher meat. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland which are not EU members also ban kosher meat.
In Europe such actions are just part of some right wing group but have been ongoing and are part of a general European xenophobia which has afflicted all parties including including those on the left.
Still there is a huge difference between banning burkas which cover a citizens face and some of the other me ... view full comment
"Mainstream politicians and religious leaders across Europe have reacted with dismay to the anti-minaret vote.
According to the Swiss online daily Tagesanzeiger, Darbellay also wants to ban the wearing of burkas, head-to-toe veils worn by some fundamentalist Muslim women."
Sweden a EU member bans Kosher meat. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland which are not EU members also ban kosher meat.
In Europe such actions are just part of some right wing group but have been ongoing and are part of a general European xenophobia which has afflicted all parties including including those on the left.
Still there is a huge difference between banning burkas which cover a citizens face and some of the other measures.
anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe is long standing and it's no secret, Stuart Wild.
However, anti Jewish sentiment on the part of Muslims in Europe is today more virulent than non-Muslim anti-Jewish sentiment.
We need to keep all these perspectives in mind when discussing these issues.
anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe is long standing and it's no secret, Stuart Wild.
However, anti Jewish sentiment on the part of Muslims in Europe is today more virulent than non-Muslim anti-Jewish sentiment.
We need to keep all these perspectives in mind when discussing these issues.
"We know that a Palestinian agitator--a Jerusalemite, no less--infiltrated the Obamas' first White House state dinner. But we are also assured that he was a flake, with dozens of civil suits against him. OK, leave him off the list. But do remember that a resentful Palestinian nationalist, also a native Jerusalemite, assassinated Robert F. Kennedy in a kitchen of Los Angeles' Ambassador Hotel. He, however, was a Christian. OK, leave him off the list, too. At your peril."
Good Lord, but this probably reached the gold standard of idiocy. Tareq Salahi, a "resentful Palestinian nationalist"?? Who is compared to Sirhan Sirhan in the next breath?? Seriously, where does this stuff end? I thought ... view full comment
"We know that a Palestinian agitator--a Jerusalemite, no less--infiltrated the Obamas' first White House state dinner. But we are also assured that he was a flake, with dozens of civil suits against him. OK, leave him off the list. But do remember that a resentful Palestinian nationalist, also a native Jerusalemite, assassinated Robert F. Kennedy in a kitchen of Los Angeles' Ambassador Hotel. He, however, was a Christian. OK, leave him off the list, too. At your peril."
Good Lord, but this probably reached the gold standard of idiocy. Tareq Salahi, a "resentful Palestinian nationalist"?? Who is compared to Sirhan Sirhan in the next breath?? Seriously, where does this stuff end? I thought that we Jews were not into conspiracy theories and spurious guilt-by-ethnic-association. Or does the rule not apply to anybody who happens to be Palestinian?
"Sweden a EU member bans Kosher meat. "
But not halal? What is their justification for such discrimination? And have Swedish Muslims expressed any solidarity with their Jewish brothers on this issue?
"Sweden a EU member bans Kosher meat. "
But not halal? What is their justification for such discrimination? And have Swedish Muslims expressed any solidarity with their Jewish brothers on this issue?
wildboy "I thought that we Jews were not into conspiracy theories and spurious guilt-by-ethnic-association."
Who is "we" wildboy?
Leaving aside your other questionable points, I see no "conspiracy theory" in Marty's post.
If Marty overreaches with his connotative meanings at times, you tend to overreach with your conclusions.
wildboy "I thought that we Jews were not into conspiracy theories and spurious guilt-by-ethnic-association."
Who is "we" wildboy?
Leaving aside your other questionable points, I see no "conspiracy theory" in Marty's post.
If Marty overreaches with his connotative meanings at times, you tend to overreach with your conclusions.
What am I missing here? Why is it antisemitic for Ramadan to suggest that the UDC was more solicitous of the sensibilities of Swiss Jews than of the sensibilities of Swiss Muslims?
What am I missing here? Why is it antisemitic for Ramadan to suggest that the UDC was more solicitous of the sensibilities of Swiss Jews than of the sensibilities of Swiss Muslims?
If ylu haven't gotten it by now then you will never get it, dhurtado.
In any case, is the statement even true? Where is the evidence that Ramadan offers in its support?
If ylu haven't gotten it by now then you will never get it, dhurtado.
In any case, is the statement even true? Where is the evidence that Ramadan offers in its support?
Whether Ramadan's statement is true (I have no idea) is not relevant to whether it is antisemitic. No one on this thread has explained why it antisemitic -- some have simply asserted that it is. I can only conclude that the claim that it is antisemitic is an unthinking, knee-jerk reaction.
Whether Ramadan's statement is true (I have no idea) is not relevant to whether it is antisemitic. No one on this thread has explained why it antisemitic -- some have simply asserted that it is. I can only conclude that the claim that it is antisemitic is an unthinking, knee-jerk reaction.
"Shock at Chicago Man Charged in Mumbai Attacks"
"David Coleman Headley (born Daood Sayed Gilani), an American from Chicago and son of a former Pakistani diplomat, was arrested two months ago for his alleged role in planning attacks on a Danish newspaper. But today the Department of Justice has charged Headley with direct involvement in planning the deadly Nov. 26, 2008, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. The DoJ press release implicates him in surveying Mumbai targets and working extensively with Lakshar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani terrorist group responsible for the attacks' 170 deaths. He is charged with material support of terrorism as well as conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country ... view full comment
"Shock at Chicago Man Charged in Mumbai Attacks"
"David Coleman Headley (born Daood Sayed Gilani), an American from Chicago and son of a former Pakistani diplomat, was arrested two months ago for his alleged role in planning attacks on a Danish newspaper. But today the Department of Justice has charged Headley with direct involvement in planning the deadly Nov. 26, 2008, terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. The DoJ press release implicates him in surveying Mumbai targets and working extensively with Lakshar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani terrorist group responsible for the attacks' 170 deaths. He is charged with material support of terrorism as well as conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country. Officials say he could receive the death sentence."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Shock-at-Chicago-Ma...
I am waiting to see what excuses people will come up with this time.
dhurtado
"Whether Ramadan's statement is true (I have no idea) is not relevant to whether it is antisemitic."
So Ramadan's makes a false claim about Jews and you don't think it is relevant as to whether the statement is antisemitic. Like I said, you will never get it.
dhurtado
"Whether Ramadan's statement is true (I have no idea) is not relevant to whether it is antisemitic."
So Ramadan's makes a false claim about Jews and you don't think it is relevant as to whether the statement is antisemitic. Like I said, you will never get it.
Why would Ramdan claim that the Swiss parties that proposed the minaret ban didn't want to hurt the feelings of Jews in Switzerland by proposing a ban on Kosher meat?
Why would Ramdan claim that the Swiss parties that proposed the minaret ban didn't want to hurt the feelings of Jews in Switzerland by proposing a ban on Kosher meat?
More on the Chicagoan suspect in the Mumbai terrorist attacks:
"Chicago Man Is Charged in 2008 Attack on Mumbai"
By GINGER THOMPSON and DAVID JOHNSTON
"WASHINGTON — An American at the center of an international terrorism investigation has been charged with helping plot the 2008 rampage in Mumbai, India, that left 163 people dead, according to a Justice Department complaint unsealed on Monday.
The suspect, David C. Headley of Chicago, is accused of helping identify targets for a Pakistan-based terrorist group called Lashkar-e-Taiba, whose two-day attack on luxury hotels, a popular restaurant, a Jewish community center and a crowded train station brought India’s financial capital to a halt and ... view full comment
More on the Chicagoan suspect in the Mumbai terrorist attacks:
"Chicago Man Is Charged in 2008 Attack on Mumbai"
By GINGER THOMPSON and DAVID JOHNSTON
"WASHINGTON — An American at the center of an international terrorism investigation has been charged with helping plot the 2008 rampage in Mumbai, India, that left 163 people dead, according to a Justice Department complaint unsealed on Monday.
The suspect, David C. Headley of Chicago, is accused of helping identify targets for a Pakistan-based terrorist group called Lashkar-e-Taiba, whose two-day attack on luxury hotels, a popular restaurant, a Jewish community center and a crowded train station brought India’s financial capital to a halt and shocked the world. The complaint described Mr. Headley’s repeated scouting visits to the sites nearly two years before the attacks, which have reignited tensions between India and Pakistan.
The authorities say that among his conspirators was Ilyas Kashmiri, regarded by Western officials as one of the most dangerous Islamic militants operating in Pakistan’s restive tribal areas.
The charges, including six counts of conspiracy to bomb public places and to murder and maim, significantly expanded the government’s case against Mr. Headley, 49. And his profile — he has roots in the United States and links to high levels of the Pakistani government and military — makes him a highly unusual terror suspect.
Mr. Headley was arrested in October, along with another Chicago resident, Tahawwur Rana, and charged with plotting to attack a Danish newspaper that in 2005 published cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, outraging much of the Muslim world....."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/world/asia/08terror.html?_r=1&ref=us&p...
Ramadan said:
"the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol."
So his claim is that the UDC wanted to ban Islamic methods of slaughtering animals, but decided not to do so because that would be offensive to Swiss Jews. So, instead, the UDC pursued the minaret-ban. There is nothing antisemitic about that claim.
Ramadan said:
"the UDC wanted first to launch a campaign against the traditional Islamic methods of slaughtering animals but were afraid of testing the sensitivity of Swiss Jews, and instead turned their sights on the minaret as a suitable symbol."
So his claim is that the UDC wanted to ban Islamic methods of slaughtering animals, but decided not to do so because that would be offensive to Swiss Jews. So, instead, the UDC pursued the minaret-ban. There is nothing antisemitic about that claim.
Speaking of antisemitism:
"What follows is an edited excerpt from testimony delivered at a hearing of the Canadian Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism this month.
My attention has been drawn to the disturbing phenomenon of overt Jew hatred in high schools, especially those with high populations of students from countries where Jew hatred is officially sanctioned in the law of their countries of origin."
“During the invasion of Iraq, moments of silence were held in the classroom. Cultural presentations involved only Muslim culture and no Canadian content. Students were allowed to leave assembly during the playing of the national anthem.
The crisis of this story occurred when Mi ... view full comment
Speaking of antisemitism:
"What follows is an edited excerpt from testimony delivered at a hearing of the Canadian Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism this month.
My attention has been drawn to the disturbing phenomenon of overt Jew hatred in high schools, especially those with high populations of students from countries where Jew hatred is officially sanctioned in the law of their countries of origin."
“During the invasion of Iraq, moments of silence were held in the classroom. Cultural presentations involved only Muslim culture and no Canadian content. Students were allowed to leave assembly during the playing of the national anthem.
The crisis of this story occurred when Miriam admonished a student for wearing a Walkman in class. The student screamed at her: "I don't have to listen to you; you are not a person, you are nothing, you do not exist as a person." When Miriam demanded he accompany her to the principal's office, the student followed her down the hall yelling, "Don't speak to me, don't look at me, you are not human, you are a Jew."
Although the student was ultimately suspended for 10 days, his parents expressed puzzlement about the punishment since, they patiently explained, the teacher was after all Jewish. They complained about the severity of the punishment to the school board.
There were no sensitivity courses laid on for the students or the parents. When, over her objections, the offending student and another guilty of the same offence were returned to Miriam's class, she decided she could no longer work under such circumstances. She contacted the Hate Crime Unit of the local police and reported everything.”
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/30/...
dhurtado your willful ignorance tells me a lot about you.
You complain when you are called a bigot, but you sound like the student in that Canadian classroom who refuses to listen to any one accusing a Muslims of antisemitism.
I have had it with you.
dhurtado your willful ignorance tells me a lot about you.
You complain when you are called a bigot, but you sound like the student in that Canadian classroom who refuses to listen to any one accusing a Muslims of antisemitism.
I have had it with you.
More on the Canadian classroom:
“The School board treated Miriam as the source of the problem and asked her to retire. A top litigator told Miriam she had an excellent case for a lawsuit but fearing for her family's safety under the glare of publicity, she decided not to sue.
Lest you assume Miriam was paranoid or Islamophobic or that this was an isolated case of a few bad apples: In 2004, the year Miriam left, a full 60 out of 75 francophone teachers asked for a transfer, not because of anti-Semitism but because of anti-Westernism, a growing discomfort in other areas for which anti-Semitism is the proverbial canary in the mine. French-Canadian children had already stopped enrolling an ... view full comment
More on the Canadian classroom:
“The School board treated Miriam as the source of the problem and asked her to retire. A top litigator told Miriam she had an excellent case for a lawsuit but fearing for her family's safety under the glare of publicity, she decided not to sue.
Lest you assume Miriam was paranoid or Islamophobic or that this was an isolated case of a few bad apples: In 2004, the year Miriam left, a full 60 out of 75 francophone teachers asked for a transfer, not because of anti-Semitism but because of anti-Westernism, a growing discomfort in other areas for which anti-Semitism is the proverbial canary in the mine. French-Canadian children had already stopped enrolling and as I understand it, the school is now virtually all-Muslim, including the teachers and principal.
There are many immigrants entering Canada from countries where overt Jew hatred is endemic to the culture and even officially sanctioned in law. When they arrive here, it is somehow assumed they will absorb Canadian values, but they don't and their toxic attitudes persist. Instead of confronting their bigotry, this principal and the school board chose not to apply long-standing normative codes of behaviour and human rights law.
An instinctive political correctness set in. Out of fear of being labeled racist or Islamophobic
those in charge stifled their commitment to professional ethics and behaviour codes reflecting Canadian standards of pluralism and respect.
Imagine a reverse situation. Imagine if the aggressors and bigots were heritage Canadians harassing a Muslim teacher with these hateful words. It would have been a cause celebre and the media would have called for an investigative inquiry into the origins of the serious social problem represented by these racialized students and their families.
If preventative measures are not taken, if it is not made clear in no uncertain terms through education and persuasive push-back in this school and all schools where there are critical masses of students arriving from countries drenched in anti-Semitism, Jew hatred will metastasize in those cultural communities that consider it a norm, increasing exponentially.”
There are many such schools in Britain and Europe where the atmosphere is so strained and hostile to anyone but Islamic kinship groups that they are simply no-go fiefdoms -Islamic mini-societies within the larger culture. We mustn't think that can't happen here, because it can. It is happening already.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/30/...
Is Islamophobia the problem or is Muslim anti-Western and antisemitic attitudes the problem?
Is Islamophobia the problem or is Muslim anti-Western and antisemitic attitudes the problem?
Jackson: "I have had it with you."
You have had it with me because you cannot answer my question. You keep saying that I don't get it, but you provide no logical analysis. You just insult me and say I am being willfully ignorant. To the contrary, I keep asking you how Ramadan's statement is anti-Jewish, and you don't answer. That is becaue it is not anti-Jewish to state that the UDC is more solicitous of Swiss Jews than it is Swiss Muslims.
"Is Islamophobia the problem or is Muslim anti-Western and antisemitic attitudes the problem?"
Both are problems Jackson.
Jackson: "I have had it with you."
You have had it with me because you cannot answer my question. You keep saying that I don't get it, but you provide no logical analysis. You just insult me and say I am being willfully ignorant. To the contrary, I keep asking you how Ramadan's statement is anti-Jewish, and you don't answer. That is becaue it is not anti-Jewish to state that the UDC is more solicitous of Swiss Jews than it is Swiss Muslims.
"Is Islamophobia the problem or is Muslim anti-Western and antisemitic attitudes the problem?"
Both are problems Jackson.
Took him a whole day to think of the double talk he posted above.
Took him a whole day to think of the double talk he posted above.
"it is not anti-Jewish to state that the UDC is more solicitous of Swiss Jews than it is Swiss Muslims."
Why do you think Ramadan believes that the UDC is more solicitous of Swiss Jews than it is Swiss Muslims? What exactly is the reference to, in the back of his mind, when he makes that particular statement? Why would he even say it, in this context? What purpose does it serve? What is the challenge he poses to Swiss political awareness when he tells them that because they are mindful of Jewish sensitivities, they go after the Muslims? What seems to be the wish underlying this statement? What is he getting at, exactly?
"it is not anti-Jewish to state that the UDC is more solicitous of Swiss Jews than it is Swiss Muslims."
Why do you think Ramadan believes that the UDC is more solicitous of Swiss Jews than it is Swiss Muslims? What exactly is the reference to, in the back of his mind, when he makes that particular statement? Why would he even say it, in this context? What purpose does it serve? What is the challenge he poses to Swiss political awareness when he tells them that because they are mindful of Jewish sensitivities, they go after the Muslims? What seems to be the wish underlying this statement? What is he getting at, exactly?
dhurtado said:
"it is not anti-Jewish to state that the UDC is more solicitous of Swiss Jews than it is Swiss Muslims."
Perhaps not, if it is true about the UDC? But what if the remark is false, i.e., is it Ramadan's *opinion* or is he stating a fact? If fact, I (and others here, I believe) need evidence to verify it. Do you know what that evidence is (or would be)? Or do you believe Ramadan's word should be taken at face value, no questions asked. If yes, why do you so believe?? What is Ramadan's 'track record' of believability? Is he really impartial, disinterested, objective concerning this issue - for example?
And, as noga asks, what is the point of making the allegation in the first place? ... view full comment
dhurtado said:
"it is not anti-Jewish to state that the UDC is more solicitous of Swiss Jews than it is Swiss Muslims."
Perhaps not, if it is true about the UDC? But what if the remark is false, i.e., is it Ramadan's *opinion* or is he stating a fact? If fact, I (and others here, I believe) need evidence to verify it. Do you know what that evidence is (or would be)? Or do you believe Ramadan's word should be taken at face value, no questions asked. If yes, why do you so believe?? What is Ramadan's 'track record' of believability? Is he really impartial, disinterested, objective concerning this issue - for example?
And, as noga asks, what is the point of making the allegation in the first place? *Is there a point?!?* Then, what is it?? Why is it important, or significant,or helpful to know?
Here's what I believe that I think should be acknowledged without contest: it isn't a g**d***ned non sequitur. I believe Ramadan is not in the habit of stating non-sequiturs aloud (if you will)?
Finally, as jackson observes, why "the Jews" why always in any controversial, explosive issue where Muslims, or Islam, are involved, why must "the Jews" always be inserted in some dramatic fashion?
What, why, when, where, *AND WHO*? these aren't idle considerations, wouldn't you agree, dhurtado?
It is
Noga/Tgossard,
I do not know Ramadan and have not read any other writings of his. Perhaps you are imputing to his statement a subtext based on his prior writings. And you may be justified in doing so. On its face, however, I take his statement to be that the UDC would have gone further than the minaret-ban in seeking anti-Muslim legislation but for its reluctance to pursue legislation that might be offensive to Jews in Switzerland. That is not on its face anti-Jewish. Even if it is not true, it is not on its face anti-Jewish. Without a historical context, I take Ramadan's purpose to be to impugn the UDC as harboring an anti-Muslim bigotry that is even more extreme than the minaret ban w ... view full comment
Noga/Tgossard,
I do not know Ramadan and have not read any other writings of his. Perhaps you are imputing to his statement a subtext based on his prior writings. And you may be justified in doing so. On its face, however, I take his statement to be that the UDC would have gone further than the minaret-ban in seeking anti-Muslim legislation but for its reluctance to pursue legislation that might be offensive to Jews in Switzerland. That is not on its face anti-Jewish. Even if it is not true, it is not on its face anti-Jewish. Without a historical context, I take Ramadan's purpose to be to impugn the UDC as harboring an anti-Muslim bigotry that is even more extreme than the minaret ban would suggest. He does not say that the UDC is going after Muslims BECAUSE they are mindful of Jewish sensitivities. To the contrary, he says the UDC BACKED OFF from more virulent anti-Muslim bigotry because it was mindful of Jewish sensibilities.
That said, if Ramadan indeed has a history of interjecting Jews into every discussion involving Islam, then you may very well have a point. At minimum, I appreciate you adding some context to this discussion.
Here is a story with an ironic twist. apparently it is not racism or Islamophobia if Muslims do the banning of mosques:
"The Ahmadis were trying to build a mosque in Walsall, and the Muslim community joined in the fight against it. They succeeded. The local council rejected the idea. This was just a few days after the Swiss were called 'racists' for deciding to ban minarets. Talk about cutting the branch you're sitting on."
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/12/quote-freedom-of-worship-for-a...
Here is a story with an ironic twist. apparently it is not racism or Islamophobia if Muslims do the banning of mosques:
"The Ahmadis were trying to build a mosque in Walsall, and the Muslim community joined in the fight against it. They succeeded. The local council rejected the idea. This was just a few days after the Swiss were called 'racists' for deciding to ban minarets. Talk about cutting the branch you're sitting on."
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/12/quote-freedom-of-worship-for-a...
" it is not on its face anti-Jewish.... Without a historical context, "
It's true. You could have no notion, and no warning chimes would be going off, if you heard a statement like this:
"And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew."
until you realized who was making it and why:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/speech-text.shtml
Interesting how your demonstrated ability to be sceptical in the case of Ramadan, flew out of the window when you responded to my, and others', m ... view full comment
" it is not on its face anti-Jewish.... Without a historical context, "
It's true. You could have no notion, and no warning chimes would be going off, if you heard a statement like this:
"And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew."
until you realized who was making it and why:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/speech-text.shtml
Interesting how your demonstrated ability to be sceptical in the case of Ramadan, flew out of the window when you responded to my, and others', misgivings about the same.
Those sensitive Jews, eh? Wink wink nudge nudge.
without comment:
obtuse |əbˈt(y)oōs; äb-|
adjective
1 annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand : "he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse." See note at stupid .
ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [blunt] ): from Latin obtusus, past participle of obtundere ‘beat against’ (see obtund ).
without comment:
obtuse |əbˈt(y)oōs; äb-|
adjective
1 annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand : "he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse." See note at stupid .
ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [blunt] ): from Latin obtusus, past participle of obtundere ‘beat against’ (see obtund ).
Noga/Tgossard,
I give you the benefit of the doubt, and sure enough you lack any grace in your responses. I repeat, on its face, there is nothing whatsoever anti-Semitic about Ramadan's statement that the UDC deferred to Jewish sensibilities in limiting its anti-Muslim referendum to the banning of minarets. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by allowing that there might be prior writings of Ramadan that place his comment in a different context, such as that he has a propensity for interjecting references to Jews even where such interjections have no apparent relevance. But so far you have not actually demonstrated that to be the case, nor have you shown specfically why Ramadan's statement ... view full comment
Noga/Tgossard,
I give you the benefit of the doubt, and sure enough you lack any grace in your responses. I repeat, on its face, there is nothing whatsoever anti-Semitic about Ramadan's statement that the UDC deferred to Jewish sensibilities in limiting its anti-Muslim referendum to the banning of minarets. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by allowing that there might be prior writings of Ramadan that place his comment in a different context, such as that he has a propensity for interjecting references to Jews even where such interjections have no apparent relevance. But so far you have not actually demonstrated that to be the case, nor have you shown specfically why Ramadan's statement should be interpreted as anti-Semitic.
Noga, your comparison of Ramadan’s article to Himmler’s speech borders on the psychotic. Indeed, the comparison trivializes the Holocaust. Himmler was expressly speaking of the extermination of the Jews. Even the excerpt from Himmler that you quote, "And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew[,]” is on its face anti-Semitic because it implies that a “decent Jew” is an anomaly.
"Noga, your comparison of Ramadan’s article to Himmler’s speech borders on the psychotic."
How can you be so sure, since you yourself just declared yourself ignorant of any previous knowledge about Ramadan? How do you know what stinky positions he harbors?
His intentions for Israel can certainly be compared to Himmler's genocidal project. "It is not possible, just yet, to destroy Israel", he said to an Egyptian audience. I don't suppose that would count as antisemitism. Or his donations to Hamas, a genocidal organization. I was wondering how it was possible to read Ramadan's words and not be alarmed at the non-sequitur, the utter superfluous, gratuitous mention of Jews in this context.
Y ... view full comment
"Noga, your comparison of Ramadan’s article to Himmler’s speech borders on the psychotic."
How can you be so sure, since you yourself just declared yourself ignorant of any previous knowledge about Ramadan? How do you know what stinky positions he harbors?
His intentions for Israel can certainly be compared to Himmler's genocidal project. "It is not possible, just yet, to destroy Israel", he said to an Egyptian audience. I don't suppose that would count as antisemitism. Or his donations to Hamas, a genocidal organization. I was wondering how it was possible to read Ramadan's words and not be alarmed at the non-sequitur, the utter superfluous, gratuitous mention of Jews in this context.
You never answered my question:
Why do you think Ramadan believes that the UDC is more solicitous of Swiss Jews than it is Swiss Muslims? What exactly is the reference to, in the back of his mind, when he makes that particular statement? Why would he even say it, in this context? What purpose does it serve? What is the challenge he poses to Swiss political awareness when he tells them that because they are mindful of Jewish sensitivities, they go after the Muslims? What seems to be the wish underlying this statement? What is he getting at, exactly?
The comparison, Noga, is between Ramadan's article and Himmler's speech. There is nothing in Ramadan's article even remotely comparable to Himmler's speech. There is nothing in Ramadan's article from which it could be inferred that he wants to kill Jews or destroy Israel. Himmler expressly endorsed the extermination of the Jews.
Yes, I did answer your question Noga. You apparently are not paying attention. From my post above:
"I take his statement to be that the UDC would have gone further than the minaret-ban in seeking anti-Muslim legislation but for its reluctance to pursue legislation that might be offensive to Jews in Switzerland. That is not on its face anti-Jewish. Even if it is ... view full comment
The comparison, Noga, is between Ramadan's article and Himmler's speech. There is nothing in Ramadan's article even remotely comparable to Himmler's speech. There is nothing in Ramadan's article from which it could be inferred that he wants to kill Jews or destroy Israel. Himmler expressly endorsed the extermination of the Jews.
Yes, I did answer your question Noga. You apparently are not paying attention. From my post above:
"I take his statement to be that the UDC would have gone further than the minaret-ban in seeking anti-Muslim legislation but for its reluctance to pursue legislation that might be offensive to Jews in Switzerland. That is not on its face anti-Jewish. Even if it is not true, it is not on its face anti-Jewish. . . . I take Ramadan's purpose to be to impugn the UDC as harboring an anti-Muslim bigotry that is even more extreme than the minaret ban would suggest. He does not say that the UDC is going after Muslims BECAUSE they are mindful of Jewish sensitivities. To the contrary, he says the UDC BACKED OFF from more virulent anti-Muslim bigotry because it was mindful of Jewish sensibilities."