Jewish and Muslim students threatened in South Carolina - Ben Ariel

by Ben Ariel

High school in upstate South Carolina to have extra security measures after Jewish and Muslim students threatened on social media.

A high school in upstate South Carolina will have extra security measures in place when students return after the Labor Day weekend, after Jewish and Muslim students were threatened on social media, JTA reported Sunday.

A student reported the “extremely vulgar” threats to the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office on Friday night, according to local media.

The threats targeted Jewish and Muslim students at Byrnes High School, saying the school would be attacked Tuesday and including pictures of a person in a gas mask and a knife with a swastika on the handle, according to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal.

The Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office took screenshots of the threats on Facebook posts.
Law enforcement told local media they would patrol the school over the weekend and make sweeps of the campus. There are 12 schools in the district, and each will have additional security, noted JTA.

“I was very alarmed when I saw the post and how vile some of the language was and how direct the threats were, and not only against our students but families of our students, and in today’s culture, the discourse that is going on and what’s happened in our own country and in other countries, we’re taking it very seriously,” Dr. Scott Turner, the district’s superintendent, said Saturday night.

“I want to ensure our parents and community that we are taking these threats extremely seriously, and are doing everything possible to make sure our campuses are secure. We are working with law enforcement to ensure the individual who made these threats is found,” Turner also said in a statement.

There were two incidents of bomb threats causing evacuations of Jewish institutions in the U.S. this past May.

In one incident, the Jewish Community Center of Greater Ann Arbor, Michigan, was evacuated after an unknown person called in a bomb threat.

Ann Arbor police brought bomb-sniffing dogs to the building, but no explosives were found inside the JCC or on its grounds, according to the report. Staff and students were cleared to return to the building after about an hour.

In a separate incident, a Jewish community center in suburban Phoenix was temporarily evacuated after a bomb threat was phoned in.

In the past year, several other JCCs and Jewish institutions have been evacuated following bomb threats, including ones in Ann Arbor, Michigan; Palm Beach Gardens and Maitland, Florida; and Louisville, Kentucky.


Ben Ariel

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/217344

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

We Citizens Have to Guard the Media 'Guardians' - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

Mainstream media journalists rationalize their war on Trump.

The mainstream media’s lopsided coverage of the presidential campaign has gotten so blatantly anti-Trump and pro-Hillary that even some progressives are starting to notice. The New York Times’ media reporter Jim Rutenberg last month had a front-page column slyly justifying the bias by a clever use of rhetorical questions: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?”

Rutenberg’s dubious implication is that Trump is so outrageously unprecedented and dangerous a candidate in American history that he can’t be covered objectively. “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.” But Rutenberg says he rues this development, for it compromises “that idealistic form of journalism with a capital ‘J’ we’ve been trained to always strive for.” 

Say what? Was it an “idealistic form of journalism” when the media carried on its “slobbering love affair,” as Bernie Goldberg put it, with Barack Obama in 2008? Where were the intrepid “guardians” of the public weal when the media ignored the gaps in Obama’s history, his fabrications in his memoirs, and his associations with the racist pastor Jeremiah Wright and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayres? Or when Journolist, an online discussion group of journalists and activists, colluded to downplay these unpleasant facts and coordinate negative coverage of the Republicans? 

Or how about CNN Political Correspondent Candy Crowley in the 2012 presidential debate, violating every canon of professional objectivity when she intruded herself into the debate in Obama’s favor by backing up his false claim that he had called the Benghazi attacks an act of terror? And don’t forget Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, who recently wrote in Time magazine, “Like it or not, this election is a plebiscite on the most divisive, polarizing and disrupting figure in American politics in decades. And neutrality is not an option.” Or CNN calling “false,” without any evidence, AP’s story that more than half of Hillary’s non-governmental meetings while Secretary of State were with donors to her foundation. Are these examples of “idealistic” journalism?

Despite all this contrary evidence, Rutenberg recycles one of the progressive media’s most cherished self-justifying myths, that there really is an “objective” journalism they supposedly practice. Such a notion has seldom existed in American history, and has especially been scarce since the 1960s, when activist journalism came out of the closet with its ideological coverage of Vietnam and then Watergate, all perfumed with the spurious claim to journalistic integrity and public service. 

The truth is, journalism has been a form of political activism long before Jim Rutenberg noticed. Orville Schell, dean of the prestigious UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism from 1996-2006, was not shy about embracing this role for journalism: “In a democracy,” Schell wrote over a decade ago, “indeed in any intelligent society, the media and politicians have to lead. The media should be introducing us to new things, interesting things, things we don’t already know about; helping us change our minds or make up our minds, not just pandering to lowest-denominator wisdom.”

As I wrote about this statement in 2004,

This brief statement is a gold mine of liberal media pathologies. First, there is the assertion that the media––staffed by the unelected and run by those dedicated to profit––should “lead” us. Lead us where? Who decides where we should go? Based on what ideas or principles? And how do we hold these media “leaders” accountable? 
The fundamental elitist assumption is that the people need “leading” in the first place, since they are incapable of knowing on their own where they should be going and how they should get there. Thus the media should be “helping us change our minds.” Again, who decides to which ideas our minds should be changed? Those in the media, who use their influence to promote their particular ideologies, prejudices, and preferences, not to mention their own careers? The blurring of reporting and opinion . . . has never been so brazenly asserted.

Orville’s attitude is dominant among the mainstream media today. The current excesses we see in the coverage of this year’s presidential election are simply more shameless examples of the same activism.

But we need to look more closely at the begged question that “objective” journalism about anything other than obvious facts should be the norm, or that it is even widely and consistently possible. Until the progressive movement created the camouflage of “objectivity,” American newspapers wore their political biases on their sleeves, which is why so many newspapers had titles including the words “Democrat” or “Republican.” Just as old are complaints about the demagogic political coverage by newspapers and other periodicals. In 1805, Federalist antidemocrat Fisher Ames groused that “by supplying an endless stimulus to [the people’s] imagination and passions,” the press “has rendered their temper and habits infinitely worse . . . Public affairs are transacted now on a stage where all the interests and passions grow out of fiction.” But unlike today’s progressives and their phony love for the “people,” Ames was frankly dismissive of the masses and their susceptibility to such manipulation, which in turn justified limiting their participation in government.

It was the progressives of the late 19^th century, constantly touting their desire to “perfect” American democracy and better serve the “people,” who had a different solution to the problem of what we would call media bias. In his 1919 book Liberty and the News, progressive Walter Lippmann was equally dismissive of the journalists of his day, whose task had “become confused with the work of preachers, revivalists, prophets and agitators.” His influential solution was to make journalism a “profession” conducted according to the canons of science, and for society to provide “genuine training schools for the men upon whose sagacity [the citizens] were dependent.” Such schools would have “to wait upon the development of psychology and political science,” but once armed with such knowledge, they could become objective journalists, above all the political passions of less “sagacious” folk. Then journalists, like scientists, would practice a “unity of method, rather than of aim; the unity of the disciplined experiment.” Hence today most journalists are products of the progressive university cocoon, unlike in the past, when reporters typically came from the gritty streets of the working class.

In short, Lippmann was advocating for the same pseudo-scientific techniques of governing and controlling the people that progressives over the next century would inflict on citizens through a bloated federal government comprising regulatory agencies staffed by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. Left unchallenged is the idea that politics––an activity driven in the main not by rational, objective policy discussions, but by the conflicting passions and interests of flawed human beings––can be understood and managed scientifically. Equally delusional is the progressive notion that “professional” journalists trained in a rational “method” and Olympian objectivity will not be influenced by their own ideological passions and interests.

So what’s the solution? The proliferation of news and opinion sources created by talk radio, social media, and the Internet has partially has restored balance among conflicting political ideas. Instead of three television networks and maybe fifty columnists and magazine writers monopolizing and manipulating public opinion, today there are hundreds of thousands of diverse voices, all instantly accountable to the collective wisdom––or reflective of the passions and follies––of millions of consumers. We have returned to the pre-television era when every major city had numerous newspapers, each openly displaying its political preference.

But such variety of information sources means that each of us has to take responsibility for exercising our own critical judgment about what we read and hear from the media, and expect that they are necessarily biased, despite their protestations of fealty to objectivity and truth. Millions of citizens fail to do so, of course, in every election, but the responsibility for the consequences of that failure lies with them. And so it must be in a free society in which the people regulate political power, for there is no genuine political freedom without responsibility and accountability for the decisions freely made. The continuing viability of democratic freedom depends on us using that judgment and proving, contrary to the technocratic progressive elites, that the people are capable of self-rule. 

The Roman satirist Juvenal asked, “Who will guard the guardians?” In a free Republic, the answer is we the people.


Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264020/we-citizens-have-guard-media-guardians-bruce-thornton

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Globalism: The Religion of Empire - Fay Voshell

by Fay Voshell

“Damn the United States!  I wish I may never hear of the United States again!”

So said the enraged antihero of  “A Man without a Country,”  a short story published in The Atlantic in December, 1863. The United states was still in the middle of a war that would determine whether or not the nation would survive as one or as a nation divided; a war fought largely because of ideas about what it meant to be a nation, what it meant to be human and what it meant to be a people of faith.

The protagonist, a young man named Phillip Nolan, had been tried for and convicted of treason when he rashly uttered the words that sealed his fate.  Nolan got his wish.  He was exiled on a series of ships, an exile that never ended.  No one ever spoke to him again of his country. It was only as Nolan lay dying that he heard about the America he’d repudiated some fifty-five years before his demise.

At the end Nolan realizes he loves his country more than family. Without his country, he feels he is nothing. As the man to Nolan was allowed to say his last words relates:

“Then he asked me to bring the Presbyterian 'Book of Public Prayer...and I knelt down and read, and he repeated with me -- 'For ourselves and our country, O gracious God, we thank Thee, that, notwithstanding our manifold transgressions of Thy holy laws, Thou hast continued to us Thy marvelous kindness.'
“Then he turned to the end of the same book, and I read the words more familiar to me -- 'Most heartily we beseech Thee with Thy favor to behold and bless Thy servant, the President of the United States, and all others in authority' -- and the rest of the Episcopal collect. 'Danforth,' said he, 'I have repeated those prayers night and morning, it is now fifty-five years.' And then he said he would go to sleep.
“And I went away.”

How alien the spirituality and vision of “The Man without a Country” seems today. Who today would have the temerity to write as Edward Everett Hale wrote? To do so would be to have one’s literary death sentence decreed by the New York Times. Most certainly a writer like Hale would not be read by today’s globalists, for whom such godly piety combined with love of nation is anathema.

As for Hale’s vision of nations and Christianity? 

The “opiate of the people” is to be replaced by a new beatific vision of a globalist, secular world order that is the antithesis yet imitator of the vision of the Kingdom of God represented by the Church universal; a vision articulated by St. Augustine in his City of God that is the transcendent Kingdom of God revealed and ruled by Christ. 

Replacing the beatific vision of Christianity is a new universal, but secularist world order ushered in; an order in which human beings’ allegiance is to a global City of Men ruled by elite priests who act as gods for the masses.  Preachers of the globalist vision present an ersatz kingdom that is the opposite of the City of God. 

Like the Christian vision of the universal Kingdom of God, the religion of secular globalism claims universality, but is an earthly minded substitute for the Church universal. The Christian vision sees the Church universal as God’s kingdom ruling the earth. The religion of globalism sees an earthly, utopian world order in which all men pay allegiance to elite priests who rule over a World City without national borders. 

Sometimes the substitute beatific vision is expressed in terms of a “global village,” a mystical entity that takes the place of the family of God. The globalists’ family of humanity is without distinction of country, tribe or creed. The ideal human being, like Phillip Nolan, is seen as detached from country and faith. He is exiled from everything that gives his life meaning in order he become an abstraction, a tabula rasa on which a new program might be written by those who are superior. The universal citizen of the new secularist world order does not know yet what he will be. But rest assured he will be told by those who know better than he.

The world citizen adrift in a sea without horizons will come to know this much: Anything to which he has been or is attached must be and will be demolished. The secularist vision requires complete destruction of the old; including nations, institutions, faith and even historical memory itself; hence, for instance, the constant attacks on the Christian Church and on the reality and concept of nation and the human being. Devotion to faith, family, nation is not only suspect, but considered positively injurious.

In sum, the ideology of globalism involves stripping humanity of its former and unique status as beings created in imago dei and the substitution of the idea of humanity as genderless units.

As Eric Hoffer, author of the prescient book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements wrote:  

“To ripen a person for self-sacrifice he must be stripped of his individual identity and distinctiveness. He must cease to be George, Hans, Ivan, or Tadao -- a human atom with an existence bounded by birth and death. The most drastic way to achieve this end is by assimilation of the individual into a collective body.  The fully assimilated individual does not see himself and others as human beings…To a man utterly without a sense of belonging, mere life is all that matters.  It is the only reality in an eternity of nothingness, and he clings to it with shameless despair.
“The effacement of individual separateness must be thorough.  In every act, however trivial, the individual must by some ritual associate himself with the congregation, the tribe, the party, etcetera.  His joys and sorrows, his pride and confidence must spring form the fortunes and capacities of the group rather than from his individual prospects and abilities.  Above all, he must never feel alone. (Must always be watched by the group.) The individual is absorbed into the collective.”

Globalists embrace what Hoffer recognized as an “unbounded contempt for history.” The erasure of history inevitably means attacking the past and established institutions possessing history; institutions such as the Church and documents such as the U.S. Constitution. Only the future matters. The present is busy with wreckage of what exists, even if what presently exists has a thousand year or more heritage.

That is because for globalists, the present is a shadow and illusion -- merely a “passageway to the glorious future.” It is a meagre “way station on the road to Utopia…The radical and the reactionary loathe the present.” 

Therefore, the present is treated ruthlessly, including the present bodily form of the human.  Both must be mercilessly scourged in order something new is created; something perfectly fitted for the new vision.

As Hoffer writes, “The radical has a passionate faith in the infinite perfectibility of human nature.  He believes that by changing man’s environment and by perfecting a technique of soul forming, a society can be wrought that is wholly new and unprecedented.”

Ultimately the new beatific vision for humankind means embracing the Hegelian concept of a collective consciousness, a “Geist” that is a single “mind” common to all men. What is that vision?

As philosopher R.C. Solomon noted, “The entre sweep of [Hegel’s]‘The Phenomenology of Spirit’ is away from the ‘disharmonious’ conception of men as individuals to the ‘absolute’ conception of all men as one. In the ‘phenomenology’ we are concerned with the inadequacy of the conceptions of one’s self as an individual in opposition to others…and in opposition to God.”

For Hegel, Solomon goes on to say, this opposition is resolved by a conception of one’s self as a member of a family or community.  Absolute consciousness (salvation) is recognition of one’s self as universal spirit.  “The concept of ‘Geist’ is the hallmark of a theory of self-identity -- a theory in which I am something other than a person.” [Italics added.]

The transgender movement, for example, is the spearpoint of a philosophy in which humanity is something other than people as previously understood for thousands of years.  It is a proselytizing movement on behalf of Hegel’s idea of the world geist. As such, it is not a civil rights movement, but a direct attempt to denature humanity; that is, to smash the ancient concept of humanity as made imago dei.   It is an attempt to radically transform humanity itself, replace Judeo/Christian concept of the human being with a de-gendered, robotic and malleable unit -- a nonperson who is merely part of the universal world soul.

But to be a unit detached from nation, faith and even one’s individual humanity is to be nobody.  It is to be a drifter in a sea of nothingness even more surely than Philip Nolan was adrift at sea; who was, yes, a man without a country, but a man nonetheless.

To become a unit with nothing to believe in, not even one’s own humanity; to have nothing to be loyal or faithful to; to be a nonentity without family, nation or faith is be become a slave.  The new globalist world order would make slaves of us all, fit only to serve a cabal of superiors. 

In the above respect, the new world vision is nothing new.  It is merely the revival of the rationales behind all empires, ancient and modern. Whether the vision of Hellenization dreamed of by Alexander the Great; whether the vision of eternal Rome ruled by demi-god Caesars; whether the vision of a Thousand Year Reich ruled by a noble race; whether the vision of a global communist international brotherhood in which the common man was to reign -- the actualization of the imperial, earthly vision of man is always the same. Human beings are regarded as units to be ruled by powerful others. Human beings are enslaved.

Against those visions and the present day globalist vision stands the Christian beatific vision of the New Jerusalem, a view in which the entire human race, men and women, are transformed by the realities of the transcendent Kingdom of God, putting the beatific vision of a holy city to work here on earth.

Which vision will prevail will depend on the retrieval of the idea of the human being as created imago dei; and along with that, the revival of the unique stories and heritages of nations; particularly, the revival of the idea of nations as under the sovereign rule of a loving God who created all of us.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.  Her thoughts have appeared in many online journals, including RealClearReligion, CNS, Fox News, National Review, Russia Insider and many others.  She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/09/globalism_the_religion_of_empire_.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Oslo Disaster - Prof. Efraim Karsh

by Prof. Efraim Karsh

“It has been a disaster for West Bank and Gaza Palestinians too. It has brought about subjugation to corrupt and repressive PLO and Hamas regimes. These regimes have reversed the hesitant advent of civil society in these territories, shattered their socioeconomic wellbeing, and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation with Israel ever more remote.”

Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 123

“Twenty three years after its euphoric launch on the White House lawn,” Karsh writes in this comprehensive study, “the Oslo ‘peace process’ has substantially worsened the position of both parties and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation ever more remote.”

“The process has led to establishment of an ineradicable terror entity on Israel’s doorstep, deepened Israel’s internal cleavages, destabilized its political system, and weakened its international standing.”

“It has been a disaster for West Bank and Gaza Palestinians too. It has brought about subjugation to corrupt and repressive PLO and Hamas regimes. These regimes have reversed the hesitant advent of civil society in these territories, shattered their socioeconomic wellbeing, and made the prospects for peace and reconciliation with Israel ever more remote.”

“This abject failure is a direct result of the Palestinian leadership’s perception of the process as a pathway not to a two-state solution – meaning Israel alongside a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza – but to the subversion of the State of Israel. They view Oslo not as a path to nation-building and state creation, but to the formation of a repressive terror entity that perpetuates conflict with Israel, while keeping its hapless constituents in constant and bewildered awe as Palestinian leaders line their pockets from the proceeds of this misery.”

Karsh details at length how the Oslo process has weakened Israel’s national security in several key respects.

On the strategic and military levels, it allowed the PLO to achieve in one fell swoop its strategic vision of transforming the West Bank and the Gaza Strip into terror hotbeds that would disrupt Israel’s way of life (to use Yasser Arafat’s words).

Politically and diplomatically, he says, Oslo instantaneously transformed the PLO (and, to a lesser extent, Hamas) into an internationally accepted political actor while upholding its commitment to Israel’s destruction, edging toward fully fledged statehood outside the Oslo framework, and steadily undermining Israel’s international standing.

The ending of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian population of the territories within three-and-a-half years from the onset of the process has gone totally unnoticed (due partly to Palestinian propaganda, partly to Israel’s failure to get this critical point across), with the Jewish state still subject to international opprobrium for the nonexistent “occupation.”

Domestically, Oslo radicalized Israel’s Arab minority, nipping in the bud its decades-long “Israelization” process and putting it on a collision course with Israel’s Jewish community. No less importantly, it made Israeli politics captive to the vicissitudes of Palestinian-Israeli relations, with the PLO and Hamas becoming the effective arbiters of Israel’s political discourse and electoral process.

“On the face of it,” Karsh writes, “Israel’s massive setbacks can be considered Palestinian gains. Yet one’s loss is not necessarily the other’s gain. The Palestinian leadership’s zero-sum approach and predication of Palestinian national identity on hatred of the ‘other,’ rather than on a distinct shared legacy, has resulted in decades of dispersal and statelessness.”

“Even if the PLO were to succeed in gaining international recognition of a fully fledged Palestinian state (with or without a formal peace treaty with Israel) and in preventing Hamas from seizing power, it would still be a failed entity in the worst tradition of Arab dictatorships, in permanent conflict with its Israeli neighbor while brutally repressing its unfortunate subjects.”

Karsh bemoans that fact that “there has been no real reckoning by the Oslo architects and their erstwhile ‘peace camp’ successors, both in Israel and abroad, of the worst blunder in Israel’s history, and no rethinking of its disastrously misconceived assumptions – let alone any public admission of guilt or show of remorse over its horrific costs.”

“Instead, they continue to willfully ignore the Palestinian leadership’s total lack of interest in the two-state solution and serial violation of contractual obligations. They continue to whitewash ongoing Palestinian violence, belittle the extent of Israeli suffering, and blame Jerusalem for the stalled process despite the public endorsement of the two-state solution by five successive Israeli prime ministers: Peres, Barak, Sharon, Olmert, and Netanyahu.”

“Not only has the same terror-tainted Palestinian leadership come to be universally viewed as the prospective government of a future Palestinian state, but its goal of having this state established without negotiating with Israel, or even recognizing its right to exist, seems to be gaining ever wider currency.  This soft racism – asking nothing of the Palestinians as if they are too dim or too primitive to be held accountable for their own words and actions – is an assured recipe for disaster.”

“For so long as not a single Palestinian leader evinces genuine acceptance of the two-state solution or acts in a way signifying an unqualified embrace of the idea, there can be no true or lasting reconciliation with Israel. And so long as the territories continue to be governed by the PLO’s and Hamas’s rule of the jungle, no Palestinian civil society, let alone a viable state, can develop.”

“Just as the creation of free and democratic societies in Germany and Japan after World War II necessitated a comprehensive sociopolitical and educational transformation, so it will only be when Palestinian society undergoes a real ‘spring’ that the century-long conflict between Arabs and Jews can at long last be resolved and a semi-functioning Palestinian state come into being. This requires sweeping the corrupt and oppressive PLO and Hamas rulers from power, eliminating endemic violence from political and social life, and teaching the virtues of coexistence with Israeli neighbors.”

“Sadly, the possibility of a Palestinian spring, which seemed to be in the offing in 1993 when the PLO hovered on the verge of extinction and West Bank and Gaza leadership appeared eager to strike a historic deal within the framework of the Washington peace negotiations, has been destroyed for the foreseeable future by the Oslo ‘peace process’.”

A renowned authority on Middle Eastern history and politics, Prof. Karsh has authored over 100 scholarly articles and sixteen books, and is editor of the Middle East Quarterly and Israel Affairs academic journals.

He taught for 25 years at King’s College London, where he founded and directed the Middle East and Mediterranean Studies Program (currently the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies). In 2013 he joined Bar-Ilan University as professor of political science. In November 2016 he will succeed Prof. Efraim Inbar as director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Prof. Karsh will lecture (in Hebrew) on his conclusions this Wednesday September 7, 2016 at 5 pm (BESA Center, building 203, room 131, Bar-Ilan University).

PDF


Prof. Efraim Karsh, the incoming director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, skewers the Oslo diplomatic process as “the starkest strategic blunder in Israel’s history” and as “one of the worst calamities ever to have afflicted Israelis and Palestinians.”

Source: http://besacenter.org/mideast-security-and-policy-studies/msps123-karsh-the-oslo-disaster/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Kurds, against all odds - Prof. Eyal Zisser

by Prof. Eyal Zisser

Kurds do not receive the same support and attention from the international media, nor the same affection that "enlightened circles" across the planet generously grant the Palestinians

Between 30 million and 40 million Kurds live in the Middle East, from Iran in the east to the Syrian coast in the West. It is not a unified tribe; there are many political differences, and cultural ones as well, that divide the Kurdish communities in Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria. And yet, over the past century a national identity has blossomed to unite them, in the name of which they seek the right to self-determination and even the right to live in their own nation state.

The 20th century, however, was a failure for the Kurdish struggle, even when other artificial states with no historical roots were created from nothing, such as Syria or Iraq, which are now shattering to pieces. 

It is fair to say the Kurds played a part in their own failure to secure an independent state, due to their lack of unity around the question of leadership. At the same time, though, one cannot ignore the fact that the Kurds do not receive the same support and attention from the international media, nor the same affection that "enlightened circles" across the planet generously grant the Palestinians. The world does not stand with the Kurds, and that mainly applies to global powers that have used them to advance their own interests but abandoned them in the moment of truth. And we can assume that in the future as well, the Kurds will again be left to their fate. 

Here we have a large ethnic minority which is undeniably unique in both its history and culture, and yet is supported by no one in its struggle to receive its own state. It is quite possible that the Kurdish dream of a state will remain out of reach for the foreseeable future. 

For many years, the Kurds in Iraq fought the dictatorial Saddam Hussein regime, but they were only able to carve autonomy for themselves after the Iraqi state disintegrated. This autonomous framework exists in large part due to the goodwill of Washington, which needs the Kurds because they provide the only trustworthy foundation in the Iraqi sphere, certainly in regards to the war against Islamic state. Ironically, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also supports the Kurds in Iraq, as part of his fight for regional hegemony against Iran, which is supported by the Shiites in Iraq. 

The Kurds in Syria are currently in the eye of the storm. For years, their relationship with the Baathist regime was respectful yet suspicious, and when the revolution erupted they chose a policy of sitting on the fence. After all, from the beginning they never had faith in the Syrian rebels, who just like the President Bashar Assad regime opposed their nationalistic aspirations in Syria.

Aided by the chaos in Syria, the Kurds have tried benefiting from all worlds. They are cautiously venturing to form autonomous institutions, while their militia is fighting to secure territorial continuity in the north, with aim of establishing a true autonomy there similar to the one that exists in Iraq. This endeavor, of course, was a call to arms for Turkey, which is fearful of Kurdish sentiments in Syria spilling over the border, and whose relationship with the Kurdish population at home is already at a boiling point.

Thus the Kurds are maintaining a dialogue with the Syrian regime and with the Russians, who want to use them to hit the Syrian rebels -- Arabs supported by Turkey and Arab states. Meanwhile, Washington has also come to their aid, coldly calculating that the Kurds can be used to fight Islamic State. As usual, however, when it comes to the Obama administration, American policy is shortsighted, merely capitalizing on a tactical and perhaps cynical opportunity that could end in the abandonment of the Kurds when American interests call for appeasing Turkey; or as part of a deal with Russia and the Assad regime to end the war in Syria.

It appears the regional and global game is too big for the Kurds. When they are called to the table once the fighting ends, they are liable to discover they were invited to be part of the menu, not a fellow victor to feast on the spoils of war. But this is the painful reality in our region, and the Kurds are one of the more prominent examples of it.

Prof. Eyal Zisser

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=17085

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Europe Debates the Burkini - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

"We will colonize you with your democratic laws." — Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Egyptian Islamic cleric and chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars.

• "Beaches, like any public space, must be protected from religious claims. The burkini is an anti-social political project aimed in particular at subjugating women... It is not compatible with the values ​​of France and the Republic. Faced with such provocations, the Republic must defend itself." — French Prime Minister Manuel Valls.
• According to the mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet, the high court's ruling against burkini bans, "far from appeasing [Muslims], will instead increase passions and tensions."
• "Beaches are equated with streets, where the wearing of ostentatious religious symbols is also rejected by two-thirds of the French." — Jérôme Fourquet, director of the French Institute of Public Opinion (Ifop).

The French city of Nice has lifted a controversial ban on Muslim burkinis after a court ruled such prohibitions illegal. Bans on the full-body swimsuits have also been annulled in Cannes, Fréjus, Roquebrune and Villeneuve-Loubet, but they remain in place in at least 25 other French coastal towns.

The row over burkinis — a neologism blending burka and bikini — has reignited a long-running debate over Islamic dress codes in France and other secular European states (see Appendix below).

On August 26, the Council of State, France's highest administrative court, ruled that municipal authorities in Villeneuve-Loubet, a seaside town on the French Riviera, did not have the right to ban burkinis. The court found that the ban — which was issued after the jihadist attack in Nice on July 14, in which 86 people were killed — was "a serious and manifestly illegal attack on fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of movement and the freedom of conscience." The judges ruled that local authorities could only restrict individual liberties if there was a "demonstrated risk" to public order. There was, they said, no evidence of such a risk.

Although the ruling applied only to the ban in Villeneuve-Loubet, observers said the ruling would set a legal precedent for the 30 other cities and towns which have also implemented bans on burkinis.

The high court decision overturned a lower court ruling, issued August 22, which said the burkini ban was "necessary, appropriate, and proportionate" to ensure public order.

The case was brought by the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) and the Human Rights League (LDH). The two groups have vowed to file lawsuits against any municipality with a burkini ban, which they say violates the religious freedom of Muslims in France.

Patrice Spinosi, a lawyer for the LDH, said that in the absence of a demonstrated threat to public order, the high court "has ruled and has shown that mayors do not have the right to set limits on wearing religious signs in public spaces. It is contrary to the freedom of religion, which is a fundamental freedom."

By contrast, the ban's proponents — from across the political spectrum — argue that burkinis are political, not religious, garments.

Writing for Le Figaro, French commentator Yves Thréard warned:

"The worst case scenario would be that the debate drags on and strays into considerations totally foreign to this outrageous outfit. Secularism and religion are irrelevant here. The burkini is not a Koranic prescription, but another manifestation of political Islam, militant, destructive, seeking to question our way of life, our culture, our civilization. Veils in schools, street prayers, halal school menus, sexual apartheid in swimming pools, hospitals, driving schools, niqab, burqa... for thirty years this infiltration has been undermining our society, seeking to destabilize. It's time to slam the door in its face. Youssef al-Qaradawi, the famous Egyptian preacher, formerly a lecturer in France, warned: 'We will colonize you with your democratic laws.' Through our indifference as well as our naïveté, we have long been complicit in this deadly and nasty business."

According to French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, burkinis are "the affirmation of political Islam in the public space." In an interview with La Provence, Valls, a Socialist, said:

"I support those who issued the bans... Beaches, like any public space, must be protected from religious claims. The burkini is an anti-social political project aimed in particular at subjugating women. Behind the burkini lies the idea that women, by nature, are harlots, impure, and that they should be completely covered. It is not compatible with the values ​​of France and the Republic. Faced with such provocations, the Republic must defend itself."

Laurence Rossignol, the Socialist Minister for the Families, Children and Women's Rights, also said she supported bans on burkinis. In an interview with Le Parisien, she said:

"The burkini is not some new line of swimwear. It is the beach version of the burka and it has the same logic: to hide women's bodies in order to better control them. Behind this there is a deeply archaic vision of the place of women in society. There is the idea that, by nature, women are impure and immoral and should therefore hide their body and disappear from the public space.
"The burkini agitates so much because of its collective political dimension. It does not only concern the women who wear it. The burkini is the symbol of a political project that is hostile to diversity and empowerment."

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls recently stated that "the burkini is an anti-social political project aimed in particular at subjugating women... It is not compatible with the values ​​of France and the Republic. Faced with such provocations, the Republic must defend itself." Pictured above: Four policemen in Nice, France, are pictured forcing a woman to remove part of her clothes because her outfit violated the city's burkini ban, on August 23. They also fined her for the violation. (Image source: NBC News video screenshot)

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who recently announced that he will be a candidate in the 2017 presidential elections, said that if elected he would "change the constitution" and press for a nationwide ban on burkinis. At a campaign rally on August 26, Sarkozy, a conservative, said:

"I will be the president who re-establishes the authority of the state. I want to be the president who guarantees the safety of France and of every French person...
"I refuse to let the burkini impose itself in French beaches and swimming pools...there must be a law to ban it throughout the Republic's territory. Our identity is under threat when we accept an immigration policy that makes no sense."

In an interview with Le Figaro, Sarkozy elaborated:

"Wearing the burkini is a militant political act, a provocation. The women who wear them are testing the resistance of the French Republic. If we do not put an end to this, there is a risk that in ten years, young Muslim girls who do not want to wear the burkini or the veil will be stigmatized and pressured into doing so."

Henri Leroy, the mayor of Mandelieu-La-Napoule, one of the first French towns to ban the burkini, said Muslim residents should be reminded that "they are French first and of Muslim confession second." He added: "Our Republic has traditions and customs that need to be respected."

The conservative mayor of Cannes, David Lisnard, said the burkini is a "uniform that is the symbol of Islamic extremism." City manager Thierry Migoule said the burkini is an "ostentatious outfit that signals allegiance to terrorist movements that have declared war on us."

The mayor of Fréjus, David Rachline, wrote that the high court's ruling was a "victory for radical Islam, for political Islam, which is advancing in our country."

Lionnel Luca, the conservative mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet, said the burkini ban was needed to "counter the creeping Islamization that is progressing in our country." He added that the high court's ruling, "far from appeasing [Muslims], will instead increase passions and tensions."

Ange-Pierre Vivoni, the Socialist mayor of the Corsican town of Sisco, imposed a ban on burkinis "to protect the population" following a Muslim rampage that occurred on August 14, when a tourist took a photograph of several burkini-clad women swimming in a creek. More than 400 people eventually joined the brawl, in which local Corsicans clashed with migrants from North Africa. The following day, more than 500 Corsicans marched through the town shouting "To arms! This is our home!"

Opinion polls show broad public support for bans on burkinis. According to an Ifop poll published by Le Figaro on August 25, 64% of people in France are opposed to the burkini on beaches; only 6% support it. Ifop director Jérôme Fourquet said: "The results are similar to those we measured in April about the veil and headscarf on public streets (63% opposed). Beaches are equated with streets, where the wearing of ostentatious religious symbols is also rejected by two-thirds of the French."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Appendix

Burka Bans in European Countries

The French row over burkinis — a neologism blending burka and bikini — has reignited a long-running debate over Islamic dress codes in other European countries.

Austria. On August 13, Norbert Hofer, the Austrian Freedom Party's (FPÖ) candidate for president, called for a burka ban. "I think it makes sense," he said. Several days later, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Integration, Sebastian Kurz of the ruling Austrian People's Party (ÖVP), said a new integration law would include restrictions on the burka. "A full body veil is hindering integration," Kurz said. "The burqa is not a religious symbol, but a symbol for a counter-society."

Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka said a blanket ban on burkas would be "constitutionally problematic." He said a partial ban on burkas at border crossings and while driving automobiles is more realistic.
A nationwide poll published on August 25 found that 75% of Austrians favor a burka ban.

The FPÖ had previously called for a burka ban in July 2014. At the time, Kurz rejected the idea, calling it an "artificial debate."

In June 2016, the town of Hainfeld became the first municipality in Austria to ban the burkini in public swimming pools. In Vienna, local media have reported a "notable increase" in the number of women wearing burkinis in public swimming pools in the capital.

Baltics. In April 2016, the Latvian government announced a proposal to ban the burka. The government said the purpose of the law, which it hopes will enter into force in 2017, is to ensure that Muslim immigrants respect the country's values. Burka bans are also being discussed in Estonia and Lithuania.

Belgium. In July 2011, Belgium became the second European country after France to ban the burka. Offenders face a fine of €137 ($150) and up to seven days in jail. In the five years since the ban has been in place, more than 70 women have been ticketed for wearing the garment in public. This number includes 67 women in Brussels and seven in Liege.

In August 2016, Nadia Sminate, a Belgian MP of mixed Moroccan and Flemish origin, called for a complete ban of the burka. In an interview with De Standaard, she said:

"We absolutely must avoid having women walk around Flanders in burkinis. Not in the pool, and not on the beach. I do not think women want to walk on the beach in such a monstrosity in the name of religion. If we allow this, we put the women on the margin of society. We live in Flanders and we make the rules. If we say we need to set limits and enforce our values, we must do that."

Britain. On August 31, a YouGov poll found that a majority of Britons are in favor of banning the burka in public spaces. According to the poll, 57% of Britons support a ban; 25% are opposed. The only age group to oppose a ban was 18-24 year-olds; all others were in favor, with the oldest 65+ group supporting a ban by 78% to 12%. All major political parties also had a plurality of voters in favor of a ban. A separate question asked by YouGov found that 46% of Britons want to ban the burkini; 30% are opposed.

Bulgaria. In June 2016, the Bulgarian Parliament approved a new law that bans the burka. The move makes Bulgaria the third European country to pass such a law after France and Belgium. The ban applies to Bulgarian citizens as well as to anyone in the country on a temporary basis.

The law states that clothing that conceals the face may not be worn in the Bulgaria's central and local administrations, schools, cultural institutions, and places of public recreation, sports and communications.

Covering the head, eyes, ears and mouth will be permitted only when necessary for health reasons, professional necessity and at sporting and cultural events. The ban will also apply to houses of worship.
The law provides for a fine of 200 leva (€100; $115) for a first violation of the ban. For second and further offenses, the fine is 1500 leva (€755; $430) and loss of social benefits.

Anyone who persuades others to cover their faces is subject to a penalty of up to three years in prison and a fine of 5000 leva (€2,500; $2,850). If the person persuaded to cover the face is a minor, the penalty increases to a maximum five years in prison and a fine of up to 10,000 leva (€5,000; $5,700).

Czech Republic. In March 2016, a Muslim student filed a lawsuit against a nursing school in Prague after she was banned from wearing a hijab (Muslim veil covering head and neck) during classes. The school argued that students should not have their heads covered in the classroom.

Denmark. In August 2016, the Danish People's Party said it would present parliament with a proposal for a burka ban. In an interview with Metro Express, party spokesman Kenneth Kristensen Berth said the garment must be outlawed for security reasons:

"There are several examples, primarily in the Middle East, where people dressed in burkas have been suicide bombers. It is only a matter of time before it will happen in Europe. I have just returned from London, where the number of burkas in the streets has increased quite considerably. They can be used to plant bombs without being detected."

France. In April 2011, France became the first European country to ban the burka and niqab. In July 2014, the European Court of Human Rights upheld that ban.

After the July 2016 jihadist attack in Nice, in which 86 people were killed, at least 30 cities and towns banned the burkini on public beaches.

On August 26, the Council of State, France's highest administrative court, ruled that municipal authorities in Villeneuve-Loubet, a seaside town on the French Riviera, did not have the right to ban burkinis. Although the ruling applied only to the ban in Villeneuve-Loubet, observers said the ruling would set a legal precedent for the rest of France.

Opinion polls show broad public support for bans on burkinis. According to an Ifop poll published by Le Figaro on August 25, 64% of people in France are opposed to the burkini on beaches; only 6% support it. Ifop director Jérôme Fourquet said: "The results are similar to those we measured in April about the veil and headscarf on public streets (63% opposed). Beaches are equated with streets, where the wearing of ostentatious religious symbols are also rejected by two-thirds of the French."

Germany. On August 18, Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière announced a proposal for a "partial burka ban" that would prohibit the wearing of Muslim face veils in public spaces, including kindergartens, schools, universities, government offices and while driving a vehicle.

"We reject full-face veils," de Maizière said. "Not just the burka, any full-face veils that only show a person's eyes. It does not fit into our society, for our way of communicating, for our societal cohesion. This is why we demand that you show your face."

In an August 12 interview with Bild, Julia Klöckner, the deputy chief of the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU), said:

"The full-face veil greatly hinders the integration of women here. It is not a sign of religious diversity, but represents a degrading image of women. It is banned in France, and the European Court of Human Rights has upheld that ban."

In a July 30 interview with Die Welt, CDU politician Jens Spahn said:

"A ban on full-face veil, of the niqab as well as the burka, is overdue, as a signal to the world. Imagine how this conversation would be if we were fully veiled while we are talking to each other. I do not want to encounter any burka in this country. In this sense I am burkaphobe."

In an opinion article for Bild, Bassam Tibi, a former professor at the University of Göttingen who calls himself a "European Muslim," wrote that he fully supported a burka ban:

"A burka ban would be a smart political measure against certain people sealing themselves off in parallel societies, for an inclusive integration of Muslim migrants and for the security of the Federal Republic of Germany."

A new poll published by Infratest dimap on August 26 found that 81% of Germans are in favor of banning the burka in public spaces. The poll found that 51% support a total burka ban.

On August 22, a court in Osnabrück ruled that a student in the city will not be allowed to wear her veil to class. The Sophie Scholl had originally accepted the student but reversed its decision when she insisted on wearing her niqab in class. School officials said the open communication needed in education would not be possible if only the student's eyes are visible.

In June, the Bavarian town of Neutraubling banned burkinis in public swimming pools after female patrons complained that the garment is unsanitary. Mayor Heinz Kiechle asked: "I don't understand why it is necessary to wear a burkini on evenings when the pool is reserved for ladies-only swimming."
Italy. As of January 1, 2016, the burqa and niqab have been banned from all public offices and hospitals in the northeastern region of Lombardy.

On August 17, Interior Minister Angelino Alfano said Italy will not ban the burkini because such a move could provoke a backlash in the Muslim community. In an interview with Corriere della Sera, he said:

"The interior minister has a responsibility to ensure public safety and to choose a level of toughness that never becomes a provocation that potentially invites attacks."

Malta. In October 2015, the government debated a ban on burkas in public after a photograph emerged showing a woman driving an automobile while wearing a full-face veil. Article 338 of the Criminal Code states that it is a threat to public order if anyone "in any public place, wears any mask, or disguises himself, except at the time and in the manner allowed by law." Some members of the government said the existing law should be clarified to specifically outlaw burkas.

A local imam, Mohammed Elsadi, said a burka ban would threaten integration and social harmony in Malta. He added: "In a global world where people of different cultures live together and interact in so many ways and in so many spheres of life, it is more beneficial for any country to grant as much individual freedoms as possible." He said Muslims should be allowed "all the freedom to exercise their own cultural norms and way of life."

Equality Minister Helena Dalli countered:

"There are several thousands of Muslims in Malta, and many have been here for a long time, even generations. The burka and the niqab are not garments that one would associate with this community, so a clearer ban on face coverings should have no impact on the vast majority of Muslims in any way."

Netherlands. In May 2015, the Dutch government approved a partial ban on face-covering Islamic veils on public transport and in public areas such as schools and hospitals. Offenders are subject to a fine of €405 ($450). The ban does not apply to wearing the burka or the niqab on the street.

Norway. In August 2016, a cross-party commission on integration proposed banning burkas and niqabs in public institutions and prohibiting hijabs in public schools. In a 50-page report titled "Ten Commandments for Better Integration," the commission called for clear national guidelines on Islamic dress codes to improve integration.

"To improve integration, we must encourage greater participation in public life," Labor Party politician Jette Christensen said. "Therefore, we cannot allow covered faces."

Progress Party politician Maryan Keshvari added: "We cannot allow the premier Islamist uniform in Norwegian schools."

In 2013, the Norwegian parliament rejected a burka ban on the argument that Norway risked being censured by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Ever since the ECHR upheld the ban in France in July 2014, Norwegian supporters of a ban have tried but failed to get parliament to approve a similar ban in Norway.

Slovenia. In November 2015, the opposition Democratic Party (SDS) submitted a draft law to ban burkas and niqabs in public and to tighten conditions to obtain asylum in Slovenia.

"When in Slovenia, people should respect Slovenian culture and Slovenian customs," SDS head Janez Janša said. "That is why we drafted a bill that seeks to ban the burka in public."

SDS MP Vinko Gorenak added: "We must adapt to their customs when going to their places. There is no reason why we shouldn't demand the same of them when they are in our cultural environment."

Spain. In December 2010, the Catalan city of Lérida enacted a ban on burkas in public spaces. In February 2013, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional. The court said the ban "constitutes a limitation to the fundamental right to the exercise of the freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the Spanish Constitution." The court said that the limitation of a fundamental right can only be achieved through laws at the national level, not through local ordinances.

In September 2014, during a parliamentary debate over the Law on Public Security (Ley de Seguridad Ciudadana), Interior Minister Jorge Fernández Díaz called for banning the burka in public spaces. He said the issue has two dimensions: security and the dignity of women.

"In my opinion, the burka is a garment that violates the dignity of women," Fernández Díaz said. "But this is not within the scope of responsibility of the Interior Ministry." In terms of security, he said the burka "makes it difficult to identify individuals who commit crimes."

In August 2016, a water park in the Catalan city of Girona banned the burkini "for security reasons." In June 2014, the Basque city of Vitoria banned the burkini in public swimming pools. In November 2014, a driver in Vitoria stopped a burka-clad woman from boarding his bus.

Switzerland. On July 1, 2016, a burka ban entered into force in Ticino, the first Swiss canton to do so. Offenders are subject to a fine of 10,000 Swiss francs (€9,100; $10,000). The move followed a September 2013 referendum in which 65% of voters in the Italian-speaking canton voted in favor of the ban.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8855/europe-burkini

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.