Connect with us

Articles

The quest for honesty about Jews and Israel

Published

on

Last month, (May 2, 2017), UNESCO passed yet another resolution which denies Israeli claims to Jerusalem. This follows the November, 2016, General Assembly’s support for a resolution which ignores Jewish ties to the Temple Mount.

We are living in surreal times in which reality has fast outpaced fiction, a time in which true lies are reported as uber-truths. Nothing is exactly “real;” and that which is truly happening is not named.

At such times, please allow me to recommend a new book. Sanely, and soberly, it begins with this quote from George Orwell: “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.”

I am writing about law professor Kenneth Lasson’s excellent book: Defending Truth: The Quest For Honesty about Jews and Israel.

Lasson’s sub-title is rather poignant. Very few people have wanted to be honest about Jews and Israel. Most people may no longer be capable of doing so. They have been indoctrinated to believe Big Lies and they cleave to the Lie as if it were a fundamental truth.

One example: The much-touted but shamelessly de-Judaized exhibit about Jerusalem at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art about which Edward Rothstein’s wrote a devastating review at Mosaic.

Another example: UNESCO’s earlier 2016 cruelly misguided series of resolutions that Jerusalem, especially the Kotel,  the Western Wall—that the Temple Mount itself–has no connection to Judaism or Jews; that it is not mentioned in our religious texts or in our prayers, is not the city of Jewish yearning, the city which we are commanded to never forget, not even at times of great joy.

How about the Obama administration’s 2016 refusal to veto UN Resolution #2334 which described Israel’s presence in East Jerusalem as illegal?

One could go on–and Lasson does.

While he covers the Growth Industry of Holocaust Denial and Holocaust Inversion in the Islamic world, his main focus is on the intelligentsia in the West. He writes that while:

“Holocaust denial…is the twenty-first century’s fastest-growing counter-knowledge–some Westerners are wary of drawing attention to it for fear of upsetting Muslims…What should be the most receptive place for honest intellectual inquiry and discourse has instead become one where all assumptions are open to debate–even documented facts.”

We are in the midst of what Lasson refers to as a “revolt against reality,” one which turns “perpetrators into heroes.”

On Western campuses, false facts and “counter knowledge,”  flourish with a vengeance. Jews and Israel are accused of crimes they have not committed–which have, in fact, been perpetrated by Arab Muslims who are, nevertheless, still viewed as the most sacred and most innocent of victims. In addition, “universities these days have trouble distinguishing between free speech and bigotry to the point of overprotecting one without sufficiently condemning the other.” The hostility to Jewish students who do not strongly oppose the Jewish state or who actually defend it has assumed alarming proportions.

 Kenneth Lasson

Kenneth Lasson

The media has contributed to this disaster. Lasson shows how reporters write “militant” or “combatant” when they should be writing “terrorist” or “Islamic terrorist.”  Tariq Kalafa, the head of BBC Arabic, admits his reticence about using the “T” word. “We say that ‘two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine”’ (his reference to the Islamic terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris. While “terrorists” are merely “militants,” Israel victims in the ‘West Bank’ are invariably described as “settlers” as opposed to “civilians.”

journalists also use the word “occupied” obsessively and exclusively and eschew the legally accurate word “disputed” when they refer to the territory of Israel-Palestine.

Historically, journalism came to interpret the ethics of “objectivity” to require that they interview both Hitler and one of his victims–just in order to balance things out. However, all pretense of journalistic ethics have been abandoned to a “morally equivalent” narrative when journalists cover the Israel-Palestine matter. According to Lasson, this effectively “obfuscates the distinction between aggressor and victim.” In addition, journalists hew to a story line which remains unchanging no matter the facts–and they continue to use language which both obfuscates and purposely inflames.

What is a good journalistic reason for repeatedly describing East Jerusalem as “traditionally Arab East Jerusalem” (Associated Press) or “Arab East Jerusalem” (Daily Telegraph, BBC, Los Angeles Times, for example).

After all, as Lasson points out, for 3,000 years Jerusalem was a unified city that made no distinctions between East and West.  The city was only divided for nineteen years in 1948 “when Jordan expelled all the Jews living in the areas under its control…thus making the 19 years between 1948 and 1967 the  only period of time when eastern Jerusalem could realistically be labeled Arab.”

Lasson patiently, wearily, exposes the extraordinary bias, innuendo, minimization of Palestinian violence and incitement of the Western media as it consistently described Israeli self-defense as aggression. He reminds us of the premature, inaccurate, and inflammatory coverage of iconic events such as the alleged murder of Mohamed Al-Dura and the alleged Massacre at Jenin. Over time, this is just the sort of hate-coverage that can and has led to genocides.

Lasson also views anti-Zionism as part of what the new anti-Semitism is about and decries the various Palestinian, but also Israeli and Jewish crusades against the Jewish state. Here, he is referring to the BDS campaigns and the Israel Apartheid Week hate fests on North American campuses.

Others, too numerous to mention and growing by the minutes, have also described and decried these same events. However, Lasson not only speaks eloquently and clearly, but with the authority of a legal scholar. He recommends fighting back with words, campus counter-protests, speaking tours, and the non-stop educating of professors and academic administrators. He notes the hard-won successes of these approaches.

As for myself: I think that the “truth” has been losing ground fast ever since 1967, when Israel unexpectedly won its war of self-defense and the works of Lacan, Foucault, Chomsky, and Said swept the Western academic imagination.

Prof. Phyllis Chesler

Prof. Phyllis Chesler

People often ask me: How did such carefully cultivated ignorance about Israel ever arise–especially among the most highly educated? I usually refer to a Victimology industry run amuck; to ideas about “cultural relativism” and “subjective truth” (all cultures are equally worthy–except the West and Israel; there is no such things as truth, everything is “relative,” my truth is just as good as someone else’s.)

As I was reading Lasson, I realized something else. As soon as the Western professoriate, media, and international bodies accepted that a country called “Palestine” really existed, the floodgates were opened to all sorts of other “imaginaries.”  Acts that are indigenously barbarous are, in reality part of a fight for freedom;  Rachel Dolezal, can pass as black because she feels she is black; a woman who feels trapped inside the body of a man is a woman, etc.

I am not quarreling with the real pain that many civilian Arabs may feel given how they have been exploited and betrayed both by their own leaders and by their brethren, nor am I denying the very real suffering of those who feel that their visible, physical and sexual identities are “wrong.” I do question the chosen Final Solutions which range from the ethnic cleansing of Jews in the Middle East to radical sexual surgery and the use of dangerous hormones.

Can a new American administration, one that is so greatly mocked, re-set the course of truth-telling, not to mention the Middle East “peace process” between all Arab and Muslim states and the one Jewish state?

We shall see.

Source: Israel National

Written by: Prof. Phyllis Chesler

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles

Have We Forgotten What Happened On 9/11?

Published

on

Continue Reading

Articles

Sharia in the U.S. Judicial System?

Published

on

By

The U.S. Senate’s recent confirmation of Zahid Quraishi as America’s first Muslim federal judge to a lifetime position on the District Court of New Jersey raises some concerning questions.

First and foremost, there is the question of his faith. Does it matter if Zahid Quraishi is a Muslim? The Left would, of course, maintain that raising the Muslim identity of Quraishi is racist, bigoted and “Islamophobic.” But those who understand the reality of Sharia – and the fact that Islam is not a race — understand that this matter is more complicated than what might first meet the eye.

It may very well matter if Quraishi is not just a Muslim “by name” – or just a “secular Muslim” by birth heritage. Indeed, if, as an adult adherent to Islam, he devoutly recites the Shahada — “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” – then Quraishi’s Muslimness could matter very much. That’s because it could indicate whether or not Quraishi would ever uphold aspects of Sharia – Islamic law – in his legal rulings.

As a survivor of Sharia law, I can tell you: Sharia matters — and in the most horrendous and painful of ways.

It is vital to understand that in Islam, Allah’s Law is supreme for Muslims, above all other laws and legal systems. And that poses a problem for America when Islam resides on its territory, because Sharia is completely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the foundations of a free society.

Quraishi’s relationship to Islam, therefore, matters a great deal — seeing that his new position entails significant power and influence in America.

So let’s dig a little bit deeper on Quraishi.

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) surprisingly did not come out and cheer Quraishi’s appointment — as one might have expected them to do. Instead, the Muslim “civil rights” organization appeared to be quite furious about him. Zahra Billoo, head of CAIR’s San Francisco branch, issued a statement affirming that she “would much rather have a white Christian judge with progressive values… It’s not enough that he is Muslim. In fact, it’s insulting.”

It appears that the problem for Billoo and CAIR is that Quraishi is not a Muslim from an apparent “list” of “20 to 50 Muslims who have been in the fight” for “social justice.” One unnamed Muslim politician who complained to Slate magazine about Quraishi’s appointment echoed the same theme: “We don’t know what his stances are on civil rights because you can’t find one article or anything that he’s written publicly about the Muslim struggle in the last 20 years post-9/11.”

For those concerned about Quraishi’s potential ties to Sharia, this negative disposition from the “Sharia camp” toward the Muslim judge might appear to be good news. But is it?

CAIR’s concern about Quraishi’s supposed lack of support for “progressive values” appears to be a good sign in light of CAIR’s own record of opposing counterterror measures and slandering opponents of jihad and Sharia tyranny. However, CAIR’s disposition toward Quraishi tells us little, if anything, about the key issue at stake: does the judge hold Islamic values or not?

The narrative takes another peculiar twist when we examine what transpired during Quraishi’s questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee: When asked by Committee Chair, Democrat Senator Dick Durbin: “What do you know about Sharia law?” Quraishi answered that he knew “nothing about Sharia.

Really?

Quraishi knows “nothing” about Islam or Islamic Law?

Christine Douglass-Williams has commented on Quraishi’s dubious answer:

“Virtually everyone knows something about the Sharia. In his position, Quraishi is likely to know a lot, and was probably fibbing, and not in an intelligent way, either. It isn’t possible that a man of his standing, who ‘has served as a military prosecutor and Army captain in Iraq, as an assistant U.S. Attorney who has tried cases of public corruption, organized crime and financial fraud, and as a white-collar criminal defense lawyer’, would know ‘NOTHING’ about Sharia.”

True indeed.

What makes the matter even more peculiar is that when one pulls up Quraishi’s questionnaire answers for the Senate Judiciary Committee, one finds that he is mentioned as a “Muslim” many times in his “Honors and Awards” list. So Quraishi is praised, rewarded and held in acclaim by the Muslim community for his achievements in light of his Muslimness, but he personally doesn’t know anything about Islamic law at all?

Could it be that Quraishi might actually not be the incidental Muslim he postures as being? Could it be that he has been recognized and awarded by important prominent Muslim organizations because they gauged that, among other things, he actually is somewhat of an adherent Muslim after all?

Is it possible that CAIR might really not be as upset as it is claiming to be about Quraishi’s appointment? Or maybe it is upset, but not for the reasons it has given? Could it also be that certain players involved in this narrative are engaging in some form of taqiyya – the command in Islam for Muslims to deceive non-Muslims?

Would it also be out of bounds to ask: even if Quraishi is not an adherent Muslim, is it legitimate to be concerned that he one day could become one?

It is vital to stress at this point that Islam is not just a “religion” the way that Christianity and Judaism are religions. Islam is much more than a “faith.” For example, like Judaism, Islam has a legal system — but Islamic Law extends far beyond any Judaic (or even secular) legal system. Sharia embodies all the commands of Allah and all the examples of Muhammad-as divine law that must be implemented in all areas of life.

Qur’an 33:21 is just one verse of many that confirms that Muhammad is “an excellent pattern” for Muslims to follow. It would do well for people to keep in mind that the “excellent” examples that Mohammed set for his followers included the following: marrying a six-year-old girl, A’ishah, and having sex with her when she was nine (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134); encouraging rape of female captives (Qur’an 4:24); stating that women are stupid (Qur’an 2:282) and that hell is comprised of mostly women (Bukhari 29); commanding men to beat their wives (Qur’an 4:34); and being merciless to a woman who had been beaten so brutally that her bruise was green (Bukhari 5825).

Muhammad also disparaged black people (Bukhari 7038). He murdered between 600 and 900 Jews in one battle, and then distributed the captive women as sex slaves (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 464, 511-512).

With some of these matters in mind, the question surfaces: would or could an American Muslim federal judge consider such material as a basis for his rulings? According to Islamic law, a Muslim judge must do so. Sharia mandates that no true Muslim is obligated to obey the laws of a non-Muslim country. Qur’an 33:1 commands to “not obey the disbelievers and the hypocrites.” Qur’an 4:60 says that those who “refer legislation” to the non-Muslims are led “far astray.” And Qur’an 9:3 says that “Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger.” According to Islamic tradition, the revelation of that last verse allowed Muhammad to break the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyah.

Let us be clear: an American judge who follows Muhammad’s example can take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and not really mean it. In fact, Muhammad instructs such a judge exactly what to do in this situation: “if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.” (Bukhari 5518)

The supremacy of Islamic Law over all other laws still applies today. The Islamic website International Shariah Movement is run by certified Islamic scholars. Its post “Obey the Law of the Land?” cites Qur’an 33:1.

Under Sharia, if a woman is raped, a Muslim judge must disregard any forensic or non-witness evidence, because Qur’an 24:13 requires “four male witnesses” for a rape conviction.

A beaten woman may also easily be denied divorce, because Qur’an 4:34 commands that “Men are in charge of women,” and so may “strike them.”

That is exactly what a Muslim judge in an Iranian Islamic court told me personally when I was a 15-year-old child bride, desperate for a divorce to escape the beatings. In fact, a beaten woman who leaves Islam must be hunted down and murdered, according to Islamic law, because Muhammad said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 6922)

With all these realities in mind, it is clear that if we cannot at least ask Judge Zahid Quraishi some questions regarding his adherence, or non-adherence, to Islamic law, or even understand that the issue of Quraishi’s Muslimness is an important one to address, then America is in deep trouble.

As an individual who suffered under Sharia, and was able to escape its monstrous clutches, I strongly encourage my fellow Americans to ask the right questions in this vital – and troubling – narrative about America’s new federal judge.

Continue Reading

Articles

Iran Elects Mass Murderer as Next President

Published

on

By

The ‘election’ for president is over in Iran. The grand ayatollah handpicked Ebrahim Raisi who was then ‘elected’. He’s not just a hardline jihadist, but he’s a mass murderer and a big-time one. And more importantly, he’s very proud of his background.

He’s accused by the world of having personally supervised the trials and executions of somewhere between 5,000 and 40,000 Iranians in the 1980s. He has personally been sanctioned by most of the world, including the United States, who cannot even legally talk to him.

Meanwhile, Raisi calls himself a defender of human rights when asked about the mass executions. The guy is a world-class war criminal. He ran the death panel that sentenced and executed tens of thousands of political prisoners at the end of the 1980s. He is now the leader of the world’s most notorious state sponsor of terrorism.

The first thing we have to know about Ebrahim Raisi is that these charges of mass murder as far as the Iranian mullahs are concerned, are not a problem but rather they are a bonus. It’s not that they picked him in spite of his terrible record. They picked him because of his terrible record.

Domestically, the ayatollah is sending a message to the Iranian people who remain discontented in large part with the Islamic regime. The message is simply put, “ you are not going to be able to dissent. There will be no ability to protest. Anybody who expresses any kind of public disagreement, it’s very clear what kind of treatment they’re going to get with Ebrahim Raisi as the President of Iran.”

Keep in mind, Raisi was not elected. He was selected. He was selected by the supreme leader of Iran, who is the real power in the country, and he is going to execute the policies of the supreme leader. The supreme leader’s disposition toward his own people and toward the world is revealed by the person he selects to be the President of Iran.

By picking Raisi, Ayatollah Khamenei is not only showing that he’s going to crack down harshly on dissent within Iran, but he’s showing that he understands that with Biden’s handlers running the United States, that the United States is weak, is not going to stand up to him and this is his time to step up Iran’s support for terrorism worldwide, supporting Hamas, supporting Hezbollah, supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The Iranian regime has also in the past supported al-Qaida and the Taliban, and other jihadi groups as well as and this is much less known. It’s clear that Iran understands that leftism is corrosive to Western civilization, and they want to destroy Western civilization. Therefore Iran will support both the leftists and the Islamists around the world who are anti-America and anti-Israel.

From now on, we can expect to see increased belligerence on the part of Iran. And Raisi’s ascension to the presidency means that Iran is going to be strutting around and sponsoring terrorism around the world and cracking down on its own people within the country.

By Barry Nussbaum, Son of Auschwitz survivors, Founder American Truth Project, Foreign and Domestic Policy Commentator

Continue Reading
Subscribe For Free - To Enter Our MacBook Give Away

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter below and never miss the latest videos. By providing your phone number, you are consenting to receive SMS/MMS msgs, including automated texts, to that number from American Truth Project. Msg&data rates may apply. Terms & Conditions/privacy policy apply TextTerms