Now why would a Muslim say such a thing? It's all about Israel, right? Wrong. Note, for example, this exposition of Qur'anic antisemitism from IslamOnline. In it, Sheikh 'Atiyyah Saqr, the former Head of the Fatwa Committee at Cairo's Al-Azhar (which the New York Times praised after 9/11 as a beacon of moderation), invokes Qur'an verses to claim that the Jews "used to fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah" and "love to listen to lies." He accuses Jews of "disobeying Almighty Allah and never observing His commands (invoking Qur'an 5:13 to show that Allah has cursed them); "hiding the truth"; "giving preference to their own interests over the rulings of religion and the dictates of truth"; "wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them"; and more. He says that Jews "feel pain to see others in happiness and are gleeful when others are afflicted with a calamity," and that "their impoliteness and indecent way of speech is beyond description." He says that "it is easy for them to slay people and kill innocents. Nothing in the world is dear to their hearts than shedding blood and murdering human beings." For "they are merciless and heartless"; "they never keep their promises or fulfill their words"; "they rush hurriedly to sins and compete in transgression." And much more.
Note that he found all that in the Qur'an, not in some analysis of the contemporary political situation, or some later religious polemic. Click on the link above and you'll find Qur'anic texts supporting each of the above assertions. So is it any wonder that Mustafa Taj, or any Muslim, might hate Jews? Hatred of Jews is justified by numerous Qur'an verses, and we can see from this article also that at least some contemporary Muslims understand them as being valid for all time and applicable to the Jews of today.
What all this means, of course, is that while Mustafa Taj is indeed a Jew-hater, by his own words, convicting him of a hate crime will not end his Jew-hatred. (Hate crime laws are always wrongheaded, always ill-advised, even when the person accused of hate really is a hater and not a truth-teller who is telling truths that are inconvenient to those in power. But there will be more people like Mustafa Taj, and more incidents like this, unless and until the Canadian authorities, and Western authorities in general, begin to act: above all by ending Muslim immigration into their countries and by requiring Muslims who are already in their countries to institute transparent and inspectable programs teaching against Qur'anic antisemitism and antisemitism in general.
Each one of these incidents should not be seen as a separate, discrete, never-to-be-repeated crime, but as an indication of a pattern that we are going to see more and more in America and the West. Unless we recover the will to act.
"Muslim man jailed for hate crime," by Kevin Martin for the Calgary Sun, July 24 (thanks to Twostellas):
Attacking a Jewish girl and the friends who came to her rescue has landed a Muslim man a one-year jail sentence.
Mustafa Taj must also serve a year of probation following his release for what provincial court Judge Bill Cummings ruled was a racially motivated assault....
Taj, 21, was convicted in May of attacking four teenagers the night of Nov. 3, 2006, while they waited for a C-Train at the Sunnyside LRT station.
Taj approached the group around 10:45 p.m. and asked "who's Jewish." Nichola Cordato, then 16, stated "me" and Taj grabbed her and said, "I'm Muslim and hate Jews."
He then slapped her in the face and pulled her hair before her friends, Jessica Motta, Kayla Hungle and Daniel Ball attempted to intervene.
Hungle attempted to prevent Taj from further attacking Cordato and was punched in the face by him.
Motta then intervened and was punched in the face, pulled to the ground by her hair and kicked in the stomach and ribs.
When Ball tried to stop the assaults, he was thrown onto the C-Train tracks where he fell onto his back and was spat upon by Taj.
During the melee, Taj called Cordato a "Jewish piece of (crap)."...
Welcome to the New Canada!
Saturday, July 26, 2008
A Cash Transaction
Bill O'Reilly
Saturday, July 26, 2008
If Sen. Obama becomes President Obama, my taxes will go up, way up. But I know neither Argentina nor anyone else will cry for me, because I am the rich guy Al Gore warned you about, the one who got all those tax cuts from the evil Bush administration.
Yes, I am part of the 1 percent of Americans that paid an astounding 40 percent of all federal income tax in 2006. According to recently released IRS figures, about 50 percent of my fellow Americans paid no federal income tax at all that year. My fellow 1-percenters and I covered for them. But for some it is still not enough.
Obama believes in "income redistribution," a concept practiced by Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest. Like Robin, Obama wants to take from the rich and give to the not so rich. He wants to raise taxes big time on those making $250,000 or more. That means that if you live in New York and earn a quarter of a million bucks, you could be paying close to half of your income in taxes. Even Robin Hood might find that somewhat extreme.
And then there's the accountability factor. Without being forced by the federal government, I give plenty of cash to folks who need a hand. But I check out the charities before the check goes in the mail. I make sure my donations go directly to people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in difficult circumstances.
Will Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do that when the massive income-redistribution train gets ready to roll? No, they will not.
President Obama and a Democratic congress will likely dole out entitlements like free health care, child care and cash payments to anyone who falls under a certain income level, no matter what their circumstances. That means that people who drink gin all day long will be getting some of my hard-earned money. Folks who dropped out of school, who are too lazy to hold a job, who smoke reefer 24/7 all will get some goodies in the mail from Uncle Barack and Aunt Nancy, funded by me and other rich folks.
There will be no drug testing, no background checks, no accountability for those receiving the government's largesse. If you're an American citizen (or even an illegal alien) who doesn't make much money, you'll get stuff.
There is something unsettling about that. Under the Republican Bush administration, tax money presently pays for abortions, Viagra, condoms, sugar-laden food, dangerous housing in blighted neighborhoods and prescription drugs that will send you to the land of Oz.
But if you complain about any of this, you're an uncharitable greedhead.
Well, I am complaining. I don't want my money supporting some layabout who wants to get high all day long. Robin Hood wouldn't give those people money. The feds shouldn't either.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
If Sen. Obama becomes President Obama, my taxes will go up, way up. But I know neither Argentina nor anyone else will cry for me, because I am the rich guy Al Gore warned you about, the one who got all those tax cuts from the evil Bush administration.
Yes, I am part of the 1 percent of Americans that paid an astounding 40 percent of all federal income tax in 2006. According to recently released IRS figures, about 50 percent of my fellow Americans paid no federal income tax at all that year. My fellow 1-percenters and I covered for them. But for some it is still not enough.
Obama believes in "income redistribution," a concept practiced by Robin Hood of Sherwood Forest. Like Robin, Obama wants to take from the rich and give to the not so rich. He wants to raise taxes big time on those making $250,000 or more. That means that if you live in New York and earn a quarter of a million bucks, you could be paying close to half of your income in taxes. Even Robin Hood might find that somewhat extreme.
And then there's the accountability factor. Without being forced by the federal government, I give plenty of cash to folks who need a hand. But I check out the charities before the check goes in the mail. I make sure my donations go directly to people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in difficult circumstances.
Will Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do that when the massive income-redistribution train gets ready to roll? No, they will not.
President Obama and a Democratic congress will likely dole out entitlements like free health care, child care and cash payments to anyone who falls under a certain income level, no matter what their circumstances. That means that people who drink gin all day long will be getting some of my hard-earned money. Folks who dropped out of school, who are too lazy to hold a job, who smoke reefer 24/7 all will get some goodies in the mail from Uncle Barack and Aunt Nancy, funded by me and other rich folks.
There will be no drug testing, no background checks, no accountability for those receiving the government's largesse. If you're an American citizen (or even an illegal alien) who doesn't make much money, you'll get stuff.
There is something unsettling about that. Under the Republican Bush administration, tax money presently pays for abortions, Viagra, condoms, sugar-laden food, dangerous housing in blighted neighborhoods and prescription drugs that will send you to the land of Oz.
But if you complain about any of this, you're an uncharitable greedhead.
Well, I am complaining. I don't want my money supporting some layabout who wants to get high all day long. Robin Hood wouldn't give those people money. The feds shouldn't either.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Rewarding Terror
Steven Plaut
FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/25/2008
On July 2, 2008 an Arab terrorist seized a bulldozer in Jerusalem, rammed it into people and vehicles, and ended up murdering three people (including the mother of an infant) and injuring dozens. The home of the murderer was not demolished. Because the murderer held Israeli citizenship, as an East Jerusalem resident, his family members collected "survivor benefits" from Israel's National Insurance Institute (like social security). They probably also collected payoffs from the Palestinian terrorist groups or their bankrollers in Arab countries who reward families of murderers. Terrorist family members were not expelled or deported. All in all, engaging in murder paid off handsomely. No subprime financial distress for them!
The failure to penalize the family of the mass murderer had its effect this past week. Taking his cue, yet another terrorist seized a bulldozer in Jerusalem and rammed it into vehicles and people, injuring dozens.
Both attacks could likely have been prevented if Israel were to get serious about fighting terrorism and defeating it, as opposed to its existing policy of seeking to end terrorism through appeasement. Israel treats terrorists as ordinary criminals, entitled to Miranda warnings, due process, legal representation, and longwinded trials. But terrorists are neither combatants nor common criminals and should be treated as neither.
Terrorists are not summarily executed in Israel when caught, nor given the death penalty afterwards. Once captured, they are held under resort conditions, with DVDs and air conditioning. The baby murderer Samir Kuntar, released recently by Israel as a payoff to the Hezbollah for recovering the corpses of two IDF soldiers murdered by terrorists, was allowed to do a BA while in prison at an Israeli university and to marry.
Israel is at war, but its leaders are too pusillanimous to declare so. Israel refuses to take any action at all against the families of suicide bombers, regarding them as "innocents" entitled to "rights," rather than as de facto accomplices in murder. Israel's only way for dealing with terror is to ask the terrorist squad leaders who send out the mass murderers in the first place kindly to take action and arrest the terrorist foot soldiers.
While treating terrorists as enemy combatants is better than allowing them to enjoy civilian due process, rules, and protections, it is also an erroneous way of dealing with them. Terrorists must NOT be granted Geneva Convention privileges and POW rights. They must NOT be held under humane conditions, with Red Cross visits.
Terrorists must be treated under a third unique paradigm, neither as POWs nor as criminals. Terrorists must be treated inhumanely. They should be denied human dignities, for behaving without human dignity is the very basis for their behavior and agenda. People who murder groups of children are not entitled to any privileges or exhibitions of compassion. They are beyond the pale. They are garbage. Treating them as such makes a huge powerful statement to the world. We honor those whose values we cherish in myriad ways; let us also exhibit our contempt for those deserving of it.
Moreover, the latest attempts to mollify the Hezbollah terrorists by releasing the baby murderer Kuntar contain even worse unprecedented dangers. One of the unique features of Nazism was the insistence that Jews were "Untermenschen" or an inferior species, and so killing Jewish civilians was not only a legitimate instrument for social policy but downright just. Since Jews were inferior to other humans, there could be nothing wrong with exterminating them like vermin. Jewish lives did not count.
For decades the position of the Arab world has been largely the same. Arabs not only tried to make the point that killing Jewish children and civilians is legitimate, but attempted to coerce Israel into publicly and officially acquiescing in accepting this definition of Jewish inferiority. They did so by equating murderers of Jewish children with soldiers, and demanding that Israel do the same. The vast majority of media organizations largely acquiesced, as manifested in their insistence on referring to suicide bombers as "activists" and "militants," and counting the suicide bombers among the "victims" of any terror atrocity.
Israel's leaders, even the most cowardly, refused to accept this equation. Until now.
When the Israeli cabinet under Ehud Olmert approved a "hostage deal" that traded a baby murderer for the corpses of two murdered IDF soldiers, it for all intents and purposes acquiesced in accepting the axiom of Jewish inferiority and the legitimacy of murdering Jewish children.
Ehud Olmert has made me ashamed to be an Israeli. Steven Plaut is a professor at the Graduate School of the Business Administration at the University of Haifa and is a columnist for the Jewish Press. A collection of his commentaries on the current events in Israel can be found on his "blog" at www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com
FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/25/2008
On July 2, 2008 an Arab terrorist seized a bulldozer in Jerusalem, rammed it into people and vehicles, and ended up murdering three people (including the mother of an infant) and injuring dozens. The home of the murderer was not demolished. Because the murderer held Israeli citizenship, as an East Jerusalem resident, his family members collected "survivor benefits" from Israel's National Insurance Institute (like social security). They probably also collected payoffs from the Palestinian terrorist groups or their bankrollers in Arab countries who reward families of murderers. Terrorist family members were not expelled or deported. All in all, engaging in murder paid off handsomely. No subprime financial distress for them!
The failure to penalize the family of the mass murderer had its effect this past week. Taking his cue, yet another terrorist seized a bulldozer in Jerusalem and rammed it into vehicles and people, injuring dozens.
Both attacks could likely have been prevented if Israel were to get serious about fighting terrorism and defeating it, as opposed to its existing policy of seeking to end terrorism through appeasement. Israel treats terrorists as ordinary criminals, entitled to Miranda warnings, due process, legal representation, and longwinded trials. But terrorists are neither combatants nor common criminals and should be treated as neither.
Terrorists are not summarily executed in Israel when caught, nor given the death penalty afterwards. Once captured, they are held under resort conditions, with DVDs and air conditioning. The baby murderer Samir Kuntar, released recently by Israel as a payoff to the Hezbollah for recovering the corpses of two IDF soldiers murdered by terrorists, was allowed to do a BA while in prison at an Israeli university and to marry.
Israel is at war, but its leaders are too pusillanimous to declare so. Israel refuses to take any action at all against the families of suicide bombers, regarding them as "innocents" entitled to "rights," rather than as de facto accomplices in murder. Israel's only way for dealing with terror is to ask the terrorist squad leaders who send out the mass murderers in the first place kindly to take action and arrest the terrorist foot soldiers.
While treating terrorists as enemy combatants is better than allowing them to enjoy civilian due process, rules, and protections, it is also an erroneous way of dealing with them. Terrorists must NOT be granted Geneva Convention privileges and POW rights. They must NOT be held under humane conditions, with Red Cross visits.
Terrorists must be treated under a third unique paradigm, neither as POWs nor as criminals. Terrorists must be treated inhumanely. They should be denied human dignities, for behaving without human dignity is the very basis for their behavior and agenda. People who murder groups of children are not entitled to any privileges or exhibitions of compassion. They are beyond the pale. They are garbage. Treating them as such makes a huge powerful statement to the world. We honor those whose values we cherish in myriad ways; let us also exhibit our contempt for those deserving of it.
Moreover, the latest attempts to mollify the Hezbollah terrorists by releasing the baby murderer Kuntar contain even worse unprecedented dangers. One of the unique features of Nazism was the insistence that Jews were "Untermenschen" or an inferior species, and so killing Jewish civilians was not only a legitimate instrument for social policy but downright just. Since Jews were inferior to other humans, there could be nothing wrong with exterminating them like vermin. Jewish lives did not count.
For decades the position of the Arab world has been largely the same. Arabs not only tried to make the point that killing Jewish children and civilians is legitimate, but attempted to coerce Israel into publicly and officially acquiescing in accepting this definition of Jewish inferiority. They did so by equating murderers of Jewish children with soldiers, and demanding that Israel do the same. The vast majority of media organizations largely acquiesced, as manifested in their insistence on referring to suicide bombers as "activists" and "militants," and counting the suicide bombers among the "victims" of any terror atrocity.
Israel's leaders, even the most cowardly, refused to accept this equation. Until now.
When the Israeli cabinet under Ehud Olmert approved a "hostage deal" that traded a baby murderer for the corpses of two murdered IDF soldiers, it for all intents and purposes acquiesced in accepting the axiom of Jewish inferiority and the legitimacy of murdering Jewish children.
Ehud Olmert has made me ashamed to be an Israeli. Steven Plaut is a professor at the Graduate School of the Business Administration at the University of Haifa and is a columnist for the Jewish Press. A collection of his commentaries on the current events in Israel can be found on his "blog" at www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com
Judea/Samaria Jews Talk Tough: ‘We are not IDF’s Punching Bag'
Ze'ev Ben-Yechiel
Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria lashed out Thursday at their treatment by the Israeli Defense Forces after a day of tense clashes in those regions, promising to exact a ‘price’ in response to the IDF’s physical aggression, refusal to protect them, and above all the way the IDF treats them in the media. "We're not the IDF's punching bag," they proclaimed in a statement from the Binyamin-area ‘Homesh First’ activist headquarters, referring to several instances throughout the day when the army spokesperson’s office accused Jewish civilians of violently attacking soldiers. The civilians were vehemently denying that they assaulted any troops, and some of them plan to sue the army for libel.
Confrontations broke out Thursday in several locations between local Jewish residents and Israeli armed forces, in which the IDF was sent in to forcibly remove Jewish residents from their homes. The first incident of the day occurred at 11 a.m., when Yasam special police forces conducted a raid on the outpost of Adei Ad, near Shiloh in Samaria, and carted away a bus that was being used as living quarters.
The Binyamin activist headquarters said in response that if the security forces continue to harass Jewish pioneers in the existing communities, they will have to deal with the pioneers in new locations as well.
In another confrontation at Adei Ad, two Jewish men were arrested by Israeli forces after one of them snatched a rifle from a soldier and fired it into the air. IDF spokesmen described the incident as another violent act committed by ‘settlers,’ and denied any wrongdoing in the incident. The civilian involved in the incident claimed that he took the weapon to save his life from Arab assailants, while the soldiers did nothing to protect him.
Homesh First said the man who took the gun was an air-conditioning technician from Jerusalem who was travelling with a passenger from the town of Kedumim to Itamar in Samaria. The two were attacked by dozens of Arabs who pelted his car with rocks and then attempted to extract him from the car to lynch him. Panic-stricken, he ran to a group of IDF soldiers standing nearby who refused to do anything. Desperate for the soldiers to do their job, he gave up trying to convince them, took the weapon of one of the soldiers, fired in the air and then gave it back. It remains unclear whether the civilian took the rifle forcibly or the soldier agreed to let the civilian use it.
'Army must apologize for false report'
After the initial statements from the IDF accusing the Jewish civilians, police determined that the lives of the two men had truly been in danger, and that their car had indeed been seriously damaged by rocks thrown by Arab rioters. The two were released immediately.
So far no apology for the false report has come from the IDF spokesman’s office. Nor has there been any investigation into why the soldiers, who saw two Jewish civilians in mortal danger at the hands of an Arab mob, failed to act to protect them, even when the Jews begged them to.
Homesh First said it expected the IDF to issue a formal apology for releasing the "negligent" report.
In yet another incident, the IDF said that during an altercation with a group of Jews at Havat Gilad, one of the Jews threatened a soldier with bodily harm by brandishing a knife and pressing it to the soldier's neck. The army spokesman’s report said that the Jew then grabbed the soldier's helmet and fled the scene. The soldier was unharmed.
Ynet quoted military spokesmen as saying that the incident was viewed “severely” and would be dealt with. "A red line has been crossed here, this is very serious," said the spokesmen.
However, the Havat Gilad Jews vehemently denied that anyone from their group had threatened a soldier with a knife or in any way. Meanwhile they confirmed that a helmet had indeed been stolen from a soldier, and said it would be returned to the military promptly.
Itai Zar founded Havat Gilad (Gilad’s Farm) and named it after his brother, who was killed in an Arab terror attack. He told reporters that the army's claims "are utter lies. There were two witnesses here – one of them the regional security officer and the other one a lawyer. They both saw the helmet being taken from the soldier, but there were no threats made with a knife. Therefore, we intend to sue the IDF Spokesman's Office."
Shin Bet head Diskin: Gaza lull is lifeline to Hamas
Speaking before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Tuesday, the security services head argued that Israel's deterrent has "suffered substantially" as a result of events in the past three years - the disengagement from the Gaza strip, the Hamas takeover there and the Second Lebanon War.
Diskin said the tahadiyeh - the cease-fire agreement - is stable because all sides have an interest in maintaining it and because Hamas is imposing its will on smaller Palestinian factions in the Strip.
Advertisement
"The cease-fire gave Hamas a lifeline. We are not attacking them. We eased the blockade on them at a time when they are not committed to stopping their rearmament," Diskin told the committee.
"Hamas presents itself as the victor in this confrontation, as having managed to hold out against the Israeli siege. The lull is being presented as an impressive achievement on its part," Diskin said.
In return Israel gains a temporary lull, which Diskin said "is essentially an illusion. In our assessment the rocket attacks will resume at some point in the future."
The head of the Shin Bet noted that "Israel's situation is very problematic in its struggle against radical Islam. Palestinian daring against Israel has increased since Hamas took over [in the Strip] while Israel's deterrence has suffered a very substantive blow."
Diskin briefed the MKs on the improved rockets produced by the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. He said that Islamic Jihad has independently produced rockets with a 19-kilometer range and that Shin Bet had intelligence indicating that military-grade rockets, whose range is longer, have been smuggled into the territory. Some of those rockets, Diskin added, can reach Ashdod, 30 kilometers away.
Militant groups in the Gaza Strip have also obtained military-grade mortars from Iran, with a range of approximately nine kilometers, Diskin said.
He said there has been no drastic change in Egyptian efforts to prevent arms from being smuggled into the strip. Diskin confirmed, however, that there has been some improvement, but argued that "Egypt accepts the fact that there is smuggling from its territory... [which] is part of the Middle Eastern theater of the absurd. We have asked the Egyptians to deal with the families of smugglers operating in Sinai."
Speaking before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Tuesday, the security services head argued that Israel's deterrent has "suffered substantially" as a result of events in the past three years - the disengagement from the Gaza strip, the Hamas takeover there and the Second Lebanon War.
Diskin said the tahadiyeh - the cease-fire agreement - is stable because all sides have an interest in maintaining it and because Hamas is imposing its will on smaller Palestinian factions in the Strip.
Advertisement
"The cease-fire gave Hamas a lifeline. We are not attacking them. We eased the blockade on them at a time when they are not committed to stopping their rearmament," Diskin told the committee.
"Hamas presents itself as the victor in this confrontation, as having managed to hold out against the Israeli siege. The lull is being presented as an impressive achievement on its part," Diskin said.
In return Israel gains a temporary lull, which Diskin said "is essentially an illusion. In our assessment the rocket attacks will resume at some point in the future."
The head of the Shin Bet noted that "Israel's situation is very problematic in its struggle against radical Islam. Palestinian daring against Israel has increased since Hamas took over [in the Strip] while Israel's deterrence has suffered a very substantive blow."
Diskin briefed the MKs on the improved rockets produced by the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. He said that Islamic Jihad has independently produced rockets with a 19-kilometer range and that Shin Bet had intelligence indicating that military-grade rockets, whose range is longer, have been smuggled into the territory. Some of those rockets, Diskin added, can reach Ashdod, 30 kilometers away.
Militant groups in the Gaza Strip have also obtained military-grade mortars from Iran, with a range of approximately nine kilometers, Diskin said.
He said there has been no drastic change in Egyptian efforts to prevent arms from being smuggled into the strip. Diskin confirmed, however, that there has been some improvement, but argued that "Egypt accepts the fact that there is smuggling from its territory... [which] is part of the Middle Eastern theater of the absurd. We have asked the Egyptians to deal with the families of smugglers operating in Sinai."
Obama Flipping and Floundering in Middle East
Kenneth R. Timmerman
Everything seemed planned for the future campaign commercials — at least, that’s how it seemed to a U.S. Air Force captain when Sen. Barack Obama and his entourage swooped into Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan for an hour-long visit last Saturday at the start of a week-long foreign tour. “He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle” without pausing to acknowledge the U.S. troops who had been waiting all day just for the opportunity to meet him, the officer told the Blackfive pro-military blog.
As the soldiers lined up to shake his hand, the Illinois senator “blew them off and didn’t say a word,” ducking into the conference room to meet the general.
Then the armored vehicles took him to where “he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service,” the captain wrote.
“As you know, I am not a very political person. I just wanted to share with you what happened” during Obama’s visit, the captain related.
“I swear, we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders than from Senator Obama,” he added.
The Illinois senator used his first-ever trip to Afghanistan to drive home his campaign message that the Bush administration — and by inference, his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain — have squandered resources in Iraq while ignoring the “central front” in the war on terror, which Obama insists is Afghanistan.
Traveling onward to Iraq, Obama met with U.S. commanders and with Iraqi leaders, who briefed him on the dramatic progress in decreasing violence that has been made since the U.S. troop surge began last year.
And yet, Obama told ABC News that he still would not have supported the surge, even knowing how things worked out.
“Hypotheticals are always difficult,” he said. “Hindsight is 20-20.”
Although U.S. casualties in Iraq dropped from 76 for the month of July 2007 to just five so far for July 2008, the Illinois senator said that President Bush’s policy was “just something I disagreed with.”
Of course, should he become president, Obama will be faced with similar situations where he will be required to make difficult decisions based on the “hypotheticals” of uncertain intelligence, inferences, and murky political forecasts of cause and effect.
CBS News anchor Katie Couric uncharacteristically grilled Obama on his unwillingness to acknowledge that the surge had been a success in a separate interview on Tuesday taped while Obama was in Jordan.
“You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying why,” she said.
When Obama tried to avoid a direct answer, Couric came back to the charge repeatedly, asking him if the additional troops had helped to reduce the violence.
“Katie, as you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped reduce violence [in iraq]. There’s no doubt.”
Despite this, he said he continued to oppose the surge, prompting Couric to ask him again if the current reduced level of violence could have occurred without the troop increase ordered by Bush and supported by McCain.
“Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation,” Obama said. “So this is all hypotheticals.”
It was the type of comment that has allowed the McCain adviser Kori Schake to accuse Obama of “not understanding the consequences of his policy choices.”
In opposing the surge in January 2007, Obama stated that it would not “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place” in Iraq, and that it would “not prove to be the one [strategy] that changes the dynamics significantly.”
Of course, events have proved just the opposite. As the Washington Times pointed out recently in an editorial, if Obama’s initial policy of withdrawing all U.S. troops by March 2008 had been put into action, it “would have meant leaving the mission incomplete and leaving Iraq in defeat.”
Moving on to a carefully choreographed trip to Israel — only the second time he has ever visited the Jewish state — Obama immediately pledged that if elected he would tackle the issue of Middle East peace negotiations “right away.”
That elicited skepticism even from the traveling press corps, which for the most part has fawned over Obama from the start. “What fresh strategies would you bring?” he was asked.
In the world of marketing, Obama’s response would have been called a repackaging job. “A U.S. administration has to put its weight behind a process,” he said, “recognizing that it’s not going to happen immediately.”
The United States has been pushing a peace “process” between Arabs and Israelis since the administration of Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.
During that time, Israel has been forced to fight two wars in Lebanon, put down two Palestinian uprisings, endure Iraqi missile strikes and waves of suicide bombers, and most recently suffer two thousand rocket attacks from neighboring Gaza.
Obama said his role in the “process” would not be “to dictate to either of the parties what this deal should be, but hopefully to be able to facilitate and promote a meaningful, realistic, pragmatic, concrete strategy.”
That prompted Hishem Melhem, the Washington, D.C., correspondent for the Al Arabiya satellite television network to politely scoff. “To begin with, the next American president will be forced, regardless of his intentions, to be focusing on the old so-called arc of crisis: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. If he’s going to focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, he’s going to find an arid landscape.”
Yesterday, Obama sparred with reporters during a brief press conference in the Israeli town of Sderot, which has born the brunt of Palestinian rocket attacks over the past two years, over his offer to hold unconditional talks with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“A year ago, you said you would meet in your first year as president” with Ahmadinejad and other leaders of rogue nations, “Is there anything you’ve heard today in your discussions with Israeli leaders to make you rethink that pledge, or are you standing by that?” a reporter asked.
The reporter was referring to a moment in the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C., on July 23, 2007, when Obama was asked if he would be ”willing to meet separately, without pre-condition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divies our countries.”
At the time, Obama answered, “I would.”
On Wednesday, however, he attempted to shift ground. “I think you have to look at what the question was in South Carolina and how I responded . . . I think that what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And, Dan, that continues to be my position.”
In a hastily-organized conference call with reporters just one hour after Obama made those remarks, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann accused Obama of “trying to rewrite history . . . I guess for Senator Obama, words matter — except when they pose an inconvenient truth.”
Sen. Obama’s goal throughout this rare overseas visit has been to generate the impression of foreign policy experience, and to win the confidence of American Jewish voters, who so far have responded lukewarmly to his candidacy.
A recent Gallup Poll shows that fully one-third of Jewish voters favor McCain, a dramatic increase in Republican support from previous elections. In 2004, Sen. John Kerry won 74 percent of the Jewish vote. In 2000, Al Gore won 79 percent.
While Jews make up just 3 percent of the U.S. electorate, campaign strategists in both camps believe that their vote could determine the outcome in key swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and possibly in Pennsylvania and New Jersey as well.
In June, Obama made what appeared to be a firm pledge to support Jerusalem remaining the “undivided” capital of Israel in a speech before the American Israel Public Affairs committee (AIPAC).
Those comments won him a standing ovation from some 6,000 people in the Washington, D.C., convention center.
But just days later, Obama said he needed to “correct” that statement, that had been “poorly worded” by speech writers. Yesterday, he told reporters that the fate of Jerusalem was “a final status issue,” meaning that in fact it could be divided by mutual accord.
After the Obama press conference, McCain told reporters traveling with his campaign that it was hard to say how his administration would differ from an Obama administration on Israel.
"I don't know because I never know exactly what his position is," McCain said, citing Obama's Jerusalem comments. "I know the issues. I've been there time and time again."
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Everything seemed planned for the future campaign commercials — at least, that’s how it seemed to a U.S. Air Force captain when Sen. Barack Obama and his entourage swooped into Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan for an hour-long visit last Saturday at the start of a week-long foreign tour. “He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle” without pausing to acknowledge the U.S. troops who had been waiting all day just for the opportunity to meet him, the officer told the Blackfive pro-military blog.
As the soldiers lined up to shake his hand, the Illinois senator “blew them off and didn’t say a word,” ducking into the conference room to meet the general.
Then the armored vehicles took him to where “he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to soldiers to thank them for their service,” the captain wrote.
“As you know, I am not a very political person. I just wanted to share with you what happened” during Obama’s visit, the captain related.
“I swear, we got more thanks from the NBA basketball players or the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders than from Senator Obama,” he added.
The Illinois senator used his first-ever trip to Afghanistan to drive home his campaign message that the Bush administration — and by inference, his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain — have squandered resources in Iraq while ignoring the “central front” in the war on terror, which Obama insists is Afghanistan.
Traveling onward to Iraq, Obama met with U.S. commanders and with Iraqi leaders, who briefed him on the dramatic progress in decreasing violence that has been made since the U.S. troop surge began last year.
And yet, Obama told ABC News that he still would not have supported the surge, even knowing how things worked out.
“Hypotheticals are always difficult,” he said. “Hindsight is 20-20.”
Although U.S. casualties in Iraq dropped from 76 for the month of July 2007 to just five so far for July 2008, the Illinois senator said that President Bush’s policy was “just something I disagreed with.”
Of course, should he become president, Obama will be faced with similar situations where he will be required to make difficult decisions based on the “hypotheticals” of uncertain intelligence, inferences, and murky political forecasts of cause and effect.
CBS News anchor Katie Couric uncharacteristically grilled Obama on his unwillingness to acknowledge that the surge had been a success in a separate interview on Tuesday taped while Obama was in Jordan.
“You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying why,” she said.
When Obama tried to avoid a direct answer, Couric came back to the charge repeatedly, asking him if the additional troops had helped to reduce the violence.
“Katie, as you’ve asked me three different times, and I have said repeatedly that there is no doubt that our troops helped reduce violence [in iraq]. There’s no doubt.”
Despite this, he said he continued to oppose the surge, prompting Couric to ask him again if the current reduced level of violence could have occurred without the troop increase ordered by Bush and supported by McCain.
“Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach, which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation,” Obama said. “So this is all hypotheticals.”
It was the type of comment that has allowed the McCain adviser Kori Schake to accuse Obama of “not understanding the consequences of his policy choices.”
In opposing the surge in January 2007, Obama stated that it would not “make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that’s taking place” in Iraq, and that it would “not prove to be the one [strategy] that changes the dynamics significantly.”
Of course, events have proved just the opposite. As the Washington Times pointed out recently in an editorial, if Obama’s initial policy of withdrawing all U.S. troops by March 2008 had been put into action, it “would have meant leaving the mission incomplete and leaving Iraq in defeat.”
Moving on to a carefully choreographed trip to Israel — only the second time he has ever visited the Jewish state — Obama immediately pledged that if elected he would tackle the issue of Middle East peace negotiations “right away.”
That elicited skepticism even from the traveling press corps, which for the most part has fawned over Obama from the start. “What fresh strategies would you bring?” he was asked.
In the world of marketing, Obama’s response would have been called a repackaging job. “A U.S. administration has to put its weight behind a process,” he said, “recognizing that it’s not going to happen immediately.”
The United States has been pushing a peace “process” between Arabs and Israelis since the administration of Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.
During that time, Israel has been forced to fight two wars in Lebanon, put down two Palestinian uprisings, endure Iraqi missile strikes and waves of suicide bombers, and most recently suffer two thousand rocket attacks from neighboring Gaza.
Obama said his role in the “process” would not be “to dictate to either of the parties what this deal should be, but hopefully to be able to facilitate and promote a meaningful, realistic, pragmatic, concrete strategy.”
That prompted Hishem Melhem, the Washington, D.C., correspondent for the Al Arabiya satellite television network to politely scoff. “To begin with, the next American president will be forced, regardless of his intentions, to be focusing on the old so-called arc of crisis: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. If he’s going to focus on the Arab-Israeli conflict, he’s going to find an arid landscape.”
Yesterday, Obama sparred with reporters during a brief press conference in the Israeli town of Sderot, which has born the brunt of Palestinian rocket attacks over the past two years, over his offer to hold unconditional talks with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“A year ago, you said you would meet in your first year as president” with Ahmadinejad and other leaders of rogue nations, “Is there anything you’ve heard today in your discussions with Israeli leaders to make you rethink that pledge, or are you standing by that?” a reporter asked.
The reporter was referring to a moment in the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C., on July 23, 2007, when Obama was asked if he would be ”willing to meet separately, without pre-condition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divies our countries.”
At the time, Obama answered, “I would.”
On Wednesday, however, he attempted to shift ground. “I think you have to look at what the question was in South Carolina and how I responded . . . I think that what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America. And, Dan, that continues to be my position.”
In a hastily-organized conference call with reporters just one hour after Obama made those remarks, McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann accused Obama of “trying to rewrite history . . . I guess for Senator Obama, words matter — except when they pose an inconvenient truth.”
Sen. Obama’s goal throughout this rare overseas visit has been to generate the impression of foreign policy experience, and to win the confidence of American Jewish voters, who so far have responded lukewarmly to his candidacy.
A recent Gallup Poll shows that fully one-third of Jewish voters favor McCain, a dramatic increase in Republican support from previous elections. In 2004, Sen. John Kerry won 74 percent of the Jewish vote. In 2000, Al Gore won 79 percent.
While Jews make up just 3 percent of the U.S. electorate, campaign strategists in both camps believe that their vote could determine the outcome in key swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and possibly in Pennsylvania and New Jersey as well.
In June, Obama made what appeared to be a firm pledge to support Jerusalem remaining the “undivided” capital of Israel in a speech before the American Israel Public Affairs committee (AIPAC).
Those comments won him a standing ovation from some 6,000 people in the Washington, D.C., convention center.
But just days later, Obama said he needed to “correct” that statement, that had been “poorly worded” by speech writers. Yesterday, he told reporters that the fate of Jerusalem was “a final status issue,” meaning that in fact it could be divided by mutual accord.
After the Obama press conference, McCain told reporters traveling with his campaign that it was hard to say how his administration would differ from an Obama administration on Israel.
"I don't know because I never know exactly what his position is," McCain said, citing Obama's Jerusalem comments. "I know the issues. I've been there time and time again."
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Jews can’t vote for Obama and be pro-Israel at the same time
Ted Belman
In the poll of Jewish voters (conducted April 1-30), it showed Obama getting 61% of the Jewish vote against John McCain (32%). Yet in the same poll Hillary Clinton beat Obama among Jewish voters 62% - 38%. So obviously Jews are lifelong democrats who will vote for Obama, whom they rejected in the primaries, rather than vote for McCain. Thus, for them, party loyalty is preferable to Israel loyalty.
Recently I posted two articles by Yarom Ettinger, former Israeli Ambassador to the US, The Prospects of a Palestinian State and National Interests of the United States and It’s American interests, stupid, both of which clearly demonstrate that keeping Israel strong is to keep America strong. Thus to be pro-Israel is to be pro-America. Now some would argue that most Jewish Americans are not one issue voters but they must realize that to favour a basket of issues or the Democratic Party above favouring Israel, makes them less pro-Israel and thus less pro-American. This I am sure will get howls of protest from the J-Street Lobby which represents progressive Jewry, who would have you believe that by forcing Israel to capitulate, they are acting in the best interests of Israel and the US. I hope you don’t buy their thinking. These articles fly in the face of such thinking. Consider them carefully it is important.
While most Jews favour Obama in a run off with McCain because he is a Democrat, they ignore how pro-Palestinian and anti-American he is.
Let me list the ways.
- Obama said “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,”
- Obama said “If there is an Arab American family [in the US] being rounded up without benefit of an attorney, those are my civil liberties!”
- Everyone on Obama’s foreign policy team, McPeak, Hamilton, Kurtzer, Brezezinski, are anti- Israel and The Israel Lobby. Their policies are closely aligned with Carter’s and Baker’s.
- Obama has been in bed with Jew haters and Islamic jihad for years. Farrakhan and his dear friend Reverend Wright, Obama’s spiritual guru, is a vile Jew hater.
- Obama is the first Presidential candidate endorsed by Hamas. He is the toast of the Islamic world. Obama’s church posted a Hamas manifesto.
- Obama has been endorsed by William Ayers (Weatherman Underground bomber, unrepentant domestic terrorist) (Member Communist Party USA, Early mentor to Obama) Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation militant, racist, and Pastor) Tony Rezko (Corrupt Financier, ties to Terror Financing) Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-American) Hamas Terrorist Organization (Islamic Terrorist Organization) Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Islamic Terror Irganization) Raila Odinga (Fundamental Islamic Candidate, Kenya, Obama’s Cousin) Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader. Nicaragua Raul Castro (Hard-line Communist Leader, Communist Party Illinois (US Communist Political Party) Socialist Party USA (Marxist Socialist Political Party) The New Black Panther Party (Black Militant Organization, anti-American and racist Mosques are preaching for Obama (muslims vote inshallah!)
- We know from this blog entry by the pro-Palestinian blogger Ali Abunimah at The Electronic Intifadah, that Obama has moved to a move pro-Israel position as his national aspirations developed. “The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood,” Abunimah writes. “He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing. “As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.’ He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, ‘Keep up the good work!”
- Ralph Nader agrees.“(Obama) has run a brilliant tactical campaign. But his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself….He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran–during the state Senate.”
- Obama served as a paid director on the board of a nonprofit organization that granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a “catastrophe.” (Obama has also reportedly spoken at fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.). The co-founder of that Arab group, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, is a harsh critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department. Khalidi held a fundraiser in 2000 for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
- Ten years ago Obama went to a pro-Palestinian dinner at which Edward Said was the guest speaker and they sat at the same table.
- Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs.
- Obama very recently and previously referred to the “cycle of violence” in the Middle East. He thereby equates Arab criminal violence with legitimate Israeli self-defence.
- Obama’s Church reprinted the outrageous claim that Israel planned an “ethnic bomb” to kill blacks and Arabs.
All items listed above cannot be characterized as a smear as they are all true.
How can Jews ignore all this or dismiss it as inconsequential? I don’t get it.
ADDENDUM ( found this article after writing mine.)
A Curious Kind of Friendship; Barack Obama’s dubious record on Israel
MARK HEMINGWAY, NRO
On April 21, Barack Obama found himself at a diner in Scranton, Pa. The Illinois senator hadn’t been available to the press in ten days, so a reporter approached him.
Perhaps Obama was in a bad mood because he foresaw a drubbing — the next day, Pennsylvanian primary voters went for Hillary. Or maybe he just didn’t like the reporter’s question: “Senator, did you hear about Jimmy Carter’s trip? He said he could get Hamas to negotiate.”
Looking down at his breakfast, the senator snapped back, “Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”
The week before, two important things had happened. One, Obama had declined to condemn Carter’s meeting with Hamas, though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had opposed the trip. Two, the Palestinian terrorist group took the unusual step of endorsing him. When asked about the endorsement, Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, was flattered that Hamas compared his candidate to JFK: “We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps.”
Republican nominee John McCain quickly took note. “We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas,” he said.
The day following Wafflegate, Obama told the press it was a “bad idea” for Carter to meet with Hamas, as it gave the group “a legitimacy that was unnecessary.”
It’s understandable that Obama would rather do just about anything than talk about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Questions about Obama’s support for Israel have percolated in Jewish publications and elsewhere for more than a year, and now they threaten to spill over into the mainstream media. In March, speaking to reporters in Texas, Obama defended his record: “Nobody has ever been able to point to statements that I made or positions that I’ve taken that are contrary to the long-term security interests in Israel and in any way diminish the special relationship we have with that country.” Trouble is, this claim is simply not true.
Obama has been battling the perception that he is insufficiently supportive of Israel since last year, when he told the Des Moines Register, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” An Iowa Democrat and member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), David Adelman, called Obama’s comments “deeply troubling.” Obama claimed the remark was taken out of context, but the Politico noted that talk of Obama’s comment was one of many reasons that a “real, if kind of inchoate, skepticism” dominated discussions of Obama at AIPAC’s annual policy conference in March of last year.
Whatever the context of that specific remark, many subsequent revelations have given ample reason for skepticism: Obama has repeatedly claimed to support Israel, but his record doesn’t jibe with his rhetoric. Last year, he announced he would vote against an amendment in the Senate declaring Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — which has long supported Hezbollah terrorists and otherwise abetted the murder of Israelis — a terrorist group. The resolution passed 76–22, with the support of Hillary Clinton, Illinois senator Dick Durbin, and a host of other reliable liberals. Obama missed the vote while campaigning in New Hampshire, but he attacked Clinton on the issue, saying the non-binding amendment might exacerbate tensions with Iran.
What’s more, his life is marked by ties to anti-Israeli causes. A recent report in the Los Angeles Times detailed Obama’s close relationship with Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University. In the late 1970s Khalidi worked with WAFA, the official news agency of the Palestinian Liberation Organization; during this period, the PLO and its factions
engaged in acts of terrorism. In 2005 Khalidi gained national attention when he argued that, under international law, Palestinians have a right to violently resist Israeli occupation.
While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi co-founded the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), an organization with a history of churning out anti-Israeli propaganda. AAAN’s current projects include “The Arab American Oral History Project.” The group’s website asks, “Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?” “Al Nakba” translates as “the catastrophe,” and 1948 is the year in which Israel became a
state.
Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama’s failed congressional bid in 2000, while Obama was a state senator representing the liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. In 2003, Obama attended a tribute dinner for Khalidi where, according to the Los Angeles Times, a speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden.
The largess flowed in both directions. From 1999 to 2002 Obama served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, a grant-making foundation with assets of $68 million whose nominal goal is “to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the [Chicago] metropolitan area.” According to tax forms and annual reports, in 2001 and 2002 the Woods Fund gave AAAN a total of $75,000 in grants. Bill Ayers, a former (and unrepentant) member of the left-wing terrorist group the Weather Underground, sat on the board with
Obama.
The aforementioned Politico article also noted “[anti-Israeli] sentiment . .. circulating largely on private email lists and in chatter about a posting on the pro-Palestinian blog Electronic Intifada, which claimed (with little evidence) that Obama was once on the Palestinian side.” For some time Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah has been saying that, in private
conversations, Obama expressed unequivocal pro-Palestinian views. Abunimah is an activist in Chicago’s Palestinian community, and is on the board of AAAN, with which he has a long history of involvement. Given Obama’s own involvement with Khalidi and AAAN, Abunimah’s claim to have had such conversations with Obama seems plausible.
There have also been flaps over campaign advisers. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, has recently endorsed and campaigned with Obama. Brzezinski was singled out recently for defending The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a book arguing that “the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state [Israel].” After a campaign press release described Robert Malley, an adviser to the Clinton administration on the Arab-Israeli conflict, as an Obama adviser, the campaign sought to distance itself from Malley — whom New Republic editor-in-chief Marty Peretz has called “a rabid hater of Israel.”
When it comes to Israel, perhaps the most controversial member of Obama’s campaign is his chief military adviser and national-campaign co-chairman, Gen. Merrill McPeak. In 1976, McPeak wrote an article for Foreign Affairs criticizing Israel for not returning to its 1967 borders and handing the Golan Heights back to Syria. McPeak accused Jewish and evangelical voters of placing their interest in Israel above U.S. interests in a 2003 interview with the
Oregonian. When asked what was holding back world peace, McPeak responded, “New York City. Miami. We have a large vote . . . here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.” Obama disavowed McPeak’s stance on Israel, but stands behind the campaign’s relationship with the general.
Then there’s Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. . . . [We need to] wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.” Last year, the bulletin at Wright ’s church reprinted an article by a Hamas official.
Given Obama’s past and current relationships, the Jewish community is taking his rhetoric with hefty portions of sodium chloride. One well-known Jewish Democratic strategist says that with Obama running, McCain could equal or even surpass the 39 percent of the Jewish vote that Ronald Reagan captured against Jimmy Carter in 1980. This could be a major factor in swing states with significant Jewish populations, notably Florida and Pennsylvania. According to Pennsylvania-primary exit polls, Jews went for Hillary, 62 to 38 percent.
There are two ways of looking at all this. Perhaps Obama is privately hostile to Israel. Or perhaps he comes from a Hyde Park milieu so leftist that he saw these relationships as normal political connections. In a sense it doesn’t matter: Regardless of why Obama tolerates terrorist sympathizers, the fact that he has a history of doing so could destroy his candidacy. On the national stage, and particularly in the Democratic party, Jews play a prominent role.
“A normal liberal politician wouldn’t get near this — the political instinct would be, ‘I don’t want to touch this’ — but none of it offended his sensibilities,” the Jewish Democratic strategist said. “He sat there in rooms where Israel was likened to Osama bin Laden. He didn’t walk out.”
In the poll of Jewish voters (conducted April 1-30), it showed Obama getting 61% of the Jewish vote against John McCain (32%). Yet in the same poll Hillary Clinton beat Obama among Jewish voters 62% - 38%. So obviously Jews are lifelong democrats who will vote for Obama, whom they rejected in the primaries, rather than vote for McCain. Thus, for them, party loyalty is preferable to Israel loyalty.
Recently I posted two articles by Yarom Ettinger, former Israeli Ambassador to the US, The Prospects of a Palestinian State and National Interests of the United States and It’s American interests, stupid, both of which clearly demonstrate that keeping Israel strong is to keep America strong. Thus to be pro-Israel is to be pro-America. Now some would argue that most Jewish Americans are not one issue voters but they must realize that to favour a basket of issues or the Democratic Party above favouring Israel, makes them less pro-Israel and thus less pro-American. This I am sure will get howls of protest from the J-Street Lobby which represents progressive Jewry, who would have you believe that by forcing Israel to capitulate, they are acting in the best interests of Israel and the US. I hope you don’t buy their thinking. These articles fly in the face of such thinking. Consider them carefully it is important.
While most Jews favour Obama in a run off with McCain because he is a Democrat, they ignore how pro-Palestinian and anti-American he is.
Let me list the ways.
- Obama said “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,”
- Obama said “If there is an Arab American family [in the US] being rounded up without benefit of an attorney, those are my civil liberties!”
- Everyone on Obama’s foreign policy team, McPeak, Hamilton, Kurtzer, Brezezinski, are anti- Israel and The Israel Lobby. Their policies are closely aligned with Carter’s and Baker’s.
- Obama has been in bed with Jew haters and Islamic jihad for years. Farrakhan and his dear friend Reverend Wright, Obama’s spiritual guru, is a vile Jew hater.
- Obama is the first Presidential candidate endorsed by Hamas. He is the toast of the Islamic world. Obama’s church posted a Hamas manifesto.
- Obama has been endorsed by William Ayers (Weatherman Underground bomber, unrepentant domestic terrorist) (Member Communist Party USA, Early mentor to Obama) Jeremiah Wright (Black Liberation militant, racist, and Pastor) Tony Rezko (Corrupt Financier, ties to Terror Financing) Louis Farrakhan (Nation of Islam Leader, racist, anti-American) Hamas Terrorist Organization (Islamic Terrorist Organization) Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Islamic Terror Irganization) Raila Odinga (Fundamental Islamic Candidate, Kenya, Obama’s Cousin) Daniel Ortega (Marxist Sandinista Leader. Nicaragua Raul Castro (Hard-line Communist Leader, Communist Party Illinois (US Communist Political Party) Socialist Party USA (Marxist Socialist Political Party) The New Black Panther Party (Black Militant Organization, anti-American and racist Mosques are preaching for Obama (muslims vote inshallah!)
- We know from this blog entry by the pro-Palestinian blogger Ali Abunimah at The Electronic Intifadah, that Obama has moved to a move pro-Israel position as his national aspirations developed. “The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood,” Abunimah writes. “He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing. “As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.’ He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, ‘Keep up the good work!”
- Ralph Nader agrees.“(Obama) has run a brilliant tactical campaign. But his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself….He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran–during the state Senate.”
- Obama served as a paid director on the board of a nonprofit organization that granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a “catastrophe.” (Obama has also reportedly spoken at fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.). The co-founder of that Arab group, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, is a harsh critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department. Khalidi held a fundraiser in 2000 for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
- Ten years ago Obama went to a pro-Palestinian dinner at which Edward Said was the guest speaker and they sat at the same table.
- Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs.
- Obama very recently and previously referred to the “cycle of violence” in the Middle East. He thereby equates Arab criminal violence with legitimate Israeli self-defence.
- Obama’s Church reprinted the outrageous claim that Israel planned an “ethnic bomb” to kill blacks and Arabs.
All items listed above cannot be characterized as a smear as they are all true.
How can Jews ignore all this or dismiss it as inconsequential? I don’t get it.
ADDENDUM ( found this article after writing mine.)
A Curious Kind of Friendship; Barack Obama’s dubious record on Israel
MARK HEMINGWAY, NRO
On April 21, Barack Obama found himself at a diner in Scranton, Pa. The Illinois senator hadn’t been available to the press in ten days, so a reporter approached him.
Perhaps Obama was in a bad mood because he foresaw a drubbing — the next day, Pennsylvanian primary voters went for Hillary. Or maybe he just didn’t like the reporter’s question: “Senator, did you hear about Jimmy Carter’s trip? He said he could get Hamas to negotiate.”
Looking down at his breakfast, the senator snapped back, “Why can’t I just eat my waffle?”
The week before, two important things had happened. One, Obama had declined to condemn Carter’s meeting with Hamas, though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had opposed the trip. Two, the Palestinian terrorist group took the unusual step of endorsing him. When asked about the endorsement, Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, was flattered that Hamas compared his candidate to JFK: “We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his footsteps.”
Republican nominee John McCain quickly took note. “We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas,” he said.
The day following Wafflegate, Obama told the press it was a “bad idea” for Carter to meet with Hamas, as it gave the group “a legitimacy that was unnecessary.”
It’s understandable that Obama would rather do just about anything than talk about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Questions about Obama’s support for Israel have percolated in Jewish publications and elsewhere for more than a year, and now they threaten to spill over into the mainstream media. In March, speaking to reporters in Texas, Obama defended his record: “Nobody has ever been able to point to statements that I made or positions that I’ve taken that are contrary to the long-term security interests in Israel and in any way diminish the special relationship we have with that country.” Trouble is, this claim is simply not true.
Obama has been battling the perception that he is insufficiently supportive of Israel since last year, when he told the Des Moines Register, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” An Iowa Democrat and member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), David Adelman, called Obama’s comments “deeply troubling.” Obama claimed the remark was taken out of context, but the Politico noted that talk of Obama’s comment was one of many reasons that a “real, if kind of inchoate, skepticism” dominated discussions of Obama at AIPAC’s annual policy conference in March of last year.
Whatever the context of that specific remark, many subsequent revelations have given ample reason for skepticism: Obama has repeatedly claimed to support Israel, but his record doesn’t jibe with his rhetoric. Last year, he announced he would vote against an amendment in the Senate declaring Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — which has long supported Hezbollah terrorists and otherwise abetted the murder of Israelis — a terrorist group. The resolution passed 76–22, with the support of Hillary Clinton, Illinois senator Dick Durbin, and a host of other reliable liberals. Obama missed the vote while campaigning in New Hampshire, but he attacked Clinton on the issue, saying the non-binding amendment might exacerbate tensions with Iran.
What’s more, his life is marked by ties to anti-Israeli causes. A recent report in the Los Angeles Times detailed Obama’s close relationship with Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University. In the late 1970s Khalidi worked with WAFA, the official news agency of the Palestinian Liberation Organization; during this period, the PLO and its factions
engaged in acts of terrorism. In 2005 Khalidi gained national attention when he argued that, under international law, Palestinians have a right to violently resist Israeli occupation.
While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi co-founded the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), an organization with a history of churning out anti-Israeli propaganda. AAAN’s current projects include “The Arab American Oral History Project.” The group’s website asks, “Do you have photos, letters or other memories you could share about Al-Nakba-1948?” “Al Nakba” translates as “the catastrophe,” and 1948 is the year in which Israel became a
state.
Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama’s failed congressional bid in 2000, while Obama was a state senator representing the liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. In 2003, Obama attended a tribute dinner for Khalidi where, according to the Los Angeles Times, a speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden.
The largess flowed in both directions. From 1999 to 2002 Obama served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, a grant-making foundation with assets of $68 million whose nominal goal is “to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the [Chicago] metropolitan area.” According to tax forms and annual reports, in 2001 and 2002 the Woods Fund gave AAAN a total of $75,000 in grants. Bill Ayers, a former (and unrepentant) member of the left-wing terrorist group the Weather Underground, sat on the board with
Obama.
The aforementioned Politico article also noted “[anti-Israeli] sentiment . .. circulating largely on private email lists and in chatter about a posting on the pro-Palestinian blog Electronic Intifada, which claimed (with little evidence) that Obama was once on the Palestinian side.” For some time Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah has been saying that, in private
conversations, Obama expressed unequivocal pro-Palestinian views. Abunimah is an activist in Chicago’s Palestinian community, and is on the board of AAAN, with which he has a long history of involvement. Given Obama’s own involvement with Khalidi and AAAN, Abunimah’s claim to have had such conversations with Obama seems plausible.
There have also been flaps over campaign advisers. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, has recently endorsed and campaigned with Obama. Brzezinski was singled out recently for defending The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, a book arguing that “the United States has been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state [Israel].” After a campaign press release described Robert Malley, an adviser to the Clinton administration on the Arab-Israeli conflict, as an Obama adviser, the campaign sought to distance itself from Malley — whom New Republic editor-in-chief Marty Peretz has called “a rabid hater of Israel.”
When it comes to Israel, perhaps the most controversial member of Obama’s campaign is his chief military adviser and national-campaign co-chairman, Gen. Merrill McPeak. In 1976, McPeak wrote an article for Foreign Affairs criticizing Israel for not returning to its 1967 borders and handing the Golan Heights back to Syria. McPeak accused Jewish and evangelical voters of placing their interest in Israel above U.S. interests in a 2003 interview with the
Oregonian. When asked what was holding back world peace, McPeak responded, “New York City. Miami. We have a large vote . . . here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.” Obama disavowed McPeak’s stance on Israel, but stands behind the campaign’s relationship with the general.
Then there’s Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. . . . [We need to] wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.” Last year, the bulletin at Wright ’s church reprinted an article by a Hamas official.
Given Obama’s past and current relationships, the Jewish community is taking his rhetoric with hefty portions of sodium chloride. One well-known Jewish Democratic strategist says that with Obama running, McCain could equal or even surpass the 39 percent of the Jewish vote that Ronald Reagan captured against Jimmy Carter in 1980. This could be a major factor in swing states with significant Jewish populations, notably Florida and Pennsylvania. According to Pennsylvania-primary exit polls, Jews went for Hillary, 62 to 38 percent.
There are two ways of looking at all this. Perhaps Obama is privately hostile to Israel. Or perhaps he comes from a Hyde Park milieu so leftist that he saw these relationships as normal political connections. In a sense it doesn’t matter: Regardless of why Obama tolerates terrorist sympathizers, the fact that he has a history of doing so could destroy his candidacy. On the national stage, and particularly in the Democratic party, Jews play a prominent role.
“A normal liberal politician wouldn’t get near this — the political instinct would be, ‘I don’t want to touch this’ — but none of it offended his sensibilities,” the Jewish Democratic strategist said. “He sat there in rooms where Israel was likened to Osama bin Laden. He didn’t walk out.”
Obama Meets Netanyahu as Russia Arms Iran
Democrat Praises Peres, Visits With Abbas Beneath Portrait of Yasser Arafat
By BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun | July 24, 2008
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/obama-meets-netanyahu-as-russia-arms-iran/82537/
As Senator Obama utters some of his toughest comments on Iran to date while visiting Israel, saying all options must be on the table in addition to "tough diplomacy," Tehran is preparing to fend off air attacks against its facilities by acquiring antiair missiles from Russia.
Mr. Obama, who met Jerusalem's top officials and Palestinian Arab leaders yesterday, said a nuclear Iran poses a threat to Israel, the region, and American interests. According to several participants in meetings in Israel, where the Iranian issue topped his agenda, the Democratic presidential nominee did not exclude a military option, but he clearly favored other means.
Apparently fearing Israel would act even before the end of the Bush administration, Iran is boosting its air defenses with advanced Russian-made antiaircraft systems. A first delivery of S-300 missile batteries is expected as soon as early September, an unidentified Israeli source told Reuters yesterday. The missiles can track 100 targets at once and fire on planes 75 miles away. Flanked by aides and reporters, the Illinois senator flew by helicopter to Sderot, where fewer rockets have fallen since a recent "period of calm" was reached between Israel and the Iranian-backed Hamas. Conducting a press conference there, Mr. Obama said he would offer "a series of big sticks and big carrots to the Iranian regime to stand down on nuclear weapons." A nuclear Iran "would be a game-changing situation not just in the Mideast but around the world," he said, adding he would take no option "off the table."
"He certainly did not say bombers should fly to Iran tomorrow morning, but he said several times that all options are there and that, for diplomacy to work, it must be clear for the Iranians that the military option exists," said a former Israeli ambassador to America, Zalman Shoval, who attended a meeting between Mr. Obama and the leader of Israeli's Likud Party, Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Iranians "have dispersed their nuclear capabilities in a way that you're not going to see smooth, surgical strikes solving the problem entirely the way that Israel was able to deal with Iraq's nuclear threat," Mr. Obama told ABC News in an interview. "And so what we have to do is avoid that choice by applying the tough diplomacy that makes the calculus for the Iranians different."
Israel expects Iran to obtain nuclear capabilities by 2009, or 2010 at the latest, Prime Minister Olmert told Mr. Obama, who dined at the prime minister's residence last night, adding that the current measures against Tehran are not enough to stop it.
As "someone who was born and spent his childhood in Iran, I know the Iranian people very well," Israel's transportation minister, Shaul Mofaz — who is running against Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to replace Mr. Olmert as leader of the Kadima Party — wrote in an "open letter" to Mr. Obama in the Jerusalem Post. "I can tell you that the only language that can be used in this case is the language of strength," Mr. Mofaz wrote.
As the Hashemite king of Jordan, Abdullah, tried to do a day earlier, President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad tried to convince Mr. Obama to pay more attention to Palestinian Arab-Israeli negotiations than to Iran's threat. "If he wins the election in the United States, he will be a full and positive partner in the peace process and will not lose a single moment in pursuing it," negotiator Saeb Erakat told AFP after Mr. Obama's hour-long meeting in Ramallah.
According to reporters who followed Mr. Obama to Ramallah, a picture of Yasser Arafat was displayed between him and Mr. Abbas during the meeting at the Muqata complex. One photo of the meeting shows Mr. Arafat's smiling visage overlooking the two from a framed position on a nearby wall. Mr. Obama did avoid visiting the nearby mausoleum where Arafat is buried, and the Democratic presidential candidate took no questions from reporters in Ramallah.
At Sderot, near the Gaza border, Mr. Obama he would not negotiate with Hamas, which has attacked the town with mortars almost daily. "It is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation-state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon and is deeply influenced by other countries," he said.
President Peres highlighted economic solutions to the dispute with the Palestinian Arabs. American investors "can open doors that are shut to America's diplomats and its military," Mr. Peres said, according to his strategic adviser Yoram Dori. Mr. Obama "treated Peres like a student treats his teacher," Mr. Dori said.
"For most of Israel's 60 years, you have been deeply involved in this miracle that has blossomed, and we are extremely grateful, not just as Americans but as world citizens, to your outstanding service to your country and the insight that you have shared with us," Mr. Obama said alongside Mr. Peres.
By BENNY AVNI, Staff Reporter of the Sun | July 24, 2008
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/obama-meets-netanyahu-as-russia-arms-iran/82537/
As Senator Obama utters some of his toughest comments on Iran to date while visiting Israel, saying all options must be on the table in addition to "tough diplomacy," Tehran is preparing to fend off air attacks against its facilities by acquiring antiair missiles from Russia.
Mr. Obama, who met Jerusalem's top officials and Palestinian Arab leaders yesterday, said a nuclear Iran poses a threat to Israel, the region, and American interests. According to several participants in meetings in Israel, where the Iranian issue topped his agenda, the Democratic presidential nominee did not exclude a military option, but he clearly favored other means.
Apparently fearing Israel would act even before the end of the Bush administration, Iran is boosting its air defenses with advanced Russian-made antiaircraft systems. A first delivery of S-300 missile batteries is expected as soon as early September, an unidentified Israeli source told Reuters yesterday. The missiles can track 100 targets at once and fire on planes 75 miles away. Flanked by aides and reporters, the Illinois senator flew by helicopter to Sderot, where fewer rockets have fallen since a recent "period of calm" was reached between Israel and the Iranian-backed Hamas. Conducting a press conference there, Mr. Obama said he would offer "a series of big sticks and big carrots to the Iranian regime to stand down on nuclear weapons." A nuclear Iran "would be a game-changing situation not just in the Mideast but around the world," he said, adding he would take no option "off the table."
"He certainly did not say bombers should fly to Iran tomorrow morning, but he said several times that all options are there and that, for diplomacy to work, it must be clear for the Iranians that the military option exists," said a former Israeli ambassador to America, Zalman Shoval, who attended a meeting between Mr. Obama and the leader of Israeli's Likud Party, Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Iranians "have dispersed their nuclear capabilities in a way that you're not going to see smooth, surgical strikes solving the problem entirely the way that Israel was able to deal with Iraq's nuclear threat," Mr. Obama told ABC News in an interview. "And so what we have to do is avoid that choice by applying the tough diplomacy that makes the calculus for the Iranians different."
Israel expects Iran to obtain nuclear capabilities by 2009, or 2010 at the latest, Prime Minister Olmert told Mr. Obama, who dined at the prime minister's residence last night, adding that the current measures against Tehran are not enough to stop it.
As "someone who was born and spent his childhood in Iran, I know the Iranian people very well," Israel's transportation minister, Shaul Mofaz — who is running against Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to replace Mr. Olmert as leader of the Kadima Party — wrote in an "open letter" to Mr. Obama in the Jerusalem Post. "I can tell you that the only language that can be used in this case is the language of strength," Mr. Mofaz wrote.
As the Hashemite king of Jordan, Abdullah, tried to do a day earlier, President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad tried to convince Mr. Obama to pay more attention to Palestinian Arab-Israeli negotiations than to Iran's threat. "If he wins the election in the United States, he will be a full and positive partner in the peace process and will not lose a single moment in pursuing it," negotiator Saeb Erakat told AFP after Mr. Obama's hour-long meeting in Ramallah.
According to reporters who followed Mr. Obama to Ramallah, a picture of Yasser Arafat was displayed between him and Mr. Abbas during the meeting at the Muqata complex. One photo of the meeting shows Mr. Arafat's smiling visage overlooking the two from a framed position on a nearby wall. Mr. Obama did avoid visiting the nearby mausoleum where Arafat is buried, and the Democratic presidential candidate took no questions from reporters in Ramallah.
At Sderot, near the Gaza border, Mr. Obama he would not negotiate with Hamas, which has attacked the town with mortars almost daily. "It is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation-state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon and is deeply influenced by other countries," he said.
President Peres highlighted economic solutions to the dispute with the Palestinian Arabs. American investors "can open doors that are shut to America's diplomats and its military," Mr. Peres said, according to his strategic adviser Yoram Dori. Mr. Obama "treated Peres like a student treats his teacher," Mr. Dori said.
"For most of Israel's 60 years, you have been deeply involved in this miracle that has blossomed, and we are extremely grateful, not just as Americans but as world citizens, to your outstanding service to your country and the insight that you have shared with us," Mr. Obama said alongside Mr. Peres.
Post-Olmert: A new era or more of the same?
Isi Leibler
July 24, 2008
That Ehud Olmert may remain at the helm for a few additional months, making life and death decisions at such a crucial time in our history, is utterly scandalous. But thank heaven, the most disastrous government Israel has ever experienced is now approaching its end. Had Olmert behaved honorably and resigned after the failed Second Lebanon War, he would have retained a modicum of dignity. Now he will depart in utter disgrace.
Our next objective must be to ensure that the shameful era of corruption, incompetence and erosion of democratic procedures we have undergone is not resurrected six months after a new regime has been established. We must acknowledge that corruption is not merely a consequence of unethical or dishonest individuals achieving power. It is equally a by-product of a flawed system lacking governance. The greatest destabilizing factor has been the proportional representational system inflicted upon us by our Zionist founding fathers. Theoretically it implied pure democracy, but in practice it encouraged the emergence of one-dimensional minority groups able to undemocratically leverage their demands to the detriment of the nation. It also led to the centralization of power, with party hierarchies rather than electors determining whether individual political candidates were to be rewarded or punished.
This inherent weakness of the system was concealed during the early years of the state because the leaders then were overwhelmingly idealistic and dedicated Zionists and would never contemplate promoting their personal agendas above the welfare of the nation.
That is not to deny that even during that period, obtaining plum jobs in the public sector could be expedited by exploiting Vitamin P for protektzia, a code expression for links with the ruling Mapai establishment. In addition, even David Ben-Gurion's economic guru Pinhas Sapir, a dedicated Zionist, was notorious for turning a blind eye to the law when it came to obtaining funds for the party.
But the stigma against corruption was so great, that in 1976 when housing minister Avraham Ofer was accused of misappropriating funds, he committed suicide. More strikingly, during his first term as prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin resigned instantly when it was disclosed that his wife had deposited a small sum in a foreign bank account in breach of currency regulations.
The most serious breakdown occurred at the outset of the Oslo era when, desperate to obtain a Knesset majority, Rabin shamelessly bribed corrupt opposition members, including Gonen Segev, who was appointed a minister but subsequently convicted of a drug-related felony.
From that point onward, in the absence of checks and balances and transparency, politicians began openly promoting their personal interests. A proliferation of scandals occurred, including president Ezer Weizman who was obliged to retire prematurely. However at that time Aryeh Deri, the Shas leader, was the only significant politician convicted for what was a minor offense, compared to malpractices by politicians subsequently exposed.
The primitive system of primaries alienated talented Israelis from entering the political arena and brought to the fore a new breed of politicians lacking ideological motivation, whose rise to power was determined by their effectiveness in stooping to the lowest common denominator and demonstrating the ability to provide jobs for the boys.
Public morality collapsed. Omri Sharon recruited criminal elements to provide support for his faction in the Likud central committee. Avram Burg was obliged to step down as leader of the Labor Party after it was disclosed that more Arab Israelis voted for him than were even registered on the Labor list.
When Ariel Sharon became prime minister, he introduced an authoritarian regime undermining the status of the Knesset and displaying contempt for the democratic process by overriding a Likud referendum - which he himself had initiated - opposing his disengagement policies. He also bypassed the government and destroyed his own party, creating Kadima which was largely based on personally handpicked malcontents with conflicting political affiliations who primarily joined the Sharon bandwagon to promote themselves.
When Olmert inherited the mantle of leadership without an election, the die was cast. The political arena was literally swarming with greedy self serving politicians, interested only in promoting themselves. The obscene scandals were never ending and included top leaders such as president Moshe Katsav, finance minister Avraham Hirchson, justice minister Haim Ramon and Olmert.
The government also forfeited any semblance of collective responsibility. Individual ministers publicly condemned the policies implemented by their prime minister, without feeling obliged to resign. Likewise the prime minister failed to inform the government of details of state assets he was unilaterally ceding to our adversaries in secret negotiations. No other Western democratic leadership would dare debase accountability in this manner.
Now the Olmert era is virtually over but unless his departure is accompanied by major reforms, the corrupt practices that have been the blight of our lives will soon reappear.
To obviate this, elections must be held to enable the people to elect new Knesset members committed to reform rather than once again merely having ministers playing musical chairs among themselves.
The electoral system which is the root source of most of the problems must be reformed. A framework providing parliamentarians with direct accountability to their constituency should be substituted for the current proportional representation system. Party preferences should be introduced to enable minority groups to retain influence while denying them the ability of imposing narrow sectional demands.
The next prime minister must restore ministerial responsibility in order to ensure the primacy of government and collective decision. Ministers must understand that if they publicly criticize policies adopted by their government, they are obliged to resign.
The state comptroller should assume a key role, ensuring that checks and balances are maintained and that the legislature always operates in a transparent manner. Draconian penalties must be enforced to deter politicians from succumbing to the temptation of taking undue advantage of the system for their personal benefit.
If new leaders commit themselves to such a regime, a new era of governance could emerge in which corruption and cronyism would be drastically curtailed.
The government could then also tap into the extraordinary talented brainpower at its disposal and develop long term strategies to deal with our adversaries. Instead of the endless empty threats, genuine deterrence would again apply. The peace process would be maintained, but only on the basis of genuine reciprocity.
Long neglected internal problems would be reviewed. These include poverty, education, the radicalization and social standing of Arab Israelis, the increasing polarization between the religious and nonobservant and the looming water crisis.
Despite what they have undergone in recent years, Israelis are a remarkable people. Given normal decent leaders with whom to interact they will overcome these challenges. The dream of our Zionist founders of becoming a light unto the nations can yet be achieved.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331074577&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Original article available at: http://www.leibler.com/article/347
July 24, 2008
That Ehud Olmert may remain at the helm for a few additional months, making life and death decisions at such a crucial time in our history, is utterly scandalous. But thank heaven, the most disastrous government Israel has ever experienced is now approaching its end. Had Olmert behaved honorably and resigned after the failed Second Lebanon War, he would have retained a modicum of dignity. Now he will depart in utter disgrace.
Our next objective must be to ensure that the shameful era of corruption, incompetence and erosion of democratic procedures we have undergone is not resurrected six months after a new regime has been established. We must acknowledge that corruption is not merely a consequence of unethical or dishonest individuals achieving power. It is equally a by-product of a flawed system lacking governance. The greatest destabilizing factor has been the proportional representational system inflicted upon us by our Zionist founding fathers. Theoretically it implied pure democracy, but in practice it encouraged the emergence of one-dimensional minority groups able to undemocratically leverage their demands to the detriment of the nation. It also led to the centralization of power, with party hierarchies rather than electors determining whether individual political candidates were to be rewarded or punished.
This inherent weakness of the system was concealed during the early years of the state because the leaders then were overwhelmingly idealistic and dedicated Zionists and would never contemplate promoting their personal agendas above the welfare of the nation.
That is not to deny that even during that period, obtaining plum jobs in the public sector could be expedited by exploiting Vitamin P for protektzia, a code expression for links with the ruling Mapai establishment. In addition, even David Ben-Gurion's economic guru Pinhas Sapir, a dedicated Zionist, was notorious for turning a blind eye to the law when it came to obtaining funds for the party.
But the stigma against corruption was so great, that in 1976 when housing minister Avraham Ofer was accused of misappropriating funds, he committed suicide. More strikingly, during his first term as prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin resigned instantly when it was disclosed that his wife had deposited a small sum in a foreign bank account in breach of currency regulations.
The most serious breakdown occurred at the outset of the Oslo era when, desperate to obtain a Knesset majority, Rabin shamelessly bribed corrupt opposition members, including Gonen Segev, who was appointed a minister but subsequently convicted of a drug-related felony.
From that point onward, in the absence of checks and balances and transparency, politicians began openly promoting their personal interests. A proliferation of scandals occurred, including president Ezer Weizman who was obliged to retire prematurely. However at that time Aryeh Deri, the Shas leader, was the only significant politician convicted for what was a minor offense, compared to malpractices by politicians subsequently exposed.
The primitive system of primaries alienated talented Israelis from entering the political arena and brought to the fore a new breed of politicians lacking ideological motivation, whose rise to power was determined by their effectiveness in stooping to the lowest common denominator and demonstrating the ability to provide jobs for the boys.
Public morality collapsed. Omri Sharon recruited criminal elements to provide support for his faction in the Likud central committee. Avram Burg was obliged to step down as leader of the Labor Party after it was disclosed that more Arab Israelis voted for him than were even registered on the Labor list.
When Ariel Sharon became prime minister, he introduced an authoritarian regime undermining the status of the Knesset and displaying contempt for the democratic process by overriding a Likud referendum - which he himself had initiated - opposing his disengagement policies. He also bypassed the government and destroyed his own party, creating Kadima which was largely based on personally handpicked malcontents with conflicting political affiliations who primarily joined the Sharon bandwagon to promote themselves.
When Olmert inherited the mantle of leadership without an election, the die was cast. The political arena was literally swarming with greedy self serving politicians, interested only in promoting themselves. The obscene scandals were never ending and included top leaders such as president Moshe Katsav, finance minister Avraham Hirchson, justice minister Haim Ramon and Olmert.
The government also forfeited any semblance of collective responsibility. Individual ministers publicly condemned the policies implemented by their prime minister, without feeling obliged to resign. Likewise the prime minister failed to inform the government of details of state assets he was unilaterally ceding to our adversaries in secret negotiations. No other Western democratic leadership would dare debase accountability in this manner.
Now the Olmert era is virtually over but unless his departure is accompanied by major reforms, the corrupt practices that have been the blight of our lives will soon reappear.
To obviate this, elections must be held to enable the people to elect new Knesset members committed to reform rather than once again merely having ministers playing musical chairs among themselves.
The electoral system which is the root source of most of the problems must be reformed. A framework providing parliamentarians with direct accountability to their constituency should be substituted for the current proportional representation system. Party preferences should be introduced to enable minority groups to retain influence while denying them the ability of imposing narrow sectional demands.
The next prime minister must restore ministerial responsibility in order to ensure the primacy of government and collective decision. Ministers must understand that if they publicly criticize policies adopted by their government, they are obliged to resign.
The state comptroller should assume a key role, ensuring that checks and balances are maintained and that the legislature always operates in a transparent manner. Draconian penalties must be enforced to deter politicians from succumbing to the temptation of taking undue advantage of the system for their personal benefit.
If new leaders commit themselves to such a regime, a new era of governance could emerge in which corruption and cronyism would be drastically curtailed.
The government could then also tap into the extraordinary talented brainpower at its disposal and develop long term strategies to deal with our adversaries. Instead of the endless empty threats, genuine deterrence would again apply. The peace process would be maintained, but only on the basis of genuine reciprocity.
Long neglected internal problems would be reviewed. These include poverty, education, the radicalization and social standing of Arab Israelis, the increasing polarization between the religious and nonobservant and the looming water crisis.
Despite what they have undergone in recent years, Israelis are a remarkable people. Given normal decent leaders with whom to interact they will overcome these challenges. The dream of our Zionist founders of becoming a light unto the nations can yet be achieved.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331074577&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Original article available at: http://www.leibler.com/article/347
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
"Severe and Growing"
Arlene Kushner
The statistics are disturbing. From 2001 through the end of 2007 -- six years, there were 270 Jerusalem Arabs detained for involvement in terror. Now, in the course of just over six months in 2008, there have been 71 detained on terror related charges -- an increase of roughly three-fold.The Shin Bet is saying that current security measures in eastern Jerusalem are insufficient. One source said that it is necessary to enter the Arab neighborhoods more frequently to carry out more arrests and do more deterrence. There is a strong feeling that there is a connection between what is going on in Gaza, and the photos coming out of Gaza, and the radicalization of Jerusalem Arabs.
~~~~~~~~~~
A serious part of the problem, of course, is that this terror is emanating from within. And, I might add for the record, it is emanating from comfortable, not poor, neighborhoods -- plus, in all of the three recent instances, the terrorists were employed. These are not instances of desperation due to poverty. What we're looking at is an increased radicalization of ideology that is fueled by Hamas.
The answer, however, is NOT to divide off eastern Jerusalem and give it to the PA so that these Arabs would no longer be within. There are at least two reasons for this. One is that the problem would only grow worse if we had no ability to enter the neighborhoods and do arrests and deterrence; the Hamas presence there would become stronger. Some of those radicalized would inevitably sneak into eastern Jerusalem, and in any event they would shoot rockets at western Jerusalem. (The parallel to this situation is our having pulled out of Gaza, which made things worse for us and solved no problems.)
The second is because Arab neighborhoods are interspersed between Jewish neighborhoods so that there is no clean line of division. It would be a logistic nightmare.
And then there is yet another reason: the PA would have no interest in assuming responsibility for these neighborhoods unless it also got the Old City and our most sacred site.
Plus, I might add, the Arab population that has Jerusalem residency IDs does not want to be transferred to the PA, thereby losing perks such as health care as well as essential civil rights. There is a percentage of this population that says if there is going to be a transfer of their neighborhoods to the PA, they will move elsewhere in Israel first -- and legally they have a right to do this.
So...a serious problem.
We cannot run away from it, we cannot isolate the terrorists and ignore them. We need to be strong and to practice deterrence (which in the case of Gaza, which we are being told is not unconnected to this, means ultimately acting militarily).
~~~~~~~~~~
Beginning immediately, Israeli police intend to more closely monitor Arab workers who are residents of eastern Jerusalem; there will be strict checks and patrols at construction sites.
~~~~~~~~~~
My own immediate response after this attack -- which I readily share with my readers -- was that Jerusalem Arabs should no longer be permitted to work with heavy equipment in construction. What I subsequently discovered was that Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupoliansky was of the same mind. In a TV interview he said:
"We should reconsider the employment of these people...
"We see how, after the Shin Bet and Mossad do wonderful work and throw terror out the door, it comes back through the window. [In the hands of terrorists] tools of construction become opportunities for attacks."
But then along came Public Security Minister Avi Dichter urging that Jerusalem Arabs not be denied employment:
"I have no doubt that this terrorist and the previous ones this year do not represent the residents of east Jerusalem. The overwhelming majority are regular people who work in various places in the city."
And perhaps he's right (although there is certainly growing Hamas support among Jerusalem Arabs). But the rub is that it only takes one terrorist to kill Jews and we seem never to know for certain who that terrorist will be.
~~~~~~~~~~
Only last night, after the press conference I had attended, I was accosted on the street by an
American tourist who saw the "Keep Jerusalem united" signs associates of mine were holding. She accused Israel of "collective punishment" with regard to checkpoints. She didn't want to hear me when I told her that we were not attempting to do collective punishment, but rather to protect ourselves from the Arabs who would seek to kill us.
She had no response when I asked her, "Have you never heard on the news about suicide belts, and guns and knives caught at checkpoints?" She was too worried about unfair inconvenience to Arabs who are held up at those checkpoints. "I don't want to be killed," I told her simply. "If they stop trying to kill us, there will be no need for checkpoints.
And here you have the quandary. How is a desire to be fair to the Jerusalem Arabs, and allow them employment, balanced against our right to not be killed? Inconvenience, unemployment can be difficult -- but these are not permanent situations. Death is forever -- the ultimate abrogation of human rights.
~~~~~~~~~~
Guess where PA President Mahmoud Abbas was when the terrorist attack took place yesterday? Less than a kilometer away at Beit HaNasi -- the president's house, visiting with President Shimon Peres. Right before the attack they had issued an optimistic statement regarding the coming of peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
Not so peaceful, however, was another message that Abbas delivered to Israel yesterday. Abbas is feeling undermined (embarrassed?) by continuing IDF efforts against terrorists in cities such as Nablus and Jenin, where PA police have been deployed.
Abbas is due to meet with Olmert tomorrow and has declared that he will tell him that "if the incursions and the aggression and the insults to the Palestinian police continue, we will withdraw these forces."
The IDF maintains that the PA often co-opts gunmen into its security forces instead of jailing them. Could it be that Abbas's true embarrassment is not that the IDF operations make PA security forces look incompetent, but that fellow Palestinians, who just happen to be terrorists, are being harassed by the IDF while the PA is trying to protect them?
~~~~~~~~~~
Khaled Abu Toameh reported in the Post recently about a different reason for the slow down in negotiations on Shalit: Hamas is accusing Egypt of not being an "honest broker," which has Egypt quite infuriated. "Honest broker" means pushing harder on Israel to release more terrorists. Hamas began to put out hints regarding using the Germans for negotiations as they did well for Hezbollah.
~~~~~~~~~~
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has now said that if she becomes head of Kadima, she will invite Netanyahu (Likud) and Barak (Labor) to join her in a unity government.
Other members of Kadima, however, are saying that the in-fighting between Olmert and Livni weakens the party and thus weakens Livni's chances of being selected as party head. It is felt that Shaul Mofaz just might be the winner on this. Maybe...
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
The statistics are disturbing. From 2001 through the end of 2007 -- six years, there were 270 Jerusalem Arabs detained for involvement in terror. Now, in the course of just over six months in 2008, there have been 71 detained on terror related charges -- an increase of roughly three-fold.The Shin Bet is saying that current security measures in eastern Jerusalem are insufficient. One source said that it is necessary to enter the Arab neighborhoods more frequently to carry out more arrests and do more deterrence. There is a strong feeling that there is a connection between what is going on in Gaza, and the photos coming out of Gaza, and the radicalization of Jerusalem Arabs.
~~~~~~~~~~
A serious part of the problem, of course, is that this terror is emanating from within. And, I might add for the record, it is emanating from comfortable, not poor, neighborhoods -- plus, in all of the three recent instances, the terrorists were employed. These are not instances of desperation due to poverty. What we're looking at is an increased radicalization of ideology that is fueled by Hamas.
The answer, however, is NOT to divide off eastern Jerusalem and give it to the PA so that these Arabs would no longer be within. There are at least two reasons for this. One is that the problem would only grow worse if we had no ability to enter the neighborhoods and do arrests and deterrence; the Hamas presence there would become stronger. Some of those radicalized would inevitably sneak into eastern Jerusalem, and in any event they would shoot rockets at western Jerusalem. (The parallel to this situation is our having pulled out of Gaza, which made things worse for us and solved no problems.)
The second is because Arab neighborhoods are interspersed between Jewish neighborhoods so that there is no clean line of division. It would be a logistic nightmare.
And then there is yet another reason: the PA would have no interest in assuming responsibility for these neighborhoods unless it also got the Old City and our most sacred site.
Plus, I might add, the Arab population that has Jerusalem residency IDs does not want to be transferred to the PA, thereby losing perks such as health care as well as essential civil rights. There is a percentage of this population that says if there is going to be a transfer of their neighborhoods to the PA, they will move elsewhere in Israel first -- and legally they have a right to do this.
So...a serious problem.
We cannot run away from it, we cannot isolate the terrorists and ignore them. We need to be strong and to practice deterrence (which in the case of Gaza, which we are being told is not unconnected to this, means ultimately acting militarily).
~~~~~~~~~~
Beginning immediately, Israeli police intend to more closely monitor Arab workers who are residents of eastern Jerusalem; there will be strict checks and patrols at construction sites.
~~~~~~~~~~
My own immediate response after this attack -- which I readily share with my readers -- was that Jerusalem Arabs should no longer be permitted to work with heavy equipment in construction. What I subsequently discovered was that Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupoliansky was of the same mind. In a TV interview he said:
"We should reconsider the employment of these people...
"We see how, after the Shin Bet and Mossad do wonderful work and throw terror out the door, it comes back through the window. [In the hands of terrorists] tools of construction become opportunities for attacks."
But then along came Public Security Minister Avi Dichter urging that Jerusalem Arabs not be denied employment:
"I have no doubt that this terrorist and the previous ones this year do not represent the residents of east Jerusalem. The overwhelming majority are regular people who work in various places in the city."
And perhaps he's right (although there is certainly growing Hamas support among Jerusalem Arabs). But the rub is that it only takes one terrorist to kill Jews and we seem never to know for certain who that terrorist will be.
~~~~~~~~~~
Only last night, after the press conference I had attended, I was accosted on the street by an
American tourist who saw the "Keep Jerusalem united" signs associates of mine were holding. She accused Israel of "collective punishment" with regard to checkpoints. She didn't want to hear me when I told her that we were not attempting to do collective punishment, but rather to protect ourselves from the Arabs who would seek to kill us.
She had no response when I asked her, "Have you never heard on the news about suicide belts, and guns and knives caught at checkpoints?" She was too worried about unfair inconvenience to Arabs who are held up at those checkpoints. "I don't want to be killed," I told her simply. "If they stop trying to kill us, there will be no need for checkpoints.
And here you have the quandary. How is a desire to be fair to the Jerusalem Arabs, and allow them employment, balanced against our right to not be killed? Inconvenience, unemployment can be difficult -- but these are not permanent situations. Death is forever -- the ultimate abrogation of human rights.
~~~~~~~~~~
Guess where PA President Mahmoud Abbas was when the terrorist attack took place yesterday? Less than a kilometer away at Beit HaNasi -- the president's house, visiting with President Shimon Peres. Right before the attack they had issued an optimistic statement regarding the coming of peace.
~~~~~~~~~~
Not so peaceful, however, was another message that Abbas delivered to Israel yesterday. Abbas is feeling undermined (embarrassed?) by continuing IDF efforts against terrorists in cities such as Nablus and Jenin, where PA police have been deployed.
Abbas is due to meet with Olmert tomorrow and has declared that he will tell him that "if the incursions and the aggression and the insults to the Palestinian police continue, we will withdraw these forces."
The IDF maintains that the PA often co-opts gunmen into its security forces instead of jailing them. Could it be that Abbas's true embarrassment is not that the IDF operations make PA security forces look incompetent, but that fellow Palestinians, who just happen to be terrorists, are being harassed by the IDF while the PA is trying to protect them?
~~~~~~~~~~
Khaled Abu Toameh reported in the Post recently about a different reason for the slow down in negotiations on Shalit: Hamas is accusing Egypt of not being an "honest broker," which has Egypt quite infuriated. "Honest broker" means pushing harder on Israel to release more terrorists. Hamas began to put out hints regarding using the Germans for negotiations as they did well for Hezbollah.
~~~~~~~~~~
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has now said that if she becomes head of Kadima, she will invite Netanyahu (Likud) and Barak (Labor) to join her in a unity government.
Other members of Kadima, however, are saying that the in-fighting between Olmert and Livni weakens the party and thus weakens Livni's chances of being selected as party head. It is felt that Shaul Mofaz just might be the winner on this. Maybe...
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
ANALYSIS / Obama visiting Israel to impress Jewish voters, not Israelis
Aluf Benn
Not since Yitzhak Rabin's funeral has Israel hosted as many senior officials from abroad as it has this year. There was U.S. President George W. Bush (twice), German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. And yet, the visit by presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, who landed here for a lightning stay last night, has aroused more interest than any of them. Even more than Carla Bruni. Four months ago, presumptive Republican candidate Senator John McCain visited Israel, and created a precedent. It was the first time a U.S. presidential candidate came to the Middle East in the midst of the campaign. But the 2008 race for the White House is different. It brings together two generations, two social groups, and two approaches for dealing with the world's problems.
Israelis don't interest McCain and Obama. Rather, it is their Jewish voters and contributors at home. Barack Hussein Obama - with his Muslim stepfather and his childhood in Indonesia, his suggestion to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leftist image that adheres to his advisors - has raised deep anxieties among the Jewish establishment. Republicans sensed a massive defection of Jewish voters. Obama's campaign managers have identified it as a problem and their candidate has been working on calming things down and issuing pro-Israel statements. McCain visited Sderot and expressed his support for Israel. Obama will follow in his footsteps Wednesday, as the city is experiencing a rare moment of lull. But Obama will also have a chance to denounce terror in real time: Tuesday's bulldozer terror attack took place next to his hotel in Jerusalem.
To the Israeli establishment, McCain seems like the natural choice. With his white hair, expression lines and combat experience, he embodies the Israeli concept of leadership - a kind of American version of Yitzhak Rabin or Ariel Sharon. If McCain continues Bush's policies, Israel will benefit from the term of another U.S. president who understands its needs.
Obama represents an exciting option, albeit a more dangerous one: If he manages to rehabilitate America's international stature, reduce its dependence on oil and push through peace between Israel and the Arabs, Israel's strategic situation will improve dramatically. But on the way, he might have to pressure Israel. If he fails, Israel will have to pay the price without reaping any returns.
Not since Yitzhak Rabin's funeral has Israel hosted as many senior officials from abroad as it has this year. There was U.S. President George W. Bush (twice), German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. And yet, the visit by presumptive U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, who landed here for a lightning stay last night, has aroused more interest than any of them. Even more than Carla Bruni. Four months ago, presumptive Republican candidate Senator John McCain visited Israel, and created a precedent. It was the first time a U.S. presidential candidate came to the Middle East in the midst of the campaign. But the 2008 race for the White House is different. It brings together two generations, two social groups, and two approaches for dealing with the world's problems.
Israelis don't interest McCain and Obama. Rather, it is their Jewish voters and contributors at home. Barack Hussein Obama - with his Muslim stepfather and his childhood in Indonesia, his suggestion to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leftist image that adheres to his advisors - has raised deep anxieties among the Jewish establishment. Republicans sensed a massive defection of Jewish voters. Obama's campaign managers have identified it as a problem and their candidate has been working on calming things down and issuing pro-Israel statements. McCain visited Sderot and expressed his support for Israel. Obama will follow in his footsteps Wednesday, as the city is experiencing a rare moment of lull. But Obama will also have a chance to denounce terror in real time: Tuesday's bulldozer terror attack took place next to his hotel in Jerusalem.
To the Israeli establishment, McCain seems like the natural choice. With his white hair, expression lines and combat experience, he embodies the Israeli concept of leadership - a kind of American version of Yitzhak Rabin or Ariel Sharon. If McCain continues Bush's policies, Israel will benefit from the term of another U.S. president who understands its needs.
Obama represents an exciting option, albeit a more dangerous one: If he manages to rehabilitate America's international stature, reduce its dependence on oil and push through peace between Israel and the Arabs, Israel's strategic situation will improve dramatically. But on the way, he might have to pressure Israel. If he fails, Israel will have to pay the price without reaping any returns.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
"AGAIN?"
Arlene Kushner
It's just about three weeks since an Arab resident of eastern Jerusalem utilized a heavy tractor to overturn buses and cars in a terrorist attack in the heart of Jerusalem.
Today another driver of a tractor left his construction site in Jerusalem's Yemin Moshe neighborhood and drove onto King David Street, apparently seeking to recreate this terrorist incident. He attempted to overturn a bus and crashed into several cars, overturning one. Eyewitnesses said he also tried to lower the blade of his equipment on the head of a passerby but just missed. At least sixteen people were injured, one seriously, before he was shot dead, apparently in combined effort by a civilian and police, as he neared Gan Hapa'amon (Liberty Bell Park), at the intersection of King David Street and Keren Hayasod Street. It is reported that the terrorist was Hassan Abu-Tir, a resident of the Umm Tuba neighborhood of eastern Jerusalem, and possessor of an Israeli identity card. Hassan is a relative of the Hamas parliament member Muhammad Abu-Tir, who is being held in Israeli prison.
Passage to eastern Jerusalem was reportedly blocked for a period as the police were seeking two additional individuals. Perhaps more information will follow in the next day or so.
~~~~~~~~~~
Barack Obama is here in Israel now and all of this occurred about half a block from the King David Hotel, where he will be staying tonight. I might hope that this would help bring home to Obama the situation that we are living with.
~~~~~~~~~~
Tonight a press conference was held in Jerusalem by the Coalition for a United Jerusalem, which consists of the American Israeli Action Committee, the Council of Young Israel Rabbis in Israel, Emunah Women, Rabbinical Council of America in Israel, Worldwide Young Israel Movement, and Zionist Organization of America.
These groups -- all American organizations with representation in Israel -- took advantage of Senator Obama's presence in Jerusalem to raise serious questions about his position on Jerusalem.
In his recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Public Policy Conference, Obama said, "Let me be clear...Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." ("Undivided" is a code word universally understood to mean that it would remain exclusively under Israeli sovereignty.)
Within days he had backtracked, explaining that what he meant when he said "undivided" was simply that the city shouldn't again be divided by barbed wire as it was between 1949 and 1967. He suggested that there was room for Palestinian sovereignty in the city as well. In a CNN interview, he said he thought a good "starting point" for negotiations was the Clinton plan advanced at Taba in 2000, which called for a divided city, but actually was subsequently taken off the table.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now the Coalition publicly called upon Obama to:
-- Reaffirm his original remarks made at the AIPAC Conference.
-- Disavow his subsequent retraction.
-- Declare that security and access to all holy places can only be guaranteed by Israeli sovereignty.
-- Acknowledge that Israeli withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza have led to destabilization and increased terror, and that this presages a similar deterioration likely to occur in eastern Jerusalem if Israel were to withdraw and turn the area over to Fatah, which would like be usurped by Hamas.
-- Take immediate steps to introduce a more balanced and pro-Israel perspective by appointing a number of foreign policy advisors who are more likely to consider an undivided Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. Past and present formal and informal advisors to Obama in his campaign offer an extremely one-sided "pressure Israel" view predisposed to rejecting the possibility of a unified Jerusalem.
~~~~~~~~~~
All of the salient points were made during the course of this press conference regarding why Jerusalem should remain undivided:
Issues of security if half of the city were to be in the hands of Fatah or Hamas, which would be able to shoot at western Jerusalem.
Religious issues regarding our right to retain control of our holiest site, which the Palestinians are eager to usurp.
The long-standing tradition of Jerusalem as a Jewish city, going back 3,000 years.
The affront to Israel of not allowing her to determine her capital without challenge, when no other nation is similarly challenged. Connected to this, the fact that the vast majority of Israelis is opposed to division of the city.
The actual logistical impossibility of dividing the city, as Arab and Jewish neighborhoods are intertwined.
~~~~~~~~~~
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to town to visit on Sunday and addressed the Knesset yesterday, the first British prime minister to do so. He attempted to begin and end with a phrase in Hebrew. He described himself as a life-long friend of Israel and described his father's ardent support for our nation. He praised Israel's achievements "in the face of the war, terror and violence, intimidation and insecurity" as ""truly monumental," saying they represented a "boundless capacity of mind and spirit." He pledged to fight academic boycotts of Israel inside of Britain.
"Let me tell the people of Israel today," he declared, "Britain is your true friend."
~~~~~~~~~~
And then... then he advised those gathered that "peace is within your grasp." This peace would be founded upon "a two-state solution based on 1967 borders," with "Jerusalem the capital for both," a "just and agreed settlement for refugees" and "freezing and withdrawing from settlements."
They do it every time. This is the mantra, with every single "friendly" visitor seeming to consider it de rigeur to make this pronouncement. It was not enough for Brown to say we need to make accommodations with the Palestinians in order to achieve peace, that we must negotiate flexibly to that end. He had to spell it out -- '67 borders (they were armistice lines, Mr. Prime Minister, not borders), sharing of Jerusalem and all. These are issues that are supposed to be negotiated, yet he has determined the outcome already.
The problem is that the Palestinians have convinced the world that they have a right to these things and that justice won't be done unless they receive them. Many of the world's leaders don't give a damn about us at all and are eager to accommodate Arabs. But even those professing friendship have conveniently convinced themselves that if only this can be achieved peace will be possible, and take it upon themselves to advise us of this.
~~~~~~~~~~
Prime Minster Brown should be told that true friends don't ask friends to surrender their ancient heritage and box themselves into a non-defensible position.
~~~~~~~~~~
I -- with others -- have been speaking for some time about the need for a change in the paradigm of thinking in the Western world with regard to this issue. It's time for recognizing that the notion of a Palestinian state is failed: That in 14 years the PA has not built necessary civic and economic infrastructure and does not provide equal rights under the law, or freedoms of speech or press or basic human dignity. That the PA is thoroughly allied with terrorism. The "moderate" Abbas rejoiced for Kuntar's release, for heaven's sake!
The notion of a Palestinian state is ridiculous on the face of it. And yet the world will not let this go.
~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, it's harder to tell the world this when we have Olmert as prime minister. He held a joint press conference with Brown and, while he defended our need for settlements, announced that he believes that there can be an agreement with the PA by the end of 2008 and that we are "closer than ever."
~~~~~~~~~~
The days of Olmert as prime minister, however, are numbered. After considerable infighting, the Kadima party has changed its constitution so that an early primary is permitted. A date -- presumably in September -- now must be set for the party leadership contest.
In response to some of the fierce internal Kadima fighting that went on with regard to this, Olmert reportedly referred to Livni as a "backstabbing liar."
While an unnamed Kadima MK said, "Olmert is a corpse that has already started to stink and he needs to be removed as soon as possible."
~~~~~~~~~~
As to the possibility of an indictment of Olmert, we're being by State Attorney Moshe Lador that a decision on this will be coming soon. The body of evidence being gathered against Olmert would soon be handed over to Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz, who will make the final decision.
The cross examination of Talansky is still in process, but daily more questions are raised about his reliability as a witness, as he "forgets" things he knew before, or professes confusion as to why he said what he did before, or just contradicts himself.
The state's case is not built exclusively on his testimony however, as Israeli investigators went to the US to garner documentation and further testimony. And there is as well the question of Messer's willingness to talk.
Besides which, there is the new issue of alleged double billing of non-profits for Olmert's trips, with excess funds having gone for his private use.
I cannot predict how this will play out. There is a strong desire in many quarters to see true justice done. Very clearly, at a minimum, Olmert is finished in politics because his associates and the nation have heard enough. The statement about his being a corpse that has started to stink says it all.
Case after case has been cited of leaders who resigned because of legal or even complex political difficulties. Even Nixon was evoked in this regard the other day -- Nixon having had the sense to say that his remaining in power while he fought the accusations against him would distract the nation from important business. Only Olmert has hung on despite everything, and to hell with the nation.
Whether he will be held legally accountable for his various doings remains to be seen.
~~~~~~~~~~
Al-Hayat in London reported today that according to an Egyptian source -- Egypt being the go-between in negotiations on Shalit -- Marwan Barghouti is among the 70 prisoners that Israel has so far agreed to release in exchange for Shalit. This would be another huge error -- another victory for terrorist forces that makes a mockery of Israeli justice. To the best of my knowledge this has not yet been confirmed by other sources.
Barghouti, a Fatah leader, founder of the Tanzim and major instigator of the first Intifada, is serving five life sentences. As the man who gave his blessing to a 2002 terrorist attack on a Bat Mitzvah party that killed six and wounded 30, he is just one more evil being who should never see the light of day. He would surely be recidivist, returning to terrorism as a leader.
In spite of Hamas demands, however, it is being said that Israel has refused to release Popular Front Secretary-General Ahmad Saadat, who was involved in the assassination of Israeli Minister Rehavam Ze'evi.
In any event, the Egyptian source is saying that Hamas will not release Shalit unless Israel agrees to all 450 names that have been passed via Egypt. The full demand is for 1,000 prisoners, but it is 450 names that are critical to Hamas. If Israel has only agreed to 70, there are many other names besides Saadat that are being refused.
~~~~~~~~~~
Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin reported to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee today that Hamas has taken advantage of the "ceasefire" to plant mines across widespread areas of Gaza.
(Sounds to me not only that we should have gone in before this happened, but that when we ultimately do, which, one assumes, eventually we will, there will have to be more air operations.)
Diskin additionally reported that the smuggling of weapons into Gaza has continued without letup, as well, and that the group has rockets that can reach Kiryat Gat and likely Ashdod. As Hamas is gaining strength during this time, it has a vested interest in maintaining the "quiet."
Diskin is opposed to the "ceasefire," and says that we need a presence inside of Gaza in order to combat terrorism. He is also opposed to the release of Barghouti.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
It's just about three weeks since an Arab resident of eastern Jerusalem utilized a heavy tractor to overturn buses and cars in a terrorist attack in the heart of Jerusalem.
Today another driver of a tractor left his construction site in Jerusalem's Yemin Moshe neighborhood and drove onto King David Street, apparently seeking to recreate this terrorist incident. He attempted to overturn a bus and crashed into several cars, overturning one. Eyewitnesses said he also tried to lower the blade of his equipment on the head of a passerby but just missed. At least sixteen people were injured, one seriously, before he was shot dead, apparently in combined effort by a civilian and police, as he neared Gan Hapa'amon (Liberty Bell Park), at the intersection of King David Street and Keren Hayasod Street. It is reported that the terrorist was Hassan Abu-Tir, a resident of the Umm Tuba neighborhood of eastern Jerusalem, and possessor of an Israeli identity card. Hassan is a relative of the Hamas parliament member Muhammad Abu-Tir, who is being held in Israeli prison.
Passage to eastern Jerusalem was reportedly blocked for a period as the police were seeking two additional individuals. Perhaps more information will follow in the next day or so.
~~~~~~~~~~
Barack Obama is here in Israel now and all of this occurred about half a block from the King David Hotel, where he will be staying tonight. I might hope that this would help bring home to Obama the situation that we are living with.
~~~~~~~~~~
Tonight a press conference was held in Jerusalem by the Coalition for a United Jerusalem, which consists of the American Israeli Action Committee, the Council of Young Israel Rabbis in Israel, Emunah Women, Rabbinical Council of America in Israel, Worldwide Young Israel Movement, and Zionist Organization of America.
These groups -- all American organizations with representation in Israel -- took advantage of Senator Obama's presence in Jerusalem to raise serious questions about his position on Jerusalem.
In his recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Public Policy Conference, Obama said, "Let me be clear...Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." ("Undivided" is a code word universally understood to mean that it would remain exclusively under Israeli sovereignty.)
Within days he had backtracked, explaining that what he meant when he said "undivided" was simply that the city shouldn't again be divided by barbed wire as it was between 1949 and 1967. He suggested that there was room for Palestinian sovereignty in the city as well. In a CNN interview, he said he thought a good "starting point" for negotiations was the Clinton plan advanced at Taba in 2000, which called for a divided city, but actually was subsequently taken off the table.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now the Coalition publicly called upon Obama to:
-- Reaffirm his original remarks made at the AIPAC Conference.
-- Disavow his subsequent retraction.
-- Declare that security and access to all holy places can only be guaranteed by Israeli sovereignty.
-- Acknowledge that Israeli withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza have led to destabilization and increased terror, and that this presages a similar deterioration likely to occur in eastern Jerusalem if Israel were to withdraw and turn the area over to Fatah, which would like be usurped by Hamas.
-- Take immediate steps to introduce a more balanced and pro-Israel perspective by appointing a number of foreign policy advisors who are more likely to consider an undivided Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. Past and present formal and informal advisors to Obama in his campaign offer an extremely one-sided "pressure Israel" view predisposed to rejecting the possibility of a unified Jerusalem.
~~~~~~~~~~
All of the salient points were made during the course of this press conference regarding why Jerusalem should remain undivided:
Issues of security if half of the city were to be in the hands of Fatah or Hamas, which would be able to shoot at western Jerusalem.
Religious issues regarding our right to retain control of our holiest site, which the Palestinians are eager to usurp.
The long-standing tradition of Jerusalem as a Jewish city, going back 3,000 years.
The affront to Israel of not allowing her to determine her capital without challenge, when no other nation is similarly challenged. Connected to this, the fact that the vast majority of Israelis is opposed to division of the city.
The actual logistical impossibility of dividing the city, as Arab and Jewish neighborhoods are intertwined.
~~~~~~~~~~
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to town to visit on Sunday and addressed the Knesset yesterday, the first British prime minister to do so. He attempted to begin and end with a phrase in Hebrew. He described himself as a life-long friend of Israel and described his father's ardent support for our nation. He praised Israel's achievements "in the face of the war, terror and violence, intimidation and insecurity" as ""truly monumental," saying they represented a "boundless capacity of mind and spirit." He pledged to fight academic boycotts of Israel inside of Britain.
"Let me tell the people of Israel today," he declared, "Britain is your true friend."
~~~~~~~~~~
And then... then he advised those gathered that "peace is within your grasp." This peace would be founded upon "a two-state solution based on 1967 borders," with "Jerusalem the capital for both," a "just and agreed settlement for refugees" and "freezing and withdrawing from settlements."
They do it every time. This is the mantra, with every single "friendly" visitor seeming to consider it de rigeur to make this pronouncement. It was not enough for Brown to say we need to make accommodations with the Palestinians in order to achieve peace, that we must negotiate flexibly to that end. He had to spell it out -- '67 borders (they were armistice lines, Mr. Prime Minister, not borders), sharing of Jerusalem and all. These are issues that are supposed to be negotiated, yet he has determined the outcome already.
The problem is that the Palestinians have convinced the world that they have a right to these things and that justice won't be done unless they receive them. Many of the world's leaders don't give a damn about us at all and are eager to accommodate Arabs. But even those professing friendship have conveniently convinced themselves that if only this can be achieved peace will be possible, and take it upon themselves to advise us of this.
~~~~~~~~~~
Prime Minster Brown should be told that true friends don't ask friends to surrender their ancient heritage and box themselves into a non-defensible position.
~~~~~~~~~~
I -- with others -- have been speaking for some time about the need for a change in the paradigm of thinking in the Western world with regard to this issue. It's time for recognizing that the notion of a Palestinian state is failed: That in 14 years the PA has not built necessary civic and economic infrastructure and does not provide equal rights under the law, or freedoms of speech or press or basic human dignity. That the PA is thoroughly allied with terrorism. The "moderate" Abbas rejoiced for Kuntar's release, for heaven's sake!
The notion of a Palestinian state is ridiculous on the face of it. And yet the world will not let this go.
~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, it's harder to tell the world this when we have Olmert as prime minister. He held a joint press conference with Brown and, while he defended our need for settlements, announced that he believes that there can be an agreement with the PA by the end of 2008 and that we are "closer than ever."
~~~~~~~~~~
The days of Olmert as prime minister, however, are numbered. After considerable infighting, the Kadima party has changed its constitution so that an early primary is permitted. A date -- presumably in September -- now must be set for the party leadership contest.
In response to some of the fierce internal Kadima fighting that went on with regard to this, Olmert reportedly referred to Livni as a "backstabbing liar."
While an unnamed Kadima MK said, "Olmert is a corpse that has already started to stink and he needs to be removed as soon as possible."
~~~~~~~~~~
As to the possibility of an indictment of Olmert, we're being by State Attorney Moshe Lador that a decision on this will be coming soon. The body of evidence being gathered against Olmert would soon be handed over to Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz, who will make the final decision.
The cross examination of Talansky is still in process, but daily more questions are raised about his reliability as a witness, as he "forgets" things he knew before, or professes confusion as to why he said what he did before, or just contradicts himself.
The state's case is not built exclusively on his testimony however, as Israeli investigators went to the US to garner documentation and further testimony. And there is as well the question of Messer's willingness to talk.
Besides which, there is the new issue of alleged double billing of non-profits for Olmert's trips, with excess funds having gone for his private use.
I cannot predict how this will play out. There is a strong desire in many quarters to see true justice done. Very clearly, at a minimum, Olmert is finished in politics because his associates and the nation have heard enough. The statement about his being a corpse that has started to stink says it all.
Case after case has been cited of leaders who resigned because of legal or even complex political difficulties. Even Nixon was evoked in this regard the other day -- Nixon having had the sense to say that his remaining in power while he fought the accusations against him would distract the nation from important business. Only Olmert has hung on despite everything, and to hell with the nation.
Whether he will be held legally accountable for his various doings remains to be seen.
~~~~~~~~~~
Al-Hayat in London reported today that according to an Egyptian source -- Egypt being the go-between in negotiations on Shalit -- Marwan Barghouti is among the 70 prisoners that Israel has so far agreed to release in exchange for Shalit. This would be another huge error -- another victory for terrorist forces that makes a mockery of Israeli justice. To the best of my knowledge this has not yet been confirmed by other sources.
Barghouti, a Fatah leader, founder of the Tanzim and major instigator of the first Intifada, is serving five life sentences. As the man who gave his blessing to a 2002 terrorist attack on a Bat Mitzvah party that killed six and wounded 30, he is just one more evil being who should never see the light of day. He would surely be recidivist, returning to terrorism as a leader.
In spite of Hamas demands, however, it is being said that Israel has refused to release Popular Front Secretary-General Ahmad Saadat, who was involved in the assassination of Israeli Minister Rehavam Ze'evi.
In any event, the Egyptian source is saying that Hamas will not release Shalit unless Israel agrees to all 450 names that have been passed via Egypt. The full demand is for 1,000 prisoners, but it is 450 names that are critical to Hamas. If Israel has only agreed to 70, there are many other names besides Saadat that are being refused.
~~~~~~~~~~
Shin Bet Chief Yuval Diskin reported to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee today that Hamas has taken advantage of the "ceasefire" to plant mines across widespread areas of Gaza.
(Sounds to me not only that we should have gone in before this happened, but that when we ultimately do, which, one assumes, eventually we will, there will have to be more air operations.)
Diskin additionally reported that the smuggling of weapons into Gaza has continued without letup, as well, and that the group has rockets that can reach Kiryat Gat and likely Ashdod. As Hamas is gaining strength during this time, it has a vested interest in maintaining the "quiet."
Diskin is opposed to the "ceasefire," and says that we need a presence inside of Gaza in order to combat terrorism. He is also opposed to the release of Barghouti.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Shi’ite Iran’s Genocidal Jew Hatred
Andrew G. Bostom
The American Thinker | 7/22/2008
Earlier this week Professors Moshe Sharon and Benny Morris both opined solemnly about an inevitable Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. These two respected Israeli academicians, despite holding very disparate political views, also concurred on the moral justification for such pre-emptive action—the annihilationist threat to Israel posed by a Shi’ite Iranian regime gripped with an apocalyptic, Jew-hating fervor.
The pillars of this continuous modern campaign of annihilationist antisemitism are the motifs from traditional Islamic Jew hatred, including, most significantly, Islamic eschatology. These deep-seated Islamic theological motifs are further conjoined to Holocaust denial, and the development of a nuclear weapons program intended expressly for Israel’s eradication. At the outset of the 16th century, Iran’s Safavid rulers formally established Shi’a Islam as the state religion, while permitting a clerical hierarchy nearly unlimited control and influence over all aspects of public life. The profound influence of the Shi’ite clerical elite, continued for almost four centuries (although interrupted, between 1722-1795, during a period of [Sunni] Afghan invasion, and internecine struggle), through the later Qajar period (1795-1925), as characterized by the Persianophilic scholar E.G. Browne:
The Mujtahids and Mulla are a great force in Persia and concern themselves with every department of human activity from the minutest detail of personal purification to the largest issues of politics
These Shi’ite clerics emphasized the notion of the ritual uncleanliness (najis) of Jews, in particular (but also Christians, Zoroastrians, and others), as the cornerstone of inter-confessional relationships toward non-Muslims. The impact of this najis conception was already apparent to European visitors to Persia during the reign of the first Safavid Shah, Ismail I (1502-1524). The Portuguese traveler Tome Pires observed (between 1512-1515), “Sheikh Ismail…never spares the life of any Jew,” while another European travelogue notes, “…the great hatred (Ismail I) bears against the Jews…”
Mohammad Baqer Majlisi (d. 1699), the highest institutionalized clerical officer under both Shah Sulayman (1666-1694) and Shah Husayn (1694-1722), was perhaps the most influential cleric of the Safavid Shi’ite theocracy in Persia. Indeed, for a decade at the end of the 17th century Majlisi functioned as the de facto ruler of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini of his era. By design, he wrote many works in Persian to disseminate key aspects of the Shi’a ethos among ordinary persons, including the treatise, “Lightning Bolts Against the Jews.” In this treatise, Majlisi describes the standard humiliating requisites for non-Muslims living under the Shari’a, first and foremost, the blood ransom jizya, a poll-tax, based on Koran 9:29. He then enumerates six other restrictions relating to worship, housing, dress, transportation, and weapons (specifically, i.e., to render the dhimmis defenseless), before outlining the unique Shi’ite impurity or “najis” regulations. It is these latter najis prohibitions which lead Anthropology Professor Laurence Loeb (who studied and lived within the Jewish community of Southern Iran in the early 1970s) to observe, “Fear of pollution by Jews led to great excesses and peculiar behavior by Muslims.”
Far worse, the dehumanizing character of these popularized “impurity” regulations fomented recurring Muslim anti-Jewish violence—including pogroms and forced conversions, throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, which rendered areas of Iran Judenrein—as opposed to merely unpleasant, “odd behaviors” by individual Muslims towards Jews.
The so-called “Khomeini revolution,” which deposed the secular, Western oriented regime of Mohammad Reza Shah, was in reality a mere return to oppressive Shi’ite theocratic rule, the predominant form of Persian/Iranian governance since 1502. Khomeini’s views were the most influential in shaping the ideology of the revitalized Shi’ite theocracy, and his attitudes towards Jews (both before and after he assumed power) were particularly negative. Khomeini’s speeches and writings invoked a panoply of Judenhass motifs, including orthodox interpretations of sacralized Muslim texts (for e.g., describing the destruction of the Banu Qurayza), and the Shi’ite conception of najis. More ominously, Khomeini’s rhetoric blurred the distinction between Jews and Israelis, reiterated paranoid conspiracy theories about Jews (both within Persia/Iran, and beyond), and endorsed the annihilation of the Jewish State.
Since 1979, the restored Iranian theocracy—in parallel with returning, brutally, their small remnant Jewish community to a state of obsequious dhimmitude, through execution and intimidation—has always focused its obsessive anti-Jewish animus on the autonomous Jewish state of Israel. For current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the destruction of Israel is an openly avowed policy, driven by his eschatological beliefs. Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, summarized this annihilationist eschatology, redolent with Koranic Jew hatred (see Koran 5:82)—which pertains to Jews, generally, not “Zionists”—on November 16, 2006, stating: “The Jew is the most obstinate enemy (Koran 5:82) of the devout. And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind. . . . The reappearance of the Twelfth Imam will lead to a war between Israel and the Shia.”
Holocaust scholar Daniel Goldhagen has put forth the controversial argument that the Nazis melded centuries of annihilationist German Jew hatred to a state machinery capable of implementing the systematic mass murder of Jews. Citing the independent statements of Rafsanjani (from December 2001) and Ahmadinejad (from October 2005), Goldhagen, in a November 3, 2005 opinion editorial, cautioned,
Two Iranian presidents have now openly spoken about destroying Israel, with Ahmadinejad defiantly repeating his genocidal hopes again…despite the world’s condemnation of him.
Goldhagen’s visceral concern that “…it would be folly for the world to treat the Iranian leaders’ words as anything but an articulation of their intent,” remained oddly de-contextualized for an historian of antisemitism with his particular mindset. Yet four centuries of najis-inspired Jew hatred in Shi’ite Iran, accompanied by pogroms, forced conversions, and other less violent, but continuous forms of social and religious persecution—none of which are ever mentioned by Goldhagen—surely meets his own prior standard—regardless of its validity—of an established “annihilationist” mentality in Germany.
Irrespective of the controversy surrounding his earlier work on Nazi Germany, Goldhagen’s utter ignorance of Shi’ite Iran’s centuries old history of Jew hatred is pathognomonic of the current state of “scholarship” on Islamic antisemitism. Such ignorance may also explain the inability of our intellectual and policymaking elites to appreciate the prevalence and depth of support for such annihilationist views in contemporary Shi’ite Iran. Regardless, Iran must not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, certainly now, under the current regime, and into the foreseeable future.
Introduction
Today, Saturday July 19, 2008, despite optimistic expectations of “compromise”—which putatively justified the presence of United States Undersecretary of State William Burns at talks between diplomatic representatives of six world powers, and the Iranian regime—Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, expressing Teheran’s intransigence, made this brusque statement about his country’s uranium enrichment program: “Suspension—there is no chance for that.”
Earlier this week Professors Moshe Sharon and Benny Morris both opined solemnly about an inevitable Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. These two respected Israeli academicians, despite holding very disparate political views, also concurred on the moral justification for such pre-emptive action—the annihilationist threat to Israel posed by a Shi’ite Iranian regime gripped with an apocalyptic, Jew-hating fervor. While other Iranian officials simultaneously issued mendacious denials of the numerous unprovoked threats to destroy Israel by both Iran’s political and clerical leadership, on July 8, Ali Shirazi, Ayatollah Khameini’s representative in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps navy, warned against Israeli pre-emption:
The Iranian nation is a nation… that believes in jihad and self-sacrifice, and against such a nation warships and weapons are to no avail… Today, Iran's military strength and capabilities have grown to such an extent that Iran cannot be disregarded in any regional or international balance of power… Tel Aviv (and the American warships in the Persian Gulf) would be the first targets to go up in flames as part of Iran's crushing response.
The pillars of this continuous modern campaign of annihilationist antisemitism are the motifs from traditional Islamic Jew hatred, including, most significantly, Islamic eschatology. These deep-seated Islamic theological motifs are further conjoined to Holocaust denial, and the development of a nuclear weapons program intended expressly for Israel’s eradication.
Shah Ismail’s Living Legacy
At the outset of the 16th century, Iran’s Safavid rulers formally established Shi’a Islam as the state religion, while permitting a clerical hierarchy nearly unlimited control and influence over all aspects of public life. The profound influence of the Shi’ite clerical elite, continued for almost four centuries (although interrupted, between 1722-1795, during a period of [Sunni] Afghan invasion, and internecine struggle), through the later Qajar period (1795-1925), as characterized by the Persianophilic scholar E.G. Browne:
The Mujtahids and Mulla are a great force in Persia and concern themselves with every department of human activity from the minutest detail of personal purification to the largest issues of politics
These Shi’ite clerics emphasized the notion of the ritual uncleanliness (najis) of Jews, in particular (but also Christians, Zoroastrians, and others), as the cornerstone of inter-confessional relationships toward non-Muslims. The impact of this najis conception was already apparent to European visitors to Persia during the reign of the first Safavid Shah, Ismail I (1502-1524). The Portuguese traveler Tome Pires observed (between 1512-1515), “Sheikh Ismail…never spares the life of any Jew,” while another European travelogue notes, “…the great hatred (Ismail I) bears against the Jews…”
Two examples of the restrictive codes for Jews conceived and applied during the Safavid
period (1502-1725) are appended below, in Table 1, and Table 2. Their persistent application into the Qajar period, which includes the modern era (1795-1925), is confirmed by the observations of the mid-19th century traveler Benjamin in Table 3, and a listing of the 1892 Hamadan edict conditions in Table 4.
A letter (dated October, 27, 1892) by S. Somekh of The Alliance Israelite Universale, regarding the Hamadan edict, provides this context:
The latter [i.e., the Jews] have a choice between automatic acceptance, conversion to Islam, or their annihilation. Some who live from hand to mouth have consented to these humiliating and cruel conditions through fear, without offering resistance; thirty of the most prominent members of the community were surprised in the telegraph office, where they had gone to telegraph their grievances to Teheran. They were compelled to embrace the Muslim faith to escape from certain death. But the majority is in hiding and does not dare to venture into the streets…
The latter part of the reign of Shah Abbas I (1588-1629) was marked by progressively increasing measures of anti-Jewish persecution, from the strict imposition of dress regulations, to the confiscation (and destruction) of Hebrew books and writings, culminating in the forced conversion of the Jews of Isfahan, the center of Persian Jewry. The exploits of two renegade Jewish converts to Islam, Abul Hasan Lari (of Lar), and Simon Tob Mumin of Isfahan were instrumental in having the Shi’ite authorities enforce restrictive headdress and badging regulations as visible signs of discrimination and humiliation. Their success in having these discriminatory regulations applied to Jews was confirmed by the accounts of European travelers to Iran. For example, Jean de Theve´not (1633-1667) commented that Jews were required,
To wear a little square piece of stuff two or three fingers broad…it had to be sewn to their labor gown and it matters not what that piece be of, provided that the color be different from that of the clothes to which it is sewed.
And when the British physician John Fryer visited Lar in 1676, he noted that, “…the Jews are only recognizable by the upper garment marked with a patch of different color.”
However the renegade Abul Hasan Lari’s “mission” foreshadowed more severe hardships imposed upon the Jews because of their image as sorcerers and practitioners of black magic, which, according to the pre-eminent historian of Persian Jewry, Walter Fischel, was “as deeply embedded in the minds of the [Muslim] masses as it had been in medieval Europe.” [emphasis added] The consequences of these bigoted superstitions were predictable, as Fischel observes:
It was therefore easy to arouse their [the Muslim masses] fears and suspicions at the slightest provocation, and to accuse them [the Jews] of possessing cabalistic Hebrew writings, amulets, talismans, segulot, goralot, and refu’ot, which they [the Jews] were using against the Islamic authorities. Encouraged by another Jewish renegade, Siman Tob Mumin from Isfahan, who denounced his co-religionists to the authorities, the Grand Vizier was quick in ordering the confiscation of all Hebrew cabalistic writings and having them thrown into the river.
These punitive measures in turn forebode additional persecutions which culminated in the Jews of Isfahan being forcibly converted to Islam toward the end of Abbas I’s rule. Moreover, even when Isfahan’s Jews allowed living to return to Judaism under Shah Safi, they continued to live under the permanent threat posed by the “law of apostasy”, till the late 19th century.
One of the most dangerous measures which threatened the very existence of the Jewish community in Isfahan and elsewhere was the so-called “law of apostasy” promulgated at the end of Abbas I’s rule and renewed in the reign of Abbas II. According to this law, any Jew or Christian becoming a Muslim could claim the property of his relatives, however distant. This decree, making the transfer of goods and property a reward for those who became apostates from their former religion, became a great threat to the very survival of the Jews. While the Christian population in Isfahan protested, through the intervention of the Pope, and the Christian powers in Europe, against the injustice of this edict, there did not arise a defender of the rights of Jews in Persia. [emphasis added] Although the calamity which this law implied was lessened by the small number of Jewish apostates who made use of this inducement, it was a steady threat to the existence of Jewish community life and brought about untold hardship. It was only in the 19th century that leaders of European Jewry such as Sir Moses Montefiore and Adolph Cremieux took up the fight for their brethren in Persia against this discriminatory law. Apart from this legal discrimination, the Jews of Isfahan were particularly singled out for persecution and forced conversion in the seventeenth century. It is reported that they were forced to profess Islam publicly; that many of their rabbis were executed, and that only under Shah Safi (1629-1642), the successor of Abbas I, were the Jews of Isfahan, after seven years of Marrano life, permitted to return publicly to their Jewish religion…[emphasis added]
After a relatively brief respite under Shah Saf’i (1629-1642), the severe persecutions wrought by his successor Shah Abbas II (1642-1666), nearly extinguished the Iranian Jewish community outright, as Fischel, explains:
Determined to purify the Persian soil from the “uncleanliness” caused by the presence of non-believers (Jews and Christians in Isfahan) a group of fanatical Shi’ites obtained a decree from the young Shah Abbas II in 1656 which gave the Grand Vizier, I’timad ad-Daula, full power to force the Jews to become Muslims. In consequence, a wave of persecution swept over Isfahan and the other Jewish communities, a tragedy which can only be compared with the persecution of the Jews in Spain in the fifteenth century [more appositely, the 13th century Almohad persecutions] 711
[the important eyewitness Jewish chronicles, the Kitab i Anusi]…describe in great detail how the Jews were compelled to abandon their religion, how they were drawn out of their quarters on Friday evening into the hills around the city and, after torture, 350 Jews are said to have been forced to [convert] to Islam. Their synagogues were closed and the Jews were lead to the Mosque, where they had to proclaim publicly the Muslim confession of faith, after which a Mullah, a Shi’a religious leader, instructed the newly-converted Muslims in the Koran and Islamic tradition and practice. These newly-converted Muslims had to break with the Jewish past, to allow their daughters to be married to Muslims, and to have their new Muslim names registered in a special Divan [council]. To test publicly their complete break with the Jewish tradition, some were even forced to eat a portion of camel meat boiled in milk. After their forced conversion, they were called New Muslims, Jadid al-Islam. They were then, of course, freed from the payment of the poll tax and from wearing a special headgear or badge.”
The resistance of the Jews developed the phenomenon of “Marranos”, Anusim, and for years they lived a dual religious life by remaining secretly Jews while confessing Islam officially
Fischel also refers to the fact that contemporary Christians sources “confirm…with an astounding and tragic unanimity” the historical details of the Judaeo-Persian chronicle regarding the plight of the Jews of Isfahan (and Persia, more generally). For example, the Armenian chronicler Arakel of Tabriz, included a chapter entitled, “History of the Hebrews of the City of Isfahan and of all Hebrews in the Territory of the Kings of Persia-the Case of Their Conversion to Islam”. Arakel describes the escalating brutality employed to convert the hapless Jewish population to Islam—deportation, deliberately harsh exposure to the elements, starvation, imprisonment, and beatings.
Mohammad Baqer Majlisi (d. 1699), the highest institutionalized clerical officer under both Shah Sulayman (1666-1694) and Shah Husayn (1694-1722), was perhaps the most influential cleric of the Safavid Shi’ite theocracy in Persia. By design, he wrote many works in Persian to disseminate key aspects of the Shi’a ethos among ordinary persons. His Persian treatise, “Lightning Bolts Against the Jews,” despite its title, was actually an overall guideline to anti-dhimmi regulations for all non-Muslims within the Shi’ite theocracy. Al-Majlisi, in this treatise, describes the standard humiliating requisites for non-Muslims living under the Shari’a, first and foremost, the blood ransom jizya, a poll-tax, based on Koran 9:29. He then enumerates six other restrictions relating to worship, housing, dress, transportation, and weapons (specifically, i.e., to render the dhimmis defenseless), before outlining the unique Shi’ite impurity or “najis” regulations. It is these latter najis prohibitions which lead Anthropology Professor Laurence Loeb (who studied and lived within the Jewish community of Southern Iran in the early 1970s) to observe, “Fear of pollution by Jews led to great excesses and peculiar behavior by Muslims.” According to Al-Majlisi,
And, that they should not enter the pool while a Muslim is bathing at the public baths…It is also incumbent upon Muslims that they should not accept from them victuals with which they had come into contact, such as distillates , which cannot be purified. In something can be purified, such as clothes, if they are dry, they can be accepted, they are clean. But if they [the dhimmis] had come into contact with those cloths in moisture they should be rinsed with water after being obtained. As for hide, or that which has been made of hide such as shoes and boots, and meat, whose religious cleanliness and lawfulness are conditional on the animal’s being slaughtered [according to the Shari’a], these may not be taken from them. Similarly, liquids that have been preserved in skins, such as oils, grape syrup, [fruit] juices, myrobalan [an astringent fruit extract used in tanning], and the like, if they have been put in skin containers or water skins, these should [also] not be accepted from them…It would also be better if the ruler of the Muslims would establish that all infidels could not move out of their homes on days when it rains or snows because they would make Muslims impure. [emphasis added]
Far worse, the dehumanizing character of these popularized “impurity” regulations appears to have fomented recurring Muslim anti-Jewish violence, including pogroms and forced conversions, throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, as opposed to merely unpleasant, “odd behaviors” by individual Muslims towards Jews. Indeed, the oppression of Persian Jewry continued unabated, perhaps even intensifying, during both Safavid successors of Shah Abbas II, Shah Sulayman (1666-1694), and Shah Husayn (1694-1722).
The overthrow of the Safavid dynasty was accompanied by an initial period of anarchy and rebellion. A contemporary Jewish chronicler of these struggles, Babai ibn Farhad, lamented, “At a time when the Muhammadans fight amongst each other, how much less safe were the Jews.” However, beyond this early stage of instability, Fischel maintains,
Only the downfall of the Safavid dynasty, through the successful invasion of the Afghans and the subsequent rise of a new tolerant ruler, Nadir Shah (1734-1747), saved the Jews of Isfahan and the Jews of Persia as a whole from complete annihilation.
The advent of the Qajar dynasty in 1795 marked a return to Shi’ite theocratic orthodoxy. Thus, according to Fischel,
Since the religious and political foundations of the Qajar dynasty were but a continuation of those of the Safavids, the ‘law of apostasy’ and the notion of the ritual uncleanliness of the Jews remained the basis of the attitude toward the Jews.
The Jew being ritually unclean, had to be differentiated from the believer externally in every possible way. This became the decisive factor making the life of the Jews in the 19th century an uninterrupted sequence of persecution and oppression. They could not appear in public, much less perform their religious ceremonies, without being treated with scorn and contempt by the Muslim inhabitants of Persia.
Fischel provides these observations based on the 19th century narrative of Rabbi David d’Beth Hillel, and additional eyewitness accounts, which describe the rendering of Tabriz, Judenrein, and the forced conversion of the Jews of Meshed to Islam:
Due to the persecution of their Moslem neighbors, many once flourishing communities entirely disappeared. Maragha, for example, ceased to be the seat of a Jewish community around 1800, when the Jews were driven out on account of a blood libel. Similarly, Tabriz, where over 50 Jewish families are supposed to have lived, became Judenrein towards the end of the 18th century through similar circumstances.
The peak of the forced elimination of Jewish communities occurred under Shah Mahmud (1834-48), during whose rule the Jewish population in Meshed, in eastern Persia, was forcibly converted, an event which not only remained unchallenged by Persian authorities, but also remained unknown and unnoticed by European Jews
And Fischel (in 1949) wrote a modern analysis of the Meshed pogrom and forced conversions, which highlighted these details:
The [Jewish] woman [see Wolff’s account above] hired a Persian boy to catch a dog in the street and then kill it in her courtyard. Following a dispute about payment, the boy ran off in a rage. A rumor that the Jews had killed a dog on the holiest of holy days [the day of mourning for Husain, the grandson of Muhammad] and had even called it Husain to insult the Mohammedans. When this rumor reached the thousands assembled in mourning at the Mosque of the Imam Riza, hundreds of the devout, together with Shaikhs, Mullahs, Sayyids, and other spiritual leaders, rushed to the Jewish quarter. There they plundered, robbed, and burned. Soon the synagogue and the scrolls of the Law stood in flames; many scores of Jews were wounded and some thirty-five were left dead in the streets. The mob would have destroyed the entire Jewish quarter had not a group of priests given their word that the survivors would be converted to Islam. For the remaining Jews the only chance of survival was to recite the Moslem confession of faith. This they did, and on the following day they were officially accepted into Islam…They were now called, ‘Jadid al-Islam’, or ‘neo-Moslem’. With this acceptance of Islam, the convert was immediately freed from all his previous restrictions; he was no longer required to wear a special hat or have his hair dressed in a special way or wear any particular Jewish badge on his clothes, nor was he required to pay the poll-tax (jizya). His ‘uncleanliness’ was gone- he was now a Moslem among Moslems…The mosque became the legal meeting place of the Jedidim. There, they were under the supervision of the chief priest, the Mujtahid, who exercised the dual role of instructor in Mohammedanism and inquisitor for Islam [emphasis added]. He acted as the official head of the Jews as well as their supreme judicial authority. Demanding the diligent study of the Koran and the traditional books, he forbade ritual slaughtering, circumcision on the 8th day, ordered mixed marriages between Jedidim and Moslems, and was empowered to grant permission for burial. In 1839, then, the Jewish community in Meshed officially ceased to exist. Yet this forced conversion could not extinguish Judaism in the hearts of the Jedidim; the hope that they might one day return to their own religion remained alive in them.
During the nearly 50 year reign (1848-1896) of Nasr ad-Din Shah, reform efforts to improve the plight of non-Muslims, in particular Jews, were opposed strenuously and effectively by the Shi’ite clerical hierarchy. Accordingly, as Fischel notes,
…Under Nasr ad-Din Jews continued to suffer, not only in consequence of the deep-rooted hatred against them and the conception of ritual uncleanliness, but also as a result of legal discrimination of a most severe nature. Thus the entire community of Jews was held responsible for crimes and misdemeanors committed by its individual members; the oath of a Jew was not received in a court of justice; a Jew converted to the Muslim religion could claim to be the sole inheritor of family property, to the exclusion of all relatives who had not changed their religion, thereby causing the greatest possible distress to those Jews who preferred death to apostasy. In many towns the Jew was prohibited from keeping a shop in the bazaars, while in addition to the legal taxes the local authorities levied arbitrary exactions on the Jews. Although the Jew had the nominal right of appeal to a superior court of justice he did not exercise that right because of the fear of vengeance of the lower tribunal. The life of a Jew was not protected by law, inasmuch as the murderer of a Jew could purchase immunity by payment of a fine.
Laurence Loeb maintains that the Jews were also victimized by tax farming throughout the 19th century, which reduced them, “…to virtual serfdom.” C.J. Wills, an English physician who traveled widely in Iran from 1866-1881 while working for the Indo-European Telegraph Department, illustrates this abusive practice in a contemporary late 19th century account:
The principle is very simple. The Jews of a province are assessed at a tax of a certain amount. Someone pays this amount to the local governor together with a bribe; and the wretched Jews are immediately placed under his authority for the financial year. It is a simple speculation. If times are good, the farmer of the Jews makes a good profit; if they are bad he gains nothing, or may fail to extract from them as much as he has paid out of pocket- in that case, woe betide them. During the Persian famine the Jews suffered great straits before the receipt of subsidies sent from Europe by their co-religionists. The farmer of the Jewish colony in a great Persian city (of course a Persian Mohammedan) having seized their goods and clothes, proceeded, in the cold of Persian winter, to remove the doors and windows of their hovels and to wantonly burn them. The farmer was losing money, and sought thus to enforce what he considered his rights. No Persian pitied the unfortunates; they were Jews and so beyond the pale of pity. Every street boy raises his hand against the wretched Hebrew; he is beaten and buffeted in the streets, spat upon in the bazaar. The only person he can appeal to is the farmer of the Jews. From him, he will obtain a certain amount of protection if he be actually robbed of money or goods; not from the farmer’s sense of justice, but because the complainant, were his wrongs unredressed, might be unable to pay his share of the tax.
Wills also provides these acerbic descriptions of two of the most egregious forms of degradation, both public and private, suffered by the Jews throughout the 19th century:
At every public festival-even at the royal salaam [salute], before the King’s face- the Jews are collected, and a number of them are flung into the hauz or tank, that King and mob may be amused by seeing them crawl out half-drowned and covered with mud. The same kindly ceremony is witnessed whenever a provincial governor holds high festival: there are fireworks and Jews.
When a Jew marries, a rabble of the Mahommedan ruffians of the town invite themselves to the ceremony, and, after a scene of riot and intoxication, not infrequently beat their host and his relations and insult the women of the community; only leaving the Jewish quarter when they have slept off the drink they have swallowed at their unwilling host’s expense.
Despite a number of direct, hopeful meetings between the Shah and prominent European Jews and Jewish organizations throughout Western Europe in 1873, Fischel concludes,
The intervention of European Jewry in favor of their Persian brothers did not bring about the hoped-for improvement and scarcely lessened the persecution and suffering of the Jews after the return of the Shah from Europe.
After his visit to Europe Nasr ad-Din issued a number of decrees and firmans which brought about some social and administrative changes in favor of the Jews, but the government was apparently too weak to prevent the recurrence of public outbreaks against the Jews. Even the law which provided that a Jew who turned Muslim had the right to claim the entire property of his family, although abolished in Teheran in 1883, was still in force in some provinces in the Persian empire as a result of the opposition of the clergy. In 1888, a massacre of the Jews occurred in Isfahan and Shiraz, which brought about intervention and investigation of the British consulate.
The reigns of Muzafar ad-Din Shah (1896-1907; following the assassination of Nasr ad-Din) , Shah Muhammad (1907-1909), and Shah Ahmad (1909-1925), included a nascent constitutional movement, which again aroused hopes for the elimination of religious oppression against Persian Jews and other non-Muslims. However,
…neither the Jews nor the Armenian Christians or Parsee Zoroastrian minorities were yet permitted to send a deputy of their own group to parliament. At first the Jews were compelled to agree to be represented by a Muslim…Unfortunately, three months after the convening of Parliament Shah Muzaffar ad-din died, and under Shah Muhammad (1907-1909) the constitutional movement very quickly disappointed the high hopes which the liberal elements of the Muslims and the Jews in Persia had entertained. Anti-Jewish riots became common, particularly in Kermanshah in 1909…
Apropos of Fischel’s observation, David Littman has provided the full translation of an Alliance Israe´lite Universale report of the 1910 Shiraz pogrom which was precipitated by two false accusations against the Jewish community: desecrating copies of the Koran by placing them in cesspools (latrines); and the ritual murder of a child.
(M. Nataf, October 31, 1910) What happened yesterday in the Jewish quarter exceeds, in its horror and barbarity, anything that the most fertile imagination can conceive. In the space of a few hours, in less time than it would take to describe it, 6,000 men, women, children and the elderly were stripped of everything they possessed. [emphasis added]
I heard these details at the school where I was at the time, and there first perceived the clamor of the crowd, which was gradually gathering in front of the government palace and which, collecting around the body of the alleged little Muslim girl found close to the Jewish cemetery (it was subsequently established that the body was that of a little Jewish boy buried eight days ago and disinterred, for the requirements of the cause, being completely putrefied and absolutely unrecognizable) [emphasis added] was accusing the Jews of having committed this heinous crime, for which it demanded vengeance.
Then Cawan-el-Mulk, the temporary governor, having ordered his troopers to disperse the frenzied mob, they headed for the Jewish quarter, where they arrived at the same time as the soldiers sent by Nasr-ed-Dowlet. These latter, as if they were obeying an order, were the first to fling themselves at the Jewish houses, thereby giving the signal to plunder. The carnage and destruction which then occurred for six to seven hours is beyond the capacity to describe…Not a single one of the Jewish quarter’s 260 houses was spared. [emphasis added] Soldiery, loutis, sayyids [descendants of the prophet and/or Muslim dignitaries], even women and children, driven and excited, less by religious fanaticism than by a frenetic need to plunder and appropriate the Jews’ possessions, engaged in a tremendous rush for the spoils. At one point, about a hundred men from the Kashgais tribe, who were in town to sell some livestock, joined the first assailants, thereby completing the work of destruction.
In short the outcome of yesterday’s events is as follows: 12 people dead and about 50 more or less seriously injured, whilst the five to six thousand people comprising Shiraz community now possess nothing in the world but the few atatters they were wearing when their quarter was invaded. [emphasis added]
The Pahlavi Reforms
Reza Pahlavi’s spectacular rise to power in 1925 was accompanied by dramatic reforms, including secularization and westernization efforts, as well as a revitalization of Iran’s pre-Islamic spiritual and cultural heritage. This profound sociopolitical transformation had very positive consequences for Iranian Jewry. Walter Fischel’s analysis from the late 1940s (published in 1950), along with Laurence Loeb’s complementary insights three decades
later, underscore the impact of the Pahlavis’ (i.e., Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah) reforms:
(Fischel) In breaking the power of the Shia clergy, which for centuries had stood in the way of progress, he [Reza Shah] shaped a modernized and secularized state, freed almost entirely from the fetters of a once fanatical and powerful clergy…The rebirth of the Persian state and the manifold reforms implied therein tended also to create conditions more favorable to Jews. It enabled them to enjoy, along with the other citizens of Persia, that freedom and liberty which they had long been denied.
(Loeb) The Pahlavi period…has been the most favorable era for Persian Jews since Parthian rule [175 B.C. to 226 C.E.]…the ‘Law of Apostasy’ was abrogated about 1930. While Reza Shah did prohibit political Zionism and condoned the execution of the popular liberal Jewish reformer Hayyim Effendi, his rule was on the whole, an era of new opportunities for the Persian Jew. Hostile outbreaks against the Jews have been prevented by the government. Jews are no longer legally barred from any profession. They are required to serve in the army and pay the same taxes as Muslims. The elimination of the face-veil removed a source of insult to Jewish women, who had been previously required have their faces uncovered; now all women are supposed to appear unveiled in public…Secular educations were available to Jewish girls as well as to boys, and, for the first time, Jews could become government-licensed teachers…Since the ascendance of Mohammad Reza Shah (Aryamehr) in 1941, the situation has further improved…Not only has the number of poor been reduced, but a new bourgeoisie is emerging…For the first time Jews are spending their money on cars, carpets, houses, travel, and clothing. Teheran has attracted provincial Jews in large numbers and has become the center of Iranian Jewish life…The Pahlavi era has seen vastly improved communications between Iranian Jewry and the rest of the world. Hundreds of boys and girls attend college and boarding school in the United States and Europe. Israeli emissaries come for periods of two years to teach in the Jewish schools…A small Jewish publication industry has arisen since 1925…Books on Jewish history, Zionism, the Hebrew language and classroom texts have since been published…On March 15, 1950, Iran extended de facto recognition to Israel. Relations with Israel are good and trade is growing.
But Loeb, who finished his anthropological field work in southern Iran during the waning years of Pahlavi rule, concluded on this cautionary, prescient note, in 1976, emphasizing the Jews’ tenuous status:
Despite the favorable attitude of the government and the relative prosperity of the Jewish community, all Iranian Jews acknowledge the precarious nature of the present situation. There are still sporadic outbreaks against them because the Muslim clergy constantly berates Jews, inciting the masses who make no effort to hide their animosity towards the Jew. [emphasis added] Most Jews express the belief that it is only the personal strength and goodwill of the Shah that protects them: that plus God’s intervention! If either should fail… [emphasis added].
The Khomeini “Revolution”—Back to the Future
The so-called “Khomeini revolution”, which deposed Mohammad Reza Shah, was in reality a mere return to oppressive Shi’ite theocratic rule, the predominant form of Persian/Iranian governance since 1502. Conditions for all non-Muslim religious minorities, particularly Bahais and Jews, rapidly deteriorated. David Littman recounts the Jews immediate plight:
In the months preceding the Shah’s departure on 16 January 1979, the religious minorities…were already beginning to feel insecure…Twenty thousand Jews left the country before the triumphant return of the Ayatollah Khomeini on 1 February…On 16 March, the honorary president of the Iranian Jewish community, Habib Elghanian, a wealthy businessman, was arrested and charged by an Islamic revolutionary tribunal with “corruption” and “contacts with Israel and Zionism”; he was shot on 8 May.
And Littman concluded this 1979 essay with the following appeal:
It is to be hoped that the new regime will not revert to the pre-Pahlavi attitudes of the Shi‘a clergy, but will prefer a path of equality for all of its citizens, thus demonstrating in practice the “tolerant” attitude of Islam so frequently proclaimed. [emphasis added]
Littman’s essay also alludes to the emigration of 20,000 Iranian Jews just prior to Khomeini’s assumption of power. The demographic decline of Iranian Jewry since the creation of Israel has been rather dramatic even including the relatively “halcyon days” before 1978/1979—from nearly 120,000 in 1948 to roughly 70,000 in 1978, and at present barely 20,000 (and perhaps even less).
The writings and speeches of the most influential religious ideologues of this restored Shi’ite theocracy—including Khomeini himself—make apparent their seamless connection to the oppressive doctrines of their forbears in the Safavid and Qajar dynasties. For example, Sultanhussein Tabandeh, the Iranian Shi’ite leader of the Ne’ematullahi Sultanalishahi Sufi Order, wrote an “Islamic perspective” on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to Professor Eliz Sanasarian’s important study of religious minorities in the Islamic Republic, Tabandeh’s tract became “…the core ideological work upon which the Iranian government…based its non-Muslim policy.” Tabandeh begins his discussion by lauding as a champion “…of the oppressed” Shah Ismail I (1502-1524), the repressive and bigoted founder of the Safavid dynasty, who “…bore hatred against the Jews and ordered their eyes to be gouged out if they happened to be found in his vicinity.” It is critical to understand that Tabandeh’s key views on non-Muslims, summarized below, were implemented “…almost verbatim in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” In essence, Tabandeh simply reaffirms the sacralized inequality of non-Muslims relative to Muslims, under the Shari’a:
Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash.
Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed.
Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them. Since the marriage of a Muslim woman to an infidel husband (in accordance with the verse quoted: ‘Men are guardians form women’) means her subordination to an infidel, that fact makes the marriage void, because it does not obey the conditions laid down to make a contract valid. As the Sura (“The Woman to be Examined”, [i.e., sura 60, specifically verse 60:10] ) says: “Turn them not back to infidels: for they are not lawful unto infidels nor are infidels lawful unto them (i.e., in wedlock).”
The conception of najis or ritual uncleanliness of the non-Muslim has also been reaffirmed. Ayatollah Khomeini stated explicitly, “Non-Muslims of any religion or creed are najis.”
Khomeini elaborated his views on najis and non-Muslims, with a specific reference to Jews, as follows:
Eleven things are unclean: urine, excrement, sperm, blood, a dog, a pig, bones, a non-Muslim man and woman [emphasis added], wine, beer, perspiration of a camel that eats filth…The whole body of a non-Muslim is unclean, even his hair, his nails, and all the secretions of his body…A child below the age of puberty is unclean if his parents and grandparents are not Muslims; but if he has a Muslim for a forebear, then he is clean…The body, saliva, nasal secretions, and perspiration of a non-Muslim man or woman who converts to Islam automatically become pure. As for the garments, if they were in contact with the sweat of the body before conversion, they will remain unclean…It is not strictly prohibited for a Muslim to work in an establishment run by a Muslim who employs Jews, if the products do not aid Israel in one way or another. However it is shameful [for a Muslim] to be under the orders of a Jewish departmental head.
The Iranian Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri further indicated that a non-Muslim (kafir’s) impurity was, “a political order from Islam and must be adhered to by the followers of Islam, and the goal [was] to promote general hatred toward those who are outside Muslim circles.” This "hatred" was to assure that Muslims would not succumb to corrupt, i.e., non-Islamic thoughts.
Khomeini’s views were the most influential in shaping the ideology of the revitalized Shi’ite theocracy, and his attitudes towards Jews (both before and after he assumed power) were particularly negative. Khomeini’s speeches and writings invoked a panoply of Judenhass motifs, including orthodox interpretations of sacralized Muslim texts (for e.g., describing the destruction of the Banu Qurayza), and the Shi’ite conception of najis. More ominously, Khomeini’s rhetoric blurred the distinction between Jews and Israelis, reiterated paranoid conspiracy theories about Jews (both within Persia/Iran, and beyond), and endorsed the annihilation of the Jewish State. Sanasarian highlights these disturbing predilections:
The Jews and Israelis were interchangeable entities who had penetrated all facets of life. Iran was being “trampled upon under Jewish boots”. The Jews had conspired to kill the Qajar king Naser al-Din Shah and had a historically grand design to rule through a new monarchy and a new government (the Pahlavi dynasty): “Gentlemen, be frightened. They are such monsters”. In a vitriolic attack on Mohammad Reza Shah’s celebration of 2500 years of Persian monarchy in 1971, Khomeini declared that Israeli technicians had planned the celebrations and they were behind the exuberant expenses and overspending. Objecting to the sale of oil to Israel, he said: “We should not ignore that the Jews want to take over Islamic countries”…In an address to the Syrian foreign minister after the Revolution Khomeini lamented: “If Muslims got together and each poured one bucket of water on Israel, a flood would wash away Israel.”
Sanasarian provides one particularly disturbing example of this Islamic state-sanctioned Jew hatred, involving the malevolent indoctrination of young adult candidates for national teacher training programs. Affirming as objective, factual history the hadith account (for eg., Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786) of Muhammad’s supposed poisoning by a Jewish woman from ancient Khaybar, she notes,
Even worse, the subject became one of the questions in the ideological test for the Teachers’ Training College where students were given a multiple-choice question in order to identify the instigator of the martyrdom of the Prophet Muhammad, the “correct” answer being “a Jewess. ”
Reza Afshari’s seminal analysis of human rights in contemporary Iran summarizes the predictable consequences for Jews of the Khomeini “revolution”:
As antisemitism found official expression…and the anti-Israeli state propaganda became shriller, Iranian Jews felt quite uncertain about their future under the theocracy. Early in 1979, the execution of Habib Elqaniyan, a wealthy, self-made businessman, a symbol of success for many Iranian Jews, hastened emigration. The departure of the chief rabbi for Europe in the summer of 1980 underlined the fact that the hardships that awaited the remaining Jewish Iranians would far surpass those of other protected minorities
Beyond the well publicized execution of Habib Elganian in May 1979, an excess of Jews compared to other “recognized religious minorities” were imprisoned, and by 1982, nine more Jews had been executed.
Afshari also captures the crushing psychosocial impact on Iran’s remaining Jews of restored Shi’ite theocratic rule- the recrudescence of a fully servile dhimmi mentality: 765
The Jewish leaders had to go so far as to openly denounce the policies of the State of Israel. It was disquieting to read a news item that reported the Jewish representative in the Majlis criticizing, in carefully chosen words…actions of his co-religionists in Israel, especially when upon the conclusion of his remarks the other (Shi’ite) deputies burst into the chant “Death to Israel!” The contemporary state violating the human rights of its citizens left behind a trail of pathological behaviors [emphasis added]…Equally baffling, if not placed against the Jewish community’s predicament, was the statement by the Jewish leaders concerning the arrests of thirteen Jews charged with espionage for Israel in June 1999. “The Islamic Republic of Iran has demonstrated to the world that it has treated the Jewish community and other religious minorities well; the Iranian Jewish community has enjoyed constitutional rights of citizenship, and the arrest and charges against a number of Iranian Jews has nothing to do with their religion.” The bureaucratic side of the state needed such a statement, and the Jewish leaders in Tehran had no choice but to oblige.
Afshari’s blunt description of this phenomenon among contemporary Iranian Jews labels such prototypical dhimmi behaviors a “pathological,” if understandable response to their “predicament.” The apotheosis of Iranian Jewish dhimmitude is perhaps Parviz Yeshaya. A staunch anti-Zionist, Yeshaya who until recently headed the Jewish Committee in Tehran, was one of the first Jews to support Ayatollah Khomeini, and has called for the destruction of the state of Israel. And public dhimmi behaviors were again evident in the summer of 2006. During the conflagration on the Israeli-Lebanon border—initiated by the Iranian regime’s jihadist proxy organization, Hezbollah—Jews from the southern Iranian city of Shiraz were prominently displayed on state-run television participating in a regime-sponsored pro-Hezbollah rally.
Demonizing Israel and Jews—via motifs in the Koran, hadith, and sira—Hezbollah views the jihad against the “Zionist entity” as an annihilationist war intrinsic to broader conflicts: the struggle between the Islamic world and the non-Muslim world, and the historical struggle between Islam and Judaism. The most senior clerical authority for Hezbollah, Husayn Fadlalah has stated, “We find in the Koran that the Jews are the most aggressive towards the Muslims…because of their aggressive resistance to the unity of the faith.” Fadlallah repeatedly refers to anti-Jewish archetypes in the Koran, hadith, and sira: the corrupt, treacherous and aggressive nature of the Jews; their reputation as killers of prophets, who spread corruption on earth; and the notion that the Jews engaged in conspiratorial efforts against the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Hassan Nasrallah, current Secretary General of Hezbollah, and a prote´ge of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, presently Iran’s highest ranking political and religious authority (i.e., its “Guardian Jurisprudent”), has reiterated these antisemitic views with particular vehemence. Invoking motifs from Islam’s foundational texts, Nasrallah has characterized Jews as the “grandsons of apes and pigs,” and as “Allah’s most cowardly and greedy creatures.” He elaborates these themes into an annihilationist animus against all Jews, not merely Israelis.
Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history...
Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment…There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel.
If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli…[I]f they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.
Hezbollah is viscerally opposed to Judaism and the existence of Israel, stressing the eternal conflict between the Jews and Islam. Eradicating Israel represents an early stage of Hezbollah’s Pan-Islamic ambitions, and its jihad against the rest of the non-Muslim world.
Support for Hezbollah abroad—which seeks the destruction of Israel, the Middle East’s lone state liberated from the system of dhimmitude—is mirrored by contemporary Iran’s treatment of its own Jews (and other non-Muslim populations) since 1979. Dhimmitude has been formally re-imposed, and in the case of Jews, complemented by state-supported antisemitism, irrespective of any given regimes “moderation.” Discriminatory liabilities implicit in Iran’s legal code are exploited fully, worsening the plight of Iran’s Jews. These include: the imposition of collective punishment on a Jewish community for an individual act; a “contract of silence” regarding anti-Jewish discrimination and persecution; and an unrelenting campaign of virulent antisemitism openly expressed by the Iranian media, and religious and political hierarchy. Pooya Dayanim, an Iranian Jewish attorney, recently summarized these phenomena:
This reluctance to criticize, or even the eagerness to support the Islamic Regime, however, is not evidence of informal intimidation of the Jewish Community by government officials, but is also, and more significantly, a result of an obligatory contractual agreement between the minority community and the Islamic Republic. The silence, therefore, of the Iranian Jewish community inside Iran concerning discrimination and persecution is in itself evidence of the dangerous and precarious situation the community finds itself in and which it is unable to denounce without breaking its contractual agreement as a religious minority living in a Muslim land.
This contractual agreement under Shari’a Islamic Law presupposes complete loyalty to the Islamic Regime, in exchange for which the minority community receives second-class, limited privileges in practicing its religion. If the terms of this contract are breached, supposedly even by individual members of the community, the limited privileges of the entire community can be suspended or revoked or the minority community (in this instance the Jewish community) can even face deportation from the country. Under these circumstances the Iranian Jewish Community must avoid any statements that could be interpreted as critical of the regime and forces the government-imposed or government-tolerated leaders of the Iranian Jewish Community to turn in or turn against those individual members of the community who are brave enough to dare to speak out about the true condition of Jews in Iran.
After the arrest of 13 Jews in Shiraz and Isfahan in March of 1999 on trumped up charges of spying for Israel and the United States, the Iranian Jewish Community leaders inside Iran (Parviz Yeshaya, Manouchehr Eliasi and Maurice Motamed) not only did not inform anyone on the outside world about the situation but became enforcers of silence asking Iranian Jewish leaders outside of Iran to remain silent as well. It was only in July of 1999 that the case was revealed to the world in an exclusive interview granted the BBC by an Iranian Jewish leader based in the United States [home to 65,000 Iranian Jews compared to the ~ 20,000 that still remain in Iran] who feared that the imprisoned Jews faced immediate execution and decided to break his silence and save their lives. However, even during the trial, during which the Iranian Jewish Community knew they had the support of the international media and governments worldwide, statements from the official Iranian Jewish community were very measured, generally limiting themselves to faith that the accused would be treated fairly.
While the Islamic Republic does not guarantee the right of free speech and protest to any of its citizens, the situation, because of the Islamic Law, is considerably worse for the Jews. If an Iranian Muslim criticizes the Islamic Republic, he himself can be punished; if a Jew does it, under the laws of the Islamic Republic his actions may legally affect the well being of the entire Jewish community. Given, moreover, the suspicion in which Jews are generally held because of actual or perceived connections to Israel, the level of intimidation, especially regarding anyone who could be thought to speak for the community in general is extreme. Iranian Jewish leaders in the United States who have been brave enough to speak out have repeatedly been threatened by Iranian agents that their life and the life of their loved ones are in danger because of their decision to speak out and that they should stay silent.
Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader….in March 2001, denied the Holocaust and called the survivors of the death camps “…a bunch of hooligans who emigrated to Palestine.” On May 18, 2001, in a televised speech, Khamenei directly attacked the Jews, calling Jews the enemies of the prophet Mohammad and threatened the Jews with expulsion and expropriation of their property, citing a similar action taken by the prophet Mohammad against the three Jewish tribes in Medina, [during] which they were annihilated. This attack, placed in the context in which the Jews of Iran were still feeling shock of the Shiraz show trials reveals the true feelings of the Islamic Regime toward the Jews of Iran.
A large part of the Antisemitic campaign waged by the government takes place in Farsi [so as] to not raise [the] attention of the non-Farsi speaking world. For example, when some specifically Antisemitic articles appear in Farsi newspapers with wide distribution, the articles are omitted from their international edition and from the website of those newspapers. It is clear that the Iranian authorities do not wish to highlight their Antisemitic activities and want to present Iran as a shining example of religious tolerance. When Maurice Motamed, the sole Jewish MP in Iran's Parliament, was interviewed by the Forward in his trip to the United States [during early 2003] for example, there were Iranian diplomats present and the interview took place at the residence of Iran's Ambassador to the UN to make sure that he does not say anything that the regime finds unproductive to its PR efforts.
The threat of retaliation against the entire community is an ever present factor in the minds of Iranian Jews and all community leaders. The Islamic Republic reminds Iranian Jews of their uncertain fate and future from time to time in speeches that are delivered by the leaders of the regime…There is good reason to believe, therefore, that there is an effective mechanism of intimidation operating against the Iranian Jewish Community, and their refusal to report incidents of severe discrimination and persecution is in itself evidence of the dangerous situation that Jews in Iran live under.
Additional forms of legal and extra-legal discrimination adversely affect criminal proceedings for Jews, and limit their employment and educational opportunities. Even private religious education and observance are hindered, or abused by Iranian authorities to spy upon and threaten Jewish communities, despite continued spurious Western media claims that “…Jews face no restrictions on their religious practice.” Dayanim elaborates on what amounts to a nearly full recrudescence of the system of dhimmitude.
(Legal disabilities) The Jews suffer from official inferior status under Iranian Law and are not protected by police or the courts. The amount of financial compensation a Jew can receive from a Muslim in case of murder or accidental death of a relative is equal to one-eighth of that which would be paid if the victim was a Muslim. In practice this means that a life of a Jew in Iran has very little value. In addition, since Iranian courts routinely refuse to accept the testimony of a Jew against a Muslim, most cases of this sort are not even prosecuted and the police do not even investigate such claims. As a result of their legally inferior status, Jews find themselves outside the protection of the courts and police. This is not simply a perception on their part, but rather, sadly, a harsh reality. In none of the cases of the murder of Jews in Iran has a perpetrator ever been found, much less prosecuted.
(Limitations on employment/business opportunities) Ayatollah Khomeini's edicts concerning the Jews, published in his book Tozieh Almasael (Explanation of Problems), state clearly that while there is no Islamic law prohibiting a situation in which a Muslim may work under a Jew, this is a shameful situation for a Muslim to be in. These edicts still carry the force of law in Iran, and as a result, Jews have been barred from any position in which they would be superior to Muslims. Jews are excluded from most government positions. Virtually all government entities (most sectors in Iran are government-owned) have a "Muslim only" policy and they print this requirement in their job notices in newspapers. This formal exclusion of Jews from large areas of employment is badly damaging to the Jews.Most private companies, thanks to the anti-Semitic media campaign in Iran, do not hire Jews either. Most Jews are forced into self-employment, but due to general public prejudice, few buy anything from them. The US State Department Religious Freedom Report of 2001 confirms that Jewish businesses have been targets of vandalism and boycotts.
(Limitations on educational opportunities) All Jewish university students must pass a course on Islamic ideology. In general, the professors in these courses are, by definition, very dedicated to their ideology and many Jewish Students that I have interviewed have reported that attending such a course has been a humiliating experience, in which their religion has been ridiculed and trivialized. Jewish students who protest are expelled and blocked from entering the University. Jewish students have also reported that instructors have arbitrarily failed them to block their educational goals. Parents of Jewish elementary and secondary school students, I interviewed in Vienna (processing center for Iranian Jewish refugees) in July of 2002, report frequent verbal and even physical abuse of their children by allegedly anti-Semitic teachers. Iranian "Jewish" schools are forced to stay open on the Jewish Sabbath. Principals of “Jewish” schools in Iran by law must be Muslim and are generally selected based on their Islamic credential.
(Restrictions on private religious practice) Judaism is one of the recognized minority religions in Iran. Jews, therefore, are allowed to conduct religious services and give religious education to their children. The privileges of religious education, can, however, be suspended if it is thought by the authorities that such an education may prevent Jewish children from converting to Islam. Many informed observers believe that one reason that Jewish rabbis and teachers were arrested in Shiraz was the fact that they were instructing in the spirit of Orthodox Judaism. The US State Department Religious Freedom Report for 2001 notes that the Jewish community, and its religious, cultural and social organizations, are closely monitored by the Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security. The form that this monitoring has taken is either sending agents to synagogues posing as Jews, or forcing Jewish communal leaders to inform on the activities of the Jewish community. This situation has created an atmosphere of terror and mistrust in the Jewish community. Many Jews who flee Iran relate that they told no one of their plans to emigrate, not even friends or relatives in fear of an unknown collaborator informing authorities of their plans.
Since 1979, the restored Iranian theocracy—in parallel with returning, brutally, their small remnant Jewish community to a state of obsequious dhimmitude, through execution and intimidation—has always focused its obsessive anti-Jewish animus on the autonomous Jewish state of Israel.
Iran’s steadfast pursuit of nuclear weapons may have even accelerated under the “progressive” regime of Muhammed Khatami, who denounced U.S. and European Union demands that Iran sign an agreement to terminate such efforts, transparently and verifiably. An early 2002 report by Michael Rubin warned,
Nearly five years after his first election, Khatami has enacted few if any tangible reforms. Indeed, while many younger Iranians do enjoy some additional flexibility in dress, freedoms have actually declined under the Khatami administration. Khatami has accomplished one important task, though. With a gentle face, soft rhetoric, and numerous trips abroad, Khatami has succeeded in softening the image of the Islamic Republic. No longer is Iran associated with waves of 14-year-olds running across minefields, nor do many Western academics and commentators dwell on Iran's export of terror, so long as Tehran keeps its assassination squads away from Europe. However, the fundamentals of the regime’ behavior have not changed. Indeed, under Khatami, Iran has accelerated not only its drive for a nuclear capability, but also actively increased its pursuit of chemical and biological weapons, as well as long-range ballistic missiles
Previously, the “Al-Quds Day,” December 14, 2001 sermon of former Iranian President Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani made clear the purpose of such weapons. During this “pious” address, Rafsanjani, who was also deemed a “moderate” while President, argued that nuclear weapons could solve the “Israel problem”, because, as he observed, “…the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.” Indeed, Rafsanjani was merely reiterating motifs of Jew hatred and jihad martyrdom expressed continuously by his spiritual inspiration, Ayatollah Khomeini. Between 1963 and 1980, for example, Khomeini made these statements:
(1963) Israel does not want the Koran to survive in this country. . . . It is destroying us. It is destroying you and the nation. It wants to take possession of the economy. It wants to demolish our trade and agriculture. It wants to grab the wealth of the country. [Iran]
(1977) The Jews have grasped the world with both hands and are devouring it with an insatiable appetite, they are devouring America and have now turned their attention to Iran and still they are not satisfied.
(1980) We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
For current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the destruction of Israel is an openly avowed policy, driven by his eschatological beliefs. Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, summarized this annihilationist eschatology, redolent with Koranic Jew hatred (see Koran 5:82)—which pertains to Jews, generally, not “Zionists”—on November 16, 2006, stating: “The Jew is the most obstinate enemy (Koran 5:82) of the devout. And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind. . . . The reappearance of the Twelfth Imam will lead to a war between Israel and the Shia.”
As characterized in the hadith, Muslim eschatology highlights the Jews’ supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ—or according to another tradition, the Dajjâl is himself Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions maintain that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered— everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree (as per the canonical hadith included in the 1988 Hamas Charter, in article 7). Another hadith variant, which takes place in Jerusalem, has Isa (the Muslim Jesus) leading the Arabs in a rout of the Dajjâl and his company of 70,000 armed Jews. And the notion of jihad “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology—on the day of resurrection the vanquished Jews will be consigned to Hellfire, and this will expiate Muslims who have sinned, sparing them from this fate.
The rise of Jewish nationalism—Zionism—posed a predictable, if completely unacceptable challenge to the Islamic order—jihad-imposed chronic dhimmitude for Jews—of apocalyptic magnitude. As historian Bat Ye’or has explained,
…because divine will dooms Jews to wandering and misery, the Jewish state appears to Muslims as an unbearable affront and a sin against Allah. Therefore it must be destroyed by Jihad.
This is exactly the Islamic context in which the widespread, “resurgent” use of Jew annihilationist apocalyptic motifs—Sunni and Shi’ite alike—would be an anticipated, even commonplace occurrence.
Moshe Sharon recently provided a very lucid summary of the unique features of Shi’ite eschatology, its key point of consistency with Sunni understandings of this doctrine, and Ahmadinejad’s deep personal attachment to “mahdism”:
Since the late ninth century, the Shi’ites have been expecting the emergence of the hidden imam-mahdi, armed with divine power and followed by thousands of martyrdom-seeking warriors. He is expected to conquer the world and establish Shi'ism as its supreme religion and system of rule. His appearance would involve terrible war and unusual bloodshed.
Ahmadinejad, as mayor of Teheran, built a spectacular boulevard through which the mahdi would enter into the capital. There is no question that Ahmadinejad believes he has been chosen to be the herald of the mahdi. [emphasis added]
Shi'ite Islam differs from Sunni Islam regarding the identity of the mahdi. The Sunni mahdi is essentially an anonymous figure; the Shi'ite mahdi is a divinely inspired person with a real identity.
However both Shi’ites and Sunnis share one particular detail about “the coming of the hour” and the dawning of messianic times: The Jews must all suffer a violent death, to the last one. Both Shi'ites and Sunnis quote the famous hadith [Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985] attributed to the Prophet Muhammad: The last hour will not come unless the Muslims fight against the Jews, and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and the stone or the tree would say: “Muslim! Servant of Allah! Here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!” Not one Friday passes without this hadith being quoted in sermons from one side of the Islamic world to the other.
Despite an international outcry of condemnation following Ahmadinejad’s statements in late October, 2005 that Israel “…should be wiped off the map,” and “…very soon this stain of disgrace will be purged from the center of the Islamic world,” he continued to express such annihilationist sentiments throughout 2006, while simultaneously referring to the “myth of the Holocaust,” and even sponsoring a December, 2006 Holocaust deniers “conference” in Tehran. Ahmadinejad also recently maintained he has “…a connection with God,” and his genocidal pronouncements have been endorsed by the upper echelons of Iran’s national security establishment. The conclusion that Israel’s eradication has become “Iran’s principal foreign policy objective,” does not seem unwarranted. Finally, Matthias Kuntzel has highlighted the unique dangers posed by Iran’s fusion of a martyrdom mentality, with nuclear weapons capability, and Holocaust denial.
Conclusions
Holocaust scholar Daniel Goldhagen has put forth the controversial argument that the Nazis melded centuries of annihilationist German Jew hatred to a state machinery capable of implementing the systematic mass murder of Jews. Citing the independent statements of Rafsanjani (from December 2001) and Ahmadinejad (from October 2005), Goldhagen, in a November 3, 2005 opinion editorial, cautioned,
Two Iranian presidents have now openly spoken about destroying Israel, with Ahmadinejad defiantly repeating his genocidal hopes again…despite the world’s condemnation of him.
Goldhagen’s visceral concern that “…it would be folly for the world to treat the Iranian leaders’ words as anything but an articulation of their intent,” remained oddly de-contextualized for an historian of antisemitism with his particular mindset. Yet four centuries of najis-inspired Jew hatred in Shi’ite Iran, accompanied by pogroms, forced conversions, and other less violent, but continuous forms of social and religious persecution—none of which are ever mentioned by Goldhagen—surely meets his own prior standard—regardless of its validity—of an established “annihilationist” mentality in Germany.
Irrespective of the controversy surrounding his earlier work on Nazi Germany, Goldhagen’s utter ignorance of Shi’ite Iran’s centuries old history of Jew hatred is pathognomonic of the current state of “scholarship” on Islamic antisemitism. Such ignorance may also explain the inability of our intellectual and policymaking elites to appreciate the prevalence and depth of support for such annihilationist views in contemporary Shi’ite Iran. Regardless, Iran must not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, certainly now, under the current regime, and into the foreseeable future.
Appendix
Table 1. Behavior Code of Abul Hassan Lari (1622)
1. Houses that are too high (higher than a Muslim’s) must be lowered.
2. Jews may not circulate freely among the Believers
3. In their stores, Jews must sit on low stools, in order they not see the purchaser’s face.
4. Jews must wear a specially constructed hat of eleven colors.
5. Around this hat they must sew a yellow ribbon, three meters long.
6. Women must tie many little bells on their sandals
7. Jewish women must also wear a black chador
8. When a Jew speaks to a Muslim, he must humbly lower his head.
Table 2. The Jam’i Abbasi of al-Amili, Instituted by Shah Abbas I (1588-1629) and Administered in Some Measure Until 1925
1. Jews are not permitted to dress like Muslims
2. A Jew must exhibit a yellow or red “badge of dishonor” on his chest
3. A Jew is not permitted to ride on a horse
4. When riding on an ass, he must hang both legs on one side
5. He is not entitled to bear arms.
6. On the street and in the market, he must pass stealthily from a corner or from the side
7. Jewish women are not permitted to cover their faces
8. The Jew is restricted from establishing boundaries of private property.
9. A Jew who becomes a Muslim, is forbidden to return to Judaism.
10. Upon disclosure of a disagreement between Jew and Muslim, the Jew’s argument has no merit.
11. In Muslim cities, the Jew is forbidden to build a synagogue
12. A Jew is not entitled to have his house built higher than a Muslim’s
Table 3. Listing by Israel Joseph Benjamin (1818-1864) of the “Oppressions” Suffered by Persian Jews, During the Mid-19th Century
1. Throughout Persia the Jews are obliged to live in a part of town separated from the other inhabitants; for they are considered as unclean creatures, who bring contamination with their intercourse and presence.
2. They have no right to carry on trade in stuff goods.
3. Even in the streets of their own quarter of the town they are not allowed to keep open any shop. They may only sell there spices and drugs, or carry on the trade of a jeweler, in which they have attained great perfection.
4. Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity, and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mob with stones and dirt.
5. For the same reason they are forbidden to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans.
6. If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest of insults. The passers-by spit in his face, and sometimes beat him so unmercifully and is obliged to be carried home.
7. If a Persian kills a Jew, and the family of the deceased can bring forward two Mussulmans as witnesses to the fact, the murderer is punished by a fine of 12 tumauns (600 piastres); but if two such witnesses cannot be produced, the crime remains unpunished, even thought it has been publicly committed, and is well known.
8. The flesh of the animals slaughtered according to Hebrew custom, but as Trefe declared, must not be sold to any Mussulmans. The slaughterers are compelled to bury the meat, for even the Christians do not venture to buy it, fearing the mockery and insult of the Persians.
9. If a Jew enters a shop to buy anything, he is forbidden to inspect the goods, but must stand at respectful distance and ask the price. Should his hand incautiously touch the goods, he must take them at any price the seller chooses for them.
10. Sometimes the Persians intrude into the dwellings of the Jews and take possession of whatever pleases them. Should the owner make the least opposition in defense of his property, he incurs the danger of atoning for it with his life.
11. Upon the least dispute between a Jew and a Persian, the former is immediately dragged before the Achund [Muslim cleric] and, if the complainant can bring forward two witnesses, the Jew is condemned to pay a heavy fine. If he is too poor to pay this penalty in money, he must pay it in his person. He is stripped to the waist, bound to a stake, and receives forty blows with a stick. Should the sufferer utter the least cry of pain during this proceeding, the blows already given are not counted, and the punishment is begun afresh.
12. In the same manner, the Jewish children, when they get into a quarrel with those of the Mussulmans, are immediately lead before the Achund, and punished with blows.
13. A Jew who travels in Persia is taxed in every inn and every caravanserai he enters. If he hesitates to satisfy any demands that may happen to be made on him, they fall upon him, and maltreat him until he yields to their terms.
14. If, as already mentioned, a Jew shows himself in the street during the three days of Katel (feast of the mourning for the death of the Persian founder of the religion of Ali) he is sure to be murdered.
15. Daily and hourly new suspicions are raised against the Jews, in order to obtain excuses for fresh extortion; the desire of gain is always the chief incitement to fanaticism.
Table 4. Conditions Imposed Upon the Jews of Hamadan, 1892
1. The Jews are forbidden to leave their houses when it rains or snows [to prevent the impurity of the Jews being transmitted to the Shiite Muslims]
2. Jewish women are obliged to expose their faces in public [like prostitutes].
3. They must cover themselves with a two colored izar (an izar is a big piece of amterial with which eastern women are obliged to cover themselves when leaving their houses].
4. The men must not wear fine clothes, the only material being permitted them being a blue cotton fabric.
5. They are forbidden to wear matching shoes.
6. Every Jew is obliged to wear a piece of red cloth on his chest.
7. A Jew must never overtake a Muslim on a public street.
8. He is forbidden to talk loudly to a Muslim.
9. A Jewish creditor of a Muslim must claim his debt in a quavering and respectful manner.
10. If a Muslim insults a Jew, the latter must drop his head and remain silent.
11. A Jew who buys meat must wrap and conceal it carefully from Muslims.
12. It is forbidden to build fine edifices.
13. It is forbidden for him to have a house higher than that of his Muslim neighbor.
14. Neither must he use plaster for whitewashing.
15. The entrance of his house must be low.
16. The Jew cannot put on his coat; he must be satisfied to carry it rolled under his arm.
17. It is forbidden for him to cut his beard, or even to trim it slightly with scissors.
18. It is forbidden for Jews to leave the town or enjoy the fresh air of the countryside.
19. It is forbidden for Jewish doctors to ride on horseback [this right was generally forbidden to all non-Muslims, except doctors].
20. A Jew suspected of drinking spirits must not appear in the street; if he does he should be put to death immediately.
21. Weddings must be celebrated in the greatest secrecy.
22. Jews must not consume good fruit.
Andrew G. Bostom is a frequent contributor to Frontpage Magazine.com, and the author of The Legacy of Jihad, and the forthcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.
The American Thinker | 7/22/2008
Earlier this week Professors Moshe Sharon and Benny Morris both opined solemnly about an inevitable Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. These two respected Israeli academicians, despite holding very disparate political views, also concurred on the moral justification for such pre-emptive action—the annihilationist threat to Israel posed by a Shi’ite Iranian regime gripped with an apocalyptic, Jew-hating fervor.
The pillars of this continuous modern campaign of annihilationist antisemitism are the motifs from traditional Islamic Jew hatred, including, most significantly, Islamic eschatology. These deep-seated Islamic theological motifs are further conjoined to Holocaust denial, and the development of a nuclear weapons program intended expressly for Israel’s eradication. At the outset of the 16th century, Iran’s Safavid rulers formally established Shi’a Islam as the state religion, while permitting a clerical hierarchy nearly unlimited control and influence over all aspects of public life. The profound influence of the Shi’ite clerical elite, continued for almost four centuries (although interrupted, between 1722-1795, during a period of [Sunni] Afghan invasion, and internecine struggle), through the later Qajar period (1795-1925), as characterized by the Persianophilic scholar E.G. Browne:
The Mujtahids and Mulla are a great force in Persia and concern themselves with every department of human activity from the minutest detail of personal purification to the largest issues of politics
These Shi’ite clerics emphasized the notion of the ritual uncleanliness (najis) of Jews, in particular (but also Christians, Zoroastrians, and others), as the cornerstone of inter-confessional relationships toward non-Muslims. The impact of this najis conception was already apparent to European visitors to Persia during the reign of the first Safavid Shah, Ismail I (1502-1524). The Portuguese traveler Tome Pires observed (between 1512-1515), “Sheikh Ismail…never spares the life of any Jew,” while another European travelogue notes, “…the great hatred (Ismail I) bears against the Jews…”
Mohammad Baqer Majlisi (d. 1699), the highest institutionalized clerical officer under both Shah Sulayman (1666-1694) and Shah Husayn (1694-1722), was perhaps the most influential cleric of the Safavid Shi’ite theocracy in Persia. Indeed, for a decade at the end of the 17th century Majlisi functioned as the de facto ruler of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini of his era. By design, he wrote many works in Persian to disseminate key aspects of the Shi’a ethos among ordinary persons, including the treatise, “Lightning Bolts Against the Jews.” In this treatise, Majlisi describes the standard humiliating requisites for non-Muslims living under the Shari’a, first and foremost, the blood ransom jizya, a poll-tax, based on Koran 9:29. He then enumerates six other restrictions relating to worship, housing, dress, transportation, and weapons (specifically, i.e., to render the dhimmis defenseless), before outlining the unique Shi’ite impurity or “najis” regulations. It is these latter najis prohibitions which lead Anthropology Professor Laurence Loeb (who studied and lived within the Jewish community of Southern Iran in the early 1970s) to observe, “Fear of pollution by Jews led to great excesses and peculiar behavior by Muslims.”
Far worse, the dehumanizing character of these popularized “impurity” regulations fomented recurring Muslim anti-Jewish violence—including pogroms and forced conversions, throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, which rendered areas of Iran Judenrein—as opposed to merely unpleasant, “odd behaviors” by individual Muslims towards Jews.
The so-called “Khomeini revolution,” which deposed the secular, Western oriented regime of Mohammad Reza Shah, was in reality a mere return to oppressive Shi’ite theocratic rule, the predominant form of Persian/Iranian governance since 1502. Khomeini’s views were the most influential in shaping the ideology of the revitalized Shi’ite theocracy, and his attitudes towards Jews (both before and after he assumed power) were particularly negative. Khomeini’s speeches and writings invoked a panoply of Judenhass motifs, including orthodox interpretations of sacralized Muslim texts (for e.g., describing the destruction of the Banu Qurayza), and the Shi’ite conception of najis. More ominously, Khomeini’s rhetoric blurred the distinction between Jews and Israelis, reiterated paranoid conspiracy theories about Jews (both within Persia/Iran, and beyond), and endorsed the annihilation of the Jewish State.
Since 1979, the restored Iranian theocracy—in parallel with returning, brutally, their small remnant Jewish community to a state of obsequious dhimmitude, through execution and intimidation—has always focused its obsessive anti-Jewish animus on the autonomous Jewish state of Israel. For current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the destruction of Israel is an openly avowed policy, driven by his eschatological beliefs. Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, summarized this annihilationist eschatology, redolent with Koranic Jew hatred (see Koran 5:82)—which pertains to Jews, generally, not “Zionists”—on November 16, 2006, stating: “The Jew is the most obstinate enemy (Koran 5:82) of the devout. And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind. . . . The reappearance of the Twelfth Imam will lead to a war between Israel and the Shia.”
Holocaust scholar Daniel Goldhagen has put forth the controversial argument that the Nazis melded centuries of annihilationist German Jew hatred to a state machinery capable of implementing the systematic mass murder of Jews. Citing the independent statements of Rafsanjani (from December 2001) and Ahmadinejad (from October 2005), Goldhagen, in a November 3, 2005 opinion editorial, cautioned,
Two Iranian presidents have now openly spoken about destroying Israel, with Ahmadinejad defiantly repeating his genocidal hopes again…despite the world’s condemnation of him.
Goldhagen’s visceral concern that “…it would be folly for the world to treat the Iranian leaders’ words as anything but an articulation of their intent,” remained oddly de-contextualized for an historian of antisemitism with his particular mindset. Yet four centuries of najis-inspired Jew hatred in Shi’ite Iran, accompanied by pogroms, forced conversions, and other less violent, but continuous forms of social and religious persecution—none of which are ever mentioned by Goldhagen—surely meets his own prior standard—regardless of its validity—of an established “annihilationist” mentality in Germany.
Irrespective of the controversy surrounding his earlier work on Nazi Germany, Goldhagen’s utter ignorance of Shi’ite Iran’s centuries old history of Jew hatred is pathognomonic of the current state of “scholarship” on Islamic antisemitism. Such ignorance may also explain the inability of our intellectual and policymaking elites to appreciate the prevalence and depth of support for such annihilationist views in contemporary Shi’ite Iran. Regardless, Iran must not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, certainly now, under the current regime, and into the foreseeable future.
Introduction
Today, Saturday July 19, 2008, despite optimistic expectations of “compromise”—which putatively justified the presence of United States Undersecretary of State William Burns at talks between diplomatic representatives of six world powers, and the Iranian regime—Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, expressing Teheran’s intransigence, made this brusque statement about his country’s uranium enrichment program: “Suspension—there is no chance for that.”
Earlier this week Professors Moshe Sharon and Benny Morris both opined solemnly about an inevitable Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. These two respected Israeli academicians, despite holding very disparate political views, also concurred on the moral justification for such pre-emptive action—the annihilationist threat to Israel posed by a Shi’ite Iranian regime gripped with an apocalyptic, Jew-hating fervor. While other Iranian officials simultaneously issued mendacious denials of the numerous unprovoked threats to destroy Israel by both Iran’s political and clerical leadership, on July 8, Ali Shirazi, Ayatollah Khameini’s representative in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps navy, warned against Israeli pre-emption:
The Iranian nation is a nation… that believes in jihad and self-sacrifice, and against such a nation warships and weapons are to no avail… Today, Iran's military strength and capabilities have grown to such an extent that Iran cannot be disregarded in any regional or international balance of power… Tel Aviv (and the American warships in the Persian Gulf) would be the first targets to go up in flames as part of Iran's crushing response.
The pillars of this continuous modern campaign of annihilationist antisemitism are the motifs from traditional Islamic Jew hatred, including, most significantly, Islamic eschatology. These deep-seated Islamic theological motifs are further conjoined to Holocaust denial, and the development of a nuclear weapons program intended expressly for Israel’s eradication.
Shah Ismail’s Living Legacy
At the outset of the 16th century, Iran’s Safavid rulers formally established Shi’a Islam as the state religion, while permitting a clerical hierarchy nearly unlimited control and influence over all aspects of public life. The profound influence of the Shi’ite clerical elite, continued for almost four centuries (although interrupted, between 1722-1795, during a period of [Sunni] Afghan invasion, and internecine struggle), through the later Qajar period (1795-1925), as characterized by the Persianophilic scholar E.G. Browne:
The Mujtahids and Mulla are a great force in Persia and concern themselves with every department of human activity from the minutest detail of personal purification to the largest issues of politics
These Shi’ite clerics emphasized the notion of the ritual uncleanliness (najis) of Jews, in particular (but also Christians, Zoroastrians, and others), as the cornerstone of inter-confessional relationships toward non-Muslims. The impact of this najis conception was already apparent to European visitors to Persia during the reign of the first Safavid Shah, Ismail I (1502-1524). The Portuguese traveler Tome Pires observed (between 1512-1515), “Sheikh Ismail…never spares the life of any Jew,” while another European travelogue notes, “…the great hatred (Ismail I) bears against the Jews…”
Two examples of the restrictive codes for Jews conceived and applied during the Safavid
period (1502-1725) are appended below, in Table 1, and Table 2. Their persistent application into the Qajar period, which includes the modern era (1795-1925), is confirmed by the observations of the mid-19th century traveler Benjamin in Table 3, and a listing of the 1892 Hamadan edict conditions in Table 4.
A letter (dated October, 27, 1892) by S. Somekh of The Alliance Israelite Universale, regarding the Hamadan edict, provides this context:
The latter [i.e., the Jews] have a choice between automatic acceptance, conversion to Islam, or their annihilation. Some who live from hand to mouth have consented to these humiliating and cruel conditions through fear, without offering resistance; thirty of the most prominent members of the community were surprised in the telegraph office, where they had gone to telegraph their grievances to Teheran. They were compelled to embrace the Muslim faith to escape from certain death. But the majority is in hiding and does not dare to venture into the streets…
The latter part of the reign of Shah Abbas I (1588-1629) was marked by progressively increasing measures of anti-Jewish persecution, from the strict imposition of dress regulations, to the confiscation (and destruction) of Hebrew books and writings, culminating in the forced conversion of the Jews of Isfahan, the center of Persian Jewry. The exploits of two renegade Jewish converts to Islam, Abul Hasan Lari (of Lar), and Simon Tob Mumin of Isfahan were instrumental in having the Shi’ite authorities enforce restrictive headdress and badging regulations as visible signs of discrimination and humiliation. Their success in having these discriminatory regulations applied to Jews was confirmed by the accounts of European travelers to Iran. For example, Jean de Theve´not (1633-1667) commented that Jews were required,
To wear a little square piece of stuff two or three fingers broad…it had to be sewn to their labor gown and it matters not what that piece be of, provided that the color be different from that of the clothes to which it is sewed.
And when the British physician John Fryer visited Lar in 1676, he noted that, “…the Jews are only recognizable by the upper garment marked with a patch of different color.”
However the renegade Abul Hasan Lari’s “mission” foreshadowed more severe hardships imposed upon the Jews because of their image as sorcerers and practitioners of black magic, which, according to the pre-eminent historian of Persian Jewry, Walter Fischel, was “as deeply embedded in the minds of the [Muslim] masses as it had been in medieval Europe.” [emphasis added] The consequences of these bigoted superstitions were predictable, as Fischel observes:
It was therefore easy to arouse their [the Muslim masses] fears and suspicions at the slightest provocation, and to accuse them [the Jews] of possessing cabalistic Hebrew writings, amulets, talismans, segulot, goralot, and refu’ot, which they [the Jews] were using against the Islamic authorities. Encouraged by another Jewish renegade, Siman Tob Mumin from Isfahan, who denounced his co-religionists to the authorities, the Grand Vizier was quick in ordering the confiscation of all Hebrew cabalistic writings and having them thrown into the river.
These punitive measures in turn forebode additional persecutions which culminated in the Jews of Isfahan being forcibly converted to Islam toward the end of Abbas I’s rule. Moreover, even when Isfahan’s Jews allowed living to return to Judaism under Shah Safi, they continued to live under the permanent threat posed by the “law of apostasy”, till the late 19th century.
One of the most dangerous measures which threatened the very existence of the Jewish community in Isfahan and elsewhere was the so-called “law of apostasy” promulgated at the end of Abbas I’s rule and renewed in the reign of Abbas II. According to this law, any Jew or Christian becoming a Muslim could claim the property of his relatives, however distant. This decree, making the transfer of goods and property a reward for those who became apostates from their former religion, became a great threat to the very survival of the Jews. While the Christian population in Isfahan protested, through the intervention of the Pope, and the Christian powers in Europe, against the injustice of this edict, there did not arise a defender of the rights of Jews in Persia. [emphasis added] Although the calamity which this law implied was lessened by the small number of Jewish apostates who made use of this inducement, it was a steady threat to the existence of Jewish community life and brought about untold hardship. It was only in the 19th century that leaders of European Jewry such as Sir Moses Montefiore and Adolph Cremieux took up the fight for their brethren in Persia against this discriminatory law. Apart from this legal discrimination, the Jews of Isfahan were particularly singled out for persecution and forced conversion in the seventeenth century. It is reported that they were forced to profess Islam publicly; that many of their rabbis were executed, and that only under Shah Safi (1629-1642), the successor of Abbas I, were the Jews of Isfahan, after seven years of Marrano life, permitted to return publicly to their Jewish religion…[emphasis added]
After a relatively brief respite under Shah Saf’i (1629-1642), the severe persecutions wrought by his successor Shah Abbas II (1642-1666), nearly extinguished the Iranian Jewish community outright, as Fischel, explains:
Determined to purify the Persian soil from the “uncleanliness” caused by the presence of non-believers (Jews and Christians in Isfahan) a group of fanatical Shi’ites obtained a decree from the young Shah Abbas II in 1656 which gave the Grand Vizier, I’timad ad-Daula, full power to force the Jews to become Muslims. In consequence, a wave of persecution swept over Isfahan and the other Jewish communities, a tragedy which can only be compared with the persecution of the Jews in Spain in the fifteenth century [more appositely, the 13th century Almohad persecutions] 711
[the important eyewitness Jewish chronicles, the Kitab i Anusi]…describe in great detail how the Jews were compelled to abandon their religion, how they were drawn out of their quarters on Friday evening into the hills around the city and, after torture, 350 Jews are said to have been forced to [convert] to Islam. Their synagogues were closed and the Jews were lead to the Mosque, where they had to proclaim publicly the Muslim confession of faith, after which a Mullah, a Shi’a religious leader, instructed the newly-converted Muslims in the Koran and Islamic tradition and practice. These newly-converted Muslims had to break with the Jewish past, to allow their daughters to be married to Muslims, and to have their new Muslim names registered in a special Divan [council]. To test publicly their complete break with the Jewish tradition, some were even forced to eat a portion of camel meat boiled in milk. After their forced conversion, they were called New Muslims, Jadid al-Islam. They were then, of course, freed from the payment of the poll tax and from wearing a special headgear or badge.”
The resistance of the Jews developed the phenomenon of “Marranos”, Anusim, and for years they lived a dual religious life by remaining secretly Jews while confessing Islam officially
Fischel also refers to the fact that contemporary Christians sources “confirm…with an astounding and tragic unanimity” the historical details of the Judaeo-Persian chronicle regarding the plight of the Jews of Isfahan (and Persia, more generally). For example, the Armenian chronicler Arakel of Tabriz, included a chapter entitled, “History of the Hebrews of the City of Isfahan and of all Hebrews in the Territory of the Kings of Persia-the Case of Their Conversion to Islam”. Arakel describes the escalating brutality employed to convert the hapless Jewish population to Islam—deportation, deliberately harsh exposure to the elements, starvation, imprisonment, and beatings.
Mohammad Baqer Majlisi (d. 1699), the highest institutionalized clerical officer under both Shah Sulayman (1666-1694) and Shah Husayn (1694-1722), was perhaps the most influential cleric of the Safavid Shi’ite theocracy in Persia. By design, he wrote many works in Persian to disseminate key aspects of the Shi’a ethos among ordinary persons. His Persian treatise, “Lightning Bolts Against the Jews,” despite its title, was actually an overall guideline to anti-dhimmi regulations for all non-Muslims within the Shi’ite theocracy. Al-Majlisi, in this treatise, describes the standard humiliating requisites for non-Muslims living under the Shari’a, first and foremost, the blood ransom jizya, a poll-tax, based on Koran 9:29. He then enumerates six other restrictions relating to worship, housing, dress, transportation, and weapons (specifically, i.e., to render the dhimmis defenseless), before outlining the unique Shi’ite impurity or “najis” regulations. It is these latter najis prohibitions which lead Anthropology Professor Laurence Loeb (who studied and lived within the Jewish community of Southern Iran in the early 1970s) to observe, “Fear of pollution by Jews led to great excesses and peculiar behavior by Muslims.” According to Al-Majlisi,
And, that they should not enter the pool while a Muslim is bathing at the public baths…It is also incumbent upon Muslims that they should not accept from them victuals with which they had come into contact, such as distillates , which cannot be purified. In something can be purified, such as clothes, if they are dry, they can be accepted, they are clean. But if they [the dhimmis] had come into contact with those cloths in moisture they should be rinsed with water after being obtained. As for hide, or that which has been made of hide such as shoes and boots, and meat, whose religious cleanliness and lawfulness are conditional on the animal’s being slaughtered [according to the Shari’a], these may not be taken from them. Similarly, liquids that have been preserved in skins, such as oils, grape syrup, [fruit] juices, myrobalan [an astringent fruit extract used in tanning], and the like, if they have been put in skin containers or water skins, these should [also] not be accepted from them…It would also be better if the ruler of the Muslims would establish that all infidels could not move out of their homes on days when it rains or snows because they would make Muslims impure. [emphasis added]
Far worse, the dehumanizing character of these popularized “impurity” regulations appears to have fomented recurring Muslim anti-Jewish violence, including pogroms and forced conversions, throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, as opposed to merely unpleasant, “odd behaviors” by individual Muslims towards Jews. Indeed, the oppression of Persian Jewry continued unabated, perhaps even intensifying, during both Safavid successors of Shah Abbas II, Shah Sulayman (1666-1694), and Shah Husayn (1694-1722).
The overthrow of the Safavid dynasty was accompanied by an initial period of anarchy and rebellion. A contemporary Jewish chronicler of these struggles, Babai ibn Farhad, lamented, “At a time when the Muhammadans fight amongst each other, how much less safe were the Jews.” However, beyond this early stage of instability, Fischel maintains,
Only the downfall of the Safavid dynasty, through the successful invasion of the Afghans and the subsequent rise of a new tolerant ruler, Nadir Shah (1734-1747), saved the Jews of Isfahan and the Jews of Persia as a whole from complete annihilation.
The advent of the Qajar dynasty in 1795 marked a return to Shi’ite theocratic orthodoxy. Thus, according to Fischel,
Since the religious and political foundations of the Qajar dynasty were but a continuation of those of the Safavids, the ‘law of apostasy’ and the notion of the ritual uncleanliness of the Jews remained the basis of the attitude toward the Jews.
The Jew being ritually unclean, had to be differentiated from the believer externally in every possible way. This became the decisive factor making the life of the Jews in the 19th century an uninterrupted sequence of persecution and oppression. They could not appear in public, much less perform their religious ceremonies, without being treated with scorn and contempt by the Muslim inhabitants of Persia.
Fischel provides these observations based on the 19th century narrative of Rabbi David d’Beth Hillel, and additional eyewitness accounts, which describe the rendering of Tabriz, Judenrein, and the forced conversion of the Jews of Meshed to Islam:
Due to the persecution of their Moslem neighbors, many once flourishing communities entirely disappeared. Maragha, for example, ceased to be the seat of a Jewish community around 1800, when the Jews were driven out on account of a blood libel. Similarly, Tabriz, where over 50 Jewish families are supposed to have lived, became Judenrein towards the end of the 18th century through similar circumstances.
The peak of the forced elimination of Jewish communities occurred under Shah Mahmud (1834-48), during whose rule the Jewish population in Meshed, in eastern Persia, was forcibly converted, an event which not only remained unchallenged by Persian authorities, but also remained unknown and unnoticed by European Jews
And Fischel (in 1949) wrote a modern analysis of the Meshed pogrom and forced conversions, which highlighted these details:
The [Jewish] woman [see Wolff’s account above] hired a Persian boy to catch a dog in the street and then kill it in her courtyard. Following a dispute about payment, the boy ran off in a rage. A rumor that the Jews had killed a dog on the holiest of holy days [the day of mourning for Husain, the grandson of Muhammad] and had even called it Husain to insult the Mohammedans. When this rumor reached the thousands assembled in mourning at the Mosque of the Imam Riza, hundreds of the devout, together with Shaikhs, Mullahs, Sayyids, and other spiritual leaders, rushed to the Jewish quarter. There they plundered, robbed, and burned. Soon the synagogue and the scrolls of the Law stood in flames; many scores of Jews were wounded and some thirty-five were left dead in the streets. The mob would have destroyed the entire Jewish quarter had not a group of priests given their word that the survivors would be converted to Islam. For the remaining Jews the only chance of survival was to recite the Moslem confession of faith. This they did, and on the following day they were officially accepted into Islam…They were now called, ‘Jadid al-Islam’, or ‘neo-Moslem’. With this acceptance of Islam, the convert was immediately freed from all his previous restrictions; he was no longer required to wear a special hat or have his hair dressed in a special way or wear any particular Jewish badge on his clothes, nor was he required to pay the poll-tax (jizya). His ‘uncleanliness’ was gone- he was now a Moslem among Moslems…The mosque became the legal meeting place of the Jedidim. There, they were under the supervision of the chief priest, the Mujtahid, who exercised the dual role of instructor in Mohammedanism and inquisitor for Islam [emphasis added]. He acted as the official head of the Jews as well as their supreme judicial authority. Demanding the diligent study of the Koran and the traditional books, he forbade ritual slaughtering, circumcision on the 8th day, ordered mixed marriages between Jedidim and Moslems, and was empowered to grant permission for burial. In 1839, then, the Jewish community in Meshed officially ceased to exist. Yet this forced conversion could not extinguish Judaism in the hearts of the Jedidim; the hope that they might one day return to their own religion remained alive in them.
During the nearly 50 year reign (1848-1896) of Nasr ad-Din Shah, reform efforts to improve the plight of non-Muslims, in particular Jews, were opposed strenuously and effectively by the Shi’ite clerical hierarchy. Accordingly, as Fischel notes,
…Under Nasr ad-Din Jews continued to suffer, not only in consequence of the deep-rooted hatred against them and the conception of ritual uncleanliness, but also as a result of legal discrimination of a most severe nature. Thus the entire community of Jews was held responsible for crimes and misdemeanors committed by its individual members; the oath of a Jew was not received in a court of justice; a Jew converted to the Muslim religion could claim to be the sole inheritor of family property, to the exclusion of all relatives who had not changed their religion, thereby causing the greatest possible distress to those Jews who preferred death to apostasy. In many towns the Jew was prohibited from keeping a shop in the bazaars, while in addition to the legal taxes the local authorities levied arbitrary exactions on the Jews. Although the Jew had the nominal right of appeal to a superior court of justice he did not exercise that right because of the fear of vengeance of the lower tribunal. The life of a Jew was not protected by law, inasmuch as the murderer of a Jew could purchase immunity by payment of a fine.
Laurence Loeb maintains that the Jews were also victimized by tax farming throughout the 19th century, which reduced them, “…to virtual serfdom.” C.J. Wills, an English physician who traveled widely in Iran from 1866-1881 while working for the Indo-European Telegraph Department, illustrates this abusive practice in a contemporary late 19th century account:
The principle is very simple. The Jews of a province are assessed at a tax of a certain amount. Someone pays this amount to the local governor together with a bribe; and the wretched Jews are immediately placed under his authority for the financial year. It is a simple speculation. If times are good, the farmer of the Jews makes a good profit; if they are bad he gains nothing, or may fail to extract from them as much as he has paid out of pocket- in that case, woe betide them. During the Persian famine the Jews suffered great straits before the receipt of subsidies sent from Europe by their co-religionists. The farmer of the Jewish colony in a great Persian city (of course a Persian Mohammedan) having seized their goods and clothes, proceeded, in the cold of Persian winter, to remove the doors and windows of their hovels and to wantonly burn them. The farmer was losing money, and sought thus to enforce what he considered his rights. No Persian pitied the unfortunates; they were Jews and so beyond the pale of pity. Every street boy raises his hand against the wretched Hebrew; he is beaten and buffeted in the streets, spat upon in the bazaar. The only person he can appeal to is the farmer of the Jews. From him, he will obtain a certain amount of protection if he be actually robbed of money or goods; not from the farmer’s sense of justice, but because the complainant, were his wrongs unredressed, might be unable to pay his share of the tax.
Wills also provides these acerbic descriptions of two of the most egregious forms of degradation, both public and private, suffered by the Jews throughout the 19th century:
At every public festival-even at the royal salaam [salute], before the King’s face- the Jews are collected, and a number of them are flung into the hauz or tank, that King and mob may be amused by seeing them crawl out half-drowned and covered with mud. The same kindly ceremony is witnessed whenever a provincial governor holds high festival: there are fireworks and Jews.
When a Jew marries, a rabble of the Mahommedan ruffians of the town invite themselves to the ceremony, and, after a scene of riot and intoxication, not infrequently beat their host and his relations and insult the women of the community; only leaving the Jewish quarter when they have slept off the drink they have swallowed at their unwilling host’s expense.
Despite a number of direct, hopeful meetings between the Shah and prominent European Jews and Jewish organizations throughout Western Europe in 1873, Fischel concludes,
The intervention of European Jewry in favor of their Persian brothers did not bring about the hoped-for improvement and scarcely lessened the persecution and suffering of the Jews after the return of the Shah from Europe.
After his visit to Europe Nasr ad-Din issued a number of decrees and firmans which brought about some social and administrative changes in favor of the Jews, but the government was apparently too weak to prevent the recurrence of public outbreaks against the Jews. Even the law which provided that a Jew who turned Muslim had the right to claim the entire property of his family, although abolished in Teheran in 1883, was still in force in some provinces in the Persian empire as a result of the opposition of the clergy. In 1888, a massacre of the Jews occurred in Isfahan and Shiraz, which brought about intervention and investigation of the British consulate.
The reigns of Muzafar ad-Din Shah (1896-1907; following the assassination of Nasr ad-Din) , Shah Muhammad (1907-1909), and Shah Ahmad (1909-1925), included a nascent constitutional movement, which again aroused hopes for the elimination of religious oppression against Persian Jews and other non-Muslims. However,
…neither the Jews nor the Armenian Christians or Parsee Zoroastrian minorities were yet permitted to send a deputy of their own group to parliament. At first the Jews were compelled to agree to be represented by a Muslim…Unfortunately, three months after the convening of Parliament Shah Muzaffar ad-din died, and under Shah Muhammad (1907-1909) the constitutional movement very quickly disappointed the high hopes which the liberal elements of the Muslims and the Jews in Persia had entertained. Anti-Jewish riots became common, particularly in Kermanshah in 1909…
Apropos of Fischel’s observation, David Littman has provided the full translation of an Alliance Israe´lite Universale report of the 1910 Shiraz pogrom which was precipitated by two false accusations against the Jewish community: desecrating copies of the Koran by placing them in cesspools (latrines); and the ritual murder of a child.
(M. Nataf, October 31, 1910) What happened yesterday in the Jewish quarter exceeds, in its horror and barbarity, anything that the most fertile imagination can conceive. In the space of a few hours, in less time than it would take to describe it, 6,000 men, women, children and the elderly were stripped of everything they possessed. [emphasis added]
I heard these details at the school where I was at the time, and there first perceived the clamor of the crowd, which was gradually gathering in front of the government palace and which, collecting around the body of the alleged little Muslim girl found close to the Jewish cemetery (it was subsequently established that the body was that of a little Jewish boy buried eight days ago and disinterred, for the requirements of the cause, being completely putrefied and absolutely unrecognizable) [emphasis added] was accusing the Jews of having committed this heinous crime, for which it demanded vengeance.
Then Cawan-el-Mulk, the temporary governor, having ordered his troopers to disperse the frenzied mob, they headed for the Jewish quarter, where they arrived at the same time as the soldiers sent by Nasr-ed-Dowlet. These latter, as if they were obeying an order, were the first to fling themselves at the Jewish houses, thereby giving the signal to plunder. The carnage and destruction which then occurred for six to seven hours is beyond the capacity to describe…Not a single one of the Jewish quarter’s 260 houses was spared. [emphasis added] Soldiery, loutis, sayyids [descendants of the prophet and/or Muslim dignitaries], even women and children, driven and excited, less by religious fanaticism than by a frenetic need to plunder and appropriate the Jews’ possessions, engaged in a tremendous rush for the spoils. At one point, about a hundred men from the Kashgais tribe, who were in town to sell some livestock, joined the first assailants, thereby completing the work of destruction.
In short the outcome of yesterday’s events is as follows: 12 people dead and about 50 more or less seriously injured, whilst the five to six thousand people comprising Shiraz community now possess nothing in the world but the few atatters they were wearing when their quarter was invaded. [emphasis added]
The Pahlavi Reforms
Reza Pahlavi’s spectacular rise to power in 1925 was accompanied by dramatic reforms, including secularization and westernization efforts, as well as a revitalization of Iran’s pre-Islamic spiritual and cultural heritage. This profound sociopolitical transformation had very positive consequences for Iranian Jewry. Walter Fischel’s analysis from the late 1940s (published in 1950), along with Laurence Loeb’s complementary insights three decades
later, underscore the impact of the Pahlavis’ (i.e., Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah) reforms:
(Fischel) In breaking the power of the Shia clergy, which for centuries had stood in the way of progress, he [Reza Shah] shaped a modernized and secularized state, freed almost entirely from the fetters of a once fanatical and powerful clergy…The rebirth of the Persian state and the manifold reforms implied therein tended also to create conditions more favorable to Jews. It enabled them to enjoy, along with the other citizens of Persia, that freedom and liberty which they had long been denied.
(Loeb) The Pahlavi period…has been the most favorable era for Persian Jews since Parthian rule [175 B.C. to 226 C.E.]…the ‘Law of Apostasy’ was abrogated about 1930. While Reza Shah did prohibit political Zionism and condoned the execution of the popular liberal Jewish reformer Hayyim Effendi, his rule was on the whole, an era of new opportunities for the Persian Jew. Hostile outbreaks against the Jews have been prevented by the government. Jews are no longer legally barred from any profession. They are required to serve in the army and pay the same taxes as Muslims. The elimination of the face-veil removed a source of insult to Jewish women, who had been previously required have their faces uncovered; now all women are supposed to appear unveiled in public…Secular educations were available to Jewish girls as well as to boys, and, for the first time, Jews could become government-licensed teachers…Since the ascendance of Mohammad Reza Shah (Aryamehr) in 1941, the situation has further improved…Not only has the number of poor been reduced, but a new bourgeoisie is emerging…For the first time Jews are spending their money on cars, carpets, houses, travel, and clothing. Teheran has attracted provincial Jews in large numbers and has become the center of Iranian Jewish life…The Pahlavi era has seen vastly improved communications between Iranian Jewry and the rest of the world. Hundreds of boys and girls attend college and boarding school in the United States and Europe. Israeli emissaries come for periods of two years to teach in the Jewish schools…A small Jewish publication industry has arisen since 1925…Books on Jewish history, Zionism, the Hebrew language and classroom texts have since been published…On March 15, 1950, Iran extended de facto recognition to Israel. Relations with Israel are good and trade is growing.
But Loeb, who finished his anthropological field work in southern Iran during the waning years of Pahlavi rule, concluded on this cautionary, prescient note, in 1976, emphasizing the Jews’ tenuous status:
Despite the favorable attitude of the government and the relative prosperity of the Jewish community, all Iranian Jews acknowledge the precarious nature of the present situation. There are still sporadic outbreaks against them because the Muslim clergy constantly berates Jews, inciting the masses who make no effort to hide their animosity towards the Jew. [emphasis added] Most Jews express the belief that it is only the personal strength and goodwill of the Shah that protects them: that plus God’s intervention! If either should fail… [emphasis added].
The Khomeini “Revolution”—Back to the Future
The so-called “Khomeini revolution”, which deposed Mohammad Reza Shah, was in reality a mere return to oppressive Shi’ite theocratic rule, the predominant form of Persian/Iranian governance since 1502. Conditions for all non-Muslim religious minorities, particularly Bahais and Jews, rapidly deteriorated. David Littman recounts the Jews immediate plight:
In the months preceding the Shah’s departure on 16 January 1979, the religious minorities…were already beginning to feel insecure…Twenty thousand Jews left the country before the triumphant return of the Ayatollah Khomeini on 1 February…On 16 March, the honorary president of the Iranian Jewish community, Habib Elghanian, a wealthy businessman, was arrested and charged by an Islamic revolutionary tribunal with “corruption” and “contacts with Israel and Zionism”; he was shot on 8 May.
And Littman concluded this 1979 essay with the following appeal:
It is to be hoped that the new regime will not revert to the pre-Pahlavi attitudes of the Shi‘a clergy, but will prefer a path of equality for all of its citizens, thus demonstrating in practice the “tolerant” attitude of Islam so frequently proclaimed. [emphasis added]
Littman’s essay also alludes to the emigration of 20,000 Iranian Jews just prior to Khomeini’s assumption of power. The demographic decline of Iranian Jewry since the creation of Israel has been rather dramatic even including the relatively “halcyon days” before 1978/1979—from nearly 120,000 in 1948 to roughly 70,000 in 1978, and at present barely 20,000 (and perhaps even less).
The writings and speeches of the most influential religious ideologues of this restored Shi’ite theocracy—including Khomeini himself—make apparent their seamless connection to the oppressive doctrines of their forbears in the Safavid and Qajar dynasties. For example, Sultanhussein Tabandeh, the Iranian Shi’ite leader of the Ne’ematullahi Sultanalishahi Sufi Order, wrote an “Islamic perspective” on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to Professor Eliz Sanasarian’s important study of religious minorities in the Islamic Republic, Tabandeh’s tract became “…the core ideological work upon which the Iranian government…based its non-Muslim policy.” Tabandeh begins his discussion by lauding as a champion “…of the oppressed” Shah Ismail I (1502-1524), the repressive and bigoted founder of the Safavid dynasty, who “…bore hatred against the Jews and ordered their eyes to be gouged out if they happened to be found in his vicinity.” It is critical to understand that Tabandeh’s key views on non-Muslims, summarized below, were implemented “…almost verbatim in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” In essence, Tabandeh simply reaffirms the sacralized inequality of non-Muslims relative to Muslims, under the Shari’a:
Thus if [a] Muslim commits adultery his punishment is 100 lashes, the shaving of his head, and one year of banishment. But if the man is not a Muslim and commits adultery with a Muslim woman his penalty is execution…Similarly if a Muslim deliberately murders another Muslim he falls under the law of retaliation and must by law be put to death by the next of kin. But if a non-Muslim who dies at the hand of a Muslim has by lifelong habit been a non-Muslim, the penalty of death is not valid. Instead the Muslim murderer must pay a fine and be punished with the lash.
Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim…then his punishment must not be the retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain…Again, the penalties of a non-Muslim guilty of fornication with a Muslim woman are augmented because, in addition to the crime against morality, social duty and religion, he has committed sacrilege, in that he has disgraced a Muslim and thereby cast scorn upon the Muslims in general, and so must be executed.
Islam and its peoples must be above the infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them. Since the marriage of a Muslim woman to an infidel husband (in accordance with the verse quoted: ‘Men are guardians form women’) means her subordination to an infidel, that fact makes the marriage void, because it does not obey the conditions laid down to make a contract valid. As the Sura (“The Woman to be Examined”, [i.e., sura 60, specifically verse 60:10] ) says: “Turn them not back to infidels: for they are not lawful unto infidels nor are infidels lawful unto them (i.e., in wedlock).”
The conception of najis or ritual uncleanliness of the non-Muslim has also been reaffirmed. Ayatollah Khomeini stated explicitly, “Non-Muslims of any religion or creed are najis.”
Khomeini elaborated his views on najis and non-Muslims, with a specific reference to Jews, as follows:
Eleven things are unclean: urine, excrement, sperm, blood, a dog, a pig, bones, a non-Muslim man and woman [emphasis added], wine, beer, perspiration of a camel that eats filth…The whole body of a non-Muslim is unclean, even his hair, his nails, and all the secretions of his body…A child below the age of puberty is unclean if his parents and grandparents are not Muslims; but if he has a Muslim for a forebear, then he is clean…The body, saliva, nasal secretions, and perspiration of a non-Muslim man or woman who converts to Islam automatically become pure. As for the garments, if they were in contact with the sweat of the body before conversion, they will remain unclean…It is not strictly prohibited for a Muslim to work in an establishment run by a Muslim who employs Jews, if the products do not aid Israel in one way or another. However it is shameful [for a Muslim] to be under the orders of a Jewish departmental head.
The Iranian Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri further indicated that a non-Muslim (kafir’s) impurity was, “a political order from Islam and must be adhered to by the followers of Islam, and the goal [was] to promote general hatred toward those who are outside Muslim circles.” This "hatred" was to assure that Muslims would not succumb to corrupt, i.e., non-Islamic thoughts.
Khomeini’s views were the most influential in shaping the ideology of the revitalized Shi’ite theocracy, and his attitudes towards Jews (both before and after he assumed power) were particularly negative. Khomeini’s speeches and writings invoked a panoply of Judenhass motifs, including orthodox interpretations of sacralized Muslim texts (for e.g., describing the destruction of the Banu Qurayza), and the Shi’ite conception of najis. More ominously, Khomeini’s rhetoric blurred the distinction between Jews and Israelis, reiterated paranoid conspiracy theories about Jews (both within Persia/Iran, and beyond), and endorsed the annihilation of the Jewish State. Sanasarian highlights these disturbing predilections:
The Jews and Israelis were interchangeable entities who had penetrated all facets of life. Iran was being “trampled upon under Jewish boots”. The Jews had conspired to kill the Qajar king Naser al-Din Shah and had a historically grand design to rule through a new monarchy and a new government (the Pahlavi dynasty): “Gentlemen, be frightened. They are such monsters”. In a vitriolic attack on Mohammad Reza Shah’s celebration of 2500 years of Persian monarchy in 1971, Khomeini declared that Israeli technicians had planned the celebrations and they were behind the exuberant expenses and overspending. Objecting to the sale of oil to Israel, he said: “We should not ignore that the Jews want to take over Islamic countries”…In an address to the Syrian foreign minister after the Revolution Khomeini lamented: “If Muslims got together and each poured one bucket of water on Israel, a flood would wash away Israel.”
Sanasarian provides one particularly disturbing example of this Islamic state-sanctioned Jew hatred, involving the malevolent indoctrination of young adult candidates for national teacher training programs. Affirming as objective, factual history the hadith account (for eg., Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786) of Muhammad’s supposed poisoning by a Jewish woman from ancient Khaybar, she notes,
Even worse, the subject became one of the questions in the ideological test for the Teachers’ Training College where students were given a multiple-choice question in order to identify the instigator of the martyrdom of the Prophet Muhammad, the “correct” answer being “a Jewess. ”
Reza Afshari’s seminal analysis of human rights in contemporary Iran summarizes the predictable consequences for Jews of the Khomeini “revolution”:
As antisemitism found official expression…and the anti-Israeli state propaganda became shriller, Iranian Jews felt quite uncertain about their future under the theocracy. Early in 1979, the execution of Habib Elqaniyan, a wealthy, self-made businessman, a symbol of success for many Iranian Jews, hastened emigration. The departure of the chief rabbi for Europe in the summer of 1980 underlined the fact that the hardships that awaited the remaining Jewish Iranians would far surpass those of other protected minorities
Beyond the well publicized execution of Habib Elganian in May 1979, an excess of Jews compared to other “recognized religious minorities” were imprisoned, and by 1982, nine more Jews had been executed.
Afshari also captures the crushing psychosocial impact on Iran’s remaining Jews of restored Shi’ite theocratic rule- the recrudescence of a fully servile dhimmi mentality: 765
The Jewish leaders had to go so far as to openly denounce the policies of the State of Israel. It was disquieting to read a news item that reported the Jewish representative in the Majlis criticizing, in carefully chosen words…actions of his co-religionists in Israel, especially when upon the conclusion of his remarks the other (Shi’ite) deputies burst into the chant “Death to Israel!” The contemporary state violating the human rights of its citizens left behind a trail of pathological behaviors [emphasis added]…Equally baffling, if not placed against the Jewish community’s predicament, was the statement by the Jewish leaders concerning the arrests of thirteen Jews charged with espionage for Israel in June 1999. “The Islamic Republic of Iran has demonstrated to the world that it has treated the Jewish community and other religious minorities well; the Iranian Jewish community has enjoyed constitutional rights of citizenship, and the arrest and charges against a number of Iranian Jews has nothing to do with their religion.” The bureaucratic side of the state needed such a statement, and the Jewish leaders in Tehran had no choice but to oblige.
Afshari’s blunt description of this phenomenon among contemporary Iranian Jews labels such prototypical dhimmi behaviors a “pathological,” if understandable response to their “predicament.” The apotheosis of Iranian Jewish dhimmitude is perhaps Parviz Yeshaya. A staunch anti-Zionist, Yeshaya who until recently headed the Jewish Committee in Tehran, was one of the first Jews to support Ayatollah Khomeini, and has called for the destruction of the state of Israel. And public dhimmi behaviors were again evident in the summer of 2006. During the conflagration on the Israeli-Lebanon border—initiated by the Iranian regime’s jihadist proxy organization, Hezbollah—Jews from the southern Iranian city of Shiraz were prominently displayed on state-run television participating in a regime-sponsored pro-Hezbollah rally.
Demonizing Israel and Jews—via motifs in the Koran, hadith, and sira—Hezbollah views the jihad against the “Zionist entity” as an annihilationist war intrinsic to broader conflicts: the struggle between the Islamic world and the non-Muslim world, and the historical struggle between Islam and Judaism. The most senior clerical authority for Hezbollah, Husayn Fadlalah has stated, “We find in the Koran that the Jews are the most aggressive towards the Muslims…because of their aggressive resistance to the unity of the faith.” Fadlallah repeatedly refers to anti-Jewish archetypes in the Koran, hadith, and sira: the corrupt, treacherous and aggressive nature of the Jews; their reputation as killers of prophets, who spread corruption on earth; and the notion that the Jews engaged in conspiratorial efforts against the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Hassan Nasrallah, current Secretary General of Hezbollah, and a prote´ge of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, presently Iran’s highest ranking political and religious authority (i.e., its “Guardian Jurisprudent”), has reiterated these antisemitic views with particular vehemence. Invoking motifs from Islam’s foundational texts, Nasrallah has characterized Jews as the “grandsons of apes and pigs,” and as “Allah’s most cowardly and greedy creatures.” He elaborates these themes into an annihilationist animus against all Jews, not merely Israelis.
Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history...
Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment…There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel.
If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli…[I]f they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.
Hezbollah is viscerally opposed to Judaism and the existence of Israel, stressing the eternal conflict between the Jews and Islam. Eradicating Israel represents an early stage of Hezbollah’s Pan-Islamic ambitions, and its jihad against the rest of the non-Muslim world.
Support for Hezbollah abroad—which seeks the destruction of Israel, the Middle East’s lone state liberated from the system of dhimmitude—is mirrored by contemporary Iran’s treatment of its own Jews (and other non-Muslim populations) since 1979. Dhimmitude has been formally re-imposed, and in the case of Jews, complemented by state-supported antisemitism, irrespective of any given regimes “moderation.” Discriminatory liabilities implicit in Iran’s legal code are exploited fully, worsening the plight of Iran’s Jews. These include: the imposition of collective punishment on a Jewish community for an individual act; a “contract of silence” regarding anti-Jewish discrimination and persecution; and an unrelenting campaign of virulent antisemitism openly expressed by the Iranian media, and religious and political hierarchy. Pooya Dayanim, an Iranian Jewish attorney, recently summarized these phenomena:
This reluctance to criticize, or even the eagerness to support the Islamic Regime, however, is not evidence of informal intimidation of the Jewish Community by government officials, but is also, and more significantly, a result of an obligatory contractual agreement between the minority community and the Islamic Republic. The silence, therefore, of the Iranian Jewish community inside Iran concerning discrimination and persecution is in itself evidence of the dangerous and precarious situation the community finds itself in and which it is unable to denounce without breaking its contractual agreement as a religious minority living in a Muslim land.
This contractual agreement under Shari’a Islamic Law presupposes complete loyalty to the Islamic Regime, in exchange for which the minority community receives second-class, limited privileges in practicing its religion. If the terms of this contract are breached, supposedly even by individual members of the community, the limited privileges of the entire community can be suspended or revoked or the minority community (in this instance the Jewish community) can even face deportation from the country. Under these circumstances the Iranian Jewish Community must avoid any statements that could be interpreted as critical of the regime and forces the government-imposed or government-tolerated leaders of the Iranian Jewish Community to turn in or turn against those individual members of the community who are brave enough to dare to speak out about the true condition of Jews in Iran.
After the arrest of 13 Jews in Shiraz and Isfahan in March of 1999 on trumped up charges of spying for Israel and the United States, the Iranian Jewish Community leaders inside Iran (Parviz Yeshaya, Manouchehr Eliasi and Maurice Motamed) not only did not inform anyone on the outside world about the situation but became enforcers of silence asking Iranian Jewish leaders outside of Iran to remain silent as well. It was only in July of 1999 that the case was revealed to the world in an exclusive interview granted the BBC by an Iranian Jewish leader based in the United States [home to 65,000 Iranian Jews compared to the ~ 20,000 that still remain in Iran] who feared that the imprisoned Jews faced immediate execution and decided to break his silence and save their lives. However, even during the trial, during which the Iranian Jewish Community knew they had the support of the international media and governments worldwide, statements from the official Iranian Jewish community were very measured, generally limiting themselves to faith that the accused would be treated fairly.
While the Islamic Republic does not guarantee the right of free speech and protest to any of its citizens, the situation, because of the Islamic Law, is considerably worse for the Jews. If an Iranian Muslim criticizes the Islamic Republic, he himself can be punished; if a Jew does it, under the laws of the Islamic Republic his actions may legally affect the well being of the entire Jewish community. Given, moreover, the suspicion in which Jews are generally held because of actual or perceived connections to Israel, the level of intimidation, especially regarding anyone who could be thought to speak for the community in general is extreme. Iranian Jewish leaders in the United States who have been brave enough to speak out have repeatedly been threatened by Iranian agents that their life and the life of their loved ones are in danger because of their decision to speak out and that they should stay silent.
Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader….in March 2001, denied the Holocaust and called the survivors of the death camps “…a bunch of hooligans who emigrated to Palestine.” On May 18, 2001, in a televised speech, Khamenei directly attacked the Jews, calling Jews the enemies of the prophet Mohammad and threatened the Jews with expulsion and expropriation of their property, citing a similar action taken by the prophet Mohammad against the three Jewish tribes in Medina, [during] which they were annihilated. This attack, placed in the context in which the Jews of Iran were still feeling shock of the Shiraz show trials reveals the true feelings of the Islamic Regime toward the Jews of Iran.
A large part of the Antisemitic campaign waged by the government takes place in Farsi [so as] to not raise [the] attention of the non-Farsi speaking world. For example, when some specifically Antisemitic articles appear in Farsi newspapers with wide distribution, the articles are omitted from their international edition and from the website of those newspapers. It is clear that the Iranian authorities do not wish to highlight their Antisemitic activities and want to present Iran as a shining example of religious tolerance. When Maurice Motamed, the sole Jewish MP in Iran's Parliament, was interviewed by the Forward in his trip to the United States [during early 2003] for example, there were Iranian diplomats present and the interview took place at the residence of Iran's Ambassador to the UN to make sure that he does not say anything that the regime finds unproductive to its PR efforts.
The threat of retaliation against the entire community is an ever present factor in the minds of Iranian Jews and all community leaders. The Islamic Republic reminds Iranian Jews of their uncertain fate and future from time to time in speeches that are delivered by the leaders of the regime…There is good reason to believe, therefore, that there is an effective mechanism of intimidation operating against the Iranian Jewish Community, and their refusal to report incidents of severe discrimination and persecution is in itself evidence of the dangerous situation that Jews in Iran live under.
Additional forms of legal and extra-legal discrimination adversely affect criminal proceedings for Jews, and limit their employment and educational opportunities. Even private religious education and observance are hindered, or abused by Iranian authorities to spy upon and threaten Jewish communities, despite continued spurious Western media claims that “…Jews face no restrictions on their religious practice.” Dayanim elaborates on what amounts to a nearly full recrudescence of the system of dhimmitude.
(Legal disabilities) The Jews suffer from official inferior status under Iranian Law and are not protected by police or the courts. The amount of financial compensation a Jew can receive from a Muslim in case of murder or accidental death of a relative is equal to one-eighth of that which would be paid if the victim was a Muslim. In practice this means that a life of a Jew in Iran has very little value. In addition, since Iranian courts routinely refuse to accept the testimony of a Jew against a Muslim, most cases of this sort are not even prosecuted and the police do not even investigate such claims. As a result of their legally inferior status, Jews find themselves outside the protection of the courts and police. This is not simply a perception on their part, but rather, sadly, a harsh reality. In none of the cases of the murder of Jews in Iran has a perpetrator ever been found, much less prosecuted.
(Limitations on employment/business opportunities) Ayatollah Khomeini's edicts concerning the Jews, published in his book Tozieh Almasael (Explanation of Problems), state clearly that while there is no Islamic law prohibiting a situation in which a Muslim may work under a Jew, this is a shameful situation for a Muslim to be in. These edicts still carry the force of law in Iran, and as a result, Jews have been barred from any position in which they would be superior to Muslims. Jews are excluded from most government positions. Virtually all government entities (most sectors in Iran are government-owned) have a "Muslim only" policy and they print this requirement in their job notices in newspapers. This formal exclusion of Jews from large areas of employment is badly damaging to the Jews.Most private companies, thanks to the anti-Semitic media campaign in Iran, do not hire Jews either. Most Jews are forced into self-employment, but due to general public prejudice, few buy anything from them. The US State Department Religious Freedom Report of 2001 confirms that Jewish businesses have been targets of vandalism and boycotts.
(Limitations on educational opportunities) All Jewish university students must pass a course on Islamic ideology. In general, the professors in these courses are, by definition, very dedicated to their ideology and many Jewish Students that I have interviewed have reported that attending such a course has been a humiliating experience, in which their religion has been ridiculed and trivialized. Jewish students who protest are expelled and blocked from entering the University. Jewish students have also reported that instructors have arbitrarily failed them to block their educational goals. Parents of Jewish elementary and secondary school students, I interviewed in Vienna (processing center for Iranian Jewish refugees) in July of 2002, report frequent verbal and even physical abuse of their children by allegedly anti-Semitic teachers. Iranian "Jewish" schools are forced to stay open on the Jewish Sabbath. Principals of “Jewish” schools in Iran by law must be Muslim and are generally selected based on their Islamic credential.
(Restrictions on private religious practice) Judaism is one of the recognized minority religions in Iran. Jews, therefore, are allowed to conduct religious services and give religious education to their children. The privileges of religious education, can, however, be suspended if it is thought by the authorities that such an education may prevent Jewish children from converting to Islam. Many informed observers believe that one reason that Jewish rabbis and teachers were arrested in Shiraz was the fact that they were instructing in the spirit of Orthodox Judaism. The US State Department Religious Freedom Report for 2001 notes that the Jewish community, and its religious, cultural and social organizations, are closely monitored by the Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security. The form that this monitoring has taken is either sending agents to synagogues posing as Jews, or forcing Jewish communal leaders to inform on the activities of the Jewish community. This situation has created an atmosphere of terror and mistrust in the Jewish community. Many Jews who flee Iran relate that they told no one of their plans to emigrate, not even friends or relatives in fear of an unknown collaborator informing authorities of their plans.
Since 1979, the restored Iranian theocracy—in parallel with returning, brutally, their small remnant Jewish community to a state of obsequious dhimmitude, through execution and intimidation—has always focused its obsessive anti-Jewish animus on the autonomous Jewish state of Israel.
Iran’s steadfast pursuit of nuclear weapons may have even accelerated under the “progressive” regime of Muhammed Khatami, who denounced U.S. and European Union demands that Iran sign an agreement to terminate such efforts, transparently and verifiably. An early 2002 report by Michael Rubin warned,
Nearly five years after his first election, Khatami has enacted few if any tangible reforms. Indeed, while many younger Iranians do enjoy some additional flexibility in dress, freedoms have actually declined under the Khatami administration. Khatami has accomplished one important task, though. With a gentle face, soft rhetoric, and numerous trips abroad, Khatami has succeeded in softening the image of the Islamic Republic. No longer is Iran associated with waves of 14-year-olds running across minefields, nor do many Western academics and commentators dwell on Iran's export of terror, so long as Tehran keeps its assassination squads away from Europe. However, the fundamentals of the regime’ behavior have not changed. Indeed, under Khatami, Iran has accelerated not only its drive for a nuclear capability, but also actively increased its pursuit of chemical and biological weapons, as well as long-range ballistic missiles
Previously, the “Al-Quds Day,” December 14, 2001 sermon of former Iranian President Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani made clear the purpose of such weapons. During this “pious” address, Rafsanjani, who was also deemed a “moderate” while President, argued that nuclear weapons could solve the “Israel problem”, because, as he observed, “…the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.” Indeed, Rafsanjani was merely reiterating motifs of Jew hatred and jihad martyrdom expressed continuously by his spiritual inspiration, Ayatollah Khomeini. Between 1963 and 1980, for example, Khomeini made these statements:
(1963) Israel does not want the Koran to survive in this country. . . . It is destroying us. It is destroying you and the nation. It wants to take possession of the economy. It wants to demolish our trade and agriculture. It wants to grab the wealth of the country. [Iran]
(1977) The Jews have grasped the world with both hands and are devouring it with an insatiable appetite, they are devouring America and have now turned their attention to Iran and still they are not satisfied.
(1980) We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
For current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the destruction of Israel is an openly avowed policy, driven by his eschatological beliefs. Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, summarized this annihilationist eschatology, redolent with Koranic Jew hatred (see Koran 5:82)—which pertains to Jews, generally, not “Zionists”—on November 16, 2006, stating: “The Jew is the most obstinate enemy (Koran 5:82) of the devout. And the main war will determine the destiny of mankind. . . . The reappearance of the Twelfth Imam will lead to a war between Israel and the Shia.”
As characterized in the hadith, Muslim eschatology highlights the Jews’ supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ—or according to another tradition, the Dajjâl is himself Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions maintain that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered— everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree (as per the canonical hadith included in the 1988 Hamas Charter, in article 7). Another hadith variant, which takes place in Jerusalem, has Isa (the Muslim Jesus) leading the Arabs in a rout of the Dajjâl and his company of 70,000 armed Jews. And the notion of jihad “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology—on the day of resurrection the vanquished Jews will be consigned to Hellfire, and this will expiate Muslims who have sinned, sparing them from this fate.
The rise of Jewish nationalism—Zionism—posed a predictable, if completely unacceptable challenge to the Islamic order—jihad-imposed chronic dhimmitude for Jews—of apocalyptic magnitude. As historian Bat Ye’or has explained,
…because divine will dooms Jews to wandering and misery, the Jewish state appears to Muslims as an unbearable affront and a sin against Allah. Therefore it must be destroyed by Jihad.
This is exactly the Islamic context in which the widespread, “resurgent” use of Jew annihilationist apocalyptic motifs—Sunni and Shi’ite alike—would be an anticipated, even commonplace occurrence.
Moshe Sharon recently provided a very lucid summary of the unique features of Shi’ite eschatology, its key point of consistency with Sunni understandings of this doctrine, and Ahmadinejad’s deep personal attachment to “mahdism”:
Since the late ninth century, the Shi’ites have been expecting the emergence of the hidden imam-mahdi, armed with divine power and followed by thousands of martyrdom-seeking warriors. He is expected to conquer the world and establish Shi'ism as its supreme religion and system of rule. His appearance would involve terrible war and unusual bloodshed.
Ahmadinejad, as mayor of Teheran, built a spectacular boulevard through which the mahdi would enter into the capital. There is no question that Ahmadinejad believes he has been chosen to be the herald of the mahdi. [emphasis added]
Shi'ite Islam differs from Sunni Islam regarding the identity of the mahdi. The Sunni mahdi is essentially an anonymous figure; the Shi'ite mahdi is a divinely inspired person with a real identity.
However both Shi’ites and Sunnis share one particular detail about “the coming of the hour” and the dawning of messianic times: The Jews must all suffer a violent death, to the last one. Both Shi'ites and Sunnis quote the famous hadith [Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985] attributed to the Prophet Muhammad: The last hour will not come unless the Muslims fight against the Jews, and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and the stone or the tree would say: “Muslim! Servant of Allah! Here is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!” Not one Friday passes without this hadith being quoted in sermons from one side of the Islamic world to the other.
Despite an international outcry of condemnation following Ahmadinejad’s statements in late October, 2005 that Israel “…should be wiped off the map,” and “…very soon this stain of disgrace will be purged from the center of the Islamic world,” he continued to express such annihilationist sentiments throughout 2006, while simultaneously referring to the “myth of the Holocaust,” and even sponsoring a December, 2006 Holocaust deniers “conference” in Tehran. Ahmadinejad also recently maintained he has “…a connection with God,” and his genocidal pronouncements have been endorsed by the upper echelons of Iran’s national security establishment. The conclusion that Israel’s eradication has become “Iran’s principal foreign policy objective,” does not seem unwarranted. Finally, Matthias Kuntzel has highlighted the unique dangers posed by Iran’s fusion of a martyrdom mentality, with nuclear weapons capability, and Holocaust denial.
Conclusions
Holocaust scholar Daniel Goldhagen has put forth the controversial argument that the Nazis melded centuries of annihilationist German Jew hatred to a state machinery capable of implementing the systematic mass murder of Jews. Citing the independent statements of Rafsanjani (from December 2001) and Ahmadinejad (from October 2005), Goldhagen, in a November 3, 2005 opinion editorial, cautioned,
Two Iranian presidents have now openly spoken about destroying Israel, with Ahmadinejad defiantly repeating his genocidal hopes again…despite the world’s condemnation of him.
Goldhagen’s visceral concern that “…it would be folly for the world to treat the Iranian leaders’ words as anything but an articulation of their intent,” remained oddly de-contextualized for an historian of antisemitism with his particular mindset. Yet four centuries of najis-inspired Jew hatred in Shi’ite Iran, accompanied by pogroms, forced conversions, and other less violent, but continuous forms of social and religious persecution—none of which are ever mentioned by Goldhagen—surely meets his own prior standard—regardless of its validity—of an established “annihilationist” mentality in Germany.
Irrespective of the controversy surrounding his earlier work on Nazi Germany, Goldhagen’s utter ignorance of Shi’ite Iran’s centuries old history of Jew hatred is pathognomonic of the current state of “scholarship” on Islamic antisemitism. Such ignorance may also explain the inability of our intellectual and policymaking elites to appreciate the prevalence and depth of support for such annihilationist views in contemporary Shi’ite Iran. Regardless, Iran must not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, certainly now, under the current regime, and into the foreseeable future.
Appendix
Table 1. Behavior Code of Abul Hassan Lari (1622)
1. Houses that are too high (higher than a Muslim’s) must be lowered.
2. Jews may not circulate freely among the Believers
3. In their stores, Jews must sit on low stools, in order they not see the purchaser’s face.
4. Jews must wear a specially constructed hat of eleven colors.
5. Around this hat they must sew a yellow ribbon, three meters long.
6. Women must tie many little bells on their sandals
7. Jewish women must also wear a black chador
8. When a Jew speaks to a Muslim, he must humbly lower his head.
Table 2. The Jam’i Abbasi of al-Amili, Instituted by Shah Abbas I (1588-1629) and Administered in Some Measure Until 1925
1. Jews are not permitted to dress like Muslims
2. A Jew must exhibit a yellow or red “badge of dishonor” on his chest
3. A Jew is not permitted to ride on a horse
4. When riding on an ass, he must hang both legs on one side
5. He is not entitled to bear arms.
6. On the street and in the market, he must pass stealthily from a corner or from the side
7. Jewish women are not permitted to cover their faces
8. The Jew is restricted from establishing boundaries of private property.
9. A Jew who becomes a Muslim, is forbidden to return to Judaism.
10. Upon disclosure of a disagreement between Jew and Muslim, the Jew’s argument has no merit.
11. In Muslim cities, the Jew is forbidden to build a synagogue
12. A Jew is not entitled to have his house built higher than a Muslim’s
Table 3. Listing by Israel Joseph Benjamin (1818-1864) of the “Oppressions” Suffered by Persian Jews, During the Mid-19th Century
1. Throughout Persia the Jews are obliged to live in a part of town separated from the other inhabitants; for they are considered as unclean creatures, who bring contamination with their intercourse and presence.
2. They have no right to carry on trade in stuff goods.
3. Even in the streets of their own quarter of the town they are not allowed to keep open any shop. They may only sell there spices and drugs, or carry on the trade of a jeweler, in which they have attained great perfection.
4. Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity, and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mob with stones and dirt.
5. For the same reason they are forbidden to go out when it rains; for it is said the rain would wash dirt off them, which would sully the feet of the Mussulmans.
6. If a Jew is recognized as such in the streets, he is subjected to the greatest of insults. The passers-by spit in his face, and sometimes beat him so unmercifully and is obliged to be carried home.
7. If a Persian kills a Jew, and the family of the deceased can bring forward two Mussulmans as witnesses to the fact, the murderer is punished by a fine of 12 tumauns (600 piastres); but if two such witnesses cannot be produced, the crime remains unpunished, even thought it has been publicly committed, and is well known.
8. The flesh of the animals slaughtered according to Hebrew custom, but as Trefe declared, must not be sold to any Mussulmans. The slaughterers are compelled to bury the meat, for even the Christians do not venture to buy it, fearing the mockery and insult of the Persians.
9. If a Jew enters a shop to buy anything, he is forbidden to inspect the goods, but must stand at respectful distance and ask the price. Should his hand incautiously touch the goods, he must take them at any price the seller chooses for them.
10. Sometimes the Persians intrude into the dwellings of the Jews and take possession of whatever pleases them. Should the owner make the least opposition in defense of his property, he incurs the danger of atoning for it with his life.
11. Upon the least dispute between a Jew and a Persian, the former is immediately dragged before the Achund [Muslim cleric] and, if the complainant can bring forward two witnesses, the Jew is condemned to pay a heavy fine. If he is too poor to pay this penalty in money, he must pay it in his person. He is stripped to the waist, bound to a stake, and receives forty blows with a stick. Should the sufferer utter the least cry of pain during this proceeding, the blows already given are not counted, and the punishment is begun afresh.
12. In the same manner, the Jewish children, when they get into a quarrel with those of the Mussulmans, are immediately lead before the Achund, and punished with blows.
13. A Jew who travels in Persia is taxed in every inn and every caravanserai he enters. If he hesitates to satisfy any demands that may happen to be made on him, they fall upon him, and maltreat him until he yields to their terms.
14. If, as already mentioned, a Jew shows himself in the street during the three days of Katel (feast of the mourning for the death of the Persian founder of the religion of Ali) he is sure to be murdered.
15. Daily and hourly new suspicions are raised against the Jews, in order to obtain excuses for fresh extortion; the desire of gain is always the chief incitement to fanaticism.
Table 4. Conditions Imposed Upon the Jews of Hamadan, 1892
1. The Jews are forbidden to leave their houses when it rains or snows [to prevent the impurity of the Jews being transmitted to the Shiite Muslims]
2. Jewish women are obliged to expose their faces in public [like prostitutes].
3. They must cover themselves with a two colored izar (an izar is a big piece of amterial with which eastern women are obliged to cover themselves when leaving their houses].
4. The men must not wear fine clothes, the only material being permitted them being a blue cotton fabric.
5. They are forbidden to wear matching shoes.
6. Every Jew is obliged to wear a piece of red cloth on his chest.
7. A Jew must never overtake a Muslim on a public street.
8. He is forbidden to talk loudly to a Muslim.
9. A Jewish creditor of a Muslim must claim his debt in a quavering and respectful manner.
10. If a Muslim insults a Jew, the latter must drop his head and remain silent.
11. A Jew who buys meat must wrap and conceal it carefully from Muslims.
12. It is forbidden to build fine edifices.
13. It is forbidden for him to have a house higher than that of his Muslim neighbor.
14. Neither must he use plaster for whitewashing.
15. The entrance of his house must be low.
16. The Jew cannot put on his coat; he must be satisfied to carry it rolled under his arm.
17. It is forbidden for him to cut his beard, or even to trim it slightly with scissors.
18. It is forbidden for Jews to leave the town or enjoy the fresh air of the countryside.
19. It is forbidden for Jewish doctors to ride on horseback [this right was generally forbidden to all non-Muslims, except doctors].
20. A Jew suspected of drinking spirits must not appear in the street; if he does he should be put to death immediately.
21. Weddings must be celebrated in the greatest secrecy.
22. Jews must not consume good fruit.
Andrew G. Bostom is a frequent contributor to Frontpage Magazine.com, and the author of The Legacy of Jihad, and the forthcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)