- Forget "Who Is A Jew"--Both Obama And Rauf Muddy The Waters On 'Who Is A Muslim'
- Ho hum another condemnation of israel by the un
- Objectors not bigots
Posted: 20 Aug 2010 04:54 AM PDT
It's getting pretty confusing.
According to a Pew survey people are unsure about Obama's religion
This has led Dry Bones to point out:
But while no one seems to think that Obama is Jewish, the Ground Zero Mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf says that he's Jewish. Jeffrey Goldberg notes that in 2003, when Imam Rauf spoke at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, who was murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan, Rauf said:
Putting aside the long history of Islamic subjugation of Christians and Jews as dhimmis, Goldberg sees this statement as especially brave, seeing how by saying such a thing Rauf was "placing his life in danger"--another indication that maybe not all Muslims agree on "the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths."
Of course, this alleged danger is not stopping Rauf from touring the Middle East now either.
That's because Rauf's statement was only reported in The Atlantic--and not Dry Bones.
by Daled Amos
Posted: 20 Aug 2010 04:13 AM PDT
Not content to have blown a single incident up out of all proportion, the New York Times is now acting as a press agency for the United Nations. In Report Criticizes Gaza Restrictions, Ethan Bronner reported:
A United Nations report issued on Thursday says the Sweleims are part of 12 percent of the population of Gaza -- 178,000 people out of 1.5 million -- who have lost livelihoods or have otherwise been severely affected by Israeli security policies along the border, both land and sea, in recent years. These include the establishment of no-go zones and frequent incursions and attacks. The report estimates that the restricted land comprises 17 percent of Gaza's total land mass and 35 percent of its agricultural land. Israel also restricts Gazan fishing to three nautical miles. Catches are greatly reduced, leading some fishermen to take a long, risky sail into Egyptian waters to buy the fish from Egyptian fishermen and return home to sell it.Aside from the dubious claim about agricultural land, that makes it sound like Israel is arbitrarily instituting policies designed to make life for the Palestinians uncomfortable. But then we get to the next paragraph:
The study, issued by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, says that anti-Israeli militants operate from the border areas in question, planting explosive devices, firing at Israeli military vehicles across the border fence and shooting rockets and mortars at civilians.
So wait a second, the Israeli incursions are in response to "militants operat[ing] from the border areas! That would mean that rather than being arbitrary, Israel's military activities have been in response to terror attacks. But instead of acknowledging that, the UN and hte uncritical report in the Times make it sound that Israel's goal is to disrupt the lives of Gazans rather than protect its own citizens. In a sense this isn't much different from the Goldstone report that insisted on impossible rules of engagement and then condemned Israel for disobeying them.
Over the past ten years, the Israeli military has gradually expanded restrictions on access to farmland on the Gaza side of the 1949 'Green Line', and to fishing areas along the Gaza Strip coast, with the stated intention of preventing attacks on Israel by Palestinian armed factions, including firing projectiles.
Ten years? Israel has been defending against Qassams for nearly ten years. I'm guessing though, that Israel didn't start the policy of restricting access near the border areas until after "disengagement" five years ago. In other words, I'm reasonably certain that the UN just pulled a number out of hat. As it did regarding agricultural lands.
The New York Times and the BBC (and no doubt other media outlets) don't see their job as investigating the veracity of UN charges against Israel, but rather to act as megaphones.
Crossposted on Yourish
Posted: 20 Aug 2010 04:07 AM PDT
The right-wing campaign against the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" includes vicious personal attacks on the Muslim cleric who leads the Cordoba Initiative, the organization behind the plan. I know Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, and I know him to be a moderate, forward-leaning Muslim -- yes, it is true he has said things with which I disagree, but I have never expected him to function as a member of the Zionist Organization of America.
"Vicious personal attacks?" Such as his claim that America was an "accessory" to 9/11? His refusal to condemn Hamas outright? That he rejects the concept of interfaith dialogue, the pretext for building his mosque?
Calling the United States an "accessory" or failing to call Hamas a terrorist organization, I would hope, would qualify as more than just something Goldberg would disagree with. I would hope that he would find such views offensive.
Goldberg goes on though:
In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.
Well that is something. But does it erase his other comments? I don't think it should. And if he is considering Saudi or Iranian funds to build his center for fostering interfaith understanding, it's clear that he isn't at all sincere about that goal. (via memeorandum) Or is a quote from one of his partners another "vicious personal attack?"
Charles Krauthammer writes what the problem is quite clearly.
Ground Zero is the site of the most lethal attack of that worldwide movement, which consists entirely of Muslims, acts in the name of Islam and is deeply embedded within the Islamic world. These are regrettable facts, but facts they are. And that is why putting up a monument to Islam in this place is not just insensitive but provocative.
Even if Iman Rauf's record was perfect and he showed no signs of tolerance for extremism, Krauthammer's objection would still be valid. We can find the building of the mosque (or Islamic center) to be offensive and as Americans we have every right to protest. It is unfortunate that newspapers like the Washington Post and commentators like Jeffrey Goldberg feel the need to paint all those who disagree with them as bigots.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Soccer Dad |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|