By: Maged Taman
I advise myself first and then others that we are in very hard time of history. Either we will be obedient to God like dogs and cats or he will get us all Muslims and non-Muslims. There are compelling evidences that we are at the end of time the few years that precede the descent of Jesus.
To know God and his wrath listen to him and not to false Imams or inspirational speakers or false politicians who are in love with themselves and God for them is way to power and not the ultimate goal and creed.
Listen to God in the Quran how he dealt with the townships:
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا فِي قَرْيَةٍ مِّن نَّبِيٍّ إِلاَّ أَخَذْنَا أَهْلَهَا بِالْبَأْسَاء وَالضَّرَّاء لَعَلَّهُمْ يَضَّرَّعُونَ (7:94)
7:94 (Picktall) And We sent no prophet unto any township but We did afflict its folk with tribulation and adversity that haply they might grow humble. -
ذَلِكَ أَن لَّمْ يَكُن رَّبُّكَ مُهْلِكَ الْقُرَى بِظُلْمٍ وَأَهْلُهَا غَافِلُونَ (6:131)
6:131 (Picktall) This is because thy Lord destroyeth not the townships arbitrarily while their people are unconscious (of the wrong they do).
وَمَا كَانَ رَبُّكَ لِيُهْلِكَ الْقُرَى بِظُلْمٍ وَأَهْلُهَا مُصْلِحُونَ (11:117)
11:117 (Picktall) In truth thy Lord destroyed not the townships tyrannously while their folk were doing right.
وَلَوْ أَنَّ أَهْلَ الْقُرَى آمَنُواْ وَاتَّقَواْ لَفَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِم بَرَكَاتٍ مِّنَ السَّمَاء وَالأَرْضِ وَلَـكِن كَذَّبُواْ فَأَخَذْنَاهُم بِمَا كَانُواْ يَكْسِبُونَ (7:96)
7:96 (Picktall) And if the people of the township had believed and kept from evil, surely We should have opened for them, blessings from the sky and from the earth. But (unto every messenger) they gave the lie, and so We seized them on account of what they used to earn.
وَلَوْ أَنَّ أَهْلَ الْقُرَى آمَنُواْ وَاتَّقَواْ لَفَتَحْنَا عَلَيْهِم بَرَكَاتٍ مِّنَ السَّمَاء وَالأَرْضِ وَلَـكِن كَذَّبُواْ فَأَخَذْنَاهُم بِمَا كَانُواْ يَكْسِبُونَ (7:96)
7:96 (Picktall) And if the people of the township had believed and kept from evil, surely We should have opened for them, blessings from the sky and from the earth. But (unto every messenger) they gave the lie, and so We seized them on account of what they used to earn.
وَضَرَبَ اللّهُ مَثَلاً قَرْيَةً كَانَتْ آمِنَةً مُّطْمَئِنَّةً يَأْتِيهَا رِزْقُهَا رَغَدًا مِّن كُلِّ مَكَانٍ فَكَفَرَتْ بِأَنْعُمِ اللّهِ فَأَذَاقَهَا اللّهُ لِبَاسَ الْجُوعِ وَالْخَوْفِ بِمَا كَانُواْ يَصْنَعُونَ (16:112)
16:112 (Picktall) Allah coineth a similitude: a township that dwelt secure and well content, its provision coming to it in abundance from every side, but it disbelieved in Allah's favors, so Allah made it experience the garb of dearth and fear because of what they used to do.
وَإِذَا أَرَدْنَا أَن نُّهْلِكَ قَرْيَةً أَمَرْنَا مُتْرَفِيهَا فَفَسَقُواْ فِيهَا فَحَقَّ عَلَيْهَا الْقَوْلُ فَدَمَّرْنَاهَا تَدْمِيرًا (17:16)
17:16 (Picktall) And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and We annihilate it with complete annihilation.
وَكَم مِّن قَرْيَةٍ أَهْلَكْنَاهَا فَجَاءهَا بَأْسُنَا بَيَاتًا أَوْ هُمْ قَآئِلُونَ (7:4)
7:4 (Picktall) How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.
أَفَأَمِنَ أَهْلُ الْقُرَى أَن يَأْتِيَهُمْ بَأْسُنَا بَيَاتاً وَهُمْ نَآئِمُونَ (7:97)
7:97 (Picktall) Are the people of the townships then secure from the coming of Our wrath upon them as a night raid while they sleep? -
أَوَ أَمِنَ أَهْلُ الْقُرَى أَن يَأْتِيَهُمْ بَأْسُنَا ضُحًى وَهُمْ يَلْعَبُونَ (7:98)
7:98 (Picktall) Or are the people of the townships then secure from the coming of Our wrath upon them in the daytime while they play?
وَكَذَلِكَ أَخْذُ رَبِّكَ إِذَا أَخَذَ الْقُرَى وَهِيَ ظَالِمَةٌ إِنَّ أَخْذَهُ أَلِيمٌ شَدِيدٌ (11:102)
11:102 (Picktall) Even thus is the grasp of thy Lord when he graspeth the townships while they are doing wrong. Lo! His grasp is painful, very strong. -
وَمَا أَهْلَكْنَا مِن قَرْيَةٍ إِلاَّ وَلَهَا كِتَابٌ مَّعْلُومٌ (15:4)
15:4 (Picktall) And We destroyed no township but there was a known decree for it.
وَتِلْكَ الْقُرَى أَهْلَكْنَاهُمْ لَمَّا ظَلَمُوا وَجَعَلْنَا لِمَهْلِكِهِم مَّوْعِدًا (18:59)
18:59 (Picktall) And (all) those townships! We destroyed them when they did wrong, and We appointed a fixed time for their destruction.
وَإِن مَّن قَرْيَةٍ إِلاَّ نَحْنُ مُهْلِكُوهَا قَبْلَ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُوهَا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا كَانَ ذَلِك فِي الْكِتَابِ مَسْطُورًا (17:58)
17:58 (Picktall) There is not a township but We shall destroy it ere the Day of Resurrection, or punish it with dire punishment. That is set forth in the Book (of Our decrees).
For Free Quran:
http://www.sendmequran.com/
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Flexible Afghanistan War Objectives: And the Agony Grinds On
By: Ramzy Baroud Iviews* -
Washington and its willing mouthpieces in the media have for years been trying to sell us the preposterous war in Afghanistan. While they attempt to convince us that the war is predicated on a faultless military logic and moral wisdom, it remains in fact a tragic adventure with no decipherable objectives, and involving several countries, private contractors, and all sorts of firms seeking to make a quick buck.
The intellectual cowardice of some should not blind the majority to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is morally indefensible and militarily unwinnable.
The decision of the US to continue with its brutal military adventurism in Afghanistan can only be understood in terms of its limited and highly selfish political logic.
Let us start by ruling out some of the ridiculous assumptions that have permeated this war since it began in 2001. First, we were told that the war was aimed at eliminating al-Qaida. However, a retied CIA Station Chief who has served in the Middle East and as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff, has claimed that, "al-Qaida is finished in Afghanistan." He further argued that, "the Obama administration, like its predecessor, claims we are fighting terrorism there. That is simply not true. It is a pure counterinsurgency issue."
Indeed, even the most ardent war hawks are exerting little effort to delineate the link between Taliban and al-Qaida. If the link is infused, it is readily unleashed to demonstrate al-Qaida's links to Pakistan's tribal areas, thus urging 'action' in that part of the country, and not in Afghanistan.
Thanks to the random military 'strategy' of the US and its allies, al-Qaida has spread in all sorts of directions and branched off to many al-Qaida offshoots in various parts of the world. Without a centralized leadership in the military sense, al-Qaida inspired groups and individuals now are now working for localized sets of objectives and respond to different stimuli.
So if it's not al-Qaida that is inspiring the awesome, although largely futile firepower and military surges in Afghanistan, then what is? This is where the idealists come in. They talk of nation-building, Western-style democracy, regional security and so on. Some of them genuinely mean what they say, and some don't believe the present military surges and Gen. Stanley McChrystal's rural area fight to the death will yield its intended results. Still, they contribute to the illusion that good intentions - starting with the initial hype about saving Afghani women, then 'liberation' from foreign terrorists, then democracy and nation-building, and so on - had anything to do with this bloody war. With their insistence on using such positive terminology, they continue to provide Washington's political elites - and Kabul's as well - with the benefit of the doubt that while we may disagree with their methods, we still trust their overall intentions.
It behooves those democracy-inspired, nation-building enthusiasts to remember that Washington has done much to stifle genuine democracy movements around the world since its occupation of Afghanistan in 2001. Palestine and Lebanon remain the most obvious examples.
As for nation-building, compare the astronomical amounts invested in financing the destructive war in Afghanistan and to prop up the corrupt puppet regime in Kabul, to the miniscule sums devoted to enhancing the country's stone-aged economic infrastructure. The US military budget for this year is set to exceed $693 billion, not counting the $42 billion set aside for Homeland Security. According to CostofWar.com, the financial cost of war in Afghanistan alone has exceeded the $256 billion; both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the $1 trillion threshold.
The war in Afghanistan cannot possibly be defended on any moral grounds. The official death count of Afghani civilians in 2009 is estimated at 2,412. The actual death toll is probably far, far higher, as polls do not account for the many more who perished in distance villages across the south and east, areas that are not accessible to outsiders. The death of these innocent people alone should silence the few who still speak of ethics and morality in relation to the disastrous war.
But not everyone is so overtly misguided in their assessment of the war. Some fully understand that the war in Afghanistan is a self-seeking, political and strategic venture. Still, they giddily welcome it, including one Con Coughlin whose recent article in The Telegraph was tellingly entitled, 'India and Pakistan must bury the hatchet for the Taliban to be crushed.'
The India-Pakistan rapprochement is seen as beneficial only insofar as its potential to 'crush' someone else. And considering that that someone else is not a band of aimless terrorists, but a well-grounded, grass-roots, popular insurgency, the price of that "crushing" is likely to be tens of thousands of innocent people. Coughlin uses the same haughty and generalized language of "militant Islamist groups" to be crushed, failing to understand or appreciate the distinctiveness of each and every situation, whether in Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else. Instead, Coughlin nonchalantly expresses concern about the danger these militants pose to "the survival of the ruling classes" in Islamabad. What a compelling reason to get Richard Holbrooke, Washington's special envoy to the region all fired up over the need to preserve the survival of the ruling classes, not just in Islamabad, but in Kabul and Delhi as well.
The war in Afghanistan has turned into find-an-objective-as-you-go military march to nowhere. It is proving futile and indefensible on every ground, be it political or military or moral. Moreover, as Haviland Smith concluded in his grim assessment, "it doesn't really matter that we think of ourselves as benevolent liberators, it only matters that Afghans think of us as foreigners occupiers." When will we all face up to this reality?
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.
Blogger Comment:
We all can agree that the American military young men are honourable and great humans. Many of the generals are good macho guys who look at war from honour of winning and military plans prospectives. Both are fighting the wrong wars, they are fighting for corrupt politicians and a decadent empire. Krazi is the worst corrupt regime that they are defending for what, when he is actually attracting more extremists.
They are not fighting for Jesus and God's kingdom in earth. They have to have the political vote in these crazy aimless wars since they are the one who are paying with blood and family sacrifice for these wars not the politicians in Washington who are in parties every night or Israel.
Washington and its willing mouthpieces in the media have for years been trying to sell us the preposterous war in Afghanistan. While they attempt to convince us that the war is predicated on a faultless military logic and moral wisdom, it remains in fact a tragic adventure with no decipherable objectives, and involving several countries, private contractors, and all sorts of firms seeking to make a quick buck.
The intellectual cowardice of some should not blind the majority to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is morally indefensible and militarily unwinnable.
The decision of the US to continue with its brutal military adventurism in Afghanistan can only be understood in terms of its limited and highly selfish political logic.
Let us start by ruling out some of the ridiculous assumptions that have permeated this war since it began in 2001. First, we were told that the war was aimed at eliminating al-Qaida. However, a retied CIA Station Chief who has served in the Middle East and as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff, has claimed that, "al-Qaida is finished in Afghanistan." He further argued that, "the Obama administration, like its predecessor, claims we are fighting terrorism there. That is simply not true. It is a pure counterinsurgency issue."
Indeed, even the most ardent war hawks are exerting little effort to delineate the link between Taliban and al-Qaida. If the link is infused, it is readily unleashed to demonstrate al-Qaida's links to Pakistan's tribal areas, thus urging 'action' in that part of the country, and not in Afghanistan.
Thanks to the random military 'strategy' of the US and its allies, al-Qaida has spread in all sorts of directions and branched off to many al-Qaida offshoots in various parts of the world. Without a centralized leadership in the military sense, al-Qaida inspired groups and individuals now are now working for localized sets of objectives and respond to different stimuli.
So if it's not al-Qaida that is inspiring the awesome, although largely futile firepower and military surges in Afghanistan, then what is? This is where the idealists come in. They talk of nation-building, Western-style democracy, regional security and so on. Some of them genuinely mean what they say, and some don't believe the present military surges and Gen. Stanley McChrystal's rural area fight to the death will yield its intended results. Still, they contribute to the illusion that good intentions - starting with the initial hype about saving Afghani women, then 'liberation' from foreign terrorists, then democracy and nation-building, and so on - had anything to do with this bloody war. With their insistence on using such positive terminology, they continue to provide Washington's political elites - and Kabul's as well - with the benefit of the doubt that while we may disagree with their methods, we still trust their overall intentions.
It behooves those democracy-inspired, nation-building enthusiasts to remember that Washington has done much to stifle genuine democracy movements around the world since its occupation of Afghanistan in 2001. Palestine and Lebanon remain the most obvious examples.
As for nation-building, compare the astronomical amounts invested in financing the destructive war in Afghanistan and to prop up the corrupt puppet regime in Kabul, to the miniscule sums devoted to enhancing the country's stone-aged economic infrastructure. The US military budget for this year is set to exceed $693 billion, not counting the $42 billion set aside for Homeland Security. According to CostofWar.com, the financial cost of war in Afghanistan alone has exceeded the $256 billion; both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the $1 trillion threshold.
The war in Afghanistan cannot possibly be defended on any moral grounds. The official death count of Afghani civilians in 2009 is estimated at 2,412. The actual death toll is probably far, far higher, as polls do not account for the many more who perished in distance villages across the south and east, areas that are not accessible to outsiders. The death of these innocent people alone should silence the few who still speak of ethics and morality in relation to the disastrous war.
But not everyone is so overtly misguided in their assessment of the war. Some fully understand that the war in Afghanistan is a self-seeking, political and strategic venture. Still, they giddily welcome it, including one Con Coughlin whose recent article in The Telegraph was tellingly entitled, 'India and Pakistan must bury the hatchet for the Taliban to be crushed.'
The India-Pakistan rapprochement is seen as beneficial only insofar as its potential to 'crush' someone else. And considering that that someone else is not a band of aimless terrorists, but a well-grounded, grass-roots, popular insurgency, the price of that "crushing" is likely to be tens of thousands of innocent people. Coughlin uses the same haughty and generalized language of "militant Islamist groups" to be crushed, failing to understand or appreciate the distinctiveness of each and every situation, whether in Afghanistan, Pakistan or anywhere else. Instead, Coughlin nonchalantly expresses concern about the danger these militants pose to "the survival of the ruling classes" in Islamabad. What a compelling reason to get Richard Holbrooke, Washington's special envoy to the region all fired up over the need to preserve the survival of the ruling classes, not just in Islamabad, but in Kabul and Delhi as well.
The war in Afghanistan has turned into find-an-objective-as-you-go military march to nowhere. It is proving futile and indefensible on every ground, be it political or military or moral. Moreover, as Haviland Smith concluded in his grim assessment, "it doesn't really matter that we think of ourselves as benevolent liberators, it only matters that Afghans think of us as foreigners occupiers." When will we all face up to this reality?
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com.
Blogger Comment:
We all can agree that the American military young men are honourable and great humans. Many of the generals are good macho guys who look at war from honour of winning and military plans prospectives. Both are fighting the wrong wars, they are fighting for corrupt politicians and a decadent empire. Krazi is the worst corrupt regime that they are defending for what, when he is actually attracting more extremists.
They are not fighting for Jesus and God's kingdom in earth. They have to have the political vote in these crazy aimless wars since they are the one who are paying with blood and family sacrifice for these wars not the politicians in Washington who are in parties every night or Israel.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Excerpt from Norman Finkelstein's new book - This Time we Went too Far
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
Public outrage at the Gaza invasion did not come out of the blue but rather marked the nadir of a curve plotting a steady decline in support for Israel. As polling data of Americans and Europeans, both Gentiles and Jews, suggest, the public has become increasingly critical of Israeli policy over the past decade. The horrific images of death and destruction broadcast around the world during and after the invasion accelerated this development. “The increased and brutal frequency of war in this volatile region has shifted international opinion,” the British Financial Times editorialized one year later, “reminding Israel it is not above the law. Israel can no longer dictate the terms of debate.”
One poll registering the fallout from the Gaza attack in the United States found that American voters calling themselves supporters of Israel plummeted from 69 per cent before the attack to 49 per cent in June 2009, while voters believing that the U.S. should support Israel dropped from 69 per cent to 44 per cent. Consumed by hate, emboldened by self-righteousness, and confident that it could control or intimidate public opinion, Israel carried on in Gaza as if it could get away with mass murder in broad daylight. But while official Western support for Israel held firm, the carnage set off an unprecedented wave of popular outrage throughout the world. Whether it was because the assault came on the heels of the devastation Israel wrought in Lebanon, or because of Israel’s relentless persecution of the people of Gaza, or because of the sheer cowardice of the assault, the Gaza invasion appeared to mark a turning point in public opinion reminiscent of the international reaction to the 1960 Sharpeville massacre in apartheid South Africa.
In the Jewish diaspora official communal organizations with longstanding ties to Israel predictably lent blind support. But, at the same time, newly minted progressive Jewish organizations distanced themselves to a lesser or greater degree. Whereas in the past mainstream Jews actively supported Israeli wars, most registered ambivalence during the invasion, apart from a contracting older minority that came out swinging in Israel’s defense, and an expanding younger minority that scathingly denounced it. Between the increasing estrangement of younger Jews from Israeli bellicosity and the increasing qualms of Jews generally about supporting it, the Gaza massacre signaled the break-up of hitherto blanket Jewish support for Israeli wars. In addition, whereas the antiwar demonstrations in most Western countries were ethnically heterogeneous (including significant numbers of Jews), the “pro”-Israeli demonstrations were composed almost exclusively of Jews. The fact that active opposition to Israeli policy, say, on college campuses, has spread beyond the Arab-Muslim core towards the mainstream, whereas active support for Israel has shrunk to a fraction of the ethnic Jewish core, is a telling indicator of where things are headed. The era of the “beautiful” Israel has passed, it seems irrevocably, and the disfigured Israel that in recent years has replaced it in the public consciousness is a growing embarrassment. It is not so much that Israel’s behavior is worse than it was before, but rather that the record of that behavior has, finally, caught up with it.
The truth can no longer be denied or dismissed. The documentation of the Arab-Israeli conflict set out by respected historians fundamentally conflicts with the version popularized in the likes of Leon Uris’s Exodus. The evidence of Israeli human rights violations compiled by respected mainstream organizations cannot be reconciled with its vaunted commitment to “purity of arms.” The deliberations of respected judicial and political bodies cast severe doubt on Israel’s avowed commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. For a long while Israel’s “supporters” deflected the impact of this accumulating documentary record by wielding the twin swords of The Holocaust and the “new anti-Semitism.”
It was proposed that Jews could not be held to conventional moral/legal standards after the unique suffering they endured during World War II, and that criticism of Israeli policy was motivated by an ever-resurgent hatred of Jews. However, apart from the inevitable dulling that comes of overuse, these weapons proved much less efficacious once criticism of Israel broke into the mainstream of public opinion. Unable to deflect criticism of Israel, apologists now conjure bizarre theories to account for its ostracism. Reaganomics guru George Gilder posits that a free-market system singularly unleashes human potential, and that under such a system Jews are and must be “represented disproportionately in the highest ranks” because they are the most gifted.
Inversely, if Jews do not rule the roost, it must be because a less-than-ideal economic system holds sway. Anti-Semitism springs from resentment of “Jewish superiority and excellence” and “the manifest supremacy of Jews over all other ethnic groups,” while the hatred of Israel springs from the fact that it has evolved (under the inspired tutelage of Benjamin Netanyahu) into the perfect free-market system that “concentrates the genius of the Jews,” making it “one of the world’s leading capitalist powers” and the envy of the world: “Israel is hated above all for its virtues.”
If Jews figure prominently among critics of Israel, it is because they “excel so readily in all intellectual fields that they outperform all rivals in the arena of anti-Semitism.” The West in turn must preserve and protect Israelis from the “world of zero-sum chimeras and fantasies of jihadist revenge and death” and the “barbarian masses” because Jewish endowments have enabled humanity to “thrive and prosper”: Jews are “crucial to the human race.”
Indeed, “if Israel is destroyed, capitalist Europe will likely die as well, and America, as the epitome of productive and creative capitalism spurred by Jews, will be in jeopardy”; “Israel is at the forefront of the next generation of technology and on the front lines of a new racial war against capitalism and Jewish individuality and genius”; “Just as free economies are necessary for the survival of the human population of the planet, the survival of the Jews is vital to the triumph of free economies. If Israel is quelled or destroyed, we will be succumbing to forces targeting capitalism and freedom everywhere.”
Across the Atlantic, Robin Shepherd, director of international affairs at the London-based Henry Jackson Society, asserts that Israel has come under strong criticism in the West not because of its human rights record but because it is a democratic, capitalist state fighting on the front lines alongside the U.S. against the “civilizational” threat posed by radical Islam: “Israel had become an enemy not because of anything it had done” but “because it was on the wrong side of the barricades.” The “primary energizing platform in the West” for this “tidal wave of hysteria, deception and distortion against the Jewish state” consists of totalitarian Marxists and left-liberal fellow travelers who, disappointed by the Western proletariat and Third World liberation struggles, have made common cause with “militant Islam” to destroy the liberal-capitalist world order. Although these critics of Israel are not anti-Semitic in the traditional “subjective” sense of despising Jews per se, they are guilty of “objective” anti-Semitism because Israel is so central to Jewish identity in the contemporary world.
But opposition to Israel supposedly also emanates from ancien régimebluebloods who want to restore the old-world hierarchies before arriviste Jews disrupted them. This far-flung “neo-anti-Semitic” conspiracy embraces “most” of those who accuse Israel of committing war crimes and otherwise violating international law. Thus, it is to be understood that behind the condemnation of Israel by Amnesty International and the International Court of Justice, Nobel peace laureates Jimmy Carter and Mairead Corrigan Maguire, theFinancial Times and the BBC, lurks the evil hand of the radical leftist-fanatic Islamic-landed aristocratic nexus. For those who want to learn more, Shepherd “highly” recommends Alan M. Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel.
Although such explanations for Israel’s isolation lack credibility, it cannot be doubted that Israel’s stock has fallen precipitously. Whereas Israel won many adherents in the West after its lightning victory in June 1967, in recent years it has been reduced almost to the status of a pariah state, especially in Europe. A 2003 poll of the European Union named Israel the biggest threat to world peace. A 2008 survey of global opinion named Israel the biggest obstacle to achieving peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict. In a BBC World Service poll taken on the eve of the Gaza invasion, fully 19 of the 21 countries surveyed held a predominantly negative view of Israel.
Meanwhile, under the title “Second Thoughts about the Promised Land,” theEconomist reported in 2007 that although “most diaspora Jews still support Israel strongly. . . their ambivalence has grown.” Dissenting Jewish voices have begun to coalesce in Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere, challenging the hegemony of official Jewish organizations that parrot Israeli propaganda. In the United States the overall picture and trends are perhaps not as pronounced but are no less noteworthy. Judging by poll data it can broadly be said that Americans have consistently viewed Israel favorably and have sympathized much more with Israel than with the Palestinians. But Americans also overwhelmingly support an evenhanded U.S. approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and most recently have expressed “equal levels of sympathy” for both sides, while a substantial minority believe that U.S. policy tilts (or tilts too much) in favor of Israel; a robust majority of Americans “think Israel is not doing its part well in making efforts to resolve the conflict”; and Americans have occasionally supported the use of sanctions to rein in Israel.
Significantly, a majority of Americans have also supported a two-state settlement on the June 1967 borders, meaning full Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied in the June war. “Yes, the polls show strong support for Israel,” M. J. Rosenberg, director of policy analysis for the Israel Policy Forum observed in 2007 apropos of recent trends; however, “that support for Israel, such as there is, is broad but it is not very deep.” This phenomenon can be seen almost every day in “Letters to the Editors” columns. Every time an op-ed about Israel appears, especially if it is critical, there are a slew of letters to the editor. Most support the Israeli position. And almost without exception, they are written by Jews. That vast majority [of non-Jewish Americans] out there which supposedly is so supportive of Israel virtually never chimes in. According to a 2007 poll by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) the favorable opinion of Americans towards Israel is markedly less than their favorable opinion toward Great Britain and Japan, while roughly equal to their favorable opinion of India and Mexico. Nearly half of the respondents believe that the U.S. should work with “moderate” Arab states “even at the expense of Israel.”
Half or more of Americans polled held Israel and Hezbollah equally to blame for the summer 2006 Lebanon War and supported a (more) neutral U.S. stance. In addition, in recent years, influential religious constituencies such as the Presbyterian Church USA, the World Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church have all supported initiatives, including corporate divestment, to force an end to Israel’s occupation. A 2005 survey by Jewish pollster Steven M. Cohen found that “the attachment of American Jews to Israel has weakened measurably in the last two years . . . , continuing a long-term trend.” Respondents were less likely than in comparable earlier surveys to say they care about Israel, talk about Israel with others or engage in a range of pro-Israel activities.
Strikingly, there was no parallel decline in other measures of Jewish identification, including religious observance and communal affiliation. The survey found 26 per cent who said they were “very” emotionally attached to Israel, compared with 31 per cent who said so in a similar survey conducted in 2002. Some two-thirds, 65 per cent, said they follow the news about Israel closely, down from 74 per cent in 2002, while 39 per cent said they talk about Israel frequently with Jewish friends, down from 53 per cent in 2002. Israel also declined as a component in the respondents’ personal Jewish identity. When offered a selection of factors, including religion, community and social justice, as well as “caring about Israel,” and asked, “For you personally, how much does being Jewish involve each?,” 48 per cent said Israel matters “a lot,” compared with 58 per cent in 2002. Just 57 per cent affirmed that “caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish,” compared with 73 per cent in a similar survey in 1989. A 2007 American Jewish Committee poll found that 30 per cent of Jews felt “fairly distant” or “very distant” from Israel. “In the long run,” Cohen predicts “a polarization in American Jewry: a small group growing more pious and attached to Israel, while a larger one drifts away.”
A 2006 poll found that, among American Jews under 40, fully one-third felt “fairly distant” or “very distant” from Israel, while a 2007 poll found that among Jews under 35 fully 40 per cent registered a “low attachment” to Israel (only 20 per cent registered a “high attachment”). Astonishingly, less than half responded affirmatively that “Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy.” The former chairman of the Jewish Agency recently sounded the alarm that “less than 24 per cent of young Jews in North America belong to Jewish organizations. Less than 50 per cent of North American Jews under the age of 35 feel a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people. Less than 25 per cent of North American Jews under age 35 define themselves as Zionists.”
On the nation’s campuses support for Israel is confined not only to Jewish students but also mostly to the Zionist faithful gathered in the Hillels. “Jewish college students are clearly less attached to Israel than in previous generations,” a study commissioned by Jewish advocacy organizations reports. “Israel is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of this cohort.” Indeed, of the nearly half million Jewish students attending institutions of higher education, “only about five per cent have any connection to the Jewish community.”
Ambivalence towards Israel verging on disaffection can also be discerned among influential sectors of American society, ever the bellwethers of U.S. intellectual life, and the reading public. A recent poll found that a majority of opinion leaders in the U.S. view support for Israel as a “major reason for discontent with the U.S.” around the world.31 In a 2003 New York Review of Books essay, the Jewish historian Tony Judt asserted that “Israel today is bad for the Jews” and he doubted both the viability and desirability of a Jewish state. John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the Harvard Kennedy School coauthored an influential paper in 2006 debunking the idealized image of Israel’s history and asserting that Israel has become a “strategic liability” for the United States. A book by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, provocatively titled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, deplored Israeli policy in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and put the blame for the impasse in the peace process squarely on Israel.
Although the Israel lobby launched vitriolic counterattacks to these interventions, its usual smears alleging anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial did not stick. When in 2006 the lobby’s pressures led to cancellation of one of Tony Judt’s speaking engagements, he became an instant cause célèbre in American intellectual circles. His critics, such as Abraham H. Foxman of the ADL, were derided for “slinging the dread charge of anti-Semitism” and for being an “anachronism.” Carter, meanwhile, was said to be a plagiarist, in the pay of Arab sheikhs, an anti-Semite, an apologist for terrorism, a Nazi sympathizer, and a borderline Holocaust denier.
Yet Carter’s book landed on the New York Times bestseller list and remained there for months, selling an estimated 300,000 copies in hardback. Although snubbed by Brandeis University’s president, Carter still received standing ovations from the student body when he came to speak at the historically Jewish institution. (Half the audience walked out when Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz rose to answer Carter.Mearsheimer and Walt negotiated a book deal with the publishing house Farrar, Straus and Giroux, and their book,The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, also went on to become a Timesbestseller.
It is further testament to Israel’s waning fortunes that, during Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s term of office, even Foxman and perennial Israel supporter Elie Wiesel took to publicly rebuking Israel for its failure to pursue peace.The simmering public discontent with Israeli policy in recent years reached a boiling point of indignation during the Gaza invasion. Despite Israel’s carefully orchestrated propaganda blitz; despite the overwhelmingly “pro”-Israel bias of mainstream media coverage, especially during the first few days of the attack; and despite official support in the West for the assault—despite all this, large popular protests throughout Western Europe (Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Great Britain) dwarfed in size demonstrations supporting Israel.
A wave of student occupations swept across Great Britain including Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Birmingham, London School of Economics, School of Oriental and Asian Studies, Warwick, King’s, Sussex, and Cardiff. Even in traditional bastions of support for Israel such as Canada, where the “pro”-Israel bias of the extreme right-wing political establishment and media is unusually intense, a plurality of public opinion disapproved of the assault and the Canadian Union of Public Employees passed a motion calling for an academic boycott of Israel.
Declaring after the ceasefire that “the events in Gaza have shocked us to the core,” a 16-strong group of the world’s most experienced investigators and judges—including Antonio Cassese (First President and Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Head of the U.N. Inquiry on Darfur) and Richard Goldstone (Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda and Chairman of the U.N. Inquiry on Kosovo)—called for an “international investigation of gross violations of the laws of war, committed by all parties to the Gaza conflict.”
Unsurprisingly, Israel’s apologists attributed the widespread outrage at the Gaza invasion to anti-Semitism. It might be posited as a general rule that the lower the depths to which Israel’s criminal conduct sinks the higher the decibel level of the shrieks of anti-Semitism. Jews are confronting “an epidemic, a pandemic of anti-Semitism,” Abraham H. Foxman declared. “This is the worst, the most intense, the most global it’s been in most of our recent memories.” Such fear-mongering was nothing new from Foxman, who had portended back in 2003 that anti-Semitism was posing “as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s.”
Just as in the past, poll data used to substantiate these exaggerations tallied “indicators” of “the most pernicious notions of anti-Semitism,” such as the finding that “large portions of the European public continue to believe that Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust.” According to Parisian media “philosopher” Bernard-Henri Lévy, anyone doubting that the Nazi holocaust was a “moral watershed in human history” should be reckoned an anti-Semite. Few of the alleged anti-Semitic incidents in Europe went beyond merely unpleasant manifestations, such as emails and graffiti, while European anti-Semitism, notwithstanding the hype, paled beside anti-Muslim bias. (A rise in animus towards Jews and Muslims—in recent years the two curves tend to correlate—appears partly due to a resurgence of ethnocentrism among older, less educated, and politically conservative Europeans.)
Nonetheless it is most probably true that the execution by a self-proclaimed Jewish state of consecutive murderous rampages in Lebanon and Gaza, and the vocal support lent these rampages by official Jewish organizations around the world, caused a regrettable—if entirely predictable— “spillover” whereby Jews generally were in some quarters held culpable. If, as the Israeli Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism asserted, there was “a sharp rise in the number and intensity of anti-Semitic incidents” during the Gaza massacre; and if “with the ceasefire there has . . . been a marked decline in the number and intensity of anti-Semitic incidents”; and if “another flare-up in the region, similar to the Gaza operation, will probably lead to an even more severe outbreak of anti-Semitic activity against communities worldwide,” then an efficacious method to fight anti-Semitism would appear to be for Israel to stop committing massacres.
It is also true that the growing gap between official support of Israeli war mongering and popular revulsion against it might feed anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. In Germany for example the political establishment and mainstream media do not brook any criticism of Israel because of the “special relationship” growing out of Germany’s “historic responsibility.” Chancellor Angela Merkel surpassed other European leaders in her embrace of Israel during the Gaza invasion. Yet recent polls have shown that 60 per cent of Germans reject the notion of a special German obligation to Israel (70 per cent of young people reject it), 50 per cent believe that Israel is an aggressive country, and 60 per cent believe that it pursues its interests ruthlessly.
More generally, Gideon Levy recalled “the surreal scene at the height of the brutal assault on Gaza when the heads of the European Union came to Israel and dined with the prime minister in a show of unilateral support for the side wreaking the killing and destruction.” And although it was Israel that broke the ceasefire and launched the invasion European leaders parleyed with the U.S. (and Canada) on how to thwart rearmament not of the perpetrators but of the victims. It is only a matter of time before Europeans begin to wonder—if they haven’t already—at whose behest their foreign policy is being made. The ascription of popular Gentile outrage over the Gaza massacre to anti-Semitism appeared all the more preposterous in the face of widespread and vocal Jewish dissent. Whereas established communal Jewish organizations issued statements supporting Israel, ad hoc Jewish organizations and petitions deploring the invasion proliferated.
Most significantly, Jews prominent in communal Jewish life criticized Israel, albeit generally in muted language. As Israel stood poised to launch the ground offensive after a week of aerial attacks, a group of Britain’s most distinguished Jews, describing themselves as “profound and passionate supporters” of Israel, expressed “horror” at the “increasing loss of life on both sides” and called on Israel to cease its military operations in Gaza immediately. On a more acerbic note, British MP and former shadow foreign minister Gerald Kaufman declared during a House of Commons debate on Gaza, “My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed. My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.” He went on to indict the Israeli government for having “ruthlessly and cynically exploit[ed] the continuing guilt among Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians.”
Meanwhile in France the popular Jewish writer Jean-Moïse Braitberg called on the Israeli president to remove his grandfather’s name from the memorial at Yad Vashem dedicated to victims of the Nazi holocaust “so that it can no longer be used to justify the horror which is visited on the Palestinians.” In Germany Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, daughter of a former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, wrote, “Not the elected Hamas government, but the brutal occupier . . . belongs in the dock at the Hague,” while the German section of European Jews for a Just Peace issued a statement headlined “German Jews Say NO to Israeli Army Killings.”In Canada eight Jewish women occupying the Israeli consulate called on “all Jews to speak out against this massacre,” and celebrated Canadian pianist Anton Kuerti declared, “The unbelievable war crimes that Israel is committing in Gaza . . .make me ashamed to be a Jew.”In Australia two award-winning novelists and a former federal cabinet minister signed a statement by Jews condemning Israel’s “grossly disproportionate assault.
The Bush administration and the U.S. Congress lent unqualified support to Israel during the invasion. A resolution laying full culpability on Hamas for the resulting death and destruction passed unanimously in the Senate and 390 to 5 in the House. Much of the mainstream media in the U.S. likewise shamelessly toed the Israeli party line. “By New Year’s Day, Israel’s cheering squad had turned the opinion pages of major American newspapers into their own personal romper room,” the journalist Max Blumenthal observed. “Of all the editorial contributions published by the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times since the Israeli war on Gaza began, . . . only one offered a skeptical view of the assault.”
The New York Times’s conception of op-ed balance was achieved by juxtaposing Jeffrey Goldberg’s reverie on the unregenerate evil of Hamas with Thomas Friedman’s counsel to Israel that it inflict “heavy pain on the Gaza population.” Its hometown rival the New York Daily News ran an op-ed by Rabbi Marvin Hier that urged world leaders “not . . . to rebuild Gaza again” even though “many civilians will suffer” because “terrorists and those who support them are not entitled to receive VIP booty for their inhumanity, misdeeds and silence.” Hier is the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance. In the midst of this lynch-mob atmosphere even human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch reserved their strongest condemnations for Hamas.
These venomous elite outpourings notwithstanding, public opinion polls showed that, although harshly critical of Hamas, only about 40 per cent of Americans approved of the Israeli attack, while among those voting Democratic (the party affiliation of most Jews) approval dropped to 30 per cent . In a dramatic display of independence reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s authorship of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, liberal icon Bill Moyers rebuked Israel on his popular public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, albeit in a context that also took Hamas to task: “By killing indiscriminately the elderly, kids, entire families, by destroying schools and hospitals, Israel did exactly what terrorists do.”
Like Carter, Moyers immediately came under fire from Abraham H. Foxman, who accused him of “racism, historical revisionism and indifference to terrorism,” and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz who decried Moyers’s “false moral equivalence” between Hamas terrorism and the Israeli army that “inadvertently kill[s] some Palestinian civilians who are used as human shields by Hamas.” But again like Carter, Moyers managed to stand his ground and, as fellow liberals rose to his defense, to emerge unscathed after the fusillade of slanders.
As the Gaza invasion unfolded, and the shocking images of the carnage transmitted live by Al-Jazeera could no longer be ignored, cracks started appearing in the moderate mainstream. Under the ominous title “Time Running Out for a Two- State Solution?” the most-watched U.S. news broadcast 60 Minutes aired a devastating segment on Jewish settlers in the West Bank, which included a harrowing scene of “Arabs [who] are occupied inside their own homes” by Israeli soldiers. The right-wing editorial page of the Wall Street Journal ran a piece by law professor George E. Bisharat under the headline “Israel Is Committing War Crimes.” The normally staid New York Timescolumnist Roger Cohen confessed in a pair of columns to being “shamed by Israeli actions.” In the second piece Cohen speculated that “Israel’s continued expansion of settlements, Gaza blockade, West Bank walling-in and wanton recourse to high-tech force” was “designed precisely to bludgeon, undermine and humiliate the Palestinian people until their dreams of statehood and dignity evaporate.”
Former editor of the New Republic and conservative writer Andrew Sullivan judged that the Israeli attack was “far from a close call morally. . . . This is an extremely one-sided war,” and he labeled “thugs” the rightwing Jewish apologists for “the terrible human carnage now being inflicted by Israel (and paid for in part by Americans).” Philip Slater, author of the sociological studyThe Pursuit of Loneliness, declared, “The Gaza Strip is little more than a large Israeli concentration camp, in which Palestinians are attacked at will, starved of food, fuel, energy—even deprived of hospital supplies. . . . It would be difficult to have any respect for them if they didn’t fire a few rockets back.”
Meanwhile the City Council of Cambridge, Massachusetts, a liberal enclave and home to Harvard University, adopted a resolution “condemning the attacks [on] and invasion of Gaza by the Israeli military and the rocket attacks upon the people of Israel,” and a group of American university professors launched a national campaign calling for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. A poll of American Jews found that 47 per cent strongly approved of the Israeli assault, but—in a sharp break with the usual wall-to-wall solidarity—53 per cent were either ambivalent (44 per cent “somewhat” approved or “somewhat” disapproved) or strongly disapproved (9 per cent ).
Experienced observers of the American Jewish community pointed to a “post-Gaza sea change.” Apart from “the more conservative segment of the pro-Israel community,” M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum noted, “there was little show of support for this war. In New York, a city where crowds of 250,000 have come out for ‘solidarity’ rallies in the past, only 8,000 came to Manhattan for a community demonstration on a sunny Sunday.” In a public clash with the traditional Jewish leadership, mainstream if less-established Jewish organizations such as J Street staked out a middle ground that “recognize[d] that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong,” and called for “shedding a narrow us-versus-them approach to the Middle East.”
Founded in 2008, J Street projects itself as a liberal counterweight to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It is too soon to predict whether J Street—which currently hews to a vaguely progressive political agenda, although it also defines itself as “closest” to Kadima, the Israeli political party headed by Tzipi Livni— will calcify into a “loyal opposition” or escalate its criticism of Israeli policy as the gulf dividing American Jewry from Israel widens.
Meanwhile “American Jews for a Just Peace” circulated a petition calling on “Israeli Soldiers to Stop War Crimes,” “Jews Say No” demonstrated outside the World Zionist Organization and Jewish Agency offices, and “Jews against the Occupation” dropped a banner over New York City’s West Side Highway declaring “Jews Say: End Israel’s War on Gaza NOW!” In the liberal Jewish intellectual milieu only perennial apologists for Israel, most of whom came on board right after the June 1967 war and are now in their 70s, ventured a full-throated defense of the invasion.
It was obvious to moral philosopher Michael Walzer that Israel had exhausted nonviolent options before it attacked and that Hamas bore responsibility for the ensuing civilian deaths. To Walzer the only “hard question” was whether Israel did all it possibly could to reduce these casualties.
It was obvious to Alan M. Dershowitz that Israel made “its best efforts to avoid killing civilians” and that it failed because Hamas pursued a “dead baby” strategy of forcing Israel to kill Palestinian children in order to garner international sympathy.
It was obvious to New Republic editor Martin Peretz from his scrutiny of the Palestinians’ footwear that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was benign: “You have to look closely at the sneakers, seemingly new and, of course, costly.”It was obvious to writer Paul Berman that if a “possibility” exists that Hamas might threaten Israel someday in the future with genocide “if Hamas were allowed to prosper unimpeded, and if its allies and fellow-thinkers in Hezbollah and the Iranian government and its nuclear program likewise prospered,” then Israel would have the right to launch an attack now.
On such an accumulation of hypotheticals stacked on conditionals, it is hard to conceive what country in the world would be safe from arbitrary attack, and what country would not be justified in arbitrarily launching an attack. If, apart from this coterie of Israel defenders, Jewish liberals recognized that the Israeli onslaught was morally problematic, they could not yet abide their dirty laundry being aired in front of the goyim. Magazines and journals of opinion pitched to the upscale and urbane Jewish public such as the New Yorker and the New York Review of Books accordingly sat out the Gaza massacre.
However, one influential contingent of liberal Jewish public intellectuals did not stay silent: the new generation of liberal Jewish bloggers and regular contributors to liberal-Democratic web sites such as Salon.com and theHuffington Post. Less in thrall to establishment Jewish editors, advertisers, funders, and social networks, speaking as and for a generation that came of age when to a large degree Zionist mythology had been dispelled and displaced by sober historical research. The Israeli political establishment had grown squalid and reactionary. Israel’s human rights record had been subjected to piercing scrutiny by the human rights community.
Holocaust-induced paranoia and anti-Semitism-mongering palpably collided with the quotidian reality of triumphant Jewish assimilation everywhere from the Ivy League to Wall Street, from Hollywood to Washington, and from the country club to the marriage altar. Professionally, mentally, and emotionally emancipated from the shackles of the past, these Jewish habitués of the Internet went on the offensive denouncing the Gaza invasion from its inception.
The symbolism could scarcely be missed. Whereas diehard apologists for Israel such as Walzer, Dershowitz, and Peretz clambered aboard the Zionist ship while in their youth, the generation of youthful Jewish public intellectuals now making their names on the Internet has been jumping off it.“I pity them their hatred of their inheritance,” Peretz hissed. “They are pip-squeaks.”Here are the pip-squeaks in their own words. Ezra Klein (age 25; blogger forAmerican Prospect) posted on Day 2 of the invasion, “The rocket attacks were undoubtedly ‘deeply disturbing’ to Israelis. But so too are the checkpoints, the road closures, the restricted movement, the terrible joblessness, the unflinching oppression, the daily humiliations, the illegal settlement— I’m sorry, ‘outpost’—construction ‘deeply disturbing’ to the Palestinians, and far more injurious. And the 300 dead Palestinians should be disturbing to us all.”
Adam Horowitz (age 35; blogger for Mondoweiss) posted on Day 4 in response to Benny Morris’s op-ed in the New York Times, “It is clear he can only see the reactions, but not the cause. He lists the responses to Israel and to Israel’s ongoing Jewish colonization of historic Palestine, without mentioning the elephant in the room, that the walls closing in on Israel are all self-made.” Matthew Yglesias (age 28; blogger for Think Progress) posted on Day 6, “While Israel has stated a desire to leave the Gaza Palestinians alone in their tiny, overcrowded, economically unviable enclave, the [2005] ‘disengagement’ from Gaza has never entailed letting Palestinians control their borders or exercise meaningful sovereignty over the area. The proposal has basically been that if Palestinians cease violence against Israel, then the Gaza Strip will be treated like an Indian reservation.”
Dana Goldstein (age 24; blogger for American Prospect) posted on Day 12, “I want to believe that the collective, historical experience of Jewishness and Zionism leads to something better—something more humane—than what we’ve witnessed in the Middle East this past week.” Glenn Greenwald (age 42; blogger for Salon.com) posted on Day 13, “This is not so much of a war as it is a completely one-sided massacre,” and on 30 January 2009, “It’s just not possible to make real progress in the domestic aims of restoring the Constitution and reversing our military and intelligence expansions if we are simultaneously enabling and blindly supporting Israel’s various wars (and therefore dragging ourselves into those wars).”
On 20 February 2009 Greenwald responded to an insinuation by Jeffrey Goldberg that he was a Jew-hating Israelbasher, “People like Jeffrey Goldberg . . . have so abused, overused, manipulated and exploited the ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘anti-Israel’ accusations for improper and nakedly political ends that those terms have become drained of their meaning, have almost entirely lost their sting, and have become trivialized virtually to the point of caricature. . . . Indeed, people like Goldberg are becoming extra rancid and reckless in their rhetoric precisely because they know that these rhetorical devices have ceased working.” “There is a definite sea change when it comes to American policy debates toward Israel,” Greenwald concluded. “They no longer possess the ability to stifle dissent through thuggish intimidation tactics and they know that, which is why they can now do nothing but turn up the volume on their name-calling attacks. The Israeli devastation of Gaza and its trapped, defenseless civilian population—using American bombs, arms, money and diplomatic cover—was so brutal and horrific to watch that it inevitably changed the way people view that Middle East conflict.”
Soon after the Gaza invasion ended, the phalanx of liberal Jewish bloggers again went tit-for-tat with the Israel lobby when the lobby sought to block the Obama administration’s appointment of Chas Freeman, an official critical of Israeli policy. Another very hefty straw in the wind was a sketch titled “Strip Maul” that aired on the Comedy Channel’s Daily Show on 5 January 2009. The host of the program, comedian Jon Stewart, is Jewish and has a huge following among young people. To roars of approval from the studio audience, he ridiculed the numbingly unanimous and cliché-ridden support for Israel among politicians (“It’s the Möbius strip of issues—there’s only one side!”); adverted to “the soul-crushing segmentation and blockading of Gaza”; and likened a Palestinian’s plight to forcing someone “to live in my hallway and make him go through checkpoints every time he has to take a s**t.”
The generational metamorphosis regarding Israel was most evident on college campuses. “A shift toward more visible pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel sentiment has been profound on some campuses,” Inside Higher Ed reported, “prompted, in part, by the winter war in Gaza.” Large halls filled to overflow for lectures deploring the Gaza massacre. Whereas “pro”- Israel groups used to protest inside or outside such lectures, they were now barely seen.
Students at Cornell University lined pathways with 1,300 black flags commemorating the dead in Gaza. (The display was later vandalized.)
Students at University of Rochester, University of Massachusetts, New York University, Columbia University, Haverford College, Bryn Mawr College, and Hampshire College held petition drives, protests, and sit-ins demanding financial support for Palestinian students and divestment from arms companies and companies doing business with the illegal Jewish settlements. Hampshire College students successfully pressured the college’s trustees to divest from American corporations that directly profit from the occupation.
Although “pro”-Israel organizations alleged that “college and university campuses . . . have become hotbeds of a virulent new strain of anti-Semitism,” at many campuses Jewish students have played a leading role on the local “Students for Justice in Palestine” committees, and creative and dedicated young Jewish activists in Birthright Unplugged and Anarchists Against the Wall, alongside individuals such as Anna Baltzer, author of the memoir Witness in Palestine, have gone from school to school offering personal testimony on the daily horrors unfolding in Palestine.
The bonds of solidarity being forged between young Jews and Muslims opposing the occupation—the core group on many campuses consists of secular Jewish radicals and observant Muslim women—give reason for hope that a just and lasting peace may yet be achieved. After speaking on the Gaza massacre at a Canadian university, the sponsors presented me with a button reading “I ♥ GAZA.” I pinned the button to my backpack and headed for the airport. As I stood on the queue to board the plane, a passenger behind me whispered in my ear “I like your button.” Hmm, I thought, the times they are a-changing. A couple of hours later I asked the airline attendant for a cup of water. Handing me the cup he leaned over and whispered “I like your button.” Hmm, I thought, there’s something happening here.
Last Updated on Thursday, 04 March 2010 03:01
Blogger comment:
The old trick of anti-semitism: if you attack Israel even for good reason you are an anti-semite. This would not stand now for both Jews and Gentiles.
Public outrage at the Gaza invasion did not come out of the blue but rather marked the nadir of a curve plotting a steady decline in support for Israel. As polling data of Americans and Europeans, both Gentiles and Jews, suggest, the public has become increasingly critical of Israeli policy over the past decade. The horrific images of death and destruction broadcast around the world during and after the invasion accelerated this development. “The increased and brutal frequency of war in this volatile region has shifted international opinion,” the British Financial Times editorialized one year later, “reminding Israel it is not above the law. Israel can no longer dictate the terms of debate.”
One poll registering the fallout from the Gaza attack in the United States found that American voters calling themselves supporters of Israel plummeted from 69 per cent before the attack to 49 per cent in June 2009, while voters believing that the U.S. should support Israel dropped from 69 per cent to 44 per cent. Consumed by hate, emboldened by self-righteousness, and confident that it could control or intimidate public opinion, Israel carried on in Gaza as if it could get away with mass murder in broad daylight. But while official Western support for Israel held firm, the carnage set off an unprecedented wave of popular outrage throughout the world. Whether it was because the assault came on the heels of the devastation Israel wrought in Lebanon, or because of Israel’s relentless persecution of the people of Gaza, or because of the sheer cowardice of the assault, the Gaza invasion appeared to mark a turning point in public opinion reminiscent of the international reaction to the 1960 Sharpeville massacre in apartheid South Africa.
In the Jewish diaspora official communal organizations with longstanding ties to Israel predictably lent blind support. But, at the same time, newly minted progressive Jewish organizations distanced themselves to a lesser or greater degree. Whereas in the past mainstream Jews actively supported Israeli wars, most registered ambivalence during the invasion, apart from a contracting older minority that came out swinging in Israel’s defense, and an expanding younger minority that scathingly denounced it. Between the increasing estrangement of younger Jews from Israeli bellicosity and the increasing qualms of Jews generally about supporting it, the Gaza massacre signaled the break-up of hitherto blanket Jewish support for Israeli wars. In addition, whereas the antiwar demonstrations in most Western countries were ethnically heterogeneous (including significant numbers of Jews), the “pro”-Israeli demonstrations were composed almost exclusively of Jews. The fact that active opposition to Israeli policy, say, on college campuses, has spread beyond the Arab-Muslim core towards the mainstream, whereas active support for Israel has shrunk to a fraction of the ethnic Jewish core, is a telling indicator of where things are headed. The era of the “beautiful” Israel has passed, it seems irrevocably, and the disfigured Israel that in recent years has replaced it in the public consciousness is a growing embarrassment. It is not so much that Israel’s behavior is worse than it was before, but rather that the record of that behavior has, finally, caught up with it.
The truth can no longer be denied or dismissed. The documentation of the Arab-Israeli conflict set out by respected historians fundamentally conflicts with the version popularized in the likes of Leon Uris’s Exodus. The evidence of Israeli human rights violations compiled by respected mainstream organizations cannot be reconciled with its vaunted commitment to “purity of arms.” The deliberations of respected judicial and political bodies cast severe doubt on Israel’s avowed commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. For a long while Israel’s “supporters” deflected the impact of this accumulating documentary record by wielding the twin swords of The Holocaust and the “new anti-Semitism.”
It was proposed that Jews could not be held to conventional moral/legal standards after the unique suffering they endured during World War II, and that criticism of Israeli policy was motivated by an ever-resurgent hatred of Jews. However, apart from the inevitable dulling that comes of overuse, these weapons proved much less efficacious once criticism of Israel broke into the mainstream of public opinion. Unable to deflect criticism of Israel, apologists now conjure bizarre theories to account for its ostracism. Reaganomics guru George Gilder posits that a free-market system singularly unleashes human potential, and that under such a system Jews are and must be “represented disproportionately in the highest ranks” because they are the most gifted.
Inversely, if Jews do not rule the roost, it must be because a less-than-ideal economic system holds sway. Anti-Semitism springs from resentment of “Jewish superiority and excellence” and “the manifest supremacy of Jews over all other ethnic groups,” while the hatred of Israel springs from the fact that it has evolved (under the inspired tutelage of Benjamin Netanyahu) into the perfect free-market system that “concentrates the genius of the Jews,” making it “one of the world’s leading capitalist powers” and the envy of the world: “Israel is hated above all for its virtues.”
If Jews figure prominently among critics of Israel, it is because they “excel so readily in all intellectual fields that they outperform all rivals in the arena of anti-Semitism.” The West in turn must preserve and protect Israelis from the “world of zero-sum chimeras and fantasies of jihadist revenge and death” and the “barbarian masses” because Jewish endowments have enabled humanity to “thrive and prosper”: Jews are “crucial to the human race.”
Indeed, “if Israel is destroyed, capitalist Europe will likely die as well, and America, as the epitome of productive and creative capitalism spurred by Jews, will be in jeopardy”; “Israel is at the forefront of the next generation of technology and on the front lines of a new racial war against capitalism and Jewish individuality and genius”; “Just as free economies are necessary for the survival of the human population of the planet, the survival of the Jews is vital to the triumph of free economies. If Israel is quelled or destroyed, we will be succumbing to forces targeting capitalism and freedom everywhere.”
Across the Atlantic, Robin Shepherd, director of international affairs at the London-based Henry Jackson Society, asserts that Israel has come under strong criticism in the West not because of its human rights record but because it is a democratic, capitalist state fighting on the front lines alongside the U.S. against the “civilizational” threat posed by radical Islam: “Israel had become an enemy not because of anything it had done” but “because it was on the wrong side of the barricades.” The “primary energizing platform in the West” for this “tidal wave of hysteria, deception and distortion against the Jewish state” consists of totalitarian Marxists and left-liberal fellow travelers who, disappointed by the Western proletariat and Third World liberation struggles, have made common cause with “militant Islam” to destroy the liberal-capitalist world order. Although these critics of Israel are not anti-Semitic in the traditional “subjective” sense of despising Jews per se, they are guilty of “objective” anti-Semitism because Israel is so central to Jewish identity in the contemporary world.
But opposition to Israel supposedly also emanates from ancien régimebluebloods who want to restore the old-world hierarchies before arriviste Jews disrupted them. This far-flung “neo-anti-Semitic” conspiracy embraces “most” of those who accuse Israel of committing war crimes and otherwise violating international law. Thus, it is to be understood that behind the condemnation of Israel by Amnesty International and the International Court of Justice, Nobel peace laureates Jimmy Carter and Mairead Corrigan Maguire, theFinancial Times and the BBC, lurks the evil hand of the radical leftist-fanatic Islamic-landed aristocratic nexus. For those who want to learn more, Shepherd “highly” recommends Alan M. Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel.
Although such explanations for Israel’s isolation lack credibility, it cannot be doubted that Israel’s stock has fallen precipitously. Whereas Israel won many adherents in the West after its lightning victory in June 1967, in recent years it has been reduced almost to the status of a pariah state, especially in Europe. A 2003 poll of the European Union named Israel the biggest threat to world peace. A 2008 survey of global opinion named Israel the biggest obstacle to achieving peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict. In a BBC World Service poll taken on the eve of the Gaza invasion, fully 19 of the 21 countries surveyed held a predominantly negative view of Israel.
Meanwhile, under the title “Second Thoughts about the Promised Land,” theEconomist reported in 2007 that although “most diaspora Jews still support Israel strongly. . . their ambivalence has grown.” Dissenting Jewish voices have begun to coalesce in Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere, challenging the hegemony of official Jewish organizations that parrot Israeli propaganda. In the United States the overall picture and trends are perhaps not as pronounced but are no less noteworthy. Judging by poll data it can broadly be said that Americans have consistently viewed Israel favorably and have sympathized much more with Israel than with the Palestinians. But Americans also overwhelmingly support an evenhanded U.S. approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and most recently have expressed “equal levels of sympathy” for both sides, while a substantial minority believe that U.S. policy tilts (or tilts too much) in favor of Israel; a robust majority of Americans “think Israel is not doing its part well in making efforts to resolve the conflict”; and Americans have occasionally supported the use of sanctions to rein in Israel.
Significantly, a majority of Americans have also supported a two-state settlement on the June 1967 borders, meaning full Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied in the June war. “Yes, the polls show strong support for Israel,” M. J. Rosenberg, director of policy analysis for the Israel Policy Forum observed in 2007 apropos of recent trends; however, “that support for Israel, such as there is, is broad but it is not very deep.” This phenomenon can be seen almost every day in “Letters to the Editors” columns. Every time an op-ed about Israel appears, especially if it is critical, there are a slew of letters to the editor. Most support the Israeli position. And almost without exception, they are written by Jews. That vast majority [of non-Jewish Americans] out there which supposedly is so supportive of Israel virtually never chimes in. According to a 2007 poll by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) the favorable opinion of Americans towards Israel is markedly less than their favorable opinion toward Great Britain and Japan, while roughly equal to their favorable opinion of India and Mexico. Nearly half of the respondents believe that the U.S. should work with “moderate” Arab states “even at the expense of Israel.”
Half or more of Americans polled held Israel and Hezbollah equally to blame for the summer 2006 Lebanon War and supported a (more) neutral U.S. stance. In addition, in recent years, influential religious constituencies such as the Presbyterian Church USA, the World Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church have all supported initiatives, including corporate divestment, to force an end to Israel’s occupation. A 2005 survey by Jewish pollster Steven M. Cohen found that “the attachment of American Jews to Israel has weakened measurably in the last two years . . . , continuing a long-term trend.” Respondents were less likely than in comparable earlier surveys to say they care about Israel, talk about Israel with others or engage in a range of pro-Israel activities.
Strikingly, there was no parallel decline in other measures of Jewish identification, including religious observance and communal affiliation. The survey found 26 per cent who said they were “very” emotionally attached to Israel, compared with 31 per cent who said so in a similar survey conducted in 2002. Some two-thirds, 65 per cent, said they follow the news about Israel closely, down from 74 per cent in 2002, while 39 per cent said they talk about Israel frequently with Jewish friends, down from 53 per cent in 2002. Israel also declined as a component in the respondents’ personal Jewish identity. When offered a selection of factors, including religion, community and social justice, as well as “caring about Israel,” and asked, “For you personally, how much does being Jewish involve each?,” 48 per cent said Israel matters “a lot,” compared with 58 per cent in 2002. Just 57 per cent affirmed that “caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish,” compared with 73 per cent in a similar survey in 1989. A 2007 American Jewish Committee poll found that 30 per cent of Jews felt “fairly distant” or “very distant” from Israel. “In the long run,” Cohen predicts “a polarization in American Jewry: a small group growing more pious and attached to Israel, while a larger one drifts away.”
A 2006 poll found that, among American Jews under 40, fully one-third felt “fairly distant” or “very distant” from Israel, while a 2007 poll found that among Jews under 35 fully 40 per cent registered a “low attachment” to Israel (only 20 per cent registered a “high attachment”). Astonishingly, less than half responded affirmatively that “Israel’s destruction would be a personal tragedy.” The former chairman of the Jewish Agency recently sounded the alarm that “less than 24 per cent of young Jews in North America belong to Jewish organizations. Less than 50 per cent of North American Jews under the age of 35 feel a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people. Less than 25 per cent of North American Jews under age 35 define themselves as Zionists.”
On the nation’s campuses support for Israel is confined not only to Jewish students but also mostly to the Zionist faithful gathered in the Hillels. “Jewish college students are clearly less attached to Israel than in previous generations,” a study commissioned by Jewish advocacy organizations reports. “Israel is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of this cohort.” Indeed, of the nearly half million Jewish students attending institutions of higher education, “only about five per cent have any connection to the Jewish community.”
Ambivalence towards Israel verging on disaffection can also be discerned among influential sectors of American society, ever the bellwethers of U.S. intellectual life, and the reading public. A recent poll found that a majority of opinion leaders in the U.S. view support for Israel as a “major reason for discontent with the U.S.” around the world.31 In a 2003 New York Review of Books essay, the Jewish historian Tony Judt asserted that “Israel today is bad for the Jews” and he doubted both the viability and desirability of a Jewish state. John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of the Harvard Kennedy School coauthored an influential paper in 2006 debunking the idealized image of Israel’s history and asserting that Israel has become a “strategic liability” for the United States. A book by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, provocatively titled Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, deplored Israeli policy in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and put the blame for the impasse in the peace process squarely on Israel.
Although the Israel lobby launched vitriolic counterattacks to these interventions, its usual smears alleging anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial did not stick. When in 2006 the lobby’s pressures led to cancellation of one of Tony Judt’s speaking engagements, he became an instant cause célèbre in American intellectual circles. His critics, such as Abraham H. Foxman of the ADL, were derided for “slinging the dread charge of anti-Semitism” and for being an “anachronism.” Carter, meanwhile, was said to be a plagiarist, in the pay of Arab sheikhs, an anti-Semite, an apologist for terrorism, a Nazi sympathizer, and a borderline Holocaust denier.
Yet Carter’s book landed on the New York Times bestseller list and remained there for months, selling an estimated 300,000 copies in hardback. Although snubbed by Brandeis University’s president, Carter still received standing ovations from the student body when he came to speak at the historically Jewish institution. (Half the audience walked out when Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz rose to answer Carter.Mearsheimer and Walt negotiated a book deal with the publishing house Farrar, Straus and Giroux, and their book,The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, also went on to become a Timesbestseller.
It is further testament to Israel’s waning fortunes that, during Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s term of office, even Foxman and perennial Israel supporter Elie Wiesel took to publicly rebuking Israel for its failure to pursue peace.The simmering public discontent with Israeli policy in recent years reached a boiling point of indignation during the Gaza invasion. Despite Israel’s carefully orchestrated propaganda blitz; despite the overwhelmingly “pro”-Israel bias of mainstream media coverage, especially during the first few days of the attack; and despite official support in the West for the assault—despite all this, large popular protests throughout Western Europe (Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Great Britain) dwarfed in size demonstrations supporting Israel.
A wave of student occupations swept across Great Britain including Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Birmingham, London School of Economics, School of Oriental and Asian Studies, Warwick, King’s, Sussex, and Cardiff. Even in traditional bastions of support for Israel such as Canada, where the “pro”-Israel bias of the extreme right-wing political establishment and media is unusually intense, a plurality of public opinion disapproved of the assault and the Canadian Union of Public Employees passed a motion calling for an academic boycott of Israel.
Declaring after the ceasefire that “the events in Gaza have shocked us to the core,” a 16-strong group of the world’s most experienced investigators and judges—including Antonio Cassese (First President and Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Head of the U.N. Inquiry on Darfur) and Richard Goldstone (Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda and Chairman of the U.N. Inquiry on Kosovo)—called for an “international investigation of gross violations of the laws of war, committed by all parties to the Gaza conflict.”
Unsurprisingly, Israel’s apologists attributed the widespread outrage at the Gaza invasion to anti-Semitism. It might be posited as a general rule that the lower the depths to which Israel’s criminal conduct sinks the higher the decibel level of the shrieks of anti-Semitism. Jews are confronting “an epidemic, a pandemic of anti-Semitism,” Abraham H. Foxman declared. “This is the worst, the most intense, the most global it’s been in most of our recent memories.” Such fear-mongering was nothing new from Foxman, who had portended back in 2003 that anti-Semitism was posing “as great a threat to the safety and security of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s.”
Just as in the past, poll data used to substantiate these exaggerations tallied “indicators” of “the most pernicious notions of anti-Semitism,” such as the finding that “large portions of the European public continue to believe that Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust.” According to Parisian media “philosopher” Bernard-Henri Lévy, anyone doubting that the Nazi holocaust was a “moral watershed in human history” should be reckoned an anti-Semite. Few of the alleged anti-Semitic incidents in Europe went beyond merely unpleasant manifestations, such as emails and graffiti, while European anti-Semitism, notwithstanding the hype, paled beside anti-Muslim bias. (A rise in animus towards Jews and Muslims—in recent years the two curves tend to correlate—appears partly due to a resurgence of ethnocentrism among older, less educated, and politically conservative Europeans.)
Nonetheless it is most probably true that the execution by a self-proclaimed Jewish state of consecutive murderous rampages in Lebanon and Gaza, and the vocal support lent these rampages by official Jewish organizations around the world, caused a regrettable—if entirely predictable— “spillover” whereby Jews generally were in some quarters held culpable. If, as the Israeli Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism asserted, there was “a sharp rise in the number and intensity of anti-Semitic incidents” during the Gaza massacre; and if “with the ceasefire there has . . . been a marked decline in the number and intensity of anti-Semitic incidents”; and if “another flare-up in the region, similar to the Gaza operation, will probably lead to an even more severe outbreak of anti-Semitic activity against communities worldwide,” then an efficacious method to fight anti-Semitism would appear to be for Israel to stop committing massacres.
It is also true that the growing gap between official support of Israeli war mongering and popular revulsion against it might feed anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. In Germany for example the political establishment and mainstream media do not brook any criticism of Israel because of the “special relationship” growing out of Germany’s “historic responsibility.” Chancellor Angela Merkel surpassed other European leaders in her embrace of Israel during the Gaza invasion. Yet recent polls have shown that 60 per cent of Germans reject the notion of a special German obligation to Israel (70 per cent of young people reject it), 50 per cent believe that Israel is an aggressive country, and 60 per cent believe that it pursues its interests ruthlessly.
More generally, Gideon Levy recalled “the surreal scene at the height of the brutal assault on Gaza when the heads of the European Union came to Israel and dined with the prime minister in a show of unilateral support for the side wreaking the killing and destruction.” And although it was Israel that broke the ceasefire and launched the invasion European leaders parleyed with the U.S. (and Canada) on how to thwart rearmament not of the perpetrators but of the victims. It is only a matter of time before Europeans begin to wonder—if they haven’t already—at whose behest their foreign policy is being made. The ascription of popular Gentile outrage over the Gaza massacre to anti-Semitism appeared all the more preposterous in the face of widespread and vocal Jewish dissent. Whereas established communal Jewish organizations issued statements supporting Israel, ad hoc Jewish organizations and petitions deploring the invasion proliferated.
Most significantly, Jews prominent in communal Jewish life criticized Israel, albeit generally in muted language. As Israel stood poised to launch the ground offensive after a week of aerial attacks, a group of Britain’s most distinguished Jews, describing themselves as “profound and passionate supporters” of Israel, expressed “horror” at the “increasing loss of life on both sides” and called on Israel to cease its military operations in Gaza immediately. On a more acerbic note, British MP and former shadow foreign minister Gerald Kaufman declared during a House of Commons debate on Gaza, “My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed. My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.” He went on to indict the Israeli government for having “ruthlessly and cynically exploit[ed] the continuing guilt among Gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians.”
Meanwhile in France the popular Jewish writer Jean-Moïse Braitberg called on the Israeli president to remove his grandfather’s name from the memorial at Yad Vashem dedicated to victims of the Nazi holocaust “so that it can no longer be used to justify the horror which is visited on the Palestinians.” In Germany Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, daughter of a former president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, wrote, “Not the elected Hamas government, but the brutal occupier . . . belongs in the dock at the Hague,” while the German section of European Jews for a Just Peace issued a statement headlined “German Jews Say NO to Israeli Army Killings.”In Canada eight Jewish women occupying the Israeli consulate called on “all Jews to speak out against this massacre,” and celebrated Canadian pianist Anton Kuerti declared, “The unbelievable war crimes that Israel is committing in Gaza . . .make me ashamed to be a Jew.”In Australia two award-winning novelists and a former federal cabinet minister signed a statement by Jews condemning Israel’s “grossly disproportionate assault.
The Bush administration and the U.S. Congress lent unqualified support to Israel during the invasion. A resolution laying full culpability on Hamas for the resulting death and destruction passed unanimously in the Senate and 390 to 5 in the House. Much of the mainstream media in the U.S. likewise shamelessly toed the Israeli party line. “By New Year’s Day, Israel’s cheering squad had turned the opinion pages of major American newspapers into their own personal romper room,” the journalist Max Blumenthal observed. “Of all the editorial contributions published by the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times since the Israeli war on Gaza began, . . . only one offered a skeptical view of the assault.”
The New York Times’s conception of op-ed balance was achieved by juxtaposing Jeffrey Goldberg’s reverie on the unregenerate evil of Hamas with Thomas Friedman’s counsel to Israel that it inflict “heavy pain on the Gaza population.” Its hometown rival the New York Daily News ran an op-ed by Rabbi Marvin Hier that urged world leaders “not . . . to rebuild Gaza again” even though “many civilians will suffer” because “terrorists and those who support them are not entitled to receive VIP booty for their inhumanity, misdeeds and silence.” Hier is the founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance. In the midst of this lynch-mob atmosphere even human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch reserved their strongest condemnations for Hamas.
These venomous elite outpourings notwithstanding, public opinion polls showed that, although harshly critical of Hamas, only about 40 per cent of Americans approved of the Israeli attack, while among those voting Democratic (the party affiliation of most Jews) approval dropped to 30 per cent . In a dramatic display of independence reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s authorship of Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, liberal icon Bill Moyers rebuked Israel on his popular public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, albeit in a context that also took Hamas to task: “By killing indiscriminately the elderly, kids, entire families, by destroying schools and hospitals, Israel did exactly what terrorists do.”
Like Carter, Moyers immediately came under fire from Abraham H. Foxman, who accused him of “racism, historical revisionism and indifference to terrorism,” and Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz who decried Moyers’s “false moral equivalence” between Hamas terrorism and the Israeli army that “inadvertently kill[s] some Palestinian civilians who are used as human shields by Hamas.” But again like Carter, Moyers managed to stand his ground and, as fellow liberals rose to his defense, to emerge unscathed after the fusillade of slanders.
As the Gaza invasion unfolded, and the shocking images of the carnage transmitted live by Al-Jazeera could no longer be ignored, cracks started appearing in the moderate mainstream. Under the ominous title “Time Running Out for a Two- State Solution?” the most-watched U.S. news broadcast 60 Minutes aired a devastating segment on Jewish settlers in the West Bank, which included a harrowing scene of “Arabs [who] are occupied inside their own homes” by Israeli soldiers. The right-wing editorial page of the Wall Street Journal ran a piece by law professor George E. Bisharat under the headline “Israel Is Committing War Crimes.” The normally staid New York Timescolumnist Roger Cohen confessed in a pair of columns to being “shamed by Israeli actions.” In the second piece Cohen speculated that “Israel’s continued expansion of settlements, Gaza blockade, West Bank walling-in and wanton recourse to high-tech force” was “designed precisely to bludgeon, undermine and humiliate the Palestinian people until their dreams of statehood and dignity evaporate.”
Former editor of the New Republic and conservative writer Andrew Sullivan judged that the Israeli attack was “far from a close call morally. . . . This is an extremely one-sided war,” and he labeled “thugs” the rightwing Jewish apologists for “the terrible human carnage now being inflicted by Israel (and paid for in part by Americans).” Philip Slater, author of the sociological studyThe Pursuit of Loneliness, declared, “The Gaza Strip is little more than a large Israeli concentration camp, in which Palestinians are attacked at will, starved of food, fuel, energy—even deprived of hospital supplies. . . . It would be difficult to have any respect for them if they didn’t fire a few rockets back.”
Meanwhile the City Council of Cambridge, Massachusetts, a liberal enclave and home to Harvard University, adopted a resolution “condemning the attacks [on] and invasion of Gaza by the Israeli military and the rocket attacks upon the people of Israel,” and a group of American university professors launched a national campaign calling for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. A poll of American Jews found that 47 per cent strongly approved of the Israeli assault, but—in a sharp break with the usual wall-to-wall solidarity—53 per cent were either ambivalent (44 per cent “somewhat” approved or “somewhat” disapproved) or strongly disapproved (9 per cent ).
Experienced observers of the American Jewish community pointed to a “post-Gaza sea change.” Apart from “the more conservative segment of the pro-Israel community,” M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum noted, “there was little show of support for this war. In New York, a city where crowds of 250,000 have come out for ‘solidarity’ rallies in the past, only 8,000 came to Manhattan for a community demonstration on a sunny Sunday.” In a public clash with the traditional Jewish leadership, mainstream if less-established Jewish organizations such as J Street staked out a middle ground that “recognize[d] that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong,” and called for “shedding a narrow us-versus-them approach to the Middle East.”
Founded in 2008, J Street projects itself as a liberal counterweight to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It is too soon to predict whether J Street—which currently hews to a vaguely progressive political agenda, although it also defines itself as “closest” to Kadima, the Israeli political party headed by Tzipi Livni— will calcify into a “loyal opposition” or escalate its criticism of Israeli policy as the gulf dividing American Jewry from Israel widens.
Meanwhile “American Jews for a Just Peace” circulated a petition calling on “Israeli Soldiers to Stop War Crimes,” “Jews Say No” demonstrated outside the World Zionist Organization and Jewish Agency offices, and “Jews against the Occupation” dropped a banner over New York City’s West Side Highway declaring “Jews Say: End Israel’s War on Gaza NOW!” In the liberal Jewish intellectual milieu only perennial apologists for Israel, most of whom came on board right after the June 1967 war and are now in their 70s, ventured a full-throated defense of the invasion.
It was obvious to moral philosopher Michael Walzer that Israel had exhausted nonviolent options before it attacked and that Hamas bore responsibility for the ensuing civilian deaths. To Walzer the only “hard question” was whether Israel did all it possibly could to reduce these casualties.
It was obvious to Alan M. Dershowitz that Israel made “its best efforts to avoid killing civilians” and that it failed because Hamas pursued a “dead baby” strategy of forcing Israel to kill Palestinian children in order to garner international sympathy.
It was obvious to New Republic editor Martin Peretz from his scrutiny of the Palestinians’ footwear that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was benign: “You have to look closely at the sneakers, seemingly new and, of course, costly.”It was obvious to writer Paul Berman that if a “possibility” exists that Hamas might threaten Israel someday in the future with genocide “if Hamas were allowed to prosper unimpeded, and if its allies and fellow-thinkers in Hezbollah and the Iranian government and its nuclear program likewise prospered,” then Israel would have the right to launch an attack now.
On such an accumulation of hypotheticals stacked on conditionals, it is hard to conceive what country in the world would be safe from arbitrary attack, and what country would not be justified in arbitrarily launching an attack. If, apart from this coterie of Israel defenders, Jewish liberals recognized that the Israeli onslaught was morally problematic, they could not yet abide their dirty laundry being aired in front of the goyim. Magazines and journals of opinion pitched to the upscale and urbane Jewish public such as the New Yorker and the New York Review of Books accordingly sat out the Gaza massacre.
However, one influential contingent of liberal Jewish public intellectuals did not stay silent: the new generation of liberal Jewish bloggers and regular contributors to liberal-Democratic web sites such as Salon.com and theHuffington Post. Less in thrall to establishment Jewish editors, advertisers, funders, and social networks, speaking as and for a generation that came of age when to a large degree Zionist mythology had been dispelled and displaced by sober historical research. The Israeli political establishment had grown squalid and reactionary. Israel’s human rights record had been subjected to piercing scrutiny by the human rights community.
Holocaust-induced paranoia and anti-Semitism-mongering palpably collided with the quotidian reality of triumphant Jewish assimilation everywhere from the Ivy League to Wall Street, from Hollywood to Washington, and from the country club to the marriage altar. Professionally, mentally, and emotionally emancipated from the shackles of the past, these Jewish habitués of the Internet went on the offensive denouncing the Gaza invasion from its inception.
The symbolism could scarcely be missed. Whereas diehard apologists for Israel such as Walzer, Dershowitz, and Peretz clambered aboard the Zionist ship while in their youth, the generation of youthful Jewish public intellectuals now making their names on the Internet has been jumping off it.“I pity them their hatred of their inheritance,” Peretz hissed. “They are pip-squeaks.”Here are the pip-squeaks in their own words. Ezra Klein (age 25; blogger forAmerican Prospect) posted on Day 2 of the invasion, “The rocket attacks were undoubtedly ‘deeply disturbing’ to Israelis. But so too are the checkpoints, the road closures, the restricted movement, the terrible joblessness, the unflinching oppression, the daily humiliations, the illegal settlement— I’m sorry, ‘outpost’—construction ‘deeply disturbing’ to the Palestinians, and far more injurious. And the 300 dead Palestinians should be disturbing to us all.”
Adam Horowitz (age 35; blogger for Mondoweiss) posted on Day 4 in response to Benny Morris’s op-ed in the New York Times, “It is clear he can only see the reactions, but not the cause. He lists the responses to Israel and to Israel’s ongoing Jewish colonization of historic Palestine, without mentioning the elephant in the room, that the walls closing in on Israel are all self-made.” Matthew Yglesias (age 28; blogger for Think Progress) posted on Day 6, “While Israel has stated a desire to leave the Gaza Palestinians alone in their tiny, overcrowded, economically unviable enclave, the [2005] ‘disengagement’ from Gaza has never entailed letting Palestinians control their borders or exercise meaningful sovereignty over the area. The proposal has basically been that if Palestinians cease violence against Israel, then the Gaza Strip will be treated like an Indian reservation.”
Dana Goldstein (age 24; blogger for American Prospect) posted on Day 12, “I want to believe that the collective, historical experience of Jewishness and Zionism leads to something better—something more humane—than what we’ve witnessed in the Middle East this past week.” Glenn Greenwald (age 42; blogger for Salon.com) posted on Day 13, “This is not so much of a war as it is a completely one-sided massacre,” and on 30 January 2009, “It’s just not possible to make real progress in the domestic aims of restoring the Constitution and reversing our military and intelligence expansions if we are simultaneously enabling and blindly supporting Israel’s various wars (and therefore dragging ourselves into those wars).”
On 20 February 2009 Greenwald responded to an insinuation by Jeffrey Goldberg that he was a Jew-hating Israelbasher, “People like Jeffrey Goldberg . . . have so abused, overused, manipulated and exploited the ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘anti-Israel’ accusations for improper and nakedly political ends that those terms have become drained of their meaning, have almost entirely lost their sting, and have become trivialized virtually to the point of caricature. . . . Indeed, people like Goldberg are becoming extra rancid and reckless in their rhetoric precisely because they know that these rhetorical devices have ceased working.” “There is a definite sea change when it comes to American policy debates toward Israel,” Greenwald concluded. “They no longer possess the ability to stifle dissent through thuggish intimidation tactics and they know that, which is why they can now do nothing but turn up the volume on their name-calling attacks. The Israeli devastation of Gaza and its trapped, defenseless civilian population—using American bombs, arms, money and diplomatic cover—was so brutal and horrific to watch that it inevitably changed the way people view that Middle East conflict.”
Soon after the Gaza invasion ended, the phalanx of liberal Jewish bloggers again went tit-for-tat with the Israel lobby when the lobby sought to block the Obama administration’s appointment of Chas Freeman, an official critical of Israeli policy. Another very hefty straw in the wind was a sketch titled “Strip Maul” that aired on the Comedy Channel’s Daily Show on 5 January 2009. The host of the program, comedian Jon Stewart, is Jewish and has a huge following among young people. To roars of approval from the studio audience, he ridiculed the numbingly unanimous and cliché-ridden support for Israel among politicians (“It’s the Möbius strip of issues—there’s only one side!”); adverted to “the soul-crushing segmentation and blockading of Gaza”; and likened a Palestinian’s plight to forcing someone “to live in my hallway and make him go through checkpoints every time he has to take a s**t.”
The generational metamorphosis regarding Israel was most evident on college campuses. “A shift toward more visible pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel sentiment has been profound on some campuses,” Inside Higher Ed reported, “prompted, in part, by the winter war in Gaza.” Large halls filled to overflow for lectures deploring the Gaza massacre. Whereas “pro”- Israel groups used to protest inside or outside such lectures, they were now barely seen.
Students at Cornell University lined pathways with 1,300 black flags commemorating the dead in Gaza. (The display was later vandalized.)
Students at University of Rochester, University of Massachusetts, New York University, Columbia University, Haverford College, Bryn Mawr College, and Hampshire College held petition drives, protests, and sit-ins demanding financial support for Palestinian students and divestment from arms companies and companies doing business with the illegal Jewish settlements. Hampshire College students successfully pressured the college’s trustees to divest from American corporations that directly profit from the occupation.
Although “pro”-Israel organizations alleged that “college and university campuses . . . have become hotbeds of a virulent new strain of anti-Semitism,” at many campuses Jewish students have played a leading role on the local “Students for Justice in Palestine” committees, and creative and dedicated young Jewish activists in Birthright Unplugged and Anarchists Against the Wall, alongside individuals such as Anna Baltzer, author of the memoir Witness in Palestine, have gone from school to school offering personal testimony on the daily horrors unfolding in Palestine.
The bonds of solidarity being forged between young Jews and Muslims opposing the occupation—the core group on many campuses consists of secular Jewish radicals and observant Muslim women—give reason for hope that a just and lasting peace may yet be achieved. After speaking on the Gaza massacre at a Canadian university, the sponsors presented me with a button reading “I ♥ GAZA.” I pinned the button to my backpack and headed for the airport. As I stood on the queue to board the plane, a passenger behind me whispered in my ear “I like your button.” Hmm, I thought, the times they are a-changing. A couple of hours later I asked the airline attendant for a cup of water. Handing me the cup he leaned over and whispered “I like your button.” Hmm, I thought, there’s something happening here.
Last Updated on Thursday, 04 March 2010 03:01
Blogger comment:
The old trick of anti-semitism: if you attack Israel even for good reason you are an anti-semite. This would not stand now for both Jews and Gentiles.
U.S. Can't Afford Military Aid to Israel
From: www.islamicity.com
By: Josh Ruebner
Huffington Post* -
In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama pledged to "go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work." One week later, he sent his FY2011 budget request to Congress, which included a record-breaking $3 billion in military aid to Israel.
This requested increase in U.S. weapons to Israel -- part of a ten-year $30 billion agreement signed between the two countries in 2007 -- qualifies on both counts as a program that the United States can't afford and that doesn't work in establishing a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Data published recently by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation shows that U.S. military aid to Israel comes at a financial and moral price that this country cannot afford to pay. Its website reveals that this same $3 billion earmark for Israel could be used instead to provide more than 364,000 low-income households with affordable housing vouchers, or to retrain 498,000 workers for green jobs, or to provide early reading programs to 887,000 at-risk students, or to provide access to primary health care services for more than 24 million uninsured Americans.
If U.S. weapons were going to Israel for a good purpose, then perhaps a coherent guns versus butter debate would be appropriate. However, Israel repeatedly misuses U.S. weapons to commit grave human rights abuses against Palestinians who are forced to live under its illegal 42-year military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip.
During the Bush Administration, Israel killed at least 3,107 innocent Palestinian civilians, according to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem. Israel also injured thousands more innocent Palestinians and destroyed billions of dollars of Palestinian civilian infrastructure including homes, schools, factories, government buildings, and even Palestine's only airport. The severity and scale of this killing and destruction were made possible by hi-tech U.S. weapons provided to Israel at taxpayer expense.
And during Obama's first year in office, Israel continued to misuse its stock of U.S. weapons to entrench its apartheid policies toward Palestinians by maintaining its illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip -- collectively punishing its 1.5 million Palestinian residents by severely restricting the flow of humanitarian relief -- and building illegal Israeli-only colonies on stolen Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
It was exactly to prevent this kind of misuse of U.S. weapons that Congress passed the Arms Export Control Act, which strictly limits foreign countries from employing U.S. weapons for any purpose other than "internal security" or "legitimate self-defense." Building apartheid walls and colonies to maintain a foreign military occupation, enforcing a medieval blockade, and killing and injuring innocent civilians by the thousands certainly cannot be considered legitimate and is self-evidently not for domestic security.
Yet despite this clear misuse of U.S. weapons by Israel -- most evident recently during its December 2008-January 2009 attack on the Gaza Strip which killed more than 1,300 Palestinians in just three weeks -- both Congress and the Obama Administration have failed miserably to hold Israel accountable for its violations of the Arms Export Control Act and cut off weapons flows to it as required by the law.
A few lonely voices on Capitol Hill -- such as Rep. Brian Baird, Rep. Keith Ellison, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich -- have spoken up bravely and truthfully about the consequences of U.S. weapons transferred to Israel, which a 2009 Amnesty International report cited as literally "fuelling" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Unfortunately, President Obama has paid no heed to these Members of Congress. When questioned at a recent town hall meeting in Tampa about the impact of U.S. military aid to Israel on Palestinian civilians, the normally articulate Obama appeared visibly flummoxed before sputtering, "Look, look, look, the Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." He then proceeded to duck the question with platitudes about peace.
The President's non-response to the question demonstrates that politicians prefer to turn a blind eye to the obvious incompatibility of trying to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace while giving Israel the weapons it needs to maintain its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.
Before Congress gets to work on the President's budget request and considers transferring an additional $3 billion in weapons to Israel, it is long past overdue for the United States to reconsider whether we can afford this policy any longer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37MFa7ZKQWo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo59c7zU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC6C-cAc240&feature=channel
By: Josh Ruebner
Huffington Post* -
In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama pledged to "go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work." One week later, he sent his FY2011 budget request to Congress, which included a record-breaking $3 billion in military aid to Israel.
This requested increase in U.S. weapons to Israel -- part of a ten-year $30 billion agreement signed between the two countries in 2007 -- qualifies on both counts as a program that the United States can't afford and that doesn't work in establishing a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Data published recently by the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation shows that U.S. military aid to Israel comes at a financial and moral price that this country cannot afford to pay. Its website reveals that this same $3 billion earmark for Israel could be used instead to provide more than 364,000 low-income households with affordable housing vouchers, or to retrain 498,000 workers for green jobs, or to provide early reading programs to 887,000 at-risk students, or to provide access to primary health care services for more than 24 million uninsured Americans.
If U.S. weapons were going to Israel for a good purpose, then perhaps a coherent guns versus butter debate would be appropriate. However, Israel repeatedly misuses U.S. weapons to commit grave human rights abuses against Palestinians who are forced to live under its illegal 42-year military occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip.
During the Bush Administration, Israel killed at least 3,107 innocent Palestinian civilians, according to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem. Israel also injured thousands more innocent Palestinians and destroyed billions of dollars of Palestinian civilian infrastructure including homes, schools, factories, government buildings, and even Palestine's only airport. The severity and scale of this killing and destruction were made possible by hi-tech U.S. weapons provided to Israel at taxpayer expense.
And during Obama's first year in office, Israel continued to misuse its stock of U.S. weapons to entrench its apartheid policies toward Palestinians by maintaining its illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip -- collectively punishing its 1.5 million Palestinian residents by severely restricting the flow of humanitarian relief -- and building illegal Israeli-only colonies on stolen Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
It was exactly to prevent this kind of misuse of U.S. weapons that Congress passed the Arms Export Control Act, which strictly limits foreign countries from employing U.S. weapons for any purpose other than "internal security" or "legitimate self-defense." Building apartheid walls and colonies to maintain a foreign military occupation, enforcing a medieval blockade, and killing and injuring innocent civilians by the thousands certainly cannot be considered legitimate and is self-evidently not for domestic security.
Yet despite this clear misuse of U.S. weapons by Israel -- most evident recently during its December 2008-January 2009 attack on the Gaza Strip which killed more than 1,300 Palestinians in just three weeks -- both Congress and the Obama Administration have failed miserably to hold Israel accountable for its violations of the Arms Export Control Act and cut off weapons flows to it as required by the law.
A few lonely voices on Capitol Hill -- such as Rep. Brian Baird, Rep. Keith Ellison, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich -- have spoken up bravely and truthfully about the consequences of U.S. weapons transferred to Israel, which a 2009 Amnesty International report cited as literally "fuelling" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Unfortunately, President Obama has paid no heed to these Members of Congress. When questioned at a recent town hall meeting in Tampa about the impact of U.S. military aid to Israel on Palestinian civilians, the normally articulate Obama appeared visibly flummoxed before sputtering, "Look, look, look, the Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." He then proceeded to duck the question with platitudes about peace.
The President's non-response to the question demonstrates that politicians prefer to turn a blind eye to the obvious incompatibility of trying to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace while giving Israel the weapons it needs to maintain its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands.
Before Congress gets to work on the President's budget request and considers transferring an additional $3 billion in weapons to Israel, it is long past overdue for the United States to reconsider whether we can afford this policy any longer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37MFa7ZKQWo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo59c7zU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC6C-cAc240&feature=channel
Description of the Prophet
From: www.quranscience.com
His Characteristics
Muhammad (PBUH)Acquaint ourselves with the prophet of Islam. You cannot, as the popular saying goes, separate the message from the messenger. It is therefore only natural to wish to study the life of Muhammad (pbuh), his manners and his morals, and to see how Islam manifested itself in his person as a living example for all Muslims till the end of time.
Abu Hurairah described him as follows:
"He was of medium build, closer to being tall. His skin was extremely white, his beard was black, his mouth was pleasant, his eyebrows were long, and his shoulders were wide"
Ibne Malik said:
"I never touched silk or any soft fabric equal to the softness of his palm, and I never smelled a scent more pleasing than his."
Hind ibn Abi Hala (the son of Muhammad's wife Kadijah) described Muhammad (pbuh) as follows:
"The Messenger of Allah was of consecutive sorrows, continuous thought, never finding rest, long in silence. He did not speak without cause. He spoke with his full mouth (was not arrogant), and spoke concisely. His speech was just, with neither excess nor deficiency. He was not pompous, nor denigrating. He exalted all blessings no matter how small and never belittled a single one. He would never praise his food nor criticize it. He was never angered by matters of this life nor that which was associated with it. However, if justice was transgressed nothing could stand up to his anger until justice was established. He never became angry for his own self nor sought retribution for himself. If he gestured, he did so with his whole palm. If he was amazed, he overturned it. If he spoke, he struck with his right palm the inside of his left thumb. If he became angry he turned away, and when he was happy he lowered his gaze. The majority of his laughter was [restricted to] smiling."
Ali ibn abi Talib described Muhammad (pbuh) as follows:
"He was not vulgar nor did he condone vulgarity, and he was not one to shout in the market place. He did not reward evil with evil, rather, he would forgive and overlook. He never in his life struck anything with his hand except when he was fighting in the name of Allah. He never struck a servant nor a woman, and I never saw him taking revenge for an injustice dealt him, except if the prohibitions of Allah were transgressed. For if the prohibitions of Allah were transgressed he was among the strongest of them in anger. He was never given a choice between two matters but he chose the simplest of the two. If he entered into his home he was a man like any other; cleaning his own garment, milking his own goat, and serving himself.
He would guard his tongue from that which did not concern him. He would attract them (the people) and not repel them. He would ennoble the noble of the people and charge them with their affairs. He was wary of the people and guarded himself against them but without depriving them a warm smile or fitting conduct. He would inquire after his companions and would ask the people about their affairs. He would encourage that which was good and strengthen it, and he would discourage that which was evil and undermine it. He was balanced and consistent. He would never be neglectful that they would not learn neglect and grow indifferent. He had a provision for every occasion and he never fell short of justice nor exceeded it. The closest people to him were the best among them, and the best among them in his eyes were the most comprehensive in advice. The highest of them in stature with him was the best among them in looking after the people and assisting them. He would not rise nor sit down without praise [to God]. If he visited a gathering he would sit wherever the group ended (and not at their head) and he encouraged the same. He would give all those sitting with him their just due [to the extent that] they would each feel that none was more important to him than them. If someone were to sit with him or come in search of a favor he would be patient with them until they (the guest) would be the one to leave. Whoever came to him with a request was never turned away except with that which they had asked for or with a kind word. His cheerfulness and good manners encompassed them all such that he became a father to them and they all became equal in rights. His gatherings were those of knowledge, humbleness, patience, and integrity. In them there would be no raising of voices nor transgressions of prohibitions. They would not expose one-another's errors, but would be equal, encouraging each-other in the fear of God. In them, they would respect their elders, be merciful to their children, give preference to those in need, and protect the stranger."
He continues: "He was continually smiling, gentle in manners, soft in nature. He was not severe, harsh-hearted, loud, abusive, or miserly. He would disregard that which he disliked, and no one ever despaired of him. He never responded to disparagement or evil words. He forbade upon himself three things: Argument, arrogance, and that which did not concern him. And he relieved the people of three: He would not degrade any among them or abuse them, he would not search after their honor or private matters, and he would not speak except in matters which he hoped to be rewarded for. When he spoke his attendees would lower their heads as if birds had alighted upon them. Once he finished they would speak. They would not vie with one-another in his presence to speak, but when one would talk in his presence the rest would listen until he finished. Speech in his presence was that of the first among them. He would laugh with them, and wonder with them. He had patience with the strangers when they were gruff in speech and requests, to a degree that his companions would fetch them to him. He would say: 'If you see someone in need, fetch him to me.' He would not accept praise except from those who were balanced and not excessive. He would not interject into someone's speech unless they transgressed, in which case he would either rebuke them or else leave.
He was the most generous of heart, truthful of tongue, softest in disposition, and noble in relationship. He who first set eyes upon him feared him, but he who associated with him loved him. Those who described him would say: 'I have never seen before or after him anyone similar to him, peace be upon him'
His Characteristics
Muhammad (PBUH)Acquaint ourselves with the prophet of Islam. You cannot, as the popular saying goes, separate the message from the messenger. It is therefore only natural to wish to study the life of Muhammad (pbuh), his manners and his morals, and to see how Islam manifested itself in his person as a living example for all Muslims till the end of time.
Abu Hurairah described him as follows:
"He was of medium build, closer to being tall. His skin was extremely white, his beard was black, his mouth was pleasant, his eyebrows were long, and his shoulders were wide"
Ibne Malik said:
"I never touched silk or any soft fabric equal to the softness of his palm, and I never smelled a scent more pleasing than his."
Hind ibn Abi Hala (the son of Muhammad's wife Kadijah) described Muhammad (pbuh) as follows:
"The Messenger of Allah was of consecutive sorrows, continuous thought, never finding rest, long in silence. He did not speak without cause. He spoke with his full mouth (was not arrogant), and spoke concisely. His speech was just, with neither excess nor deficiency. He was not pompous, nor denigrating. He exalted all blessings no matter how small and never belittled a single one. He would never praise his food nor criticize it. He was never angered by matters of this life nor that which was associated with it. However, if justice was transgressed nothing could stand up to his anger until justice was established. He never became angry for his own self nor sought retribution for himself. If he gestured, he did so with his whole palm. If he was amazed, he overturned it. If he spoke, he struck with his right palm the inside of his left thumb. If he became angry he turned away, and when he was happy he lowered his gaze. The majority of his laughter was [restricted to] smiling."
Ali ibn abi Talib described Muhammad (pbuh) as follows:
"He was not vulgar nor did he condone vulgarity, and he was not one to shout in the market place. He did not reward evil with evil, rather, he would forgive and overlook. He never in his life struck anything with his hand except when he was fighting in the name of Allah. He never struck a servant nor a woman, and I never saw him taking revenge for an injustice dealt him, except if the prohibitions of Allah were transgressed. For if the prohibitions of Allah were transgressed he was among the strongest of them in anger. He was never given a choice between two matters but he chose the simplest of the two. If he entered into his home he was a man like any other; cleaning his own garment, milking his own goat, and serving himself.
He would guard his tongue from that which did not concern him. He would attract them (the people) and not repel them. He would ennoble the noble of the people and charge them with their affairs. He was wary of the people and guarded himself against them but without depriving them a warm smile or fitting conduct. He would inquire after his companions and would ask the people about their affairs. He would encourage that which was good and strengthen it, and he would discourage that which was evil and undermine it. He was balanced and consistent. He would never be neglectful that they would not learn neglect and grow indifferent. He had a provision for every occasion and he never fell short of justice nor exceeded it. The closest people to him were the best among them, and the best among them in his eyes were the most comprehensive in advice. The highest of them in stature with him was the best among them in looking after the people and assisting them. He would not rise nor sit down without praise [to God]. If he visited a gathering he would sit wherever the group ended (and not at their head) and he encouraged the same. He would give all those sitting with him their just due [to the extent that] they would each feel that none was more important to him than them. If someone were to sit with him or come in search of a favor he would be patient with them until they (the guest) would be the one to leave. Whoever came to him with a request was never turned away except with that which they had asked for or with a kind word. His cheerfulness and good manners encompassed them all such that he became a father to them and they all became equal in rights. His gatherings were those of knowledge, humbleness, patience, and integrity. In them there would be no raising of voices nor transgressions of prohibitions. They would not expose one-another's errors, but would be equal, encouraging each-other in the fear of God. In them, they would respect their elders, be merciful to their children, give preference to those in need, and protect the stranger."
He continues: "He was continually smiling, gentle in manners, soft in nature. He was not severe, harsh-hearted, loud, abusive, or miserly. He would disregard that which he disliked, and no one ever despaired of him. He never responded to disparagement or evil words. He forbade upon himself three things: Argument, arrogance, and that which did not concern him. And he relieved the people of three: He would not degrade any among them or abuse them, he would not search after their honor or private matters, and he would not speak except in matters which he hoped to be rewarded for. When he spoke his attendees would lower their heads as if birds had alighted upon them. Once he finished they would speak. They would not vie with one-another in his presence to speak, but when one would talk in his presence the rest would listen until he finished. Speech in his presence was that of the first among them. He would laugh with them, and wonder with them. He had patience with the strangers when they were gruff in speech and requests, to a degree that his companions would fetch them to him. He would say: 'If you see someone in need, fetch him to me.' He would not accept praise except from those who were balanced and not excessive. He would not interject into someone's speech unless they transgressed, in which case he would either rebuke them or else leave.
He was the most generous of heart, truthful of tongue, softest in disposition, and noble in relationship. He who first set eyes upon him feared him, but he who associated with him loved him. Those who described him would say: 'I have never seen before or after him anyone similar to him, peace be upon him'
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
From: www.quranscience.com
Who authored the Quran? Someone must have produced it! After all, how many desert men have stood up in the history of man and given the world a book like the Quran? The book has amazing details of past nations, prophets, and religions as well as accurate scientific information unavailable at the time. What was the source of all this? If we were to deny the divine origin of the Quran, we are left with only a few possibilities:
- The Prophet Muhammad authored it himself.
- He took it from someone else. In this case, he either took it from a Jew or a Christian or one of the foreigners in Arabia. The Meccans did not bother to accuse him of having taken it from one of them.
A brief response from God is:
“And they say, ‘Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.’ Say, [O Muhammad], ‘It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and Merciful.’” (Quran 25:5-6)
It was well known to his detractors that Muhammad, who was raised among them, never learned how to read or write from the time of his birth. They knew whom he befriended and where he had traveled; they acknowledged his integrity and honesty by calling him ‘Al-Ameen,’ the Reliable, the Trustworthy, the Honest.[1] Only in their revulsion against his preaching did they accuse him – and then it was anything they could dream up: He was accused of being a sorcerer, a poet and even an imposter! They could not make up their minds. God says:
“Look how they strike for you comparisons; but they have strayed, so they cannot [find] a way.” (Quran 17:47)
Simply, God is aware of what is in the heavens and the earth, He knows the past and the present, and reveals the truth to His prophet.
Could Muhammad Have Authored It?
It is impossible that Muhammad could have authored the Quran due to the following reasons:
First, several occasions presented themselves where he could have fabricated revelation. For example, after the first revelation came, people awaited to hear more, but the Prophet did not receive anything new for months. The Meccans began making fun of him, ‘His Lord has abandoned him!’ This continued until the 93rd chapter, Ad-Doha, was revealed. The Prophet could have compiled something and presented it as the latest revelation to end the mockery, but he did not. Also, at one point during his prophethood, some of the hypocrites accused his beloved wife Aisha of being unchaste. The Prophet could have easily fabricated something to free her of blame, but he waited for many excruciating days, all spent in pain, mockery, and anguish, until revelation came from God freeing her from the accusation.
Second, there is internal evidence within the Quran that Muhammad was not its author. Several verses criticized him, and were on occasion strongly worded. How can an imposter prophet blame himself when it may run him into the danger of losing the respect, perhaps following, of his followers? Here are some examples:
“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit [yourself from] what God has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And God is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 66:1)
“…while you concealed within yourself that which God is to disclose and you feared the people, while God has more right that you fear Him..” (Quran 33:43)
“It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” (Quran 9:113)
“But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge] while he fears [God], from him you are distracted. No! Indeed, they [these verses] are a reminder.” (Quran 80:8-11)
If he were to hide anything, he would have hid these verses, but he recited them faithfully.
“And he [Muhammad] is not a withholder of [knowledge of] the unseen. And it [the Quran] is not the word of a devil, expelled [from the heavens]. So where are you going? It is nothing but a reminder to the worlds.” (Quran 81:24-27)
The Prophet is cautioned, perhaps warned, in the following verses:
“Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God. Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, God loves not the one who is a habitually sinful deceiver. They conceal [their evil intentions and deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from God, and He is with them [in His knowledge] when they spend the night in such as He does not accept of speech. And God ever is encompassing of what they do,. Here you are – those who argue on their behalf in [this] worldly life – but who will argue with God for them on the Day of Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative? And whoever does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of God will find God Forgiving and Merciful. And whoever earns [i.e., commits] a sin only earns it against himself. And God is ever Knowing and Wise. But whoever earns an offense or a sin and then blames it on an innocent [person] has taken upon himself slander and manifest sin. And if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you. But they do not mislead except themselves, and they will not harm you at all. And God has revealed to you the Book and wisdom and has taught you that which you did not know. And ever has the favor of God upon you been great.” (Quran 4:105-113)
These verses explain a situation in which a man from the Muslim inhabitants of Medina stole a piece of armor and hid it in the property of his Jewish neighbor. When the owners of the armor caught up with him he denied any wrongdoing, and the armor was discovered with the Jewish man. He, however, pointed to his Muslim neighbor, also denying his involvement in the crime. The people from the Muslim’s tribe went to the Prophet to plead on his behalf, and the Prophet began to incline towards them till the above verses were revealed clearing the Jewish man of wrongdoing. All this despite the Jew’s rejection of Muhammad’s prophethood! The verses instructed Prophet Muhammad himself not to side with the deceitful! The verses:
“…and do not be an advocate for the deceitful and seek forgiveness of God…and if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you.”
If Muhammad himself authored the Quran, thus being a lying imposter, he would have made sure that there was nothing in existence which could jeopardize the gaining of followers and supporters. The fact that the Quran, on various occasions, reprimands the Prophet in certain issues in which he had made in incorrect judgment is in itself a proof that it was not authored by him.
Source: www.islamreligion.com
Footnotes:
[1] ‘Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources’ by Martin Lings, p. 34.
Who authored the Quran? Someone must have produced it! After all, how many desert men have stood up in the history of man and given the world a book like the Quran? The book has amazing details of past nations, prophets, and religions as well as accurate scientific information unavailable at the time. What was the source of all this? If we were to deny the divine origin of the Quran, we are left with only a few possibilities:
- The Prophet Muhammad authored it himself.
- He took it from someone else. In this case, he either took it from a Jew or a Christian or one of the foreigners in Arabia. The Meccans did not bother to accuse him of having taken it from one of them.
A brief response from God is:
“And they say, ‘Legends of the former peoples which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.’ Say, [O Muhammad], ‘It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and Merciful.’” (Quran 25:5-6)
It was well known to his detractors that Muhammad, who was raised among them, never learned how to read or write from the time of his birth. They knew whom he befriended and where he had traveled; they acknowledged his integrity and honesty by calling him ‘Al-Ameen,’ the Reliable, the Trustworthy, the Honest.[1] Only in their revulsion against his preaching did they accuse him – and then it was anything they could dream up: He was accused of being a sorcerer, a poet and even an imposter! They could not make up their minds. God says:
“Look how they strike for you comparisons; but they have strayed, so they cannot [find] a way.” (Quran 17:47)
Simply, God is aware of what is in the heavens and the earth, He knows the past and the present, and reveals the truth to His prophet.
Could Muhammad Have Authored It?
It is impossible that Muhammad could have authored the Quran due to the following reasons:
First, several occasions presented themselves where he could have fabricated revelation. For example, after the first revelation came, people awaited to hear more, but the Prophet did not receive anything new for months. The Meccans began making fun of him, ‘His Lord has abandoned him!’ This continued until the 93rd chapter, Ad-Doha, was revealed. The Prophet could have compiled something and presented it as the latest revelation to end the mockery, but he did not. Also, at one point during his prophethood, some of the hypocrites accused his beloved wife Aisha of being unchaste. The Prophet could have easily fabricated something to free her of blame, but he waited for many excruciating days, all spent in pain, mockery, and anguish, until revelation came from God freeing her from the accusation.
Second, there is internal evidence within the Quran that Muhammad was not its author. Several verses criticized him, and were on occasion strongly worded. How can an imposter prophet blame himself when it may run him into the danger of losing the respect, perhaps following, of his followers? Here are some examples:
“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit [yourself from] what God has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And God is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 66:1)
“…while you concealed within yourself that which God is to disclose and you feared the people, while God has more right that you fear Him..” (Quran 33:43)
“It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” (Quran 9:113)
“But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge] while he fears [God], from him you are distracted. No! Indeed, they [these verses] are a reminder.” (Quran 80:8-11)
If he were to hide anything, he would have hid these verses, but he recited them faithfully.
“And he [Muhammad] is not a withholder of [knowledge of] the unseen. And it [the Quran] is not the word of a devil, expelled [from the heavens]. So where are you going? It is nothing but a reminder to the worlds.” (Quran 81:24-27)
The Prophet is cautioned, perhaps warned, in the following verses:
“Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God. Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, God loves not the one who is a habitually sinful deceiver. They conceal [their evil intentions and deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from God, and He is with them [in His knowledge] when they spend the night in such as He does not accept of speech. And God ever is encompassing of what they do,. Here you are – those who argue on their behalf in [this] worldly life – but who will argue with God for them on the Day of Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative? And whoever does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of God will find God Forgiving and Merciful. And whoever earns [i.e., commits] a sin only earns it against himself. And God is ever Knowing and Wise. But whoever earns an offense or a sin and then blames it on an innocent [person] has taken upon himself slander and manifest sin. And if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you. But they do not mislead except themselves, and they will not harm you at all. And God has revealed to you the Book and wisdom and has taught you that which you did not know. And ever has the favor of God upon you been great.” (Quran 4:105-113)
These verses explain a situation in which a man from the Muslim inhabitants of Medina stole a piece of armor and hid it in the property of his Jewish neighbor. When the owners of the armor caught up with him he denied any wrongdoing, and the armor was discovered with the Jewish man. He, however, pointed to his Muslim neighbor, also denying his involvement in the crime. The people from the Muslim’s tribe went to the Prophet to plead on his behalf, and the Prophet began to incline towards them till the above verses were revealed clearing the Jewish man of wrongdoing. All this despite the Jew’s rejection of Muhammad’s prophethood! The verses instructed Prophet Muhammad himself not to side with the deceitful! The verses:
“…and do not be an advocate for the deceitful and seek forgiveness of God…and if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you.”
If Muhammad himself authored the Quran, thus being a lying imposter, he would have made sure that there was nothing in existence which could jeopardize the gaining of followers and supporters. The fact that the Quran, on various occasions, reprimands the Prophet in certain issues in which he had made in incorrect judgment is in itself a proof that it was not authored by him.
Source: www.islamreligion.com
Footnotes:
[1] ‘Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources’ by Martin Lings, p. 34.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
EARTHQUAKES IN THE GLORIOUS QUR'AN
Despite the fact that earth scientists understand the mechanism by which earthquakes can take place, they are losing faith in their ability to predict such disasters.
Glorious Qur'an emphasizes the fact that nothing happens in the universe without the knowledge, will and wisdom of the Creator. Earthquakes - like many other natural disasters - are part and parcel of the Divine plan for punishing the ill - doers trying the pious ones, and teaching the saved individuals the lesson of their lives. Unless taken in this context, human beings will never learn from their own mistakes or even from the mistakes of others.
Understanding the mechanisms by which earthquakes take place and measuring both their intensities and magnitudes cannot help in their prediction. The only way of avoiding this and other disasters is heeding the Creator and living according to His guidance.
Earthquakes destruction
The word "earthquake" is mentioned twice in the Glorious Qur'an, indicating "The Last Hour Quake" which is much more devastating than all the earthquakes that have affected and will affect our plant throughout its long history. The Glorious Qur'an reads:
"O mankind! Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of Judgment) is a terrible thing. The Day you see it, every nursing mother will forget her nursling, and every pregnant one will drop her load, and you shall see mankind as in a drunken state, yet they will not be drunken, but severe will be the Torment of Allah." (Surat Al-Hajj (The Pilgrimage):1-2)
In the same context, the Glorious Qur'an also reads:
"When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake. And when the earth throws out its burdens. And man will say: "What is the matter with it?" That Day it will declare its information (about all that happened over it of good or evil). Because your Lord will inspire it. That Day mankind will proceed in scattered groups that they may be shown their deeds. So whosoever does good equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant) shall see it. And whosoever does evil equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant) shall see it." (Surat Az-Zalzalah (The Earthquake):1-8)
Present-day earthquakes are mentioned in the Glorious Qur'an as forces that destroy foundations of buildings and hence cause their destruction, or cause rifting of the earth and swallowing the rifted part with its inhabitants. The Qur'an reads:
"Those before them indeed plotted, but Allah struck at the foundation of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them, from above them, and the torment overtook them from directions they did not perceive." (Surat An-Nahl (The Bees):26)
I can not find a more precise description for earthquakes than the above mentioned verse, which outlines the reason behind it simply as plotting and contriving against the will and the way of the Creator.
And in the same chapter we read an emphasis on this conclusion as the Qur'an reads:
"Do then those who devise evil plots feel secure that Allah will not sink them into the earth, or that the torment will not seize them from directions they perceive not?" (Surat An-Nahl (The Bees):45)
From the previous two verses we can see clearly that the main reason behind punishment with earthquakes is plotting against the way of Allah and devising evil deeds against individuals or against humanity at large. The Glorious Qur'an repeatedly emphasizes the fact that earthquakes, rifting, tsunamis, Hurricanes, (or Typhoons), Cyclones Tropical Storms, Tropical Depressions and other natural disasters were and still are ways of expressing the wrath of the Creator against ill-doers of His creation. If innocent individuals are caught in the middle of this way of punishment, Allah will resurrect them according to their intentions and will reward them amply. The Inimitable Qur'an reads:
"Do you then feel secure that He will not cause a side of the land to swallow you up, or that He will not send against you a violent sand-storm? Then, you shall find no Wakil (guardian - one to guard you from the torment)." (Surat Al-Isra (The Journey by Nights):68)
The Qur'an emphasizes the fact that earthquakes were among other forms of punishment of previous deviators and ill-doers by saying:
"So We punished each (of them) for his sins; of them were some on whom We sent Hasib (a violent wind with shower of stones) (as the people of Lut (Lot)), and of them were some who were overtaken by As-Saihah (torment - awful cry. (as Thamud or Shu'aib's people)), and of them were some whom We caused the earth to swallow (as Qar'an (Korah)), and of them were some whom We drowned (as the people of Nuh (Noah), or Fir'aun (Pharaoh) and his people). It was not Allah Who wronged them, but they wronged themselves." (Surat Al-'Ankabut (The Spider):40)
The Glorious Qur'an also makes earthquakes together with other natural disasters a constant threat to those who commit evil deeds and persistently violate the Divine guidance by saying:
"Or do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allah), will not send against you a violent whirlwind? Then you shall know how (terrible) has been My Warning? And indeed those before them belied (the Messengers of Allah), then how terrible was My denial (punishment)? ". (Surat Al-Mulk (Dominion):17-18)
Geologically speaking, rifting is a process by which a long, narrow continental through that is bounded by normal faults is formed. It is a grabbed of regional extent, and marks a zone of the Earth's surface along which the entire thickness of the lithosphere has ruptured under extension.
Indeed, the attempt to understand the mechanisms by which an earthquake takes place and the different types of seismic waves accompanying them, to classify earthquakes and to produce schemes for measuring both their intensities and magnitudes is a wonderful exercise. And what is more wonderful are the procedures of trying to predict earthquakes, and the necessary precautions taken during and after the earthquake in order to avoid or minimize its dangers wherever possible. Studies towards reinforcing buildings, bridges, expressways, utility lines and other disasters engineering related projects are highly valued.
Nevertheless, this does not defy the fact that nothing happens in the universe without the knowledge, will and wisdom of the Creator. Hence, if we want to avoid earthquakes we have to follow His guidance and avoid His displeasure as much as possible.
STANDING THE MECHANISM OF EARTHQUEKES DOES NOT DEFY ITS BEING PART OF THE DIVINE PLAN:
The earth as a planet is annually subjected to about one million earthquakes (with an average of about 2738 earthquakes per day). Most of these earthquakes are gentle to moderate ones that cannot be felt by man, but are recorded by seismographs.
A hundred to hundred and fifty of these earthquakes are moderate to destructive in populated areas, (20) twenty of which are of total destructive capacity, and every 5-10 years comes one that reaches or exceeds the peak of mass destruction, although this average has been lately accelerated.
Most earthquakes occur in certain belts or earthquakes-prone zones. These are concentrated where two tectonic plates collide, diverge or slip past each other (plate-margin earthquakes). However, not a single spot on the Earth's surface can be excluded from the possibility of being subjected to earthquakes (The Intra-plate earthquakes). The type of plate contact can determine both the magnitude intensity and depth of the earthquake. During the movement of lithospheric plates continent-size slabs of the earth's lithosphere are shifted and intense forces overcome the friction between them. However, if the plates are "locked together", forces build-up and eventually must give way, with the plates lurching into new position and creating an earthquake.
two tectonic plates collide, diverge or slip past each other (plate-margin earthquakes)
Other earthquakes form in association with volcanic activity, where the build-up of heat and pressure often triggers smaller tremors and localized earthquakes. The earth is subjected to about 20 volcanic eruptions every fifty years, with an average of one volcanic eruption every 2.5 years. The focal point (center) of the earthquake is the point under the earth's surface where the earthquake energy is released. The point on the surface of the earth just above the focus (center) is called the epicenter. Most earthquake centers occur at a depth of about 100 Km. below the earth's surface, while some have much shallower and others have much deeper Foci, but none is deeper than 700 Km. below the earth's surface.
Shallow earthquakes occur at depths of 5-70 Km., intermediate ones occur at depths between 70 and 300 Km. and deep-seated earthquakes have their Foci between 300 and 700 Km. below the surface of the earth. The shallower the earthquake center the more destructive it is.
Seismic waves travel out from the focus of an earthquake in all directions. Primary waves (P-waves) move in a back and forth direction and are the fastest seismic waves. These reach the far side of the globe in 20 minutes, traversing the Earth's molten outer core. Secondary waves (S-waves) move sideways (in a side-to-side direction), being slower than the P-waves and can move only through solids, stopping at the Earth's molten outer core. Love and Raleigh waves (both called L-waves) travel along the earth's surface, moving up, down and sideways, causing much of the structural damage associated with earthquake.
Magnitude of Earthquakes
A logarithmic scale to measure the magnitude of earthquakes was suggested by Charles Richter in 1935, the scale ranges between 1 and 9, with each successive whole number representing a 10-fold increase in power. Each magnitude value represents the maximum amplitude of a seismic wave at a distance of 100 miles (161 Km) from the epicenter. The difference in time between the first and second (primary and secondary) waves is measured, and an empirical factor is added (which takes into account the fact that the waves become weaker as they travel away from the focus) to determine the magnitude of the quake. This magnitude can reach up to the equivalent of 5,643,000 –metric tons of TNT as energy released at the Richter number (8). Even knowing this does not take the earthquake out of the Divine plan.
Seismic waves travel out from the focus of an earthquake in all directions
Prediction is not prevention
While seismologists have long been skeptical about the ability to foretell earthquakes, Japan was busy for more than 3 decades to develop its earthquake prediction system, and has allocated annual budget of US$ 180 million for earthquake prediction research. However, the 1995 Kobe earthquake represent a blow to the assumption that with the proper technology in place, earthquakes ultimately are predicable. This quake of 7.2 magnitude look everybody by surprise, leaving in its wake nearly 6.400 dead, 35.000 injured and 400.000 homeless.
Optimism about forecasting earthquakes died out quickly as these natural disasters are sudden, non-linear phenomena. Consequently, policy-makers are shifting from forecasting to disaster prevention through redesigning and reinforcing buildings, bridges, expressways as well as utility lines and facilities. Disaster-prevention technologies and related topics are currently replacing forecasting technologies in an attempt to minimize damage in the case of an earthquake.
Forecasting, using sophisticated meters and gauges to detect potential precursors, like tremors, fault strains, changes in earth's crust (such as tilting, uplifting or depressing, changes in water level in wells, lakes, etc.), detection of radon and other peculiar gases and sudden group migration of animals, etc. should be used wherever possible. However, reliance on heeding the Creator, following His guidance, ordering what is good and forbidding what is bad is the only security against natural disasters.
Since 1965, Japan has invested about US$ 1.4 billion in prediction research and technologies that have been torn to pieces by the 20 seconds duration of the Kobe earthquake.
Similarly, the Indonesian 8.9 magnitude tsunami of 26/12/2004 which devastated 12 countries in South Asia (including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Mianmar, Srilanka, India, the Maldeve Islands, etc.) could not be predicted. The toll losses included about 300.000 dead, one million injured and more than 5 million homeless in addition to material losses of several tens of billion US$. Again, the 8/10/2005 Kashmir Major earthquake of 7.6 Richter was also not predicted. This shallow earthquake (26 Km. below the earth's surface) took a toll of > 100.000 deaths, 69.000 to 100.000 injuries about 4 million homeless and material losses in a 20.000 Km2 area of at least 5 billion US$. It was a real tragedy that affected each of Kashmir, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan and was mainly centered around Muzaffarabad.
Earthquake is the motivate of Tsunami
The record of earthquakes proves the sudden, non–linear nature of these disasters that took the lives of millions of individuals throughout history, injured several other millions, made billions of people homeless and caused material losses of endless values. These tragedies cannot be the work of the mechanical processes of the earth, but need a designer, and the designer is the Creator Himself. And they must have a purpose, and the purpose is punishment for the transgressors and the aggressors, trial for the pious and honest ones that are caught in the middle and a reminder for the survivors. Unless taken with this regard, humanity will never learn.
By: Dr. Zaghloul El-Naggar
Blogger comment:
Earthquakes are undoubtedly punishing people for their sins, testing their faith or both. Before Jesus Second Coming the tyrants of the world will continue to see the tribulation over their heads until they step aside and have the meek to inherit the earth.
Glorious Qur'an emphasizes the fact that nothing happens in the universe without the knowledge, will and wisdom of the Creator. Earthquakes - like many other natural disasters - are part and parcel of the Divine plan for punishing the ill - doers trying the pious ones, and teaching the saved individuals the lesson of their lives. Unless taken in this context, human beings will never learn from their own mistakes or even from the mistakes of others.
Understanding the mechanisms by which earthquakes take place and measuring both their intensities and magnitudes cannot help in their prediction. The only way of avoiding this and other disasters is heeding the Creator and living according to His guidance.
Earthquakes destruction
The word "earthquake" is mentioned twice in the Glorious Qur'an, indicating "The Last Hour Quake" which is much more devastating than all the earthquakes that have affected and will affect our plant throughout its long history. The Glorious Qur'an reads:
"O mankind! Fear your Lord and be dutiful to Him! Verily, the earthquake of the Hour (of Judgment) is a terrible thing. The Day you see it, every nursing mother will forget her nursling, and every pregnant one will drop her load, and you shall see mankind as in a drunken state, yet they will not be drunken, but severe will be the Torment of Allah." (Surat Al-Hajj (The Pilgrimage):1-2)
In the same context, the Glorious Qur'an also reads:
"When the earth is shaken with its (final) earthquake. And when the earth throws out its burdens. And man will say: "What is the matter with it?" That Day it will declare its information (about all that happened over it of good or evil). Because your Lord will inspire it. That Day mankind will proceed in scattered groups that they may be shown their deeds. So whosoever does good equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant) shall see it. And whosoever does evil equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant) shall see it." (Surat Az-Zalzalah (The Earthquake):1-8)
Present-day earthquakes are mentioned in the Glorious Qur'an as forces that destroy foundations of buildings and hence cause their destruction, or cause rifting of the earth and swallowing the rifted part with its inhabitants. The Qur'an reads:
"Those before them indeed plotted, but Allah struck at the foundation of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them, from above them, and the torment overtook them from directions they did not perceive." (Surat An-Nahl (The Bees):26)
I can not find a more precise description for earthquakes than the above mentioned verse, which outlines the reason behind it simply as plotting and contriving against the will and the way of the Creator.
And in the same chapter we read an emphasis on this conclusion as the Qur'an reads:
"Do then those who devise evil plots feel secure that Allah will not sink them into the earth, or that the torment will not seize them from directions they perceive not?" (Surat An-Nahl (The Bees):45)
From the previous two verses we can see clearly that the main reason behind punishment with earthquakes is plotting against the way of Allah and devising evil deeds against individuals or against humanity at large. The Glorious Qur'an repeatedly emphasizes the fact that earthquakes, rifting, tsunamis, Hurricanes, (or Typhoons), Cyclones Tropical Storms, Tropical Depressions and other natural disasters were and still are ways of expressing the wrath of the Creator against ill-doers of His creation. If innocent individuals are caught in the middle of this way of punishment, Allah will resurrect them according to their intentions and will reward them amply. The Inimitable Qur'an reads:
"Do you then feel secure that He will not cause a side of the land to swallow you up, or that He will not send against you a violent sand-storm? Then, you shall find no Wakil (guardian - one to guard you from the torment)." (Surat Al-Isra (The Journey by Nights):68)
The Qur'an emphasizes the fact that earthquakes were among other forms of punishment of previous deviators and ill-doers by saying:
"So We punished each (of them) for his sins; of them were some on whom We sent Hasib (a violent wind with shower of stones) (as the people of Lut (Lot)), and of them were some who were overtaken by As-Saihah (torment - awful cry. (as Thamud or Shu'aib's people)), and of them were some whom We caused the earth to swallow (as Qar'an (Korah)), and of them were some whom We drowned (as the people of Nuh (Noah), or Fir'aun (Pharaoh) and his people). It was not Allah Who wronged them, but they wronged themselves." (Surat Al-'Ankabut (The Spider):40)
The Glorious Qur'an also makes earthquakes together with other natural disasters a constant threat to those who commit evil deeds and persistently violate the Divine guidance by saying:
"Or do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven (Allah), will not send against you a violent whirlwind? Then you shall know how (terrible) has been My Warning? And indeed those before them belied (the Messengers of Allah), then how terrible was My denial (punishment)? ". (Surat Al-Mulk (Dominion):17-18)
Geologically speaking, rifting is a process by which a long, narrow continental through that is bounded by normal faults is formed. It is a grabbed of regional extent, and marks a zone of the Earth's surface along which the entire thickness of the lithosphere has ruptured under extension.
Indeed, the attempt to understand the mechanisms by which an earthquake takes place and the different types of seismic waves accompanying them, to classify earthquakes and to produce schemes for measuring both their intensities and magnitudes is a wonderful exercise. And what is more wonderful are the procedures of trying to predict earthquakes, and the necessary precautions taken during and after the earthquake in order to avoid or minimize its dangers wherever possible. Studies towards reinforcing buildings, bridges, expressways, utility lines and other disasters engineering related projects are highly valued.
Nevertheless, this does not defy the fact that nothing happens in the universe without the knowledge, will and wisdom of the Creator. Hence, if we want to avoid earthquakes we have to follow His guidance and avoid His displeasure as much as possible.
STANDING THE MECHANISM OF EARTHQUEKES DOES NOT DEFY ITS BEING PART OF THE DIVINE PLAN:
The earth as a planet is annually subjected to about one million earthquakes (with an average of about 2738 earthquakes per day). Most of these earthquakes are gentle to moderate ones that cannot be felt by man, but are recorded by seismographs.
A hundred to hundred and fifty of these earthquakes are moderate to destructive in populated areas, (20) twenty of which are of total destructive capacity, and every 5-10 years comes one that reaches or exceeds the peak of mass destruction, although this average has been lately accelerated.
Most earthquakes occur in certain belts or earthquakes-prone zones. These are concentrated where two tectonic plates collide, diverge or slip past each other (plate-margin earthquakes). However, not a single spot on the Earth's surface can be excluded from the possibility of being subjected to earthquakes (The Intra-plate earthquakes). The type of plate contact can determine both the magnitude intensity and depth of the earthquake. During the movement of lithospheric plates continent-size slabs of the earth's lithosphere are shifted and intense forces overcome the friction between them. However, if the plates are "locked together", forces build-up and eventually must give way, with the plates lurching into new position and creating an earthquake.
two tectonic plates collide, diverge or slip past each other (plate-margin earthquakes)
Other earthquakes form in association with volcanic activity, where the build-up of heat and pressure often triggers smaller tremors and localized earthquakes. The earth is subjected to about 20 volcanic eruptions every fifty years, with an average of one volcanic eruption every 2.5 years. The focal point (center) of the earthquake is the point under the earth's surface where the earthquake energy is released. The point on the surface of the earth just above the focus (center) is called the epicenter. Most earthquake centers occur at a depth of about 100 Km. below the earth's surface, while some have much shallower and others have much deeper Foci, but none is deeper than 700 Km. below the earth's surface.
Shallow earthquakes occur at depths of 5-70 Km., intermediate ones occur at depths between 70 and 300 Km. and deep-seated earthquakes have their Foci between 300 and 700 Km. below the surface of the earth. The shallower the earthquake center the more destructive it is.
Seismic waves travel out from the focus of an earthquake in all directions. Primary waves (P-waves) move in a back and forth direction and are the fastest seismic waves. These reach the far side of the globe in 20 minutes, traversing the Earth's molten outer core. Secondary waves (S-waves) move sideways (in a side-to-side direction), being slower than the P-waves and can move only through solids, stopping at the Earth's molten outer core. Love and Raleigh waves (both called L-waves) travel along the earth's surface, moving up, down and sideways, causing much of the structural damage associated with earthquake.
Magnitude of Earthquakes
A logarithmic scale to measure the magnitude of earthquakes was suggested by Charles Richter in 1935, the scale ranges between 1 and 9, with each successive whole number representing a 10-fold increase in power. Each magnitude value represents the maximum amplitude of a seismic wave at a distance of 100 miles (161 Km) from the epicenter. The difference in time between the first and second (primary and secondary) waves is measured, and an empirical factor is added (which takes into account the fact that the waves become weaker as they travel away from the focus) to determine the magnitude of the quake. This magnitude can reach up to the equivalent of 5,643,000 –metric tons of TNT as energy released at the Richter number (8). Even knowing this does not take the earthquake out of the Divine plan.
Seismic waves travel out from the focus of an earthquake in all directions
Prediction is not prevention
While seismologists have long been skeptical about the ability to foretell earthquakes, Japan was busy for more than 3 decades to develop its earthquake prediction system, and has allocated annual budget of US$ 180 million for earthquake prediction research. However, the 1995 Kobe earthquake represent a blow to the assumption that with the proper technology in place, earthquakes ultimately are predicable. This quake of 7.2 magnitude look everybody by surprise, leaving in its wake nearly 6.400 dead, 35.000 injured and 400.000 homeless.
Optimism about forecasting earthquakes died out quickly as these natural disasters are sudden, non-linear phenomena. Consequently, policy-makers are shifting from forecasting to disaster prevention through redesigning and reinforcing buildings, bridges, expressways as well as utility lines and facilities. Disaster-prevention technologies and related topics are currently replacing forecasting technologies in an attempt to minimize damage in the case of an earthquake.
Forecasting, using sophisticated meters and gauges to detect potential precursors, like tremors, fault strains, changes in earth's crust (such as tilting, uplifting or depressing, changes in water level in wells, lakes, etc.), detection of radon and other peculiar gases and sudden group migration of animals, etc. should be used wherever possible. However, reliance on heeding the Creator, following His guidance, ordering what is good and forbidding what is bad is the only security against natural disasters.
Since 1965, Japan has invested about US$ 1.4 billion in prediction research and technologies that have been torn to pieces by the 20 seconds duration of the Kobe earthquake.
Similarly, the Indonesian 8.9 magnitude tsunami of 26/12/2004 which devastated 12 countries in South Asia (including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Mianmar, Srilanka, India, the Maldeve Islands, etc.) could not be predicted. The toll losses included about 300.000 dead, one million injured and more than 5 million homeless in addition to material losses of several tens of billion US$. Again, the 8/10/2005 Kashmir Major earthquake of 7.6 Richter was also not predicted. This shallow earthquake (26 Km. below the earth's surface) took a toll of > 100.000 deaths, 69.000 to 100.000 injuries about 4 million homeless and material losses in a 20.000 Km2 area of at least 5 billion US$. It was a real tragedy that affected each of Kashmir, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan and was mainly centered around Muzaffarabad.
Earthquake is the motivate of Tsunami
The record of earthquakes proves the sudden, non–linear nature of these disasters that took the lives of millions of individuals throughout history, injured several other millions, made billions of people homeless and caused material losses of endless values. These tragedies cannot be the work of the mechanical processes of the earth, but need a designer, and the designer is the Creator Himself. And they must have a purpose, and the purpose is punishment for the transgressors and the aggressors, trial for the pious and honest ones that are caught in the middle and a reminder for the survivors. Unless taken with this regard, humanity will never learn.
By: Dr. Zaghloul El-Naggar
Blogger comment:
Earthquakes are undoubtedly punishing people for their sins, testing their faith or both. Before Jesus Second Coming the tyrants of the world will continue to see the tribulation over their heads until they step aside and have the meek to inherit the earth.
Empire, Oligarchy and Democracy
From: http://www.commondreams.org/
by Ralph Nader
The twin swelling heads of Empire and Oligarchy are driving our country into an ever-deepening corporate state, wholly incompatible with democracy and the rule of law.
Once again the New York Times offers its readers the evidence. In its February 25, 2010 issue, two page-one stories confirm this relentless deterioration at the expense of so many innocent people.
The lead story illustrates that the type of massive speculation—casino capitalism, Business Week once called it—in complex derivatives is still going strong and exploiting the weak and powerless who pay the ultimate bill.
Titled "Banks Bet Greece Defaults on Debt They Helped Hide," the article shocks even readers hardened to tales of greed and abuse of power. Here are the opening paragraphs: "Bets by some of the same banks that helped Greece shroud its mounting debts may actually now be pushing the nation closer to the brink of financial ruin."
"Echoing the kind of trades that nearly toppled the American Insurance International Group /AIG/, the increasingly popular insurance against the risk of a Greek default is making it harder for Athens to raise the money it needs to pay its bills, according to traders and money managers."
"These contracts, known as credit-default swaps, effectively let banks and hedge funds wager on the financial equivalent of a four-alarm fire: a default by a company, or in the case of Greece, an entire country. If Greece reneges on its debts, traders who own these swaps stand to profit."
"It's like buying fire insurance on your neighbor's house-you create an incentive to burn down the house," said Philip Gisdakis, head of credit strategy at UniCredit in Munich.
These credit-default swaps increase the dreaded "systemic risk" that proliferates until it lands on the backs of taxpayers, workers and savers who pay the price. And if Greece goes, Spain or Portugal or Italy may be next and globalization will eventually bring the rapacious effects of mindless speculation to our shores.
Greece got into financial trouble for a variety of reasons, but it was widely reported that Goldman Sachs and other big banks showed them, for generous fees, how to hide the country's true financial condition. Avarice at work.
Note two points. These derivatives are contracts involving hundreds of billions of dollars and are essentially unregulated. These transactions are also essentially untaxed, unlike Europe's value added tax on manufacturing, wholesale and retail purchases. The absence of government restraints produces unlimited predation.
As astute investors in the real economy have said, when money for speculation replaces money for investment, the real economy suffers and so do real people. Remember the Wall Street collapse of 2008 and who is paying for the huge Washington bailout.
The other story shows that the Presidency has become a self-driven Empire outside the law and unaccountable to its citizens. The Times reports "how far the C.I.A. has extended its extraordinary secret war beyond the mountainous tribal belt and deep into Pakistan's sprawling cities." Working with Pakistan's counterpart agency, the C.I.A. has had some cover to do what it wants in carrying out "dozens of raids throughout Pakistan over the past year," according to the Times.
"Secret War" has been a phrase applied numerous times throughout the C.I.A's history, even though the agency was initially created by Congress right after World War II to gather intelligence, not engage in lethal operations worldwide.
Unrestrained by either Congress or the federal courts, Presidents say they can and do order their subordinates to go anywhere in the world, penetrate into any country, if they alone say it is necessary to seize and destroy for what they believe is the national security. American citizens abroad are not excluded. Above the law and beyond the law spells the kind of lawlessness that the framers of our constitution abhorred in King George and limited in our country's separation of powers.
Because our founders would not tolerate the President being prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, they placed the war-declaration and appropriations authorities in the Congress.
Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama believe they have unbridled discretion to engage in almost any overt or covert acts. That is a definition of Empire that flouts international law and more than one treaty which the United States helped shape and sign.
Equipped with remote and deadly technologies like drones flying over Pakistan and Afghanistan by operators in Nevada, many civilians have been slain, including those in wedding parties and homes. Still, it is taking 15,000 soldiers (U.S. and Afghan) with the most modern armaments to deal with three hundred Taliban fighters in Marja who with many other Afghans, for various motivations, want us out of their country. Former Marine Combat Captain Matthew Hoh described these reasons in his detailed resignation letter last fall.
Mr. Obama's national security advisor, Ret. General James Jones estimated that there are about 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with the rest migrating to other countries. And one might add, those whose migrate are increasing their numbers because they cast themselves as fighting to expel the foreign invaders.
So many capable observers have made this point: occupation by our military fuels insurgencies and creates the conditions for more recruits and more mayhem. Even Bush's military and national security people have made this point.
The American people must realize that their reckless government and corporate contractors are banking lots of revenge among the occupied regions that may come back to haunt. We have much more to lose by flouting international law than the suicidal terrorists reacting to what they believe is the West's state terrorism against their people and the West's historical backing of dictatorships which oppress their own population.
American was not designed for Kings and their runaway military pursuits. How tragic that we have now come to this entrenched imperium so loathed by the founding fathers and so forewarned by George Washington's enduring farewell address.
Where are "We the People"?
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.
by Ralph Nader
The twin swelling heads of Empire and Oligarchy are driving our country into an ever-deepening corporate state, wholly incompatible with democracy and the rule of law.
Once again the New York Times offers its readers the evidence. In its February 25, 2010 issue, two page-one stories confirm this relentless deterioration at the expense of so many innocent people.
The lead story illustrates that the type of massive speculation—casino capitalism, Business Week once called it—in complex derivatives is still going strong and exploiting the weak and powerless who pay the ultimate bill.
Titled "Banks Bet Greece Defaults on Debt They Helped Hide," the article shocks even readers hardened to tales of greed and abuse of power. Here are the opening paragraphs: "Bets by some of the same banks that helped Greece shroud its mounting debts may actually now be pushing the nation closer to the brink of financial ruin."
"Echoing the kind of trades that nearly toppled the American Insurance International Group /AIG/, the increasingly popular insurance against the risk of a Greek default is making it harder for Athens to raise the money it needs to pay its bills, according to traders and money managers."
"These contracts, known as credit-default swaps, effectively let banks and hedge funds wager on the financial equivalent of a four-alarm fire: a default by a company, or in the case of Greece, an entire country. If Greece reneges on its debts, traders who own these swaps stand to profit."
"It's like buying fire insurance on your neighbor's house-you create an incentive to burn down the house," said Philip Gisdakis, head of credit strategy at UniCredit in Munich.
These credit-default swaps increase the dreaded "systemic risk" that proliferates until it lands on the backs of taxpayers, workers and savers who pay the price. And if Greece goes, Spain or Portugal or Italy may be next and globalization will eventually bring the rapacious effects of mindless speculation to our shores.
Greece got into financial trouble for a variety of reasons, but it was widely reported that Goldman Sachs and other big banks showed them, for generous fees, how to hide the country's true financial condition. Avarice at work.
Note two points. These derivatives are contracts involving hundreds of billions of dollars and are essentially unregulated. These transactions are also essentially untaxed, unlike Europe's value added tax on manufacturing, wholesale and retail purchases. The absence of government restraints produces unlimited predation.
As astute investors in the real economy have said, when money for speculation replaces money for investment, the real economy suffers and so do real people. Remember the Wall Street collapse of 2008 and who is paying for the huge Washington bailout.
The other story shows that the Presidency has become a self-driven Empire outside the law and unaccountable to its citizens. The Times reports "how far the C.I.A. has extended its extraordinary secret war beyond the mountainous tribal belt and deep into Pakistan's sprawling cities." Working with Pakistan's counterpart agency, the C.I.A. has had some cover to do what it wants in carrying out "dozens of raids throughout Pakistan over the past year," according to the Times.
"Secret War" has been a phrase applied numerous times throughout the C.I.A's history, even though the agency was initially created by Congress right after World War II to gather intelligence, not engage in lethal operations worldwide.
Unrestrained by either Congress or the federal courts, Presidents say they can and do order their subordinates to go anywhere in the world, penetrate into any country, if they alone say it is necessary to seize and destroy for what they believe is the national security. American citizens abroad are not excluded. Above the law and beyond the law spells the kind of lawlessness that the framers of our constitution abhorred in King George and limited in our country's separation of powers.
Because our founders would not tolerate the President being prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, they placed the war-declaration and appropriations authorities in the Congress.
Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama believe they have unbridled discretion to engage in almost any overt or covert acts. That is a definition of Empire that flouts international law and more than one treaty which the United States helped shape and sign.
Equipped with remote and deadly technologies like drones flying over Pakistan and Afghanistan by operators in Nevada, many civilians have been slain, including those in wedding parties and homes. Still, it is taking 15,000 soldiers (U.S. and Afghan) with the most modern armaments to deal with three hundred Taliban fighters in Marja who with many other Afghans, for various motivations, want us out of their country. Former Marine Combat Captain Matthew Hoh described these reasons in his detailed resignation letter last fall.
Mr. Obama's national security advisor, Ret. General James Jones estimated that there are about 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with the rest migrating to other countries. And one might add, those whose migrate are increasing their numbers because they cast themselves as fighting to expel the foreign invaders.
So many capable observers have made this point: occupation by our military fuels insurgencies and creates the conditions for more recruits and more mayhem. Even Bush's military and national security people have made this point.
The American people must realize that their reckless government and corporate contractors are banking lots of revenge among the occupied regions that may come back to haunt. We have much more to lose by flouting international law than the suicidal terrorists reacting to what they believe is the West's state terrorism against their people and the West's historical backing of dictatorships which oppress their own population.
American was not designed for Kings and their runaway military pursuits. How tragic that we have now come to this entrenched imperium so loathed by the founding fathers and so forewarned by George Washington's enduring farewell address.
Where are "We the People"?
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Are Chrisitans Going to see Jesus Soon?
By: Maged Taman
وَإِن مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلاَّ لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا (4:159)
4:159 (Picktall) There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of resurrection he will be a witness against them
According to this verse of the Quran Jesus will be coming back and in his second coming some of the Christians will witness his second coming. Muslims believe as God told us in the Quran is that Jesus did not die on the cross like some of the Jews conspired to do that but raised him to himself. We do not know if this aescent was with both the spirit and body or only the spirit to know that we have to have revelation. To my knowledge there is no indication from the Quran or Sunna of either. The most relevant to us is he had ascended and he will come back to establish the kingdom of heaven.
According to a lot of prophecies observers we are at the end of time before his second coming. One of these signs is a guy like me write to himself in a closed confinement and people from around the world waiting every thing he write. Of course the tyrants of the world wish we are not in the end of time and they will continue to enjoy their evil. Time out, we are in the end of time. Since the meek will inherit the earth the time of tyrants will be soon over.
Some Christians think that they will ascend in the rupture to meet Jesus in the air. Muslims believe no one is going up we all will go through the tribulation and he will descend between us. when he comes down he will establish the kingdom of God. He will live and die like other prophets and like us and even will have a family. Thus in his death which have not happened in the first coming in Quran mentioned as wafa or taking back and not real death unlike the verse mote above which indicate the real death after his second coming.
Thus some of the Christians will witness his death and all of Christians in the day of judgement he will be witness on them, that he never said he is God or he should be worshiped. See these verses describe this scene in the day of judgement:
وَإِذْ قَالَ اللّهُ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَأَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَـهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ إِن كُنتُ قُلْتُهُ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِي وَلاَ أَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ عَلاَّمُ الْغُيُوبِ (5:116)
5:116 (Picktall) And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden. -
مَا قُلْتُ لَهُمْ إِلاَّ مَا أَمَرْتَنِي بِهِ أَنِ اعْبُدُواْ اللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ وَكُنتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَّا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنتَ أَنتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنتَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ (5:117)
5:117 (Picktall) I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying) : Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me (in the first coming) Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness over all things. -
إِن تُعَذِّبْهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ عِبَادُكَ وَإِن تَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ فَإِنَّكَ أَنتَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ (5:118)
5:118 (Picktall) If Thou punish them, lo! they are Thy slaves, and if Thou forgive them (lo! they are Thy slaves). Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Mighty, the Wise. -
قَالَ اللّهُ هَذَا يَوْمُ يَنفَعُ الصَّادِقِينَ صِدْقُهُمْ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٌ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا رَّضِيَ اللّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُواْ عَنْهُ ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ (5:119)
5:119 (Picktall) Allah saith: This is a day in which their truthfulness profiteth the truthful, for theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they are secure for ever, Allah taking pleasure in them and they in Him. That is the great triumph.
وَإِن مِّنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلاَّ لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا (4:159)
4:159 (Picktall) There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of resurrection he will be a witness against them
According to this verse of the Quran Jesus will be coming back and in his second coming some of the Christians will witness his second coming. Muslims believe as God told us in the Quran is that Jesus did not die on the cross like some of the Jews conspired to do that but raised him to himself. We do not know if this aescent was with both the spirit and body or only the spirit to know that we have to have revelation. To my knowledge there is no indication from the Quran or Sunna of either. The most relevant to us is he had ascended and he will come back to establish the kingdom of heaven.
According to a lot of prophecies observers we are at the end of time before his second coming. One of these signs is a guy like me write to himself in a closed confinement and people from around the world waiting every thing he write. Of course the tyrants of the world wish we are not in the end of time and they will continue to enjoy their evil. Time out, we are in the end of time. Since the meek will inherit the earth the time of tyrants will be soon over.
Some Christians think that they will ascend in the rupture to meet Jesus in the air. Muslims believe no one is going up we all will go through the tribulation and he will descend between us. when he comes down he will establish the kingdom of God. He will live and die like other prophets and like us and even will have a family. Thus in his death which have not happened in the first coming in Quran mentioned as wafa or taking back and not real death unlike the verse mote above which indicate the real death after his second coming.
Thus some of the Christians will witness his death and all of Christians in the day of judgement he will be witness on them, that he never said he is God or he should be worshiped. See these verses describe this scene in the day of judgement:
وَإِذْ قَالَ اللّهُ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَأَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَـهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِي أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِي بِحَقٍّ إِن كُنتُ قُلْتُهُ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِي وَلاَ أَعْلَمُ مَا فِي نَفْسِكَ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ عَلاَّمُ الْغُيُوبِ (5:116)
5:116 (Picktall) And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Knower of Things Hidden. -
مَا قُلْتُ لَهُمْ إِلاَّ مَا أَمَرْتَنِي بِهِ أَنِ اعْبُدُواْ اللّهَ رَبِّي وَرَبَّكُمْ وَكُنتُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا مَّا دُمْتُ فِيهِمْ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّيْتَنِي كُنتَ أَنتَ الرَّقِيبَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَنتَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ (5:117)
5:117 (Picktall) I spake unto them only that which Thou commandedst me, (saying) : Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I was a witness of them while I dwelt among them, and when Thou tookest me (in the first coming) Thou wast the Watcher over them. Thou art Witness over all things. -
إِن تُعَذِّبْهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ عِبَادُكَ وَإِن تَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ فَإِنَّكَ أَنتَ الْعَزِيزُ الْحَكِيمُ (5:118)
5:118 (Picktall) If Thou punish them, lo! they are Thy slaves, and if Thou forgive them (lo! they are Thy slaves). Lo! Thou, only Thou art the Mighty, the Wise. -
قَالَ اللّهُ هَذَا يَوْمُ يَنفَعُ الصَّادِقِينَ صِدْقُهُمْ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٌ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا رَّضِيَ اللّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُواْ عَنْهُ ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ (5:119)
5:119 (Picktall) Allah saith: This is a day in which their truthfulness profiteth the truthful, for theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they are secure for ever, Allah taking pleasure in them and they in Him. That is the great triumph.
If you notice it is a win/win for Christians to those who did not know or were mislead there is forgiveness when they were sincere but wrongly took him as a God. For those who are well informed by Muslims he is a prophet and not God or son of God and they followed him in this way. Thus the most important is sincerity to find out and sincerity to follow. To know the tuth and you deny it is very worng in the eyes of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
