Bennett Appoints Settler Extremist Rabbi as Chief of “Jewish Identity Administration”

rabbi ronitsky's racist sayings

Rabbi Ronitsky’s “greatest hits” of hatemongering

New political powerhouse, Religious Affairs Minister Naftali Bennett, a “moderate” settler leader, has appointed former IDF Chief Rabbi Avichai Ronsky to be chief of a little outfit he’s calling the Jewish Identity Administration. Currently, the rabbi is rosh yeshiva in the Itamar settlement.  It is one of the most virulent and violent of all the settlements in promoting  mayhem against Palestinians.  A number of local villagers have been murdered by Itamar residents.  So much so that it was the target of a heinous terror attack a year ago in which the Fogel family was murdered.

Though Bennett’s goal is to strengthen Jewish identity, I can’t help thinking it’s an Israeli political-religious correctness regime. Ostensibly, the minister says the new body’s goal is to model and promote Jewish values.  But I can’t help thinking of previous regimes in world history who promoted their own vision of national purity.

I believe strongly in Jewish values. They are what led me to create this blog. My Jewish values are compassion for the sick and downtrodden; justice for the weak and oppressed; making the world a better place. And not just for Jews, but for everyone. Including Israel’s ostensible enemies, the Arabs. Naftali Bennett’s version of Jewish values is something altogether different. This Jewish Identity Administration isn’t that far removed from the vision of racial purity offered by both the Nazis and Meir Kahane.

Here are a few of the “greatest hits” that Amir Schiby has dug up from the sainted rabbi’s “vaults” which he features under the heading “Jewish Strength:”

“I hate the State of Tel Aviv.”

“Rabbi Ronitsky: Collective punishment against residents of Awarta in revenge for Itamar terror attack”

Former IDF Chief Rabbi: Fire on terror suspects in their beds.”

“IDF military rabbinate against the homo-lesbo community”

These are Naftali Bennet’s “Jewish values.”  Not mine.  These are values of hate and racism.  These are values of racial supremacy and purity.

It appears Ronsky bestows his blessings and beatings liberally on his own ideological camp as well.  When a young man whom the Shabak had forbidden from entering the West Bank under administrative order told Ronsky he would disrupt a memorial service for the Fogel family murdered at Itamar because an IDF commander would be speaking, Ronsky threatened that he would have the boy’s “arms and legs broken” if he showed up.

This is definitely the sort of saintly figure I want teaching Jews how to be better Jews.

Rebels without a pause

I just wrote something for the NYTimes' Latitude blog about the Tamarrud ("Rebel") campaign -- a petition calling for early presidential elections, which according to the youth groups behind it has gained 3 million signatures.

In my piece I noted that the petition has no legal power to end Morsi's term. I consider it part of the ongoing tug of war between revolutionary and conventional politics, and evidence of how dissatisfying and alienating the political process of the last 2 years as been for so many. I did note how extraordinary it is that "Egyptians today can organize a street campaign to dismiss the president — a president they freely elected last year."

I may have spoken too soon, however. This morning there are reports that Rebel campaigners were shot at in Beni Suef (several others have already been detained and attacked) and that Morsi's prosecutor general has opened an investigation into whether the organizers are  "inciting and mobilising people to overthrow an elected government, inciting hatred against the regime, and promoting a group suspected of violating the law." 

האור שלעולם איננו כבה

אחרי שתוכנית ויסקונסין הצליחה לשלול קצבאות מנשים וגברים שעברו מדורי גיהנום בלי להבין למה ולהעביר הון עתק לחברות פרטיות, פקידי האוצר מבקשים להחזיר אותה. קוראים בין שורות התקציב - פרויקט בהמשכים

להכיר את התרבות המזרחית מקרוב

שבוע שלם של תרבות מזרחית חיה, נושמת ובועטת. התרבות שלנו, מהבית ומהנשמה. כרמן אלמקייס מזמינה אתכם/ן לפסטיבל "לבי במזרח” השבוע

אשדוד על הכוונת של בנט

ועכשיו טוענים ניאו-ליברלים אשכנזים בישראל שמי שמעלה את יוקר המחייה בישראל זוהי העבודה המאורגנת

The Egyptian Blue Lotus

Few names are more revered in the early history of botany than Linnaeus, whose taxonomic system systematized the effective ordering of plants and animals according to sexual reproduction. Although he himself did not doubt that certain genera were created by the God of Genesis, his system could easily be adapted after Darwin introduced a mechanism that challenged the previous dogma of “fixity of species” since Eden. There were numerous artists who contributed to drawing the vast amount of new plants and animals that Linnaeus began to classify. One of my favorite works is by the physician Robert John Thornton, a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who in 1807 published his New Illustration of the Sexual System of Carolus von Linnaeus.


Robert John Thornton

Thanks to archive.org, this beautiful volume can be read online. This is a delightful read, when it is not possible to visit a real garden. The volume is dedicated to the British queen, and begins with the following metaphor:

In Eastern Language high and mighty Potentates are compared to lofty Trees which afford Food and Shade to the sun-burnt Traveller. In the more temperate Regions of the Earth, Kings and Princes are contemplated as the Sun, which sheds his benign Radiance everywhere, inspiring each Object with new Life and Refreshment: by the Concurrence, therefore, of all Nations, the great Attribute of Sovereignty is Protection-, from conferring of which by Your Most Gracious Majesty, the Science of Botany in Great Britain chiefly owes its present Advancement…

The text consists of charts explaining botanical terms and a series of illustrations and basic descriptions of flowers. I present here the pages dealing with the blue Egyptian water-lily (Nymphaea coreulia), with the exquisite image of the plant.

(more…)

Middle Eastern Telecom Accused of Working With Saudi Arabia to Spy on Citizens

Our occasional contributor Paul Mutter has a piece on the Mobily hacking scandal with tons of links and analysis over at Tech President. We rarely get so much detail about Middle Eastern net censorship.

Permalink

What Would Real Diplomacy in Syria Look Like?

photo: CNN

photo: CNN

Secretary of State Kerry is off to the Middle East, among other things to press for peace talks to stem the tragic bloodshed in Syria. There’s a refreshing thought: up until now we’ve been hearing that the US’s dilemma is essentially a choice between military intervention or inaction. In this day and age, actual diplomacy too often feels like a quaint endangered species.

I’m certainly mindful that US “peace deals” often have more to do with US interests than real and lasting peace – and I fully agree with journalist Shamus Cooke when he writes:

It’s possible that Obama wants to avoid further humiliation in his Syria meddling by a last minute face-saving “peace” deal. It’s equally likely, however, that these peace talks are a clever diplomatic ruse, with war being the real intention. It’s not uncommon for peace talks to break down and be used as a justification for an intensification of war, since “peace was attempted but failed.”

At the same time, however, diplomacy may well be our best option to stem the horrid violence which just seems to spiral and escalate without end. As Iran expert Trita Parsi, recently wrote in Open Zion:

A peaceful and sustainable resolution to the Syrian crisis is not within reach in the short-term. But a significant reduction in the violence and bloodshed can be achieved because the appetite for diplomacy is stronger now than at anytime in the past two years. The peace summit prepared by the U.S. and Russia can achieve this if they bring all the parties to the table.

Some more wise words on the importance of real diplomatic intervention in Syria. First, from Ron Young of the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East:

To have a realistic chance of success, such an international intervention would have to involve Russia — and Iran and China — as well as countries supporting the rebels. Twin goals of the intervention would be to halt the violence and achieve agreement on a political transition involving the rebels and elements of the current regime that would provide assurances for all of Syria’s diverse internal communities and for interests of the major outside parties. The current U.S. diplomatic initiative with Russia is worthy of public support, and should be pursued with creativity and determination.

And finally, Rich Rubenstein (Professor of Conflict Resolution at George Mason University) writes:

Clearly, any dialogue between the warring parties in Syria is better than continuing to destroy and dismember that nation. Talk, by all means! But the most promising process would involve talks presided over by a team of independent facilitators accepted by both the regime and its opponents – confidential dialogues that would help them explore the systemic causes of the war and fashion a plan for a new Syria. The Americans, Europeans, and neighboring states should agree to stay out of the way while the talks continue and to stand ready to guarantee any agreement reached by the parties.


Tags:

מתבוננת באנשי תפר, כמוני, משרטטת את סיפוריהם בשירי

בחזרה הביתה, לשכונת התקווה, קהיר מהדהדת לי בכל מקום. אום כלת'ום בדוכנים, הפנים נדמים אותם פנים, ורק השפה, הערבית – סמויה מן העין, שפת הלב. לקראת המופע "שכונת התקווה, קהיר" בפסטיבל "לבי במזרח"

רוח גבית להנהגה מזרחית

רון חולדאי הוא נציג ברית של תושבים מבוססים, אשכנזים ברובם, ושל בעלי ההון. ניצן הורוביץ אינו קורא תיגר על ברית זו. לכן על פעילי שמאל רדיקלי להילחם בכל הכוח על הצבת מועמד/ת משכונות הדרום בבחירות לראשות העיר

Top 10 warning signs of ‘liberal imperialism’

Are you a liberal imperialist? Liberal imperialists are like kinder, gentler neoconservatives: Like neocons, they believe it's America's responsibility to right political and humanitarian wrongs around the world, and they're comfortable with the idea of the United States deciding who will run countries such as Libya, Syria, or Afghanistan. Unlike neocons, liberal imperialists embrace and support international institutions (like the United Nations), and they are driven more by concern for human rights than they are by blind nationalism or protecting the U.S.-Israel special relationship. Still, like the neocons, liberal imperialists are eager proponents for using American hard power, even in situations where it might easily do more harm than good. The odd-bedfellow combination of their idealism with neocons' ideology has given us a lot of bad foreign policy over the past decade, especially the decisions to intervene militarily in Iraq or nation-build in Afghanistan, and today's drumbeat to do the same in Syria.

It's not that the United States should never intervene in other countries or that its military should not undertake humanitarian missions (as it did in Indonesia following the Asian tsunami and in Haiti after a damaging earthquake). It should do so, however, only when there are vital national interests at stake or when sending U.S. troops or American arms is overwhelmingly likely to make things better. In short, decisions to intervene need to clear a very high bar and survive hardheaded questioning about what the use of force will actually accomplish.

So while I often sympathize with their intentions, I'm tempted to send all liberal imperialists a sampler cross-stitched with: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." At a minimum, that warning might help them be just a bit more skeptical about the wisdom of their advice. But I'm lousy at needlepoint, so instead today I offer my "10 Warning Signs that You Are a Liberal Imperialist."

#1: You frequently find yourself advocating that the United States send troops, drones, weapons, Special Forces, or combat air patrols to some country that you have never visited, whose language(s) you don't speak, and that you never paid much attention to until bad things started happening there.

#2: You tend to argue that the United States is morally obligated to "do something" rather than just stay out of nasty internecine quarrels in faraway lands. In the global classroom that is our digitized current world, you believe that being a bystander -- even thousands of miles away -- is as bad as being the bully. So you hardly ever find yourself saying that "we should sit this one out."

#3: You think globally and speak, um, globally. You are quick to condemn human rights violations by other governments, but American abuses (e.g., torture, rendition, targeted assassinations, Guantánamo, etc.) and those of America's allies get a pass. You worry privately (and correctly) that aiming your critique homeward might get in the way of a future job.

#4: You are a strong proponent of international law, except when it gets in the way of Doing the Right Thing. Then you emphasize its limitations and explain why the United States doesn't need to be bound by it in this case.

#5: You belong to the respectful chorus of those who publicly praise the service of anyone in the U.S. military, but you would probably discourage your own progeny from pursuing a military career.

#6. Even if you don't know very much about military history, logistics, or modern military operations, you are still convinced that military power can achieve complex political objectives at relatively low cost.

#7: To your credit, you have powerful sympathies for anyone opposing a tyrant. Unfortunately, you tend not to ask whether rebels, exiles, and other anti-regime forces are trying to enlist your support by telling you what they think you want to hear. (Two words: Ahmed Chalabi.)

#8. You are convinced that the desire for freedom is hard-wired into human DNA and that Western-style liberal democracy is the only legitimate form of government. Accordingly, you believe that democracy can triumph anywhere -- even in deeply divided societies that have never been democratic before -- if outsiders provide enough help.

#9. You respect the arguments of those who are skeptical about intervening, but you secretly believe that they don't really care about saving human lives.

#10. You believe that if the United States does not try to stop a humanitarian outrage, its credibility as an ally will collapse and its moral authority as a defender of human rights will be tarnished, even if there are no vital strategic interests at stake.

If you are exhibiting some or all of these warning signs, you have two choices. Option #1: You can stick to your guns (literally) and proudly own up to your interventionist proclivities. Option #2: You can admit that you've been swept along by the interventionist tide and seek help. If you choose the latter course, I recommend that you start by reading Alexander Downes and Jonathan Monten's "Forced to Be Free?: Why Foreign-Imposed Regime Change Rarely Leads to Democratization" (International Security, 2013), along with Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan and Peter Van Buren's We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.

And if that doesn't work, maybe we need some sort of 12-step program…

Hezbollah and Bashar: Another Unholy Alliance


Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah; Photograph by Wael Hamzeh/European Pressphoto Agency

My friend Omar Safi has created a provocative blog entitled What Would Muhammad do? Today I would like to ratchet up the commentary game to an approach which may, at first glance, seem sacrilegious. Given that the Lebanese “Party of God” (Hezbollah) is now known to be sending its fighters to support the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asad, it is time to ask “What Would Allah do?” As much as I admire the spiritual sentiment of the crucified mystic al-Hallaj, I am not advocating oneness with the Supreme Being. But if I were to try and imagine what Allah would say about the current trials besetting his umma, I think I might begin by insisting that those who spread messages of hate and turn jihad into an excuse for political gain stop using my name. The Shi’a at least had the common decency to call themselves shi’at Ali, rather than presume from the start that they exclusively spoke for me. If these partisans of the hundreds of sects that have evolved since the Prophet Muhammad received the Quran want to hear me, they should stop selecting isolated verses from my message for their own agendas. Submission to Allah is the message of Islam, not submission to any party claiming to be Allah’s party.

Muslims should remember the history not only of their faith, but also the religions founded by other of my prophets. Jews and Christians are not infidels; their lives are as precious to Allah as those of Muslims. Muhammad was sent as the “seal” of the prophets, not to brag that he was superior to my other prophets. Each prophet was sent for a specific purpose, to guide people at different times in history. Muhammad received the Quran not so everyone after that could stop time and live as though it was still 7th century Mecca and Medina. Look at his life and you will see that he was a mediator, who preached salam and knew full well that the greater jihad took place within the individual. Jews and Christians heard from their prophets that humans are not divine, not perfect, and easily seduced to go astray. But Moses gave commandments to run society, Jesus showed the power of love to conquer hatred and Muhammad was a living example of how to live, but not an icon to follow blindly because of the recorded faulty memories of his companions. (more…)

Tags:

קיום בכבוד לסוסיא הפלסטינית

הכפר הפלסטיני סוסיא עומד להיהרס בפעם החמישית, ולעבור גירוש משמעותי שלישי. כל זאת כי איתרע מזלו להתקיים על שטח שהוכרז אתר ארכיאולוגי ולאחר מכן על חלקות חקלאיות שהצבא לא מאשר בהן בנייה

התוכנית הכלכלית: חיבור פוסט-אמוראי

התוכנית הכלכלית מנותקת מהמציאות בשטח, מבוססת על אקסיומות שנס ליחן וא-פוליטית לחלוטין. נעמה נגר עם מילון מונחים קצר (כולל מספרים טיפולוגיים והפתעות בנספחים). קוראים בין שורות התקציב - פרויקט בהמשכים

Qatar and Syria

From an FT editorial:

However, the Qataris’ intervention in Syria, while boosting the revolt against Assad, has also created confusion. The Saudis support the handful of secular rebel factions and Salafi groups fighting the Syrian regime. The Qataris, by contrast, are less discriminating over who they support, and work through the Muslim Brotherhood, which is anathema to Riyadh. As a result the Qataris and Saudis last year created separate and competing military alliances, a rivalry that has undermined the rebellion against Assad – and may have led to weapons ending up in the hands of jihadi militants.

 

Permalink