RUTHFULLY YOURS

Power politics is not about the good, the bad and the ugly. It is about hawks, doves, and ostriches. Hawks and doves can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances. Ostriches are always ugly.

Hawks are assertive and even aggressive, while doves are responsive and even submissive, but the ostriches always stick their heads in the sand. Ostriches ignore real conditions on the ground, and they dig in. They wave their tails in the air, hoping they will not get bitten in the rear.

In the Mideast, where the sand is hot, getting one’s head stuck in the sand is not an optimal strategic position, but sometimes it’s a great pose.

High-level poseurs, like European Union (EU) representatives, like group pictures with world leaders. Their book of achievements is never more than a picture portfolio. “We call on all sides to show restraint,” is the caption on the photo of the ostrich at the White House , the EU or the State Department preaching to the rapists and those they raped, telling Iranian protesters not to offend the ayatollahs, urging Egyptians not to insult Muslim Brothers, and bloodied Syrians not to be mean to Uncle Bashar.

If you want to see humans imitating an ostrich look at Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or EU officials repeatedly ignoring realities in Syria, Libya, Iran, and Egypt and concentrating their attention on that great Middle Eastern mirage known as the “Israeli-Palestinian peace process.”

This week, the EU declared guidelines for its 28 member states banning any funding, cooperation, or awards to Jews in the West Bank and “East Jerusalem.” The EU feels that this helps peace or at least shows it loves peace as much as John Kerry, who has been jetting around the Mideast to advance the “Israeli-Palestinian peace process.”

How many Americans remember learning about the Boston Massacre when they were school children? I wonder, does anyone truly understand why we are required to learn about incidents like this in our school’s curriculum? In the aftermath of the Boston Massacre, John Adams agreed to represent the British soldiers who were forced to defend themselves against an unruly mob. This was not a popular position to take; yet John Adams was not one who would concern himself with such things. He took on the challenge because of his understanding of and respect for the law.

Below, is an excerpt from John Adams’ speech at the Boston Massacre Trial.

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defence; if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind; this was a provocation, for which the law reduces the offence of killing, down to manslaughter, in consideration of those passions in our nature, which cannot be eradicated.”

As explained in John Adams and the Massachusetts Constitution ,

Adams contended,

Because the evidence was unclear as to which soldiers had fired, it was better for the jury to acquit all eight defendants than mistakenly to convict one innocent man. “The reason is, because it’s of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished.” He believed that the soldiers had a right to a fair trial.

John Adams won the acquittal of six British soldiers and two defendants received convictions for the lesser charge of manslaughter, for their role in the deaths of five colonists.

EU, the European Union, same folks that brought us Hitler, this week boycotted and sanctioned the Jewish State back to Auschwitz borders. So, ever so humbly, this column needs to be recycled: J.E.

Frankly, given a choice, I prefer the skinheads and other brutes who express their anti-Semitism openly. In such places, we know the enemy.

But please spare me the pieties and the righteous indignation of those “good people” protesting throughout Europe
You called it “peace” as long as the Arabs were doing the killing and the Jews were doing the dying.
against Israel’s defensive operation in Gaza. True, thousands have taken up banners in support of Israel and Jews all over the world are expressing support. At the same time, however, the streets of Europe (and even some in America) are in an uproar. These are the “humanitarians” – the good, the noble, the refined, who chant “peace.”

Now you’re up and about? Now you speak? Where were you when, throughout the years, thousands of jihadist bombs fell on Israel? The streets of Europe were empty. There were no pictures in the newspapers of grieving Jewish mothers and fathers, of frightened old people and children. You called it “peace” as long as the Arabs were doing the killing and the Jews were doing the dying. All was well with the world.

Suddenly, as Israel answers back, you found your Cause; and how self-righteous you are in your Cause.

You are the best and the brightest of Europe. You are educated. You attended the finest schools. You care for the birds, the bees, the bears, the trees. You favor free speech and freedom of religion. Strange it is that the one and only place in the Middle East that shares your world-view is Israel, and it is Israel that you slander.

Israel is a Jewish State. Is that your problem? At the first hint of Jewish self-defense, how quickly you show your true colors.

I’ve seen the photos of your candlelight vigils along the streets and boulevards of Europe, all of it; all these tears in the service of those terrorists whom you call your brothers. Indeed you are related to Hamas (and Fatah) as once before, a mere generation ago, you were related to Hitler’s stormtroopers. Your angelic faces are touching – and disgusting. Your hypocrisy is transparent and nauseating.

You speak of disproportion. You want proportion? Give Israel a population of 300 million residing in 22 countries, similar to the Arab Muslims who surround and ambush Israel – instead of six million Jews in one single country. There’s plenty of “proportion” coming from your BBC, which delights in presenting one side of the story and picks up where Der Sturmer left off. Now, with this type of “news”, we know how Europe was conditioned for a Holocaust.

Already we see Nights of Broken Glass. Thank you, Europe, for reminding us why America was discovered just in time (and why Israel was redeemed many generations too late). You dare judge Israel? In your deportations, your expulsions, your forced conversions, your inquisitions, your pogroms, you have no moral authority over Israel or even within your own borders. You gave all that up from 1492 to 1942.

To those on the Left who sought peace, well, dear peace-lovers, peace brought this on. “Land for Peace” made this happen, as Land for Peace became Land for Jihad. “Painful Concessions” caused this war. “Goodwill Gestures”
You have no moral authority over Israel or even within your own borders.
backfired. Want more “peace”? Give up the Golan Heights. Give up the entire “West Bank”. Give up Jerusalem. Imagine the “peace.”

One aspect of American foreign policy that remains a mystery in London is Washington’s manifest desire for Britain to play a leading part in maintaining and strengthening the EU. Every U.S. President since Eisenhower has taken the view that a British withdrawal from the EU would be a disaster for the West, but none has given a detailed explanation of why. The time has come for Washington to make its position clearer, as Britain will soon hold a referendum on whether to continue its membership in the EU. Current indications suggest that a “No” vote will carry—and by a large margin.

The British public, as opposed to the political and financial establishments, has never been keen on the European experiment. And now that financial opinion has turned against it—a result of consistent attempts by the Brussels bureaucracy to marginalize the City of London through hostile regulations—there’s no force left to push for the country’s remaining in it.

There is also the lamentable and continuing spectacle of European leaders failing to agree upon a response to the global economic downturn, which has been particularly severe in Europe. If the EU was designed for any specific purpose, it was to meet such a crisis and solve it—or, at the least, mitigate it.

The consensus is that the EU leadership’s countless meetings on the issue have actually made matters worse. This is partly because of the characters of those involved. The French president, Francois Hollande, and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, don’t get along. Hollande is overwhelmed by his own internal problems, particularly the evidence of corruption and rule-breaking by members of his government. Merkel is disgusted by the way Hollande runs his affairs and can barely hold her temper when they meet. Hollande’s failure has stiffened Merkel’s resolve to stick to her formula of spending cuts and austerity, which, she insists, is the only way to eliminate the EU’s enormous deficits.

Poland is the latest country to ban kosher slaughter on the spurious grounds of humane treatment of animals. Last Friday, the Polish parliament rejected legislation from the Polish government that would have permitted kosher slaughter. New regulations from the European Community requiring animals to be stunned electronically before slaughter made it necessary for national governments to create an exception for religious practice. To its disgrace, Polish legislators refused to do so. This elicited condemnation by Jewish organizations and protests from the Israeli government.

No English-language media–and none of Jewish blogs–reported that the Polish Catholic Church defended the right of Jews to practice kosher slaughter — as did the Dutch Catholic Church when the same issue came up last year in the Netherlands. A friend in Poland sent me the statement of Bishop Mieczyslaw Cislo, President of the Polish Episcopate’ Committee for Dialogue with Judaism, defending the Jewish position: “Ritual slaughter in accordance with centuries-old religious Jewish tradition does not have to be in conflict with the principle of humane treatment of animals. […] In case of conflict between modern sensibility to the rights of animals to be treated with dignity and the right to freedom of religion, you have to opt for the priority right to religious freedom because of its fundamental character.”

The Catholic Church as well as the Polish government are defending Jewish religious freedom. The persecutors of Jewish religious practice are the Polish left-wing parties. Commentary’s blog got that part of the story right:

The two main Polish political parties that opposed the government bill are not, as might reasonably be expected, populated by snarling right-wing skinheads. One of them, the Democratic Left Party, or SLD, was co-founded by Alexander Kwasniewski, who served as Poland’s president from 1995-2005. Throughout his time in office, Kwasniewski was feted by Jewish groups, particularly in the United States, for his strong stand against anti-Semitism; after leaving office, he was one of the backers of the European Council for Tolerance and Reconciliation, an organization that is unlikely to share the SLD’s revulsion for shechita.

Midfield Virtuoso Finds His Perfect Pitch
Never, in two centuries of either classical music or organized sport, had a major player crossed from one to the other and back—until Israeli soccer player Elisha Abas returned to the piano.

Another day has gone by and the island of Cyprus is no closer to reunion. The north was invaded by the Turkish army 39 years ago, driving out 200,000 Greeks and perpetuating an illegal occupation that somehow escapes the world’s attention. Greek Cyprus this year was hit by a second disaster, a Euro bank raid that drained the life savings of ordinary citizens and precipitated economic depression. The Pharos chamber music festival I am here to attend is going ahead only because the artists are playing for free and a Russian bank is paying the rent.

On a forlorn street that hugs the frontline, a former shoe factory has been privately converted into a recital space. Inside, the audience sits in a semi-circle, arena fashion, around and above the performers. The place is packed tonight, with extra chairs dragged in from other venues and more than a hundred ticketless customers turned away at the door. It’s a big night in Nicosia, the debut of a much discussed pianist with a peculiar pedigree.

Elisha Abas, 41, is a descendant of Alexander Scriabin, the mystic Russian composer who believed he was the Messiah and died of a mystery bug in 1915, leaving behind five symphonies and a never-ending drama. Scriabin’s eldest daughter Ariadna moved to France, converted to Judaism, fought for the resistance in an armée Juive against the Nazis and was shot dead in an ambush in 1944; she was Elisha’s maternal great-grandmother. Her brother, Julian, a boy composer, drowned at the age of 11. A cousin, Vyacheslav Scriabin, changed his surname to Molotov and became Stalin’s trusted hatchet-man. Not many musicians have a composer, a war heroine and a mass murderer in their bloodline. In an age obsessed with celebrity, Elisha Abas has enough snaps in his family scrapbooks to keep him perpetually in headlines.

The family history pales, however, beside his personal story. As a child of four, Elisha was told he had a unique talent. Leonard Bernstein embraced him, Isaac Stern invited him to New York, Arthur Rubinstein predicted a glittering future. Elisha’s father, Shlomo, gave up his job in Jerusalem to move the family to Hod Hasharon, close to the exacting teacher Pnina Salzman. For ten years, Shlomo took Elisha to lessons, while developing a second life of his own as Israel’s best-selling children’s writer.

Guess who graduated first in this year’s medical school class at the Technion, Israel’s version of M.I.T.? The answer will surprise you. It’s a 27-year-old stereotype-buster: a charming, feminist, smart, open-minded and observant Islamic woman named Mais Ali-Saleh who grew up in a small village outside of Nazareth, in Israel’s Galilee.

Ali-Selah’s academic excellence not only marks her own personal achievement but also proves that contrary to propaganda spouted by proponents of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) Movement — whose latest convert is Stephen Hawking — an academic boycott of Israel is the wrong approach to solving the Israel-Arab conflict. Moreover, it ultimately hurts the very people it claims to help. Ali-Selah put it best when she said, “An academic boycott of Israel is a passive move, and it doesn’t achieve any of its purported objectives.”

After Ali-Selah’s first class at the Technion, in Haifa, northern Israel, she was ready to call it quits. Ali-Selah had studied Hebrew from elementary school through high school but in the predominantly Arab area around Nazareth, she rarely used Hebrew and her vocabulary was limited. During Ali-Selah’s first Chemistry lecture, she couldn’t understand why her professor kept talking about malls. What did shopping malls have to do with Chemistry? She then realized the professor was speaking about moles, a standard scientific unit for measuring quantities of minute entities.

It did not take long for her to break through her limited language skills and rise to the top of her class. In fact, in 2011, she was one of eight students from around Israel who were presented with academic awards of excellence at the Knesset, Israel’s Senate.

We’re starting to understand why Lois Lerner took the Fifth about her role in the IRS targeting of conservative groups. The testimony of at least three more employees in the IRS Washington office is now making clear that Ms. Lerner and other Washington IRS officials had a direct hand in slow rolling the tax-exempt applications of conservative groups in an election season.

The House Oversight Committee holds another hearing Thursday that will showcase some of these witnesses. According to Washington IRS tax law specialist Carter Hull, his supervisor Ronald Shoemaker and Manager of Exempt Organizations Technical Michael Seto, tea party applications were intentionally singled out for extra layers of review and put through an unusual process.

Mr. Hull told House investigators that normally his judgment about applications would have been enough to approve or deny their tax-exempt status. Instead of sending those applications through the normal channel, however, conservative applications were sent through Ms. Lerner’s office for review, and also directed to the IRS chief counsel. That process was highly unusual and created a vetting system in which applications were interminably delayed.

According to Mr. Hull, starting in April 2010, he was told by a supervisor to give extra attention to some tea party applications as a trial run for how the agency might handle such cases going forward. As part of that process, he was instructed to send the applications through Ms. Lerner’s office and the office of IRS Chief Counsel William Wilkins for additional scrutiny.

Once he delivered them, however, the process stalled and the applications mouldered until August 2011, when Mr. Hull met with Mr. Wilkins’s staff and Ms. Lerner’s senior adviser to discuss the applications. Mr. Hull was told the applications had been on the shelf too long and needed updating. “I was taken aback,” Mr. Hull said of the request, which added even more time to the already delayed applications. “I hadn’t had the case for a while. I couldn’t ask if I didn’t have the case.”

Enlarge Image

In the West, expressions such as “racist,” or in Muslim countries “apostate,” are intended to silence citizens and keep them muzzled. In Muslim countries, the objective is to keep people under the control of Islamic law through government enforcement. In America, a whole new generation would rather defend terrorists and criminals than be called “racists.”

Having spent most of my life in the Middle East, I am sensitive to recognizing artificially-induced, exhibitionistic, whipped-up outrage — “shaming fits” — forced upon ordinary people by “the system.”

“Shaming,” as in, “Have you no shame?” and frequently mentioned in communications among Muslims, is not looked down on, but lifted up as, for example, a fine way of raising children. It is a point of pride to promote a hatred that has been officially designated by officials or the society. Children are “shamed,” for example, if they want to befriend Christians or Jews – it would be, in America, something like having your child say he wants to befriend people in some horrendous cult. The Arabic words muayra or khajal come close – but the phenomenon is not really about words; it is about a huge, entire force in a culture.

Every society creates its own taboos: sacred cows in the form of politically correct expressions pressed upon people to encourage them to shrink and cringe whenever certain words are mentioned, and to render whatever or whomever is pointed out as disgusting as an example of what could happen to anyone who dares to “cross the line” of what is considered “correct” in each country In the West, expressions such as “racist,” or in the Muslim world expressions such as “apostate” can do the trick: these words are intended to silence citizens, keep them muzzled, and keep them beaten down.

The Muslim world is at the top of the list of cultures that have perfected the art of using this cultural tool in the Middle East, and apparently elsewhere, to stop people from thinking so they will not be able to evolve beyond the officially-provided baggage of group-think.

A “blacklist” of writers and analysts who are never to be invited on a television or radio talk show is circulated. The “fachosphère” cover of Le Nouvel Observateur looked like a poster of photos of wanted criminals. Those on the cover were not only all those who still dare to criticize Islam, of course, but also this who dare to support Israel, those who turn a critical eye on the Obama presidency and those who cast doubt on the viability of the euro.

As expected, the Paris Court of Appeals declared Philippe Karsenty guilty of defamation against journalist Charles Enderlin and public television station France 2. The evidence accumulated by experts and specialists, showing that the al Dura video report was a hoax and that the young Mohamed al Dura had not been killed by Israeli soldiers and, in fact, had not be killed at all, were totally ignored.

The Israeli government report explaining the same thing — and adding that the al Dura video report was an anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic blood libel — was also completely ignored.

If justice in France were independent from the government, another result could have been possible; but justice in France is strictly dependent on the government, and when an “official truth” has been set, judges do what they are asked to do.