RUTHFULLY YOURS

“Islam in Global Politics.” How one addresses this issue depends not just on the meaning of those four words —— “Islam,” “Global” “politics,” and also “in” —— both individually and together. It also depends on how you see and approach the question that they together pose. On the attitude or approach that you adopt. Is it one of:

Islam and Muslims asserting themselves in, imposing themselves and their agenda upon, global politics? or of
Islam and Muslims within, and finding their world-historical place within, and engaging with —— respectfully engaging with —— diverse, plural and (in significant measure non-Muslim) global humankind: in and as part of a sincere effort by all to find, negotiate, establish a way, or ways, of “sharing the world”? Decently and constructively sharing the world?

These are two radically, different and contrasting attitudes and approaches.

One is egotistic, immature, narcissistic (akin to an infantile “Me! Me! Me!” tantrum); it rests upon a childish notion that sees only oneself as real, and others as merely the sociocultural backdrop, the historical context, of one’s own needs, agenda and “narrative”;

The other, alone, is mature, humane, constructive, exceeds the bounds and framework of infantile wish-fulfillment drives.

To be specific. “Islam in Global Politics”: there is today no more high-profile and urgent instance than “The Jerusalem Question.”

There are two parts to this problem —— and they are not the same. They are related, but not one and the same thing. Both must be understood, and they must both be resolved.

Poland’s parliament passed a libel bill Thursday imposing jail sentences for accusing the Polish population of collaborating in the Holocaust or other war crimes, sparking concerns from Israel and the U.S. that a close ally was limiting free expression and flirting with anti-Semitism.

American and Israeli diplomats condemned the legislation, passed by the upper house of the country’s legislature, which would set up to three years’ imprisonment for blaming the wartime murder of roughly six million Jews on the Polish state or people.

The vote comes against a wider backdrop of rising nationalism and increasing state control over democratic institutions, including the media and the courts. Critics accused the government of turning a blind eye to a rising tide of xenophobia late last year after a march organized by a movement that seeks an ethnically pure Poland drew some 60,000 people.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called his Polish counterpart earlier this week to lobby against the law, according to Polish media, and Mr. Netanyahu’s government has likened the law to state denial of the Holocaust.

“Israel opposes categorically the Polish Senate decision,” Emmanuel Nahshon, spokesman for Israel’s foreign ministry said in a statement. “Israel views with utmost gravity any attempt to challenge historical truth. No law will change the facts.”

U.S. diplomats said it would impinge on free speech and called for Poland to reconsider the bill: “We all must be careful not to inhibit discussion and commentary on the Holocaust,” a statement from the U.S. State Department said.

The bill, which requires the signature of President Andrzej Duda to become law, touches on a bedrock emotional and historical subject for both Poland and Israel. It doesn’t mention the Holocaust, or World War II. But it criminalizes accusing the Polish state or population for responsibility or complicity in any crime against humanity, at any point in history.

The subtext was widely understood to be the Nazi-led genocide that took place largely on Polish soil in the 1940s. Nearly 90% of Poland’s three million Jews—along with about three million non-Polish Jews and another three million non-Jewish Poles—were killed after Germany’s 1939 invasion of its eastern neighbor.

Poland’s government was in exile or hiding throughout the war. Unlike France, Belgium, or Norway, there was no organized state effort by Polish people to deport Jews. As many as 400,000 Poles fought the Nazi soldiers occupying their country. CONTINUE AT SITE

HONG KONG— Joshua Wong, the university student who became the face of Hong Kong’s democracy movement, has been nominated along with other local activists for the Nobel Peace Prize by a group of U.S. lawmakers, a move that risks a rebuke from China.

The 12 politicians, led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Christopher Smith (R., N.J.), wrote in a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee that the entire pro-democracy movement should receive the honor “in recognition of their peaceful efforts to bring political reform” to Hong Kong, where many have decried Beijing’s increasing control.

The nomination threatens to anger the Chinese government, which has insisted that Hong Kong’s affairs are a domestic matter because the former British colony is a special administrative region of China. The House of Representatives passed a resolution on Nov. 1 urging Beijing to stick to the “one country, two systems” agreement, made before Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule in 1997, that affords the city a high degree of autonomy and its residents greater liberties than those on the mainland.

Sen. Rubio and Rep. Smith are the chair and cochair, respectively, of the bipartisan Congressional-Executive Commission on China.

Mr. Wong and fellow activists Nathan Law and Alex Chow led pro-democracy protests in 2014 that became known as the Umbrella Movement. Tens of thousands of demonstrators, seeking freer elections without Beijing’s interference, blocked highways for three months — but ultimately failed to extract democratic concessions from the Chinese government.

The movement is credited with birthing a new political class in the Asian financial hub, including the political party Demosisto, which Messrs. Wong and Law founded with others.

Their efforts have faced setbacks in recent months.​ Mr. Wong, who is 21 years old, was jailed for his role in the protests—and in a separate case for contempt of court—with the sentence length rendering him ineligible for office for five years. He is appealing both sentences. CONTINUE AT SITE