Tough love for Islam

We’re conditioned to respect all religions. But what happens when we’re confronted with a religion that looks more like a political ideology? When I criticize Islam, I don’t criticize its spiritual beauty; I criticize the fact that in too many places around the world, the religion has morphed into a violent and totalitarian movement.

It’s not a coincidence that, since 9/11, more than 24,000 terrorists acts have been committed under the name of Islam. After the latest murderous attacks in Paris, even a staunch liberal like Bill Maher had the politically incorrect nerve to say what so many of us are afraid to say: “When there’s this many bad apples, there’s something wrong with this orchard.”

What’s wrong with this orchard? Well, for starters, it harbors an extremist and literalist interpretation of Islam that has morally contaminated large segments of the Muslim world.

While practices and beliefs in Islam are hardly monolithic, it’s disheartening to see such widespread support among Muslims for strict religious law (Sharia) as the official law of their countries. According to polling from the Pew Research Center, this support is most prevalent in places like Afghanistan (99%), Iraq (91%), the Palestinian territories (89%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Egypt (74%) and Indonesia (72%).

When you consider that a strict interpretation of Sharia law can often mean cutting off the hands of thieves, lynching gays, stoning adulterous women and the death penalty for apostates, it’s not a pretty picture.

And yet, in much of the West, we act as if Islamic terrorism is simply the result of some “bad apples,” and, well, every religion has its fanatics. This cozy and convenient narrative has run its course. Islamic terrorism is not an isolated phenomenon — it’s a violent outgrowth of a global, triumphalist and totalitarian ideology that is on the march and hiding behind the nobility of religion.

When French President Francois Hollande says, “These terrorists and fanatics have nothing to do with the Islamic religion,” he’s being politically correct, but not accurate. Islamic terrorism has very much to do with the extremist interpretation of classic Islamic texts. Until we acknowledge that inconvenient truth, we have no chance of combating this disease.

Moderate Muslims who “condemn terrorism” and then defend Islam as a “religion of peace” are not taking responsibility for a malignant ideology that must be confronted and rooted out, and not simply denounced.

But how do we do that?

For my money, there’s no better approach than that of Ahmed Vanya, a fellow at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, an American-Muslim organization that openly confronts the ideologies of political Islam.

Vanya loves Islam, but his is a tough love. He doesn’t get defensive about the religion’s failings. He’s not out to defend Islam as much as to modernize it. In his must-read article “Beautifying Islam,” published on the website of the Gatestone Institute, Vanya confronts the monster head-on:

“A religion that prescribes killing or criminalizing apostates; condones institutionalized slavery, stoning, beheading, flogging, and amputations; which restricts and criminalizes freedom of speech and freedom of religion; commands the stoning of adulterers; develops a theory of constant state of war with non-believers; discriminates and demeans women and people of other religions is not only The Religion of the Bigots but The Religion of the Bullies.” 

He is clear-eyed about his own tradition: “Classical Islamic law, developed over the history of Islam, is definitely not peaceful or benign, and therefore not suited for this age; neither are its violent and grotesque progeny, such as Islamism and jihadism.”

But like any good lover, Vanya gives his beloved the benefit of the doubt: “If Islam is a religion that stands for justice and peaceful coexistence, then this policy of jihad cannot be justified as sanctioned by a just and merciful creator.”

To live up to these noble ideals, Vanya calls for a humanistic “reinterpretation” of classic Islamic texts: “If we Muslims want to stand up and challenge the literalism of the text-bound scholars and the militants who are beheading, enslaving and persecuting people around the world alike, we need to develop an interpretative methodology that balances revelation with reason as in other rational, religious traditions.”

In other words, it’s not enough to marginalize violence; we must also marginalize violent teachings. 

“Religious traditions have changed and evolved over time,” Vanya writes. “Therefore it is the duty of us Muslims, using reason and common sense, to reinterpret the scriptures to bring about an Islam that affirms and promotes universally accepted human rights and values. It is our duty to cleanse the traditional, literalist, classical Islam and purify it to make it an Islam that is worthy to be called a beautiful religion.”

When Muslim leaders and preachers start to spread that tough love message throughout the Muslim world, the modernization of Islam will have begun.

David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at

Letters to the editor: J Street students, sharia and inclusion

A Word From J Street Student

As a student leader of J Street U at the Claremont Colleges, I feel obliged to respond to David Suissa’s recent column, “J Street’s Real Failure.” 

I have relatives living in Beersheba and have heard from them firsthand the terror of living under rocket attack from Gaza. Of course, I would never tell them how to vote or what policies to support. But it is no way arrogant to conclude, as most Israeli politicians concluded more than 20 years ago, that the only way to end the conflict is by making peace with the Palestinians based on a two-state solution.

The problem, as Secretary of State John Kerry discovered, is finding leaders on both sides who are willing to look beyond their own short-term political interests and courageous enough to make the compromises necessary for peace.

The status quo feels comfortable enough for now for Israelis, but eventually if the occupation continues, Israel will face a choice of remaining a Jewish homeland or remaining a democracy. Without a two-state solution, it cannot do both. There is also the cost of occupation on the lives of Palestinians, which I care about, in large part, because of the Jewish values on which I was raised.

This may seem “boring” to Suissa, but some ideas are so big and so fundamental that they need to be repeated until they finally sink in. J Street’s mission is to keep that flame alive, even through the periods when the parties seem deadlocked.

J Street and J Street U provide a voice for so many of us who feel let down by the established leaders of our community who offer nothing more than blind support of everything the Israeli government does. There’s nothing boring about this. It’s essential. It offers my generation a way to remain engaged with Israel — and it offers Israel a path to a better future.

Sage Lachman, Pitzer College, J Street U Claremont Colleges president and Southwest regional co-chair

Does Star Power Have Staying Power?

The article is right on (“Denounce Sharia Everywhere,” May 16.). I’m really pleasantly surprised that the Jewish Journal used it, since I’ve found the Jewish Journal to be politically correct and left-leaning. I’ll continue to enjoy some of Hollywood’s product, even though I recognize that the people who produce it are ordinary people with a talent to entertain. The sole ability of many of them is merely to read lines well, with proper direction. When they start believing their own hype about their wisdom, they have gone around the bend. Let us see how long this current protest lasts and if it grows to include all the related issues listed above, or if the Hollywood crowd tires of it and moves on to some new issue.

Jerome Liner via

The Need to Increase Inclusion 

Kudos to Michelle Wolf for exposing this little-known secret that Jews with mental illness, and their family members, overwhelmingly experience shame and isolation within our Jewish community (“Let It go: Removing the Stigma,” May 9). Such stigma is well-documented in the general community, but is more prevalent in our community, despite evidence that mental illness is a brain or chemical disorder and not the individual’s fault. This is a double burden for our Jewish family members who may not easily blend into the mental health rehabilitation services offered in the general population. This is often due to cultural differences, as many with serious psychiatric illness come from much different backgrounds than our Jewish family members and the focus of rehabilitation services is on social integration. Medication has contributed greatly to the reduction in symptoms, but is inadequate without the proper social support. We need to be able to be more inclusive as a community as the key to rehabilitation is medication, family and social support. 

Adrienne Sheff Eisenberg, Tarzana, CA

It’s All Greek to Me

I enjoyed the interview with Matthew Weiner (“Weiner Talks the Societal Reality Mirrored in His ‘Mad Men,’ ” May 16), but writer Jonathan Maseng may want to re-view some “Seinfeld” episodes.

He observes that the “Seinfeld” character George Costanza, “though clearly Jewish in so many ways, was made out to be Greek.” Who knew? The name’s Italian, and George’s father was shown visiting relatives in Italy.

Gene Sculatti, Northridge, CA


A story about the online invitation service Mitzvites (“A New Way to Send Out Invitations,” Mazel Tov Supplement, Spring 2014) provided an incorrect amount that the site charges. It is $249. The story also mischaracterized the relationship Will Bernstein and Jess Wall have with the company ZeroLag. Bernstein has worked there for two years; Wall does not work there but handles the day-to-day operations of Mitzvites.

What the Beverly Hills Hotel boycott says about where we draw our lines in a global economy

If you walk up the red carpet and into the Beverly Hills Hotel on a Friday evening or Saturday morning, at the left side of the lobby, inside the Sunset Room, you’ll find an Orthodox Jewish prayer service.

You’ll see the standard mechitzah dividing male and female worshippers, and you’ll hear tunes that you may never have heard before, music introduced by the congregation’s late cantor, Andre (Tuvia) Winkler. 

Anywhere from 70 to 100 people participate in Shabbat services any given week, almost all residents of the community surrounding the majestic hotel. 

The congregation is led by Rabbi Yossi Cunin, who dresses in the standard black coat, white dress shirt and slacks, but with a sharp-looking bowtie. A Chabad rabbi, Cunin founded the Beverly Hills Jewish Community in 1997 at the Beverly Hills Hotel, a presence that is remarkable not just because it is harbored in a hotel that has made its name by lodging, wining and dining the biggest names in entertainment, business and politics, but also because the owner of the hotel is Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of Brunei and dictator of an oil-rich country approximately the size of Delaware located next to Malaysia and bordering the Indian Ocean. 

The sultan does not recognize Israel, has publicly supported Iran’s nuclear program and has just instituted the harshest aspects of Sharia, Islamic law, in his nation of 400,000, 80 percent of whom are Muslim. 

Nevertheless, for the past 17 years this Jewish congregation has felt very welcome at his hotel. 

But in recent weeks, the Beverly Hills Hotel has been the target of a boycott and public protests over the sultan’s institution, on May 1, of the first of three phases of Sharia law in Brunei, the first one including fines and jail terms for pregnancy outside marriage, for abortions and for failure to attend Friday prayers. 

In just a year from now, crimes committed by Muslims such as theft and alcohol consumption will be punishable by whipping and amputation. And in two years, acts of adultery, homosexuality and heresy against Islam will be punishable by death.

Since May 1, prompted in large part by protests and criticism from numerous celebrities, more than $2 million worth of events have been cancelled at the Beverly Hills Hotel by dozens of groups, from the Motion Picture and Television Fund, which pulled its annual pre-Oscars fundraiser, “Night Before the Oscars,” to Kehillat Israel, a Los Angeles Reconstructionist synagogue, which decided to move a dinner celebration to another venue. 

Protesters picket on May 5 outside the Beverly Hills Hotel — which is owned by the Sultan of Brunei — over Brunei’s strict Sharia law penal code.  Photo by Jonathan Alcorn/ Reuters

For many L.A. celebrities and power players, including many Jews, what was the place to be seen has quickly become the one place you don’t want to be seen.

And yet, the feeling is not unanimous among the Jewish community. And so, on a recent Shabbat, the synagogue’s lay leader addressed the congregation on the issue of its involvement with the Beverly Hills Hotel and the Dorchester Collection, the London-based luxury hotel operator owned by the sultan, which operates both the Beverly Hills Hotel and the nearby Hotel Bel-Air. 

Cunin and the synagogue’s president told the gathering of about 80 people — most middle-aged and older — that the congregation has no plans to switch locations or to join the boycott.

After services — over sushi, vegetables, snacks and drinks — Cunin’s congregants debated and discussed the implications of remaining connected to the hotel. Most seemed comfortable staying put.

In an interview a few days later, Cunin emphasized that he stands 100 percent behind the hotel that has given his synagogue a home. Even when he first started the Beverly Hills Jewish Community, some Jewish groups objected, he said, arguing that he shouldn’t associate a synagogue with a business owned by the head of a government that opposes Israel. 

The sultan’s position on Israel has never been a deal-breaker for Cunin. The rabbi shrugged it off as an inevitable policy of a dictator of a Muslim country that doesn’t even have a military to defend its vast natural resources — what friends in the Muslim world would the sultan have, Cunin asked, if it normalized relations with Israel? 

“When they brought me downstairs and offered me a room in the hotel where we could begin to pray Friday night,” Cunin said, “They didn’t say, ‘Stop, let me ask the sultan if that’s all right to have a Jewish group here.”

Hassanal Bolkiah, the Sultan of Brunei. Photo by Lynn Bobo via Newscom

Cunin described the lengths to which the hotel’s management and staff have gone to welcome and accommodate a house of prayer for the hundreds of Jewish families who live within walking distance — the hotel charges the congregation only $250 per weekend, and even during the Academy Awards, when the hotel’s resources are stretched thin, his congregation is given preference to use the Sunset Room.

“It’s the workers of the hotel that I’m defending, not the policies of Brunei,” Cunin said. “It’s easy to be a good friend when people’s chips are high. But can you stick it through for people who put themselves out for you?”

But, for the rest of us — the individuals, businesses, nonprofits, tourists and residents who use the hotel — this episode offers, in its essence, a case study in both the good and bad of economic globalization. 

These days, it’s more difficult than ever to draw a moral line about what and where we consume, because so many goods we purchase and services we use are partially or wholly owned by people and governments whose values we may not share. From the gasoline we buy, to the phones we use, or the hotels we stay at, there likely are partners — hidden or obvious — who are helping fund governments whose human-rights track records we abhor — including China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Brunei.

Where is our line? Employees such as the ones at the Beverly Hills Hotel, who have been directly impacted by boycotts, have their answer. Activists have another. The synagogue has its own. And Jewish legal experts may have even more. For while the Torah and Jewish law are not silent on the issue of when it is permissible, or obligatory, to boycott a business, the complexity of modern economics can make finding the moral line a tricky business — how much will the employees be harmed? Can a boycott be effective in reaching its goal? Is it OK to deprive a store of business simply out of moral protest, even if without practical results?

Practicalities vs. principles

Anna Romer doesn’t understand why this is happening. For her, the moral protest behind the boycott is endangering her financial security.

Romer is a server at the Beverly Hills Hotel’s famed Polo Lounge, and one day last week she was sitting on a red sofa in the hotel’s posh Bar Nineteen12, so-named for the year this landmark social epicenter opened. She was wearing her standard uniform — a white jacket and shirt with a black tie and black skirt. Her hair is short and her cat’s-eye glasses are rimmed in neon blue.

She said she feels “isolated” and “dismissed,” personally betrayed by her city and the celebrity industry she’s worked so hard to please. Four years of serving lunch to some of Los Angeles’ biggest names in politics, business and entertainment, and this is what she gets? Stars like Jay Leno and Ellen DeGeneres telling everyone to stay away from the hotel until there’s an ownership change?

That Romer even has time for a 15-minute interview right before the Wednesday lunch rush is “unheard of,” she said. A “slow” Wednesday should see 115 reservations. Today, there are 59.

According to Romer and Polo Lounge server Alec Torrance, as well as a number of other employees who agreed to interviews with the Journal, the staff, like the protesters, strongly opposes the sultan’s new laws. What’s on their mind, though, is they feel they are the ones being punished for laws enacted 8,000 miles away.

Hotel server Anna Romer, center, and other Beverly Hills Hotel employees stand to be recognized at a May 6 public hearing during which the Beverly Hills City Council voted on a resolution to pressure the government of Brunei to divest itself of the hotel.  Photo by David McNew/Reuters

The dramatic loss of business caused by the boycott already has led to an alarming reduction in gratuities. And, in their eyes, the effort will have no impact on the sultan; they believe he won’t let Hollywood’s cause-of-the-month force him to sell “one of his trophies,” as Cabana Café server Paul Sturgulewski characterized the hotel.

Hotel spokeswoman Leslie Lefkowitz wrote as much in an email to the Journal, saying that it is “highly unlikely” that this boycott will force a sale.

Nevertheless, activist groups such as the Feminist Majority Foundation — which helped make this a cause célèbre with prominent assistance from Leno and his wife, Mavis, a board member — protesting the business enterprise of a ruler who would criminalize abortions and stone those who engage in homosexuality is of utmost importance.

We are all sultans now

Everyone knows that very few of the goods and services we enjoy in today’s marketplace are truly “made in America.” Everything comes from everywhere, meaning that tens of millions of Americans every day are helping line the pockets of people and governments whose values differ from ours.

Ever tweeted? In 2011, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal invested $300 million in Twitter via the Kingdom Holding Co., the sovereign wealth fund of the Saudi Arabian government, which beheads and stones citizens who commit adultery, false prophecy and apostasy. 

Who’s your cable service provider? If it’s Time Warner, Prince Al-Waleed thanks you again. In 1997, he invested $145 million in Netscape, which was sold to AOL, which later merged with Time Warner.

If you bank with Citigroup, you’re not only helping out the Saudis’ sovereign wealth fund, but also that of the United Arab Emirates, whose government criminalizes homosexuality and considers the testimony of a female less valid than that of a male in criminal cases. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority took a $7.5 billion stake in Citigroup shortly before the 2008 economic crisis.

Who really gets hurt?

The collateral damage in these boycotts, Freixes said, is always the employees — always. For better or worse, activists who believe the “short-term pain is worth the long-term gain” have to accept that laborers are going to lose money and, possibly, their jobs.

This was the case during the boycott against South Africa’s apartheid government, when Nelson Mandela was willing to accept hurting black workers in the short term to help the black citizenry in the long run. And it was the case when Cesar Chavez led the Delano Grape Boycott in the 1960s. 

Sturgulewski, the Cabana Café server, has seen his tips fall from about $300 on a normal day to less than $100 since May 5, when the boycott began. Although he said he has enough money in his savings to last him for six months, he’s worried he’ll have to dip into that if things don’t turn around. His message for boycotters: “What you are doing is only hurting people in the United States, not 8,000 miles away.”

Leaders of this boycott, though, aren’t so sure.

Cleve Jones works with Unite Here, a North American hospitality workers union that has been trying for years to unionize the Beverly Hills Hotel and the Hotel Bel-Air, both Dorchester properties. The latter was unionized until 2009, when it closed down for two years of renovations after its union contract expired, reopening with a non-union workforce. 

Once an intern for the late Harvey Milk — the gay rights pioneer assassinated while serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors — Jones is probably best-known for starting the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt.

“This guy [the sultan] is a real player in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,” Jones said in a recent phone interview, discussing the economic pact among Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia and other nations in the region. In fact, the Obama administration has been pushing a trade deal — the Trans-Pacific Partnership — to increase trade and investment with a number of South Asian countries, including Brunei. 

Jones also pointed out, however, that many economists are warning that Brunei could run out of its oil reserves within the next few decades. If that were to happen, the sultan’s assets around the world might no longer just be business dalliances, but actual investments, which, in Jones’ analysis, could make boycotts like these impactful, and not merely symbolic. Furthermore, there are some indications that word of the boycott has made its way into the news in Brunei’s neighboring Malaysia, where Sharia law already has a limited place in society parallel to common law, but could very well become more prominent.

“The boycott is being used now by moderate forces within Malaysia as an argument,” Jones said. “Look at the punishment that is being inflicted on Brunei. Maybe we don’t want to go down this route.”

The case for consistency

Jones doesn’t accept the argument made by many opponents of the boycott that singling out the Beverly Hills Hotel is illegitimate because protesters are inconsistent about which businesses they target.

“We do whatever we can with whatever we have wherever we are,” Jones said. “Whenever somebody says to me, ‘Well, why aren’t you concerned about this or this or this?’ What I’m hearing is, ‘Don’t you do anything.’ ”

Still, the question remains: Where do you draw the line?

“We are buffeted as Americans by lots and lots and lots of demands on our conscience,” said Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein, the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s director of interfaith affairs and adjunct chair of Jewish law and ethics at Loyola Law School. 

“We are told, ‘Unless you do X, you are complicit in Y.’ Many people simply tune out, because there are too many of these competing demands,” Adlerstein said. “Can I indeed be complicit in so much of the evil of the world?”

And, he said, agreeing with the concerns of the Beverly Hills Hotel workers, if the motives of groups shunning the hotel really are to advance human rights and oppose Sharia, they should at least grapple with the inconsistency of their moral protest, which begins and ends with the hotel.

“A lot of the protesters, if you shake their closet, a lot of Chanel and Valentino [jewelry] falls out,” Romer said. “Richard Branson [founder of the Virgin Group] says that he will never set foot in a Dorchester property until this human rights issue is resolved. Unless he sold it recently, you can see on the Internet that he owns an island in Dubai.” That island is the “Great Britain” part of Dubai’s World Islands, an artificial construct of small islands roughly modeled off the world map.

Two organizations that joined the boycott after the Lenos and the Feminist Majority Foundation succeeded in making it a media issue — Kehillat Israel synagogue and Aviva Family & Children’s Services — have both moved their planned major events from the Beverly Hills Hotel to a venue just a few miles away — the Beverly Wilshire, a Four Seasons hotel.

The Beverly Wilshire Hotel.

When the Journal pointed out to each that Al-Waleed bin Talal holds a 45 percent stake in Four Seasons, spokespeople for both nonprofits expressed surprise — the groups had not vetted the ownership of the Beverly Wilshire, even after pulling their events from the sultan’s venue out of moral protest.

How to explain the selective moral outrage, whether it’s the willingness to do business with Four Seasons but not Dorchester, or Hollywood’s comfort with filming in Dubai while fearing being sighted in the Polo Lounge? 

In Romer’s view, her employer represents low-hanging fruit — it is convenient to boycott the Beverly Hills Hotel and the Hotel Bel-Air. But boycotting every Four Seasons property, or every Chanel, or every company or brand that does business with governments that enforce Sharia or other immoral legal systems would be difficult. 

“Apparently, their righteous indignation has limits,” said Steven Boggs, the hotel’s head of guest relations. Boggs, showing off his wealth of knowledge about the hotel’s history, checked off the list of its social landmark credentials — one of the first hotels in Los Angeles from which blacks and Jews were not restricted, and a prominent venue in California for same-sex weddings.

He also pointed out that no one is really sure how the new laws will be enforced — since 1957, Brunei has effectively had a moratorium on its death penalty.

Boggs said being affiliated with a boycott target has changed his own view of them. Boggs, who is gay, once vowed to stay away from Target after a controversy erupted around its former CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, when the company donated $150,000 in 2010 to support a Minnesota politician opposed to same-sex marriage. Boggs now feels the pain a boycott can cause employees 

Asked whether someone can be part of the modern economy without somehow supporting oppressive governments, much less policies of executives with which they disagree, UCLA's Gonzalo Freixes responded:

“The Chinese own Marriotts in downtown L.A. You couldn’t buy most of the clothes sold at Macy’s or all these department stores. I suppose it’s possible, but it would be very difficult.”

Judaism and commercial boycotts

Although Jewish law is not silent on the issue of boycotts, and Jewish history has a few significant examples — the 1555 boycott of the Port of Ancona and the 1933 boycott of German goods — where Jewish law draws the line is not black-and-white.

Cunin worries that a Jewish-supported boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel could backfire on supporters of Israel, who have vigorously defended the Jewish state in recent months against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting companies that do business in the West Bank. His line, he told the Journal, depends on United States law.

“If we feel they are out of character, create laws that don’t allow them to invest here,” he said. “Put his [the sultan’s] name on the list of those who cannot travel here.”

But, according to Rabbi Elchonon Tauber, one of the West Coast’s leading halachic authorities, the Torah allows boycotts under certain circumstances, even when the ripple effects hurt innocent people.

“We punish criminals even though the children will suffer terribly,” Tauber said. “If something is evil, then people will have a right to boycott.”

[Related: ‘We’ll survive this’

Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Photo by Kirby Lee/USA Today Sports

Sturgulewski can’t help but reference disgraced Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who has been an object of disdain since getting caught on tape making racist remarks to his girlfriend. Until Sterling was sanctioned by the NBA, there were even some initial calls to boycott Clippers games.

“It’s like boycotting [Clippers star] Blake Griffin because of what Sterling said,” Sturgulewski said. “What he [Sterling] said is irrelevant — he’s just some rich guy with money. The sultan is just some rich guy with money.”

Indeed, it is the sultan’s wealth, and that of the Dorchester Collection, that may be instrumental in helping the hotel’s employees weather this storm.

Lefkowitz, the hotel’s spokeswoman, wrote in an email to the Journal that while the Beverly Hills Hotel has seen a major drop in revenue this month, largely from event and meeting cancellations, its employees’ jobs are secure and “their wages (including service charges, gratuities and benefits) would be maintained despite the decline in business.”

Although Boggs said he is “very concerned” that business won’t pick up soon, his knowledge of the hotel’s long history gives him confidence in getting through this storm.

“We have survived, in order, World War I, Prohibition, the Depression, World War II, a cornucopia of civil rights, race riots, earthquakes, recessions,” Boggs said. “We’ll survive this as well.”

So far, there have been no documented cases of Brunei’s government using its new punitive privileges. But Boggs expressed sensitivity to the protesters’ concerns: “We should honor the things the hotel has done for women, for gays, for African-Americans, for Jews, for everybody — for the community, while at the same time finding a way to fight this horrific law,” Boggs said.

“Now, the minute I wake up and someone has actually been stoned to death, I [will] have to rethink that.”

Denounce Sharia everywhere

This week, the Hollywood left finally discovered something it had apparently been missing for the last few decades: States that impose Islamic law, known as Sharia, brutally violate human rights.

This shocking realization came after the Sultan of Brunei, who owns the Beverly Hills Hotel, announced on May 1 that Brunei will implement Sharia, which dictates that homosexuality and extramarital sex be punished with penalties including stoning and amputation. Hollywood reacted with morally righteous indignation, staging protests outside the pink hotel where the preening elite sheltered during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. Over the past week, industry groups have relocated events away from the hotel, thanks to Ellen DeGeneres, the Motion Picture & Television Fund and other celebrities’ spasmodic interest in Islam’s violation of human rights.

Welcome to the party, gang. Wish you could have shown up to fight against folks who labeled the war on terror “Islamophobic” and Sharia law worries as racist, while simultaneously labeling domestic conservatives the “American Taliban” and whining about lack of taxpayer-funded birth control pills. Oh, wait. That was you.

Where were you when Tom Hanks was blathering that the war on terror was based on racism and xenophobia? When Woody Harrelson said that the Bush administration pursued “perpetual war” based on racism? When the Council on American-Islamic Relations — an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism case — forced Fox to run disclaimers about the wonders of Islam during “24”? When Michael Moore lamented the Bush era as an “ugly chapter” of Islamophobia in American history?

It turns out that Hollywood’s fresh moral clarity only extends as far as the penthouse suite over at the Beverly Hills Hotel. Countries all over the world practice Sharia, discriminating against women, homosexuals, Christians and Jews. Many of those countries currently fund Hollywood’s biggest stars, work with groups to whom Hollywood kowtows, or own Hollywood’s favorite hotspots.

Matt Damon, for example, took cash from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to make his 2012 box office dud “Promised Land,” a diatribe against fracking. (Naturally, the UAE opposes fracking, given that it could undercut the moneymaking capacity of oil-rich dictatorships.) The UAE operates under Sharia law, which includes death as a punishment for homosexual activity — but that didn’t seem to trouble Damon.

Speaking of the UAE, the Dubai Film Festival draws the best and brightest of Hollywood to that emirate each year, including human rights activists George Clooney, Richard Gere, Ben Affleck and Oliver Stone. Another emirate, Abu Dhabi, has inked rich deals with Warner Bros., Universal Studios and Paramount Pictures. Where’s the outrage?

If the Hollywood set really wants to get serious, perhaps they’ll take a look at separating from Al Gore, who reportedly earned $70 million when the government of Qatar bought Current TV for $500 million. Sodomy is currently punishable by jail time in Qatar. Or, perhaps Hollywoodites will turn their attention to major universities such as Harvard, Columbia and University of California at Berkeley, all of which have accepted major money from the government of Saudi Arabia, a country that punishes homosexuality with death and lashings, whose infamous treatment of females has been common knowledge for years.

No doubt, Hollywood has all of these targets lined up for boycott. Or perhaps they’re too busy targeting Donald Sterling, the 80-year-old owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, who was caught on tape making racist statements. Sure, Hollywood could have targeted Sterling years ago, based on his alleged racist tendencies toward tenants. Now, they’re the finger-wagging thought police, even as they give awards to Woody Allen and Roman Polanski.

Or maybe they’re too busy promoting the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls on Twitter, in the wake of Islamic terror group Boko Haram’s kidnapping of 276 teenage girls in Nigeria last month. Sure, they could have spoken out years ago, placing a spotlight on the rise of a monstrous terror group responsible for tens of thousands of murders. But at the time, they were too busy campaigning for President Barack Obama’s re-election, on the slogan that Osama bin Laden was dead and Detroit was alive. Now, they’re tweeting at a group of terrorists who couldn’t care less what’s trending.

If those causes don’t suffice, there are certainly other exercises in useless self-esteem building by the masters of unearned moral superiority. Because that’s what Hollywood does.

Make no mistake: Hollywood has tremendous power in the public mind. Hollywood singlehandedly shifted American opinions on same-sex marriage, as Vice President Joe Biden rightly pointed out. (It also shifted American opinions on single motherhood, as former Vice President Dan Quayle was excoriated for rightly pointing out.) When Hollywood speaks, people listen. That’s why the Sultan of Brunei reportedly has hired crisis strategist Mark Fabiani, a former Clinton administration insider, to spin the boycott.

The problem is that Hollywood’s selective sense of justice is just that — selective. It’s always geared toward cocktail circuit popularity, not toward consistent moral standards. That’s fine when they’re targeting the right people, but let’s hold them to a higher standard — the standard of common decency. Which means they should apologize to all those they slandered as Islamophobes for opposing Sharia law, and start calling their travel agents and accountants to cut ties with Sharia law supporters. 

History Behind What Makes Hamas Tick

Hamas, which will form the next Palestinian Authority government, has an ideology that is based on the destruction of Israel through jihad, or Muslim “holy war.” The group’s 1988 charter states that “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

It adds that the territory of Israel is “Islamic Wakf” — part of the Muslim religious trust that cannot be given to non-Muslims — and that “the law governing the land of Palestine is the Islamic Sharia,” or Muslim law.

The group presents itself as having separate social and military branches, a formula that seeks to insulate the group from charges that it is a terrorist organization. However, few serious observers believe the branches are truly separate.

Hamas has its origins in the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Muslim group founded in Egypt in the first half of the 20th century. The brotherhood inspired Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin’s notion that Israel is Islamic land whose ownership is not negotiable.

Yassin founded the Islamic Center in the Gaza Strip in the 1970s, turning it into a major religious organization and laying the groundwork for a network of social and welfare institutions that increased the movement’s popularity.

He continued to absorb the violent and nationalist ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood and gradually shifted the group’s focus from welfare to violence. That paved the way for the founding of Hamas — which means “zeal” in Arabic and is an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement — after the first intifada began in 1987.

As early as the first intifada, Hamas also targeted suspected Palestinian collaborators and rivals in the Fatah movement.

Hamas began using suicide bombers as a weapon in 1994 and since has carried out at least 60 such attacks. Many more have been stopped by Israeli security forces. The group began launching rockets at Israeli targets in 2001, using crude Kassam rockets to shell Israeli towns in the Negev, notably Sderot.

The group’s attacks have killed hundreds of Israeli civilians in the past five years alone, prompting Israeli legal and military responses. The United States and European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization.

An Israeli court sentenced Yassin in 1984 to 13 years in jail, but he was released a year later in a prisoner exchange deal. He was imprisoned again in the 1990s for incitement to violence but was released in 1997 in another prisoner exchange.

During the second intifada, the Israel Defense Forces began targeting Hamas leaders for assassination. Yassin was killed in March 2004 by Israeli helicopter fire. Abdel Aziz Rantissi, who was appointed Hamas head in Yassin’s place, was assassinated a month later.

After that, Hamas stopped announcing the names of its leaders, though they are believed to be Mahmoud al-Zahar and Ismail Haniya, No. 1 and No. 2 on Hamas’ party list in the recent election.

The group’s popularity in the territories is partly based on its social service work. Hamas funds educational, medical and welfare programs, though the group is accused of using the educational program to spread anti-Israel and extremist Islamic propaganda to children.

Hamas attempted to take credit for Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

The group has a few senior leaders in Syria, Lebanon and the Persian Gulf states. Hamas receives some funding from Iran but relies primarily on donations from Palestinians around the world and private benefactors in Arab states.

Some of Hamas’ fundraising and propaganda activity takes place in Western Europe and North America. In 2004, the United States convicted the Texas Holy Land Foundation on charges that included money laundering for Hamas.

Israeli intelligence in the past has pointed at possible links between Hamas and Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, but nothing has been proven.