fbpx

September 6, 2011

Cash-strapped Palestinians cut pay in half for September

The Palestinian Authority will pay only half wages this month, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said on Tuesday, the second time in three months it has taken such a step because of a financial crisis it blames on donors failing to provide promised funds.

Fayyad announced the half pay measure at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday. The Palestinian Authority took the same measure in July. Last month it paid full salaries but said its funding crisis had not been solved.

The Palestinian Authority pays salaries to 150,000 people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and monthly allowances to another 75,000 people.

A Palestinian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the aid-dependent authority was facing an unprecedented financial squeeze on funding from Arab states which are failing to meet commitments to provide support.

“We do not know why they are imposing this siege on us,” the official said. In recent years, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been the Palestinians’ most generous Arab donors.

The financial crisis has highlighted the fragility of the PA as President Mahmoud Abbas embarks this month on a diplomatic offensive to secure U.N. endorsement for Palestinian statehood—a step opposed by the United States and Israel.

The Palestinians are hoping to secure an upgrade in their status at a United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York.

The leadership has called for popular protests to add weight to the diplomatic initiative. However, the official suggested turnout at such demonstrations could be hurt by the financial crisis.

“People will be concerned with the financial situation,” the official said.

Reporting by Tom Perry and Ali Sawafta

Cash-strapped Palestinians cut pay in half for September Read More »

Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11 persist

Osama bin Laden is dead. A new skyscraper is rising at the site of the old World Trade Center. U.S. troops are withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ten years later, the physical legacies of 9/11 attacks are fading into history. Yet the conspiracy theories about who “really” was behind the attacks seem to be growing.

Like a drug-resistant virus, these fantasies have persisted — despite efforts to combat them — by mutating over time, taking new forms and finding new modes of transmission. Jews and Israel often are their targets, and they evoke centuries-old myths about Jewish power, allegiances and manipulation of social institutions.

The conspiracy theories began almost as soon as the towers fell. Four days after the attack, the Syrian newspaper Al-Thawra reported that 4,000 Jews failed to show up for work at the World Trade Center on 9/11 after being warned by Israeli intelligence, according to a 2007 U.S. State Department document debunking the myth. Another held that five Israeli students were secret Mossad agents who knew about the attacks and allowed them to happen. That myth eventually morphed into the conspiracy theory that the Israelis directed the attacks remotely.

Other myths have followed, spreading around the world and taking root even in the United States. Of 36,000 conspiracy videos recently found on the Internet, 16,000 implicated Jews or Israelis, according to a new report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) titled “Decade of Deceit: Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 10 Years Later.”

“What we’ve seen in the last 10 years is the proliferation of a real propaganda industry surrounding Sept. 11,” said Deborah Lauter, director of the ADL’s civil rights division. “Prominent among those theories are those making anti-Semitism front and center.”

The theories have amounted to more than just pernicious talk.

On June 10, 2009, one alleged 9/11 conspiracy theorist opened fire at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, killing a security guard. The perpetrator, James von Brunn, then 88, died before the case could come to trial.

Experts say 9/11 myths that blame the Jews are spreading freely from neo-Nazis and other white supremacists into new areas whose acolytes are not necessarily anti-Semitic but are unknowingly adopting the tropes of classical anti-Semitic conspiracy theories: anti-government radicals, young anti-war activists, New Age ideologues, and propagandists and journalists in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

“What’s changed is the proliferation of coded rhetoric to refer to Jews internationally and in the U.S,” said Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a liberal think tank based in Somerville, Mass. “They’re unprepared to recognize it even when they see it.”

Michael Barkun, a professor of political science at Syracuse University who has studied extremists and their ideologies, said, “They aren’t people who are terribly different from the population at large,” except that “they are more likely to be attracted to conspiracy theories.”

Alan Sabrosky, a columnist for Veterans Today, an anti-Semitic Web site, is one of the most widely cited sources for anti-Semitic 9/11 myths, according to the ADL. Sabrosky has declared his mission to “contain” Israel’s ambition by exposing Israel’s alleged role in 9/11 and maintains that Washington and New York are the centers of “Zionist power.”

Citations of Sabrosky’s work pop up not just on extreme-right Web sites but also on pro-Palestinian Web sites such as Mondoweiss, Arab media sites and the Internet newsletter Dissent Voice, which describes itself as “a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice.”

“This is a strange world where the right and the left mix, with anti-Semitism shot through,” said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report. “On the left, it is shot through with anti-Zionism; on the right, the fear of the international Jew.”

A 2008 poll of 17 representative nations by the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland found that only nine of the countries surveyed had majorities who believed al-Qaeda orchestrated the attacks. Most of those who believed otherwise did not implicate Israel, however. Instead, they said they did not know who was behind the attacks or blamed the United States. In Russia, Israel-related conspiracy theories were at 2 percent of those polled. In

Kenya, 3 percent believed in Israel-related myths. In Indonesia, the number was 5 percent.

In the Middle East, however, the numbers were much different. In Egypt, 43 percent of respondents blamed Israel for 9/11. In Jordan, 31 percent blamed Israel. In the West Bank and Gaza, the numbers were slightly lower. In Turkey, however, only 3 percent believed Israel was behind the attacks.

Conservative columnist Daniel Pipes, who has written two books on conspiracy theories, says such theories about Jews are a fringe element in the West, but are par for the course in the Middle East, where he said “they are spread by the mainstream media, leading intellectuals and politicians.” Pipes considers 9/11 conspiracy theories a relatively benign false belief akin to theories about the Kennedy assassination — widespread, but not leading to damaging consequences.

The impact of the many 9/11 conspiracy theories is still not entirely clear.

“We’re in a period where the boundaries between the mainstream and the fringe have become quite blurred,” Barkun said. “Once they were more distinct. Once most people were not exposed to them, or if they were, it was to have them debunked. Now they move quite readily into the mainstream.”

Barkun added, “This shift in which these ideas have entered the mainstream is so recent that I don’t think we are in a position to know what the social effects are.”

Berlet said he worries that 9/11 conspiracy theories are fueling the rise of anti-Semitic rhetoric in major public forums.

“It is horrifying. It creates a hunt for an enemy and undermines the very concept of democratic society,” he said. “You would think that decent people would stand up and say enough. It’s spreading, and our leaders lack the backbone to confront it.”

Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11 persist Read More »

Global unity or chaos: Special report from the World Economic Forum!

I have returned to Switzerland this week as the Rabbinic Representative to join global partners and interfaith leaders at the World Economic Forum. Here, we continue to plan the annual gathering in Davos this winter and to think-tank the greatest moral, economic, and political issues of our time.

In conversations about global issues with interfaith leaders from around the world, the case articulated was clear: we need more inter-religious unity. I continue to be a voice in favor of difference, not at the expense of unity, but in addition. As Jews, we should all bring our particularism into the discourse since this is the wisdom we have to offer the world. I posit that there is no reason to water down our religion in the hopes of communicating with those of different faiths.

Yet, we must ask: how do we authentically honor the faiths of others as committed Jews? Certainly, tolerance of other religions was furthered in early Enlightenment. John Plamenatz, one of the twentieth century’s greatest political philosophers, explains that Milton, Locke, and others evolved in their thinking that “all men must have the one true faith” to the proposition that “faith is supremely important, and therefore every man must be allowed to live by the faith that seems true to him.” It is clear that we can find compelling arguments for deeper understanding and religious cooperation by espousing such political theory based on the goodness and autonomy of all humans outside the Jewish tradition, but is it an inherent Jewish value?

Rabbi Yitz Greenberg explains well, “Dialogue is built on the truth that the integrity and independent value of the other evokes a positive response in one’s self. Dialogue brings out the best in a group because it no longer defines itself through denigration or underestimation of the others. Each side tends to learn from the other, and incorporates some of the insights of the other without giving up its own values. The net result is a capability of meeting the needs of the other that was not recognized before.”

However, within Judaism, some would argue that particularism trumps and in fact, prevents interaction with those from other faiths. The common adage that our “responsibility begins in our home community” too often means that it ends there too. However, I emphasize, this is not a Jewish response.

There are many sources within Judaism that extol the virtues of interreligious dialogue.

I’d propose three possible Jewish theological frameworks for relationships with the Divine that can enable and encourage us to encounter the faiths of others:

1. Noahide relationships

2. All relationships originate from Sinai

3. Relationships respecting the distinct particular moral codes of others

Most basically, we may respect the truths of other nations based upon a model of Noahide relationships. The Ramah (Rabbi Moses Isserles) explained that Jewish law is one thing and Noahide law has its own distinct origin. They are to rule with their own “mishpat yosher” (just law). Maimonides explains that one who follows these laws is one of the pious of the nations of the world and has a share in the world to come (Melakhim 8:11). Rav Kook went even further and said that this can apply to the secular other as well since one who follows laws based purely on reason and not upon a belief in revelation also has a share in the world to come (Iggrot Rayah I, 89). The Torah affirms that we all share a common humanity and we can engage in a shared universalistic discourse about truth and justice and form authentic partnerships even though we have different revelations and origins of truth.

Secondly, in contrast, there is a position that Noahide laws are not distinct from Sinaitic laws. The Midrash explains that “The Noahide laws are the same as the laws the Jews were commanded at Sinai, (Bereshit Rabbah, 34:7). Engaging together with others who appear different is crucial because we actually share the same law. Jewish leadership can play a crucial role as global connector.

Thirdly, the Meiri (Beit HaBehira, B. Kama 122) explains that we can respect other faiths (i.e. not consider them idolatry) if they are bound (megudarim) by the ways of the revealed religions (datot) and morality (nimusim). This is to say that we must engage in moral and theological discourse with those of other faiths who honor the basic human dignity of all people. We can honor and learn from their particularity since we share moral commitments in spite of our theological disagreements.

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes, “Religion is an essential element in a human and humane social order…As systems of meaning and purpose, the great world faiths have never been surpassed. As a substitute for politics, however, they are full of danger – and that, in some parts of the world, is what they’ve become, (The Dignity of Difference, 41).” He continues to explain why political cooperation is needed in addition to religious cooperation. “Politics is the space we make for what individual religions seek to overcome – diversity of views, conflicting interests, multiplicity…the great religions fulfill the twenty-first-century imperative: ‘think globally, act locally.’ Their vision is global but their setting is local – the congregation, the synagogue, the church, the mosque,” (43).

As these sources show, we, as particularistic adherents of the Jewish faith, can connect to others as universalistic global citizens. It is my belief that we must do so through the particular lens of Judaism, not in spite of it.

The added value of religion other than our own is not something we learn by being universal or by losing or watering down our own faith but by being particular, proud and faithful participants of our own religions. Rav Kook explained that “G-d dealt kindly with his world by not putting all talents in one place, in any one man, or nation, not in one generation or even one world,” (Orot, 152). Each person, each nation, each religion has something unique to contribute to global wisdom. Our Sages remind us: “Who is wise? One who learns from all people,” (Ethics of the Fathers 4:1).

I will continue to meet with global faith leaders, but I will continue to insist that we have more to offer each other and the world when we bring our diversity to the conversation rather than check it at the door in the name of unity. It is our religious uniqueness that enables religious, rather than secular, conversation.

“Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder & President of Uri L’Tzedek, the Director of Jewish Life at the UCLA Hillel, and a 6th year PhD candidate at Columbia University in Moral Psychology & Epistemology. Shmuly is on faculty at Shalhevet High School.

Global unity or chaos: Special report from the World Economic Forum! Read More »

Straight from a Jewish psyche: The ‘Mad Men’ episode that could win an Emmy

In a scene by scene analysis of Season 4’s “The Suitcase” with commentary by “Mad Men” creator Matt Weiner and lead actor Jon Hamm, The Daily Beast’s Jace Lacob gives us insight into “a classic hour of TV” which has been nominated for an Emmy.

It is indicative of great art when a work can be dissected and analyzed from various angles to probe the deeper meaning presented on the surface. And while “Mad Men” may fit more squarely into the popular culture genre than the medium of great art, it is a testament to the show’s skill that it is layered enough for even the sharpest criticism, as Princeton scholar Daniel Mendelsohn demonstrated in his scathing takedown of the show last February.

If it seems an overindulgence to devote four internet pages to one “Mad Men” episode, the following is a choice excerpt. It struck me because it seems emblematic of a larger Hollywood Jewish theme which has to do with escaping identity. Weiner, of course, is Jewish and although his show is mostly about the most WASPy of gentiles, with some “casual anti-Semitism” (as he calls it) sprinkled in for good fun, there are underlying themes that seem to come straight from a Jewish psyche.

During one scene in “The Suitcase” Don Draper has the closest thing a macho, consummate womanizer can have to a breakdown. He is overwhelmed by the dissolution of his marriage, the breakdown of his family, the loss of a woman who knew his true identity and the corporate transformation of his professional life into something he feels less control over. Naturally he sobs. But what Hamm had to say about the scene, as told to Lacob and Weiner, strikes as insightful and prescient:

Hamm: [The breakdown] doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes out of watching the last five years of this guy’s life and how his family has imploded and his work has shifted so dramatically and his personal life is really in shambles. The one counterweight to all of that was California. Every time he went to California you could see that something changed in this guy. His hair was looser. His back wasn’t so rigid. It was just a completely different vibe when he was there. It was the one true connection to his past.

What happens when a person tries to suppress that which is integral to their identity? The sense of belonging that is deepest, truest, most ingrained. The answer Weiner is giving us is that one cannot really hide. Suppress what is true and it will percolate through your skin. Deny your identity and compromise your soul. Don is ashamed of where he comes from and thus reinvents himself as an American ideal in pursuit of an American dream. But no matter how successful he is, the further away he moves from what is true about himself, the more he crumbles.

Likewise, in the fictionalized biopic of French pop star Serge Gainsbourg, “Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life” the artist is haunted throughout his life by the apparition of a grotesque Jewish “mug”—an anti-Semitic rendering of the Jew in WWII France that becomes his alter-ego. Gainsbourg is taunted by this specter, and reminded in the grossest terms, what being a Jew represents. Judging by exteriors, only Gainsbourg’s name—and maybe his visage—would indicate his ethnicity, but on the inside, as the film depicts, he was tormented by the consequences of Jewish existence exacted by 1940s Europe.

The name Don Draper is less revealing than misleading, as Don is really Dick Whitman but adopts the name Draper as part of his transformation (another distinctly Hollywood Jewish trope). “What’s in a name?” Shakespeare asked; well apparently, everything.

Straight from a Jewish psyche: The ‘Mad Men’ episode that could win an Emmy Read More »