Tel Aviv University historian, Prof. Shlomo Sand, author of new book Matai ve’ech humtza ha’am hayehudi? (When and How Were the Jewish People Invented?; Resling, in Hebrew) is sure to provoke some lively debate. In this interview and piece by Ofri Ilani (Shattering a ‘national mythology’, Haaretz), Sand offers a clear-eyed advocacy for the one-state solution and rallies against policies he warns will result in a ‘Kosovo in the Galilee’.

“From the perspective of Zionism,” he posits, “this country does not belong to its citizens, but rather to the Jewish people. I recognize one definition of a nation: a group of people that wants to live in sovereignty over itself. But most of the Jews in the world have no desire to live in the State of Israel, even though nothing is preventing them from doing so. Therefore, they cannot be seen as a nation.”

Significantly, Sand also reaches back into antiquity to argue that exile was a myth, and that the present-day Palestinians are far more likely the descendants of the ancient Semitic people in Judea/ Canaan than the current predominantly Khazarian-origin Ashkenazi populace to which he himself belongs. This is a fascinating read and one hopes his book will be translated and made available in English. Read the rest of this entry »

Christiane Amanpour’s CNN God’s Warriors series focuses on the three Abrahamic religions. This video clip is a compilation of highlights on illegal Israeli settlements. (10 mins)

As the much anticipated book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by Walt and Mearsheimer is released this month, the liberal Jewish-spiritual progressive magazine Tikkun has its current issue devoted to the Israel Lobby (including, but not limited to, AIPAC) and its disproportionate and highly unrepresentative influence on US foreign policy, particularly towards the Middle East.

The cover reads: The Israel Lobby: Bad for the U.S., Bad for Israel, Bad for the Jews. With an interview of Democratic Congressman Jim Moran as its centerpiece (interview excerpt follows), the Israel Lobby’s major role in the decision to go to war in Iraq and its position on calling for an attack on Iran is scrutinised.

Congressman Moran speaks sensibly about Iran, and reading his comments here was a breath of fresh air.

Jim Moran’s voicing of the obvious has however all too predictably earned the ire of Lobbyists and some MSM journalists who sing to the Lobby tune (see WaPo here and here—thanks Fanonite). Interviewer Rabbi Lerner defends Moran’s statements as observations with which he himself would agree, supporting his assertions with evidence and personal experience. Lerner writes:

To take an example from these past few months of the Israel Lobby exercising its power, liberals in the House of Representatives in the spring of 2007 sought to include in the defense-funding budget an amendment that would require specific authorization from Congress before the Administration could use the defense budget monies for a military strike at Iran. The amendment failed. Most liberals in the U.S. today oppose preventive wars in general and a military strike against Iran in particular. So who supports such a move? The answer is: the right wing government of Israel and its champion in the U.S., the Israel Lobby.

Don’t be surprised that Jim Moran was pushed from his office as one of the leaders of the Democrats in Congress by AIPAC and other elements of the Israel Lobby. Here is how it happened: Congressman Moran was asked at a constituents’ meeting by a woman identified with the Jewish community why we had gotten into the war in Iraq. Moran responded provocatively “If the Jewish community had organized against it, we wouldn’t be in this war.” It’s the kind of statement I would have made to any religious community, or to any labor movement audience, citing their own failures to act as a critical factor in why we had gotten involved. In the case of the Jewish community there is the added factor that leading people in the Israel Lobby actively supported and still support the war in Iraq and that some of the strong supporters of the Israel Lobby played central roles in the effort to push the Iraq war inside the Bush Administration.

Why the “Liberal” Media is Illiberal on Israel

I’ve had similar experiences with the Israel Lobby and the media. For the first few years of Tikkun’s existence Tikkun’s perspective was covered on many topics in American politics. But once we got on AIPAC’s radar screen, this began to change. I finally got the op-ed editor of The San Francisco Chronicle to tell me the story. He had been approached by the Executive Editor, Dick German and told by German in no uncertain terms to stop publishing op-eds from American Jews critical of Israel, because Israel had “too many enemies.” This is what he told me.

A similar thing happened to me at The New York Times. I was asked by The Times to do a review of a book on Israeli settlers. Without any shame, my editor insisted that I change what I had written so that it would accord with his politics. I was never again given a chance to write a review for The Times. Hundreds of other liberal Jews have had similar experiences trying to write for The Times op-ed or book review—the voices of those of us who are seriously and intensely critical of Israeli policy but still lovers of Israel and proudly committed to Judaism are rarely part of the acceptable discourse.

Here is an excerpt of the Tikkun interview between Rabbi Michael Lerner and Congressman Jim Moran on AIPAC and its role in pushing the United States into war with Iraq and calling for an attack on Iran:

TIKKUN: What do you think the reasoning is for the Democrats who voted against the amendment requiring that the president get authorization from Congress before attacking Iran?

JIM MORAN: Well, AIPAC strongly opposed it. In fact, Rep. Murtha, Rep. Obey, and myself wanted it in the supplemental. We had it in and then the leadership had to take it out because AIPAC was having a conference in Washington, and insisted with the leadership and many of the members with whom they have close alliances.Yesterday [NB. interview conducted in May], AIPAC had an amendment to recommit the whole Armed Services Bill in order to add language requiring America to develop missile defenses jointly with Israel, to share all its missile defense technology with Israel. That passed overwhelmingly. There were only thirty members—that’s less than 10 percent—who voted against sharing all our missile technology with Israel. It received about 400 votes in favor of it. I was one of the thirty.

My feeling was that it wasn’t just the incendiary language that Israel is under immediate attack and we need to protect it from another Holocaust, it was also the idea that the solution to Israel’s security is a militaristic one. I would urge you to read the Congressional record for the debate on the recommital. It put our loyalty to Israel in terms of complete military support. My feeling is that both America and Israel have acted in counterproductive fashion and have undermined their security by focusing exclusively on military capability.

That was a key vote yesterday. It was phrased by many as an “AIPAC vote.” As a result, it prevailed approximately 400 to thirty.

TIKKUN: In your estimation, how does AIPAC get that power?

MORAN: AIPAC is very well organized. The members are willing to be very generous with their personal wealth. But it’s a two edged sword. If you cross AIPAC, AIPAC is unforgiving and will destroy you politically. Their means of communications, their ties to certain newspapers and magazines, and individuals in the media are substantial and intimidating. Every member knows it’s the best-organized national lobbying force. The National Rifle Association comes a close second, but AIPAC can rightfully brag that they’re the most powerful lobbying force in the world today. Certainly they are in the United States. Not in Europe, obviously. Most people that are involved in foreign policy especially look at a broad range of issues and consider a person’s entire voting record. AIPAC considers the voting record only as it applies to Israel. Read the rest of this entry »

An interesting UK-based ITV documentary narrated by Melvin Bragg about how Jesus is viewed in Islam. Most of us know Jesus is viewed as an important prophet in Islam rather than the Son of God as he is in Christianity; other than this difference in the recognition of divinity, this documentary reveals other fascinating facts about how Jesus and other prominent biblical figures such as Mary are viewed by Muslims. The Qur’an does affirm the Immaculate Conception, for example, and there has been a major Iranian film on Mary’s life.

Directed and produced by Irshad Ashraf. R/T: 45mins (disregard the eye-rollingly sensationalist first 45 seconds—otherwise its a great bridge-builder).

John Pilger’s latest film, The War on Democracy (R/T 93 minutes) is an interesting and important excursion into the Latin American hemisphere and US foreign policy towards its southern neighbours. It starts with Venezuela and includes a look at Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador and more, and addresses the politics at the human level, never shirking the grim details about torture, the US School of the Americas, and mass suffering inflicted as a result of US government policy.

One of many highlights is in the opening section that focuses on Venezuela is the interview with Chavez that begins at the 5 minute mark. We also discover that people’s constitutional rights are remarkably printed on supermarket packets to raise awareness, and that there is free health care — three vignettes just within the first 15 minutes.

Also check out Pilger’s latest article Israel: an important marker has been passed (New Statesman, 23 Aug).

In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas

Latin for “Unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things”

or, alternatively with syntax more closely aligned;

“In necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion”.

This theological dictum is also less commonly rendered as

In necessariis unitas, in non necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas.

In essentials, there should be unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in both cases, charity [love].

Origin: traced to German Lutheran theologian, Rupertus Meldenius, in a call for peace among theologians of the Augustinian confession (ca. 1625), though sometimes attributed, perhaps incorrectly though it fits in with his ethos, to St Augustine of Hippo (354-430AD).

This is likely because August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben (1798-1894), a poet laureate who also wrote the words to the German national anthem “Das Lied der Deutschen”, penned a poem based on this famous saying for which German theologians and church historians have coined a special term: “Friedensspruch” or “Peace Saying”:

St. Augustine says:
In necessariis unitas,
In essentials unity,
In dubiis libertas,
In doubtful things liberty,
In omnibus autem caritas,
But in all things love.

Yet I say: not only in all things,
But before all things
And thus I praise love.*

In Christian theology caritas at once means charity and love (agapē), or a loving-kindness towards all others as a higher octave of the human spirit and encapsulated in another Latin phrase Deus caritas est - “God is love”. Biblically, it is the greatest of the three theological virtues: faith, hope and charity/love (1 Corinthians 13:13):

“And now abideth faith, hope, and love, even these three: but the chiefest of these is love“.

For further information about the use of this Peace Saying, see Hans Rollman, “In Essentials Unity”: The Pre-History and History of a Restoration Movement Slogan.

* Hoffman von Fallersleben, Gesammelte Werke, edited by Heinrich Gerstenberg (Berlin, 1892), 6: 54; cf. A. Eekhof, De Zinspreuk In Necessariiis Unitas, In Non Necessariis Libertas, In Utrisque Caritas: Eenheid in het Noodige, Vrijheid in het Niet Noodige, in Beide de Liefde: Oorsprong, Beteekenis en Verbreiding (Leiden: A.W. Sijthhoff’s Uitgevermaatschappij, 1931), 77-8.

Thanks to Agent 99 for pointing out the updated link, the first location of which had lapsed (also updated on audio page). I’ve taken the opportunity to upload this talk again by Johan Galtung which I attended last year. His hybrid-but-mostly-Norwegian accent may make him sound like Inspector Clousseau as our friend notes, but his reflections are always worthwhile and enriching. (RT 81 m)

Galtung talks about enacting a positive peace through meaningful dialogue, about spiritual syncretism and an alliance of civilisations, with reference to the Danish cartoon controversy and other topical conflicts. This elder spokesman and founder of peace studies delivered this address at the Brisbane Festival of Ideas on the 31 March 2006.

Original .mp3 url

Relevant links:

• TRANSCEND Peace and Development Network
• International Peace Research Institute
• Wiki entry Johan Galtung
  

Further links: Conflict transformation

• Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation
• Beyond Intractability
• Conflict Resolution Information
• Peace Library Sri Linka and conflict related
• Transnational Perspectives

Tariq Ali addressed a Sydney Ideas audience this week, with a lecture on lessons for the Middle East from Latin America, entitled Latin America and the Arab World: Resistance and Occupation. While one region serves to some degree as a good model of regional autonomy and has broken away from becoming a laboratory of neoliberalism, the other is struggling less successfully, so far, against the designs of neoconservatism.

RT: 1h 36 m, Tariq Ali starts 6 minutes in after short introduction; Q and A follows the initial 50 minute address.

Encounter with Sigmund, Carl and Alfred
** SEE ALSO: Israeli funding for Hamas plus: note to Sigmund Carl and Alfred

Can one hold a civil conversation with a racist Israelfirstophile ideologue? Well, I tried. Let it not be said that all of us only preach to the choir. I responded to comments and posts calling Palestinians and Muslims “beasts” at the Sigmund Carl and Alfred pseudo-psych hate-blog. I touched a nerve, prompting several subsequent posts full of smear and names like whore, nazi and bigot that say much more about Sigmund Carl and Alfred, this intellectual fraud and bully who has tried to intimidate several people now who raise valid points challenging his racist rubbish and who earn his ire, attracting the very labels he calls others and what he is himself. When such people can’t respond rationally to arguments, they attack the person with cowardly slander, of course. Though I now ignore him and his blog, thank you to all those people who did write and take this bully to task.

As you will see if you can stomach going there, [or read the full thread of the original ' The Israeli Beast' (SCA's title) post in word or .pdf], I sought to systematically address each and every point raised. In doing so, and in not mimicking his Manichean worldview, my responses raised the bile of the blogger who saw fit to devote a whole post several posts and long screed to your humble servant.

If “Christians do not ally themselves with racists or racist ideologies,” what are you doing SCA defending rabidly racist/ exclusivist Israeli apartheid, demonising Muslims and justifying racism against the Arab world, who you say are not morally equivalent to Jews?

Wake up and see the real “new” anti-semitism.

In response to your smear, SCA, I am at peace with my Christianity, with Christ’s injunction to “love one another, as I have loved you”. Sigmund Carl and Alfred professes to be an Anglican, but he evidently does not take on board the counsel of the head of his own Church, Dr Rowan Williams. He chooses to willfully ignore how Dr Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader to the world’s 77 million Anglicans, has said of Israel’s apartheid wall that it is “a sign of all that is wrong in the human heart” and symbolised “the terrible fear of the other, of the stranger, which keeps us all in one kind of prison or another” when visiting Bethlehem seven months ago. Pretty astute words, I’d say. The good doctor and Archbishop has also wisely spoken up against the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred has claimed I did not quote Dr Rowan in full, but crucially neglects to show how that would at all deviate from the point presented and himself neglects to quote him in full to demonstrate otherwise.

In the spirit of the Prince of Peace, thank you Sigmund, Carl and Alfred for this opportunity to encounter the level of hatred, persecution and misinformation that exists, and salaam and shalom to you. May you give up your irrational hate and build bridges rather than walls.

• The original post on Israel with comments is available in .pdf here
• You can read the subsequent PG-devoted screed here

Here is what would have been my reply to questions about Islam and theological interpretation, in response to the last commenter on the Israel Thread.

***

“Verily never will God change the condition of a people until they change it themselves” — Qur’an (13;11)

NO APOLOGIA HERE

The charge was leveled that I was like “the typical Islam apologist” and that “it [the Holy Qur'an] actually should be read literally.” Further, the anonymous commenter claimed that “Interpretation is irrelevant when it comes to Islam, as it is not allowed.”

This is wrong, an outright falsehood.

There is in fact a strong tradition of Qur’anic interpretation and hermeneutics.

Let’s put aside theological debates,which will follow, just for the moment.

The reality of interpretation is most visibly evidenced and embodied in the fact that the two major branches of the faith, (Shia and Sunni) exist, as well as the mystical branch of Islam, Sufism. The fact that different branches exist testifies to the existence of interpretation, and millions of practising Muslims of either school do not take a literalist view of the entire book, just as Christians and Jews do not for their holy books.

In fact, one difference between Orthodox Islam and Shi’ism is the view in the former that, originally, virtually any Moslem could interpret the Qur’ân and the Traditions, while the Shi’a branch held that proper interpretation could only be dispensed by one descended from ‘Alî, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad.

The hierarchy of power and ebb and flow of what is seen as legitimate sources of doctrinal authority can be seen played out in all faiths and their internal branches/ denominations. The Catholic Church is notable for placing ultimate doctrinal authority in the Pope, but earlier Christianity invested doctrinal authority in Church Councils.

ISLAMIC EXEGESIS

Hermeneutics (similar to exegesis) is central to all religion (from Greek hermêneuô, “to interpret or translate” and ‘Ερμηνεύς, the Greek word for interpreter, and also means “to make the meaning clear”. This is related to the name of the Greek god Hermes in his role as the interpreter of the messages of the gods. It is the theory and practice of interpretation, originally the interpretation of texts, and especially religious texts, but also used now in philosophy).

Islamic exegesis has a well developed tradition and shares some precepts with Christian and Judaic hermeneutics, moreso the latter. Read the rest of this entry »