Sheryl Sandberg pushes women to “lean in.” By Norah O’Donnell. Video. 60 Minutes. CBS News, March 10, 2013. Transcript. YouTube.
Women in the workplace: Then and now. Video. Meet the Press. NBC News, March 10, 2013.
Roundtable on Sheryl Sandberg. Video. This Week. ABC News, March 10, 2013.
Confidence Woman. By Belinda Luscombe. Time, March 7, 2013. Book Excerpt. Complete Time Coverage on Sheryl Sandberg here.
Sheryl Sandberg’s valuable advice. By Ruth Marcus. Washington Post, March 5, 2013.
Dear Sheryl Sandberg, Congrats on your new book, but . . . By Peg Tyre. Washington Post, March 9, 2013.
Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In” campaign holds little for most women. By Melissa Gira Grant. Washington Post, February 25, 2013.
Sheryl Sandberg’s misguided message. By Suzanne Venker. FoxNews.com, March 9, 2013.
Here’s Why You Should Listen To Billionaire Sheryl Sandberg On Gender. By Aimee Groth. Business Insider, March 10, 2013.
A New Study Says Sheryl Sandberg Is Wrong About Husbands And Sex. By Henry Blodget. Business Insider, March 10, 2013.
Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage. By Sabino Kornrich, Julie Brines, and Katrina Leupp. American Sociological Review, Vol. 78, No. 1 (February 2013).
Marissa Mayer, Sheryl Sandberg and what comes after “feminism.” By Hanna Rosin. Dallas Morning News, March 8, 2013. Also at Slate.
Why Do We Hate Successful Women? By Katie Roiphe. Slate, March 6, 2013.
The Corporate Mystique: Sheryl Sandberg and the folly of Davos-style feminism. By Judith Shulevitz. The New Republic, March 10, 2013.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Sadder, Wiser Obama Lowers Expectations for Israel Trip. By Walter Russell Mead.
Sadder, Wiser Obama Lowers Expectations for Israel Trip. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, March 10, 2013.
The Orthodox Surge. By David Brooks.
The Orthodox Surge. By David Brooks. New York Times, March 7, 2013.
What David Brooks Didn’t Say About the Orthodox. By Jane Eisner. The Jewish Daily Forward, March 8, 2013.
What David Brooks Didn’t Say About the Orthodox. By Jane Eisner. The Jewish Daily Forward, March 8, 2013.
Stonehenge Was An Ancient Graveyard, Latest Research Finds.
Stonehenge Was Ancient Graveyard, Researchers Say. By Sylvia Hui. AP. The Huffington Post, March 9, 2013.
Ancient Stonehenge Gatherings “Numbered In Thousands” For Winter Solstice, Historians Say. The Huffington Post UK, March 9, 2013.
Stonehenge may have been burial site for Stone Age elite, say archaeologists. By Maev Kennedy. The Guardian, March 8, 2013.
Stonehenge builders travelled from far, say researchers. BBC News, March 9, 2013.
Secrets of the Stonehenge Skeletons. Channel 4 (UK).
Stonehenge was ancient rave site, new theory says. AFP, March 9, 2013.
Who was buried at Stonehenge? By Mike Parker Pearson et al. Antiquity, Vol. 83, No. 319 (March 2009). Also find it here.
Abstract:
Stonehenge continues to surprise us. In this new study of the twentieth-century excavations, together with the precise radiocarbon dating that is now possible, the authors propose that the site started life in the early third millennium cal BC as a cremation cemetery within a circle of upright bluestones. Britain’s most famous monument may therefore have been founded as the burial place of a leading family, possibly from Wales.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Like Bibi, Obama May Just Want to Manage Middle East Conflict. By Jonathan S. Tobin.
Like Bibi, Obama May Just Want to Manage Middle East Conflict. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, March 8, 2013.
Tobin:
The consensus about the meeting is that, as one person who quoted the president to JTA said, there would be no “grandiose” plans for peace presented to the Israelis when he arrives for his long-awaited visit. Though the president will be holding out hope that the current “bleak” prospects for peace will improve, the notion that Obama would risk any of his scarce political capital by trying to impose terms of a peace plan on Israel that the Palestinians are not interested in is absurd. Though Obama will put himself on record as opposing Israeli settlements as well as Palestinian attempts to avoid negotiations via the United Nations, he appears to be only interested in keeping the situation calm. After four years of antagonism with the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the president seems to have arrived at a similar conclusion as his Israeli counterpart. At least for now, he’s done trying to solve the conflict and only wants to manage it as well as possible.
That probably comes as a surprise as well as a shock to many of Obama’s most ardent Jewish supporters who would like him to ratchet up the pressure on Netanyahu, as well as to his greatest critics who harbor the suspicion that his goal is bring the Jewish state to its knees. It may be that were circumstances different, the president might well come closer to making those hopes and fears come true. But right now, Obama has higher priorities than pursuing his feud with Netanyahu.
That won’t preclude the president from trying to arrange a grand gesture, such as a summit at which Jordan’s King Abdullah and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas will join Obama and Netanyahu for a photo op. But even those observers, like myself, who don’t trust Obama, need to give him credit for having paid some attention to what the Palestinians have failed to do over the last four years. The Palestinians have made it clear that they have no intention of signing a peace agreement that would recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. That means a solution to the conflict is impossible in the foreseeable future and that the only logical approach to it is one that seeks to manage it while preventing conflagrations.
Tobin:
The consensus about the meeting is that, as one person who quoted the president to JTA said, there would be no “grandiose” plans for peace presented to the Israelis when he arrives for his long-awaited visit. Though the president will be holding out hope that the current “bleak” prospects for peace will improve, the notion that Obama would risk any of his scarce political capital by trying to impose terms of a peace plan on Israel that the Palestinians are not interested in is absurd. Though Obama will put himself on record as opposing Israeli settlements as well as Palestinian attempts to avoid negotiations via the United Nations, he appears to be only interested in keeping the situation calm. After four years of antagonism with the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the president seems to have arrived at a similar conclusion as his Israeli counterpart. At least for now, he’s done trying to solve the conflict and only wants to manage it as well as possible.
That probably comes as a surprise as well as a shock to many of Obama’s most ardent Jewish supporters who would like him to ratchet up the pressure on Netanyahu, as well as to his greatest critics who harbor the suspicion that his goal is bring the Jewish state to its knees. It may be that were circumstances different, the president might well come closer to making those hopes and fears come true. But right now, Obama has higher priorities than pursuing his feud with Netanyahu.
That won’t preclude the president from trying to arrange a grand gesture, such as a summit at which Jordan’s King Abdullah and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas will join Obama and Netanyahu for a photo op. But even those observers, like myself, who don’t trust Obama, need to give him credit for having paid some attention to what the Palestinians have failed to do over the last four years. The Palestinians have made it clear that they have no intention of signing a peace agreement that would recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders would be drawn. That means a solution to the conflict is impossible in the foreseeable future and that the only logical approach to it is one that seeks to manage it while preventing conflagrations.
Why We Give Foreign Aid to Egypt. By Charles Krauthammer.
Why we give foreign aid. By Charles Krauthammer. Washington Post, March 7, 2013.
Kerry’s failed mission in Cairo. By Zvi Mazel. Jerusalem Post, March 9, 2013.
More on Morsi and Egypt here.
Krauthammer:
Sequestration is not the best time to be doling out foreign aid, surely the most unpopular item in the federal budget. Especially when the recipient is President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt.
Morsi is intent on getting the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman (the Blind Sheik), serving a life sentence for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center attack that killed six and wounded more than a thousand. Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood is openly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and otherwise prolifically intolerant. Just three years ago, Morsi called on Egyptians to nurse their children and grandchildren on hatred for Jews, whom he has called “the descendants of apes and pigs.”
Not exactly Albert Schweitzer. Or even Anwar Sadat. Which left a bad taste when Secretary of State John Kerry, traveling to Cairo, handed Morsi a cool $250 million. (A tenth of which would cover about 25 years of White House tours, no longer affordable under sequestration. Says the administration.)
Nonetheless, we should not cut off aid to Egypt. It’s not that we must blindly support unfriendly regimes. It is perfectly reasonable to cut off aid to governments that are intrinsically hostile and beyond our influence. Subsidizing enemies is merely stupid.
But Egypt is not an enemy, certainly not yet. It may no longer be our strongest Arab ally, but it is still in play. The Brotherhood aims to establish an Islamist dictatorship. Yet it remains a considerable distance from having done so.
Precisely why we should remain engaged. And engagement means using our economic leverage.
Morsi has significant opposition. Six weeks ago, powerful anti-Brotherhood demonstrations broke out in major cities and have continued sporadically ever since. Thepresidential election that Morsi won was decided quite narrowly — three points, despite the Brotherhood’s advantage of superior organization and a history of social service.
Moreover, having forever been in opposition, on election day the Islamists escaped any blame for the state of the country. Now in power, they begin to bear responsibility for Egypt’s miserable conditions — a collapsing economy, rising crime, social instability. Their aura is already dissipating.
There is nothing inevitable about Brotherhood rule. The problem is that the secular democratic parties are fractured, disorganized and lacking in leadership. And are repressed by the increasingly authoritarian Morsi.
His partisans have attacked demonstrators in Cairo. His security forces killed morethan 40 in Port Said. He’s been harassing journalists, suppressing freedom of speech, infiltrating the military and trying to subjugate the courts. He’s already rammed through an Islamist constitution. He is now trying to tilt, even rig, parliamentary elections to the point that the opposition called for a boycott and an administrative court has just declared a suspension of the vote.
Any foreign aid we give Egypt should be contingent upon a reversal of this repression and a granting of space to secular, democratic, pro-Western elements.
That’s where Kerry committed his mistake. Not in trying to use dollar diplomacy to leverage Egyptian behavior, but by exercising that leverage almost exclusively for economic, rather than political, reform.
Kerry’s major objective was getting Morsi to apply for a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Considering that some of this $4.8 billion ultimately comes from us, there’s a certain comic circularity to this demand. What kind of concession is it when a foreign government is coerced into . . . taking yet more of our money?
We have no particular stake in Egypt’s economy. Our stake is in its politics. Yes, we would like to see a strong economy. But in a country ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood?
Our interest is in a non-Islamist, nonrepressive, nonsectarian Egypt, ruled as democratically as possible. Why should we want a vibrant economy that maintains the Brotherhood in power? Our concern is Egypt’s policies, foreign and domestic.
If we’re going to give foreign aid, it should be for political concessions — on unfettered speech, on an opposition free of repression, on alterations to the Islamist constitution, on open and fair elections.
We give foreign aid for two reasons: (a) to support allies who share our values and our interests, and (b) to extract from less-than-friendly regimes concessions that either bring their policies more in line with ours or strengthen competing actors more favorably inclined toward American objectives.
That’s the point of foreign aid. It’s particularly important in countries like Egypt, whose fate is in the balance. But it will only work if we remain clear-eyed about why we give all that money in the first place.
Mazel:
Egypt is perilously close to chaos. There are riots and mass protests against the regime of the Muslim Brothers, calls for an end to their rule and for Morsi to resign.
Suddenly it seems as if the people want the army to take over. In several cities there have been attempts through legal procedures to appoint the minister of defense, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, to take over temporarily.
Dozens have died and thousands have been wounded in confrontations between protesters and security forces. The people who take to the streets are mostly good Muslims who do not want to be ruled by the Shari’a, and have lost confidence in Morsi.
Bands of extremist militants, among them members of the so-called “Black block” preach civil disobedience; it started in Port Said and has spread to other cities along the Suez canal as well as elsewhere in the country. Police buildings are routinely attacked and even put to the torch; workers go on strike; there are popular roadblocks on some of the major roads.
Strangely enough, Morsi does not appear to be worried and keeps on saying that Egypt is doing well and everything will be fine. At the same time he is feverishly appointing his men to every public office – be it local or national – in a concerted effort to concentrate all powers in the Brotherhood.
Was the secretary of state aware of the true state of affairs in the country? Was he informed that what is happening is a fight to the last for the nature of post-revolutionary Egypt? The choice is stark. Going forward to democracy and development, or going backward into a radical Islamic regime. By insisting that the opposition accept the rules of the game set down by Morsi and take part in the electoral process Kerry has angered large segments of the population.
Americans are blamed for having bolstered Mubarak’s dictatorship for so long and now trying to do the same with Morsi. More and more editorials call for the Americans to get out of Egypt with their money and to stop interfering.
Strangely enough Morsi himself does not appear ready to listen to Washington’s entreaties. And so more and more people on Capitol Hill and in the US media are now openly calling for an end to all help to such a dubious ally.
The White House could be checking its options. To keep on helping the Brotherhood impose radical Islam on Egypt, or to give a helping hand to those who are trying to put the country on the path of democracy? For the time being, it appears that America is being reviled by both sides.
Kerry’s failed mission in Cairo. By Zvi Mazel. Jerusalem Post, March 9, 2013.
More on Morsi and Egypt here.
Krauthammer:
Sequestration is not the best time to be doling out foreign aid, surely the most unpopular item in the federal budget. Especially when the recipient is President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt.
Morsi is intent on getting the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman (the Blind Sheik), serving a life sentence for masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center attack that killed six and wounded more than a thousand. Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood is openly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and otherwise prolifically intolerant. Just three years ago, Morsi called on Egyptians to nurse their children and grandchildren on hatred for Jews, whom he has called “the descendants of apes and pigs.”
Not exactly Albert Schweitzer. Or even Anwar Sadat. Which left a bad taste when Secretary of State John Kerry, traveling to Cairo, handed Morsi a cool $250 million. (A tenth of which would cover about 25 years of White House tours, no longer affordable under sequestration. Says the administration.)
Nonetheless, we should not cut off aid to Egypt. It’s not that we must blindly support unfriendly regimes. It is perfectly reasonable to cut off aid to governments that are intrinsically hostile and beyond our influence. Subsidizing enemies is merely stupid.
But Egypt is not an enemy, certainly not yet. It may no longer be our strongest Arab ally, but it is still in play. The Brotherhood aims to establish an Islamist dictatorship. Yet it remains a considerable distance from having done so.
Precisely why we should remain engaged. And engagement means using our economic leverage.
Morsi has significant opposition. Six weeks ago, powerful anti-Brotherhood demonstrations broke out in major cities and have continued sporadically ever since. Thepresidential election that Morsi won was decided quite narrowly — three points, despite the Brotherhood’s advantage of superior organization and a history of social service.
Moreover, having forever been in opposition, on election day the Islamists escaped any blame for the state of the country. Now in power, they begin to bear responsibility for Egypt’s miserable conditions — a collapsing economy, rising crime, social instability. Their aura is already dissipating.
There is nothing inevitable about Brotherhood rule. The problem is that the secular democratic parties are fractured, disorganized and lacking in leadership. And are repressed by the increasingly authoritarian Morsi.
His partisans have attacked demonstrators in Cairo. His security forces killed morethan 40 in Port Said. He’s been harassing journalists, suppressing freedom of speech, infiltrating the military and trying to subjugate the courts. He’s already rammed through an Islamist constitution. He is now trying to tilt, even rig, parliamentary elections to the point that the opposition called for a boycott and an administrative court has just declared a suspension of the vote.
Any foreign aid we give Egypt should be contingent upon a reversal of this repression and a granting of space to secular, democratic, pro-Western elements.
That’s where Kerry committed his mistake. Not in trying to use dollar diplomacy to leverage Egyptian behavior, but by exercising that leverage almost exclusively for economic, rather than political, reform.
Kerry’s major objective was getting Morsi to apply for a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund. Considering that some of this $4.8 billion ultimately comes from us, there’s a certain comic circularity to this demand. What kind of concession is it when a foreign government is coerced into . . . taking yet more of our money?
We have no particular stake in Egypt’s economy. Our stake is in its politics. Yes, we would like to see a strong economy. But in a country ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood?
Our interest is in a non-Islamist, nonrepressive, nonsectarian Egypt, ruled as democratically as possible. Why should we want a vibrant economy that maintains the Brotherhood in power? Our concern is Egypt’s policies, foreign and domestic.
If we’re going to give foreign aid, it should be for political concessions — on unfettered speech, on an opposition free of repression, on alterations to the Islamist constitution, on open and fair elections.
We give foreign aid for two reasons: (a) to support allies who share our values and our interests, and (b) to extract from less-than-friendly regimes concessions that either bring their policies more in line with ours or strengthen competing actors more favorably inclined toward American objectives.
That’s the point of foreign aid. It’s particularly important in countries like Egypt, whose fate is in the balance. But it will only work if we remain clear-eyed about why we give all that money in the first place.
Mazel:
Egypt is perilously close to chaos. There are riots and mass protests against the regime of the Muslim Brothers, calls for an end to their rule and for Morsi to resign.
Suddenly it seems as if the people want the army to take over. In several cities there have been attempts through legal procedures to appoint the minister of defense, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, to take over temporarily.
Dozens have died and thousands have been wounded in confrontations between protesters and security forces. The people who take to the streets are mostly good Muslims who do not want to be ruled by the Shari’a, and have lost confidence in Morsi.
Bands of extremist militants, among them members of the so-called “Black block” preach civil disobedience; it started in Port Said and has spread to other cities along the Suez canal as well as elsewhere in the country. Police buildings are routinely attacked and even put to the torch; workers go on strike; there are popular roadblocks on some of the major roads.
Strangely enough, Morsi does not appear to be worried and keeps on saying that Egypt is doing well and everything will be fine. At the same time he is feverishly appointing his men to every public office – be it local or national – in a concerted effort to concentrate all powers in the Brotherhood.
Was the secretary of state aware of the true state of affairs in the country? Was he informed that what is happening is a fight to the last for the nature of post-revolutionary Egypt? The choice is stark. Going forward to democracy and development, or going backward into a radical Islamic regime. By insisting that the opposition accept the rules of the game set down by Morsi and take part in the electoral process Kerry has angered large segments of the population.
Americans are blamed for having bolstered Mubarak’s dictatorship for so long and now trying to do the same with Morsi. More and more editorials call for the Americans to get out of Egypt with their money and to stop interfering.
Strangely enough Morsi himself does not appear ready to listen to Washington’s entreaties. And so more and more people on Capitol Hill and in the US media are now openly calling for an end to all help to such a dubious ally.
The White House could be checking its options. To keep on helping the Brotherhood impose radical Islam on Egypt, or to give a helping hand to those who are trying to put the country on the path of democracy? For the time being, it appears that America is being reviled by both sides.
Arab Revolutons Have Made Women Worse Off. By Moha Ennaji.
Arab revolutions have made women worse off. By Moha Ennaji. The Daily Star (Lebanon), March 6, 2013.
Netanyahu’s Violent Fingerprint. By Gideon Levy.
Netanyahu’s violent fingerprint. By Gideon Levy. Haaretz, March 7, 2013. Also find it here.
Levy:
Benjamin Netanyahu’s children attacked an Arab cleaning man on the seaside promenade in Tel Aviv and caused him serious injuries. They attacked an Arab waiter in a Tel Aviv restaurant with chairs and their fists. They attacked an Arab from Upper Nazareth at the shore of Lake Kinneret because they heard him speaking Arabic. Netanyahu’s children waved hate-filled signs against Muslim players of the Beitar Jerusalem soccer team and set fire to its clubhouse. Netanyahu’s children attacked an Arab woman on a Jerusalem light rail train just because she was an Arab.
All these events took place in Israel within a few days. The attackers were of course not the prime minister’s biological children, but they all were the creation of his spirit, students of his views and pupils of his government’s policies. These Israeli skinheads are the fruits of the nationalistic and racist atmosphere that has grown greatly in recent years, the Netanyahu years.
Such a streak of anti-Arab violence is not just a coincidence of course. So many of these kind of violent acts in such a short time never happened here before. Their source is planted deep within the Israeli experience that Likud-led governments have acted to nurture. A Jewish child grows up in Israel with the feeling he is a member of the chosen people, one who is allowed to do almost anything. He learns that only his people have rights to this land. This child knows his country must be Jewish, and only Jewish.
During the Netanyahu years the child grew up with a feeling of continual danger, usually exaggerated and hollow. He hears all day long of the dangers lying in wait for him, all at the hands of Arabs and Muslims. He learns he is the member of a people who are always the greatest victims, there are no other victims. There are those who repeat for him that the Arabs are not people like he is, it is doubtful whether they are human beings at all; just suspicious objects, terrorists. They all want to throw him into the sea, stab him, plant a bomb, shoot a Qassam rocket at him or blow themselves up next to him. The child learns that Israel’s Arab citizens are a cancer, a stab in the back of the nation and a fifth column; and it is necessary to strip them of all their remnants of rights. He learns that Israel “gives” the Arabs too much.
He sees alongside the road a fancy house in an Arab village and tells himself: Look at that. He hears Arab members of Knesset and tells himself: Look at us, what a democracy. He sees a veiled woman or hears someone speaking Arabic and knows this means danger. He doesn’t even think to compare the treatment of Jews in Europe in the 1930s to the treatment of Arabs in Israel. He has never met an Arab Israeli for a real conversation, and there is absolutely no chance of that with a Palestinian from the territories.
This child knows nothing about the Nakba, except that it is an invention of Israel-haters and the very mention of it is treason. Of the hundreds of villages that were destroyed and the fate of their hundreds of thousands of residents, some of whom still live in Israel, torn away from their families, banished from their lands and villages − he knows nothing at all and wants to know nothing. He has no idea what it means to be an Arab child his age in Israel who hears the prime minister of both of them describe the Arab child as a demographic threat. The Jewish child has never heard a single good word from the prime minister on a fifth of the citizens of his country, only condemnation, threats, exclusion and danger. All this he learned in even more forceful terms in recent years, the latest Likud years.
These children have grown up now and become “youths.” They are the clear disciples of what they were taught, and now they think they must act. To attack an Arab whom they run across, to beat up a cleaner sweeping the streets of their city or to attack a passenger wearing a head scarf. They know that they are allowed to do so since no one will enforce the law against them. They even think they are required to do so. And they are right: That is what they were taught during the cursed Netanyahu years.
Levy:
Benjamin Netanyahu’s children attacked an Arab cleaning man on the seaside promenade in Tel Aviv and caused him serious injuries. They attacked an Arab waiter in a Tel Aviv restaurant with chairs and their fists. They attacked an Arab from Upper Nazareth at the shore of Lake Kinneret because they heard him speaking Arabic. Netanyahu’s children waved hate-filled signs against Muslim players of the Beitar Jerusalem soccer team and set fire to its clubhouse. Netanyahu’s children attacked an Arab woman on a Jerusalem light rail train just because she was an Arab.
All these events took place in Israel within a few days. The attackers were of course not the prime minister’s biological children, but they all were the creation of his spirit, students of his views and pupils of his government’s policies. These Israeli skinheads are the fruits of the nationalistic and racist atmosphere that has grown greatly in recent years, the Netanyahu years.
Such a streak of anti-Arab violence is not just a coincidence of course. So many of these kind of violent acts in such a short time never happened here before. Their source is planted deep within the Israeli experience that Likud-led governments have acted to nurture. A Jewish child grows up in Israel with the feeling he is a member of the chosen people, one who is allowed to do almost anything. He learns that only his people have rights to this land. This child knows his country must be Jewish, and only Jewish.
During the Netanyahu years the child grew up with a feeling of continual danger, usually exaggerated and hollow. He hears all day long of the dangers lying in wait for him, all at the hands of Arabs and Muslims. He learns he is the member of a people who are always the greatest victims, there are no other victims. There are those who repeat for him that the Arabs are not people like he is, it is doubtful whether they are human beings at all; just suspicious objects, terrorists. They all want to throw him into the sea, stab him, plant a bomb, shoot a Qassam rocket at him or blow themselves up next to him. The child learns that Israel’s Arab citizens are a cancer, a stab in the back of the nation and a fifth column; and it is necessary to strip them of all their remnants of rights. He learns that Israel “gives” the Arabs too much.
He sees alongside the road a fancy house in an Arab village and tells himself: Look at that. He hears Arab members of Knesset and tells himself: Look at us, what a democracy. He sees a veiled woman or hears someone speaking Arabic and knows this means danger. He doesn’t even think to compare the treatment of Jews in Europe in the 1930s to the treatment of Arabs in Israel. He has never met an Arab Israeli for a real conversation, and there is absolutely no chance of that with a Palestinian from the territories.
This child knows nothing about the Nakba, except that it is an invention of Israel-haters and the very mention of it is treason. Of the hundreds of villages that were destroyed and the fate of their hundreds of thousands of residents, some of whom still live in Israel, torn away from their families, banished from their lands and villages − he knows nothing at all and wants to know nothing. He has no idea what it means to be an Arab child his age in Israel who hears the prime minister of both of them describe the Arab child as a demographic threat. The Jewish child has never heard a single good word from the prime minister on a fifth of the citizens of his country, only condemnation, threats, exclusion and danger. All this he learned in even more forceful terms in recent years, the latest Likud years.
These children have grown up now and become “youths.” They are the clear disciples of what they were taught, and now they think they must act. To attack an Arab whom they run across, to beat up a cleaner sweeping the streets of their city or to attack a passenger wearing a head scarf. They know that they are allowed to do so since no one will enforce the law against them. They even think they are required to do so. And they are right: That is what they were taught during the cursed Netanyahu years.
Will the Left Finally Get the Tea Party Now? By Joel B. Pollak.
Will the Left Finally Get the Tea Party Now? By Joel B. Pollak. Breitbart, March 7, 2013.
Pollak:
Democrats and journalists like to describe the Tea Party as “hostage-takers,” holding Republican leaders and moderates in their thrall while they try to dismantle the government. But in reality it is the Washington elite that have taken the country hostage, forcing through expansions of government power and spending vast sums of money that the nation will struggle for generations to repay. The Tea Party represents the last chance to escape the zero-sum politics and economic stagnation that has plagued much of Europe for the last several years.
As Paul continued, liberals who once railed angrily against Bush were forced to confront the fecklessness of their own party. Hollywood’s John Cusack asked: “Where are the so-called progressive Democratic senators?” Meanwhile, the supposedly racist Tea Party Senator from Kentucky was leading the charge. It was not a political ploy for votes, or even an attempt to block one of President Obama’s nominees, which Paul acknowledged he would fail to do. It was just a stand on principle—which is what the Tea Party has been about all along.
Pollak:
Democrats and journalists like to describe the Tea Party as “hostage-takers,” holding Republican leaders and moderates in their thrall while they try to dismantle the government. But in reality it is the Washington elite that have taken the country hostage, forcing through expansions of government power and spending vast sums of money that the nation will struggle for generations to repay. The Tea Party represents the last chance to escape the zero-sum politics and economic stagnation that has plagued much of Europe for the last several years.
As Paul continued, liberals who once railed angrily against Bush were forced to confront the fecklessness of their own party. Hollywood’s John Cusack asked: “Where are the so-called progressive Democratic senators?” Meanwhile, the supposedly racist Tea Party Senator from Kentucky was leading the charge. It was not a political ploy for votes, or even an attempt to block one of President Obama’s nominees, which Paul acknowledged he would fail to do. It was just a stand on principle—which is what the Tea Party has been about all along.
How Syrian Women Are Fueling the Resistance. By Fotini Christia.
How Syrian Women Are Fueling the Resistance. And Why Washington Should Support Them. By Fotini Christia. Foreign Affairs, March 6, 2013.
End the Arab Boycott of Israel. By Ed Husain.
End the Arab Boycott of Israel. By Ed Husain. New York Times, March 6, 2013.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Samira Ibrahim “Refuses to Apologize” for Her Tweets. By Jeffrey Goldberg.
Samira Ibrahim “Refuses to Apologize” for Her Tweets. By Jeffrey Goldberg. The Atlantic, March 7, 2013.
Kerry’s “Courage” Award Debacle. By Seth Mandel. Commentary, March 7, 2013.
The tweets that cost Samira Ibrahim her State Department award. By Caitlin Dewey. Washington Post, March 8, 2013.
Michelle Obama and John Kerry to Honor Anti-Semite and 9/11 Fan. By Samuel Tadros. The Weekly Standard, March 6, 2013.
More on Morsi and Egypt here.
Kerry’s “Courage” Award Debacle. By Seth Mandel. Commentary, March 7, 2013.
The tweets that cost Samira Ibrahim her State Department award. By Caitlin Dewey. Washington Post, March 8, 2013.
Michelle Obama and John Kerry to Honor Anti-Semite and 9/11 Fan. By Samuel Tadros. The Weekly Standard, March 6, 2013.
More on Morsi and Egypt here.
Europeans Must Leave South Africa! By Brad Cibane.
Europeans Must Leave South Africa! By Brad Cibane. Thought Leader, March 6, 2013.
The Real Winners of the Global Economy: The Material Boys. By Joel Kotkin.
The Real Winners of the Global Economy: The Material Boys. By Joel Kotkin. New Geography, March 6, 2013.
New York City’s Revival: The Post-Sandy Apple. By Matthew Stevenson. New Geography, March 8, 2013.
New York City’s Revival: The Post-Sandy Apple. By Matthew Stevenson. New Geography, March 8, 2013.
No, Arabs Living Under Israeli Control are Not Going to Outnumber Jews Any Time Soon. By David Bernstein.
No, Arabs Living Under Israeli Control are Not Going to Outnumber Jews Any Time Soon. By David Bernstein. The Volokh Conspiracy, March 4, 2013.
Arab Spring and the Israeli Enemy. By Abdulateef Al-Mulhim.
Arab Spring and the Israeli Enemy. By Abdulateef Al-Mulhim. Arab News, October 6, 2012.
To question our hatred of Israel is to invite abuse. By Carol Hunt. Independent-Ireland, March 3, 2013.
That unwitting indecency. By Sarah Honig. Jerusalem Post, January 24, 2013.
That unwitting indecency revisited. By Sarah Honig. Jerusalem Post, February 7, 2013.
Tonight with Vincent Browne calls Israel a “Cancer” and claims “They stole the land from the Arabs.” Ireland4Israel, October 24, 2012. YouTube.
I am not anti-Semitic, claims Vincent Browne. By Michael Brennan. Independent-Ireland, October 27, 2012.
TV3 ordered to say sorry for Browne’s anti-Israeli remarks. By Laura Butler. Independent-Ireland, March 1, 2013.
Al-Mulhim:
Thirty-nine years ago, on Oct. 6, 1973, the third major war between the Arabs and Israel broke out. The war lasted only 20 days. The two sides were engaged in two other major wars, in 1948 and 1967.
The 1967 War lasted only six days. But, these three wars were not the only Arab-Israel confrontations. From the period of 1948 and to this day many confrontations have taken place. Some of them were small clashes and many of them were full-scale battles, but there were no major wars apart from the ones mentioned above. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the most complicated conflict the world ever experienced. On the anniversary of the 1973 War between the Arab and the Israelis, many people in the Arab world are beginning to ask many questions about the past, present and the future with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The questions now are: What was the real cost of these wars to the Arab world and its people. And the harder question that no Arab national wants to ask is: What was the real cost for not recognizing Israel in 1948 and why didn’t the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars? But, the hardest question that no Arab national wants to hear is whether Israel is the real enemy of the Arab world and the Arab people.
I decided to write this article after I saw photos and reports about a starving child in Yemen, a burned ancient Aleppo souk in Syria, the under developed Sinai in Egypt, car bombs in Iraq and the destroyed buildings in Libya. The photos and the reports were shown on the Al-Arabiya network, which is the most watched and respected news outlet in the Middle East.
The common thing among all what I saw is that the destruction and the atrocities are not done by an outside enemy. The starvation, the killings and the destruction in these Arab countries are done by the same hands that are supposed to protect and build the unity of these countries and safeguard the people of these countries. So, the question now is that who is the real enemy of the Arab world?
The Arab world wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of innocent lives fighting Israel, which they considered is their sworn enemy, an enemy whose existence they never recognized. The Arab world has many enemies and Israel should have been at the bottom of the list. The real enemies of the Arab world are corruption, lack of good education, lack of good health care, lack of freedom, lack of respect for the human lives and finally, the Arab world had many dictators who used the Arab-Israeli conflict to suppress their own people.
These dictators’ atrocities against their own people are far worse than all the full-scale Arab-Israeli wars.
In the past, we have talked about why some Israeli soldiers attack and mistreat Palestinians. Also, we saw Israeli planes and tanks attack various Arab countries. But, do these attacks match the current atrocities being committed by some Arab states against their own people.
In Syria, the atrocities are beyond anybody’s imaginations? And, isn’t the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country? Wasn’t it Tunisia’s dictator who was able to steal 13 billion dollars from the poor Tunisians? And how can a child starve in Yemen if their land is the most fertile land in the world? Why would Iraqi brains leave Iraq in a country that makes 110 billion dollars from oil export? Why do the Lebanese fail to govern one of the tiniest countries in the world? And what made the Arab states start sinking into chaos?
On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine. The war ended on March 10, 1949. It lasted for nine months, three weeks and two days. The Arabs lost the war and called this war Nakbah (catastrophic war). The Arabs gained nothing and thousands of Palestinians became refugees.
And in 1967, the Arabs led by Egypt under the rule of Gamal Abdul Nasser, went in war with Israel and lost more Palestinian land and made more Palestinian refugees who are now on the mercy of the countries that host them. The Arabs called this war Naksah (upset). The Arabs never admitted defeat in both wars and the Palestinian cause got more complicated. And now, with the never ending Arab Spring, the Arab world has no time for the Palestinians refugees or Palestinian cause, because many Arabs are refugees themselves and under constant attacks from their own forces. Syrians are leaving their own country, not because of the Israeli planes dropping bombs on them. It is the Syrian Air Force which is dropping the bombs. And now, Iraqi Arab Muslims, most intelligent brains, are leaving Iraq for the est. In Yemen, the world’s saddest human tragedy play is being written by the Yemenis. In Egypt, the people in Sinai are forgotten.
Finally, if many of the Arab states are in such disarray, then what happened to the Arabs’ sworn enemy (Israel)? Israel now has the most advanced research facilities, top universities and advanced infrastructure. Many Arabs don’t know that the life expectancy of the Palestinians living in Israel is far longer than many Arab states and they enjoy far better political and social freedom than many of their Arab brothers. Even the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip enjoy more political and social rights than some places in the Arab World. Wasn’t one of the judges who sent a former Israeli president to jail is an Israeli-Palestinian?
The Arab Spring showed the world that the Palestinians are happier and in better situation than their Arab brothers who fought to liberate them from the Israelis. Now, it is time to stop the hatred and wars and start to create better living conditions for the future Arab generations.
Hunt:
Here in Ireland of course, as has recently been indignantly pointed out in the wake of the “Caherciveen scandal” we are not anti-Semitic at all. Just anti-Israel. So that's all right then.
When Sarah Honig wrote about the anti-Semitic ramblings she heard from a few schoolchildren in Co Kerry, she was immediately vilified as a liar and propagandist. As Honig later wrote: “Apart from two follow-ups which I initiated, the news reporting was astoundingly uniform. . . Simplistic, one-sided news accounts of what was presented as my attack on virtually the entire Irish nation bordered on the hysterical.”
Well yes, the responses to Honig’s piece were a little astonishing. They included such gems (published on Irish newspaper websites) as: “The state of Israel is the most racist state on the planet”; “They (Israelis) have been playing the ‘anti-Semitic card’ to justify their greed for Lebens-raum”; “Typical Israeli overreaction to everything – play the Jewish card” and “Screaming anti-Semitism is the most powerful Israeli weapon used in their colonisation of the Middle East” and many, many more in similar vein (these are the polite ones).
As Honig notes, there is a “3-D” test for “Judeophobia”. It occurs when “purported criticism slips into demonisation, delegitimisation and double-standards.” Does our coverage of Jewish and Israeli affairs pass it?
Eh, yes. Irish critics routinely demonise Israel. They question its right to exist. And they hold it to a standard not required of its neighbours. But, as they keep insisting, they are definitely not anti-Semitic, how dare anyone suggest it? Criticising the motives of people who routinely single out the state of Israel for demonisation is not tolerated in Ireland.
Suggestions that there may be other enemies of the Palestinian peoples who deserve censure are met with indignation and derision. Well-orchestrated campaigns ensure that anti-Israeli bias is kept in the headlines.
The double standards of those who seek to demonise democratic Israel yet are strangely silent on the atrocities committed by its neighbours would seem (to outsiders anyway) to support the accusation that many Irish “human rights campaigners” are indeed motivated by anti-Semitism.
But to even suggest that there’s something strange about the way in which so-called “pro-Palestinians” routinely and defiantly ignore the injustices inflicted on these people by countries other than Israel, is to risk personal abuse and censure – at best.
That a leading Irish political commentator can describe Israel, the democratic home of Jewish people, where Christians, Muslims and atheists – be they male, straight, gay or female – enjoy far more civil rights than they do in neighbouring countries, as “a cancer” on national TV and be applauded by many, is more than worrying.
Being gay is punishable by death in Gaza. No one is protesting that, are they? But of course, that doesn’t mean we’re anti-Semitic does it? Just anti the Jews that live in Israel.
Last October, on Arab-News.com, Abdulateef Al-Mulhim, a former Royal Saudi Naval officer wrote a ground-breaking op-ed piece called “Arab Spring and the Israel Enemy.” In it he called for Arabs to stop demonising and blaming Israel as the source of their problems.
He wrote: “The real enemies of the Arab world are corruption, lack of good education, lack of good health care, lack of freedom, lack of respect for human lives and, finally, the Arab world had many dictators who used the Arab-Israeli conflict to suppress their own people.”
He added: “Many Arabs don’t know that the life expectancy of the Palestinians living in Israel is far longer than in many Arab states and they enjoy far better political and social freedom than many of their Arab brothers. Even the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank enjoy more political and social rights than in some places of the Arab world.”
Where are the Irish activists protesting against the lack of rights afforded to Palestinians by Arabs? Non-existent. But that doesn’t make our “pro-Palestinians” anti-Semitic, does it?
The facts and history of the Middle East support Al-Mulhim’s comments. But just suggest to the many vociferous Irish critics of Israel – including the Catholic charity Trocaire – that their energies may be better directed elsewhere and you'll get a blast of abuse as they righteously defend their attitude.
To question our hatred of Israel is to invite abuse. By Carol Hunt. Independent-Ireland, March 3, 2013.
That unwitting indecency. By Sarah Honig. Jerusalem Post, January 24, 2013.
That unwitting indecency revisited. By Sarah Honig. Jerusalem Post, February 7, 2013.
Tonight with Vincent Browne calls Israel a “Cancer” and claims “They stole the land from the Arabs.” Ireland4Israel, October 24, 2012. YouTube.
I am not anti-Semitic, claims Vincent Browne. By Michael Brennan. Independent-Ireland, October 27, 2012.
TV3 ordered to say sorry for Browne’s anti-Israeli remarks. By Laura Butler. Independent-Ireland, March 1, 2013.
Al-Mulhim:
Thirty-nine years ago, on Oct. 6, 1973, the third major war between the Arabs and Israel broke out. The war lasted only 20 days. The two sides were engaged in two other major wars, in 1948 and 1967.
The 1967 War lasted only six days. But, these three wars were not the only Arab-Israel confrontations. From the period of 1948 and to this day many confrontations have taken place. Some of them were small clashes and many of them were full-scale battles, but there were no major wars apart from the ones mentioned above. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the most complicated conflict the world ever experienced. On the anniversary of the 1973 War between the Arab and the Israelis, many people in the Arab world are beginning to ask many questions about the past, present and the future with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The questions now are: What was the real cost of these wars to the Arab world and its people. And the harder question that no Arab national wants to ask is: What was the real cost for not recognizing Israel in 1948 and why didn’t the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars? But, the hardest question that no Arab national wants to hear is whether Israel is the real enemy of the Arab world and the Arab people.
I decided to write this article after I saw photos and reports about a starving child in Yemen, a burned ancient Aleppo souk in Syria, the under developed Sinai in Egypt, car bombs in Iraq and the destroyed buildings in Libya. The photos and the reports were shown on the Al-Arabiya network, which is the most watched and respected news outlet in the Middle East.
The common thing among all what I saw is that the destruction and the atrocities are not done by an outside enemy. The starvation, the killings and the destruction in these Arab countries are done by the same hands that are supposed to protect and build the unity of these countries and safeguard the people of these countries. So, the question now is that who is the real enemy of the Arab world?
The Arab world wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of innocent lives fighting Israel, which they considered is their sworn enemy, an enemy whose existence they never recognized. The Arab world has many enemies and Israel should have been at the bottom of the list. The real enemies of the Arab world are corruption, lack of good education, lack of good health care, lack of freedom, lack of respect for the human lives and finally, the Arab world had many dictators who used the Arab-Israeli conflict to suppress their own people.
These dictators’ atrocities against their own people are far worse than all the full-scale Arab-Israeli wars.
In the past, we have talked about why some Israeli soldiers attack and mistreat Palestinians. Also, we saw Israeli planes and tanks attack various Arab countries. But, do these attacks match the current atrocities being committed by some Arab states against their own people.
In Syria, the atrocities are beyond anybody’s imaginations? And, isn’t the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country? Wasn’t it Tunisia’s dictator who was able to steal 13 billion dollars from the poor Tunisians? And how can a child starve in Yemen if their land is the most fertile land in the world? Why would Iraqi brains leave Iraq in a country that makes 110 billion dollars from oil export? Why do the Lebanese fail to govern one of the tiniest countries in the world? And what made the Arab states start sinking into chaos?
On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine. The war ended on March 10, 1949. It lasted for nine months, three weeks and two days. The Arabs lost the war and called this war Nakbah (catastrophic war). The Arabs gained nothing and thousands of Palestinians became refugees.
And in 1967, the Arabs led by Egypt under the rule of Gamal Abdul Nasser, went in war with Israel and lost more Palestinian land and made more Palestinian refugees who are now on the mercy of the countries that host them. The Arabs called this war Naksah (upset). The Arabs never admitted defeat in both wars and the Palestinian cause got more complicated. And now, with the never ending Arab Spring, the Arab world has no time for the Palestinians refugees or Palestinian cause, because many Arabs are refugees themselves and under constant attacks from their own forces. Syrians are leaving their own country, not because of the Israeli planes dropping bombs on them. It is the Syrian Air Force which is dropping the bombs. And now, Iraqi Arab Muslims, most intelligent brains, are leaving Iraq for the est. In Yemen, the world’s saddest human tragedy play is being written by the Yemenis. In Egypt, the people in Sinai are forgotten.
Finally, if many of the Arab states are in such disarray, then what happened to the Arabs’ sworn enemy (Israel)? Israel now has the most advanced research facilities, top universities and advanced infrastructure. Many Arabs don’t know that the life expectancy of the Palestinians living in Israel is far longer than many Arab states and they enjoy far better political and social freedom than many of their Arab brothers. Even the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip enjoy more political and social rights than some places in the Arab World. Wasn’t one of the judges who sent a former Israeli president to jail is an Israeli-Palestinian?
The Arab Spring showed the world that the Palestinians are happier and in better situation than their Arab brothers who fought to liberate them from the Israelis. Now, it is time to stop the hatred and wars and start to create better living conditions for the future Arab generations.
Hunt:
Here in Ireland of course, as has recently been indignantly pointed out in the wake of the “Caherciveen scandal” we are not anti-Semitic at all. Just anti-Israel. So that's all right then.
When Sarah Honig wrote about the anti-Semitic ramblings she heard from a few schoolchildren in Co Kerry, she was immediately vilified as a liar and propagandist. As Honig later wrote: “Apart from two follow-ups which I initiated, the news reporting was astoundingly uniform. . . Simplistic, one-sided news accounts of what was presented as my attack on virtually the entire Irish nation bordered on the hysterical.”
Well yes, the responses to Honig’s piece were a little astonishing. They included such gems (published on Irish newspaper websites) as: “The state of Israel is the most racist state on the planet”; “They (Israelis) have been playing the ‘anti-Semitic card’ to justify their greed for Lebens-raum”; “Typical Israeli overreaction to everything – play the Jewish card” and “Screaming anti-Semitism is the most powerful Israeli weapon used in their colonisation of the Middle East” and many, many more in similar vein (these are the polite ones).
As Honig notes, there is a “3-D” test for “Judeophobia”. It occurs when “purported criticism slips into demonisation, delegitimisation and double-standards.” Does our coverage of Jewish and Israeli affairs pass it?
Eh, yes. Irish critics routinely demonise Israel. They question its right to exist. And they hold it to a standard not required of its neighbours. But, as they keep insisting, they are definitely not anti-Semitic, how dare anyone suggest it? Criticising the motives of people who routinely single out the state of Israel for demonisation is not tolerated in Ireland.
Suggestions that there may be other enemies of the Palestinian peoples who deserve censure are met with indignation and derision. Well-orchestrated campaigns ensure that anti-Israeli bias is kept in the headlines.
The double standards of those who seek to demonise democratic Israel yet are strangely silent on the atrocities committed by its neighbours would seem (to outsiders anyway) to support the accusation that many Irish “human rights campaigners” are indeed motivated by anti-Semitism.
But to even suggest that there’s something strange about the way in which so-called “pro-Palestinians” routinely and defiantly ignore the injustices inflicted on these people by countries other than Israel, is to risk personal abuse and censure – at best.
That a leading Irish political commentator can describe Israel, the democratic home of Jewish people, where Christians, Muslims and atheists – be they male, straight, gay or female – enjoy far more civil rights than they do in neighbouring countries, as “a cancer” on national TV and be applauded by many, is more than worrying.
Being gay is punishable by death in Gaza. No one is protesting that, are they? But of course, that doesn’t mean we’re anti-Semitic does it? Just anti the Jews that live in Israel.
Last October, on Arab-News.com, Abdulateef Al-Mulhim, a former Royal Saudi Naval officer wrote a ground-breaking op-ed piece called “Arab Spring and the Israel Enemy.” In it he called for Arabs to stop demonising and blaming Israel as the source of their problems.
He wrote: “The real enemies of the Arab world are corruption, lack of good education, lack of good health care, lack of freedom, lack of respect for human lives and, finally, the Arab world had many dictators who used the Arab-Israeli conflict to suppress their own people.”
He added: “Many Arabs don’t know that the life expectancy of the Palestinians living in Israel is far longer than in many Arab states and they enjoy far better political and social freedom than many of their Arab brothers. Even the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank enjoy more political and social rights than in some places of the Arab world.”
Where are the Irish activists protesting against the lack of rights afforded to Palestinians by Arabs? Non-existent. But that doesn’t make our “pro-Palestinians” anti-Semitic, does it?
The facts and history of the Middle East support Al-Mulhim’s comments. But just suggest to the many vociferous Irish critics of Israel – including the Catholic charity Trocaire – that their energies may be better directed elsewhere and you'll get a blast of abuse as they righteously defend their attitude.
The Tyranny of the Queen Bee. By Peggy Drexler.
The Tyranny of the Queen Bee. By Peggy Drexler. Wall Street Journal, March 6, 2013.
Readers Respond: “The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.” Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2013.
Don’t Just Blame the Queen Bee. By Peggy Drexler. The Daily Beast, March 8, 2013.
Readers Respond: “The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.” Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2013.
Don’t Just Blame the Queen Bee. By Peggy Drexler. The Daily Beast, March 8, 2013.
Rita Jahanforuz, Iranian-Born Israeli Singer, Builds Bridges Between Nations.
Rita Jahanforuz
Hosting Rita at UN, Israel sends message to Iran. By Michael Wilner. Jerusalem Post, March 6, 2013.
Rita rocks the UN. The Times of Israel, March 6, 2013.
Israeli singer Rita’s special surrealistic concert at the UN General Assembly. By Chemi Shalev. Haaretz. UN Watch, March 6, 2013.
Iran and Israel Can Agree on This: Rita Jahanforuz Totally Rocks. By Farnaz Fassihi and Joshua Mitnick. Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2012. Also here.
Fassihi and Mitnick:
Music-loving Iranians craving nostalgic Persian songs of a bygone era, or the upbeat dance music that is banned in their Islamic state, have new darling: Rita, the Israeli singing sensation.
Rita Jahanforuz, 50 years old, is Israel’s most famous female singer—and suddenly she’s big in Iran. Iranian-born and fluent in Persian, Rita, as she is universally known, moved to Israel as a child and has lived there ever since. Her latest album, “All My Joys,” revives old-time Persian hits, giving them an upbeat Mediterranean flavor that caters to the Israeli ear.
The album went gold in Israel in just three weeks, despite being sung entirely in Persian. It also propelled Rita onto the music scene in Iran, where she was all but unknown outside of Iran’s small Jewish population.
Now, from nightclubs in Tel Aviv to secret underground parties in Tehran, Israelis and Iranians alike go wild when the DJ plays her hit “Beegharar,” or “Restless.”
Rita’s fans within Iran, where the government heavily filters the Internet, use tricky software to furtively download her songs online. Bootleg CD sellers in the back alley of Tehran's old bazaar wrap her albums in unmarked packages and hush any inquiries when asked if they sell her music.
“Shhh…don’t mention Israel. Just say music by ‘Rita Khanum,’” which means “Ms. Rita,” said a young man named Reza selling bootleg music CDs and DVDs of Hollywood movies.
The governments of Iran and Israel are each other’s sworn enemies, and within Iran it is considered a taboo to publicly endorse anything that has to do with Israel. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said Israel should be wiped off the map. Israel has said it would consider pre-emptively bombing Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon.
Rita, however, with her striking beauty and bubbly demeanor, has emerged as an unexpected bond between ordinary Iranians and Israelis—part cultural ambassador, part antiwar spokeswoman. A picture of Rita with the banner, “Iranians we will never bomb your country,” is posted on her Facebook page.
“These days, people only know the language of war and violence and hatred,” said Rita, referring to Israelis’ view of the Persian language, during a recent interview in Tel Aviv. After she started receiving emails from Iranian fans, she realized music can “puncture the wall” of tension.
Rita’s family immigrated to Israel in 1970. She grew up in a suburb near Tel Aviv listening to her mother sing melodies from their homeland as she cooked in the kitchen.
Her singing career kicked off when Rita joined a band in the Israeli army in the 1980s. She rose to stardom quickly, singing solo and mostly in Hebrew or English, packing concert halls and performing for Israeli officials and foreign delegates.
A year ago, she decided to revisit what she tells audiences is the “soundtrack of my childhood” by adapting Persian classics that most Iranians know by heart. Her 2011 single “Shaneh” is based on a traditional song that Iranian grandmothers are known to whisper to their grandchildren as they comb their hair. An homage to a lover, it includes lines such as, “Oh, love, don’t comb your hair because my heart rests in its waves.” Rita reworked the song, staying true to the lyrics but giving it a more modern sound, somewhere between pop and Jewish gypsy music.
Iranian fans responded overwhelmingly, bombarding her with emails and messages online. “Rita, I want one of these concerts in Iran. You have an amazing voice and you are another pride for Iran,” wrote an Iranian fan on one of her videos on YouTube.
In September, when Rita visited Radio Ran, a Persian-language Internet radio station based in a Tel Aviv suburb, the studio was flooded with calls from Iranians around the world.
In an
Israeli television interview, speaking of her Iranian fans, she joked that if
she ever traveled to Iran, she would like to sing a duet with Mr. Ahmadinejad, “Maybe
I can soften him with my feminine charm,” she said.
Iran’s government has taken notice. Fars News Agency, affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards Corps, wrote last July that Rita is Israel’s “latest plot in a soft war” to gain access to the hearts and minds of Iranians.
Iranian hard-line websites and blogs expressed particular displeasure at Rita for sending a message to Iranians this past March for the Norouz New Year, via a video posted on the Persian website of Israel’s Foreign Ministry. Norouz messages are considered highly political and usually a tactic used by politicians like President Barack Obama and Iran’s opposition leaders.
“I hope that we all live alongside each other by dancing and singing because this is what will last,” Rita said in her Norouz message.
In May, Rita performed a sold-out concert in the city of Ashkelon, on Israel’s Mediterranean coast, singing mostly Persian songs. Fans crowded the stage and danced the aisles.
After the show, concert goers said they were swept away. “Listen, I'm not Persian,” said Meir Kanto, a 72-year-old farmer. “But the culture is so colorful and so beautiful, from my perspective, let them conquer us. It wouldn't hurt.”
In Tehran, guests at a recent engagement party jumped to their feet shimmying their hips and shoulders when Rita’s voice echoed from the speakers, mixing the rhythms of an old and uniquely southern Iranian song to techno dance beats. Even middle-age couples joined in.
“She is singing from her heart. So what if she is from Israel?” said Manijeh, a 43-year-old relative of the bride who asked that her surname not be published. “We love her.”
Rita Narrows Israeli-Iranian Gap with Music. Israelity Blog, June 4, 2012.
Exclusive Interview: Rita Farouz, Israeli Icon With Iranian Roots. By David Caspi. The Algemeiner, June 7, 2012.
Israeli-Iranian Pop Star Transcends Generals, Politicians on Both Sides. By Richard Silverstein. Tikun Olam, June 9, 2012.
Rita’s Official YouTube page.
Rita Official Website, English version.
Rita: Shaneh (Official Video). ritaofficial, July 10, 2011. YouTube.
Rita: Time for Peace (in English). teevevents, September 28, 2009. YouTube. Also find audio of a new version recorded by Rita ahead of her March 5 U.N. concert here.
Israel’s Rita Rocks the U.N. HumanRightsUN, March 6, 2013. Full U.N. concert. YouTube. Also at UN Web TV.
Iran’s government has taken notice. Fars News Agency, affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards Corps, wrote last July that Rita is Israel’s “latest plot in a soft war” to gain access to the hearts and minds of Iranians.
Iranian hard-line websites and blogs expressed particular displeasure at Rita for sending a message to Iranians this past March for the Norouz New Year, via a video posted on the Persian website of Israel’s Foreign Ministry. Norouz messages are considered highly political and usually a tactic used by politicians like President Barack Obama and Iran’s opposition leaders.
“I hope that we all live alongside each other by dancing and singing because this is what will last,” Rita said in her Norouz message.
In May, Rita performed a sold-out concert in the city of Ashkelon, on Israel’s Mediterranean coast, singing mostly Persian songs. Fans crowded the stage and danced the aisles.
After the show, concert goers said they were swept away. “Listen, I'm not Persian,” said Meir Kanto, a 72-year-old farmer. “But the culture is so colorful and so beautiful, from my perspective, let them conquer us. It wouldn't hurt.”
In Tehran, guests at a recent engagement party jumped to their feet shimmying their hips and shoulders when Rita’s voice echoed from the speakers, mixing the rhythms of an old and uniquely southern Iranian song to techno dance beats. Even middle-age couples joined in.
“She is singing from her heart. So what if she is from Israel?” said Manijeh, a 43-year-old relative of the bride who asked that her surname not be published. “We love her.”
Rita Narrows Israeli-Iranian Gap with Music. Israelity Blog, June 4, 2012.
Exclusive Interview: Rita Farouz, Israeli Icon With Iranian Roots. By David Caspi. The Algemeiner, June 7, 2012.
Israeli-Iranian Pop Star Transcends Generals, Politicians on Both Sides. By Richard Silverstein. Tikun Olam, June 9, 2012.
Rita’s Official YouTube page.
Rita Official Website, English version.
Rita: Shaneh (Official Video). ritaofficial, July 10, 2011. YouTube.
Rita: Time for Peace (in English). teevevents, September 28, 2009. YouTube. Also find audio of a new version recorded by Rita ahead of her March 5 U.N. concert here.
Israel’s Rita Rocks the U.N. HumanRightsUN, March 6, 2013. Full U.N. concert. YouTube. Also at UN Web TV.
Calvin Coolidge and the Moral Case for Economy. By Amity Shlaes.
Calvin Coolidge and the Moral Case for Economy. By Amity Shlaes. Imprimis, Vol. 42, No. 2 (February 2013). PDF.
U.S. Aid to Syria’s Revolution Could Go to Jihadists. By Walid Phares.
U.S. Aid to Syria’s Revolution Could Go to Jihadists. By Walid Phares. History News Network, March 1, 2013.
Elizabeth Warren Takes On Banks, Regulators As Senator. By Andrew Miga.
Elizabeth Warren Takes On Banks, Regulators As Senator. By Andrew Miga. AP. The Huffington Post, March 8, 2013.
Rand Paul’s Tea Too Strong for the GOP? By Walter Russell Mead.
Rand Paul’s Tea Too Strong for the GOP? By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, March 7, 2013.
Mead:
Diligent students of Meadism know that WRM divides the landscape of American foreign policy thought into four camps, named for four famous US leaders: Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Each of these four thinkers inspires a school of thought that still has followers today, but since Sept. 11, Jacksonians have made the most noise, especially in the GOP. Jacksonians are populists who want a muscular and realist foreign policy. They are more into bad-guy bashing than into nation building, and if our enemies break the laws of war they don’t think the US should be bound by Marquis of Queensbury rules. When the Iraq War was about weapons of mass destruction, Jacksonians backed it to the hilt. When it turned into an expensive and bloody exercise in democracy building in a country far, far away, Jacksonians grew disenchanted, but they stuck it out because the only thing they hate more than fighting unnecessary wars is losing.
While democracy promoting neoconservatives did most of the writing about Bush’s foreign policy from the Republican side, Jacksonians did most of the voting that kept him in the White House for eight years.
Flash forward to 2013 and the landscape has changed. Liberated from the need to defend the policies of a Republican president, and benefiting from the sense that both Bush and Obama managed to reduce the direct threat to the United States from Al Qaeda, some Republicans are taking another look at this whole world policeman concept. Jacksonians only want to get involved overseas in response to threats; Jeffersonians think we can reduce threats coming from abroad by scaling down our overseas military presence. Put the two camps together and a significant Republican and conservative movement for a less aggressive, less global foreign policy starts to emerge.
Jeffersonians follow our nation’s third President in wanting a small government at home, limited entanglements abroad, and in hating and fearing the potential for abuse inherent in the rise of a national-security state. World War Two, the Cold War and then 9/11 pushed Jeffersonians into the background in American politics. The world looked like such a dangerous place that a certain amount of proactive global policy seemed attractive, but with the death of Osama bin Laden the Jeffersonian worldview has gained new support. Al Qaeda looks more like a nuisance than an existential threat, China isn’t ready for prime time and Russia is over the hill. Maybe it’s time for the Atlas of the West to take a break.
Meanwhile, growing fears of an entitlement state fueled by infinitely extended budget deficits an order of magnitude bigger than many Americans like have made spending at home look more dangerous than bad guys abroad. Jeffersonian ideas, in a slightly less crack-potty format than the one advanced by the elder Paul, now begin to look like a compelling alternative to ambitious young politicians in the GOP. The younger Paul, hoping to build on his father’s core of supporters without some of the old man’s baggage, seems to see a path ahead.
Mead:
Diligent students of Meadism know that WRM divides the landscape of American foreign policy thought into four camps, named for four famous US leaders: Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Each of these four thinkers inspires a school of thought that still has followers today, but since Sept. 11, Jacksonians have made the most noise, especially in the GOP. Jacksonians are populists who want a muscular and realist foreign policy. They are more into bad-guy bashing than into nation building, and if our enemies break the laws of war they don’t think the US should be bound by Marquis of Queensbury rules. When the Iraq War was about weapons of mass destruction, Jacksonians backed it to the hilt. When it turned into an expensive and bloody exercise in democracy building in a country far, far away, Jacksonians grew disenchanted, but they stuck it out because the only thing they hate more than fighting unnecessary wars is losing.
While democracy promoting neoconservatives did most of the writing about Bush’s foreign policy from the Republican side, Jacksonians did most of the voting that kept him in the White House for eight years.
Flash forward to 2013 and the landscape has changed. Liberated from the need to defend the policies of a Republican president, and benefiting from the sense that both Bush and Obama managed to reduce the direct threat to the United States from Al Qaeda, some Republicans are taking another look at this whole world policeman concept. Jacksonians only want to get involved overseas in response to threats; Jeffersonians think we can reduce threats coming from abroad by scaling down our overseas military presence. Put the two camps together and a significant Republican and conservative movement for a less aggressive, less global foreign policy starts to emerge.
Jeffersonians follow our nation’s third President in wanting a small government at home, limited entanglements abroad, and in hating and fearing the potential for abuse inherent in the rise of a national-security state. World War Two, the Cold War and then 9/11 pushed Jeffersonians into the background in American politics. The world looked like such a dangerous place that a certain amount of proactive global policy seemed attractive, but with the death of Osama bin Laden the Jeffersonian worldview has gained new support. Al Qaeda looks more like a nuisance than an existential threat, China isn’t ready for prime time and Russia is over the hill. Maybe it’s time for the Atlas of the West to take a break.
Meanwhile, growing fears of an entitlement state fueled by infinitely extended budget deficits an order of magnitude bigger than many Americans like have made spending at home look more dangerous than bad guys abroad. Jeffersonian ideas, in a slightly less crack-potty format than the one advanced by the elder Paul, now begin to look like a compelling alternative to ambitious young politicians in the GOP. The younger Paul, hoping to build on his father’s core of supporters without some of the old man’s baggage, seems to see a path ahead.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
SPLC Report: Militia, Antigovernment Groups at All-Time High Due to Gun Control Talk.
In new report, SPLC says militia, antigovernment groups at all-time high due to gun control talk. By Madison Underwood. Alabama.com, March 5, 2013.
Civil rights group warns of rising danger from extreme right. By Michael Muskal. Los Angeles Times, March 5, 2013.
Southern Poverty Law Center Chronicles “Explosive” Rise in Radical Anti-Government “Patriot Movement.” By Madeleine Morgenstern. The Blaze, March 6, 2013.
The Year in Hate and Extremism. By Mark Potok. Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report, No. 149 (Spring 2013).
New Report: Radical antigovernmentmovement continues explosive growth; SPLC urges government to review resources devoted to domestic terrorism. Southern Poverty Law Center, March 5, 2013.
Extreme Anti-Government U.S. Groups at Record High, Could Grow: Report. Reuters. Breitbart, March 6, 2013.
SPLC letter to Department of Justice,Homeland Security regarding increase in patriot groups. By J. Richard Cohen. Southern Poverty Law Center, March 5, 2013. Also find it here.
Civil rights group warns of rising danger from extreme right. By Michael Muskal. Los Angeles Times, March 5, 2013.
Southern Poverty Law Center Chronicles “Explosive” Rise in Radical Anti-Government “Patriot Movement.” By Madeleine Morgenstern. The Blaze, March 6, 2013.
The Year in Hate and Extremism. By Mark Potok. Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report, No. 149 (Spring 2013).
New Report: Radical antigovernmentmovement continues explosive growth; SPLC urges government to review resources devoted to domestic terrorism. Southern Poverty Law Center, March 5, 2013.
Extreme Anti-Government U.S. Groups at Record High, Could Grow: Report. Reuters. Breitbart, March 6, 2013.
SPLC letter to Department of Justice,Homeland Security regarding increase in patriot groups. By J. Richard Cohen. Southern Poverty Law Center, March 5, 2013. Also find it here.
Stone Age Skeletons Unearthed In Libya’s Sahara Desert Spotlight Gender Divide.
Stone Age Skeletons Unearthed In Libya’s Sahara Desert Spotlight Gender Divide. By Tia Ghose. The Huffington Post, March 7, 2013. Also at LiveScience.
Persistent deathplaces and mobile landmarks: The Holocene mortuary and isotopic record from Wadi Takarkori (SW Libya). By Savino di Lernia and Mary Anne Tafuri. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Vol. 32, No. 1 (March 2013).
Abstract:
Recently, a new program of territorial study was launched in the area of Wadi Takarkori (Wadi Takarkori Project, hereafter WTP), located in south-western Libya at the border with Algeria in a strategic position between the Tassili and Acacus Mountains. The core of this program was the excavation of a rock shelter together with the systematic mapping and selected excavations of stone structures in the wadi area, mainly tumuli, a typical Saharan feature.
The excavations from the rock shelter provide fresh information on Holocene groups in the central Sahara and give deep insight into their funerary practices. Fifteen burials of women, juveniles and children (no adult males were found) were unearthed from a restricted part of the site. The burials belonged to different cultural phases, from sporadic evidence of Late Acacus hunter–gatherers (ca. 8000 BP) throughout the Pastoral sequence (ca. 7300–4200 BP).
A survey in the area of Wadi Takarkori revealed the presence of several stone structures; 7 have been excavated, and 5 of them hosted human burials of adult males and juveniles of Late and Final Pastoral phases (ca. 4500–3100 BP), which suggest a diversified and more articulated picture of land use during the late Holocene.
The integration of archaeological and isotopic data reveals the social and ideological changes that took place in the region across the millennia. Particularly, during the Early and Middle Pastoral, herders concentrated their burials inside shelters to mark a relation between the lived-in environment and a burial space that is repeatedly used by a section of the group. This pattern reflects the idea of a persistent deathplace. During the Late Pastoral, mobile groups transferred their funerary fixtures – now stone tumuli – along the open spaces of the wadi, marking a separation between world of the living and world of the dead.
Persistent deathplaces and mobile landmarks: The Holocene mortuary and isotopic record from Wadi Takarkori (SW Libya). By Savino di Lernia and Mary Anne Tafuri. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, Vol. 32, No. 1 (March 2013).
Abstract:
Recently, a new program of territorial study was launched in the area of Wadi Takarkori (Wadi Takarkori Project, hereafter WTP), located in south-western Libya at the border with Algeria in a strategic position between the Tassili and Acacus Mountains. The core of this program was the excavation of a rock shelter together with the systematic mapping and selected excavations of stone structures in the wadi area, mainly tumuli, a typical Saharan feature.
The excavations from the rock shelter provide fresh information on Holocene groups in the central Sahara and give deep insight into their funerary practices. Fifteen burials of women, juveniles and children (no adult males were found) were unearthed from a restricted part of the site. The burials belonged to different cultural phases, from sporadic evidence of Late Acacus hunter–gatherers (ca. 8000 BP) throughout the Pastoral sequence (ca. 7300–4200 BP).
A survey in the area of Wadi Takarkori revealed the presence of several stone structures; 7 have been excavated, and 5 of them hosted human burials of adult males and juveniles of Late and Final Pastoral phases (ca. 4500–3100 BP), which suggest a diversified and more articulated picture of land use during the late Holocene.
The integration of archaeological and isotopic data reveals the social and ideological changes that took place in the region across the millennia. Particularly, during the Early and Middle Pastoral, herders concentrated their burials inside shelters to mark a relation between the lived-in environment and a burial space that is repeatedly used by a section of the group. This pattern reflects the idea of a persistent deathplace. During the Late Pastoral, mobile groups transferred their funerary fixtures – now stone tumuli – along the open spaces of the wadi, marking a separation between world of the living and world of the dead.
 |
Archaeologists
uncovered 20 Stone Age skeletons in the Sahara
Desert. The burials spanned thousands of years, suggesting the place was a persistent cemetery for the local people. Mary Anne Tafuri. |
Grotesque Mummy Head Reveals Advanced Medieval Science. By Stephanie Pappas.
Grotesque Mummy Head Reveals Advanced Medieval Science. By Stephanie Pappas. LiveScience, March 5, 2013. Also find it here.
What Does This Head From the Thirteenth Century Tell Us About Medieval Medicine. Smithsonian, March 6, 2013.
The not-so-Dark Ages: Mummified head from1200 AD reveals enlightened doctors were more advanced than previously thought. By Emma Innes. Daily Mail, March 6, 2013.
Meet Philippe Charlier, The Forensic Scientist Who Thinks A Medieval Cadaver Smells Good. By Francie Diep. Popular Science, February 28, 2013.
After Liberté and Égalité, It’s Autopsie. By Elaine Sciolino. New York Times, July 6, 2012.
A glimpse into the early origins of medieval anatomy through the oldest conserved human dissection (Western Europe,13th c. A.D.). By Philippe Charlier et al. Archives of Medical Science, published in advance online, February 28, 2013. Full Text. PDF. Also find it here.
Abstract:
Introduction: Medieval autopsy practice is very poorly known in Western Europe, due to a lack of both descriptive medico-surgical texts and conserved dissected human remains. This period is currently considered the dark ages according to a common belief of systematic opposition of Christian religious authorities to the opening of human cadavers.
Material and methods: The identification in a private collection of an autopsied human individual dated from the 13th century A.D. is an opportunity for better knowledge of such practice in this chrono-cultural context, i.e. the early origins of occidental dissections. A complete forensic anthropological procedure was carried out, completed by radiological and elemental analyses.
Results: The complete procedure of this body opening and internal organs exploration is explained, and compared with historical data about forensic and anatomical autopsies from this period. During the analysis, a red substance filling all arterial cavities, made of mercury sulfide (cinnabar) mixed with vegetal oil (oleic and palmitic acids) was identified; it was presumably used to highlight vascularization by coloring in red such vessels, and help in the preservation of the body.
Conclusions: Of particular interest for the description of early medical and anatomical knowledge, this “human preparation” is the oldest known yet, and is particularly important for the fields of history of medicine, surgery and anatomical practice.
What Does This Head From the Thirteenth Century Tell Us About Medieval Medicine. Smithsonian, March 6, 2013.
The not-so-Dark Ages: Mummified head from1200 AD reveals enlightened doctors were more advanced than previously thought. By Emma Innes. Daily Mail, March 6, 2013.
Meet Philippe Charlier, The Forensic Scientist Who Thinks A Medieval Cadaver Smells Good. By Francie Diep. Popular Science, February 28, 2013.
After Liberté and Égalité, It’s Autopsie. By Elaine Sciolino. New York Times, July 6, 2012.
A glimpse into the early origins of medieval anatomy through the oldest conserved human dissection (Western Europe,13th c. A.D.). By Philippe Charlier et al. Archives of Medical Science, published in advance online, February 28, 2013. Full Text. PDF. Also find it here.
Abstract:
Introduction: Medieval autopsy practice is very poorly known in Western Europe, due to a lack of both descriptive medico-surgical texts and conserved dissected human remains. This period is currently considered the dark ages according to a common belief of systematic opposition of Christian religious authorities to the opening of human cadavers.
Material and methods: The identification in a private collection of an autopsied human individual dated from the 13th century A.D. is an opportunity for better knowledge of such practice in this chrono-cultural context, i.e. the early origins of occidental dissections. A complete forensic anthropological procedure was carried out, completed by radiological and elemental analyses.
Results: The complete procedure of this body opening and internal organs exploration is explained, and compared with historical data about forensic and anatomical autopsies from this period. During the analysis, a red substance filling all arterial cavities, made of mercury sulfide (cinnabar) mixed with vegetal oil (oleic and palmitic acids) was identified; it was presumably used to highlight vascularization by coloring in red such vessels, and help in the preservation of the body.
Conclusions: Of particular interest for the description of early medical and anatomical knowledge, this “human preparation” is the oldest known yet, and is particularly important for the fields of history of medicine, surgery and anatomical practice.
 |
This
anatomical specimen dating to the 1200s is the oldest known in Europe.
Archives
of Medical Science.
|
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)