OBAMA/CHAMBERLAINE ATTEMPT AT RECONCILIATION.
So US.President Obama thinks that he should still pursue dialogue with the Iranian rulers.
The Mullahs, Ayatollas and their spokesman Ahmadinejad have chosen to rule according to "Mein Kampf", complete with the trappings of a "democratic election", setting up a Gestapo (Revolutionary Guard), the Hitler Jugend (Basij militia), spending vast sums of money on arms rather than on their people and of course getting stuck into the "Zionists to be wiped off the earth". Those theocratic rulers don't seem to care anymore than Hitler did, who gets killed in their boundless ambitions to expand their hegemony not only at home but over ever vaster territories and nations like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and beyond.They want a Shia hegemony apparently.
A policy of intimidation with all resistance to be quashed is part of it, but perhaps the Iranian people who are slightly more sophisticated and independent of thought than the Germans were, have recognised their leaders for what they are and are prepared to cast off this kind of rule.They probably realize that they will only lead them to the same self-destruction as did the Nazis.
Let us hope that at least some good will arise from the current Iranian people's sacrifices and not finish up to have been in vain, or all our free nations may end up suffering a WW2/3 fate,- in spite of Obama's Chamberlaine-like advances!
But with the US and its allies deserting the Iraqis, who will help the Iranian people now?
JUST AS THE AMERICAN ARMY IS PREPARING TO LEAVE IRAQ TO THE IRAQI ARMY, THE VIOLENCE HAS ERUPTED WORSE THAN EVER AGAIN, WITH DOZENS KILLED AND HUNDREDS MAIMED.
Perhaps Israel could save the Iranian people?! Wouldn't that be ironic!So much for their Islamic revolutions and Islamic Theocracies. Hopefully Hamas, Hetzbollah, Taliban etal. are taking note.
mm
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
IRAN AND ITS WOMEN: a new film.
A Revolution Named Zahra:
by Kathleen Parker .
In some parts of the world, a woman can be destroyed at a man's whim without consequence.
There's a "new" old name suddenly in circulation that is both filled with ancient history and ripe with a revolutionary spirit for today's game-changing events.
Zahra.
Well known to Muslims, Fatima az-Zahra was one of four daughters of the prophet Muhammad. Today, Zahra is also the name of two important, outspoken women of Iran.
One is Zahra Rahnavard, the courageous and charismatic wife of the allegedly defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. The other is Zahra Khanum, the equally courageous and charismatic woman portrayed in a new movie, "The Stoning of Soraya M.," about the death of an Iranian woman on trumped-up charges of adultery.
Begging forgiveness for this confederacy of cliches, but we seem to have a perfect storm of tipping points.
Beneath the surface of news blasts covering Iran's tainted elections, riots, protester deaths and government crackdowns, a subtext of women's rights is emerging. It is a subtext only to the extent that women's oppression isn't often acknowledged directly -- not even by the leader of the free world. But human rights are at the core of what is occurring now.
A government that oppresses its people can only sustain itself with violence, as the world is witnessing yet again as thousands take to Iran's streets. And, in Iran as elsewhere in the Muslim world, violence against women -- as well as against homosexuals and others considered inferior according to the mullahs' masculinist standards -- isn't only permitted but justified with religious doctrine.
Mousavi challenged these notions -- and the government, apparently, saw fit that he lose. Even in the midst of so much heat, Mousavi's wife, Zahra, on Monday urged students at a Tehran University protest to hold fast in their resistance. Climb to the rooftops, she said, and shout, "God is great!"
Zahra R., who holds a PhD in political science and was an adviser to former president Mohammad Khatami, also has been vocal in urging reforms that would eliminate "morality police" as well as end discrimination against women.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that monument to self-confident masculinity, reportedly was so undone by Zahra's power on the campaign trail that he questioned whether her doctorate was legitimate.
Americans will begin getting a glimpse of the other Zahra as soon as "The Stoning" opens in select cities. Based on a true story, the movie is adapted from French Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam's 1994 novel of the same name.
In the film, produced by Stephen McEveety ("Braveheart" and "The Passion of the Christ"), the journalist-author is stranded in a small village when his car breaks down. Zahra (Shohreh Aghdashloo) dodges the threatening stares of her fellow villagers and persuades the reporter to come to her house and record her story. Evil has visited her village, she tells him, and she wants the world to know.
Briefly, Zahra's niece Soraya, mother of four, had been accused of adultery by her abusive, unfaithful husband. The truth was that he wanted a divorce so he could marry another. When Soraya refused, he and the village mullah conspired to accuse her of adultery.
As the title suggests, Soraya was convicted and condemned to death by stoning.
I saw a rough cut of this film several months ago. Since that time, I've been unable to shake the story or images that I suspect will haunt me forever. Be forewarned: It is brutal. McEveety and director Cyrus Nowrasteh felt that the stoning scene needed to be accurately portrayed or the film would be an insult to Soraya's suffering.
It will be hard for many to get through to the end, but staying with the movie brings a reward. Despite the brutality, the film is also beautiful and true. It reminds us that a woman in some parts of the world can be destroyed at a man's whim without consequence. The beauty is that truth will out.
"The Stoning," which will be in most theaters June 26, was intentionally timed for release after Iran's elections. Dennis Rice, charged with promoting the movie, figured the election would help create interest, but he didn't anticipate the serendipitous intersection of the two Zahras. "Irony?" he asks. "I think not."
In Arabic, Zahra means "The Shining One."
In English, we'd call that a beacon.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.
See this article online:
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/arts/A_Revolution_Named_Zahra.asp
by Kathleen Parker .
In some parts of the world, a woman can be destroyed at a man's whim without consequence.
There's a "new" old name suddenly in circulation that is both filled with ancient history and ripe with a revolutionary spirit for today's game-changing events.
Zahra.
Well known to Muslims, Fatima az-Zahra was one of four daughters of the prophet Muhammad. Today, Zahra is also the name of two important, outspoken women of Iran.
One is Zahra Rahnavard, the courageous and charismatic wife of the allegedly defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. The other is Zahra Khanum, the equally courageous and charismatic woman portrayed in a new movie, "The Stoning of Soraya M.," about the death of an Iranian woman on trumped-up charges of adultery.
Begging forgiveness for this confederacy of cliches, but we seem to have a perfect storm of tipping points.
Beneath the surface of news blasts covering Iran's tainted elections, riots, protester deaths and government crackdowns, a subtext of women's rights is emerging. It is a subtext only to the extent that women's oppression isn't often acknowledged directly -- not even by the leader of the free world. But human rights are at the core of what is occurring now.
A government that oppresses its people can only sustain itself with violence, as the world is witnessing yet again as thousands take to Iran's streets. And, in Iran as elsewhere in the Muslim world, violence against women -- as well as against homosexuals and others considered inferior according to the mullahs' masculinist standards -- isn't only permitted but justified with religious doctrine.
Mousavi challenged these notions -- and the government, apparently, saw fit that he lose. Even in the midst of so much heat, Mousavi's wife, Zahra, on Monday urged students at a Tehran University protest to hold fast in their resistance. Climb to the rooftops, she said, and shout, "God is great!"
Zahra R., who holds a PhD in political science and was an adviser to former president Mohammad Khatami, also has been vocal in urging reforms that would eliminate "morality police" as well as end discrimination against women.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that monument to self-confident masculinity, reportedly was so undone by Zahra's power on the campaign trail that he questioned whether her doctorate was legitimate.
Americans will begin getting a glimpse of the other Zahra as soon as "The Stoning" opens in select cities. Based on a true story, the movie is adapted from French Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam's 1994 novel of the same name.
In the film, produced by Stephen McEveety ("Braveheart" and "The Passion of the Christ"), the journalist-author is stranded in a small village when his car breaks down. Zahra (Shohreh Aghdashloo) dodges the threatening stares of her fellow villagers and persuades the reporter to come to her house and record her story. Evil has visited her village, she tells him, and she wants the world to know.
Briefly, Zahra's niece Soraya, mother of four, had been accused of adultery by her abusive, unfaithful husband. The truth was that he wanted a divorce so he could marry another. When Soraya refused, he and the village mullah conspired to accuse her of adultery.
As the title suggests, Soraya was convicted and condemned to death by stoning.
I saw a rough cut of this film several months ago. Since that time, I've been unable to shake the story or images that I suspect will haunt me forever. Be forewarned: It is brutal. McEveety and director Cyrus Nowrasteh felt that the stoning scene needed to be accurately portrayed or the film would be an insult to Soraya's suffering.
It will be hard for many to get through to the end, but staying with the movie brings a reward. Despite the brutality, the film is also beautiful and true. It reminds us that a woman in some parts of the world can be destroyed at a man's whim without consequence. The beauty is that truth will out.
"The Stoning," which will be in most theaters June 26, was intentionally timed for release after Iran's elections. Dennis Rice, charged with promoting the movie, figured the election would help create interest, but he didn't anticipate the serendipitous intersection of the two Zahras. "Irony?" he asks. "I think not."
In Arabic, Zahra means "The Shining One."
In English, we'd call that a beacon.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.
See this article online:
http://www.aish.com/societyWork/arts/A_Revolution_Named_Zahra.asp
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Israel, Obama and American Jewry. (Shmuel Boteach)
INTRODUCTION: It was obvious that as soon as President Barak Hussein Obama would be elected, he was going to set himself up as a 'friend' of the Islamic world. To prove it, he has to prove that he is pressurizing Israel somehow. Stopping building in the Settlement communities, seemed to be the easiest way to do that probably. Rabbi Boteach argues that the Jewish community in the USA is too ready to support Obama in this. (MM)
The coming storm: Obama and American Jewry
Jun. 15, 2009
Shmuley Boteach ,
THE JERUSALEM POST
There's a storm coming. It will pit a well-organized community of substantial resources but also substantial insecurity - particularly when it comes to charges of dual loyalty - against a popular president of considerable eloquence but misguided policies that identify Israeli settlements as the main obstacle to Middle East peace. The inevitable clash will separate sunshine Jewish patriots who back Israel when convenient against those who stand with Israel even when it means losing their invitation to the White House Hanukka party.
The bogus issue of settlements is already being swallowed whole by many well-meaning Jews. Last week Dan Fleshler, a leader of Americans for Peace Now, wrote in the New Jersey Jewish Standard that Obama has no choice but to pressure Israel because "it is fruitless for a well-armed, occupying power to negotiate the terms of a viable settlement with an almost defenseless occupied people unless a third party mediates and presses both sides."
In reading Fleshler one wonders whether he has been himself occupied with building a settlement on the moon with no knowledge of events on Earth. Is he seriously suggesting that the thousands of Katyusha rockets and nonstop suicide bombers that have killed more than a thousand Israelis (the equivalent of 30,000 dead Americans) have come from a "defenseless" foe? Would Fleshler likewise argue that the US ought to have pressure from, say, Russia or China to make peace with the terrorists in Afghanistan, seeing that America now represents a "well-armed, occupying power" against the comparatively defenseless Taliban? Or is it only Israel that is forbidden from defending itself.
Sorry Mr. Fleshler, but Jewish values do not dictate that the only moral Jew is a dead one who refuses to fight in the face of a 60-year terror onslaught.
Any return to the 1967 borders, which is what Obama's attack on the settlements represents, is simply suicide for Israel. The borders are utterly indefensible. The Arabs know it, which is why they press for it. Had Israel not dismantled its settlements in Gush Katif, Gaza would not have become a terrorist state ruled by Hamas, an organization that kills even more Palestinians than it does Israelis.
BUT MISGUIDED Jewish apologists aside, are the rest of us prepared to speak up against the policies of the administration? By this I do not mean the drunken racist rants of the American Jewish hooligans who got attention disgracing themselves on YouTube last week; their bigoted drivel against our democratically elected president represents an abomination to Judaism. I have already written several columns lamenting how a small minority of the large and praiseworthy contingent of Jewish youth who go to Israel from the US after high school ostensibly to study in yeshivot end up instead hanging out on Rehov Ben Yehuda making asses of themselves. That they have no proper supervision and that they are allowed to go through their year in a drunken stupor is an outrage that must be finally addressed by the institutions which host them.
Rather, I mean courageous and intelligent criticism that accepts the president's praiseworthy efforts in making peace but decries his soft posture on tyranny when he bows to an Arab potentate who oppresses women and warmly embraces the dictator of Venezuela.
Asher Lopatin was one of the first students I met at Oxford and the university's first Orthodox Rhodes scholar. Today he is the successful rabbi of one of Chicago's most youthful congregations. He is also Rahm Emanuel's rabbi. But that did not stop him from criticizing the White House chief of staff in Newsweek for his unfair pressure on Israel. Lopatin could easily have basked in the aura of being rabbi to one of the most influential men in the world. Instead, he spoke truth to power.
In promoting the new translation of his Hebrew prayer book, British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks constantly reminds us that he studies Bible with the prime minister of the United Kingdom. That's nice. But a few years ago Sacks spoke out publicly against Israel, telling London's Guardian newspaper, "There are things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel very uncomfortable as a Jew."
Sacks is a brilliant man but with a long history of pandering to whatever audience he happens to be addressing. He would do well to remember the admonishment of Mordechai to Esther on the responsibility of being close to political power: "If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place."
But while Europe and the UK are significant, the main battle lines will be here in the US and now is the time for American Jewry to organize. From schools to universities to synagogues and JCCs, we must make it clear that when 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama and filled his campaign coffers with cash it was not in the expectation of biased policies against Israel. We're upset, disappointed and we won't take it. We'll march in the streets, write op-eds and blogs, and publish ads making it clear that America should be standing with the Middle East's only democracy and America's most reliable ally.
As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, our president undermines his moral authority when he pledges that henceforth America will "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," but then only applies that pledge to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but not to Israel.
Last year, right after Obama captured the democratic nomination, I received a phone call from his campaign asking if I would serve as one of the national chairs of "Rabbis for Obama." It was a tempting offer. I was moved by the candidate's remarkable personal story, his iron discipline, his soaring oratory and, most of all, the fact that his victory would be the culmination of my hero Martin Luther King's dream of a man being judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. In the end I declined because I feared that Obama would draw a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians and pressure the former to appease the latter. But even I never suspected that it would happen so quickly and so lopsidedly.
The writer is the founder of This World: The Values Network. His upcoming book is The Blessing of Enough: Rejecting Material Greed, Embracing Spiritual Hunger
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371106463&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995- 2009 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
The coming storm: Obama and American Jewry
Jun. 15, 2009
Shmuley Boteach ,
THE JERUSALEM POST
There's a storm coming. It will pit a well-organized community of substantial resources but also substantial insecurity - particularly when it comes to charges of dual loyalty - against a popular president of considerable eloquence but misguided policies that identify Israeli settlements as the main obstacle to Middle East peace. The inevitable clash will separate sunshine Jewish patriots who back Israel when convenient against those who stand with Israel even when it means losing their invitation to the White House Hanukka party.
The bogus issue of settlements is already being swallowed whole by many well-meaning Jews. Last week Dan Fleshler, a leader of Americans for Peace Now, wrote in the New Jersey Jewish Standard that Obama has no choice but to pressure Israel because "it is fruitless for a well-armed, occupying power to negotiate the terms of a viable settlement with an almost defenseless occupied people unless a third party mediates and presses both sides."
In reading Fleshler one wonders whether he has been himself occupied with building a settlement on the moon with no knowledge of events on Earth. Is he seriously suggesting that the thousands of Katyusha rockets and nonstop suicide bombers that have killed more than a thousand Israelis (the equivalent of 30,000 dead Americans) have come from a "defenseless" foe? Would Fleshler likewise argue that the US ought to have pressure from, say, Russia or China to make peace with the terrorists in Afghanistan, seeing that America now represents a "well-armed, occupying power" against the comparatively defenseless Taliban? Or is it only Israel that is forbidden from defending itself.
Sorry Mr. Fleshler, but Jewish values do not dictate that the only moral Jew is a dead one who refuses to fight in the face of a 60-year terror onslaught.
Any return to the 1967 borders, which is what Obama's attack on the settlements represents, is simply suicide for Israel. The borders are utterly indefensible. The Arabs know it, which is why they press for it. Had Israel not dismantled its settlements in Gush Katif, Gaza would not have become a terrorist state ruled by Hamas, an organization that kills even more Palestinians than it does Israelis.
BUT MISGUIDED Jewish apologists aside, are the rest of us prepared to speak up against the policies of the administration? By this I do not mean the drunken racist rants of the American Jewish hooligans who got attention disgracing themselves on YouTube last week; their bigoted drivel against our democratically elected president represents an abomination to Judaism. I have already written several columns lamenting how a small minority of the large and praiseworthy contingent of Jewish youth who go to Israel from the US after high school ostensibly to study in yeshivot end up instead hanging out on Rehov Ben Yehuda making asses of themselves. That they have no proper supervision and that they are allowed to go through their year in a drunken stupor is an outrage that must be finally addressed by the institutions which host them.
Rather, I mean courageous and intelligent criticism that accepts the president's praiseworthy efforts in making peace but decries his soft posture on tyranny when he bows to an Arab potentate who oppresses women and warmly embraces the dictator of Venezuela.
Asher Lopatin was one of the first students I met at Oxford and the university's first Orthodox Rhodes scholar. Today he is the successful rabbi of one of Chicago's most youthful congregations. He is also Rahm Emanuel's rabbi. But that did not stop him from criticizing the White House chief of staff in Newsweek for his unfair pressure on Israel. Lopatin could easily have basked in the aura of being rabbi to one of the most influential men in the world. Instead, he spoke truth to power.
In promoting the new translation of his Hebrew prayer book, British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks constantly reminds us that he studies Bible with the prime minister of the United Kingdom. That's nice. But a few years ago Sacks spoke out publicly against Israel, telling London's Guardian newspaper, "There are things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel very uncomfortable as a Jew."
Sacks is a brilliant man but with a long history of pandering to whatever audience he happens to be addressing. He would do well to remember the admonishment of Mordechai to Esther on the responsibility of being close to political power: "If you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place."
But while Europe and the UK are significant, the main battle lines will be here in the US and now is the time for American Jewry to organize. From schools to universities to synagogues and JCCs, we must make it clear that when 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama and filled his campaign coffers with cash it was not in the expectation of biased policies against Israel. We're upset, disappointed and we won't take it. We'll march in the streets, write op-eds and blogs, and publish ads making it clear that America should be standing with the Middle East's only democracy and America's most reliable ally.
As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, our president undermines his moral authority when he pledges that henceforth America will "forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions," but then only applies that pledge to Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, but not to Israel.
Last year, right after Obama captured the democratic nomination, I received a phone call from his campaign asking if I would serve as one of the national chairs of "Rabbis for Obama." It was a tempting offer. I was moved by the candidate's remarkable personal story, his iron discipline, his soaring oratory and, most of all, the fact that his victory would be the culmination of my hero Martin Luther King's dream of a man being judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. In the end I declined because I feared that Obama would draw a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians and pressure the former to appease the latter. But even I never suspected that it would happen so quickly and so lopsidedly.
The writer is the founder of This World: The Values Network. His upcoming book is The Blessing of Enough: Rejecting Material Greed, Embracing Spiritual Hunger
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371106463&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995- 2009 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)