JUNE 21, 2013 THE JEWISH ADVOCATE
Founded in 1902
It’s Israel that needs peace and security
t is often truthfully said that, in contrast with the Arabs, Israel can never allow itself to lose even one war – since a single lost war could mean her destruction and would mean another catastrophe of Holocaust proportions. But unless the region has an arrangement for James peace and securiAdler ty, how will wars ensnaring Israel not go on taking place until Israel sooner or later loses one of them? For instance, it could take only one Irani(or even Commentary an a prospective Egyptian) nuclear bomb. Or one trafficked rogue bomb. Or, basically, any single lost war – and in a possible lethally reinforcing conjunction with any domestic and West Bank uprising – of any kind. This is the core reason Israel requires long-term peace and security from the region – like the one based on the Arab League peace plan, which could be built on only as the launch, not the conclusion, of negotiations toward peace. It would also have the (happy) side effect of serving as the best, and most powerful and realistic, regional counterweight to Iran. With adjacent foreign states, the Arabs and Iranians have long had security. They do not need
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. The ultimate heart of the matter is that it is not the Arabs, but rather it is Israel, which requires peace and security. It is the Israelis, and not the Arabs, who ought to be most overjoyed that Obama and Kerry are trying so relentlessly to jumpstart the movement to long-term peace and security between Israel and the rest of the region. This is not only the best but actually the only means of guaranteeing that there will never be a Holocaust-scale catastrophe for Israel and, over the long term, to make ironclad her peace and security in the many coming decades in which could occur potential catastrophic losses in nuclear attacks, uprisings, and land wars. Without the work of close advocates for Israel and peace such as Secretary of State Kerry, there will remain an ever-present risk of an unconditional disaster. Not to Iran. Not to the Arab world. But to Israel – which is forever alone, and intensely vulnerable, outside any framework of regional security and peace. It is a framework that Ariel Sharon almost accepted when it was first offered in 2002, and has since then been ignored for 11 years. But it could – easily, at least compared to the alternative of constant, grave risk – soon be had for the taking. Cambridge resident James Adler is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and a librarian at a Boston-area university. His work involves world religions and their relation to politics.
Write to us! The Jewish Advocate welcomes Letters to the Editor. They should total no more than 350 words in length and be submitted by the Friday prior to the following week’s publication date. Letters may be edited for clarity and/or length, and we cannot guarantee that every submission will be published. Personal attacks are not allowed. Letters may be emailed to J. Michael Whalen, Editor, at MichaelW@thejewishadvocate.com or mailed to The Jewish Advocate, 15 School St., Boston, MA 02108. PUBLISHERS OF THE JEWISH ADVOCATE 1902-1917 JACOB De HAAS 1980-1984 1917-1952 JOSEPH G. BRIN 1984-1990 1917-1980 ALEXANDER BRIN 1990-
JOSEPH G. WEISBERG BERNARD M. HYATT GRAND RABBI Y. A. KORFF
few weeks ago, President Barack Obama unilaterally declared “peace” in the global war on terror because – as he explained – “history has taught us that all wars must end.” Well, no, actually: History teaches that unilateral declarations ending wars are called “surrenders.” But not to worry: The President knows the war on terror is nowhere near an end. He’s come out forcefully defending the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) anti-terror datagathering programs. If you think this is a contradiction, then you need to underCharles stand how “proJacobs gressive” politics works: It is an article of faith among left-wing liberals (including Jewish “Tikkunistas”) that we actually can perfect the world through our thoughts – not just our actions – and that by speaking about the world as it should be, and not as it is, we inch ever closer to perfection. Indeed, acknowledging things as they actually exist only cements unpleasant realities in place. You might call this magical (or aspirational) thinking from people who otherwise claim to be rational. Example: President Obama wishes it were true that the assassination of Osama bin Laden defeated Al Qaeda. And he really, really wishes (as did President George W. Bush) – along with many civic and political leaders – that Islamic doctrine were not a motivation or organizing principle for jihadist violence around the world. If all these aspirations were true, it would be reasonable to categorize people who claim to murder in the name of Islam as “lone wolves” who have misunderstood their religion. And that’s what Western elites tell us to think, because they so want it to be true. But, as Mark Steyn quipped last week at Rabbi Jonathan Hausman’s Stoughton lecture series, there seem to be an awful lot of these free-floating “lone wolf ” misunderstanders out there: “The next time someone bellowing ‘Allah hu Akbar’ [‘G-d is great’] butchers a Westerner in broad daylight or blows up a sports event, you might think he’s a member of Local 436 of the Amalgamated Union of Unaffiliated Lone Wolves. Three tornadoes and you’ve got absolute proof of global warming, but thousands of jihad attacks – and still there is no ‘global wolfing.’” The President’s policy when it comes to jihad continuously produces outrages and absurdities. The 2009 murder of Private Andy Long in Little Rock by Carlos Bledsoe – a Christian college student who had converted to Islam – is designated by the government as a random “driveby shooting” – no matter that Carlos insisted that he killed Andy “for Allah.” Maj. Nidal Hassan screamed “Allah hu Akbar” while machinegunning U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas and plans to claim at his trial
A ‘collective vision’ or willful blindness? that he murdered our soldiers to defend the Taliban.The Obama spokesmen, however, still have his crime on the books as “workplace violence.” Boston’s Jewish leadership seems to have adopted a similar approach, at least publicly, of willful blindness. The head of the Jewish Community Relations Council ( JCRC), Jeremy Burton, revealed in The Jewish Advocate (May 24) a previously unannounced policy shift: Boston’s JCRC will now openly work with the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). The ISB and the Muslim American Society (MAS) – own and run both the Cambridge mosque (where the Tsarnaev bombers prayed), and the Saudifunded mega-mosque in Roxbury. The MAS is, according to federal authorities, “the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” The Muslim Brotherhood, a major fount of radical Islam, is also a major source of global terror. It has many branches; the one in Israel is called Hamas. Burton exquisitely demonstrates the painful conundrums Jewish leaders face when trying to reconcile their progressive values and utopian dreams with observable facts and actual Jewish interest when it comes to dealing with radical Islam. They have not figured out how to articulate the threat without offending liberal and Islamist sensibilities. They see the real prospect of rising Islamist influence, but given the constraints placed upon them by their progressive values (and/or donors), they simply don’t know what to do. So they continue to express wishful sentiments devoid of unpleasant reality. And most troubling: Our leaders will not state in public what they know about the real threats to Jews posed by radical Islamists in the Hub. They kick the can down the road; they “dialogue” and seek to accommodate. A little background: Years ago, when it came to light that certain ISB leaders were linked to terror and hate speech, and had lied to Jewish leaders about their anti-Semitic statements and affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, Combined Jewish Philanthropies (CJP) and JCRC leaders reacted by boycotting the grand opening of the ISB megamosque. Recently, Gov. Deval Patrick also seemed to have distanced himself from the Roxbury mosque. So we thought and hoped that the matter of official Jewry working with ISB/MAS was finally settled. Now comes the JCRC Executive Director, who announces that even though he has “concerns,” he has reestablished a working relationship with the ISB “to focus on achieving our collective vision for Boston through our faith traditions.” My hypothesis: Burton is a smart
and decent man. He does not buy what ISB/MAS is telling him but feels he has no other option but to pretend, to be “politically savvy.” He knows that Roxbury mosque Imam Suhaib Webb raised funds for a convicted cop-killer, makes outrageously homophobic remarks, and perhaps even that Webb promotes a national MAS curriculum that radicalizes young American Muslims. Burton would like to believe that the Jews of Boston and the Muslim Brotherhood have a “collective vision.” Jews, he tells us, need to fight alongside Muslims for “healthcare, youth jobs, immigration and gun violence prevention.” Sounds more like Democratic Party talking points than Jewish community interests. Claiming that ISB/MAS are committed to preventing “gun violence” is especially risible: Cambridge mosque leader Anwar Kazmi, who Burton would likely tell us is a reasonable man, has been caught on videotape leading a rally on the Boston Common urging Muslims to support Tarek Mehanna – a man convicted of plotting to machinegun shoppers at an Attleboro mall. A Roxbury mosque spokesman, Abdullah Faaruuq, was caught on videotape telling local Muslims to “pick up the gun and the sword” and “do your job” in support of Mehanna’s fight against the U.S. government. Webb has raised money to try and get a gun-wielding cop killer off the hook. Burton tells us that he has expressed his “concerns” about ISB/ MAS leaders directly with ISBCC, and with Christian groups. He says Webb hasn’t dispelled his concerns, yet the JCRC maintains the relationship. If the JCRC were to value Jewish (and American) interests above its progressive philosophy, here’s what it would do: Go public about what it knows about the ISB/MAS. Meet with Christian and minority leaders, as well as with editors at The Boston Globe, and show them the troubling evidence. Demand that mosques not teach Islamic supremacy, and anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-women, and anti-gay lessons. Focus on educating the black community about the threat to its children. There is a reason the Saudis chose to build their mosque in Roxbury: Disaffected and alienated communities are vulnerable to Islamist proselytization. Do all of the above while assuring moderate Muslims of the Jewish community’s support. For too long, the JCRC has been silent – and in hiding – about this critical issue for the future well-being of the Greater Boston community. This is dangerous, and it must come to an end. Charles Jacobs is President of Americans for Peace and Tolerance.