Harry's Place

I guess CNN’s Wolf Blitzer won’t be asking that question again after this encounter with Oklahoma tornado survivor Rebecca Vitsmun– who handled the moment well.

Vitsmun fled her home in Moore with her 19-month-old son moments before the tornado flattened it.

Much of the blogo- and twitter-sphere seems to be split between those who absolutely refuse to see any link between the murder of Lee Rigby and Islam, and those who are equally adamant that UK foreign policy cannot possibly be behind this violence.  When I saw this tweet from Seumas Milne it struck me that it was remarkably similar to the kind of thing Tommy Robinson might say. I can even imagine the very same pairing – ‘political class & most media’ – being blamed for refusing to cover Islam4UK or grooming gangs.

Many commenters have invoked foreign policy when discussing Woolwich.  Some can’t wait five seconds before raising the topic – others slip it in quickly towards the end.  I don’t think many of these commenters would be too thrilled by someone who argued that, although what Breivik did was barbaric, the external factors causing his crime do need to be addressed to ensure something similar doesn’t happen again.  Of course disagreement with the UK’s foreign policy and anxieties about religious extremism are both entirely legitimate topics for discussion – but not when used to just hint at some kind of justification for murder, even if that truly is not the intention.  Here’s Norman Geras on this topic:

Nothing is wrong with genuine efforts at understanding; on these we all depend. But the genuine article is one thing, and root-causes advocacy that seeks to dissipate responsibility for atrocity, mass murder, crime against humanity, especially in the immediate aftermath of their occurrence, is something else.

Note, first, the selectivity in the general way root-causes arguments function. Purporting to be about causal explanation rather than excuse-making, they are invariably deployed on behalf of movements, actions, etc., for which the proponent wants to engage our sympathy or indulgence, and in order to direct blame towards some party for whom he or she has no sympathy.

Tommy Robinson oddly brought the two kinds of violence together here with his incongruous reference to an EDL suicide bomber:

“I think it’s disgusting, and my thoughts and prayers are with all the victims. We don’t want English lads blowing themselves up on our soil, but that will happen if they don’t give us a platform.”

There is another possible reason why too much focus on these ‘root causes’ – religious extremism and foreign policy – is of limited use.  Both kinds of extremist might well find other reasons to turn to violence even if these ‘root causes’ were no more.  For some Muslims hostility to the West may be exacerbated by foreign policy, but is by no means dependent on it.  And although some counterjihad/far right types may be genuinely exercised by extremism, many others would have supported the NF a few decades ago.

Norm Geras of normblog, one of the most thoughtful and decent (in the non-sneering sense) people in the blogosphere, has revealed that he is in hospital being treated for the spread of prostate cancer.

I was first diagnosed with early prostate cancer at the beginning of 2003, not long before starting normblog. Though my initial treatment failed to cure the condition, I have remained asymptomatic and in good health for 10 years under the first-rate care of Christie Hospital in Manchester and the treatments recommended and implemented there. But this decade of good fortune ran out for me at the end of February this year when I learned that the cancer had now spread and, simultaneously, I started to suffer the effects of that.

As someone who for years has appreciated Norm’s wisdom and good sense, who had the privilege of meeting him when he visited Washington several years ago, who was the subject of one of his blogger profiles, who is a fellow Emmylou Harris fan, and who was treated for early-stage prostate cancer almost three years ago (with apparent success up to now), my thoughts are with Norm and his family.

The good news is that Norm hopes to be out of the hospital soon, and that he continues to blog as often as he can– as in this excellent post about why the victory over fascism in World War II was (even with its dark side) a great achievement that, despite a recent Guardian editorial, should not be “put to rest.”

Update: amie reports that Norm has returned home from the hospital.

There you go.

Guest post by Mehrdad Amanpour

I live in Greenwich, South East London (a couple of miles from Woolwich). As someone from a Muslim family, I needed to write down my thoughts on this terrible and traumatic event. I feel that the result would be appropriate for this excellent blog.

I don’t need to come from a Muslim family background to be certain that the overwhelming majority of Muslims here and throughout the world will be as horrified as anyone by the terrible events in Woolwich.

Furthermore, I am certain that the overwhelming majority of Muslim organisations, imams and community leaders would describe the actions of the men concerned to be evil and un-Islamic – the accepted consensus among most scholars is that when you live in a non-Islamic country (where you are allowed live and practice your religion in peace), you are forbidden to make war on the people of that country.

That being said, surely it’s time for Muslims everywhere to confront some of the extreme views held within their communities and face up to the fact that such views may act as stepping-stones for some ignorant and impressionable people who go on to carry out atrocious acts of violence.

It is a fact that far too many Muslim scholars promote, and far too many Muslims believe, interpretations of Islam that are anything but moderate– for example, that non-Muslims are morally and spiritually ‘inferior’ beings to Muslims or that in an ideal ‘Islamic’ society, the death penalty should apply for a Muslim who leaves Islam, for anyone who insults the Prophet, has sex outside of marriage or takes part in a homosexual act.

Whilst I’m not suggesting that any significant number of the Muslims holding such views would ever commit or even condone the events we saw in Woolwich, I am suggesting that if someone already believes such interpretations of Islam, it would be easier for them to believe that it’s morally acceptable to behead an off-duty soldier in the street.

As we have seen in the various media exposés, extreme views such as those outlined above are being promoted, often with impunity, in mosques, madrassas, faith schools and Islamic student societies throughout Britain. The result of this, as numerous polls have demonstrated, is that an unacceptably high minority of British Muslims support extreme and illiberal interpretations of Islam; for example, a poll carried out by Policy Exchange suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy.

In every other aspect of our society, an ‘extremist’ is defined by both their actions and their personally held views; it is perfectly reasonable to label a racist a ‘racist’, whether or not they carry out illegal acts or promote law-breaking. For some reason, however, such rational logic isn’t generally applied when it comes to describing members of religious groups.

It seems that any Muslim who states that they support obeying the laws of the land is defined by default as ‘moderate’ without regard to whether he or she might hold some views that are very extreme and unpleasant indeed. However, a large section of our media and institutions appear to only label a Muslim as an ‘extremist’ if he or she breaks the law or incites others to do so. This is illogical and irrational.

The time has come for Muslim organisations, scholars, imams and lay people to stand up and state unequivocally that interpretations such as those outlined above are unacceptable and should never be promoted, here or abroad. They should go further and distance themselves from anyone who promotes those views. What’s more, politicians, the media and all of us should ask questions of any person who refuses to condemn such bigotry, and to ostracise them just as we do with someone who refuses to condemn racism. Universities must ban Islamic societies that promote hateful views, and any mosque, madrassa or Islamic faith school that promotes extreme, illiberal interpretations of Islam should be closed down and the management prosecuted.

Stating that non-Muslims are inferior to Muslims or that people should be killed for leaving a religion or having gay sex is simple hate speech, whether or not the speaker believes that it is ordained by Allah. The fact that hate speech is illegal under English law recognises the fact that hateful speech can sometimes promote hateful action.

Surely it’s time for the people who promote the views outlined above are treated as the criminals they are.

Most important, the time has come for our media, politicians and anti-fascist organisations to expose, name and shame any Muslim organisation, mosque, imam, scholar or spokesperson who refuses to condemn and distance themselves from the unacceptable interpretations of Islam that are far-too-often promoted without challenge in Britain today.

This is a cross-post by Marc Goldberg

Living in Israel, fear comes, quite literally, with the territory. I was afraid when sitting eating hummus in a restaurant when I heard the sirens go off, followed by a rather loud explosion moments later. I was afraid when I was wearing green a couple of days later and waiting to be sent into Gaza. But this is the usual fear. It’s one that either hurts you or it doesn’t, one that as an immigrant you either get used to and stay or can’t handle and leave. I have stopped looking at it as a ‘genuine’ fear and simply regard it as the price I pay for living in the country I love.

This is why when an altogether different kind of fear grips me I feel it so deeply. Yesterday Ha’aretz reported that an Israeli was placed under arrest for a Facebook status. Omri Hayun, who lives in Tel Aviv criticized the state on Facebook and was therefore contacted by Police. His mother was contacted by Police also.

It’s this that really makes me afraid. It’s this that really makes me doubt my government and country. We Israelis are so proud of what we have built here, of what we have accomplished that we find it very difficult not to brag since “we’re the only flourishing democracy in the Middle East” don’t you know?

But are we?

I’m not quite sure what the police think they’re going to achieve by monitoring the Facebook statuses of various Israelis. For sure there is an intelligence element to Facebook, though the detectives who tried to arrest Hayun have no connection with the intelligence services.

This is about social (media) control and it makes me feel very uncomfortable indeed. The fact that as soon as Hayun’s lawyer got in touch with police they admitted that in fact he didn’t have to arrive in court makes me feel even more uneasy in some ways.

If the police knew they had no grounds to do anything then why were they bullying and threatening him in the first place? For that matter why were they even spending their time looking at his Facebook account and how many of our accounts are they looking at right now?

What’s the point in fighting for this country if it becomes everything we’re fighting against?

I would complain on Facebook but…

In contrast to the horrendous response of Asghar Bokhari – I’ve just seen Quilliam’s Usama Hasan being interviewed on BBC Breakfast.  He discussed the pernicious influence of extremist speakers in mosques and campuses, and asserted that it was not enough to come out with platitudes such as ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ in response to horrific attacks – it’s also necessary to identify and criticize the ideology behind the violence.  He also described how he came under fire for inviting a British Muslim serviceman to Leyton mosque (where he used to serve as Imam).  Usama Hasan particularly noted that extremists were too often lent support by left wing groups. If Bokhari’s response was horrendous so, obviously, were some comments from extremists on the other side – threats to behead Muslim children for example.  As Maajid Nawaz put it.

Gene adds: The BBC reports that the two alleged killers were known to the security services and that one, Michael Adebolajo, is a Muslim convert from a Christian family.

A terrorist explains his actions.

The video is shocking, but his words are not. We’re used to them, even though they are too frequently distorted through the dissembling muddled mumble of Guardian pundits. Here they are clear and unadulterated.

Gene adds: There are almost always ordinary people who act with extraordinary selflessness and bravery when things like this happen. For instance, Ingrid Loyau-Kennett.

Mario Silva is a Venezuelan TV broadcaster and a leading supporter of the Bolivarian Republic as led by Hugo Chavez and now Nicolas Maduro.

In 2009, on his program on Venezuelan state TV called “La Hojilla” (The Razor Blade), Silva referred to a student rally in opposition to Chavez’s proposal for an amendment to abolish term limits. “There are two students, one is Diego Aaron Scharifker, and the other David Smolansky Urosa … Scharifker and Smolansky are last names of Hebrew origin, Jewish last names, you see the problems right now…”

Now, as Foreign Policy reports:

A self-declared Marxist and radical revolutionary, Silva has long been untouchable. His broadcasting of private conversations — something Venezuelan law expressly forbids — is typically done with complete impunity. Yesterday, however, the proverbial shoe was on the other foot, as Venezuela’s opposition presented a secret recording of Silva himself that shocked the political spectrum.

In the one-hour recording made public yesterday, Silva is overheard in a face-to-face conversation with an agent of Cuba’s Intelligence Services, giving him what would appear to be a briefing of the inner workings of chavista corruption. The main target of Silva’s rant was none other than Diosdado Cabello, the president of the National Assembly (Venezuela’s single-chamber Parliament) most recently (in)famous for taking away opposition lawmakers’ right to speak inside Parliament, along with their salaries.

Long seen as the main rival to Maduro, Cabello comes across in the recording as a scheming oligarch, wanting “to control everything” but “not interested in being president.” According to Silva, Cabello is the head of a tangled web of fraudulent companies taking advantage of Venezuela’s currency exchange controls. He said that Cabello uses his influence to fleece the state by obtaining cheap dollars without merit, which he then sells in the black market for enormous profits.

Cabello’s main accomplices in this scheme according to Silva are the Venezuelan tax agency and CADIVI, the office in charge of administering the fixed exchange rate regime. He also claimed that there’s a faction within the military that’s beholden to Cabello and opposed to Maduro. Silva alleges that Venezuela’s recent devaluations were carried out as a way of restraining Cabello and his cronies.

More seriously, Silva claims that the Venezuelan elections system can be tampered with, and wonders if recent election results were modified by the Cabello faction. He suggests that Maduro is a weak president who is controlled by his wife. Finally, he also says that, a few days before the election, Maduro saw his own face magically appear in a painting of Chávez that hangs in the museum where Chávez is buried. (Silva says he feared that if the story were leaked, Maduro would be labeled as “insane” and would lose the election.)

These are things the Venezuelan opposition has been saying for years. The recording seems certain to blow a serious hole in the facade of unity among chavistas that Chavez was able to enforce.

So it’s unsurprising that after the tape was released, Silva took to Twitter to claim it was a setup engineered by you-know-who. Of course Israel and the US are favorite scapegoats for chavistas– as we were reminded when the oil minister blamed them for Chavez’s death from cancer.

Muy buen montaje! El sionismo esta trabajando muy bien en breve mi declaración

— Mario Silva García (@LaHojillaenTV) May 20, 2013

Pensándolo bien mejor Respondo esta noche por La Hojilla, al bodrio que monto el mossad israelí junto con la CIA tenemos Pruebas!

— Mario Silva García (@LaHojillaenTV) May 20, 2013

Meanwhile Silva is suspending his TV program “for medical reasons.”

This is a cross post from The Times of Israel

Sex, murder, betrayal: the story of Yael, recounted in the Book of Judges, makes enthralling reading. I first heard of her deeds in a Jewish history lesson at school, more than thirty years ago, and Yael still captivates me.

Jabin, the king of the Canaanites, had cruelly oppressed the Israelites. Deborah, the Hebrew prophetess, summoned Barak, her general. She told Barak that God had ordered him to lead an army of 10,000 men against Sisera, Jabin’s military commander. The battle took place and Barak’s soldiers duly routed Sisera’s forces. Sisera fled to the tent of Heber, whose family was allied with Jabin, believing that he would find sanctuary there. This was a mistake.

Yael, Heber’s wife, welcomed Sisera inside, and gave him a drink of milk and a blanket. Sisera fell into a deep sleep. When Barak passed by, looking for Sisera, Yael ushered him inside. There was Sisera, dead, with a tent-peg rammed through his head.

Yael may have been even more ruthless. An alternative version, told as a poem, the Song of Deborah, in Judges chapter 5, recounts that Yael crushed Sisera’s head and then he fell at her feet – thus, Yael despatched the general while he was still awake and standing. According to the Gemara, Yael slept with Sisera seven times to completely exhaust him before she killed him, which certainly would do the trick, especially after fleeing a battle.

We will never know exactly what did or did not take place in that tent, but either way, Yael was clearly not a woman to be messed with. I began to look at the nice, north-west London, Jewish girls in my class in a whole new light. The school camping trip suddenly seemed less appealing.

The story of Yael was also a revelation in another sense. It made me realise that the Bible and its contemporaneous literature were rich in powerful human stories with a contemporary resonance. Think of the anguish of Moses, forbidden to enter Israel, or King David, despatching Uriah to the front to be killed, so that David may take his widow, Bathsheba, as his wife.

The story of Judith, for example, may be the world’s first behind-enemy-lines spy tale. Judith was a brave and beautiful widow. When Holofernes, one of Nebuchadnezzar’s generals, laid siege to her home town and cut off the water supply, the people wanted to surrender. Judith crossed the lines and entered Holofernes’ camp. Pretending to be a defector, she ingratiated herself with him. Judith was even more ruthless than Yael. When Holofernes was drunk, Judith cut off his head and returned home, carrying it in a bag.

There is something both immensely appealing and also unsettling about women such as Yael and Judith. Their stories completely subvert our expectations of Biblical women, who, like Sarah, the wife of Abraham, are often marginal figures, mentioned mainly for their children, or lack of them. But Yael and Judith act, seize control and dispose of the enemy with a cold, precise, efficiency.

As the late Tikva Frymer-Kensky, a noted Biblical scholar, noted of the second, poetic, account of Yael, “Her deed is clearly heroic: she is a ferocious woman warrior, offering milk in a princely bowl, taking a tent-peg and hammer in her hands and crushing Sisera’s head. Nothing is said about blankets or sleep.”

The story of Judith, in particular, has fascinated artists through the ages. She has been immortalised by poets, writers and painted by Michelangelo, Caravaggio and Gustav Klimt.

Judith Beheading Holofernes by Caravaggio (PD-art)

The Biblical Yael inspired Yael Azoulay, the heroine of my new series of conspiracy thrillers. Yael Azoulay works for the United Nations, brokering the secret deals behind the scenes that keep the wheels of superpower diplomacy and big business rolling. Yael is a modern woman – a 21st century heroine, haunted by her past, with a complex identity, but one firmly rooted in Israel.

Yael Azoulay is also rooted in my own journalistic experience. My time as a reporter in Yugoslavia, covering the Balkan wars, gave me an inside view of superpower diplomacy and UN peacekeeping operations and the catastrophic compromises that result – nowhere more than Srebrenica, in Bosnia, where UN peacekeepers stood by as Bosnian Serbs led 8,000 Muslim men and boys to their deaths. That led to my non-fiction book, ‘Complicity with Evil’, which investigated the UN’s failure to prevent genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur.

Then my imagination went to work. What if there was someone working for the UN with a powerful moral drive to do good, yet who was forced to operate in the shadows? Even to kill? Thus was born Yael Azoulay. Centuries after the Biblical Yael lured Sisera into her tent on a false promise of sanctuary, the question of whether the ends justifies the means is still a powerful engine for an gripping story.

–

A short story by Adam LeBor featuring his biblically-inspired heroine, The Istanbul Exchange: A Yael Azoulay Short Story can be downloaded free of charge in all formats as an e-book from the Harper Collins website.