|
THE DIOGENES REPORT I TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD While his friends refuse to take him at his word when he says he is ready to give away the store, and his enemies also refuse to believe that he means it when he says that he will give away the store. Despite the fact that he is a politician, who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, I take him at his word when his words are inimical to Israel. I have detected this “bad for Israel” agenda in his words and actions from the time he was running for prime minister. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, speaking at the Likud Central Committee meeting on January 5 in Tel Aviv, made several critical statements: In contrast to all previous prime ministers who promised to bring the decision regarding the final arrangements with the Palestinians to national referendum, Sharon proclaimed that he, the prime minister, would decide and implement his decisions. For the first time in any presentation, Sharon added the adjective "independent" to the term "Palestinian state". Until now he left open the option that he was referring to an "autonomous" Palestinian state. One Israeli political leader commented that Sharon wants to be deGaulle but he may end up as Petain. Diogenes says that he may end up more like the American who started as a war hero and ended up as a traitor—Benedict Arnold.
COMPARING PHILANTHROPY While reading of the reestablishment of Islamic institutions and culture in Granada in southern Spain--the Andalusia region which was the last stronghold of the Arabs on the Iberian peninsula—it struck me that Islamic philanthropy follows a very narrow course. All of the Arab financial contributions, as far as I can ascertain, aim at furthering the Islamic religion and Islamic culture. I have yet to hear of a Sheikh Muhammad hospital being opened in the United States or even in Europe. Where are the academic chairs of English literature or modern art funded by Muslims? There are none as far as I know. But there are many chairs designed to promote Islamic culture, religion and Arab political points of view funded by oil-rich Arabs. The same scenario holds true for museums and other America cultural institutions and activities. In contrast, the record of philanthropy by Jews is vastly different. The largest part, by far, of Jewish philanthropy goes to institutions and programs that benefit the general community. Museums, colleges and universities, concert halls, hospitals, libraries, public broadcasting stations and just about every institution and activity that aims at raising the quality of life for people of all races and religions. Jewish philanthropy also is generous toward Jewish institutions and programs though not on the same scale as it is toward the general community. How different the Jewish and Muslim approaches toward philanthropy. I question whether Muslim contributions toward promoting only its own culture and political interests even deserve the name of philanthropy. By the way, these Muslim “philanthropists” are among the world’s richest men and families.
DON’T EXPECT AN OBJECTIVE BOOK REVIEWER AT THE TIMES While the ancient Diogenes searched for an honest man, this Diogenes often spends part of his Sunday searching for an honest book review in The New York Times. This is difficult because the editorial custom at the Book Review is to select reviewers who are either pursuing a vendetta against the author or have the same views as the author. For example, reading the review of a new book by Noam Chomsky, you get the feeling that Chomsky is reviewing his own book. At times, in the review, the condemnations of certain American and Israeli (naturally) practices are so Chomsky-like that it is difficult to tell whether they are Chomsky’s or those of the reviewer, Samantha Power. Of course, the reviewer and the author agree that America is the terrorist nation that has “650 people who remain holed up in Guantanamo ‘kennels’, denied access to lawyers and family members, etc., etc.” It goes without saying, both by the reviewer and Chomsky that these prisoners are innocents who were scooped up from Afghan mosques by the evil Americans. While the editors of the Times Book Review may be devious, they are not stupid or ill-informed. So they knew when they selected Power that they would get a review favorable to Chomsky and not an objective review. That’s why you have to read the Times with your guard up. Their editors and reporters are sly bushwackers. They masquerade as objective journalists, but are really hardcore ideologues. As part of their editorial prejudice in support of Chomsky’s views is the amount of space—one full page—allotted to the review. Chomsky is a leading authority on linguistics and is entitled to a page or even two when he publishes a book on his specialty. But when he writes on politics and international events, he warrants no more space than books on the same subject by Jane Fonda or Richard Dreyfus or John Wayne would get.
WHAT CULTURE WAR V? The Italian government, headed by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, removed the Imam of the Grand Mosque of Rome from his post after he exhorted his listeners to "annihilate the enemies of Islam and guarantee everywhere in the world the victory of the Nation of Islam." The Imam, Abdel-Samie Mahmoud Ibrahim Moussa, said in his sermon, "[We pray for] Allah's help in the destruction of the homes and destruction of the enemies of Islam, for their annihilation, and the victory everywhere for the nation of Islam." Moussa's words drew sharp responses from various directions. Father Justo Lacunza Balda, rector of the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome, said, "There can be no place for people who encourage hatred and incite to kill. This is insanity… It must be clearly stated that the Italian Constitution does not allow public incitement to violence and hatred of imaginary enemies…" Imam Moussa also recently said, that suicide attacks in Israel can be justified according to Islam, while attacks in Saudi Arabia, Morocco or Italy cannot. Nah, there’s no culture war.
Lagos, Nigeria, Jan. 3—Nigerian officials declared they had put down an armed uprising by an Islamic movement seeking to create a Muslim state in Africa’s most populous nation. The uprising by a largely university-based student group preaching Islamic revolution stood as one of the most concerted offensives in three years of Christian-Muslim violence since 12 northern states began instituting Islamic law, or Shariah. The group known as “the followers of Mohammed’s teachings” has campaigned for the past two years for an Islamic state and publicly criticized officials it saw as lax in implementing Islamic law. The attacks mark the first time the movement has been known to take up arms. Nah, there’s no culture war.
HEADLINES AND COMMENTS
QUOTES I LIKE
Comments welcome. e-mail to: elscomm@earthlink.net
|
| Copyright © 2004 CE (and 352 BCE) ELS Communications. All rights reserved |