By Kristen Chick
CAIRO— (TCSM) An attack by Muslims on two churches in Cairo led to sectarian clashes that claimed at least 12 lives, a reminder that Egypt's religious rift has continued to widen since the successful uprising that pushed Hosni Mubarak from power.
The violence in the Cairo neighborhood of Imbaba, declared in the 1990's to be "liberated" from the Egyptian state by Islamist militants, also highlights the growing role the salafis, a small and strident Muslim sect, are playing in exacerbating sectarian tensions. The salafy strain of Islam, which feeds most militant Sunni movements, was publicly repressed under Mubarak and has been taking advantage of the more open environment since his downfall.
"There is no security in Egypt," says Rober, a 23-year member of the Virgin Mary church, which was largely reduced to a smoldering hulk after it was set alight Saturday night. He stood in a burned-out stairway and watched as a woman walked past, weeping. "This is only the beginning. I'm afraid for my sister, for my mother, from the salafis."
On Sunday, stories of what happened Saturday night varied wildly in Imbaba's maze of dirt alleyways. The sprawling neighborhood on the west side of the Nile is poor and mostly Muslim, but has large pockets of Coptic Christians, who account for as much as 10 percent of Egypt's population. The sectarian violence also left at least 232 injured and saw police and army forces move into the area and impose a curfew. They blocked access to the St. Mina church, where the violence began.
Christian witnesses say St. Mina was attacked by a group of armed salafis carrying Ak-47s and throwing Molotov cocktails on Saturday. The witnesses say the attackers accused the church of abducting a woman who had converted from Christianity to Islam, and also destroyed a nearby Christian apartment building and a Christian-owned shop before setting the Virgin Mary church on fire.
The violence started when rumors spread that Christians had abducted a woman who had converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, and were holding her inside St. Mina church. Christians said the rumor was false, and there was no such woman. Alleged female conversions and abductions have been a flashpoint for sectarian tensions for years.
Last year Camillia Shehata, the wife of a Coptic priest, allegedly disappeared for days. Muslims claimed the church had abducted her when she tried to convert to Islam. Salafis have continued to hold protests demanding her "release."
That storyline spawned violence in Iraq, where a group associated with Al Qaeda attacked a church, killing dozens, and called for attacks on churches in Egypt. One did come, on a church in Alexandria on Jan. 1. An apparent suicide bomber killed more than 20 Christians, though no group ever claimed responsibility for the bombing and it was unclear if it was related to the issue of Camillia Shehata.
Christians have faced discrimination, particularly in the application of justice when they face sectarian attacks. Mubarak's regime refused to acknowledge a sectarian dimension to such attacks. And sometimes authorities imposed forced reconciliation instead of bringing Muslim attackers to justice.
ACCOUNTS
Muslims in the area say that the Christians were armed and attacked first. An Egyptian Army officer standing guard Sunday said that when he arrived Saturday, there were no salafis but two groups of men were fighting each other, and that weapons were fired from within the church. The clashes ran from about 8:30 on Saturday night until early the next morning local time.
Father Mattias Elias, priest of the Virgin Mary church for more than 30 years, says "salafi terrorists" set the church on fire. "We have faith and hope (that) G0d will change what is happening. But practically, we need leadership from the Army, the security forces," he says, sitting in a burned-out former sanctuary, next to the gutted baptismal room where the fire killed a church employee.
The walls and ceiling of the room are blackened, a ceiling fan's blades melted into haunting shapes. A partially burnt altar curtain sits in the corner with children's Bible story books. Acrid smoke hangs in the air.
Hossam Bahgat says the attempt to break into a church to rescue an alleged hostage is "unprecedented." Bahgat runs the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, a group that has documented sectarian attacks for years. He also says it is "disturbing" that Christians reportedly used violence in response to the attack. The sentiment that seems to be growing among the Christian community is that "they are going to use force to protect themselves if the state continues to fail to protect them."
"This is why I think we're seeing this time such a strong response from the Supreme Council of Armed Forces and the Cabinet," he says. "They seem to finally realize that the number one priority now, as far as the sectarian violence is concerned, is physical protection of individuals, communities and places of worship."
ARRESTS
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, the military government running Egypt, said it had arrested 190 people in connection with the attacks and would try them in military courts "as a deterrent to all those who think of toying with the potential of this nation." Egypt's prime minister delayed a trip to the Gulf to hold an emergency cabinet meeting and Egypt's justice minister announced Egypt would use an "iron hand" against those trying to "tamper with the nation's security."
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
What Obama did to Israel By Charles Krauthammer
Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel's security and diplomatic needs.
It's on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W.Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 21 / 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along "the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."
Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. "By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different" from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. "Mutually" means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn't? Then, by definition, you're back to the 1967 lines.
Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.
And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the '67 lines. No swaps.
Note how Obama has undermined Israel's negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the '67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That '67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.
The very idea that Judaism's holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.
Obama didn't just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world's only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a "two-state solution." That's why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this "right."
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. "The status quo is unsustainable," declared Obama, "and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace."
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama's response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the '67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America's rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.
GEDALIA'S NOTE: My opinion is clear and I continue to be frustrated by people afraid to say the truth. As with most of his other policies in which intelligent people say "He's so smart why would he do this? Doesn't he understand the repercussions?" They fail to ever simply say, yes, he does understand and those results are exactly what he intended.
In this instance, the answer to Krautheimer's "unanswered question" is simple. It is borne of genuine antipathy not only to Israel, but to Jews.
It's on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W.Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 21 / 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along "the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps."
Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. "By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different" from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. "Mutually" means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn't? Then, by definition, you're back to the 1967 lines.
Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.
And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the '67 lines. No swaps.
Note how Obama has undermined Israel's negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the '67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That '67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.
The very idea that Judaism's holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem's Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.
Obama didn't just move the goal posts on borders. He also did so on the so-called right of return. Flooding Israel with millions of Arabs would destroy the world's only Jewish state while creating a 23rd Arab state and a second Palestinian state — not exactly what we mean when we speak of a "two-state solution." That's why it has been the policy of the United States to adamantly oppose this "right."
Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. "The status quo is unsustainable," declared Obama, "and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace."
Israel too ? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama's response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the '67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America's rejection of the right of return.
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.
GEDALIA'S NOTE: My opinion is clear and I continue to be frustrated by people afraid to say the truth. As with most of his other policies in which intelligent people say "He's so smart why would he do this? Doesn't he understand the repercussions?" They fail to ever simply say, yes, he does understand and those results are exactly what he intended.
In this instance, the answer to Krautheimer's "unanswered question" is simple. It is borne of genuine antipathy not only to Israel, but to Jews.
‘Senseless’ seems easier than saying ‘jihad'
By Diana West
The Army honored a fallen hero of the Ft. Hood Jihad Massacre with a medal this week. Not, of course, that the Army describes the November 2009 attack in such meaningful terms. Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan may have shouted "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "Allah is great") as he killed 14 and wounded more than two dozen; may have been in contact with jihad cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and frequented jihadist websites; may have had business cards proclaiming himself a "SoA" (Soldier of Allah); and may have created and presented an Islamically correct PowerPoint brief outlining reasons for jihad by Muslims within the U.S. Armed Forces, but no matter. His actions remain a total mystery to the U.S. Army.
To wit: "Although we may never know why it happened, we do know that heroic actions took place that day," Brig. Gen. Joseph DiSalvo said in presenting the Secretary of the Army Award for Valor to Joleen Cahill, widow of Michael Grant Cahill. Cahill is recognized as the first person to have tried to stop Hasan and the only civilian to have been killed by Hasan that day. "He will forever be a source of inspiration."
Alas, I have my doubts about the deputy commanding general of Ft. Hood. Despite overwhelming evidence that Hasan committed an act of jihad, DiSalvo -- like the Army, like the U.S. government -- looks the other way. "We may never know why" the Hasan attack happened, DiSalvo said without, apparently, turning red or rolling his eyes.
It's hard to overstate the impact of these words. In honoring the very last thing Cahill did on this Earth, the general pointedly chose to omit its significance. Like a potent spell, his words made all the context of the 62-year-old Cahill's valorous act -- charging Hasan with a chair as Hasan fired on the crowd -- disappear. Of course, the general's omission takes nothing away from Cahill's courage. It does, however, wrongly release the rest of us from our debt to Cahill. In treating Hasan's rampage as no more purposeful than a flood or a cougar attack, the general has also reduced Cahill's ultimate sacrifice to its most personal level; exemplary, admirable, but of no consequence beyond the scene, outside the circle. This is morally wrong. It was the general's duty to place Cahill's death in perspective, to impress upon both his loved ones and his fellow citizens that he died not only to stop a bloodletting but also in defense of liberty, then and now under jihadist attack.
In other words, the general flinched. No surprise there. Ft. Hood may have been a war zone that day but, with few exceptions (Texas Republicans Rep. John Carter and Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn are pressing to see Purple Hearts awarded), neither our military nor our government has the courage to admit it.
There is a ripple effect. This Memorial Day, by U.S. government reckoning, by U.S. military non-fiat, the Ft. Hood fallen do not rate remembrance as war dead. As a result, there have been no Purple Hearts awarded to military dead and wounded (as there were to casualties of the 9/11 attacks), no combat death benefits awarded to their survivors, no recognition of Hasan's jihad. Indeed, as the general says, we may never even know why they died.
This is just the way our leadership wants it -- "senseless," as President Obama put it, describing another 2009 jihadist attack the U.S. government refuses to recognize as an act of war, this one in Little Rock in which Pvt. William Long was killed and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was severely wounded outside a military recruiting station. The trial, which begins in July, is currently subject to a tug-of-war, almost literally, between the lawyers and defendant Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Prosecutor Larry Jegley is determined to prosecute Muhammad as "nothing but a street thug" accused of "just a drive-by shooting," defense attorneys want Muhammad to plead insanity, while Muhammad, a Muslim convert who may have studied with a jihadist imam in Yemen where he drew the attention of the FBI, is pleading, strenuously, to be tried as a sane, confessed jihadist. Like the US military, like the White House, the court seems to be pushing jihad, kicking and screaming in this case, down the memory hole.
Which makes you wonder: By next Memorial Day, who will remember?
The Army honored a fallen hero of the Ft. Hood Jihad Massacre with a medal this week. Not, of course, that the Army describes the November 2009 attack in such meaningful terms. Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan may have shouted "Allahu Akbar" (Arabic for "Allah is great") as he killed 14 and wounded more than two dozen; may have been in contact with jihad cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and frequented jihadist websites; may have had business cards proclaiming himself a "SoA" (Soldier of Allah); and may have created and presented an Islamically correct PowerPoint brief outlining reasons for jihad by Muslims within the U.S. Armed Forces, but no matter. His actions remain a total mystery to the U.S. Army.
To wit: "Although we may never know why it happened, we do know that heroic actions took place that day," Brig. Gen. Joseph DiSalvo said in presenting the Secretary of the Army Award for Valor to Joleen Cahill, widow of Michael Grant Cahill. Cahill is recognized as the first person to have tried to stop Hasan and the only civilian to have been killed by Hasan that day. "He will forever be a source of inspiration."
Alas, I have my doubts about the deputy commanding general of Ft. Hood. Despite overwhelming evidence that Hasan committed an act of jihad, DiSalvo -- like the Army, like the U.S. government -- looks the other way. "We may never know why" the Hasan attack happened, DiSalvo said without, apparently, turning red or rolling his eyes.
It's hard to overstate the impact of these words. In honoring the very last thing Cahill did on this Earth, the general pointedly chose to omit its significance. Like a potent spell, his words made all the context of the 62-year-old Cahill's valorous act -- charging Hasan with a chair as Hasan fired on the crowd -- disappear. Of course, the general's omission takes nothing away from Cahill's courage. It does, however, wrongly release the rest of us from our debt to Cahill. In treating Hasan's rampage as no more purposeful than a flood or a cougar attack, the general has also reduced Cahill's ultimate sacrifice to its most personal level; exemplary, admirable, but of no consequence beyond the scene, outside the circle. This is morally wrong. It was the general's duty to place Cahill's death in perspective, to impress upon both his loved ones and his fellow citizens that he died not only to stop a bloodletting but also in defense of liberty, then and now under jihadist attack.
In other words, the general flinched. No surprise there. Ft. Hood may have been a war zone that day but, with few exceptions (Texas Republicans Rep. John Carter and Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn are pressing to see Purple Hearts awarded), neither our military nor our government has the courage to admit it.
There is a ripple effect. This Memorial Day, by U.S. government reckoning, by U.S. military non-fiat, the Ft. Hood fallen do not rate remembrance as war dead. As a result, there have been no Purple Hearts awarded to military dead and wounded (as there were to casualties of the 9/11 attacks), no combat death benefits awarded to their survivors, no recognition of Hasan's jihad. Indeed, as the general says, we may never even know why they died.
This is just the way our leadership wants it -- "senseless," as President Obama put it, describing another 2009 jihadist attack the U.S. government refuses to recognize as an act of war, this one in Little Rock in which Pvt. William Long was killed and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was severely wounded outside a military recruiting station. The trial, which begins in July, is currently subject to a tug-of-war, almost literally, between the lawyers and defendant Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad. Prosecutor Larry Jegley is determined to prosecute Muhammad as "nothing but a street thug" accused of "just a drive-by shooting," defense attorneys want Muhammad to plead insanity, while Muhammad, a Muslim convert who may have studied with a jihadist imam in Yemen where he drew the attention of the FBI, is pleading, strenuously, to be tried as a sane, confessed jihadist. Like the US military, like the White House, the court seems to be pushing jihad, kicking and screaming in this case, down the memory hole.
Which makes you wonder: By next Memorial Day, who will remember?
Sunday, May 22, 2011
What exactly is meant by "The 1967 Borders"?
I'll explain below. Like many things Middle East, this is another PR battle won by the Arab lobby.
Oh, I know, you've been led to believe there is a monolithic Israeli power structure that dictates everything (that, my friends, is the oldest antisemitic screed in the world - right out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", Tzar Nicholas' famous forgery).
In fact, it is petro dollars that dictates everything. The Saudis spend more lobbying in a week, than all the money supporting Israel in a year. If there was no oil issue in the United States, the absurdity of the situation would be openly discussed and support for Israel would be deep and unfettered. The lies about "occupation" or anything else, would just stop magically.
Ok, back to those 1967 lines.
What does this phrase mean? Simply stated, the 1948 lines.
Why? Because what the Arabs are referring to are the armistice lines that held UNTIL the start of the June, 1967, 6 day war in which Israel recaptured the Sinai, "West Bank" and Gaza Strip from Egypt and Jordan (another PR battle Israel has lost. The west bank? Really, is half of a country the banks of a river? That IS what they are referring to, of course).
The critical part of this rests ONLY, and exclusively in Jerusalem.
During the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem - remember, in 1948 when the UN recognized "2 states" the Arabs famously immediately rejected, and attacked. Even without an army, Israel managed to survive, but lost Jerusalem and much of it's other territory which now became known as the West Bank.
In 1964, when King Hussein of Jordan massacred thousands of Sunni Arabs (Hussein and his monarchy are Hashemite Muslims, a sect that views itself as basically the priestly class) and made it clear that they would never have full rights, we FIRST heard about "Palestinians" referring to Arab residents of the former mandate. Until then, it was the British term for the Jews of that region.
So, in violation of the UN dictate that Jerusalem remain an open city, what did the Jordanians do when entrusted with the old city of Jerusalem?
OK, take a step back.
A little more history. In biblical times, cities were walled. Why? To keep out invading armies.
Jerusalem was originally a Jebusite city until captured by King David for the Jews of the bible.
His son Solomon, built the first Temple.
Herod the Great, built the Temple Mount that we see today approximately 450 years later.
Over the millenia, the walled city, the original city of Jerusalem, WAS Jerusalem.
Outside the wall remained the provenance of desert bandits, bedouins, and other nomadic peoples.
However, beginning in the 14th and 15th centuries, but accelerating in the 18th and 19th, Jewish pilgrims began coming back.
The reason for this was simple. For Jews, the Temple is the holiest place in the world. In Biblical Judaism, there were times during the year (those times are marked by the blowing of the Shofar - Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and Passover - which Christians came to know as the last supper, and Easter) when prayers could ONLY be made at the Temple.
So, when the various invading empires allowed Jews to return, the Jews of the "Diaspora" would send a representative of the village, shtetl, ghetto, etc, to go to Jerusalem, settle there, and make the prayers for the entire community from which he came.
By the 1800's there were simply too many of these pilgrims for the old walled city to handle. So, these new pilgrims began building outside the walls of the old city. Constructing what is now modern Jerusalem.
The city had had a renaissance under Suleiman the Magnificent which culminated with the control over it by the Egyptian dynasties in the 1800's. A railroad connecting it to Jaffa was built in 1892.
By the late 1800's the majority population of Jerusalem was Jewish once again (yes, that's right, 1800's NOT after WWII )
OK. Flip back to the 1948-1967 period.
The armistice that had been drawn up, now split the city.
The Israelis had barely held on to small portions of what was now called the "NEW CITY", that modern city that had been built up in the last hundred years or so. The UN Armistice required that the city be an International city with all of the religious sites open to all. The Jordanians immediately violated this agreement.
Jordan kept "The old City" that part that was the original city with ALL of the Holy Sites.
This began to be called "East Jerusalem".
The only exception was that Jews were supposed to be allowed to maintain control over Mt. Scopus where Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital are.
In addition, Israel was supposed to have control and access to the famous Jewish Cemetery on the Mt. of Olives which has been used for 3000 years. The Jordanians, specifically recreating the roads the Nazis had paved to the death camps (as seen in Schindler's List) desecrated the cemetery and used the headstones to pave a road up the side of the Mount.
Instead, what happened was that the Jordanians not only cut off access to the holy sites for all but Muslims, contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated. 34 of the 35 synagogues in the Old City, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue, were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf and was occupied by refugees from the 1948 war. In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area.
Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites. Worse, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was also used as a manger.
During this period, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.
So, when the 1967 lines are referred to, THIS is what they are talking about.
And this is what the world is happily endorsing. Closing Jerusalem to all.
Oh, I know, you've been led to believe there is a monolithic Israeli power structure that dictates everything (that, my friends, is the oldest antisemitic screed in the world - right out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", Tzar Nicholas' famous forgery).
In fact, it is petro dollars that dictates everything. The Saudis spend more lobbying in a week, than all the money supporting Israel in a year. If there was no oil issue in the United States, the absurdity of the situation would be openly discussed and support for Israel would be deep and unfettered. The lies about "occupation" or anything else, would just stop magically.
Ok, back to those 1967 lines.
What does this phrase mean? Simply stated, the 1948 lines.
Why? Because what the Arabs are referring to are the armistice lines that held UNTIL the start of the June, 1967, 6 day war in which Israel recaptured the Sinai, "West Bank" and Gaza Strip from Egypt and Jordan (another PR battle Israel has lost. The west bank? Really, is half of a country the banks of a river? That IS what they are referring to, of course).
The critical part of this rests ONLY, and exclusively in Jerusalem.
During the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem - remember, in 1948 when the UN recognized "2 states" the Arabs famously immediately rejected, and attacked. Even without an army, Israel managed to survive, but lost Jerusalem and much of it's other territory which now became known as the West Bank.
In 1964, when King Hussein of Jordan massacred thousands of Sunni Arabs (Hussein and his monarchy are Hashemite Muslims, a sect that views itself as basically the priestly class) and made it clear that they would never have full rights, we FIRST heard about "Palestinians" referring to Arab residents of the former mandate. Until then, it was the British term for the Jews of that region.
So, in violation of the UN dictate that Jerusalem remain an open city, what did the Jordanians do when entrusted with the old city of Jerusalem?
OK, take a step back.
A little more history. In biblical times, cities were walled. Why? To keep out invading armies.
Jerusalem was originally a Jebusite city until captured by King David for the Jews of the bible.
His son Solomon, built the first Temple.
Herod the Great, built the Temple Mount that we see today approximately 450 years later.
Over the millenia, the walled city, the original city of Jerusalem, WAS Jerusalem.
Outside the wall remained the provenance of desert bandits, bedouins, and other nomadic peoples.
However, beginning in the 14th and 15th centuries, but accelerating in the 18th and 19th, Jewish pilgrims began coming back.
The reason for this was simple. For Jews, the Temple is the holiest place in the world. In Biblical Judaism, there were times during the year (those times are marked by the blowing of the Shofar - Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and Passover - which Christians came to know as the last supper, and Easter) when prayers could ONLY be made at the Temple.
So, when the various invading empires allowed Jews to return, the Jews of the "Diaspora" would send a representative of the village, shtetl, ghetto, etc, to go to Jerusalem, settle there, and make the prayers for the entire community from which he came.
By the 1800's there were simply too many of these pilgrims for the old walled city to handle. So, these new pilgrims began building outside the walls of the old city. Constructing what is now modern Jerusalem.
The city had had a renaissance under Suleiman the Magnificent which culminated with the control over it by the Egyptian dynasties in the 1800's. A railroad connecting it to Jaffa was built in 1892.
By the late 1800's the majority population of Jerusalem was Jewish once again (yes, that's right, 1800's NOT after WWII )
OK. Flip back to the 1948-1967 period.
The armistice that had been drawn up, now split the city.
The Israelis had barely held on to small portions of what was now called the "NEW CITY", that modern city that had been built up in the last hundred years or so. The UN Armistice required that the city be an International city with all of the religious sites open to all. The Jordanians immediately violated this agreement.
Jordan kept "The old City" that part that was the original city with ALL of the Holy Sites.
This began to be called "East Jerusalem".
The only exception was that Jews were supposed to be allowed to maintain control over Mt. Scopus where Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital are.
In addition, Israel was supposed to have control and access to the famous Jewish Cemetery on the Mt. of Olives which has been used for 3000 years. The Jordanians, specifically recreating the roads the Nazis had paved to the death camps (as seen in Schindler's List) desecrated the cemetery and used the headstones to pave a road up the side of the Mount.
Instead, what happened was that the Jordanians not only cut off access to the holy sites for all but Muslims, contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated. 34 of the 35 synagogues in the Old City, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue, were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf and was occupied by refugees from the 1948 war. In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area.
Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites. Worse, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was also used as a manger.
During this period, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.
So, when the 1967 lines are referred to, THIS is what they are talking about.
And this is what the world is happily endorsing. Closing Jerusalem to all.
What exactly is meant by "The 1967 Borders
I'll explain below. Like many things Middle East, this is another PR battle won by the Arab lobby.
Oh, I know, you've been led to believe there is a monolithic Israeli power structure that dictates everything (that, my friends, is the oldest antisemitic screed in the world - right out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", Tzar Nicholas' famous forgery).
In fact, it is petro dollars that dictates everything. The Saudis spend more lobbying in a week, than all the money supporting Israel in a year. If there was no oil issue in the United States, the absurdity of the situation would be openly discussed and support for Israel would be deep and unfettered. The lies about "occupation" or anything else, would just stop magically.
Ok, back to those 1967 lines.
What does this phrase mean? Simply stated, the 1948 lines.
Why? Because what the Arabs are referring to are the armistice lines that held UNTIL the start of the June, 1967, 6 day war in which Israel recaptured the Sinai, "West Bank" and Gaza Strip from Egypt and Jordan (another PR battle Israel has lost. The west bank? Really, is half of a country the banks of a river? That IS what they are referring to, of course).
The critical part of this rests ONLY, and exclusively in Jerusalem.
During the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem - remember, in 1948 when the UN recognized "2 states" the Arabs famously immediately rejected, and attacked. Even without an army, Israel managed to survive, but lost Jerusalem and much of it's other territory which now became known as the West Bank.
In 1964, when King Hussein of Jordan massacred thousands of Sunni Arabs (Hussein and his monarchy are Hashemite Muslims, a sect that views itself as basically the priestly class) and made it clear that they would never have full rights, we FIRST heard about "Palestinians" referring to Arab residents of the former mandate. Until then, it was the British term for the Jews of that region.
So, in violation of the UN dictate that Jerusalem remain an open city, what did the Jordanians do when entrusted with the old city of Jerusalem?
OK, take a step back.
A little more history. In biblical times, cities were walled. Why? To keep out invading armies.
Jerusalem was originally a Jebusite city until captured by King David for the Jews of the bible.
His son Solomon, built the first Temple.
Herod the Great, built the Temple Mount that we see today approximately 450 years later.
Over the millenia, the walled city, the original city of Jerusalem, WAS Jerusalem.
Outside the wall remained the provenance of desert bandits, bedouins, and other nomadic peoples.
However, beginning in the 14th and 15th centuries, but accelerating in the 18th and 19th, Jewish pilgrims began coming back.
The reason for this was simple. For Jews, the Temple is the holiest place in the world. In Biblical Judaism, there were times during the year (those times are marked by the blowing of the Shofar - Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and Passover - which Christians came to know as the last supper, and Easter) when prayers could ONLY be made at the Temple.
So, when the various invading empires allowed Jews to return, the Jews of the "Diaspora" would send a representative of the village, shtetl, ghetto, etc, to go to Jerusalem, settle there, and make the prayers for the entire community from which he came.
By the 1800's there were simply too many of these pilgrims for the old walled city to handle. So, these new pilgrims began building outside the walls of the old city. Constructing what is now modern Jerusalem.
The city had had a renaissance under Suleiman the Magnificent which culminated with the control over it by the Egyptian dynasties in the 1800's. A railroad connecting it to Jaffa was built in 1892.
By the late 1800's the majority population of Jerusalem was Jewish once again (yes, that's right, 1800's NOT after WWII )
OK. Flip back to the 1948-1967 period.
The armistice that had been drawn up, now split the city.
The Israelis had barely held on to small portions of what was now called the "NEW CITY", that modern city that had been built up in the last hundred years or so. The UN Armistice required that the city be an International city with all of the religious sites open to all. The Jordanians immediately violated this agreement.
Jordan kept "The old City" that part that was the original city with ALL of the Holy Sites.
This began to be called "East Jerusalem".
The only exception was that Jews were supposed to be allowed to maintain control over Mt. Scopus where Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital are.
In addition, Israel was supposed to have control and access to the famous Jewish Cemetery on the Mt. of Olives which has been used for 3000 years. The Jordanians, specifically recreating the roads the Nazis had paved to the death camps (as seen in Schindler's List) desecrated the cemetery and used the headstones to pave a road up the side of the Mount.
Instead, what happened was that the Jordanians not only cut off access to the holy sites for all but Muslims, contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated. 34 of the 35 synagogues in the Old City, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue, were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf and was occupied by refugees from the 1948 war. In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area.
Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites. Worse, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was also used as a manger.
During this period, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.
So, when the 1967 lines are referred to, THIS is what they are talking about.
And this is what the world is happily endorsing. Closing Jerusalem to all.
Oh, I know, you've been led to believe there is a monolithic Israeli power structure that dictates everything (that, my friends, is the oldest antisemitic screed in the world - right out of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", Tzar Nicholas' famous forgery).
In fact, it is petro dollars that dictates everything. The Saudis spend more lobbying in a week, than all the money supporting Israel in a year. If there was no oil issue in the United States, the absurdity of the situation would be openly discussed and support for Israel would be deep and unfettered. The lies about "occupation" or anything else, would just stop magically.
Ok, back to those 1967 lines.
What does this phrase mean? Simply stated, the 1948 lines.
Why? Because what the Arabs are referring to are the armistice lines that held UNTIL the start of the June, 1967, 6 day war in which Israel recaptured the Sinai, "West Bank" and Gaza Strip from Egypt and Jordan (another PR battle Israel has lost. The west bank? Really, is half of a country the banks of a river? That IS what they are referring to, of course).
The critical part of this rests ONLY, and exclusively in Jerusalem.
During the Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem - remember, in 1948 when the UN recognized "2 states" the Arabs famously immediately rejected, and attacked. Even without an army, Israel managed to survive, but lost Jerusalem and much of it's other territory which now became known as the West Bank.
In 1964, when King Hussein of Jordan massacred thousands of Sunni Arabs (Hussein and his monarchy are Hashemite Muslims, a sect that views itself as basically the priestly class) and made it clear that they would never have full rights, we FIRST heard about "Palestinians" referring to Arab residents of the former mandate. Until then, it was the British term for the Jews of that region.
So, in violation of the UN dictate that Jerusalem remain an open city, what did the Jordanians do when entrusted with the old city of Jerusalem?
OK, take a step back.
A little more history. In biblical times, cities were walled. Why? To keep out invading armies.
Jerusalem was originally a Jebusite city until captured by King David for the Jews of the bible.
His son Solomon, built the first Temple.
Herod the Great, built the Temple Mount that we see today approximately 450 years later.
Over the millenia, the walled city, the original city of Jerusalem, WAS Jerusalem.
Outside the wall remained the provenance of desert bandits, bedouins, and other nomadic peoples.
However, beginning in the 14th and 15th centuries, but accelerating in the 18th and 19th, Jewish pilgrims began coming back.
The reason for this was simple. For Jews, the Temple is the holiest place in the world. In Biblical Judaism, there were times during the year (those times are marked by the blowing of the Shofar - Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and Passover - which Christians came to know as the last supper, and Easter) when prayers could ONLY be made at the Temple.
So, when the various invading empires allowed Jews to return, the Jews of the "Diaspora" would send a representative of the village, shtetl, ghetto, etc, to go to Jerusalem, settle there, and make the prayers for the entire community from which he came.
By the 1800's there were simply too many of these pilgrims for the old walled city to handle. So, these new pilgrims began building outside the walls of the old city. Constructing what is now modern Jerusalem.
The city had had a renaissance under Suleiman the Magnificent which culminated with the control over it by the Egyptian dynasties in the 1800's. A railroad connecting it to Jaffa was built in 1892.
By the late 1800's the majority population of Jerusalem was Jewish once again (yes, that's right, 1800's NOT after WWII )
OK. Flip back to the 1948-1967 period.
The armistice that had been drawn up, now split the city.
The Israelis had barely held on to small portions of what was now called the "NEW CITY", that modern city that had been built up in the last hundred years or so. The UN Armistice required that the city be an International city with all of the religious sites open to all. The Jordanians immediately violated this agreement.
Jordan kept "The old City" that part that was the original city with ALL of the Holy Sites.
This began to be called "East Jerusalem".
The only exception was that Jews were supposed to be allowed to maintain control over Mt. Scopus where Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital are.
In addition, Israel was supposed to have control and access to the famous Jewish Cemetery on the Mt. of Olives which has been used for 3000 years. The Jordanians, specifically recreating the roads the Nazis had paved to the death camps (as seen in Schindler's List) desecrated the cemetery and used the headstones to pave a road up the side of the Mount.
Instead, what happened was that the Jordanians not only cut off access to the holy sites for all but Muslims, contrary to the terms of the armistice agreement, Israelis were denied access to Jewish holy sites, many of which were desecrated. 34 of the 35 synagogues in the Old City, including the Hurva and the Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue, were destroyed over the course of the next 19 years, either razed or used as stables and hen-houses. Many other historic and religiously significant buildings were replaced by modern structures. The Jewish Quarter became known as Harat al-Sharaf and was occupied by refugees from the 1948 war. In 1966 the Jordanian authorities relocated 500 of them to the Shua'fat refugee camp as part of plans to redevelop the area.
Jordan allowed only very limited access to Christian holy sites. Worse, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was also used as a manger.
During this period, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque underwent major renovations.
So, when the 1967 lines are referred to, THIS is what they are talking about.
And this is what the world is happily endorsing. Closing Jerusalem to all.
What's the difference between Nixon and Reagan, Clemens and Pettite
A comment on a previous post made me decide to post this.
To refresh some memories.
Nixon, obviously, covered up the Watergate scandal (as an aside, those who know about the whole thing and who have heard the Watergate tapes, know he didn't plan it, but he did cover up the lies).
Nixon, famously, when caught said "The American people need to know if their President is a thief. Well, I am not a thief." An out and out lie.
Reagan, in a situation that has now been forgotten (interesting isn't it?) was enmeshed in what was arguable a worse situation. His administration was enmeshed in what became known as the "Iran-Contra Affair" or the arms for hostages scandal.
The scandal entailed illegal funding and arming of Nicaragua’s right-wing contras fighting the leftist Sandinista regime as well as illegally trading arms with Iran in exchange for the release of seven American hostages held by Iranian-sponsored militants in Lebanon. Profits from arms sales to Iran were to be used to buy weapons for the contras.
An independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh was appointed. He concluded that the President's most senior advisers and the Cabinet members on the National Security Council participated in the strategy to make National Security staff members McFarlane, Poindexter and North the scapegoats in the scandal. Walsh discovered much of the best evidence of the cover-up in the final year of active investigation, too late for most prosecutions. This actually bled into the Bush administration and was partially responsible for his being limited to one term.
The difference with Nixon? Reagan first appointed his own board, in addition to the independent counsel appointed by the Attorney General. The report of the board was highly critical.
When the findings came out, Reagan went on national TV, just like Nixon. But instead of saying what Nixon did, a blanket denial, Reagan, looking old, and for the first time to the public, a bit confused, said:
"I've studied the Board's report. Its findings are honest, convincing, and highly critical; and I accept them. And tonight I want to share with you my thoughts on these findings and report to you on the actions I'm taking to implement the Board's recommendations.
First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.
Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake."(my emphasis in both places).
Those of us with some subtly understand that much of the differences in the response to these two speeches had to do with the way they were perceived BEFORE their individual scandals. But one, even as he waffled, confessed, the other denied.
Clemens and Pettite?
While easy, that's one's subtle as well. Reagan lied, Nixon lied. In Reagan's "confession" he still said in his heart it's true that he never traded arms for hostages (huh? ) but he still ultimately confessed. Do I wish it had been full and unequivocal? Yes.
Clemens, as anyone who knows anything, was a serial abuser of Performance enhancers. Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox famously said that Clemens was done and let him leave the Red Sox. He went to Toronto and suddenly he was better than ever.
He was caught lying to Congress, denying that he had ever used HgH and other drugs.
His teammate and training partner, Pettite, admitted that he had used HgH "3 times" (meaning 3 injections) that he got from his father.
Now, for me, Pettite's "admission" made him almost worse than Clemems. He was clearly still lying, worse, he threw his own father under the bus.
But ultimately, the way the public viewed it, is that Pettite admitted it, Clemens did not.
Now, Clemens is being prosecuted for lying to Congress, and Pettite will probably end up in the hall of fame, or at least, have a career as a Yankee legend.
This is why, I am constantly stunned by politicians who do not offer a mea culpa. Imagine Bill Clinton simply saying what he did AFTER 4 years of Lewinskygate, right away, early on in the scandal. The Country would have been spared and we might be talking about him as one of the great Presidents in history. Instead, he is the butt of an unlimited number of sex jokes.
One of the things that most frustrates people about me is that I have rigid morality. When I'm right, I say it. And loudly. Does that sound arrogant? Yes.
But when I'm wrong I say it. Just as I publicly pronounced my apology to Mysst, in my personal life I say frequently, "I was wrong".
I am always amazed at what happens when I say this. People don't know how to react. I frequently have to say it over and over again. They are so used to people saying "...but...".
I don't (say but). I'm wrong. It's really not that hard.
We ALL make mistakes. That is what makes us human.
There is a difference in what has gone on here recently. Some are now defending their actions. Others are defending the offenders.
I hope everyone recognizes the differences between those two.
The first, by their actions are really admitting that they are wrong, but they are too embarrassed, or whatever their personal reasons are, to admit what happened.
But by NOT defending the offenders, they are acknowledging what happened.
What does this say? Simple, that their values are actually in place. That they CAN recognize right from wrong.
What is sad, is that for a while, they let that get away.
Now, though, but defending their own actions, they are trying to justify. Is this frustrating? Of course, but I would ask you to recognize the difference between the groups.
The first are good folks gone astray. The second group are Nixon and Clemens.
To the first group, I would say, just say "mea culpa".
The very reason you feel persecuted is a) because you are wrong and more importantly b) because people liked you before and WANT to like you again (like is a weenie word but I'm getting tired of typing). People want simply to know that you recognize what REALLY happened. That you weren't neutral. You didn't ignore. You didn't NOT take sides.
You enabled.
Well, just as in my marriage, I enabled my wife. Did that make me the borderline who abused her husband and children?
No, of course not, but I still played my part. And I will be dealing with that forever.
We all recognize that you are NOT the offender. But you played a part.
We want to have open arms. We like you. We really like you.
All we are asking is that you let us.
To refresh some memories.
Nixon, obviously, covered up the Watergate scandal (as an aside, those who know about the whole thing and who have heard the Watergate tapes, know he didn't plan it, but he did cover up the lies).
Nixon, famously, when caught said "The American people need to know if their President is a thief. Well, I am not a thief." An out and out lie.
Reagan, in a situation that has now been forgotten (interesting isn't it?) was enmeshed in what was arguable a worse situation. His administration was enmeshed in what became known as the "Iran-Contra Affair" or the arms for hostages scandal.
The scandal entailed illegal funding and arming of Nicaragua’s right-wing contras fighting the leftist Sandinista regime as well as illegally trading arms with Iran in exchange for the release of seven American hostages held by Iranian-sponsored militants in Lebanon. Profits from arms sales to Iran were to be used to buy weapons for the contras.
An independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh was appointed. He concluded that the President's most senior advisers and the Cabinet members on the National Security Council participated in the strategy to make National Security staff members McFarlane, Poindexter and North the scapegoats in the scandal. Walsh discovered much of the best evidence of the cover-up in the final year of active investigation, too late for most prosecutions. This actually bled into the Bush administration and was partially responsible for his being limited to one term.
The difference with Nixon? Reagan first appointed his own board, in addition to the independent counsel appointed by the Attorney General. The report of the board was highly critical.
When the findings came out, Reagan went on national TV, just like Nixon. But instead of saying what Nixon did, a blanket denial, Reagan, looking old, and for the first time to the public, a bit confused, said:
"I've studied the Board's report. Its findings are honest, convincing, and highly critical; and I accept them. And tonight I want to share with you my thoughts on these findings and report to you on the actions I'm taking to implement the Board's recommendations.
First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.
Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake."(my emphasis in both places).
Those of us with some subtly understand that much of the differences in the response to these two speeches had to do with the way they were perceived BEFORE their individual scandals. But one, even as he waffled, confessed, the other denied.
Clemens and Pettite?
While easy, that's one's subtle as well. Reagan lied, Nixon lied. In Reagan's "confession" he still said in his heart it's true that he never traded arms for hostages (huh? ) but he still ultimately confessed. Do I wish it had been full and unequivocal? Yes.
Clemens, as anyone who knows anything, was a serial abuser of Performance enhancers. Dan Duquette the GM of the Red Sox famously said that Clemens was done and let him leave the Red Sox. He went to Toronto and suddenly he was better than ever.
He was caught lying to Congress, denying that he had ever used HgH and other drugs.
His teammate and training partner, Pettite, admitted that he had used HgH "3 times" (meaning 3 injections) that he got from his father.
Now, for me, Pettite's "admission" made him almost worse than Clemems. He was clearly still lying, worse, he threw his own father under the bus.
But ultimately, the way the public viewed it, is that Pettite admitted it, Clemens did not.
Now, Clemens is being prosecuted for lying to Congress, and Pettite will probably end up in the hall of fame, or at least, have a career as a Yankee legend.
This is why, I am constantly stunned by politicians who do not offer a mea culpa. Imagine Bill Clinton simply saying what he did AFTER 4 years of Lewinskygate, right away, early on in the scandal. The Country would have been spared and we might be talking about him as one of the great Presidents in history. Instead, he is the butt of an unlimited number of sex jokes.
One of the things that most frustrates people about me is that I have rigid morality. When I'm right, I say it. And loudly. Does that sound arrogant? Yes.
But when I'm wrong I say it. Just as I publicly pronounced my apology to Mysst, in my personal life I say frequently, "I was wrong".
I am always amazed at what happens when I say this. People don't know how to react. I frequently have to say it over and over again. They are so used to people saying "...but...".
I don't (say but). I'm wrong. It's really not that hard.
We ALL make mistakes. That is what makes us human.
There is a difference in what has gone on here recently. Some are now defending their actions. Others are defending the offenders.
I hope everyone recognizes the differences between those two.
The first, by their actions are really admitting that they are wrong, but they are too embarrassed, or whatever their personal reasons are, to admit what happened.
But by NOT defending the offenders, they are acknowledging what happened.
What does this say? Simple, that their values are actually in place. That they CAN recognize right from wrong.
What is sad, is that for a while, they let that get away.
Now, though, but defending their own actions, they are trying to justify. Is this frustrating? Of course, but I would ask you to recognize the difference between the groups.
The first are good folks gone astray. The second group are Nixon and Clemens.
To the first group, I would say, just say "mea culpa".
The very reason you feel persecuted is a) because you are wrong and more importantly b) because people liked you before and WANT to like you again (like is a weenie word but I'm getting tired of typing). People want simply to know that you recognize what REALLY happened. That you weren't neutral. You didn't ignore. You didn't NOT take sides.
You enabled.
Well, just as in my marriage, I enabled my wife. Did that make me the borderline who abused her husband and children?
No, of course not, but I still played my part. And I will be dealing with that forever.
We all recognize that you are NOT the offender. But you played a part.
We want to have open arms. We like you. We really like you.
All we are asking is that you let us.
On Diedrich Bonhofer
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil:
God will not hold us innocent.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
— Bonhoeffer
Who was Diedrich Bonhofer?
Bonhofer was a German theologian in the years before WWII. Like my quote from Niemoller, Bonhofer was far from a lover of the Jews, or even a universally "good" guy, so to speak. However he was an avowed pacifist as befitted a man of the clothe, who eventually made contact with the German Resistance and the members of the Abwehr who had committed to assassinate Hitler.
He was captured, tried, and hung just over a month before Hitler himself committed suicide in the Bunker.
However, Bonhofer had actually come to the United States in 1939, to work here in NY at the Union Theological Seminary.
He felt guilty about being here when Germany was going through the upheavals that he was witnessing and he wrote to a friend:
"I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people... Christians in Germany will have to face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose but I cannot make that choice from security." (My emphasis)
God will not hold us innocent.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
— Bonhoeffer
Who was Diedrich Bonhofer?
Bonhofer was a German theologian in the years before WWII. Like my quote from Niemoller, Bonhofer was far from a lover of the Jews, or even a universally "good" guy, so to speak. However he was an avowed pacifist as befitted a man of the clothe, who eventually made contact with the German Resistance and the members of the Abwehr who had committed to assassinate Hitler.
He was captured, tried, and hung just over a month before Hitler himself committed suicide in the Bunker.
However, Bonhofer had actually come to the United States in 1939, to work here in NY at the Union Theological Seminary.
He felt guilty about being here when Germany was going through the upheavals that he was witnessing and he wrote to a friend:
"I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people... Christians in Germany will have to face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying civilization. I know which of these alternatives I must choose but I cannot make that choice from security." (My emphasis)
Saturday, May 21, 2011
It's Finally Over!
Most of you are newer readers of my blog but several years ago I wrote a serious of posts about performance enhancing drugs in sports:
A brief history of steroids and performing enhancing drugs - Part one
A brief history of steroids and performing enhancing drugs - Part two
A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs - Part 3: Naming names!
A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs - Part 4: How the testing works .
HgH, Sly Stallone and me: An update to "A Brief History of Steroids...", Part 5
The Hall of Fame, McGwire, Dick Pound and WADA: an update to: A brief history of Steroids.....
A new study: An update to "A brief History of Performing Enhancing Drugs..." Part 7
The Tour de France today: An update to "A Brief History of Steroids...."
An update to: "A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs "
You'll notice the Tour De France installment. I have never been a fan of Lance Armstrong. Let me correct that. When he was a young up and comer, before his cancer, and he won the World Championship - usually a portent of big things to come for a young cyclist.
And even when he began to win the Tour, well he had been a protege of my cycling hero, Greg LeMond.
Of course I knew he used drugs, every world class athlete does. But then things changed. He became "Lance the superhero". The man who had been tested "more times than any other athlete" according to him (well, at least the same # of times as the other cyclists in the tour with him).
And then, worse, he became so holier than thou about the whole thing.
His Dr. busted for providing for blood doping all his clients earning the nickname "Dr. Blood"? Nothing
The fact that his blood, used as a test sample for the new test for EPO, the drug cyclists use most to build additional aerobic capacity, test positive for his 2d tour victory but b/c it was for a past tour he couldn't be suspended? Not a chance
The fact that every top rider who ever rode in support of him has been busted for drugs or admitted to using them? No way, NOT Lance!!
Floyd Landis saying that he personally used drugs with Lance, from testosterone to EPO? Not a chance, Floyd was busted and lost HIS tour de france win and he is just vindictive (why against Lance, Lance has never explained).
Test positive at the 2001 Tour de Suisse? No,not Lance! (oops well maybe, but if we deny it enough maybe people will forget).
Frankie Landreu (another longtime teammate on the US Postal Team) and his wife testifying that Lance openly discussed his drug use with his oncologists (cancer doctors)? LIARS!!
But now, this Sunday, 60 minutes will be airing an interview with Tyler Hamilton, yet another teammate will be saying yet again, that he used drugs with Lance.
But don't worry, Lance the Great has already come out and reiterated the most tested athlete mantra, and of course Tyler is only doing it because he is writing a book. Oh, and that funny Grand Jury testimony.
But now. OOOOPS. George Hincapie, who Lance described as "like my brother" who was his roommate for years and his teammate for EVERY one of his Tour de France Victories, has apparently ALSO testified to the Grand Jury that he and Lanced used Testosterone and EPO repeated during all the Tour de France wins.
Let's see. George is STILL cycling so it would look really bad for him to admit this.
But, it's just another person out to get Lance the great.
My hero Greg LeMond tells a story. LeMond won the Tour 3 times. He would have won at leat 5 if not Lance's 7 if not for a hunting accident when he was shot by his brother in law. LeMond came back and won two more Tours after that accident, but later in his career, the shotgun pellets left in his body caused a blood infection and so he had to take a few years off again to get healthy.
When he came back, LeMond said he was in the best shape of his life, riding faster times than he ever had. And then he went to the Tour and in a Mountain day he said he saw people doing things that he knew were impossible, and that he knew he could never do. He knew WHY they were able to do them. So he dropped out of the Tour and retired.
Funny, but that is exactly what Frankie Andreu said, but he said it to explain why he and Lance DID use drugs.
Busted. The myth of Lance, with his good friend George's testimony should now finally be over.
A brief history of steroids and performing enhancing drugs - Part one
A brief history of steroids and performing enhancing drugs - Part two
A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs - Part 3: Naming names!
A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs - Part 4: How the testing works .
HgH, Sly Stallone and me: An update to "A Brief History of Steroids...", Part 5
The Hall of Fame, McGwire, Dick Pound and WADA: an update to: A brief history of Steroids.....
A new study: An update to "A brief History of Performing Enhancing Drugs..." Part 7
The Tour de France today: An update to "A Brief History of Steroids...."
An update to: "A brief history of Steroids and performing ehnhancing drugs "
You'll notice the Tour De France installment. I have never been a fan of Lance Armstrong. Let me correct that. When he was a young up and comer, before his cancer, and he won the World Championship - usually a portent of big things to come for a young cyclist.
And even when he began to win the Tour, well he had been a protege of my cycling hero, Greg LeMond.
Of course I knew he used drugs, every world class athlete does. But then things changed. He became "Lance the superhero". The man who had been tested "more times than any other athlete" according to him (well, at least the same # of times as the other cyclists in the tour with him).
And then, worse, he became so holier than thou about the whole thing.
His Dr. busted for providing for blood doping all his clients earning the nickname "Dr. Blood"? Nothing
The fact that his blood, used as a test sample for the new test for EPO, the drug cyclists use most to build additional aerobic capacity, test positive for his 2d tour victory but b/c it was for a past tour he couldn't be suspended? Not a chance
The fact that every top rider who ever rode in support of him has been busted for drugs or admitted to using them? No way, NOT Lance!!
Floyd Landis saying that he personally used drugs with Lance, from testosterone to EPO? Not a chance, Floyd was busted and lost HIS tour de france win and he is just vindictive (why against Lance, Lance has never explained).
Test positive at the 2001 Tour de Suisse? No,not Lance! (oops well maybe, but if we deny it enough maybe people will forget).
Frankie Landreu (another longtime teammate on the US Postal Team) and his wife testifying that Lance openly discussed his drug use with his oncologists (cancer doctors)? LIARS!!
But now, this Sunday, 60 minutes will be airing an interview with Tyler Hamilton, yet another teammate will be saying yet again, that he used drugs with Lance.
But don't worry, Lance the Great has already come out and reiterated the most tested athlete mantra, and of course Tyler is only doing it because he is writing a book. Oh, and that funny Grand Jury testimony.
But now. OOOOPS. George Hincapie, who Lance described as "like my brother" who was his roommate for years and his teammate for EVERY one of his Tour de France Victories, has apparently ALSO testified to the Grand Jury that he and Lanced used Testosterone and EPO repeated during all the Tour de France wins.
Let's see. George is STILL cycling so it would look really bad for him to admit this.
But, it's just another person out to get Lance the great.
My hero Greg LeMond tells a story. LeMond won the Tour 3 times. He would have won at leat 5 if not Lance's 7 if not for a hunting accident when he was shot by his brother in law. LeMond came back and won two more Tours after that accident, but later in his career, the shotgun pellets left in his body caused a blood infection and so he had to take a few years off again to get healthy.
When he came back, LeMond said he was in the best shape of his life, riding faster times than he ever had. And then he went to the Tour and in a Mountain day he said he saw people doing things that he knew were impossible, and that he knew he could never do. He knew WHY they were able to do them. So he dropped out of the Tour and retired.
Funny, but that is exactly what Frankie Andreu said, but he said it to explain why he and Lance DID use drugs.
Busted. The myth of Lance, with his good friend George's testimony should now finally be over.
Monday, May 16, 2011
The EIchmann Trial: 50 Years Later
In May 1960, Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi officer in charge of orchestrating the Final Solution – the mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps – was captured by Israeli agents near Buenos Aires. Eichmann was given a choice between instant death or trial in Israel. He chose to stand trial, which began in Jerusalem on April 11, 1961.
During the trial, the Israeli public was exposed to the details of the Holocaust nightmare for the first time, as well as to the heroism and ingenuity of those who survived.
In his defense, Eichmann insisted that he was only "following orders." Yet scores of witnesses contradicted that contention – testifying to Eichmann's "fanatical zeal and unquenchable blood thirst." Throughout, Eichmann listened impassively to a translation of the entire trial from a specially-designed glass cubicle in the crowded Jerusalem courtroom.
One year later, after all the evidence was in and all appeals exhausted, the cold-eyed Nazi monster was hanged at a prison in the Israeli town of Ramla.
Former Supreme Judge Gavriel Bach – at the time an up-and-coming lawyer and deputy state attorney – was asked to join the team of prosecutors. Fluent in German, he conducted most of the interrogations of Eichmann. At a recent talk in Jerusalem, with the 50th anniversary of the Eichmann Trial approaching, Bach described the unforgettable influence that the trial left on him.
"We were three prosecutors. We gathered millions of pages of documentation and read a great deal of background sources. I don't think I slept more than three hours every night throughout the trial," Bach recalls. “The German government was very cooperative and sent us a great deal of material.” Despite that, chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner preferred to call up as many witnesses as possible rather than presenting his case via historical documents, because "it would be more shocking and have more impetus."
"Some of us thought that Eichmann may have experienced regret at the terrible things done to the Jews in Europe," says Bach. While in custody, Eichmann was shown part of a film that portrayed the horrible conditions of the camps and the crematoria. “We all waited to see how he would react to the emotional film,” says Bach. But when a German-speaking guard asked Eichmann for his reaction, he simply changed the subject and complained about not being allowed to appear at the trial in a Nazi uniform.
Instigator of the Crimes
Among the many documents that Bach found was an interview which Eichmann gave to a fascist Dutch journalist in 1956 while hiding in Argentina. Eichmann expressed satisfaction over the sight of continuous railroads cars arriving in Auschwitz. "It was a glorious sight," he said.
"Did you have any regrets at any time?" asked the journalist.
"Yes", answered Eichmann, "I'm sorry that I wasn't stricter in carrying out our goal. Look what happened," he declared angrily in 1956. "The State of Israel now exists and that cursed race continues."
A book written by the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoes, describes how up to a thousand Jewish children were gassed daily. "Occasionally a youngster would beg for his life on bended knees in front of me, and I have to admit, I sometimes felt weak myself. I have children of my own. But then I was embarrassed at my frailty. The Oberfuhrer (Eichmann) strengthened my resolve by explaining that we had to kill the accursed Jewish children above all; they represented the future, and the Jewish future had to be erased from the face of the world."
Prosecutors found several examples of Eichmann’s steadfast, even stubborn resistance to any show of lenience. One of the Nazi leaders in Poland sent a request to delay the deportation of a certain Dr. Weiss and his wife. Dr. Weiss was a world famous expert on radar, and the officer thought it would be useful for the Reich to obtain key information before annihilating him. Eichmann wouldn't hear of it "as a matter of principle," and the doctor and his family perished along with their entire community.
At one point during the war, Hitler himself, for political reasons, asked Eichmann not to touch 8,000 Jews left in Budapest. Yet despite his loyalty to the Fuhrer, Eichmann planned otherwise. (Only the war's progression prevented him from deporting this group.) These examples counter Eichmann's claim throughout the trial that he was merely a cog in the machine, carrying out orders.
"There were many dramatic incidents during the trial," says Bach, some which never came to the floor of the courtroom. "We received an important document from an anonymous source which detailed the number of arrivals at Auschwitz, the dates, and the numbers given to each Jew. We tried to verify the details and find the person who had sent us the valuable material, but couldn't make headway. We called in experts from the police department to examine the document and help us find its author. Then I had a brainstorm. Let's find survivors with the numbers mentioned in the document and ask them when they arrived at the camp. That will give us the proof we need to present the document at the trial.
"One of the policeman in the room, after some hesitation, rolled up his sleeve and showed us a number engraved on his arm. 'This number appears on the report; and indeed I arrived in Auschwitz on the date mentioned,' he said quietly. There was complete silence in the room. None of his police colleagues even knew that he'd been in the Holocaust. Like so many, he had hidden his past. We had our proof on the spot. But none of us could speak for several minutes."
Horror Stories
The Eichmann trial had the effect of creating huge public awareness about the Holocaust in Israel and worldwide.
"Nobody wanted to talk about their Holocaust experiences," says Yosef Kleinman, a survivor who arrived in Palestine in 1945 during the days when the tiny Jewish community was struggling to survive and prepare for statehood. There was neither energy, time nor patience to hear the newcomers out. “No one was interested in hearing our stories,” says Kleinman.
"They called us 'sabonim' (soapers),” he says. “They couldn't fathom why we hadn't stood up to the Nazis in the camps and fought back. In those days Israelis were taken up with the macho image of the ‘new Jew.’ They didn't understand what we were up against in Europe, and we ourselves didn't want to be reminded. We just wanted to get on with our lives and put that all behind us."
Indeed, the main drama of the Eichmann trial was the Holocaust survivors who appeared as witnesses. As first it was difficult to even locate witnesses, since they had gotten so used to not talking about that period in their lives. "I had a hard time convincing some people to come forth and tell their story," Bach recalls. “One man told me, ‘If I start talking, you won't be able to stop me for four or five days.’"
The prosecution team argued among themselves how much time to give each witness. "I was adamant that at least one witness should appear from every country that had been under Nazi rule," says Bach.
Kleinman, one of the youngest witnesses, described the selection process he endured as a 14-year-old. "First we were put into a ghetto, and several weeks later we were sent in cattle cars to the camp. For three days we had nothing to drink or eat.”
At Auschwitz, there was a selection table where the infamous Angel of Death, Dr. Josef Mengele, sent the most able-bodied to the right for slave labor, and the weaker ones to the left for extermination. “My 13-year-old brother was held up for inspection,“ Kleinman recalls, “but in the end they told him to run along and join our parents to the left, which he did happily, not knowing what that meant. That was the last time I saw any of them.
”In the barracks, the old timers quickly filled us in and callously pointed to the smoking chimneys we could see through the window. 'That's where your parents are. They're all dead by now.' That's how we learned the terrible truth.”
At the Eichmann trial, Kleinman testified about an incident where Auschwitz guards called the prisoners out to see one young boy getting punished. Kleinman describes:
“Usually they'd give 25 lashes. This boy withstood the punishment and didn't let out a sound. That made the tormentor angry and he continued beating him – 30, 35, 40 lashes. And still the boy didn't cry out. We ourselves couldn't take it anymore. But the soldier continued hitting him all over – on his legs, face, stomach, wherever the whip landed.
“When he got to 50, and the boy was already on the ground, he threw away his whip and left in disgust. We ran over to the hero, picked him up and washed him off. 'What did you do to get this punishment?' we asked him. He could barely talk, but he said, “I brought siddurim (prayer books) to the barracks. It was worth it. I'm glad I did it.'"
This story had a deep influence in the courtroom. The court-appointed defense attorney wept openly, and the judges called for a break in the procedures.
Little Red Coat
At the trial, another witness who had been inside the gas chamber lived to tell about it. As a youngster, he arrived in Auschwitz together with 200 other children, after a horrendous three-day train trip. After the selection, he was pushed into a large dark room with shower piping, and the door was shut behind them. At first the children began to sing, to lift their spirits, but that soon gave way to wailing and screaming. Suddenly the heavy metal door swung open and a guard pulled out 20 of them into the bright sunlight. The Nazis needed workers to unload bags of potatoes and there weren't enough soldiers for the job. That's how this man was able to give a first-hand description of the insides of the crematorium.
At the trial, Dr. Martin Foldi, related how he and his family arrived at Auschwitz in the winter of 1944. As the bewildered Jews stumbled out of the cattle cars, they were hounded by dogs and Nazi soldiers with whips. He described being sent to the right with his 11-year-old son. His wife and two-year-old daughter were taken to the left. The little girl was wearing a little red coat. At the last minute, a guard sent Foldi's son with the crowd to the left. Dr. Foldi panicked thinking, how could this young boy find his mother and sister among the thousands there at the station. But then he knew... he could find his sister because she was wearing the red coat. It would be "like a beacon" for the boy. Then he states, "I never saw them again."
This testimony is likely to have formed the inspiration for the iconic red coat in Steve Spielberg’s classic film, Schindler’s List.
The horrible story shook the courtroom. But for prosecuting attorney Gavriel Bach, it was by far the most upsetting moment of the 16-week trial. Bach had just bought a red coat for his own daughter.
In the courtroom, Bach played with his papers and kept the whole court waiting for his next question while he conquered his emotions.
Historic Impact
The Eichmann trial made headlines all over the world, but in Israel the subject was the center of everyone's attention. The long-term effects of the trial were dramatic and many. The Israeli public understood at last what the survivors had undergone, and became much more empathetic. The enormity of the Holocaust was suddenly brought to the fore, through the witnesses who gave a personal voice and face to the 6 million victims.
Today, far from the days of Israelis “not wanting to acknowledge the tragedy,” there is a whole different attitude. Israeli universities have professors of Holocaust Studies; thousands of Hebrew books have been printed on the subject; government agencies grant special privileges to survivors; and every year on Yom HaShoah the media devotes an entire day to interviews with the nearly-extinct generation of survivors.
Half a century later, the Eichmann trial is not merely a historic event. It represents the turning point in Israel’s understanding of the Holocaust.
During the trial, the Israeli public was exposed to the details of the Holocaust nightmare for the first time, as well as to the heroism and ingenuity of those who survived.
In his defense, Eichmann insisted that he was only "following orders." Yet scores of witnesses contradicted that contention – testifying to Eichmann's "fanatical zeal and unquenchable blood thirst." Throughout, Eichmann listened impassively to a translation of the entire trial from a specially-designed glass cubicle in the crowded Jerusalem courtroom.
One year later, after all the evidence was in and all appeals exhausted, the cold-eyed Nazi monster was hanged at a prison in the Israeli town of Ramla.
Former Supreme Judge Gavriel Bach – at the time an up-and-coming lawyer and deputy state attorney – was asked to join the team of prosecutors. Fluent in German, he conducted most of the interrogations of Eichmann. At a recent talk in Jerusalem, with the 50th anniversary of the Eichmann Trial approaching, Bach described the unforgettable influence that the trial left on him.
"We were three prosecutors. We gathered millions of pages of documentation and read a great deal of background sources. I don't think I slept more than three hours every night throughout the trial," Bach recalls. “The German government was very cooperative and sent us a great deal of material.” Despite that, chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner preferred to call up as many witnesses as possible rather than presenting his case via historical documents, because "it would be more shocking and have more impetus."
"Some of us thought that Eichmann may have experienced regret at the terrible things done to the Jews in Europe," says Bach. While in custody, Eichmann was shown part of a film that portrayed the horrible conditions of the camps and the crematoria. “We all waited to see how he would react to the emotional film,” says Bach. But when a German-speaking guard asked Eichmann for his reaction, he simply changed the subject and complained about not being allowed to appear at the trial in a Nazi uniform.
Instigator of the Crimes
Among the many documents that Bach found was an interview which Eichmann gave to a fascist Dutch journalist in 1956 while hiding in Argentina. Eichmann expressed satisfaction over the sight of continuous railroads cars arriving in Auschwitz. "It was a glorious sight," he said.
"Did you have any regrets at any time?" asked the journalist.
"Yes", answered Eichmann, "I'm sorry that I wasn't stricter in carrying out our goal. Look what happened," he declared angrily in 1956. "The State of Israel now exists and that cursed race continues."
A book written by the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoes, describes how up to a thousand Jewish children were gassed daily. "Occasionally a youngster would beg for his life on bended knees in front of me, and I have to admit, I sometimes felt weak myself. I have children of my own. But then I was embarrassed at my frailty. The Oberfuhrer (Eichmann) strengthened my resolve by explaining that we had to kill the accursed Jewish children above all; they represented the future, and the Jewish future had to be erased from the face of the world."
Prosecutors found several examples of Eichmann’s steadfast, even stubborn resistance to any show of lenience. One of the Nazi leaders in Poland sent a request to delay the deportation of a certain Dr. Weiss and his wife. Dr. Weiss was a world famous expert on radar, and the officer thought it would be useful for the Reich to obtain key information before annihilating him. Eichmann wouldn't hear of it "as a matter of principle," and the doctor and his family perished along with their entire community.
At one point during the war, Hitler himself, for political reasons, asked Eichmann not to touch 8,000 Jews left in Budapest. Yet despite his loyalty to the Fuhrer, Eichmann planned otherwise. (Only the war's progression prevented him from deporting this group.) These examples counter Eichmann's claim throughout the trial that he was merely a cog in the machine, carrying out orders.
"There were many dramatic incidents during the trial," says Bach, some which never came to the floor of the courtroom. "We received an important document from an anonymous source which detailed the number of arrivals at Auschwitz, the dates, and the numbers given to each Jew. We tried to verify the details and find the person who had sent us the valuable material, but couldn't make headway. We called in experts from the police department to examine the document and help us find its author. Then I had a brainstorm. Let's find survivors with the numbers mentioned in the document and ask them when they arrived at the camp. That will give us the proof we need to present the document at the trial.
"One of the policeman in the room, after some hesitation, rolled up his sleeve and showed us a number engraved on his arm. 'This number appears on the report; and indeed I arrived in Auschwitz on the date mentioned,' he said quietly. There was complete silence in the room. None of his police colleagues even knew that he'd been in the Holocaust. Like so many, he had hidden his past. We had our proof on the spot. But none of us could speak for several minutes."
Horror Stories
The Eichmann trial had the effect of creating huge public awareness about the Holocaust in Israel and worldwide.
"Nobody wanted to talk about their Holocaust experiences," says Yosef Kleinman, a survivor who arrived in Palestine in 1945 during the days when the tiny Jewish community was struggling to survive and prepare for statehood. There was neither energy, time nor patience to hear the newcomers out. “No one was interested in hearing our stories,” says Kleinman.
"They called us 'sabonim' (soapers),” he says. “They couldn't fathom why we hadn't stood up to the Nazis in the camps and fought back. In those days Israelis were taken up with the macho image of the ‘new Jew.’ They didn't understand what we were up against in Europe, and we ourselves didn't want to be reminded. We just wanted to get on with our lives and put that all behind us."
Indeed, the main drama of the Eichmann trial was the Holocaust survivors who appeared as witnesses. As first it was difficult to even locate witnesses, since they had gotten so used to not talking about that period in their lives. "I had a hard time convincing some people to come forth and tell their story," Bach recalls. “One man told me, ‘If I start talking, you won't be able to stop me for four or five days.’"
The prosecution team argued among themselves how much time to give each witness. "I was adamant that at least one witness should appear from every country that had been under Nazi rule," says Bach.
Kleinman, one of the youngest witnesses, described the selection process he endured as a 14-year-old. "First we were put into a ghetto, and several weeks later we were sent in cattle cars to the camp. For three days we had nothing to drink or eat.”
At Auschwitz, there was a selection table where the infamous Angel of Death, Dr. Josef Mengele, sent the most able-bodied to the right for slave labor, and the weaker ones to the left for extermination. “My 13-year-old brother was held up for inspection,“ Kleinman recalls, “but in the end they told him to run along and join our parents to the left, which he did happily, not knowing what that meant. That was the last time I saw any of them.
”In the barracks, the old timers quickly filled us in and callously pointed to the smoking chimneys we could see through the window. 'That's where your parents are. They're all dead by now.' That's how we learned the terrible truth.”
At the Eichmann trial, Kleinman testified about an incident where Auschwitz guards called the prisoners out to see one young boy getting punished. Kleinman describes:
“Usually they'd give 25 lashes. This boy withstood the punishment and didn't let out a sound. That made the tormentor angry and he continued beating him – 30, 35, 40 lashes. And still the boy didn't cry out. We ourselves couldn't take it anymore. But the soldier continued hitting him all over – on his legs, face, stomach, wherever the whip landed.
“When he got to 50, and the boy was already on the ground, he threw away his whip and left in disgust. We ran over to the hero, picked him up and washed him off. 'What did you do to get this punishment?' we asked him. He could barely talk, but he said, “I brought siddurim (prayer books) to the barracks. It was worth it. I'm glad I did it.'"
This story had a deep influence in the courtroom. The court-appointed defense attorney wept openly, and the judges called for a break in the procedures.
Little Red Coat
At the trial, another witness who had been inside the gas chamber lived to tell about it. As a youngster, he arrived in Auschwitz together with 200 other children, after a horrendous three-day train trip. After the selection, he was pushed into a large dark room with shower piping, and the door was shut behind them. At first the children began to sing, to lift their spirits, but that soon gave way to wailing and screaming. Suddenly the heavy metal door swung open and a guard pulled out 20 of them into the bright sunlight. The Nazis needed workers to unload bags of potatoes and there weren't enough soldiers for the job. That's how this man was able to give a first-hand description of the insides of the crematorium.
At the trial, Dr. Martin Foldi, related how he and his family arrived at Auschwitz in the winter of 1944. As the bewildered Jews stumbled out of the cattle cars, they were hounded by dogs and Nazi soldiers with whips. He described being sent to the right with his 11-year-old son. His wife and two-year-old daughter were taken to the left. The little girl was wearing a little red coat. At the last minute, a guard sent Foldi's son with the crowd to the left. Dr. Foldi panicked thinking, how could this young boy find his mother and sister among the thousands there at the station. But then he knew... he could find his sister because she was wearing the red coat. It would be "like a beacon" for the boy. Then he states, "I never saw them again."
This testimony is likely to have formed the inspiration for the iconic red coat in Steve Spielberg’s classic film, Schindler’s List.
The horrible story shook the courtroom. But for prosecuting attorney Gavriel Bach, it was by far the most upsetting moment of the 16-week trial. Bach had just bought a red coat for his own daughter.
In the courtroom, Bach played with his papers and kept the whole court waiting for his next question while he conquered his emotions.
Historic Impact
The Eichmann trial made headlines all over the world, but in Israel the subject was the center of everyone's attention. The long-term effects of the trial were dramatic and many. The Israeli public understood at last what the survivors had undergone, and became much more empathetic. The enormity of the Holocaust was suddenly brought to the fore, through the witnesses who gave a personal voice and face to the 6 million victims.
Today, far from the days of Israelis “not wanting to acknowledge the tragedy,” there is a whole different attitude. Israeli universities have professors of Holocaust Studies; thousands of Hebrew books have been printed on the subject; government agencies grant special privileges to survivors; and every year on Yom HaShoah the media devotes an entire day to interviews with the nearly-extinct generation of survivors.
Half a century later, the Eichmann trial is not merely a historic event. It represents the turning point in Israel’s understanding of the Holocaust.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
An Ignominious Anniversary
This spring and summer is an anniversary that many wish we did not have to note.
It is the 50th anniversary of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the man who was largely credited with the actual mechanical creation of, and carrying out of Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" i.e. the Holocaust in all of it's brutal efficiency.
One of the interesting things is the loss of historical perspective that we have today, versus in 1961.
Many of you, like me, were not alive then, or were too young to know what was going on in the world.
In the immediate aftermath of WWII, Europe was in a shambles.
The immediate issue for the allied forces, with regard to the death camp survivors, was how to try and nurse them back to health.
They could not be just given food, as a huge percentage were suffering from Typhus, Dysentery, and other diseases of extreme malnutrition and lack of even basic hygiene.
Even more, like many of the other residents of Europe, there was no place for these people to go back to. The Soviets and the Germans had both engaged in scorched earth policies on retreat, and of course, the allies bombed many of the major cities, like Dresden, into oblivion.
Refugees remained in camps until 1956, more than a decade after the end of the war in Europe.
If you know any survivors, you can ask them, but most of them did not want to discuss what they had seen, and what they had been through. The Jews did not know how to deal with what had happened to them, and their families. It was like waking up from a 15 year nightmare, except that your loved ones were dead.
In addition, the British were actively trying to prevent migration to the Mandate of Palestine, and then to the new nation of Israel.
Those that did make it, quickly became involved in trying to forge the new nation and defend it. Israel was attacked immediately upon the declaration of the state, and then again in 1956 by Egypt.
Just as importantly, unlike today's world of 24 hour news cycle, videophones, etc, there was no way to learn of what happened in Europe at the death camps unless one of the liberating soldiers wanted to discuss it. And since the Americans had not liberated the worst camps, there was only so much they could discuss, although again, most had no interest in talking about what they saw. Without video cameras, cable news, or even nightly news on the 3 networks (news reports back then were only 15 minutes long and mostly local) there was just no way to find out.
And in fact, the worst camps, Auschwitz and it's sub camps, and all the camps in Poland, Czechoslavakia and other points east, were liberated by the Soviets, who had engaged in their own holocaust in the Ukraine, so they had no interest in advertising what happened.
The only way to see what had happened were from the films that were played during the Nuremberg trials. Even the trials though, did not anticipate the prosecution focusing on the Holocaust. The principle charge was waging aggressive war, and that was the chief line of questioning. However, when the films were played near the end of the trial, the news observers were left crying, or worse.
The newsreels were not shown in the United States and only small amounts of information about what had happened got out.
Dwight Eisenhower did declare martial law, and ordered all German townspeople to tour the camps in their regions and to bury the remaining skeletal corpses, but once that immediate action was over, the German people became enmeshed in what would eventually be termed the "economic miracle" of the government of post war Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.
Most importantly about Adenauer was that his national security adviser, Hans Globke, had worked with Eichmann in the Department of Jewish Affairs, and in fact, had been one of the architects of Hitler's Nuremberg Laws.
The Americans, who, through the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and the new Cold War with the Soviets, were trying to capture as much of the European sentiment as they could.
Both Adenauer's government, and the various allied governments had no interest in advertising the help they were receiving from the former Nazis (how 'former' is something historians still debate).
As a result of all of these things, by the time Eichmann was captured in Buenos Aries, Argentina on May 11, 1960 by agents of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, led by their director Isser Harel, the world knew little of the horrors that had been witnessed, or had forgotten already.
Harel wrote a wonderful book about this covert operation entitled "The House on Garibaldi Street". It is in fact, a model for many espionage novels, which can't help fail to live up to the real live suspense of the true story of the tracking, capture and removal of Eichmann from Argentina to Israel to stand trial.
The trial was stunning for the world. News agencies from virtually every country covered it, and the New Yorker magazine famously sent Political Philosopher Hanna Arendt to cover it. (Arendt's "Totalitarianism" is one of the most important books of the 20th century.) It was her reporting that led her to coin her now ubiquitous phrase "The Banality of Evil" when she first saw Eichmann, a small bespectacled man sitting in his bulletproof glass case.
Sadly though, Arendt spent precious little time at the trial, and missed ALL of Eichmann's own testimony so her report was not at all accurate.
What came out in the trial was exactly how bloodthirsty Eichmann had been. Far from "just following orders" Eichmann had relished his task and had expressed regret that he hadn't done more.
Back on point. So, at the time of Eichmann's capture and trial most of the world did not know the details of what had happened.
Even more surprisingly, most Israeli's didn't know, or didn't discuss it.
So, the chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner had decided that it was critical that survivors testify. Not just about seeing Eichmann at the camps, but about what had happened.
This testimony again stunned the world. The outlining of the Wansee conference, the meeting in which Reinhold Heidrich had actually assigned Eichmann to oversee the slaughter of the entire Jewish population of the Reich (in their view, the world) which had been unknown until then - the actual meeting at which the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe" had been formulated, left no doubt that Eichmann had been the master architect of the most heinous crime the world had ever seen.
Still, after the trial, the Holocaust was not what it is today. Remember, the trial was in Hebrew, and German, and still, in 1960 television was limited, even here in the US TV's were a luxury not an every household item.
The real breakthrough on the recognition of the Holocuast in the US was the TV miniseries which introduced the world to Meryl Streep, "The Holocaust" on ABC, in 1978.
For the next few days, I will be posting various articles about different aspects of the trial.
It is the 50th anniversary of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the man who was largely credited with the actual mechanical creation of, and carrying out of Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" i.e. the Holocaust in all of it's brutal efficiency.
One of the interesting things is the loss of historical perspective that we have today, versus in 1961.
Many of you, like me, were not alive then, or were too young to know what was going on in the world.
In the immediate aftermath of WWII, Europe was in a shambles.
The immediate issue for the allied forces, with regard to the death camp survivors, was how to try and nurse them back to health.
They could not be just given food, as a huge percentage were suffering from Typhus, Dysentery, and other diseases of extreme malnutrition and lack of even basic hygiene.
Even more, like many of the other residents of Europe, there was no place for these people to go back to. The Soviets and the Germans had both engaged in scorched earth policies on retreat, and of course, the allies bombed many of the major cities, like Dresden, into oblivion.
Refugees remained in camps until 1956, more than a decade after the end of the war in Europe.
If you know any survivors, you can ask them, but most of them did not want to discuss what they had seen, and what they had been through. The Jews did not know how to deal with what had happened to them, and their families. It was like waking up from a 15 year nightmare, except that your loved ones were dead.
In addition, the British were actively trying to prevent migration to the Mandate of Palestine, and then to the new nation of Israel.
Those that did make it, quickly became involved in trying to forge the new nation and defend it. Israel was attacked immediately upon the declaration of the state, and then again in 1956 by Egypt.
Just as importantly, unlike today's world of 24 hour news cycle, videophones, etc, there was no way to learn of what happened in Europe at the death camps unless one of the liberating soldiers wanted to discuss it. And since the Americans had not liberated the worst camps, there was only so much they could discuss, although again, most had no interest in talking about what they saw. Without video cameras, cable news, or even nightly news on the 3 networks (news reports back then were only 15 minutes long and mostly local) there was just no way to find out.
And in fact, the worst camps, Auschwitz and it's sub camps, and all the camps in Poland, Czechoslavakia and other points east, were liberated by the Soviets, who had engaged in their own holocaust in the Ukraine, so they had no interest in advertising what happened.
The only way to see what had happened were from the films that were played during the Nuremberg trials. Even the trials though, did not anticipate the prosecution focusing on the Holocaust. The principle charge was waging aggressive war, and that was the chief line of questioning. However, when the films were played near the end of the trial, the news observers were left crying, or worse.
The newsreels were not shown in the United States and only small amounts of information about what had happened got out.
Dwight Eisenhower did declare martial law, and ordered all German townspeople to tour the camps in their regions and to bury the remaining skeletal corpses, but once that immediate action was over, the German people became enmeshed in what would eventually be termed the "economic miracle" of the government of post war Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.
Most importantly about Adenauer was that his national security adviser, Hans Globke, had worked with Eichmann in the Department of Jewish Affairs, and in fact, had been one of the architects of Hitler's Nuremberg Laws.
The Americans, who, through the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and the new Cold War with the Soviets, were trying to capture as much of the European sentiment as they could.
Both Adenauer's government, and the various allied governments had no interest in advertising the help they were receiving from the former Nazis (how 'former' is something historians still debate).
As a result of all of these things, by the time Eichmann was captured in Buenos Aries, Argentina on May 11, 1960 by agents of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, led by their director Isser Harel, the world knew little of the horrors that had been witnessed, or had forgotten already.
Harel wrote a wonderful book about this covert operation entitled "The House on Garibaldi Street". It is in fact, a model for many espionage novels, which can't help fail to live up to the real live suspense of the true story of the tracking, capture and removal of Eichmann from Argentina to Israel to stand trial.
The trial was stunning for the world. News agencies from virtually every country covered it, and the New Yorker magazine famously sent Political Philosopher Hanna Arendt to cover it. (Arendt's "Totalitarianism" is one of the most important books of the 20th century.) It was her reporting that led her to coin her now ubiquitous phrase "The Banality of Evil" when she first saw Eichmann, a small bespectacled man sitting in his bulletproof glass case.
Sadly though, Arendt spent precious little time at the trial, and missed ALL of Eichmann's own testimony so her report was not at all accurate.
What came out in the trial was exactly how bloodthirsty Eichmann had been. Far from "just following orders" Eichmann had relished his task and had expressed regret that he hadn't done more.
Back on point. So, at the time of Eichmann's capture and trial most of the world did not know the details of what had happened.
Even more surprisingly, most Israeli's didn't know, or didn't discuss it.
So, the chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner had decided that it was critical that survivors testify. Not just about seeing Eichmann at the camps, but about what had happened.
This testimony again stunned the world. The outlining of the Wansee conference, the meeting in which Reinhold Heidrich had actually assigned Eichmann to oversee the slaughter of the entire Jewish population of the Reich (in their view, the world) which had been unknown until then - the actual meeting at which the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe" had been formulated, left no doubt that Eichmann had been the master architect of the most heinous crime the world had ever seen.
Still, after the trial, the Holocaust was not what it is today. Remember, the trial was in Hebrew, and German, and still, in 1960 television was limited, even here in the US TV's were a luxury not an every household item.
The real breakthrough on the recognition of the Holocuast in the US was the TV miniseries which introduced the world to Meryl Streep, "The Holocaust" on ABC, in 1978.
For the next few days, I will be posting various articles about different aspects of the trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
