COULD WE HAVE STOPPED HITLER?

"Immediately after Hitler's rise to power, American
Jews mounted a formidable economic war to topple the Nazi regime...

We were determined, courageous, and resourceful--but, ultimately, divided."

"Relentless in exploiting the Nazis' vulnerability, Rabbi Wise and the other boycott leaders were determined to form one cohesive international movement under the banner "Starve Germany into submission this winter." But Hitler succeeded in averting this scenario by exploiting divisions within world Jewry."-

COULD WE HAVE STOPPED HITLER?

Could American Jews have acted sooner and done more tosave European Jewry?
by Edwin Black

Reform Judaism, Fall 1999
http://reformjudaismmag.net/999eb.html

In the enormous shadow of guilt that seized American Jewry after the Holocaust, the answer all too often has been, "We didn't do enough." We are quick to shoulder the onus of self-blame for having been timid citizens, afraid to stir the waters in uncertain prewar times. But this version of history is untrue.

Immediately after Hitler's rise to power, American Jews mounted a formidable economic war to topple the Nazi regime. Just weeks after Hitler assumed power on January 30, 1933, a patchwork of competing Jewish forces, led by American Jewish Congress president Rabbi Stephen Wise, civil rights crusader Louis Untermeyer, and the combative Jewish War Veterans, initiated a highly effective boycott of German goods and services.

Each advanced the boycott in its own way, but sought to build a united anti-Nazi coalition that could deliver an economic death blow to the Nazi party, which had based its political ascent almost entirely on promises to rebuild the strapped German economy.

The boycotters were encouraged by the early successes of their loud, boisterous campaign, complete with nationwide protest meetings, picket signs, and open threats to destroy Germany's economy if the Reich's anti-Jewish actions persisted. Skilled organizing from unions, political groups, and commercial trade associations carried the boycott's message to every facet of American society and abroad.

Depression-wracked nations around the world quickly began to shift their buying habits from the entrenched German market to less expensive, alternative goods.

The anti-Hitler protest movement culminated in a gigantic rally at Madison Square Garden on March 27,1933, organized by Rabbi Wise and the American Jewish Congress. More than 55,000 protesters crammed into the Garden and surrounding streets. Simultaneous rallies were held in 70 other metropolitan areas in the U.S. and in Europe. Radio hookups broadcast the New York event to hundreds of cities throughout the world.

he boycott unnerved the Nazis, who believed that Jews wielded supernatural international economic power. They knew that in the past Jews had used boycotts effectively against Russian Czar Nicholas II to combat his persecution of Jews, and automaker Henry Ford to halt his anti-Semitic campaign. Whether or not this new boycott actually possessed the punishing power to crush the Reich economy was irrelevant; what mattered was that Germany perceived the Jewish-led boycott as the greatest threat to its survival--and reacted accordingly.

Relentless in exploiting the Nazis' vulnerability, Rabbi Wise and the other boycott leaders were determined to form one cohesive international movement under the banner "Starve Germany into submission this winter." But Hitler succeeded in averting this scenario by exploiting divisions within world Jewry. The Nazi counter offensive was launched at a secret meeting in Berlin, just six months after the Nazis took power and at the height of the anti-German boycott.

On August 7, 1933, an official delegation of four German and Palestinian Zionists and one independent Palestinian Jewish businessman were ushered into a conference room at the Economics Ministry in Berlin.

The Jewish negotiators were greeted courteously by Hans Hartenstein, director of the German Foreign Currency Control Office. They talked for some time about investment, emigration, and public opinion, but the underlying theme was the boycott. The Nazis wanted to know how far the Zionists were willing to go in subverting the boycott. The Zionists wanted to know how far the Reich was willing to go in allowing them to rescue German Jews.

Hartenstein was about to call the inconclusive meeting to a close when a messenger arrived with a telegram from German Consul Heinrich Wolff in Tel Aviv, who advised Hartenstein that concluding a deal with the Zionist delegation was the best way to break the crippling boycott. Hartenstein complied, and the Transfer Agreement was born.

Three days later, the Reich Economics Ministry issued the pact as Decree 54/33. The Transfer Agreement permitted Jews to leave Germany and take some of their assets in the form of new German goods, which the Zionist movement would then sell in Palestine and eventually throughout much of the world. The German goods were purchased with frozen Jewish assets held in Germany. When the merchandise was sold, the sale proceeds were given to the emigrants, minus a commission for administration and a portion reserved for Zionist state-building projects, such as industrial infrastructure and land purchase.

Two Zionist transfer clearing houses were established: one under the supervision of the German Zionist Federation in Berlin and the other under the authority of the Anglo-Palestine Trust Company in Tel Aviv. TheBerlin-based office exchanged blocked Jewish cash for German wares.

The Tel Aviv office, called Haavara Trust and Transfer Office Ltd. (Haavara Ltd.), sold the swapped German merchandise on the open market, collected the proceeds, and matched them up to the German Jewish emigrants whose money had been used. Organized under the Palestinian commercial code, Haavara Ltd. was operated by conventional business managers. Its stock was wholly owned by the Anglo-Palestine Bank, the official Zionist financial institution that later changed its name to Bank Leumi.

The Transfer Agreement enabled both Germany and the Jewish community in Palestine to achieve key objectives. Transfer helped Germany defeat the boycott, create jobs at home, and convert Jewish assets into Reich economic recovery. It helped the Zionists overcome a major obstacle to continued Jewish immigration and expansion in Palestine. Under British regulations then in force in Palestine, Jews could not enter without a so-called Capitalist Certificate, proving they possessed the equivalent of $5,000. To be in possession of such a sum qualified the immigrant as a "capitalist" or investor. Transfer made capitalist immigration possible because destitute Germans received the required $5,000 (actually the immigrant's own seized funds) once the assigned German goods were sold.

The Transfer Agreement also allowed "potential emigrants" to protect their assets in special blocked bank accounts, which could not be accessed without purchasing and reselling German goods. Between the active and potential emigration accounts, the Transfer apparatus, through official and unofficial transactions, generated an estimated 100 million Reichmarks. The more German goods Zionists sold, the more Jews could get out of Germany and into Palestine, and the more money would be available to build the Jewish State. The price of this commerce-linked exodus was the abandonment of the economic war against Nazi Germany.

The Transfer Agreement tore the Jewish world apart, turning leader against leader, threatening rebellion and even assassination. In the painful choice between relief vs. rescue, most of the Jewish world opted for relief; that is, defending the right of Jews to remain where they were as free and equal citizens. But the Zionist leadership favored rescue, which was completely in keeping with their solution to anti-Semitism--a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

A half-century earlier, the Zionist visionary TheodorHerzl had foreseen that a "Jewish Company" would be created to manage the businesses and assets of Jews who immigrated to the future Jewish State. Their assets would be sold off at a substantial discount to cooperating "honest anti-Semites," who would then step into the former occupations of the departing Jews.

Zionists saw Haavara as Herzl's envisioned "Jewish Company" and Transfer as an opportunity to contract for a more secure Jewish future. Forty years of struggle to create a Jewish State had come to a sudden and spectacular turning point. The Zionist leadership's awesome and difficult task was to enter into cold, anguished negotiations with Jew-haters, not in an atmosphere of emotion and frenzy, but with diplomacy and statecraft.

By the end of April 1933, total Reich exports were down 10 percent as a result of the boycott. But the economic war against Germany still lacked cohesiveness. Stephen Wise, who possessed the organization, the universal recognition, and the will to unify and direct an efficient campaign, knew that only a central group could target specific German industries and avoid duplication of effort. Wise also envisioned an enforcement apparatus insuring that any entity that traded with Germany would itself become a boycott target. This strategy set the Zionists and the boycott movement on a collision course. If the Zionists were to finalize a merchandise-based pact with Nazi Germany, then Jewish Palestine would be in violation of the boycott and its products and fundraising declared untouchable. Wise and other boycotters felt certain that this threat would derail any exploratory commercial talks between the Zionists and Hitler's regime.

In fact, secret preliminary and partial negotiations and even interim "transfer" agreements had begun in April 1933. When news of these early negotiations leaked out, the Zionists split along Revisionist and Mapai (Labor) lines. Transfer became a convenient battleground in an already tense atmosphere in which Zionist factions fought over economics, settlement policy, and other issues.

The Transfer deal was widely seen by Revisionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky as an unholy pact with the Nazis that would mainly benefit Labor-dominated Zionist institutions. Protest meetings, screaming headlines, public debates, and rancorous shouting matches broke out in Zionist circles throughout Europe and Palestine.

DavidBen-Gurion and other Laborites retaliated, calling Jabotinsky "the Jewish Hitler" and his black-shirted Revisionist followers "Fascists." Revisionists became the most ardent anti-Nazi boycott organizers, attacking any Jew or Zionist who would do business with Hitler. It was all complicated by the fact that the Jewish Palestinian economy was inextricably linked to German commerce. Indeed, Germany was the number-one customer for Palestine's number-one export product--oranges.

At the center of the maelstrom was Chaim Arlosoroff, amember of the Jewish Agency Executive Committee. This quiet academician and visionary designed the Transfer plan and supervised all negotiations with the Reich. So tense was the public hysteria over what Transfer was--and was not--that in May 1933 Arlosoroff granted a lengthy interview to a Zionist newspaper disclosing the entire plan, which only 24 hours earlier had been marked "Top Secret."

On June 16, 1933, the Revisionist newspaper Hazit Haam published what many considered a death threat: "There will be no forgiveness for those who for greed have sold out the honor of their people to madmen and anti-Semites.... The Jewish people have always known how to size up betrayers...and it will know how to react to this crime." That evening, Chaim Arlosoroff and his wife Sima took a Shabbat walk along the beach in north Tel Aviv at a point now occupied by the Tel Aviv Hilton. Two men dressed as Arabs approached the couple and asked for the time. Sima was worried, but Arlosoroff assured her, "Don't worry, they are Jews."A few moments later, the men returned, one with aBrowning automatic. A bullet flashed into Arlosoroff's chest, mortally wounding him. Two Revisionists were charged with the murder and sentenced to death, but they were released later on technical grounds.

The boycott question also divided the American Jewish community. Leaders of B'nai Brith and the American Jewish Committee, organizations largely comprised of German Jews who had for decades preached staunch Jewish defense, feared that the boycott would subject their brethren in Germany to retaliation. The Jewish War Veterans, who well remembered their German enemy from the Great War, were not swayed by such reservations. Though it lacked the resources of the larger Jewish organizations, the JWV pressed for a total commercial war against Germany. Joining them was feisty Louis Untermeyer, founder of his own anti-Nazi organization, the American League for the Defense ofJewish Rights.

In Germany, the besieged Jewish community opposed the boycott. They fervently appealed to friends and relatives in American Jewish organizations to halt any talk of protest or boycott, fearing the reprisals promised by Reich authorities and Nazi hooligans for any encouragement of anti-Nazi actions. As a result, B'nai B'rith and the American Jewish Committee did their best to blunt the boycott's impact.

The Eighteenth Zionist Congress opened on August 18 in Prague, only 11 days after the Transfer Agreement was sealed in Berlin. Advocates of the pact planned to outmaneuver, outtalk, outscheme, and outlast boycott proponents. The August 7 pact would be adopted, either overtly before the assembled delegates or covertly in closed-door rules committees. Either way, Transfer would go forward.

At the Congress, Wise fought the Transfer Agreement privately and publicly. He lost. After midnight motions and surprise votes, the Transfer Agreement was adopted on August 24 as official policy. Zionist discipline was imposed upon all boycotters, including Stephen Wise. Despite his allegiance to Zionism, Wise vowed to press ahead with his plan to form a unified global boycott within the framework of a so-called "Central Jewish Committee," which was to be declared two weeks later in Geneva at the Second World JewishCongress.

But as the days progressed, the plight of German Jewry became more and more desperate. Nazism's stranglehold on Germany appeared all the more irreversible. European anti-Semites everywhere were following suit. Jewry seemed finished in Europe. A Jewish homeland in Palestine seemed the only answer.

September 8 now became the crucial date: the Central Jewish Committee would be established at the much-publicized Second World Jewish Congress in Geneva to deal the economic deathblow to Germany. In the end, however, Wise bowed to Zionist pressure and simply backed down. The boycott was abandoned. A dejected Wise left for Paris. On the train, he met a14-year-old German Jewish girl, a refugee, who had heard about the Geneva meeting. Wise asked her whether she thought the decisions there had helped or done damage. Looking at him, the young girl answered, "Esmuss sein, es muss sein." "What must be, must be."

In the weeks that followed, Wise dodged reporters' questions about the decision. Haunted by the girl's remarks, Wise simply said, "What must be, must be."Decisions had been made that only God could judge, only history could vindicate.

After war erupted on September 29, 1939, the dispossession of the Jews turned to annihilation. The Transfer Agreement served as a lifeline to the Jews who still could be saved. All debate about Haavara among Jewish groups ceased. The less said the better, lest the Nazis cancel the deal. Ultimately, the war did force an end to Transfer, but not before some 55,000 Jews were able to find a haven in Palestine. Those who would condemn the Zionist decision to enter into a pact with Hitler have the luxury of hindsight.

In 1933, the Zionists could not have foreseen the death trains, gas chambers, and crematoria. But they did understand that the end was now at hand for Jews in Europe. Nazism was unstoppable. The emphasis now became saving Jewish lives and establishing a Jewish State.

From the Zionist point of view, the boycott did succeed. Without it, there would never have been a Transfer Agreement, which contributed immeasurably to a strengthened Jewish community in Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel. And Transfer would never have happened had American Jews not mobilized as quickly as they did, only days after Hitler rose to power.

No one can say what combination of factors might or not might have stopped Hitler. What is clear, however, is that American Jewry did not react to the Nazi threat with indifference, cowardice, or indecisiveness. We were determined, courageous, and resourceful--but, ultimately, divided.

http://reformjudaismmag.net/999eb.html

US and Israel trying to destabilise Hamas

US and Israel 'trying to destabilise Hamas'·

Report claims west plans to block Palestinian funds
Islamist group defiant as government takes shape

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem, Conal Urquhart in Gaza City and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

Wednesday February 15, 2006, The Guardian

Hamas has accused the US and Israel of refusing to accept the result of a democratic election, after a report that the two countries are discussing means to destabilise and bring down a Hamas-led Palestinian administration.

The New York Times, citing diplomatic sources in Jerusalem, said Washington and Israel intend to block funding for the Palestinian Authority in an attempt to ensure that Hamas cabinet ministers fail and new elections are called.

After Hamas's election victory, the US and EU warned the Islamist group that unless it renounced violence and recognised Israel's right to exist they would cut funding for the Palestinian Authority.

Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas MP, said attempts to bring down a future Hamas government were hypocritical.

"This is ... a rejection of the democratic process, which the Americans are calling for day and night," he told the Associated Press. "It's an interference and a collective punishment of our people because they practised the democratic process in a transparent and honest way."A Hamas leader in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar, dismissed any threats. "Those who built their structure on the basis of the Qur'an ... cannot budge because of promises from America or a dollar from Europe," he told a conference in Cairo yesterday.

"I wish America would cut off its aid. We do not need this satanic money."Officials in Washington moved quickly to distance the Bush administration from the report. "There is no plot," said White House spokesman, Scott McClellan.

However, administration officials are considering putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states to ensure they do not make up the shortfall in funding.

Israel's defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, described Hamas as "part of the axis of evil that includes Iran, Syria, and now extends to the Palestinian Authority".

The new parliament, in which Hamas holds 74 of 132 seats, is to be sworn in on Saturday but it is not known when a prime minister or government will be appointed.

On Monday the outgoing Fatah party passed legislation to boost the power of the president and Fatah leader, Mahmoud Abbas, by giving him the authority to appoint a court to veto legislation. Hamas said it would try to overturn the move.

Yehiyeh Musa, a Hamas MP, said the party had set up working groups to plan for when it takes control of key ministries. "We are trying to bring together the cream of Palestinian professionals from Hamas and elsewhere to set up special working groups. Their job will be to create five-year plans to reverse the last 12 years of catastrophic management," he said.

Hamas MPs have also spent the week visiting PA ministries, courts and police stations to reassure employees that they will not lose their jobs. Despite its election victory, the tools of the state remain in Fatah's hands and the two parties will need to cooperate. "We want to give a very strong message of reconciliation. We hope to reach a real partnership," said Mr Musa.

Hamas officials have travelled to Egypt and Jordan to reassure their governments that it has no interest in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood in those countries, while sending out further messages to the international community not to cut funding for the Palestinians prematurely.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

The clash of fundamentalisms

Asia Times Online, 15 February 2006

The clash of fundamentalisms
By Ehsan Ahrari

We live in an era when two types of fundamentalisms are running rampant. One is religious fundamentalism, the other is its secular version.

Both types of fundamentalism are equally dangerous, especially since neither side realizes how treacherous it is, and also because the people on both sides are convinced that they are so right and other side is so wrong.

Muslim hardliners have been most visible in their practice of extremism since the 1990s, if not earlier. Then their ranks were taken over by the likes of al-Qaeda, who declared a global jihad against the United States.

There is no denying that because of the absence of any distance between religion and politics in Islam, most Muslim grievances are couched in the language of religion. One has to look at the history of Islam to validate it. In the 19th century, Islam also became an anti-colonial force. As such, its forces fought losing battles with European colonialists. By the same token, Islamic forces of the early 20th century (the so-called "Basmachis") clashed with the communist czars of Russia and met the same fate, when they put up bloody resistance against the communist takeover of their homeland in Central Asia.

In the era between the two world wars, Islam remained in the background, while Arab and other Muslim countries were busy emancipating themselves from the yoke of colonialism-imperialism. In Indonesia, Sukarno championed socialism and secularism, since it was in vogue among all major leaders of the so-called non-aligned countries.

The Arab leadership of the republican states created the goddess of pan-Arabism. The Arab monarchies remained loyal to Islam, but without trying to promote it as a regional or global force. After the humiliating defeat of pan-Arabism at the hands of Zionism in the fateful Arab-Israeli war of 1967, that idea was thoroughly discredited, but did not really die. At the same time, Islam did not truly emerge as a visible or a voluble medium of political expression until the Iranian revolution.

The Iranian revolution of 1978-79 - which was in essence a political movement of the Shi'ite Islamic forces - was the first occasion when Muslim voices were heard raised across the globe against Western subjugation. The world also became aware of an Islamic framework of governance called "Islamic government", or at least one version of it. The dynamics of the Islamic revolution of Iran left an indelible imprint on the memory of the world, especially the Western part of it.

The Iranian revolution was indeed a revolution in the sense that it discarded monarchy and brought to power a republican form of government. It was an expression of the long suffering of the Iranians at the hands of an Anglo-American puppet, Mohammad Reza, the shah. In that sense, it also became a powerful expression of the pent- up hatred of the people against the two Western powers - two democracies to boot - which shamelessly sabotaged democracy in 1953 and brought back the monarchy. The chief rationale underlying that Anglo-American measure was that a hand-picked monarch would show his gratitude by offering the most favorable concessions to their oil companies and would also provide guaranteed access to Iranian oil.

If the Islamic government of Iran had succeeded in providing its populace economic prosperity and internal harmony, it could have been perceived by the world as a viable model that all Muslim countries should at least consider emulating. But that was not to be the case.

One can look for excuses - one being that the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s was a major setback, another being that the US did its best to isolate Iran - but the chasm that was created between the US and Iran in the aftermath of the revolution remains wide and appears to be getting wider. Both sides are responsible for it. Now Iran's determination to continue with its uranium-enrichment program seems to be pushing Washington and Tehran toward the politics of brinkmanship, a potentially dangerous development indeed.

No one should forget that the US itself played a crucial role in the militant aspect of Islamic resurgence in the sense that it revived the doctrine of militant jihad during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Washington was fully aware that Islam could be used as powerful political rhetoric against it, since at that time the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was doing just that in Iran.

The defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan created in the minds of the Islamists the notion that they were solely responsible for bringing an end to the occupation in 1989. That is an important point, because that very idea - no matter how wrong it happens to be - also drives today's Islamists in fighting a global jihad against the remaining superpower. And the struggle between the global jihadis and the US has emerged as the major conflict of our time. From the side of the jihadis, the essential aspect of their global struggle with the US is about the primacy of Islam.

The fact that the US does not see it that way may not be too relevant here, because even a majority of those Muslims who don't share the radical perspectives of global jihad are sympathetic to the proposition that their religion is under attack.To add fuel to the fire, the US decided to embark on a program of democratizing the Middle East, after invading and occupying Iraq. Even though it had already made significant progress in that direction by toppling the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, the Afghan military operation was not seen by a majority of Muslims as an invasion of a Muslim country by a Christian power. By and large, it was seen as a defensive measure by the Americans.

The Iraqi invasion, on the contrary, was seen as an offensive move, and one that had "sinister" designs against Islam, whereby first Iraq and then the rest of the Muslim world would be subjugated in the name of democracy.The fact that the administration of US President George W Bush promoted Western secular democracy for the Muslim Middle East also whipped up Muslim passions against this "anti-Islamic" alternative. Even if one were to accept that the idea of promoting democracy in authoritarian regions is a noble goal - and it indeed is - the manner of promoting it (by toppling an existing government and by occupying it) became its major enemy.

The secular fundamentalists of the US did not understand that reality, or perhaps they did, but could not care less. What they also didn't seem to understand was that implanting democracy in Iraq through invasion might have doomed it as a form of government elsewhere in the Middle East for a long time.

As the major conflict between the US and the world of Islam was still going through its volatile phase, secular fundamentalists in Europe decided to publish cartoons insulting the Prophet of Islam. Even though the Nordic countries are insignificant in the larger conflict that has been brewing between the US and the Islamic world, they have had enough exposure to Islamic countries to know what is permissible and acceptable about their religion to Muslims. One explanation is that, somehow, certain Nordics also wanted to pitch in and show their own lack of regard - if not contempt - of Muslims, when they showed their contempt in the name of freedom of expression.

What is at issue here is that the fundamentalists of both sides are equally at fault. The secular fanatics are as much responsible for fanning the current flames of hatred and turbulence in Europe and other Muslim countries as their Muslim counterparts.

It is very easy in the West - where secularism is understood more clearly, especially when it involves someone else's religion than their own - to get on one's high horse and condemn religious fanaticism. Religious fanaticism should be condemned, and condemned unequivocally. But secular fanaticism should also be condemned, especially when it acquires ostensibly a benign form, while it is perceived as nothing but malignant by those who are hurt by it. Ample consideration must also to be given to the proposition that secular fanatics should also examine their own behavior about the overall issue of insulting someone else's religion, then call it merely an exercise of free speech.

Muslims living in Nordic countries - or anywhere else - don't have to impose their religious template on others (as some Nordic peddlers of freedom of expression are uttering these days). However, expecting a due regard to Muslim religious sensibilities (or toward other religions) is very much part of polite behavior that those countries claim to be championing everywhere in the world. Besides, being offensive and derisive does not have to be the signature mode of expressing one's thoughts. If so, those who express them that way are also speaking volumes about the depth of ignorance to which they can reach. In this sense, there is little difference between the religious fundamentalists and the secular fundamentalists.

The time has arrived when partisans of both camps should stop indulging in sloganeering and blame-gaming, and start communicating with each other, as Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi suggested last Friday. Voices of reason have to prevail if we are continue to live with each other.

Ehsan Ahrari is a CEO of Strategic Paradigms, an Alexandria, Virginia- based defense consultancy. He can be reached at eahrari@cox.net or stratparadigms@yahoo.com. His columns appear regularly in Asia Times Online. His website: www.ehsanahrari.com.

"Jordan editor sacked for reprinting Islam cartoons"

Jordan editor sacked for reprinting Islam cartoons"

by Suleimam al-Khalidi (Reuters, February 03, 2006)

Amman, Jordan - The publisher of a Jordanian tabloid weekly newspaper has sacked a chief editor who reprinted cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad that have caused outrage across the Islamic world. Editor Jihad Momani apologised on Friday and said he had wanted to illustrate the extent of the insult against Islam and Muslims in the Danish cartoons. Momani was dismissed by the publishers of his Shihan weekly hours after its Thursday edition carried the cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb. Anger has erupted in the Middle East after more European newspapers reprinted the cartoons, originally published by Danish daily Jyllands-Posten last September. Muslims consider any images of Mohammad to be blasphemous. The cartoons have touched off an international row and debate on the freedom of the media and respect for religion. Media owners and editors in the majority conservative Muslim country of Jordan said Shihan's article was being used by a hostile Western media to show that the fuss over the cartoons was overblown and that Arab papers were themselves reprinting them. Arab Printers Company, the publisher, also withdrew copies of the popular tabloid from news stands across the country and promised tough moves against those involved. In a public letter of apology, Momani said he did not mean to cause offence by reprinting the cartoons as part of an article headlined "an Islamic Intifada (Uprising) against the Danish insult to Islam." "Oh I ask God to forgive me and I announce to everyone my deep regret for the gross mistake I have committed in Shihan without intention, which I fell into in my enthusiasm to defend our religion and the life of the Prophet," Momani said. The Paris newspaper France Soir sacked its managing editor this week after the daily printed the cartoons. Shihan also published in its article a list of Danish firms and companies that Islamist activists have urged consumers to boycott through a mobile text message and e-mail campaign.

"Muhammadiyah seen leaning toward more conservative bent"

"Muhammadiyah seen leaning toward more conservative bent"

by Hera Diani ("Jakarta Post," February 03, 2006)

It's a matter of interpretation whether the departure of Muslim scholar Dawam Rahardjo from Muhammadiyah was a resignation or dismissal. Yet in his opinion and that of other Muslim scholars, his exit indicates a growing and unbending conservatism of the country's second largest Muslim organization.

Muhammadiyah chairman Din Syamsuddin said Wednesday Dawam was not fired, but "resigned" of his own accord. "There has never been any discussion about his dismissal, although there were indeed many demands from our members to dismiss him. But we never talked about it," said Din, who resumed the organization's leadership last year from Ahmad Syafii Maarif.

Complaints about Dawam, he said, ranged from poor performance, disrespect of the organization and a dissenting viewpoint. The latter centered on Dawam's open stance toward Ahmadiyah and Lia Aminuddin, the sect's founder and self-proclaimed prophet who was arrested in late December for blasphemy.

According to Din, Dawam was dismissed from his position as the organization's economic supervisor in the previous period of leadership, due to what he termed a lack of responsibility and untrustworthiness.

"And now since he has resigned, we never invite him (to organization events)," said Din, adding that Dawam no longer has the right to refer to himself as a Muhammadiyah figure. Dawam, meanwhile, denied he resigned or that he was dismissed from his position as economic supervisor, saying he would request an explanation from the organization.

He believed he was dismissed for refusing to stay silent on religious prejudice. "I must've been dismissed because of my standpoint against violence against religious groups. I can't just sit still watching fellow Muslims prevent Christians from praying," he said, referring to the closure of several churches in different areas of the country.

Dawam said Muhammadiyah, which boasts about 30 million members, was becoming radical, and would not take a position in an interfaith conflict. Muslim scholar Komaruddin Hidayat said Dawam's departure showed there was order to Muhammadiyah's organizational structure, albeit rigid. On the other hand, he said, the organization was overreacting in a puritanical effort to uphold tradition, with Ahmadiyah and Lia of little consequence as religious nonconformists.

"Lia cannot threaten or ruin Islam. This phenomena repeats itself -- we have had similar figures in history, like Syech Siti Djenar, and they were harmless," said the professor of Islamic studies at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University in Jakarta.

As the second largest Muslim organization, Komaruddin said, Muhammadiyah should be more democratic and respect different opinions. "Just state that Muhammadiyah's stance is such, while Dawam's is different. Open up a dialog. Don't see people like Dawam as defiant because he can be a bridge for dialog between different religions."

The conservative Din is also leader of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), whose edicts in 2005 include the banning of Islamic interpretations based on liberalism, secularism and pluralism. The edicts also stated that Muslims must consider their religion to be the true one religion, and consider other faiths as wrong, as well as stipulating that Ahmadiyah was heretical.

Former Muhammadiyah executive Muhammad Syafi'i Anwar urged Din to take a more intellectual position on issues and protect all members of the organization. Regardless of the controversy about Dawam, Syafi'i said he regretted the organization's growing conservatism, which he said made moderate members uneasy.

"The Muhammadiyah Young Intellectuals Network often complains about being condemned for being more progressive. I think as a leader, Din should be able to bridge the differences, and protect them instead of being judgmental. Otherwise, this mass organization will deteriorate," said the executive director of the International Center for Islam and Pluralism.

"Theatre of God"

"Theatre of God"

by Steve Tomkins ("BBC News," February 02, 2006)

London, England - Every Sunday the London theatre which hosts the Queen musical We Will Rock You opens its doors to a different crowd - the youthful worshippers of a vibrant Australian church called Hillsong, where rock is as important as prayer.

Across the country abandoned churches have been renovated, converted and reopened for a purpose entirely different to that for which they were originally built. Wine bars, restaurants, apartments...

I've even visited a pet shop in Cheshire that was once a church. This is one kind of conversion that seems a clear symptom of the decline of British church. Until, perhaps, you realise that the opposite is happening too. There are churches meeting not in traditional consecrated buildings but in schools, cinemas, business premises, and even a (covered) swimming pool.

I've been to one in a pub, though never yet in a pet shop. So the crowds milling outside the Dominion Theatre in London's Tottenham Court Road this Sunday will not be there for a matinee of We Will Rock You, the Ben Elton-penned homage to Freddie Mercury and Queen. They'll be there for church.

Hillsong is an Australian church which was founded in Sydney in 1983 and started spreading franchise-like, with branches now in London, Leatherhead, Paris and Kiev. Its emphasis is on modern, vibrant worship, high production values and personal commitment. The pavement outside the Dominion is busy with shoppers as ever, but a stream of young people are turning aside from the worship of mammon and stepping through the legs of a giant Freddie Mercury hoarding, into the venue. There is no clue from the street of what this is about, except the intensely friendly door staff in corporate puffa jackets; and they hardly look like church wardens.

In the foyer, attractive, smiling young people carry trays of sweets and Hillsong brochures. Rock music fills the air. Stalls sell Hillsong CDs and DVDs. Once in the auditorium/sanctuary, the Dominion no longer seems such an incongruous place for a religious service because this is not church as you might know it. Rather than pre-matins hush, a pop video full of challenging messages plays on a huge screen, while the stage is set out for a concert. No pulpit, no altar, just lots of guitars. An urgent beat begins. The congregation is on its feet clapping. The band leaps on stage and segues seamlessly from the video into the first song. There follows a full hour of music, so solid I can't tell where one song starts and another ends - especially as they only do their own songs. It's like Abbey Road.

It's the first time I've seen a church music group with two drum kits. The Anglican Book of Common Prayer says, "Lead me to the Rock". There are no prayer books here, but the sentiment couldn't be put better. And the congregation need no convincing - their hands clapping and waving and faces beaming. The scene is a far cry from when Hillsong started in Britain in 1992, brought over by a small team of members who emigrated to London. Believing the capital was in urgent need of Christian mission, the first meetings were in members' homes. It graduated to a school, then a series of colleges and theatres, before arriving at the Dominion, slap bang in the heart of London's West End. Back at the service, the only interruption to the music is for the offering.

It is introduced with a 10-minute pep-talk from the casually dressed vicar on the importance of giving generously. Mixed, but young crowd God greatly rewards those who do, he says, and not just in the spiritual sense, but the financial one too. He expects 10% of their income to go in the bucket. There's such a buzz here - the worship's really amazing, and the talks are inspiring. You go back feeling really ready for the week ahead Debbie, aged 22 Hillsong claims a weekly attendance of 6,000 worshippers across its three Sunday services in London.

The crowd appears to be largely aged 18 to 30, middle-class and multi-ethnic. "We go to church in Bromley, where we live, and come to Hillsong once a month or so," says one congregation member, Debbie, 22. "It's too far to come every week, but it's worth it, 'cause there's such a buzz here. The worship's really amazing, and the talks are inspiring. You go back feeling really ready for the week ahead." Others, like Debbie, are visiting from their local church, says Paul Nevison, Hillsong's leader in London. Some are weekly members who also go to the mid-week teaching and social events in local homes, cafes and pubs. Some just drift in thinking it's We Will Rock You.

It seems like an expensive way to worship, and couldn't the money be better spent? Mr Nevison points to the mission's many projects, from a homeless charity in London to orphanages in Uganda. He plays down the cost of the services, saying they use equipment that is already there, although the financial giving page of Hillsong's brochure makes a big thing of the costs of the sound system and media equipment. After the congregation has dispensed with its financial duties, the band quit the stage for the Rev Gary's sermon which is about commitment in one's spiritual life.

It's quite unlike any church I know, but Mr Nevison believes Hillsong's unique style is crucial in reconnecting young folk with God. "Hillsong," he says, "is fundamentally about creating a new impression of Christianity for a generation who have turned away from God."

Iran warns of missile strike

The Observer, London

Iran warns of missile strike

Revolutionary Guard general puts West on notice not to interfere as Tehran presses ahead with nuclear power programme

Jason Burke, chief Europe correspondent
Sunday January 29, 2006
The Observer

Senior Iranian officials further raised tensions with the West yesterday, implicitly warning that Tehran would use missiles to strike Israel or Western forces stationed in the Gulf if attacked. The statements came as world leaders met at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, with the Middle East high on the agenda. The hardline Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has pressed ahead with a controversial nuclear programme since his election last year. 'The world knows Iran has a ballistic missile power with a range of 2,000km (1,300 miles),' General Yahya Rahim Safavi said on state-run television.

'We have no intention to invade any country [but] we will take effective defence measures if attacked. 'Though world leaders agreed that strong measures were necessary to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapon capacity, there was little consensus this weekend as to what those measures should be. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, yesterday conceded that Britain and the US were divided over using military force.

Responding to comments by US politicians stressing the 'leverage' the military option allowed, Straw said such action was not under discussion. 'I understand that's the American position. Our position is different ... There isn't a military option. And no one is talking about it.

'Britain, along with most EU states, has been pursuing a policy of 'engagement' with the Iranians. Straw was speaking ahead of talks with Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Tehran's continuing defiance of the international pressure has led to growing pressure to refer Iran to the UN security council. Such calls became more urgent after Iran said it was resuming work at its Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Tehran has always said the facility is to provide energy but Straw said there had to be 'objective guarantees' that their nuclear power programme could not lead to a nuclear weapons capability because of their 'unquestionable record of deceit in the past'.

Moscow has suggested that uranium for Iranian reactors could be prepared in Russia, a process that would in theory ensure that the fuel is not enriched to a level that would permit military use. Tehran claims its nuclear programme is designed only for civilian purposes.

Britain is expected to lead calls for UN censure of Iran at an emergency meeting in Vienna this week. The UK is backed by France, Germany and the US. Iran has sought to split the international community, offering economic incentives to India, China and Russia, all of which have strong commercial links with the oil-rich state.

For the moment, Iran's most powerful weapon is the Shahab-3 missile, which can strike more than 2,000km from their launch site, putting Israel and American forces in the Middle East in easy range. The Revolutionary Guard was equipped with the missiles in July 2003.'We are producing these missiles and don't need foreign technology for that,' Safavi said pointedly in his speech to the nation. Iran announced last year that it had developed solid-fuel technology for missiles, a major breakthrough that increases their accuracy.

Safavi also accused US and British intelligence services of provoking unrest in south-west Iran and providing bomb materials to Iranian dissidents. He said the US and Britain were behind bombings on 21 January that killed at least nine people in Ahvaz, near the southern border with Iraq, where 8,500 British soldiers are based around Basra.

'Foreign forces based in Iraq, especially southern Iraq, direct Iranian agents and give them bomb materials,' he said. Iran was monitoring dissidents and their alleged links with the US and British forces.

'We are aware of their meetings in Kuwait and Iraq,' he said. 'We warn them [the US and Britain], especially the MI6 and CIA, that they refrain from interfering in Iran's affairs.'

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

This may be the 'crack in history' that Israel needs

The Sunday Times, LondonWorld

The Sunday Times, January 29, 2006

This may be the 'crack in history' that Israel needs

The last thing Tel Aviv should do now is retreat behind its iron wall in the face of a difficult reality, says Bernard Wasserstein

Palestinians woke on Friday to a green dawn — a mass of verdant Islamist flags heralding a new political era in the closest thing the Arab world has to a democracy.

The conventional wisdom is that the dramatic victory of Hamas over the ruling Fatah party in the elections to the Palestinian legislative council was driven by political despair and outrage at corruption. But we should not take Hamas rhetoric at face value.

Complaints by its voters about corruption in the Palestinian Authority are often followed by gripes that local representatives of the authority have not pulled enough plums out of the foreign aid pudding for their friends and family. And tub-thumping about resistance is accompanied by polls that show most Palestinians support a negotiated, two-state solution.

Now, however, the Palestinians must, like any grown-up political community, take responsibility for their decisions. They have voted into power a group of fanatics with a retrograde social vision and a political outlook not far removed from that of Osama Bin Laden.

But purblind Israeli policies too helped usher Hamas into power, in particular Ariel Sharon’s refusal over the past five years to conduct meaningful negotiations and his decision to withdraw from Gaza unilaterally rather than by agreement and in coordination with Mahmoud Abbas, the most accommodationist Palestinian leader the Israelis have ever faced.

Just two days before the election, the acting Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, signalled a commendable shift in position when he declared: “We will not be able to continue ruling over the territories in which the majority of the Palestinian population lives. We must create a clear boundary as soon as possible, one which will reflect the demographic reality on the ground.”

This, he said, would be accomplished by “negotiations between the two countries, in the accepted manner in which countries resolve their differences”.

Immediately after the Hamas victory, however, he announced: “Israel will conduct no negotiations with a Palestinian government of which even a part is a terrorist organisation that calls for [Israel’s] destruction.”

His new political ally, Shimon Peres, left the door a little more ajar: Israel, he said, would “have to see where [Hamas] is going — back to the road of violence and terror or ahead to the route of peace”.

Are talks between Israel and Hamas conceivable? Three years ago Ephraim Halevy, then head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, uttered some heretical and prophetic thoughts when warning that Hamas was a rising force. “Anyone who thinks it’s possible to ignore such a central element of Palestinian society is simply mistaken,” he said.

“In my view, the strategy vis-à-vis Hamas should be one of brutal force against its terrorist aspect, while at the same time signalling its political and religious leadership that if they take a moderate approach and enter the fabric of the Palestinian establishment, we will not view that as a negative development. In the end there will be no way around Hamas being a partner in the Palestinian government.”

Halevy added: “I am looking for the crack in history. I believe my task is to find that crack and enter it and from there to breach the rock.”

Does this moment offer such a “crack in history”? The most widespread Israeli reaction to the rise of Hamas has been refusal to contemplate negotiation with men with blood on their hands.

In this vision, the Palestinians are judged incapable of negotiations leading to genuine political agreement. Better then to retreat behind an “iron wall”, close the door and throw away the key. This would be a fundamental error. Such a policy may be a short-term palliative to the threat of terrorism; but it is a recipe for long- term alienation and enmity. One way or another Israel, after her own elections on March 28, is likely to resume her slow retreat from territories she occupied in 1967.

Whoever rules Palestine and Israel, both have an interest in ensuring that occupation is succeeded by a stable society rather than by chaos and renewed cycles of terror and repression.

Bernard Wasserstein, a professor of history at the University of Chicago, is the author of Israel and Palestine: Why They Fight and Can They Stop?, Profile Books, £7.99