Red Tigress' Lair

Epilogue: My Campus Address

10.18.04 (7:07 pm)   [edit]
First off, sorry for the delayed post-show update. Been kinda busy.

So I gave my speech. I felt like I could take on the world.

You must understand, it was a point-counterpoint, in a way. A Palestinian girl went before me. She was trying to persuade the audience to stop US aid to Israel, how Israel is a Racist and Apartheid State. I was almost hoping she'd use those two words, as they were already written into my speech. This poor girl even stooped as low as to claim that IDF soldiers defecate and urinate on Palestinians as part of protocol. I know this for a fact to be untrue. Most people with half the sense of a radish would understand that as well.

At any rate, her speech was not very well put together. She had a lot of sometimes good and interesting information, but she spoke too quickly and tried all too much to appeal to people's sympathy and used much rhetoric. That only goes so far. I spoke to people from the audience afterward, and they thought it poorly done.

Then I came and busted out my speech. I was composed, and right to the point. I had my visual aids and my facts. I cited my sources, something which my counterpart failed to do. I was so nervous. My heart pounded as my predecessor smeared propaganda. My heart pounded even louder as I sought to right her wrong. I gave my speech, you can see the full text of it below. I spoke clearly, I spoke slowly enough for people to grasp, and I knew I had done a good job.

When I had stepped down and was leaving, a girl from the audience actually came right up to me and, to my disbelief, instead of chastising me for being a Nazi (as I had originally expected the response to be), she told me she really enjoyed my speech and that she thought my illusion to 9-11 really was appropriate. It hit home to her. She said it sounded like I knew what I was talking about and that I was well-versed in the topic. She appreciated that I wasn't as one-sided as my predecessor. She appreciated that I tried to come up with a solution that was good for everyone and that really showed I was trying to be fair. She had a much better understanding of our struggle.

I wanted to cry.

I thanked her profusely. I couldn't believe it. She thought I really deserved such praise.

All in all, I feel this was a great success. My friend Chelsea, from Canada, was there and she was proud of me too. If all I was able to do with this was to reach that one person, then I feel that day was a great triumph in the interest of fairness and justice. If I touched one person who sympathizes with the Jewish people and the cause of peace in our time, I have won a small battle. Of course, I won't know how many more I was able to reach. I'd like to think that I did though.

And I'm sure there are others who sided with Yasmine (the Palestinian). What can I say to that? I just hope people think enough to see through some of the falsehoods she presented. Like I mentioned, she had a lot of good points (the ones that were accurate). She also made it seem as if Israel had invaded "Palestine," a country which never has existed. This was a major flaw in her argument. She has a right to her opinion, as do her sympathizers.

Opinions, fortunately or unfortunately, don't change history.

I do feel that some kind of history was made that day, for whatever it was worth.

The Complete Text Of My Speech

10.11.04 (1:42 pm)   [edit]

In a little less than 2 1/2 hours, I'm due on the other side of campus and I shall be delivering a 5 minute speech on the need for Israel to build it's security barrier. In my last post, while having writing issues, I said I'd post the text of it here. Well, I hope you enjoy.
[line]
Racist. Aparthied. Nazi. Zionist.

What do all of these words with radically different meanings have in common?

They have all been used, or rather, misused as rhetoric to describe Israel's security barrier.

Rhetoric aside; I'm here to tell you that, like many other countries of the world, Israel needs to keep her people safe. A secure means of doing so is needed.

Since the beginning o the second intifada in 2000, protection has been saught from terrorists and suicide/homocide bombs. Israel has tried negotiating with Palestinian leaders and even land concessions to no avail. The last hope is the construction of a security barrier, a fence with the perpose to stop terrorism.

According to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1,014 innocent Israeli civilians have been murdered in cold blood by Palestinian terror since 2000. That figure doesn't even account for police and army casualties as well as the wounded.

Embeded in the Palestinian population, there are organizations (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and many more) which openly tout the slogan, "Throw the Jews into the sea!" This slogan is used freely in Palestinian textbooks for school children, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Destitues Palestinian families are paid by these organizations for the sacrifice of their own children in the cause of genocide against the Jewish nation via terror attacks and firearm violence.

A striking example of this is the recent twin bus bombing in August 2004. 16 people were murdered, 80 others were maimed for life -- many of which were children of elementary school age!

In a suburb near the West Bank in 2003 on Rosh HaShanah, the Jewish New year, a Palestinian gunman burst into a home and shot a toddler point blank at the dinner table, as well as her father.

Can you think back for a moment to 9-11? Imagine having a 9-11 once a week for 4 years! No one should have to deal with even one! Since the fence has began it's construction there has been a 50% decrease in terror attacks. 50%! The reduction figures continue to climb!

The solution is simple; like the U.S. and other countries, Israel must be secure. A security barrier must be built! Not only does this serve to protect Israelis, it also protects Palestinians. The less any group dies, the better!

The barrier will allow out of country workers to enter and leave Israel safely while keeping out those with more devious ideas of mass murder.

The worst case scenario for the future is that terrorist activity will switch from suicide bombs and gun violence to primarily more dangerous rocket-fire missiles for long range attacks against Israel.

However, the more likely positive outcome of all this will be a secure Israel and a Palestinian state where the Palestinians will have been able to turn the phocus from terror to their own self-betterment and Palestinian statehood.

Israel needs to be safe, bottom line. Terror must end. All inhabitants of the region deserve peace. The security barrier will pave our way.

But what can you do?

You can contact UN representatives and congress with the click of a button! Two websites to check out are Congress.org and UN.org. Most importantly, we as part of the Global Community need to stop condemning the victims for defending themselves and start going after the perpetraitors.

For more information on why we need the fence, you can visit Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the Web: mfa.gov.il/mfa
[line]
Wish me luck!

To Deliver a Persuasive Piece on Israel's Security Barrier

10.10.04 (2:54 pm)   [edit]
So in a little over 24 hours from now, I am due to give a speech on the need for Israel's security barrier. Being the procrastinator that I am, I haven't even written the entire thing.

The problem is, there is so much to say on this topic and I'm having a little trouble organizing my ideas so that they flow properly. Call it not writer's block, but writer's temporary lack of organization skills. To say it plainly, it's not that I'm not well-versed in this topic, it's that I am too well versed and my mind is going a mile a minute.

Of course, I only found out last Monday that I must deliver this on the coming Monday, that being tomorrow.

So far, I have my intro (which is awesome) and much of my conclusion. The issue is the body. I must organize all of this information. There is a lot that favors the great need for this structure that can save so many lives, both Israeli AND Palestinian.

I guess what I'm doing now is procrastinating more. :P

Ah well, back to work it is. I will post the text of my speech once I complete it, so that all can view it and use it for their purposes if needed.

More later.

Sex in a Bar Bathroom -- Is It Legal?

10.06.04 (4:01 pm)   [edit]
I saw this little story on my yahoo! page. It's oddly interesting.
[line]
ROME (Reuters) - Making love in a bar lavatory does not breach public decency laws so long as the door is shut, an Italian court ruled on Tuesday.

A Swiss couple was accused of committing obscene acts after the owner of a bar in the northern Italian town of Como caught them having sex in the lavatory, Ansa news agency reported.

State prosecutors demanded a six-month prison term for the un-named male defendant and a five-month term for his partner.

But Judge Luciano Storaci threw out the case, saying public decency was not offended because the door was closed.

However, he fined the Swiss man 200 euros ($246) for breaking the lock on the lavatory after he was caught with his trousers down.

"If the barman had given me time to get dressed then nothing would have happened," Ansa quoted the Swiss woman as saying.
[line]
So my question is, did Italy do the right thing in this situation? Is it legal or a breach of public decency? Are these standards correct and/or morally sound? I thought this just an interesting brain exercise.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

10.06.04 (3:03 pm)   [edit]
Last week or so, the DVD of [i]Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind[/i] came out in stores. Naturally, I went out and got it the day it came out. So I'm here to talk about the DVD of my favourite movie and rate it for you.

=http://www.moviezine.se/filmb...

To start, my general and overal rating of the film itself is high. On the Tigress scail, [i]Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind[/i] is rated a sound 4 stars! I issued that rating when I first saw it in the theater, of course.

Here's some more info on the movie itself: Executive producers: David Bushell, Charlie Kaufman, Glen Milliamson, and Georges Berman. Screen play by Charlie Kaufman (who also gave us [i]Being John Malkovich[/i]-- which was also awesome!). Directed by Michel Gondry. A Focus Features production starring Jim Carry, Kate Winslet, Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo, and Elijah Wood.

That's it for all of the technical stuff.

The premis is Joel (Jim Carry) is stunned to discover that his girlfriend, Clementime (Kate Winslet), has had their tumultuous relationship erased from her mind. Out of desperation, he contacts the inventor of the process, Dr. Howard Mierziak (Tom Wilkinson), to get the same treatment. But as his memories of Clementine begin to fade, Joel suddenly realizes how much he still loves her.

As I said, awesome film!

This film is a major masterpiece that is both hilarious and a big tear-jerker. Just so you know, it takes a lot to make me cry at a movie. I've been told I must be made of stone because I just plain don't cry at movies. This one is the exception.

Of course, I got the widescreen format DVD. Just so you know, everyone should always get the widescreen format whenever they buy DVDs. You get the whole film that way. When you buy the regular full screen, they chop off half of the movie scenes so that it fits in your tv as a perfect square. You end up losing so much!

The special features were pretty good. They include deleted scenes, which I think they should have kept a couple of them in the film simply because it aids us in character development. Other special features include an interview with Jim Carry and the Director Michel Gondry. The DVD also features commentary from the director and Charlie Kaufman, the writer. Plus, you get an inside look at the making of the film, sort of a documentary really. You also get a Music Video for "Light & Day" by the Polyphonic Spree. It's pretty trippy. Finally, you receive the added bonus of an infomercial for Lacuna Inc., the company that "erases memories" in the movie.

Lots of fun stuff that'll blow you away. :)

So the DVD gets an asstounding 4 stars and the highest rating possible from yours truly.

Go out and buy this movie today. You will not regret it. Just make sure you bring plenty of tissues and snacks!

VP Debate (Continued)

10.06.04 (1:35 pm)   [edit]
Last night I popped my head in before going to bed and said I would write about last night's VP Debate. So here we are.

I would first like to say that I actually (believe it or not) like Edwards better than I do Cheney. I sometimes wonder if he had won the democratic primaries that perhaps I'd be voting for him as president in the upcoming election. Ah, but all that is an irrelevant conclusion, really.

In any case, I was highly impressed with what Mr. Edwards had to say last night and his charismatic ambiance which he conveyed. Of course, I didn't agree with a lot of what he said. But there was one thing that really caught my ear and I'll start by talking a little bit about that.

I know most of you are probably thinking that I'm going to talk about what Mr. Edwards said about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Those of you who thought that are completely correct on that account. However, this is not the only issued response I'm going to touch on. Fear you not. My voting choice is not limited to a singular topic. I'm just outlining the easiest first.

So then, here's part of the transcript where Mr. Edwards truly shined (transcript provided by -- http://www.post-gazette.com/p... ):

[b][i]EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I do agree that we've been largely absent, not entirely absent, but largely absent from the peace-making process over the last four years.

And let me just say a couple of preliminary things and then talk about where we are now. First, the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves.

I mean, if I can, just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of 2001, staying at the King David Hotel.

We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed.

What are the Israeli people supposed to do? How can they continue to watch Israeli children killed by suicide bombers, killed by terrorists? They have not only the right to the obligation to defend themselves.

Now, we know that the prime minister has made a decision, an historic decision, to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. It's important for America to participate in helping with that process.

Now, if Gaza's being used as a platform for attacking the Israeli people, that has to be stopped. And Israel has a right to defend itself. They don't have a partner for peace right now. They certainly don't have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace.

And I might add, it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism since 9/11. And it's important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people.[/b][/i]

Now then. You can probably understand why I'm so impressed. I think this is probalby the best response I've ever heard from a candidate to a question like that about this topic. He basically outlines everything I personally want to hear! YES! Israel has a right to defend itself. YES! Isarel should not have to stand by idly while six year olds are murdered in cold blood. YES! We need to crack down on the Saudis, who export terror and threaten Israel and the United States!!!

This is a breath of fresh air.

What more can I say about Mr. Edwards' response other than, "Wow?"

If this is the true policy of the Kerry/Edwards campaign and this attitude is something they plan on applying once their administration takes office, I may just vote Democratic in the first election I ever vote in. Of course, I need a lot more confidence before I give anyone my vote. This is why I watch these debates. Very interesting....

I also want to voice my disapointment at Mr. Cheney for basically dodging this question. That does not give me confidence in this administration. Edwards gives us a straight answer. Mr. Cheney escapes answering properly. Not to mention, he called it Palestine. If you're a regular reader of my blog, you know my pet peeve with that. There is NO Palestine! Not a good sign, Mr. Cheney.

Moving on to our next issue, I thought this was rather interesting. When asked about Gay Marriage, Edwards basically illuded to his support for Civil Union, not Gay Marriage. He said, "[i][b]...I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.[/b][/i]" After this he outlined that we do not need a constitutional ammendment banning Gay Marriage and that, "[b][i]...we should not use the Constitution to divide this country. No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage.[/b][/i]"

On his last point I personally, 100%, agree. We don't need a constitutional ammendment. I'm borderline for Civil Union. I am definately against Gay Marriage. I am definately against ammending our constitution for the purpose of any of this.

Mr. Cheney's response to the same went as follows:

[b][i]Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.

That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.

Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.

In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.

Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.[/b][/i]

Interesting. Mr. Cheney does include valid points and he does make one think about the difference between what people choose and what the government will recognize. If we were to outlaw Gay Marriage, it doesn't mean that we are outlawing gay sex or relationships. We would just be limiting what the government recognizes as valid and thus limit the kick backs and priveledges gay couples recieve. Essentially, the situation we currently have in most of the states in the US, where Gay Marriage is not recognized. Where I differ, again, is I don't feel we need to spend the money to ammend the constitution. I feel, economically it's a waste of money and generally a waste of time. States vote on these issues and make laws accordingly. Other states don't have to recognize ANY out of state marriages if they don't want to.

The last issue I'm going to touch on (because this is getting rather long) is where I actually award Cheney some points. When asked about the AIDS epedemic, Cheney responds:

[b][i] Well, this is a great tragedy, Gwen, when you think about the enormous cost here in the United States and around the world of the AIDS epidemic -- pandemic, really. Millions of lives lost, millions more infected and facing a very bleak future.

In some parts of the world, we've got the entire, sort of, productive generation has been eliminated as a result of AIDS, all except for old folks and kids -- nobody to do the basic work that runs an economy.

The president has been deeply concerned about it. He has moved and proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort, to be targeted in those places where we need to do everything we can, through a combination of education as well as providing the kinds of medicines that will help people control the infection. Here in the United States, we've made significant progress. I have not heard those numbers with respect to African- American women. I was not aware that it was -- that they're in epidemic there, because we have made progress in terms of the overall rate of AIDS infection, and I think primarily through a combination of education and public awareness as well as the development, as a result of research, of drugs that allow people to live longer lives even though they are infected -- obviously we need to do more of that.[/b][/i]

That is very good. We need to continue on with such programs. I completely agree with his statement here.

All in all I will say that, to me, it seems that Edwards scored on this debate though. Most of his answers were highly impressive.

If you missed the dabate last night, or you wish to go over it once more in textual format, you can check out the full transcript here: http://www.post-gazette.com/p...

Dances with the Torah

10.06.04 (12:24 pm)   [edit]
[b][i]by Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort[/i][/b]

Sukkot is known as the "Season of Our Joy." The joyousness of the holiday works up to a crescendo as the final days approach. Finally, the holiday of Sukkot culminates with the dual holiday of Shmini Atzeret and Simchat Torah. While they are connected to Sukkot they have their own separate status as an independent holiday as well.

The Torah says that, "For seven days you shall dwell in a Sukkah, and the eighth day shall be for you Atzeret (an ending)." Since we are in Diaspora we celebrate Shmini Atzeret and Simchat Torah over the course of two days, as opposed to Israel where they are celebrated on the same day.

The Torah goes into great detail regarding the sacrifices that were brought in the Tabernacle and later in the Holy Temple. Sukkot was interesting in that sacrifices were offered in behalf of all the nations of the world. Each day a different number were brought until at the end special sacrifices were offered exclusively for the Jewish people.

A story is given to illustrate this interesting system. A king once had a vast banquet for many days for all of the different peoples who populated his many lands. At the end of the banquet he invited his closest friend to stay on one more day so they could celebrate together, just the two of them. The same is the situation on Shmini Atzeret and Simchat Torah. G-d celebrates exclusively with the Jewish people, as it were. And that is part of the reason why it is such an incredibly joyous occasion.

On Simchat Torah we conclude our annual cycle of reading the Torah and immediately begin it again anew. Completing the Torah is a source of great joy! To demonstrate our extreme happiness we dance with the Torah and encircle the Bimah for seven Hakafot (circuits). We sing, we dance, and we wish one another L'Chaim (to life), as we whoop it up. There is no happiness greater than our happiness in having the Torah.

Many wonder why we do not do this type of celebration on the holiday of Shavuot, which after all is the holiday on which we actually received the Torah?

Our sages reply that only after the people had the Torah for some amount of time were they able to appreciate the greatness of the gift. That is why the celebration becomes so completely and overwhelmingly happy on Simchat Torah. Furthermore our Rabbis point out that the holiness of the time pervades the atmosphere to such a degree that we do not even have to open the Torah to celebrate it. We merely dance with it to show how much we love it. When dancing with the Torah everyone is equal whether he is the greatest scholar or the simplest layman. It does not matter on Simchat Torah, for the Torah is the inheritance of every Jew.

It is on Simchat Torah that we have the custom to call up the children to the Torah for a blessing and so that they may bless the Torah. During the day of Simchat Torah we dance with the Torah again and make further Hakafot. Many congregations change their typical custom and make Kiddush in the middle of the prayers so that they may insure that everyone is in the "proper frame of mind" when the Torah is completed, started again, and danced with. The Priestly blessing takes place earlier in the service than it normally would to preclude the possibility that our holy Cohanim (priests) may imbibe too much during the celebration and not be able to properly bless the flock.

All in all, there is no holiday more joyous. It is considered a tremendous Mitzvah for each and every Jew to attend a Simchat Torah celebration!

VP Debate

10.06.04 (12:43 am)   [edit]
Excellent debate tonight. Good points from both sides. I especially liked Edwards' speech when asked about Israel. That scored points. I need to find that transcript and better illustrate what I mean. At any rate, off to bed.

More on this tomorrow perhaps. :)

UNRWA's Hamas Employees

10.05.04 (4:46 pm)   [edit]
[i]The head of the UN administration in the West Bank and Gaza admits Hamas members are on his payroll. Media outlets ignore it.[/i]

Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General of the UN agency in Gaza and the West Bank, made a startling admission =http://www.cbc.ca/story/world...in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday (10/4):

[i][b]I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime...[/b] we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another.[/i]

With this statement, Hansen verified what Israel has long contended ― the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), rather than performing a neutral humanitarian role in Palestinian regions, is actually infested with terrorists who use international funds and UN safe havens to facilitate attacks on Israeli civilians.

Hansen attempted to draw a distinction between UN employees who identify with Hamas 'politically,' as opposed to 'militant' Hamas members, but that distinction has been categorically rejected by the =http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls...United States and the =http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wo...European Union, both of which blacklist [i]all[/i] branches of Hamas, and freeze [i]all[/i] Hamas assets, without exception.

Despite the gravity of this matter, [b]Hansen's admission that Hamas members are on the UN payroll has ― as of now ― received scant media attention.[/b] =http://www.washingtonpost.com...The Associated Press, for example, buried Hansen's statement in an article that focused primarily on IDF air strikes, and the =http://www.nytimes.com/2004/1...New York Times has yet to even acknowledge Hansen's admission.

This error of omission is particularly troubling in light of =http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/...Israel's ongoing campaign in Gaza to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israeli towns such as Sderot.

Hansen has long been accused of anti-Israel bias. In the wake of the 2002 Jenin operation, Hansen gave interviews falsely describing 'wholesale obliteration... a human catastrophe that has few parallels in recent history,' 'helicopters... strafing civilian residential areas,' and 'bodies... piling up' in 'mass graves.' Some of this carnage Hansen even claimed to have seen 'with my own eyes.'

KASSAM TRANSPORT, HISTORY OF ABUSE

Hansen's admission of UN/Hamas links came amidst a controversy over suspicious use of a UN ambulance in Gaza, with some claiming that footage from an airborne drone shows Palestinian terrorists hiding a Kassam rocket in the vehicle. (View the film =http://switch3.castup.net/cun...here.)

Regardless of whether this specific incident constituted abuse, the UNRWA ― under Hansen's watch ― has been responsible for numerous documented acts of abetting Palestinian terrorism, including:

● May 2004: [b]Armed Palestinians[/b] are filmed (below) [b]using UNRWA ambulances to transport terrorists[/b] and, possibly, remains of fallen Israeli soldiers in Gaza.
=http://backspin.typepad.com/b...

● Sept. 2003: After the Israeli military court convicts [b]three UNRWA employees for terrorist activities[/b] (such as throwing firebombs at a public bus), Israel detains at least 16 other UNRWA staff members for various security-related matters.

● Dec. 2002: A Shin Bet report indicates that [b]numerous UNRWA facilities[/b] in the West Bank and Gaza [b]had been used by Palestinian terrorists as meeting grounds and for weapons storage.[/b]

● Sept. 2002: Nahd Attala, [b]a senior official of UNRWA in Gaza[/b], reveals that in June-July 2002, he [b]used his UNRWA car for the transportation of armed members of Fatah[/b] who were on their way to carry out a missile attack against Jewish settlements. In addition, Nahd admits he [b]used an UNRWA car to transport a 12 kg explosive charge for his brother-in-law, a Fatah member.[/b]

● August 2002: Nidal Nazzal, [b]a Hamas member and ambulance driver employed by UNRWA, confesses to transporting weapons and explosives in an UNRWA ambulance, and that he had taken advantage of the freedom of movement he enjoyed to transmit messages among Hamas members in various Palestinian towns.[/b]

● February 2002: Alaa Muhammad Ali Hassan, a Tanzim member, confesses during interrogation that he had carried out [b]a sniper shooting from the school run by UNRWA[/b] in the al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus. He also told his interrogators that bombs intended for terrorist attacks were being manufactured inside the UNRWA school's facilities.

FUNDED BY WESTERN DEMOCRACIES

The infiltration of the UNRWA by Palestinian terrorists is all the more disturbing given the funding structure of this international 'humanitarian' organization. As =http://www.frontpagemag.com/A...David Bedein reports:

[i]The salaries of UNRWA workers are paid through contributions that UNRWA receives from 38 contributing countries. The U.S. provides 30% of that budget, Canada contributes 4% of that budget, and the European countries contribute well over 55% of that budget.

In other words, [b]the western democracies of the world pay the salaries of the Hamas terrorists on the payroll of UNRWA.[/i][/b]

Upon hearing Hansen's admission of Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll, a =http://www.cbc.ca/story/world...spokesperson for Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs said, 'we are deeply concerned, and will immediately seek clarification from Mr. Hansen directly and from UN authorities.'

Canada's contribution to UNRWA is $10 million a year, and total =http://www.frontpagemag.com/A...US support to UNRWA is approximately [b]$100 million per year[/b]. This, despite the fact that the use of US taxpayer funds for foreign refugees who have engaged in acts of terrorism is [b]illegal[/b] under the amended Section 301(c) of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act.

A conference of UN donor countries to discuss ongoing aid to Palestinians is slated to meet in Norway on November 30.

ACTION ITEM:

As indicated above, Peter Hansen's startling admission of Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll has received [b]almost no press coverage.[/b]

HonestReporting urges subscribers to contact the major news outlets, using, if you wish, the short sample letter printed below.

● The New York Times: letters@nytimes.com
● Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
● Boston Globe: letter@globe.com
● Chicago Tribune: [click here]
● Atlanta Journal-Constitution: letters@ajc.com
● Los Angeles Times: letters@latimes.com
● San Francisco Chronicle: letters@sfchronicle.com
● Seattle Post-Intelligencer: editpage@seattlepi.com

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear Editor,

This week (Oct. 4), the Commissioner-General of the UN agency in Gaza and the West Bank, Peter Hansen, admitted that 'there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll.' I was disturbed to find that this highly newsworthy item did not make its way into your paper in a prominent fashion, particularly in light of Israel's ongoing campaign in Gaza to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israeli towns like Sderot.

Hansen's statement acknowledges the illegal use of US taxpayer funds for members of a terrorist organization. (The US contributes approximately $100 million/year to the UNRWA.) With the upcoming Nov. 30 conference of UN donor countries to discuss ongoing support of Palestinian projects, we should all be concerned about UNRWA's admission of Hamas members on its payroll.

Sincerely yours,

(your name)

Is Islam tolerant?

10.03.04 (9:01 pm)   [edit]
[i][b]By DANIEL PIPES, The Jerusalem Post[/b][/i]

What do Muslims believe regarding freedom of religious choice? A Koranic verse (2:256) answers: "There is no compulsion in religion."

That sounds clear cut, and the Islamic Center of Southern California insists it is, arguing that it shows how Islam anticipated the principles in the US constitution. The center sees the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") as based on concepts in the Koran's no-compulsion verse.

In a similar spirit, a former chief justice of Pakistan, S.A. Rahman, argues that the Koranic phrase contains "a charter of freedom of conscience unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind."

To a Western sensibility, this interpretation makes intuitive sense. Thus does Alan Reynolds, an economist at the CATO Institute in ,The Washington Times that the verse signifies the Koran "counsels religious tolerance."

Were it only so simple.

In fact, this deceptively simple phrase historically has had a myriad of meanings. Here are some of them, mostly premodern, deriving from two outstanding recent books, Patricia Crone's God's Rule: Government and Islam and Yohanan Friedman's Tolerance and Coercion in Islam, augmented by my own research.

Proceeding from least liberal to most liberal, the no-compulsion phrase is considered variously to have been:

Abrogated: The passage was overridden by subsequent Koranic verses (such as 9:73 "O Prophet! Struggle against the unbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh with them").

Purely symbolic: The phrase is a description, not an imperative. Islam's truth is so obvious, that to coerce someone to become a Muslim does not amount to "compulsion"; or else being made to embrace Islam after defeat in war is not viewed as "compulsion."

Spiritual, not practical: Governments may indeed compel external obedience, though they of course cannot compel how Muslims think.

Limited in time and place: It applied uniquely to Jews in Medina in the seventh century.

Limited to non-Muslims who live under and accept Muslim rule: Some jurists say it applies only to "Peoples of the Book" (Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians); others say it applies to all infidels.

Excludes some non-Muslims: Apostates, women, children, prisoners of war, and others can indeed be compelled. (This is the standard interpretation that has applied in most times and places.)

Limited to all non-Muslims: Muslims must abide by the tenets of Islam and may not apostatize.

Limited to Muslims: Muslims may shift from one interpretation of their faith to another (such as from Sunni to Shi'i) but may not leave Islam.

Applied to all persons: Reaching the true faith must be achieved through trial and testing, and compulsion undercuts this process.
Massive disagreement over a short phrase is typical, for believers argue over the contents of all sacred books, not just the Koran. The debate over the no-compulsion verse has several important implications.

First, it shows that Islam – like all religions – is whatever believers make of it. The choices for Muslims range from Taliban-style repression to Balkan-style liberality. There are few limits; and there is no "right" or "wrong" interpretation. Muslims have a nearly clean slate to resolve what "no compulsion" means in the 21st century.

Conversely, non-specialists should be very cautious about asserting the meaning of the Koran, which is fluid and subjective. When Alan Reynolds wrote that the no-compulsion verse means the Koran "counsels religious tolerance," he intended well but in fact misled his readers.

Further, many other areas of Islam have parallels to this debate. Muslims can decide afresh what jihad signifies, what rights women have, what role government should play, what forms of interest on money should be banned, plus much else. How they resolve these great issues affects the whole world.

Finally, although Muslims alone will make these decisions, Westerners can influence their direction. Repressive elements (such as the Saudi regime) can be set back by a reduced dependence on oil. More liberal Muslims (such as the Atat rkists) can be marginalized by letting an Islamist-led Turkey enter the European Union.
What non-Muslims do also has potentially a great impact on whether "no compulsion in religion" translates into religious tolerance or permits (as in the case of Salman Rushdie) a license to kill.

[i]Daniel Pipes ( http://www.DanielPipes.org ) is director of the Middle East Forum.[/i]