"Nearly Seven Million"?
In his important and much-anticipated Cairo speech, President Obama said that there were "nearly seven million American Muslims." Two days earlier, in an interview in Washington, he noted that "[I]f you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." Clearly, the president was seeking to narrow the space between his intended audience and the United States. In principle, that's commendable. The problem is that the facts don't bear out his assertions on this particular issue. Why or how the number "nearly seven million" made it into the speech is unknown to me, but the widely accepted figure is actually less than half that. Caveat Lector. Let the reader beware
Say you're a newspaper editor. You have articles and analyses that merit inclusion in the next day's edition. They include: "At Least 56 Killed as Islamist Groups Fight Over a Somali Town," from Reuters; "New Focus on Settlements," a news analysis from your Jerusalem correspondent; "Iran Has Centrifuge Capacity for Nuclear Arms," based on a new report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); and "US Charges Ex-State Department Official and Wife With Spying for Cuba." Do any of the four warrant front-page placement? If so, above the fold, where they are sure to be noticed, or below, where they are less certain to catch the eye? If not, where should they be placed? Why North Korea matters
The news this week of a North Korean nuclear test is profoundly worrisome for three reasons. First, the nature of the regime is such that all assumptions of what we call rational state behavior are off the table. North Korea, under the iron fist of Kim Jong-il - or the "Great Leader," as he is officially called in his country - is highly dangerous. Recent history has shown that promises and pledges to outside parties mean little to him. Rather, the perception that his country is capable of doing anything is arguably his strongest weapon. And he may well be right. The regime's nuclear and ballistic missile programs are moving ahead in the face of a global strategy that alternately assails and appeases North Korea. What's the IOI - "If Only Israel" - syndrome?
It's the misguided notion, peddled in the name of Israel's best interests by some in the diplomatic, academic, and media worlds, that if only Israel did this or that, peace with its neighbors would be at hand. But since it doesn't, then Israel constitutes the principal, perhaps only, real obstacle to a new day in the Middle East. Striking, isn't it? Poor Israel. If only it had the visual acuity of these "enlightened" souls, then all would be hunky-dory. After all, according to them, Israel holds all the cards, yet refuses to play them. The thinking goes: Why can't those shortsighted Israelis figure out what needs to be done - it's so obvious to us, isn't it? - so the conflict can be brought to a screeching halt? Dear President Lula
Dear President Lula, Why? Why would such a respected world leader welcome an international outcast like Iranian President Ahmadinejad to Brasilia on May 6? Why would you confer your considerable international legitimacy on such an individual - within weeks, no less, of a walkout by dozens of nations during Ahmadinejad's hate-filled speech in the halls of the UN in Geneva? Tragedy masquerading as farce
It was tragedy masquerading as farce. There was the Iranian president addressing the Durban Review Conference in Geneva. Perhaps there was no better symbol of all that had gone wrong with a process originally designed to advance the anti-racism struggle than seeing the world's bigot-in-chief at the podium. And the fact that the hall doubles as the venue for the UN Human Rights Council made a further mockery of his appearance - and of the institution itself. Back in the USSR
In 1974, I traveled to the USSR for the first time, part of a US-Soviet teachers' exchange program. I was sent to School No. 185 in Leningrad. Shortly after arriving, I was walking in the hallway when a young girl passed by and quietly put a piece of paper in my hand. When I was alone, I read the note. It said: "David Harris, I feel you are a Jew. If I'm right, please know that my family are refuseniks. Won't you come visit us?" I did. It was one of several such families I eventually met. Why did they want to leave? Her father, an engineer, explained that his children had no future in the Soviet Union. The barriers were too high, anti-Semitism too endemic. So why were they denied the right to emigrate? The father told me a joke which was then making the rounds: Shapiro was called into KGB headquarters and told he would never be allowed to leave. "But why, comrade major?" he pleaded. "Because you know state secrets." "What state secrets, comrade major? In my field, the Americans are at least ten years ahead of us." "Well," said the KGB major, "that's the state secret." When America let down Europe's Jews
I recently testified before a subcommittee of the US Congress on a topic of immense historical importance that continues to resonate - and haunt us - to the present day. This text is taken from the full testimony submitted to the congressional record. Time does not permit more than a brief review of US immigration policy from 1933 to 1945, the years that coincide with the rule of the Third Reich. Fortunately, there are many scholarly works on the subject, as well as personal testimonies, which fill out the picture. Upon assuming office in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was immediately confronted with two daunting challenges - one domestic, the other foreign. At home, President Roosevelt faced the devastating impact of the Great Depression and the pressing need to rebuild the economy and restore confidence in the nation. Abroad, President Roosevelt took office just weeks after Adolf Hitler ascended to power in Berlin. A Reply to the Trio
In a Jerusalem Post blog (March 16), three writers, Anne Bayefsky, Caroline Glick and Melanie Phillips, continued their scurrilous assault on AJC in a piece entitled "A Reply to David Harris." In more than thirty years in Jewish organizational work, I have never believed in initiating any public attack on fellow Jews involved in communal activity. Instead, I have focused on the issues, not the personalities. I have never questioned personal motives. Literally hundreds, if not more, of published statements, op-eds, blogs, letters and speeches prove the point. Jewish history has taught me how much damage can come from such malicious intra-Jewish fighting, which often diverts precious resources away from external challenges and inevitably only offers satisfaction to our common enemies. Durban Diplomacy, Durban Delirium
In a recent editorial, the New York weekly newspaper The Jewish Week applauded the Obama administration for doing "the right thing" by disengaging from the Durban II process in a way that could give our country "new clout in the struggle against pervasive anti-Israel bias in the international arena." Moreover, the editorial chided those who "have insisted from the outset that Obama harbors animosity to the Jewish state and have pounced on every pronouncement, every rumor as proof," and noted "an element of sheer partisanship in the reaction." We at AJC have been on the receiving end of some of these scurrilous attacks. Why? Because we understood that, with the decision on Durban II handed from the Bush to the Obama administration, the new team would necessarily assess the process before making a final decision on the US role. |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (32)
