Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

If anyone ever thought that Syrian President Bashar Assad was a good “peace partner” for Israel, I would hope by now that this belief is recognized for what it actually is—an illusion.

Assad has recently threatened to “destroy Tel Aviv,” if NATO or Turkey attacks his country. Given the mental condition of Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, I am not at all certain whether he might push the envelope just for the fun of it.

For the past three months, Assad has managed to put off a NATO military attack by Turkey or NATO, and he is calling NATO’s bluff to stop him from cracking down on all dissenters in his country. Assad promises that from the moment a shot is fired against Syria, “it will take only six hours for Syria to devastate Tel Aviv and ignite the entire Middle East.”

The irony is, if Israel is forced to retaliate and invade Syria, they would probably be greeted by millions of Syrians. But for now, the question is: What is Israel to do? Obviously the mad mullahs of Iran are calling the shots. I suspect that the longer Assad brutalizes his population, the more likely Syria will erupt into a civil war. But what about Assad’s Tel Aviv card? Will Hezbollah and Hamas also get involved?

Israel’s response is calculated. Rather than publicizing the drama that is unfolding, which would only serve to heighten Israeli anxieties, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other ministers have made it perfectly clear what this means for Syria, its cities, as well as for Lebanon—should such an attack against Tel Aviv take place. As with the Turkish PM, Israel is following the Teddy Roosevelt approach, “Walk softly, but carry a big stick . . .”

Short of Israel simply giving up, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s desire for Israel to make up with Turkey, while practical on the one hand, does not really solve the problem—namely, Turkey is trying to reassert its hegemony in the Arab world at the expense of Israel. If I were Panetta, I would tell him the weight of the United States will turn on him and his country should they exacerbate an already tense situation—period.

When and if Syria is attacked, if I were in the Israeli government, I would seriously consider a preemptive strike over all Syrian military bases—and that would only be a start. I think the Israeli response needs to be decisive and complete and offer military assistance to the Syrian people to reclaim their country.

Needless to say, Iran stands to lose and so does Lebanon. Continue Reading

Today I received the invitation to hear President Obama speak to the rabbis in a specialized and private telecast. You can count on me listening to him.

However, I think it is morally wrong for the President to intrude upon the rabbinical community this time of the year as we prepare ourselves for two of the most important Jewish holidays. Remember, last year he tried to get us to support his dubious health care program from the pulpit. What nerve! But hutzpah has no bounds, it knows no propriety.

In my opinion, Obama’s agenda is simple: he wants the nation’s Conservative and Reform rabbis to assist him in getting re-elected. It goes without saying that the Yom Tov season is not about making the President look “good” and even electable to Jewish voters.

Our focus on this time of the year ought to be on the spiritual themes of the holiday and the strengthening of our communities here in the Diaspora as well as with respect to Israel. The President’s position on Israel has been disgraceful since coming into office. His pro-Arabist staff has been extremely unkind in the way Israel has been treated and abused. If anything, I pray that the rabbis have the moral courage to speak out against the President’s policies. President Obama is no Harry Truman; in fact, President Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like a flaming conservative.

Bear in mind, he wants Israel to return the Old City of Jerusalem, and return to the pre-1967 borders just as a precondition for talks. No negotiations whatsoever whether Israel should give back the territories. Not a word about the Palestinian “Right of Return” (sic) or a condemnation of a “Jew-free Palestine.” Nope, nada, not a word—don’t forget how Obama has treated Israeli leaders, often shaming them to the Arab world. Let’s not forget that Obama has never even visited Israel.

His behavior is atrocious. I would hope that every rabbi make an allusion to the anti-Israel policies of the present administration. Except for the evangelicals, the rest of the Christian community has abandoned their support of Israel. Israel has become to them passé—refuse to be discarded.

This past year, the President has turned against Israel’s greatest friend in the Middle East, President Hosni Mubarak, a man who more than any other Israeli leader—has kept the peace for over 30 years. After being humiliating in office by Obama, the American pressure forced him to resign. After lauding the “Arab Spring,” soon we will see the Muslim Brotherhood take power after the next election. What does this mean to Israel and the Middle East? It means the end of the Camp David Peace Accords. I want to personally say, “Thank you Mr. Obama.” You  have masterfully betrayed one of the most stable forces for peace in the Middle East. By the same token, the President has accepted the possibility that Iran will become a nuclear nation. He has not done anything to support the oppressed masses in Iran, who are dying to be free.

And in the blindness of Western “civilization” (Gandhi thought “civilization” would be a wonderful idea for the West to pursue in earnest), now the foolhardy peoples of the world are about to create their very first terrorist state—Palestine.

In short, I believe that Obama’s desire to speak to the rabbis is nothing less than just another cynical ploy to win the Jewish vote. The recent elections in Brooklyn must have made Obama feel rather nervous about the Jewish vote. Maybe we are not as stupid or gullible as he thinks we are.  More to the point: Considering his miserable record on Israel, why should we give him another four years?

It is time for us as a movement to make this point super clear to the President. We demand meaningful change, not platitudes about his “love” for the Jewish people and the State of Israel like he made while speaking to AIPAC members this past spring. We are sick and tired of his deceit and his animus toward Israel.

Unless he wishes to apologize, nothing he says will have any kind of value to the American Jewish community. As you know, any kind of sincere show of teshuvah demands a change in attitude, but most importantly–a change in deed, and an acknowledgement that he has wronged Israel and the Jewish people. In all honesty, I still would not be impressed. The leopard cannot change its spots. Continue Reading

There is an old quote that the former Secretary of State James Baker used to say about the Jews during election time, “F—k the Jews, they won’t vote for us anyway.” I can just imagine President Obama and his team of anti-Israel supporters chime in unison, “‘F—k the Jews, they will still vote for us anyway.”

Today’s hot story is probably something that most Jews would ever take notice of, but not this one!

The time: August 5^th, 2011. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) decided to file what is better known to attorneys as, “amicus” a “friend of the court” brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a man named Benyamin Zivotofsky, who happens to be a native-born Jerusalemite and an American citizen. Since he was born in Jerusalem, the U.S. Government denied his right under American law to have “Israel” listed on his passport.

Any normal person might wonder why this might be a problem? According to our wise leaders in the State Department, listing “Israel” in conjunction with “Jerusalem” might interfere with President’s Middle East Foreign policy.

The ZOA’s brief responds to the substance of the State Department’s claim. To begin with, many government agencies in the Executive branch—including the Executive Office of the President –routinely refer to Jerusalem as part of Israel, without any evident impact on any presidential power, and thus listing “Israel” on a passport would have no such impact either. Recognizing the persuasive power of this aspect of the ZOA’s argument, the White House has engaged in a shameful and outrageous tactic, this week suddenly changing references to “Jerusalem, Israel” on its Web site to “Jerusalem” only, with no mention of Israel.

The rest of the news story reads:

Among the many governmental references to “Jerusalem, Israel” described in the ZOA’s amicus brief were several photos posted on the White House Web site, which were taken on the trip that Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, made to the Middle East last year. One photo was captioned: “Vice President Joe Biden meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, Israel, March 9, 2010” (emphasis added). The caption to another photo read: “Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem, Israel, March 9, 2010” (emphasis added). The caption to a third photo said: “Vice President Joe Biden has breakfast with Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair . . . in Jerusalem, Israel, March 10, 2010” (emphasis added). Each of these photos is described as an “Official White House Photo.”

Today, the New York Sun reported that the White House has removed these references to Jerusalem being in Israel. Indeed, on the White House Web site, the captions to these photos now refer to “Jerusalem” only. The reference to Israel has suddenly been deleted.

Morton A. Klein, ZOA’s National President, and Susan B. Tuchman, Esq., the director of the ZOA’s Center for Law and Justice, condemned the White House for altering the references to “Jerusalem, Israel” on its Web site: We are appalled that the White House would resort to such a transparent and shameful tactic in an effort to diminish the strength of the ZOA’s argument in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court. But suddenly removing the White House’s references to ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ on its Web site will not help the U.S. government’s case before the Supreme Court.

If anything, the White House’s actions show that the government recognizes the strength of the ZOA’s argument: Given how frequently and routinely the White House and many U.S. departments and agencies have referred to Jerusalem as part of Israel, it is simply absurd to suggest that permitting Menachem Zivotofsky and other Americans born in Jerusalem to have ‘Israel’ listed on their passports will have any impact on any presidential power to make foreign policy or recognize foreign sovereigns. If Jerusalem-born Americans wish to identify with Israel by having it recorded as their birthplace on their passports – which is plainly their right under legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush – that right should be upheld and enforced.

President Obama and his administration should be ashamed of themselves for taking these outrageous actions which will surely do nothing to help the government’s case.”

President Obama is the first American President to declare Old Jewish Jerusalem (which was originally conquered by Jordan in 1948, only to be liberated in 1967), as an “Occupied territory.” Incidentally, after Israel liberated the holy city, King Hussein of Jordan sent the keys to Hadassah Hospital to its rightful owners–the Jews. In addition, Hadassah Hospital has always had a long tradition of serving both Israelis and Palestinians since the time of its inception. Continue Reading

For at least two hundred years, the Norwegians have found it very difficult to feel any kind of compassion for the Jewish people. Yes, Norway’s disdain for Israel and Jews in general has a long history. Here are a few little-known details that may surprise many of our blog readers. When Norway first declared its independence, the country’s constitution blatantly exclaimed, ““Jøder ere fremdeles udelukkede fra Adgang til Riget.” Translation: Jews are still excluded from admission to the Kingdom).” Well, by 1851 the ban was rescinded but later reinstated by the infamous Nazi sympathizer and collaborator Vidkun Quisling  in 1942, but later rescinded in 1945.

Anti-Semitism cannot be so easily erased from a culture and society that has gotten use to using the verb “Jew” for anyone that acts dishonestly. However, the deeper you examine Norwegian society, you will also find that from the 8^th to the 10^th grades, 33% of the Jewish students experience bullying from their Norwegian neighbors. As one report reads, “Last month’s publication of a study ordered by the Oslo municipality on racism and anti-Semitism among students of the 8^th through 10^th grades in the town’s schools came as a shock. The study found that 33 percent of the Jewish students regularly experience bullying at school. According to the definition used, this means that at least two or three incidents of verbal or physical abuse target these Jewish students per month . . .

After Jews, the next most pestered group was Buddhists, with 10 percent experiencing bullying; “Others” were at 7 percent and Muslims at slightly over 5 percent. Fifty-one percent of all students believe that the term “Jew” is used pejoratively, 41percent had heard ethnic jokes about Jews and 35 percent heard insulting comments. Close to 5 percent had been present when the Holocaust was denied in class. Only 25 percent of the students never witnessed anything negative about Jews in school.”[1]

Norway certainly finds itself morally challenged and their contempt toward the Jew is consistent with their national animus toward the Jewish people in general, and especially toward the State of Israel. While erasing old anti-Semitic slurs is a reasonable first step toward normalcy, eradicating ancient canards against the Jews is a lot harder to confront and eliminate. When you hate one ethnic or religious group, hatred will spread like a contagion toward other peoples and faiths. In short, hatred attacks the heart and soul of the human family.

Earlier this past year, on March 29, the internationally renowned lawyer, Harvard law professor, who also happens to be a staunch supporter of Israel Alan M. Dershowitz, decided to  publish  an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about his recent experience in Norway. Continue Reading

Huckabee for President? With a name like that in the White House, our children might think that Yogi Bear is also in the White House. Donald Trump? He is another person that nobody really respects. Obama made him look very foolish at the evening before he revealed the news about bin Laden. I would not want to play poker with the President.

Mitt Romney? He lacks charisma, but he isn’t a bad candidate.

Yes, the Republican Party needs a new face that can energize the nation. For months I have been thinking about another Afro-American that would give the President a serious run for his money–and his name is Allan West. West is a definitely a fresh face; he personifies heroism and strength–attributes that I believe would make him a formidable candidate–especially because of his war experience. As President Obama laid out his plans for Israel to return to the pre-1967 boundaries, I am convinced that the President’s vision completely overlooks the history and hostility that such a return would entail. Far from serving the causes of peace, it would literally unleash the “dogs of war.”

I believe that Obama’s plan is reckless and foolish. Allan West’s response hits the nail on the proverbial head. He is the kind of man everyone can respect because is love for the United States is unfailing, as it is unflinching.

–Congressman Allen West (R-FL) in response to Barack Hussein Obama’s Call for Israel to go to “Pre-1967 Borders.”

Wouldn’t you like to see this man become our country’s next presidential leader?

Congressman Allen West Response to President Barack Obama’s Call for a Two State Solution in Israel

(WASHINGTON) — Congressman Allen West (FL-22) released this statement today:

“Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.

From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.

The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.

Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.

In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.

America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian’s declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.

It’s time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.

While the winds of democracy may blow strong in the Middle East, history has demonstrated that gaps in leadership can lead to despotic regimes. I have questions for President Obama: ‘Who will now lead in Egypt?’ and ‘Why should American taxpayers provide foreign aid to a nation where the next chapter in their history may be the emergence of another radical Islamic state?’ [This ought to be common sense, but our country's penchant for supporting dictators and thug-ocracies continues to blindly pursue its goals -- MS] Continue Reading

When we look at the terrible tragedy that took place in Arizona–as a community–we need to ask ourselves whether our hands are really “clean” or not. The more I read about the story that led to this incident, the more painfully obvious it is that our leaders have  abdicated their responsibility once again.

 
Sometime during the Clinton Administration (and please bear in mind, I really like Clinton), Attorney General Janet Reno enacted a policy that restricted the military from reporting certain drug abusers to the FBI, which has long maintained a national list of prohibited gun-buyers since 1994.

This seemingly well-meaning decision  paved the way for accused Arizona gunman Jared Loughner to buy his first firearm–despite the fact that he failed a drug-screening test when he attempted to join the military back in 2008. So, as it turned out, Loughner went and purchased the gun from a local Sportsman’s Wearhouse–no questions asked.

What was Reno’s motivation? Why would she propose a law that would help a known drug-user obtain a gun that ordinarily he would never have been able to get–even by the standards of an old 1994 statute?  Well, Janet Reno really felt sorry for the poor drug-addict; perhaps if the federal agencies disallowed men like Loughner to obtain a gun, he might not ever take the necessary steps to  seek treatment.

Every choice and deed has consequences. A better screening process is necessary–one which will close the legal loophole that allowed Loughner to obtain his weapon of choice. Psychological testing is necessary for all wishing to obtain a gun, just like we insist upon psychological testing for anyone working in a government or public building. It’s common sense. Perhaps if we worried more about the rights of law-abiding people more than the rights of drug-users and other criminals, we could avoid more tragedies like the one we saw this past week in Arizona. Continue Reading

The story is a peculiar one. The Haredi members of the Israeli Kenesset celebrated over passing a new legislation that would deport the children of foreign workers.  One Haredi editor named Streimel, claimed, “History teaches us that foreign elements that come to countries offering them work are destined to destroy the absorbing country, or to take it over.” Among Streimel’s other complaints, he blasted the Conservative and Reform movements, and expressed exasperation about the growth of anti-Haredism in Israel and abroad.

When I read the article, I found myself wondering: “Where have I heard these words before?” Let me cite you the famous biblical passage that pretty much says it all:  ”Then a new king, who knew nothing of Joseph , came to power in Egypt. ^He said to his subjects, “Look how numerous and powerful the Israelite people are growing, more so than we ourselves! Come, let us deal shrewdly with them to stop their increase; otherwise, in time of war they too may join our enemies to fight against us, and so leave our country” (Exod 1:8-10).

Wait a minute, since when are frum Jews supposed to act like Pharaoh? The answer ought to be obviou for in Deuteronomy 16, we discover a different kind of attitude that the Torah expects us to model:

“If your kinsman, a Hebrew man or woman, sells himself to you, he is to serve you for six years, but in the seventh year you shall dismiss him from your service, a free man. When you do so, you shall not send him away empty-handed, but shall weight him down with gifts from your flock and threshing floor and wine press, in proportion to the blessing the LORD, your God, has bestowed on you. For remember that you too were once slaves in the land of Egypt, and the LORD, your God, ransomed you. That is why I am giving you this command today . . . Remember that you too were once slaves in Egypt, and carry out these statutes carefully.”

Memory of the Exodus must be the ethical foundation of any kind of future Israelite society. Without a memory of our past, we  risk becoming like  Pharaoh of Egypt, who showed no compassion to the resident alien population that was living among them.

One Haredi spokesman, A. Yitzhaki, added that the government now fears the growth of the ultra-Orthodox population more than it does the growth of the non-Jewish population. “The Haredim,” he wrote, “are the ones against whom a battle needs to be waged in order to stop growth in any way possible, especially by starving their children.” Continue Reading

Well, here is an article that I think makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, when people talk about the Middle East, I hear very little in the way of common sense. The animus against Israel reveals a double-standard that no normal civilized country would ever accept–namely, the violations of its borders. Even Obama recently sent 1800 troops to help curtail the flow of illegal Mexican immigrants into this country. Without borders, you have no country.

=========================================

From scramble to pre-emptive diplomacy

By ISRAEL KASNETT
06/01/2010 23:21
Israel must pre-empt negative PR by informing foreign governments on the exact circumstances it faces and the course of action it will take.

After the 2006 Second Lebanon War and the 2008 operation in Gaza, the Israeli government was left having to explain its actions to leaders around the world. The Foreign Ministry had to move quickly to do damage control and while then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni did make efforts to launch a public relations campaign by sending ambassadors and diplomats to explain Israel’s actions, it was already too late. Israel’s lack of public relations foresight resulted in “scramble” diplomacy.

The recent events concerning the so-called Gaza aid flotilla turned unfortunate when some of the activists were killed during a confrontation with IDF Navy commandos. Yet, having dealt with similar aid convoys in the past, the Foreign Ministry should have been well aware of the negative PR Israel would receive regardless.

The State of Israel does not reveal the inner workings of its secret diplomacy and obviously there is a lot of diplomatic activity that takes place behind the scenes. However, the public must be able to see at least a portion of what can be called “pre-emptive” diplomacy, by which foreign governments are informed of Israel’s intentions and subsequent reasoning prior to taking action. This way, Israel has already explained the legal reasoning and logic behind its decision to use force without having to sprint to the phones during each crisis.

Israel must be able to pre-empt negative PR by preparing and educating foreign governments and populations on the exact circumstances faced by Israel and the course of action that will be taken based on unfolding events. Pre-emptive diplomacy would at least minimize the harsh reaction Israel often witnesses when events take a wrong turn.

This time, Prime Minister Netanyahu, his spokesman Nir Hefetz and Minister of Public Diplomacy Yuli Edelstein were all in Canada and Israel was left with Tzipi Livni as a spokesperson. Again, there was lack of coordination between the Foreign Ministry, the IDF Spokespersons Unit and the Prime Minister’s Office. While the foreign press announced “worldwide condemnation” for a “botched raid” creating a “diplomatic crisis” and “international outrage,” Israel yawned. As events unfolded and it was becoming clear that Israel needed to clarify the facts and present legal reasoning for its actions, Israel’s leaders rolled over and went back to sleep instead.

HAD ISRAEL used pre-emptive diplomacy at the same time the Navy was planning its raid on the ships, the government would have been preparing legal arguments for any potential scenario. For instance, Israel could have pointed to the San Remo Manual on International Law dealing with armed conflicts at Sea, which specifies in Article 47 that “vessels engaged in humanitarian missions are exempt from attack” only if they are recognized by Article 48 which demands that they are “innocently employed in their normal role.” Continue Reading

In Israel, I heard they are filming a new movie entitled, “Grumpy Old Rabbis.”

Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv sure looks like he could use a Kosher McDonald’s Happy Meal today. The HaAretz newspaper had a very interesting article how this centenarian continues to exert a powerful influence on the inner world of the Haredi community. His discordant halachic positions continue to send both the Israeli and Diaspora Jewish community reeling. Jews by Choice are among his favorite targets.

Most elderly Haredi scholars are known for their Responsa decisions pertaining to Jewish law. This elderly rabbi has never written a halachic work, and yet when he speaks, many of the leading Israeli Haredi rabbis are afraid to disagree with him. Is it because of his scholarship? Or is it because of his unique ability to commandeer Haredi politics? I suspect more the latter.

Remember one eternal halachic truth: A man may know the entire Talmud, Codes and commentaries and still be a boorish individual.

Readers may recall how Rabbi Elyashiv recently (about six months ago) banned the use of Shabbat elevators, which are essential for many high-rise senior centers and hotels that cater to an Orthodox elderly clientele. This rabbi did not seem to care what kind of hardship his legal decision would cause frail elderly people who can barely walk down the corridor  in the event a Shabbat elevator became “forbidden.” Fortunately, the people asserted their voice and Rabbi Elyashiv backed down on this issue.

HaAretz reported, “We saw proof of that two weeks ago, when two words from him, ‘Don’t compromise,’ caused his two representatives in the Knesset to attack the conversion bill initiated by MK David Rotem (Yisrael Beiteinu), which was designed to make the process of conversion in Israel much easier . . .” The ghost of Shammai must be gloating over Hillel, who always sought to welcome perspective converts. Shammai is reborn in the persona of Rabbi Elyashiv.

Unfortunately, like Rabbi Eliezer Shach (whose sour disposition lasted till he was 103 years old), Rabbi Elyashiv sees the Haredi community at war with the rest of the secular and Jewish world. For him, there is no such thing as “compromise.” Unlike the great Haredi rabbis of the past generations, e.g., R. Moshe Feinstein, Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg, and Rabbi Shlomo Auerbach, Rabbi Elyashiv tends to focus on the issues that politically divide Jews; he is not someone who strives for harmonization. Under his influence, we are witnessing what has been dubbed as the “Haredi Intifada,” where rioting has been a weekly activity for young Haredi kids that prefer rioting to football on Shabbat. Rabbi Elyashiv has yet to publicly condemn such unlawful behavior.

When we consider the daily scandals coming out in the news from Israel regarding its Haredi members’ behavior, we are reminded of the words of the great Greek cynic, Diogenes, who was  famous for walking through the streets of Athens in broad daylight waving a lantern and announcing that he was looking for a “honest man”  (It’s a little bit like trying to find an honest politician in Washington). According to another legend, Diogenes lit a lamp in broad daylight and said, as he went about, “I am looking for a man.” It is a pity we do not have a rabbinic Diogenes wandering the streets of Mea She’arim and B’nai Brak with a lantern in broad daylight, exclaiming the same ethical proclamation,“I am looking for a mentsch …” We need moral and articulate teachers today more than we need Talmud scholars who lack the ability to correct a wayward generation with a soothing but compelling ethical voice.

Continue Reading

The 20th century Sufi mystic Hazrat Inayat Khan writes, “Morality is a flower which springs out of the plant of individuality.”

Although the Muslim world  has been reticent to embrace change (much like the Haredi parties in Israel), there are signs of an ideological thaw taking place as we speak. How appropriate! Spring is the time of transformation. It is a pity the Western media acts as if social change in the patriarchal world of Islam is an impossibility. Maintaining the status quo will never solve the great problems we all face, but like a seed breaking forth in the earth, perhaps more people will begin to embrace the kind of attitude that is now surfacing on Arab media for the very first time in its history.

Recently, an American professor has become the first Jew to win the King Faisal International Prize in Medicine, popularly  known as the “Arab Nobel Prize.” Stanford professor Ronald Levy,  who heads of the university’s Oncology department, told Haaretz that as  an American Jew married to an Israeli it never crossed his mind  that he might win the Saudi-financed competition.The  prize, which included $200,000, a medal, and a certificate in English  and Arabic, also came with a dinner with Saudi King  Abdullah. Levy’s victory is the  first time in the award’s 30 years that a Jew has won, which Levy says  he took as a sign that Saudi Arabia is becoming more open. Levy  won the prize for his part in the development of a drug used in the  treatment of many types of cancer that is being widely viewed  as revolutionary.

Even more recently . . . .

February 26, 2010 — Clip No. 2414 — memri.org

Former Saudi Shura Council Member Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: The Arab Is Incapable of Individual Thinking

The following excerpts are from an interview with former Saudi Shura Council Member Ibrahim Al-Buleihi, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on February 26, 2010.

Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: When we want to study a religious issue, we go back to our heritage. But when we want to study an earthy matter, such as why we are backward, while others are prosperous, we must search for the answer elsewhere, not in our heritage.

Interviewer: Where is “elsewhere”?

Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: In the West. Without a doubt.

Interviewer: In the West, not the East?

Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: The East only emulates [the West]. Take Japan, for example – if not for its openness to Western culture, it too would have remained backward.

[...]

The individualism of the Arab has been erased in this society…

Interviewer: What do you mean by erased individualism?

Ibrahim Al-Buleihi: He is incapable of independent thinking, and therefore, he always rejects what is rejected by society, and accepts what is accepted by society. Continue Reading