Bsd
Only Fake Jews Are Afraid of a Jewish State
Posted by Daniel Greenfield
The Palestinian Authority's basic law and draft constitution states that "Palestine" is an "Arab" entity, that "Islam is the official religion", that "Islamic Sharia" is the basis for its law and Arabic is its official language. Unlike Israel's nation-state bill which defines the Jewish State as Jewish, there's been no criticism of this PLO document. And the media has not labeled it as divisive or controversial.The constitution of neighboring Jordan states, "Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language." "The people of Syria are part of the Arab nation," Syria's constitution declares. "The religion of the President of the Republic is Islam; Islamic jurisprudence shall be a major source of legislation". That means Syria may only be ruled by a Muslim. "The official language of the state is Arabic."
Egypt's constitution declares it to be an "Arab Republic" and "part of the Muslim world". You will not be surprised to learn that, "Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its official language. The principles of Islamic Sharia are the principle source of legislation." These same statements, with minor variations, hold true for most of the Muslim countries in the region, and excluding Arabic, throughout the world.
All of Israel's Arab Muslim neighbors very clearly define their countries as Arab and Muslim. Their religion is Islam, their identity Arabic, variations of the same document declare, their language is Arabic.
These assertions of Arab and Muslim national identity are not criticized by the same gaggle of organizations, governments and reporters tearing their hair out over Israel's nation-state bill.
The nation-state bill defines Israel as the "the historical homeland of the Jewish people" and "the nation-state of the Jewish people". Hebrew is its official language with Arabic enjoying a special status. (No Arab constitution bothers offering Hebrew a similar status.)
Qatar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced the bill as "racist". The state sponsor of Islamic terror complained that, "human civilization tends to celebrate diversity". Qatar's own constitution declares that it is an Arab country whose "religion is Islam" and "Sharia law" is the basis for its laws.
So much for celebrating "diversity". (But the Qatari constitution simultaneously claims that "its political system is democratic" and that "rule of the State is hereditary in the family of Al Thani." The Qatari constitution also states that, "The Heir Apparent must be a Muslim of a Qatari Muslim Mother" and "there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex, race, language, or religion".)
The Israeli nation-state bill speaks of the "cultural, historical and religious legacy of the Jewish people" and of Jewish "religious" self-determination, but unlike the Arab-Islamic constitutions it does not define Judaism as the official religion.
Virtually every media outlet described the nation-state bill as "controversial". As everyone knows, the definition of a controversial issue is one that the left disagrees with. The Oslo Accords which killed and crippled thousands of Israelis and created an even greater threat to Israel's existence than Iran's nukes were described as "optimistic". Dismantling Israel is "optimistic". Believing in it is "controversial".
But if Israel's nation-state bill is controversial, then what of the PLO's basic law, and the constitutions of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and nearly every Arab and Muslim country in the world? If Israel declaring itself to be Jewish is wrong, how can the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Jordan declaring that they are Muslim and Arabic be right? The double standard is ubiquitous and has only one possible answer.
There's nothing wrong with an Arab and Muslim country, but something wrong with a Jewish country.
But this time the criticism isn't coming from the State Department. Unlike the Obama era where an Israeli sneeze occasioned an angry lecture from Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, and a snippy remark by the State Department spokesperson, America's first authentically pro-Israel administration is on Israel's side. Heather Nauert at State has repeatedly deflected media demands that she condemn Israel.
In early July, Nauert responded to media insistence that BDS is a "peaceful movement" and that Israel should be criticized for denying entry to an anti-Israel activist by stating that, "countries are sovereign. They have a right to either admit or deny admittance to individuals at their border, okay?"
Instead much of the furious outrage is coming from lefty anti-Israel groups and leaders whose pretense of being pro-Israel wears particularly thin at times when Israel shows the courage of its convictions.
The American Jewish Committee could not find the time to stand up for Jewish students in New York City being disadvantaged by racial quotas, but did claim to be "deeply disappointed" by Israel calling itself a Jewish country. Perhaps then the AJC should get the "Jewish" part out of its own name.
Rick Jacobs, the anti-Israel leader of the Union for Reform Judaism, denounced the bill for damaging "the legitimacy of the Zionist vision" and "the values of the state of Israel". He vowed to "fight back" by "forging new ties" with Arabs.
"Millions of us," he declared, "are united in our opposition to this new law."
Who those millions are is anybody's guess. A rally against the bill in Tel Aviv sponsored by 22 organizations (including Socialist Struggle, the New Israel Fund and some pro-BDS groups) only turned out thousands. That's in a city where you can get 100,000 to protest the price of cottage cheese.
"The law, which celebrates the fundamental Jewish nature of the state, raises significant questions about the government's long-term commitment to its pluralistic identity," Jonathan Greenblatt, the former Obama staffer turned ADL boss, complained.
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs expressed "profound disappointment". It whined that "this new law undermines Israel's vibrant democracy comprised of diverse religious and ethnic groups".
Perhaps the JCPA then ought to stop undermining its own diversity and dump the "J" part of its title so that it can be better composed of "diverse religious and ethnic groups". If it's good enough for Israel, why isn't it good enough for the AJC and the JCPA who monetize Jewishness while undermining it?
Defining Israel as Jewish is a dividing line that separates authentically Jewish groups from those that are Jewish in name only. The National Council of Young Israel (NCYI), Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), and the Israeli-Jewish Congress (IJC) backed Israel. And other true Jewish organizations are joining them.
The scariest thing for a fake Jewish organization is a Jewish State. Establishment groups that have spent generations peddling lefty policy ideas to the clueless by calling them "Jewish" are deeply threatened by the existence of a Jewish State for whom the "J" part is not just a brand, but a meaningful identity.
Nothing threatens a scam artist like the real thing. And Israel, as idea and reality, has always threatened the scam artists of the left who peddle a bowdlerized Jewish history that began in the 19th century, whose messianic age is the Tikkun Olam of socialism and whose messiahs wave red flags.
Despite the clamor and the talking points, "controversial", "divisive" and "unnecessary", Israel's nation-state bill is mostly symbolic. It doesn't discriminate. It does however make a very clear statement.
And it's that statement that has blown like a fierce desert wind through the houses of cards of an establishment that views Jewishness as a brand rather than a commitment. It is easy to find Jewish organizations that will sign letters for every lefty cause, from Muslim immigration to illegal migrants. But rarely, if ever, will these organizations stand up for a Jewish cause, even if, like the racial quotas being imposed on Jewish students in New York, the cause has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.
Israel, the "Palestinians", the two-state solution and all the rest of it was never the issue. Jewishness is. The only people who are afraid of a Jewish State either hate Jews or hate being Jewish.
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front PageMagazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles.
***********************************************************************************************************************
Child Brides in Turkey
 |
- 40% of girls under the age of 18 in Turkey are forced into marriage, according to Turkish Philanthropy Funds.
- In January 2018, a government body under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's jurisdiction suggested that, according to Islamic law, girls as young as 9 and boys as young as 12 could marry.
- "Low education" means almost all of Turkey: The average schooling in the country is a mere 6.5 years.
- In Turkey you may abuse a 13-year-old and walk free, but you may not tease the president.
Where would you like your daughter to be when she is 13? In school, or in bed with a grown man? The answer to this question is largely beyond argument in much of the world. In Islamic societies, however -- including non-Arab and theoretically secular Turkey -- the answer is anyone's guess. Usually in such states, the police power of the government does not fight the patriarchal tradition; instead, it supports it.
Turkey's former president, Abdullah Gül, incumbent Islamist strongman Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's former ally and co-founder of the party that has ruled Turkey since 2002, was a 30-year-old man when he married his wife Hayrünnisa when she was 15. Gül, nominated for the presidency by Erdoğan, was Turkey's first Islamist president.
 Turkey's president from 2007 to 2014, Abdullah Gül (left), was a 30-year-old man when he married his wife Hayrünnisa (right) when she was 15 years old. (Photo by NATO press office via Getty Images) |
Conservative Turks, instead of questioning Gül's marriage to a child, cheered his rise to the presidency. This author was privately -- but not politely -- warned several times by senior politicians against bringing up the issue in his column in another newspaper.
According to Turkish Philanthropy Funds (TPF), 40% of girls under the age of 18 in Turkey are forced into marriage. TPF found that the Turkish national average of female high school dropouts was 56%. It further found that early marriage is seen in families with a low education level. "Low education" means almost all of Turkey: The average schooling in the country is a mere 6.5 years. In 45 Turkish provinces, the schooling rate is below the national average.
The Islamist rule in the once secular country has added to the problem of child brides instead of combating it. In November 2017, President Erdoğan signed the "mufti law," which allows state-approved clerics (or simply imams) to conduct marriage ceremonies, "despite concerns from civil society that this could have an impact on child marriage."
In January 2018, the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) -- a government body under Erdoğan's jurisdiction -- suggested that according to Islamic law, girls as young as 9 years old and boys as young as 12 could marry. Diyanet is responsible for administering religious institutions in Turkey. Its website reaffirmed that, according to Islamic law, whoever had reached the age of "adolescence" had the right to marry. This "fatwa" prompted the country's main opposition party, a secular group, to call for an investigation into child marriages.
The arrival of around three million Syrian refugees to Turkey since civil war broke out in the neighboring country has made things worse. For instance, a social worker at the Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital in Istanbul's Küçükçekmece district revealed that the hospital treated 115 pregnant underage girls, including 39 Syrian nationals, between Jan. 1 and May 9, 2017. The social worker complained to prosecutors that the hospital tried to cover up the pregnancies and did not notify the authorities, as is a legal requirement for the treatment of all pregnant girls younger than 18 in Turkey. Such examples are only the "tip of the iceberg," according to Canan Güllü, head of the Turkish Women Associations Federation.
A recent case of Syrian refugee-related child abuse is an embarrassment not only for the Turkish political culture that has nurtured the malady but also for the Turkish judiciary:
Fatma C., a Syrian child refugee arrived in Ankara, the Turkish capital, with her family four years ago. In 2017, according to an indictment, she was forced at the age of 13 to marry her relative, Abdulkerim J. The marriage was not civil but religious (made legal under Islam by an imam). Fatma C. got pregnant and was taken to a local health center where, because she was younger than 18, authorities informed law enforcement authorities.
Prosecutors decided that the girl's husband and her mother, Emani B., should stand trial for forcing an underage girl into marriage. So, stand trial they did. But a court in Ankara ruled during the first hearing of the case to acquit them. The defendants maintained that they did not know the Turkish law on marriage and that the girl had married "under Syrian law." An unusually tolerant Turkish prosecutor ruled that the "marriage took place not with the intention of committing an offense."
"It is universal rule that not knowing the law is not an excuse when one offends," said Ceren Kalay Eken, a lawyer from the Ankara Bar Association. "The appropriate place for a 13-year-old girl is on the school bench, not tending to the cradle."
It is amazing how soft and tolerant Turkish law enforcement can be when the offenders act from motives derived from austere Islamic values and traditions. Around the same time as the child bride's abusers went free during their first hearing, another Ankara court arrested four university students for exhibiting at their graduation ceremony a placard that the court deemed insulting to President Erdoğan. In Turkey, you may abuse a 13-year-old and walk free, but you may not tease the president.
Burak Bekdil, one of Turkey's leading journalists, was recently fired from Turkey's leading newspaper after 29 years, for writing what was taking place in Turkey for Gatestone. He is a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
© 2018 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
No comments:
Post a Comment