Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
Winehouse’s producer, Mark Ronson, told Rolling Stone magazine this week that the two had discussed an album of Hanukkah and Christmas songs.
“We’re talking about making a holiday record, with Christmas songs on one side and Hanukkah songs on the other,” Ronson told Rolling Stone. “She’s got songs called, like, Kosher Kisses and Alone Under the Mistletoe.”
According to Ronson, the idea came as the two were bemoaning the lack of “cool” Jewish songs for Hanukkah.
“She was kind of f**king around, but I was like, ‘You have all these amazing records to play for Christmas, like Motown and Carla Thomas and the Charlie Brown Christmas, and unfortunately, us Jews have nothing that cool to listen to. So we should do something,” Ronson told the magazine.
Yeah, that should go over really well with Christians. Not to mention, Jews have a cool Chanukah song. It’s called “The Chanukah Song,” and it comes in three versions
12.5.13 at 7:11 am | In some of the most astounding news I've heard. . .
12.3.13 at 7:11 am | The Supreme Court granted certiorari in ...
11.25.13 at 8:55 am | Judge Crabb ruled that the clergy housing. . .
11.23.13 at 7:46 pm | A time-lapse starting with Hinduism in 5,000 BC. . .
11.16.13 at 10:41 am | His kebab cafe on hard times, Zablon Simintov. . .
11.4.13 at 8:04 pm | The all-time leader in games played among ...
11.23.13 at 7:46 pm | A time-lapse starting with Hinduism in 5,000 BC. . . (182)
12.3.13 at 7:11 am | The Supreme Court granted certiorari in ... (143)
12.5.13 at 7:11 am | In some of the most astounding news I've heard. . . (125)
January 16, 2008 | 9:02 am
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
Not long ago, in a decrepit prison in Iraqi Kurdistan, a senior interrogator with the Kurdish intelligence service decided, for my entertainment and edification, to introduce me to an al-Qaeda terrorist named Omar. âThis one is crazy,â the interrogator said. âDonât get close, or heâll bite you.â
Omar was a Sunni Arab from a village outside Mosul; he was a short and weedy man, roughly 30 years old, who radiated a pure animal anger. He was also a relentless jabberer; he did not shut up from the moment we were introduced. I met him in an unventilated interrogation room that smelled of bleach and paint. He was handcuffed, and he cursed steadily, making appalling accusations about the sexual practices of the interrogatorâs mother. He cursed the Kurds, in general, as pig-eaters, blasphemers, and American lackeys. As Omar ranted, the interrogator smiled. âI told you the Arabs donât like the Kurds,â he said. Iâve known the interrogator for a while, and this is his perpetual theme: close proximity to Arabs has sabotaged Kurdish happiness.
Omar, the Kurds claim, was once an inconsequential deputy to the now-deceased terrorist chieftain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Omar disputed this characterization. By his own telling, he accomplished prodigies of terror against the pro-American Kurdish forces in the northern provinces of Iraq. âYou are worse than the Americans,â he told his Kurdish interrogator. âYou are the enemy of the Muslim nation. You are enemies of God.â The interrogatorâI will not name him here, for reasons that will become apparent in a momentâsat sturdily opposite Omar, absorbing his invective for several minutes, absentmindedly paging through a copy of the Koran.
During a break in the tirade, the interrogator asked Omar, for my benefit, to rehearse his biography. Omarâs life was undistinguished. His father was a one-donkey farmer; Omar was educated in Saddamâs school system, which is to say he was hardly educated; he joined the army, and then Ansar al-Islam, the al-Qaedaâaffiliated terrorist group that operates along the Iranian frontier. And then, on the blackest of days, as he described it, he fell prisoner to the Kurds.
The interrogator asked me if I had any questions for Omar. Yes, I said: Have you been tortured in this prison?
âNo,â he said.
âWhat would you do if you were to be released from prison right now?â
âI would get a knife and cut your head off,â he said.
At this, the interrogator smacked Omar across the face with the Koran.
Omar yelped in shock. The interrogator said: âDonât talk that way to a guest!â
Now, Omar rounded the bend. A bolus of spit flew from his mouth as he screamed. The interrogator taunted Omar further. âThis book of yours,â he said, waving the Koran. ââCut off their heads! Cut off their heads!â Thatâs the answer for everything!â Omar cursed the interrogatorâs mother once again; the interrogator trumped him by cursing the Prophet Muhammadâs mother.
The meeting was then adjourned.
In the hallway, I asked the interrogator, âArenât you Muslim?â
âOf course,â he said.
âBut youâre not a big believer in the Koran?â
âThe Koranâs OK,â he said. âI donât have any criticism of Muhammadâs mother. I just say that to get him mad.â
He went on, âThe Koran wasnât written by God, you know. It was written by Arabs. The Arabs were imperialists, and they forced it on us.â This is a common belief among negligibly religious Kurds, of whom there are many millions.
âThatâs your problem, then,â I said. âArabs.â
âOf course,â he replied. âThe Arabs are responsible for all our misfortunes.â
âWhat about the Turks?â I asked. It is the Turks, after all, who are incessantly threatening to invade Iraqi Kurdistan, which they decline to call âIraqi Kurdistan,â in more or less the same obstreperous manner that they refuse to call the Armenian genocide a genocide.
âThe Turks, too,â he said. âEveryone who denies us our right to be free is responsible for our misfortunes.â
We stepped out into the sun. âThe Kurds never had friends. Now we have the most important friend, America. Weâre closer to freeing ourselves from the Arabs than ever,â he said.
So goes the opening of Jeffrey Goldberg‘s amazing cover story for this month’s Atlantic and the hope of Iraqi Kurds who believe the American-led ouster of Saddam Hussein was the beginning of the new nation of Kurdistan. In his article, Goldberg imagines a new map of the Middle East, seen above, which he says could be the greatest consequence of the war.
It used to be that the most far-reaching and inventive question one could ask about the Middle East was this: How many states, one or twoâIsrael or a Palestinian state, or bothâwill one day exist on the slip of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River?
Today, that question seems trivial when compared with this one: How many states will there one day be between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates River? Three? Four? Five? Six? And why stop at the western bank of the Euphrates? Why not go all the way to the Indus River? Between the Mediterranean and the Indus today lie Israel and the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Long-term instability could lead to the breakup of many of these states.
These new nations would largely be drawn along racial and ethnic lines, which certainly would lead to lots of bloodshed, probably like what we saw in Iraq before the sectarian violence slowed toward the end of the year. In fact, many in the Middle East and some pro-Palestinian American academics think this was the goal: an American plot to Balkanize Arab countries for the benefit of Israel. Seriously. The article is so ripe with choice nuggets that I can’t possibly mention them all, but here is a poignant one made by a long-quite voice.
The neoconservativesâ big idea was that American-style democracy would quickly take hold in Iraq, spread through the Arab Middle East, and then be followed by the collapse of al-Qaeda, who would no longer have American-backed authoritarian Arab regimes to rally against. But democracy has turned out to be a habit not easily cultivated, and the idea that Arab political culture is capable of absorbing democratic notions of governance has fallen into disfavor.
In December of 2006, I went to the Israeli Embassy in Washington for a ceremony honoring Natan Sharansky, who had just received the Medal of Freedom from President Bush. Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident, had become the presidentâs tutor on the importance of democratic reform in the Arab world, and during the ceremony, he praised the president for pursuing unpopular policies. As he talked, the man next to me, a senior Israeli security official, whispered, âWhat a child.â
âWhat do you mean?â I asked.
âItâs not smart â¦ He wants Jordan to be more democratic. Do you know what that would mean for Israel and America? If you were me, would you rather have a stable monarch who is secular and who has a good intelligence service on your eastern border, or would you rather have a state run by Hamas? Thatâs what he would get if there were no more monarchy in Jordan.â
After the ceremony, I spoke with Sharansky about this critique. He acknowledged that he is virtually the lone neoconservative thinker in Israel, and one of the few who still believes that democracy is exportable to the Arab world, by force or otherwise.
âAfter I came back from Washington once,â he said, âI saw [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon in the Knesset, and he said, âMazel tov, Natan. Youâve convinced President Bush of something that doesnât exist.ââ
January 15, 2008 | 9:38 pm
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
As leaders of the Jewish community, none of whose organizations will endorse or oppose any candidate for President, we feel compelled to speak out against certain rhetoric and tactics in the current campaign that we find particularly abhorrent. Of particular concern, over the past several weeks, many in our community have received hateful emails that use falsehood and innuendo to mischaracterize Senator Barack Obamaâs religious beliefs and who he is as a person.
These tactics attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion. We reject these efforts to manipulate members of our community into supporting or opposing candidates.
Attempts of this sort to mislead and inflame voters should not be part of our political discourse and should be rebuffed by all who believe in our democracy. Jewish voters, like all voters, should support whichever candidate they believe would make the best president. We urge everyone to make that decision based on the factual records of these candidates, and nothing less.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, Founder and Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center
William Daroff, Vice President, United Jewish Communities
Nathan J. Diament, Director, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Abraham Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League
Richard S. Gordon, President, American Jewish Congress
David Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Phyllis Snyder, President, National Council of Jewish Women
Hadar Susskind, Washington Director, Jewish Council for Public Affairs
January 15, 2008 | 1:53 pm
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
I have no idea why Mike Huckabee thinks the Constitution is un-Christian, a statement he made last night that only makes me more wary of his candidacy.
I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.
This is really ridiculous. And it is exactly the kind of politicking the Constitution sought to prevent. Huckabee keeps selling his conservative Christian creds like a used-car salesman, but this time it might backfire.
I can see how support for a human life amendment and a federal marriage amendment can win votes among some politically conservative evangelicals. But honestly, I’m thinking that this quote probably cost Huckabee more evangelical votes than it won him. The strongest supporters of those amendments have made the case on pragmatic grounds, not theological ones. James Dobson, for example, doesn’t say the federal marriage amendment is necessary to bring the Constitution in line with God’s standards. He says it’s necessary to keep marriage from being redefined legally and culturally.
January 15, 2008 | 11:56 am
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
Barack Obama has courted Jews early and often in his rapid political ascendancy, even if he did falter a bit in May. But there have been some rumors circulating that Obama’s not the philo-Semite he seems to be, culminating in a Richard Cohen column in today’s Washington Post.
Barack Obama is a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama’s spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said “truly epitomized greatness.” That man is Louis Farrakhan.
Maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan “epitomized greatness.” For most Americans, though, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler—“They helped him get the Third Reich on the road.” His history is a rancid stew of lies.
M.J. Rosenberg sees something more insidious at play here: Dirty politics.
the whispers about Obama go like this. “You know, Obama’s minister is a big Farrakhan supporter.” “He’s also Muslim, or half Muslim.” “He studied in a madrassa.” “And he’s very anti-Israel.”
No one knows if any campaign is behind these charges. According to the informative analysis and poll by Shmuel Rosner in Ha’aretz, the right-wing of the Jewish community does not like Obama and strongly favors Giuliani and Clinton because of their hardline stances on Israel.
But I don’t think any campaign is behind this round of swiftboating because it bears all the markings of the Jewish far right, the camp that cheered Rabin’s assassination. Nevertheless, the smears will have an effect, regardless of its origins. It will be felt on Super Tuesday when hundreds of thousands of Jews vote in New York, California, and elsewhere.
It’s pretty ugly and today columnist Richard Cohen is taking it mainstream. Check out his column in the Washington Post. He shares the story of Obama’s Farrakhan-admiring minister and sounds the alarms to Jews everywhere. He demands Obama repudiate the pastor. What idiocy! ...
Cohen should be ashamed. But, rest assured, none of the people involved in the race-baiting of Barack Obama are capable of it.
Considering the number of Jews involved in Obama’s campaign, from the most official level to the grassroots, it’s hard to believe he’s really a closet Jew hater.
January 15, 2008 | 11:46 am
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia—Teresa Malof knew she wasn’t in Kentucky anymore when a cleric issued a fatwa against her secret Santa gift exchange.
Malof proposed the idea at the King Fahad National Guard Hospital, where she has worked for more than a decade. It was supposed to be discreet, but rumors were whispered amid veils and hijabs that the lithe, blond nurse, raised on farmland at the edge of Appalachia, was planning to celebrate a Christian tradition in an Islamic kingdom that forbids the practicing of other religions.
“Even though I’m a Muslim too, I like to celebrate the holidays and have gift exchanges,” said Malof, a convert to Islam who is married to the son of a former Saudi ambassador. “But word got out and the religious people came with a fatwa [or edict] against the Santa party. My husband was having a heart attack. He was worried I’d be in a lot of trouble.”
For American women married to Saudi men, such is life in this exotic, repressive and often beguiling society where tribal customs and religious fervor rub against oil wealth and the tinted-glass skyscrapers that rise Oz-like in the blurry desert heat. This is not a land of the 1st Amendment and voting rights; it is a kingdom run by the strict interpretation of Wahhabi Islam, where abayas hang in foyers, servants linger like ghosts, minarets glow in green neon and, as a recent court case showed, a woman who is raped can also be sentenced to 200 lashes for un-Islamic behavior.
“Haram, haram” (forbidden, forbidden). American wives know the phrase well. It is learned over years of peeking through veils at supermarkets or sitting in the back of SUVs while Filipinos behind the wheel glide through traffic. Their adopted Arab home is a traditionally close U.S. ally. But like much of the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia’s relations with Washington have been strained since the rise of global jihad. Terrorist bombings, which have killed nearly 150 people here in recent years, have kept many American families in gated communities that have the aura of golf courses protected by small armies.
Most non-Muslim women convert to Islam as a prerequisite for marrying a Saudi and living in the kingdom. Many American women, including those who converted before they arrived, have embraced the Koran; for others, the adoption of Islam is a pantomime act, the disguise of a second self to hold them over until they peel off their head scarves and travel to the U.S. for summer vacations.
For both kinds of women, it is a life of sacrifices and measured victories: Women can’t drive or vote in Saudi Arabia, but their children are largely safe from street crime and drugs; a wife can’t leave the country without her husband’s written permission, but tribal and religious codes instill a strong sense of family.
Freedom lies behind courtyard walls, where private swimming pools glimmer and the eyes of the religious police, known as the mutaween, do not venture. Rock ‘n’ roll (haram) is played, smuggled whiskey (haram) is sipped, and Christianity (haram) sometimes is practiced. This sequestered, contradictory experience, a number of American wives noted, can turn an expat into an alcoholic or a born-again Christian, and sometimes both.
“American women get together and we talk,” said Lori Baker, a mother of two who met her Saudi husband at Ohio State University in 1982. “We ask one another, ‘Where are you on your curve now? Have you hit bottom yet?’ We all go through the highs and lows when it comes to moods and tolerance. . . . When I first got here, I felt naked without my head scarf.
“Then after the terrorist bombings in 2003, I even covered my face. Foreigners were a target then. I became very comfortable with my face covered. I felt safe. Nobody knows me. They can’t see me, and if you’re covered, they respect you. Sometimes without a covered face it’s like walking down Main Street wearing a bikini.”
Read the rest here.
January 15, 2008 | 7:48 am
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
That didn’t take long. My article for the February Christianity Today about India’s treatment of “Untouchables” who convert to Christianity (or Islam) went online this morning. I mentioned it yesterday in a piece about new Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
If Dalits change their official religious identification from Hindu to Christian, they can lose benefits such as access to federal jobs or admission to government-funded universities. In December, the Supreme Court of India delayed hearings for Muslims and Christians demanding full constitutional rights.
Two months earlier, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) had issued a statement of conscience that urged the United States and Indian governments to protect Dalits from physical violence, discrimination, and economic despair.
“It is a compelling human rights issue,” said Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the NAE, “and we believe as evangelical Christians that the Dalits need to know we hear their concerns and are willing to come to their defense in a way that is diplomatic and salutary.”
The church has grown significantly in India, thanks partly to an estimated 100,000 mostly native missionaries preaching throughout the country. But discrimination, both official and unofficial, continues against the Dalits.
The NAE’s statement cited a 2005 killing of a Dalit man and a high-caste woman. They were beaten with rods and their throats were slit for marrying outside of their castes. The young woman’s family had hired the killers.
January 14, 2008 | 1:22 pm
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
The Times-Picayune had a lengthy profile last week of Louisiana’s new Gov. Bobby Jindal that focused on the India native’s conversion to Catholicism and the role that has played in his political ascent.
When Gov.-elect Bobby Jindal converted to Catholicism during high school and college, he took a momentous step away from his inherited faith of Hinduism, the prevalent religion of his parents’ generation and Indian homeland.
But among Jindal’s relatives and among Hindus in India generally, his decision to adopt the Christian way is strongly supported.
Jindal’s personal path to Christianity, which had politically significant ramifications for Louisiana, was aided by an open-minded attitude among his relatives about theology. Also, he visited India infrequently as a child, giving him little chance to acquire the deeply ingrained appreciation for Hindu culture that comes from exposure to daily life in that country.
His relatives’ perspective reflects a tolerant side of a religion that for thousands of years has survived philosophical transformations, rebellious counter-religions and numerous sects, only to claim them all in time as part of the infinitely flexible cosmos of Hindu faith.
“If you find and see that you get more peace of mind, more solace, in that religion, then why not change religion?” said Jindal’s uncle Subhash Gupta, a practicing Hindu. “In India, many people change to the Christian religion. And I can understand that some people maybe find Christian religion more satisfying to their needs.”
Although the relatives’ opinions might seem magnanimous, their views are typically Hindu. India’s large-circulation national newspapers viewed Jindal’s election as front-page news, and for the most part his conversion to Catholicism was not commented upon negatively. Indian criticism of Jindal instead has centered on his infrequent visits and seeming lack of interest in his parents’ home country.
The Indian national figure Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu so famous his image appears on most Indian currency, espoused religious tolerance because he believed there were many paths to God, so long as an individual was sincere in the pursuit of the divine way.
When asked about Jindal, Pandit Deoki Nandan Shastri, a Hindu holy man in Varanasi, made a similar point.
“Hindu is not a religion,” he said. “Hinduism is a way of life.”
“You pray to Christ, I pray to Rama, he prays to Mohammad,” he said. “We are going the same way. God is one. His name is called a thousand names.”
Sadly, such a liberal perspective is not universal in India, where Hindu fundamentalists poignantly remind the world that “religious extremist” is not just a code word for Islamic terrorist. Remember the Gujarat anti-Muslim pogrom five years ago that left 2,000 people dead, including a woman who’s fetus was proudly ripped from her womb by this guy.
The fervency of Hindu nationalism is no secret; it gave birth to Pakistan and later Bangladesh. And India has had quite the history of violence against Christians, which sprang up again on Christmas Eve.
On Christmas Eve, violence broke out against Christians in the Kandhamal district of the eastern Indian state of Orissa, which has become well known for poor governance and class tensions. Hindu fundamentalist groups led by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP, the World Hindu Council) have attacked Christians and their institutions at will in rural areas. Over 90 churches and Christian institutions have been burned and vandalized, over 700 Christian homes destroyed, and the number of pastors and Christians killed is yet to be known, according to a report by my colleagues in the All India Christian Council. A pastor in Chennai told me that 11 pastors have been killed and thousands of Dalit (formerly known as untouchable) Christians displaced. Compass Direct reports that the death count is at 9. Many people are missing, and others have vanished in the nearby forests.
Human Rights Watch and others have decried the present carnage in Orissa and have recognized that freedom of religious choice â especially in a democracy like India’s â must be respected. The Prime Minister promised immediate action to restore peace in the state. But the affected areas are still reporting sporadic violence over two weeks since the attacks against Dalit Christians began.
Despite reports that Christians retaliated in some places, so far Dalit Freedom Network investigations and statements by the Orissa government indicate that Maoist rebels â called Naxalites â were behind the revenge attacks that left dozens of Hindu families homeless. Most Naxalites are armed Dalits, and their involvement gives evidence of the root problem: ancient caste divisions.
The author of this piece was Joseph D’Souza, whom I interviewed a few months ago for an article about the plight of the Dalits—who dwell beneath the bottom of India’s cast system—that will appear in the February Christianity Today. One of the biggest forms of discrimination meted out by the government is that Dalits who convert to Christianity or Islam lose their welfare eligibility. The same is not true if they converted to Buddhism or Sikhism. This often causes a dual identity. “They will have their Hindu or pre-Christian indentity, sometimes keeping their Hindu name, because there is affirmative action and if they want to have the benefits of that, they cannot use their Christian name,” Robert Eric Frykenberg, professor emeritus of history and South Asian studies at the University of Wisconsin, told me. For more info about discrimination in India, I’ll link to the article when it runs.