Assimilation, oh what a show...

The Conference on the Future of the Jewish People met recently to discuss the current problem of assimilation amongst Diaspora Jewry. Their solution is to stress Jewish education and further connection to Israel via Birthright. Both of these are good ideas as far as they go. Jewish education has always been the solution to assimilation (see Max I. Dimont's Jews, God and History)- Ezra instituted tri-weekly Torah readings, the Rabbis of the Talmud provided free universal education (circa the 1st century C.E.)- so it should come as no surprise that education might again be a valuable tool in the preservation of Jewish identity. Indeed, and not to sound at all bitter, the Torah itself seems to stress this point- ' and these words shall be on your heart, and you shall teach them to your children.' If it is on your heart, (i.e. you identify with them) the only way forward, the only way to inculcate the next generation, is to TEACH THEM.

The Birthright trip has shown certain results of increasing active Zionism, and Jewish affiliation, but I think think tanks need to be aware of two points that are dangerous in these statistics. Firstly, many of those who go on Birthright are already highly identifiable Jewishly. Not all, perhaps not most; the some who are, are also the most likely to be affected by it. Secondly, while identification with Israel as the Jewish homeland, and home to many Jews, may be a positive attribute, it is still a rather hollow identification as it pertains to Jewish identity. Many Diaspora Jews who associate with Israel associate with Israeli, and not Jewish culture. Furthermore, many Diaspora Jews come to think of Tel Aviv as the only city, and the only mentality, that exists in Israel.

A show of these effects is the hollow worship that many Diaspora Jews have for hummus, falafel, schwarma and the like. None of these are even Israeli, (except that Israel, then still Palestine, was the first to put falafel into pita) but to the Diaspora Jew who has fallen in love with Israel, they are adopted as quickly as possible. Many cultural affinities are Middle Eastern and not Israeli at all. Granted, they are certainly part of the culture of Israel, but to the extent that Israel has absorbed its culture from other sources.

What is the problem, then, if Israel has already absorbed these foreign cultures into their own? Why can't Jewish identity be extended to Israeli identity. For two main reasons- Israel does not negate the existence of the Diaspora, and Israeli culture is often the possession of those who are Jews by virtue only of their blood. I admit to falling trap towards part of the first fallacy, in that, though I don't identify with Tel Avivian culture, I still fail to see anywhere outside of Israel as my home. However, and this is the important part to emphasize, that does not negate the truism that is the existence of a Diaspora. A Diaspora has existed almost as long as the Jewish people have, and it is naive to declare its end with one fell swoop of regaining nationhood. American Jewish culture, for example, is something that can AND DOES exist completely outside the confines of Israeli culture.

But perhaps more important that the narrow definition of identity achieved by Birthright, is the false identity achieved by birthright. As noted before, much of Israel's culture has nothing to do with Jewish culture. By this, and I cannot stress this enough, I do not mean that Israel is not religious enough for it to count as Jewish culture. Although I think it is a truism that Jewish culture (and therefore identification) can never be wholly divorced from Judaism, my point here is something much simpler- many Israelis identify themselves as Jews only by heritage. This is a further emphasis of the point made above-that much in Israel culture is not Israeli-but now the point is that much in Israeli culture, even though adopted by Jews, is not Jewish. Israel, to a certain extent, was founded by those who wanted to cast a completely non-'Jewish' identity for Jews. The common perception is that Zionism is the movement for a Jewish homeland; that is one angle, taken by the likes of Ahad Ha'Am. However, Herzlian Zionism is considerably different. Herzl's aim, having realized that non-Jews would never accept Jews, even assimilated, in their countries, wanted the Jews to have their own country in order that they be like all other nations. Indeed, his goal was that Israel should end up feeling completely like Switzerland.

If Herzl's vision had succeeded, Israel, and the Jewish identity contained within, would be nothing more than an extension of Western identity. However, surely whatever identity Jews choose to attach to themselves, ought to be 'good' enough to be considered Jewish identity? Such an objection, however, fails to understand that the underlying assumption of the conference is precisely the opposite- why should anyone bother about keeping Jewish identity distinctive, if it does not contain anything original, anything unique? Certainly Jewish continuity for the very sake of Jewish continuity is pointless. What do Jews bring to the table? The religious dimension is an obvious answer, but just as obviously not a solution that the majority of Jewry will accept- a cultural identity, based on the conscious, and unconscious, decision of Jews, unique from non-Jewish culture, is the only possible answer. Granted, culture does not develop in a box, and Jewish culture, inevitably, will always have 'outside' influences; outside influences are different than the sum totality of the culture.

Luckily, Herzl's vision has not, so far at least, succeeded. However, to deny that it is a strong current within Israeli society actively misses the point. For many Israelis Israel is the some total of Jewish identity. If that translates to Diaspora Jews, and forges the sum total of their identity, they might as well be Japanese, or Greek. Furthermore, identifying one's Jewishness with Israel may work fine for an Israeli- he's there, it's kind of hard to throw it aside- but for a Diaspora Jew, such identity is only flimsy. Why should he not cast aside this country identity in order to identify with America, or France, etc.? The very fact that this Jew isn't immigrating to Israel shows how very weak this identity is. Nonetheless, the Birthright trips certainly have their place, and are quite valuable for what they do accomplish- reinforcing an already present Jewish identity.

But far from this rant against the division within Israeli society, and vacuousness that occur when people overemphasize 'Israel as Jewish identity,' there is a much more serious issue that this conference seems to have completely failed to address. The conference was framed in (basically) these terms- assimilation is rampant, as evidence by lack of synagogue affiliation, (most Jews are not affiliated with any synagogue) intermarriage, (more than half of all Jews intermarry) etc., and what can be done to stop assimilation. The damning evidence actually points to a conclusion wholly different from the one they have drawn. Or rather, a more important battle needs to be fought.

The battle, in the conference's terms, is a battle against assimilation. By definition that battle is only concerned with those that already associate themselves with the Jewish community- how do we stem the tide of expatriation? However, the figures used in support of asserting rampant assimilation also tell the dark story of those for who this battle has already been lost. Over 50% of Jews already don't associate with the broader Jewish community. The more important question, as it is much wider in scope, and perhaps more of an immediate threat, ( as someone who barely registers their Jewish identity as part of their life can hardly be expected to pass that on to the next generation) is what to be done to bring those Jews, those myriads of Jews, back into the fold.

Judaism may be nobody's friend, but please, try harder, part 2

The weather is crap in this country- it’s already July 7th and it’s still entirely miserable. Even though I should be job hunting right now, the weather has deterred me so much that I’ve decided to continue on with my response to Mark Glenn. As I iterated yesterday, the point of this response is not to call him an anti-semite- he is, and he’s proud of it. In today’s post I will, hopefully, delve into why he is an anti-Semite and not simply, as the People’s Voice would contend, a Judeophobe.
Yesterday, for those of you who didn’t follow the general theme of the posts, I dealt with Glenn’s claim that Judaism is inherently insidious. He claimed that Judaism is motivated for the advancement of Judaism, and not for the advancement of G-d. This is patently absurd, and only follows from mistakes Glenn makes that most 5 year olds would not. Judaism is simply a ‘tribal’ or particular religion. Obviously it makes universal claims about metaphysical nature, but it does not make, at least in the form of Judaism itself, a claim about universal obligation. This is specifically unlike Christianity, Islam or even Buddhism and Hinduism. The only ‘obligations’ it imposing on non-Jews is the Seven Noahide laws- theft, murder, promiscuity, blasphemy, cruel and unusual treatment of animals, idolatry, and the obligation to set up a justice system. Now, most of these are universally accepted anyway- so it’s unclear how this could be construed as an attempt to dominate. Further, both Christianity and Islam abide by all of these rules- so Glenn, clearly a Christian, should not even have an issue.
Perhaps, though, he objects the fact that there is a universal claim of obligation made at all. Never mind that his favourite monotheistic religions make universal claims as well, the Noahide laws are not ‘enforceable’ outside of Israel. Within a halachic state of Israel, in other words not the modern state, there a considered a requirement for residing there. Outside Israel they are only to be required by G-d. Of course, Jews can encourage their observance, but nothing more than that. It should be noted as well, that the Seven Noahide laws are in no way ‘the Jewish message’ to the world- they are rather considered the most basic requirements for participation in humanity.
What about his other claims? Such as the fact that Jesus is boiling in a pot of semen, or that Mary had sex with carpenters or something of the like. I have not seen the latter- what I did see was the claim that she was raped right before her marriage to Joseph. But what’s your point Mark? That Jews fundamentally reject the virgin birth? No **** Sherlock- if Judasim accepted Christianity’s claims as true, wouldn’t it be Christianity? So too anyone who is going to reject the ‘doctrine’ of the virgin birth is going to try to come up with a naturalistic explanation for it- just as Glenn would for the religions of Hinduism, etc. Now, the more offensive claim is that Jesus was a blasphemer and that he is boiling in a pot of semen- clearly offensive to Christians. No quibbles about that. But is it any different than the Christian accusation that Muhammad is the embodiment of Satan? It’s a polemic written against the backdrop of Christian dominance of the Jews. And further, Jesus was a Jew. If, as the Talmud understood, he did make the John-esque claims to divinity, he would be a blasphemer. Would the Talmud condemn him as strongly if say the Unitarian version, or even more modern ‘soft’ versions of Jesus’ claims are true? Probably not. So in Glenn’s view, it is alright to condemn Jews to the flame, because they are wrong, but not for Jews to assert that they are right?
Thus far, I have discussed Glenn’s basic claim that Judaism is insidious in nature. But he actually goes further and equates ‘Jews’ with ‘Judaism’. It is here that publications such as The People’s Voice are obviously false- they claim that Glenn is simply attacking Judaism, and not Jews. In their view Judeophobia is fine, as long as some one is not anti-Semitic. Perhaps they forget that for most of its history anti-Semitism was mostly anti-Judaism, and that led to anti-Semitism in its current form. They quickly forget that it was the idea that Jews worshipped Satan led to the idea that the Jews were themselves demonic, and less than human. How else could they betray their own Messiah, if they are anything but demons incarnate?
Aside from the mini-brief on history, Glenn is quite obvious that he is attacking Jews as well. He claims that the reason the discourse has remained with regards to Zionism is because religion is personal. Well, that is indeed the point- religion is personal in a way that perhaps nothing other than culture is. He makes it clear that by attacking Judaism, he intends also to attack Jews.
He makes this intent even more lucid with some of the examples he cites in support of his theory of how insidious Judaism: Bolshevism, the destruction of the moral fabric of society, liberalism, WW1, WW2. I don’t recall if he made any other claims than that- his article is extremely long, and it is rather difficult to sift through the vacuous rhetoric to find every single accusation.
Whatever the validity of these accusations, they are clearly accusations against Jews and not against Judaism. Or rather, to anyone who separates the two, they are against Jews. Glenn believes that all actions performed by Jews are related to Judaism- this follows from his assumption that Judaism is the religion for the advancement for the Jews over anyone else. However, the actions of, for example, Muslims, are not relatable to their religion unless the rationale given is religion, or there is an actual development related to religion. For example- many Muslims live in the Middle East. According to Glenn, one would conclude that therefore it is Islamic to leave in the Middle East. What would be an Islamic idea would be an interpretation of jihad- an Islamic concept- which seeks pro-active domination. It would not be justification to condemn the entirety of Islam, as most reject the concept of ‘offensive’ jihad, but it would nonetheless be an idea that stems from Islam.
However, even this modicum of support Glenn fails to achieve. I assume that when Glenn says he blames the Jews for the breakdown of morals in the country he is referring to the pornography industry. It may be indeed run by many Jews, but this has nothing to do with Judaism. These Jews are, by definition, not religious. Judaism does not sanction pornography any more than Christianity does. Further, to blame the pornography on the Jews Glenn would need to further assert that the Jews, right now, invented pornography. However, anyone with any sense of history knows that just as rules about sex are a uniform part of any culture, so too is some amount of deviance from those rules. Pornography, as well as the sex industry, has been around for much longer than Judaism.
His claims of Jews starting WW1 are almost incomprehensible to me, barring the following conjecture- he thinks that since the British gave mandated Palestine to the Jews, when they obtained control in the first, it must have been a Jewish plot. Perhaps the fact that many Jews fought on the German side (forgetting the many Jews that fought on both sides) it must have been a Jewish plot.
Perhaps a simpler explanation can be construed- Glenn merely lapped up the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In it is documented the supposed Jewish plot to take over the world. One of the methods of this plot is by destabilizing governments in general (as well as many other similarities to the other accusations that Glenn makes about the Jews) by means of war. So, the fact that it happened must be proof in the pudding that the Jews did it. Because everything the Jews attempt to achieve, they are capable? Correlation is not causation. Even if Glenn could show that the Jews indeed do seek to destabilize society, that would still be a far step from proving that they did so.
But more problematic is the assertion that it is the Jews intent in the first place. The Protocols has been shown to be both forged and plagiarized- how’s that for an impressive resume? Nietzsche once said that the notion that the Jews want to take over the world is absurd- had they wanted to, they already would have. These Protocols are nothing more than propaganda- indeed, very similar to Glenn’s article, where emotive phrases are much more important than factual information, or intelligent and critical analysis. He’d rather call Zionism Godzilla and Judaism its steroid juiced parent than to present factual criticism of Judaism. To be sure- there are many valid criticism of Judaism, but criticizing Jews is not one of them. Perhaps Glenn ascribes to racial ideology- whereby characteristics of people are determined by their ‘race’- but then he’s the anachronism, and not the Jews.
Glenn further accuses the Jews of Bolshevism, and by extension the failure that was communist Russia, and perhaps the very notion of communism itself. Ironic that this ignores the fact that Jesus was likely from a second-Temple group who practiced a hard form of communism- oops! More problematic is that the Jewish involvement in Communism was actually in the semi-opposing Menshevik movement- which the Bolsheviks brutally suppressed after their ascension to power. So, the Jews attempt to impose their brand of communism actually failed- and Jews were one of the main parties to suffer for it. Further ‘evidence’ of the Jewish origins of communism is that the person who laid the most ground for it was Carl Marx. His father had converted to Christianity, so that when he wrote the Communist Manifesto he was only ‘racially’ Jewish. So again, equivocation- Jews are not Judaism. They may choose to practice it or not, but it does not become Judaism merely on account of Jews ascribing to such an ideology.
More problematic however is the claim that Jews want communism in the first place. Nationalism, the basis of Zionism, is the antithesis of Communism. You can be a Zionist Socialist, but not a Zionist Communist. Further, and more to the point, just as much as Jews have been accused of being attracted to communism, they have been similarly attracted to capitalism. In fact, for every Jewish neo-con, there is a Jewish bleeding heart liberal. For every Jewish Zionist, there is a Jewish anti-Zionist (sometimes called post-Zionists). For every white European Jew, there is a darker one- many are even from Africa. Jews are accused being lead like sheep to the slaughter, and likewise accused of complete bloodthirstiness when it comes to their plot to strangle to world. Jews have been accused of being absurd tribal and particularistic, as well as been being too cosmopolitan. The common denominator is then, not what the Jew does, but rather the fact that he is Jewish. Jews are hated not because they stand for any abhorrent ideology in particular, or because the commit any particular pernicious crime, but rather because they are Jewish. Why people hate Jews is another story for another place, but it clearly has nothing to do with how they act. Professor Dershowitz once related the story that the President of Harvard did not want to let in Jews because they cheat. When told that gentiles also cheat, the President responded, “don’t change the subject- we’re talking about Jews.”
Glenn further accuses the Jews of being ardent proponents of liberalism. To be sure, Jews have traditionally been supporters of the Democratic Party. This is starting to change, but I want to deal with his basic assertion that the Jews are behind liberalism. To be sure, Jews have benefited greatly from one of the main tenets of liberalism- the restriction of religion to the private sphere by means of the separation of Church and State. However, neither the Jews, nor Judaism, are behind that development in Western Society. Instead, it was Christianity itself that paved the way for the removal of religion from the public sphere. When Luther broke from the Catholic Church, the ensuing wars damaged Europe so badly that a compromise had to be reached: the foundations of the current separation in which we live. To be sure, it is even rooted in Christian doctrine. Christianity was initially not a political independent religion, and as such Jesus declaring that the state belongs to the Romans and the Kingdom of G-d belongs to G-d, is quite understandable. But, more to the point freedom of conscious, etc. are concepts belonging to the Reformed version of Christianity. Further, much of the impetus for the scientific flourishing of the Renaissance was due to Christian ideology. And, spawned from this was a further discussion of liberalism- well before Jews entered the discourse. If anything, the Jews were a much maligned after-thought- French discussion to extend the rights of citizens to Jews was rife with lament.
Yes, Jews were more than willing to march side-by-side of Blacks in the Sixties to achieve their normalization- is that a bad thing? Yes, many Jews are very wary of President Bush and his Christian agenda- but only having recently achieved their right to freedom of worship, does that surprise anyone? And further, there are many Jews that are attaching themselves to the idea of a Judeo-Christian ethics. Suffice it to say that these claims are contradictory, naïve, and rather patently false.
The last claim that I will address today is that the Judaism was behind WW2. For those who have not yet heard this drek ( in English b***s**t) the logic is as follows- the Holocaust was perpetrated by the Zionists in order to facilitate the establishment of the State of Israel. Again, correlation is not the same as causation. But further- if Zionism is the movement for the national agenda of the Jewish people, why would they murder, or attempt to murder Jews? What is often claimed, therefore, is that both the numbers of those martyred are greatly exaggerated and that those killed in the name of Zionism are very few. However, the number of those who perished (about 11 million innocent civilians, amongst them somewhere between 5 to 6 million Jews) is well-documented- it is a fact attested to by countless historians, and even upheld in court.
This is perhaps the most absurd, and the most insidious, claim that Glenn makes. It both needs the least amount of response, and the most. Most people will recognize it as patently false; those who don’t will end up with nothing more than the most disgusting view of Jews imaginable.
In my next post, I might address this accusation a bit further. Most likely, I will simply refer to others who deal with it extensively already. I am going to end here, as it is the perfect segue to the Glenn’s next major theme- Zionism is the offspring of Judaism. To Glenn’s mind, this is perhaps the paradigm example of that truth- and therefore what I will discuss next.

Judasim may be no-one's friend, but please, try a little harder in showing that, part one

Read this here, if you have the patience:http://crescentandcross.wordpress.com/2006/11/07/judaism-is-nobody%E2%80%99s-friend/

It's taken me a few days since first seeing this article to work up the gumption to write a response to it. You see, this type of anti-Semitic diatribe just simply depresses me- blindly writing a polemic in which there is very little basis for the enmity is absurd. You see, this is what Mark Glenn had in mind- to write a fairly vacuous article, and get away with it, if only because no one could bother to properly respond. But I will, because of the Talmudic maxim 'Know what to respond to an heretic.' Obviously Mr. Glenn isn't a heretic, but let's not quibble over minor details, just as he doesn't bother to. Let me make it clear that I am not going to castigate Glenn for being an anti-Semite- he clearly is one, and he does not care. He views anti-Semitism as positive notion, aimed at suppressed a supposed insidious worldwide conspiracy.

Glenn's first assertion is that Judaism receives an undue amount of 'kiddie treatment' on the popular stage. Zionism, he claims, is recognizably fair game- but the second that anyone attack "j," as he calls it, there are immediately censured. I'm sure my response to him here isn't going to help the point in his mind. His second point, related to his first, is that the same dirtiness that make Zionism contemptuous, is indeed what is filthy and rotten about Judaism itself. Coupled together his argument becomes, "that is the single barrier demarcating the two items–a simple issue of letters and pronunciation, despite the fact that they are basically the same animal"

After these major two assertions, he basically attacks this supposed body with very vague and superficial rhetoric- they don't care about rules, fair mindedness, freedom of speech, etc. As these assertions are a result of his first two, that there is a coercive attitude to be nice to Judaism, and that it is in fact just as bad as Zionism, I won't really address them.

However, his first two assertions are blatantly absurd. "Zionism," Glenn claims, "is only a by-product of something else." In Glenn's worldview, since Judaism is termed as such and not Yahweism, therefore it is a religion towards the advancement of Jews, and not the advancement of G-d. Since Zionism ostensibly argues for the advancement of Jews, Judaism and Zionism must be, as a matter of course, the same thing.

Before I respond, I want to preface by saying that Judaism is most certainly the religion of the Jews, and Zionism is most certainly a movement to advance the Jews. So, there will obviously be some common denominators-namely, the Jews.

However, Glenn commits so many absurd fallacies in this part of his argument that it is hard to count them all. First, he interprets Judaism to mean the religion for the advancement of the Jews. Besides the absurdity of exegizing an English adaption of a Hebrew word, (Yahadut) Glenn also misses a much simpler definition- the religion of the Jews. Part of the basis for his 'mistake' is that Judaism, unlike pretty much any current religion, does not make its claims universal. Hinduism claims that all follow the circle of rebirth, Christianity claims that Jesus's message is for all mankind, Islam claims Mohammed's is likewise. I am not referring to a willingness to tolerate other faiths- Islam certainly does, and so does Hinduism, whereas one could make the claim that Judaism does not. What I am referring to is much simpler- the claims of the Jewish religion are local only to the Jews. This is universal in all branches of Judaism- only Jews are required, or even expected to keep Judaism. Indeed, among the more 'traditional' branches, conversion is actively dissuaded.

Therefore, Judaism is most accurately defined as the religion of the Jews. As for Glenn's other assertions, that Judaism is not concerning with correct action towards G-d, had he even thought for a moment he would realize how utterly absurd this is. An Orthodox Jew's first action in the morning is state ' I am thankful before You, ever-living King, that you returned to me my soul with kindness- great is your faithfulness,' while his last is to declare, ' In your hand I entrust my spirit when I go to sleep- and I will not fear. And if my spirit will expire, the Lord is with me, and I will not fear.' In the hours between, the 'legalism' which Glenn confuses solely for the advancement of the Jews, is more accurately put as E.P. Sanders did- as a covenant between G-d and Israel whereby right action achieves G-d's favor.

Glenn follows this with a natural next step- Gentiles exist in the eyes of Judaism only for Jew's purpose. If Judaism is about the advancement of the Jews, this contention makes sense. Furthermore, even if Judaism is only defined as the religion of the Jews, doesn't this seeming tribalism condemn non-Jews to a secondary nature within Judaism? Rabbi Jonathan Sacks contends precisely the opposite- though the obligations of ethics are born out of familial relationships, the Rabbis of the Talmud introduced the concept of 'for the ways of peace' so that Jews would be able to naturally extend there kindness to non-Jews. Unlike most Western ethics, Judaism asserts that what really creates both ethical duty and ethical consideration is having a shared circumstance. That's why the Jew is obligated to help the foreigner, for he was one. He is obligated to help his brother, for he would want help as well. This notion of motivation is perhaps very radical, but also very pragmatic- for all the highmindness of universalized ethics, they failed to properly motivate the individual to reach out to those who are indeed different. Proof in point, Glenn would never reach out to those insidious Jews. This extension on account of 'the ways of peace' asks Jews to envision a world where humanity is indeed a family, a vision fairly new to the world's purview. The groundwork for the prophetic end of peace envisioned by Isaiah and the like, is laid by the simple act of reaching out to those who are not same- no matter what faith they belong to.

Aside from this interesting point, Glenn clearly misses the basic truth that Judaism, even if it is not solely based on the written Bible, is more certainly partially based thereon. That aforementioned estalogical end- it is indeed a tenet of Judaism, and the hope of many Jews.

Glenn of course asserts that Judaism is much more insidious than this though- it promises wealth as a reward for right deed, and not eternal life. First of all, Judaism, like many other religions does speak of the afterlife- it just doesn't view this as a valid reason for right action. Further, what difference is there between doing right action for this world, or for the next- both are self-interested, and are clearly not for the aggrandizement of G-d. Further, Glenn assumes that since wealth is promised as reward, it must be a goal. While this idea may be superficially tempting, the Bible is also quite clear that 'One who loves money will never be satisfied with money.' What then of monetary reward? Perhaps it's merely for the actual advancement of the religious duty itself- Maimonides stated that poverty is not the friend of those who seek enlightenment, it dissuades, rather than helps one from achieve higher thoughts.

Further along Glenn claims that the Talmud says that Rabbi will be completely saved from the fires of hell- I'm not quite sure the polemic significance of this statement. Don't most religions believe that their clerics are acting rightly, and therefore will achieve whatever rewards await them in the next life. Further, his accusation is not entirely accurate. What the Talmud actually says is that their learning of the Torah will save them- even if a scholar were to subsequently become a heretic. What the Talmud is effectively saying is that the impact of Torah study on one's soul is at least similar to Glenn's belief in Jesus- no matter what wrongs he may do, his belief in Jesus will save him.

I'll end this for the day, as I'm getting quite bored of this. I will need at least two more posts to counter Glenn's absurdities, and I do have to start dinner sometime tonight. I hope that a little light will dispel a lot of darkness.

Johnston freed, BBC gives sympathetic press to Hamas

I both hate and love posting "I told ya so"s. Earlier I mentioned that if Hamas would acheive, they would reap major political gains.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6268232.stm


And here is an excerpt from the Guardian:

Having staked its reputation on freeing Johnston, Hamas was keen to reap the political dividends from his release. Mr Haniyeh presented Johnston with a scarf in Palestinian colours, a copper plaque of the Dome of the Rock and a Palestinian lapel badge.
Mahmoud Zahar, the Hamas foreign minister said Hamas security forces tracked Johnston as he was moved from house to house and were ready at any moment to rescue him. He also said that Hamas was in control of the families of the kidnappers as an added means of imposing pressure in them.
Mr Zahar promised a new era in the Gaza Strip. "Every kidnapping, every illegal behaviour, we will fight with all our force, the force of law, the force of moral principles. Every Palestinian and every foreigner will be secure and safe regardless of their political beliefs," he said.
Ayman Taha, the Hamas official who was in charge of negotiations, said his group had followed the wishes of the British government in not using force to free Johnston and added: "We hope that this will lead to better relations with the British government in future."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2118044,00.html


At least the BBC shows some self-respect and in this article labels the gains that Hamas will acheive as 'propaganda' Wonder how long thats gonna stay up......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6268416.stm