Monday, July 23, 2012

Gatestone Update :: Peter Martino: Germany Debates Male Circumcision, and more


Gatestone Institute
In this mailing:

Germany Debates Male Circumcision
Bad Medicine in the Name of Religion

by Peter Martino
July 23, 2012 at 5:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms -- choosing religion over science.
During the past decade, life has become more difficult for Jews in Europe. They are not only the victims of a rise in anti-Semitic violence and intimidation, mostly as a result of the growing numbers of radical Muslim immigrants in Europe. They are also finding their right to practice their religion restricted as Europe becomes an environment where Jewish dietary rules and ancient traditions are being criticized and even outlawed. This time, ironically, they are being joined by Muslims.
Male circumcision -- a medical procedure in both Judaism and Islam that has nothing to do with female genital mutilation or "female circumcision," which is not required by the Koran, and which has no medical benefits, only medical liabilities -- could well be the latest victim of misguided political correctness, despite massive medical evidence that male circumcision is "cleaner," meaning that the area involved becomes less prone to harboring infections and transmitting diseases.
Last month, Dieter Graumann, the president of the German Zentralrats der Juden (Central Council of Jews), warned that "Jewish life will become practically impossible" if circumcision of male infants is banned in Germany. On May 7, an appeals court in Cologne ruled that circumcision is an infringement of a child's physical integrity and that it violates the child's right to self-determination. Subsequently, the German Medical Association advised doctors no longer to perform circumcisions for non-medical reasons. The decision to prohibit male circumcision on the grounds of "religion" embodies a breathtaking lack of regard for both personal and public health, and the regressive preference for religion and political correctness over science. In the United States, for example, it has long been considered a fundamental of public health to circumcise all male infants shortly after birth -- unless specifically asked not to -- regardless of religious affiliation.
Last Thursday, fortunately, the German Bundestag approved a cross-party motion to protect the religious circumcision of boys. The resolution urges the government to draw up a bill explicitly allowing the practice. Nevertheless, it is indicative of Europe's growing intolerance towards religious practices that courts have begun to issue verdicts such as the one in Cologne that prohibits circumcision.
The Cologne Landgericht ruled that religious circumcision of boys is a violation of the child's physical integrity and hence unlawful. The verdict states that circumcision has a "permanent and irreparable effect" on the child's body, which violates the child's physical integrity and infringes on its right later to change its religion. The court added that the child's right to self-determination has precedence over its parents' freedom of religion.
The case began after a Muslim doctor circumcised a 4-year old boy. Two days later, the wound began to bleed and the child was rushed to a hospital. The hospital informed the authorities, whereupon the public prosecutor brought the doctor to court. When the court acquitted the doctor, the public prosecutor appealed the verdict. Although the Cologne Landgericht again acquitted the doctor on the basis that "the legal status (of circumcision) is very unclear," the ruling unequivocally condemned male circumcision. Fearing that the ruling would set a precedent to be followed by other German courts, the Medical Association advised doctors to stop circumcisions for religious reasons.
The verdict was applauded by many organizations. Deutsche Kinderhilfe, a non-profit organization to aid children, said that the wellbeing of children had been served by the court. The German Institute for Pediatric Surgery stated that the verdict conformed to medical ethics. The Professional Union of Pediatricians warned "for the trivialisation of this form of physical damage by the circumcision defenders" and said that the right of children to physical integrity should be society's primary concern.
The International League of Non-Religious and Atheists also welcomed the verdict, stating that religiously motivated circumcision is a form of physical damage and mutilation. Terre des Femmes, an international women's rights organization, also applauded the Cologne verdict. It said the physical integrity of children should not be restricted for religious reasons.
In the German media, psychotherapists stated that circumcision on six- or seven-year old boys can have a traumatic effect. Jewish organizations pointed out that Jews have been circumcising boys on the eighth day after birth for thousands of years, without any Jewish men later complaining about harmful side-effects. They also emphasized that male circumcision cannot be equated to female genital mutilation.
A joint statement of the Rabbinical Centre of Europe, the European Jewish Association, the German Turkish-Islamic Union of Religious Affairs and the Islamic Center Brussels, said that the Cologne verdict was "an affront to our basic religious and human rights."
The critics of the Cologne verdict were supported by Cardinal Joachim Meisner, the Catholic Archbishop of Cologne. "We have to speak out against the tendency to restrict religious freedom and the right of parents to raise their children in a religious way," he said. He was supported by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, the Vatican's Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Protestant Church also criticized the verdict. Hans Michael Heinig, the president of the Institute for Ecclesiastical Law of the Evangelical Church, called the verdict "a triumph of antireligious zealots."
The verdict also drew criticism from Germany's three major political parties, the Christian-Democrats, Social-Democrats and Liberals. Last Thursday, the governing Christian-Democrats and Liberals teamed up with the oppositional Social-Democrats to call on the government to "present a draft law in the autumn … that guarantees that the circumcision of boys, carried out with medical expertise and without unnecessary pain, is permitted." The cross-party motion explicitly acknowledges that "circumcision has a central religious significance for Jews and Muslims" and adds that "Jewish and Muslim religious life must continue to be possible in Germany."
The new law would overrule the decision of the Cologne court. For the time being, however, the verdict still stands, as does the advice of the German Medical Association for doctors not to perform religious circumcisions.
An opinion poll indicates that, despite the political initiative to have the Cologne verdict overruled by a law later this year, a majority of Germans favors a ban of male circumcision. In a Europe that is becoming ever more secular, there is a real danger that religious practices will gradually be pushed aside in order to assure that the impression is not given that little children and (in ritual slaughter) animals are made to suffer.
It is indicative of this trend that the doctors' associations in Germany are mostly in favor of the ban on religious circumcision of boys. Outside Germany similar attitudes are gaining ground. In the Netherlands, for instance, the Royal Dutch Association of Physicians published a paper two years ago advocating a ban on non-medical circumcision of boys, analoguous to the ban on female genital mutilation. In violation of their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, doctors are interpreting a medical practice in purely religious terms -- choosing religion over science.
Related Topics:  Germany  |  Peter Martino

Israeli Settlements an Obstacle to Peace?

by Michael Curtis
July 23, 2012 at 4:30 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
For four centuries the West Bank and east Jerusalem, were provinces of the Turkish Ottoman Empire; after that, from 1922 until 1948, they were ruled by Britain under the Mandate given it by the League of Nations. These areas have never been under any Arab sovereignty. The Palestinians have never had a political state of their own; and when offered the opportunity to create one by the United Nations General Assembly in 1947, refused to create one.
One does not have to be an apologist for Israeli settlements in disputed areas to recognize that the constant criticism that has developed around them is unproductive in reaching a peace settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The settlements may be a problem but they are not a serious one. Altogether, they occupy less than three percent of the area of the West Bank, and have a population of about 300,000 there, another 20,000 in the Golan Heights, and 190,000 in east Jerusalem, Israel's capital. Whether some or many of these settlements will be evacuated by Israel should depend on the nature of the negotiated peace agreement.
In spite of the settlement freeze suggested by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008, and the ten-month moratorium on new construction announced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2010, the Palestinians still refused, for over nine months, to enter into peace talks.
The immediate problem is the question of who can legitimately claim sovereignty over the disputed areas of east Jerusalem and the "West Bank," a term coined by Jordan when it controlled the area from 1949 until 1967. For over four centuries, these areas were provinces of the Turkish Ottoman Empire; after that, from 1922 until 1948, they were ruled by Britain under the Mandate given it by the League of Nations. The areas have never been under any Arab sovereignty.
Jordan declared it had "annexed" the West Bank after the 1948-49 War. Only two countries, Pakistan and Britain, ever recognized that claim; and Britain only de facto, not by full legal recognition. The Palestinians have never had a political state of their own and, when offered the opportunity by the United Nations General Assembly in November 1947, refused to create one. The Golan Heights, about 400 square miles, was ceded to Syria by a Franco-British agreement.
The boundaries of "Palestine," and the decision about the exercise of sovereign power over it, remain to be determined in an overall peace settlement, as agreed to by all parties concerned in the UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967.
As the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were unallocated parts of the British Mandate, the land held by Israel since the 1967 was determined not to be the accepted legal territory of any particular people or country. Moreover, Jewish settlement in the West Bank was never seen as an intrusion into alien territory as a result of war, nor as a violation of international agreements -- either of which would have made settlements illegal.
International law gives no clear answer on the issue of Israeli settlements. The Fourth Geneva Convention does forbid government deportation or "individual or mass forcible transfers" of population into territory it occupies. This Convention was formulated because of the activities during World War II of the Nazi regime, and by inference the Soviet Union, in transferring population into occupied territory for political or racial reasons, or for colonization. As a result of those activities, millions were subjected to forced migration, expulsion, slave labor, and extermination. On this issue two factors are pertinent. One is that Israeli governments have not aimed at any displacement of the population in any of the disputed areas. The other is that neither the Geneva Convention nor any other law prevents the establishment of voluntary settlements on an individual basis, nor on their location, if the underlying purpose is security, public order, or safety, and as long as the settlements do not involve taking private property. It is absurd to suggest that the state of Israel "deported" or "transferred" its own citizens to the territories.
This conclusion was buttressed by a report, in July 2012, of the independent Israeli three-member committee, headed by former Supreme Court Justice Edmund Levy, which held that the classic laws of "occupation" do not apply to "the unique and sui generis historic and legal circumstances of Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria spanning over decades." The committee held that consequently Israelis have the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria, and that the establishment of settlements is not illegal.
Israel has made concessions in the hopes of peace, although scant recognition has been given to them. Israel withdrew all forces and settlers in Sinai after the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979. All 21 Israeli settlements, with 9,000 residents, in the Gaza Strip, as well as all Israeli forces there, were withdrawn by a unilateral Israeli decision in 2005, to give the Gaza Strip a chance to become a thriving independent area. This withdrawal did not, however, result in any positive response, and has not stopped Hamas, the ruling group in Gaza, from constant missile bombardment and missile activity against Israeli civilians in nearby cities.
The settlements in the West Bank, east Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights remain as a source of contention, whether regarded as illegal or merely ill-advised. Certainly there should be legitimate discussion about them and about the actions of the Israeli government in legitimizing unauthorized outposts in the West Bank. The government distinguishes between the settlements that have been officially sanctioned, and outposts, some on hilltops for security reasons, for example, that settlers built without permission. Between 1991 and 2005 about 100 hilltop outposts were built by activists who believed they were creating "facts on the ground," but did so without government permits or planning approval.
Israeli authorities are concerned about abuses regarding settlements. The Israeli Supreme Court in June 2012 ordered the dismantling of an outpost named Migron , that contained 50 families, a settlement that had been built on private Arab land. Legal decisions have made clear that settlements were never intended to displace Arab residents of the disputed territories. The settlements have been established for a combination of economic, historic, and military reasons, not ever for purposes of colonialism, or even colonization. A negotiated peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians can easily decide their fate.
Michael Curtis is author of Should Israel Exist? A Sovereign Nation under Attack by the International Community.
Related Topics:  Israel  |  Michael Curtis

Azawad Calls for International Support Against Al Qaeda

by Acherif Ag Intakwa
July 23, 2012 at 3:30 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
"Will the U.S. and the free world stand alongside Azawad in the Sahel-Sahara region? Or will the U.S. and the free world allow terrorism to spread all over Africa and intervene only when it is too late?"
Note by Anna Mahjar-Barducci: Azawad is a new country in North Africa that just seceded from Mali. It borders Algeria and was declared independent by a Touareg movement, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad [MNLA], which is secular. Shortly after the MNLA declared independence of Azawad, Qatar, Algeria and Mali financed jihadist groups to fight against the Touaregs. The MNLA, however, killed the deputy commander of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
Azawad, a new nation, is in a war against countless terrorist organizations backed by Mali, Algeria, and Qatar. Today, Azawad wishes to make the same speech of the State of the Union made by George W. Bush on January 29, 2002. But as long as the U.S. and the free world do not support Azawad, it will be a mere wish while terrorism is spreading all over Africa.
The MNLA and Azawad and the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad [MNLA] were attacked on June 27, 2012 by the AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), MUJAO (Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa), and Boko Haram.
For months, these terrorist organizations have been recruiting both inside and outside Azawad. For months, terrorists from Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Libya and many more countries came to Azawad to destroy not only this new country but also the civilized world. For months, the new "axis of evil" supported these terrorist organizations financially, military, in media, and technologically.
This aggression, in which two of the bravest officers of the MNLA were killed, created a state of the union between Azawadians that has never been stronger.
Azawadians and the MNLA are also confident that their dream cannot come true without the supports of the United States of America and its allies of the free world.
This dream will not come true without international support because terrorist organizations all over Africa designated the Sahel-Sahara region as their new playground, and will do whatever it takes to succeed and spread their evil activities all over Africa.
This dream will not come true without international support because these terrorists organizations are supported by at least three countries: Mali, Algeria, and Qatar -- while Azawad and the MNLA is rejected by the free world.
Azawadian and the MNLA strongly believe that one day "The Azawadian flag will fly again over every single official building in Azawad. Terrorists who once occupy Azawadian cities will occupy cells in Taoudenni. And terrorist leaders who urged followers to sacrifice their lives will be running for their own".
The Azawadians and the MNLA wish to also say: "Our nation will continue to be steadfast, and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorists to justice. And second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who [support them] ... from threatening [Azawad] and the world."
 But the Azawadians and the MNLA cannot say it without having allies in this war on terror and against the "axis of evil."
"As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet the state of our union has never been stronger."
These two sentences could represent the current situation of Azawad where the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad [MNLA] is fighting with almost empty arms against terrorist organizations backed by nations with the goal of erasing all traces of civilization.
However, these two sentences were made 10 years ago to represent the situation in the United States of America. They were not spoken by Azawadians but by President George W. Bush.
In that time, U.S. and the free world were attacked by Al Qaeda backed by some nations, called the "axis of evil."
Will the U.S and the free world stand alongside Azawad in the war on terror in the Sahel-Sahara region? Or will the U.S. and the free world allow terrorism to spread all over Africa and intervene only when it is too late?
The U.S. and the free world have to answer these questions. They have to do so quickly because the terrorists and the new "axis of evil" are not wasting time.
Published with the kind permission of Toumast Press.
You are subscribed to this list as vicky13@rogers.com.
To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posted by solsticewitch13 at 9:15 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)