|
In this mailing:
UK:
Charities for Terrorists
  Be the first of
your friends to like this.
Recently it was revealed that
money from UK charities may have been filtered to the Islamist terror
group al-Shabaab.
At the root of its problem is a
question of identity and purpose. Is the Charity Commission -- recently
dismissed by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee as "not fit
for purpose" -- an advocacy group or a policeman? The new head of
the Commission…said such practices risked bringing the whole sector
"into disrepute."
December is traditionally a time when people dig deep in support of
good causes. But even if it is putting money in some carol singers'
bucket, we must have the confidence that the money we are giving is
actually getting to good causes -- and certainly not going towards activities
which run completely against the spirit of charity.
Last week the BBC's Panorama delivered a damning exposé on some
of Britain's most popular charitable organisations. For almost thirty
years, Comic Relief has done a huge amount, at home and abroad, to help
people in the most unimaginable situations, helping children in war zones
and families through famines. But, as so often happens, Comic Relief
appears to be a victim of its own success.
The Panorama investigation showed how, after raising almost £1 billion
in recent years, Comic Relief often retains tens of millions of pounds in
its bank accounts. The way in which they and other charities invest this
money will shock many of its donors. For instance, it invested thousands
of pounds in arms and tobacco companies. The program raised questions
about practices at other charities. Save the Children, for example, was
alleged to have changed its campaigning priorities in order to improve
corporate relations with certain energy companies. All of which opens up
a very difficult subject:
Because charities rely on people's good will, and because most do good
work, the whole sector can develop a "halo effect." People
assume that if something says it is a charity, and has charitable status,
its activities are necessarily charitable and good. Sadly, this is not
always true. Just as there are good teachers and bad teachers, good
nurses and bad nurses, so you can have good charities and bad charities.
And while the good can be very good, the bad can be appalling.
Bad charities use the "halo effect" as a kind of
smokescreen. Sometimes -- as in questions of ethical investment -- there
are questions about the input of the charity's trustees. On other
occasions the abuses are so serious that they should really be a matter
for the police.
To take just the most serious example, there are organizations that
still enjoy all the tax and other advantages of charitable status in this
country, but that are actually banned as terrorist entities in some of
our nation's closet allies. Sometimes this is deliberate, sometimes
accidental. Just recently it was revealed that money from UK
charities may have been filtered to the Islamist terrorist group
al-Shabaab. Such activities – covering a range of communities – are a
national disgrace. Yet they continue.
Another area of concern are organizations set up as charities, but
which, in fact, act as the most lavish tax-avoidance schemes. For
instance, the Cup
Trust -- on which Labour MP and Chair of the Public Accounts
Committee, Margaret Hodge has been fixing her sights -- is a registered
charity. In one year, it attempted to claim back £46m from the tax
authorities in Gift Aid on £177m income. Yet in that same year it had
given only £152,292 to good causes. This raises questions of oversight
beyond the activities of any one charity.
Of course the body meant to oversee all charities in the UK is the
Charity Commission. But it is a body rife with problems. It was recently dismissed
by Hodge as "not fit for purpose." Whether that is a fair
description or not is debatable. But it is certainly an organization with
a fearsome task before it.
At the root of its problem is a question of identity and purpose. Is
the Charity Commission an advocacy group or a policeman? Charity
Commission chairman William Shawcross has recognized that the Commission
must properly and fully carry out the diligent policing role which will
stop wrong-doers damaging the reputation of charities as a whole. It is
not an easy task. There are currently just 41 people available in the
Commission's Investigations and Enforcement unit to deal with the most
serious cases of abuse among those 160,000 charities.
To help him, however, Shawcross has overseen a transformation in the
Commission's board. Only one member from the previous regime remains. New
members include Peter Clarke, the former head of the anti-terrorist
branch at the Metropolitan Police. His experience will make him invaluable
in dealing with the intersection between charities and those who break
the terrorism laws. Another new face, Nazo Moosa -- a highly respected
figure from the world of finance -- will help the Commission come to
grips with the forensic accounting needed to deal with the abuses which
existed during the previous board's tenure.
And as we get to that time of year when charity should be on
everybody's minds, there can be few more important tasks than cleaning up
this issue. Giving generously to worthy causes is an important mark of a
civilized and compassionate society. But for people to give generously,
they must give with confidence. And if that confidence has been shaken by
recent revelations, it must now be mended with great speed.
Europe
Turns Blind Eye to Anti-Semitism
Be the first of
your friends to like this.
It is inexplicable that the EU
Fundamental Rights Agency has removed its very own "Working
definition of anti-Semitism" from its website, while more than half
of OSCE Member States continue to be in breach of EU laws to monitor
anti-Semitic incidents.
Serious questions must be asked
of the EU about its resolve to tackle this form of hatred, when it cannot
even agree on how to define anti-Semitism or comply with the most
elementary laws to help combat it.
Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, recently said
anti-Semitism is "a crime against Europe and its culture, against
man and its humanity. To be anti-Semitic is to reject Europe."
Van Rompuy's remarks were made just last month, upon the release of
the EU Fundamental Rights Agency's (FRA) report on the
disturbing, yet not surprising, findings of rampant anti-Semitism in
Europe.
His comments echo those of other EU officials and European leaders.
Yet, for all the EU's rhetoric condemning anti-Semitism and calling
for urgent steps to combat it, their actions portray a very different
picture.
Take for example the above-mentioned FRA
report on anti-Semitism, released November 8th. The report
was an exhaustive study on "Jewish people's experiences of
discrimination and hate crime" in eight EU member states - Belgium,
France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom –
that combined, make up about 90% of the EU's Jewish population.
|
An image from
the recent FRA report on anti-Semitism.
|
According to the report, two-thirds of the respondents considered
anti-Semitism to be a problem in those states surveyed, with three-quarters
indicating the level of anti-Semitism in their country had worsened in
the past five years and a quarter saying they were afraid to openly
identify as Jewish for fear of anti-Semitism.
Now comes the inexplicable news that FRA has removed its very own "Working definition of
anti-Semitism" from its website.
According to FRA
officials, the "Working Definition" was removed as part of
a clearing out of all "non-official" documents because it was
only a "discussion paper" that was "never adopted."
Although the "Working Definition," initially drafted in 2004
and which provided for a strong and exhaustive definition of
anti-Semitism, was, regrettably, never formally adopted by the EU, it
nonetheless provided an authoritative source of guidance and expert
advice for EU institutions and member states in the fight against
anti-Semitism.
Importantly, the "Working Definition" had also recognized
that the vilification of Israel, and Israelis, as a form of anti-Semitism
today.
It is simply unfathomable that an organization tasked with providing
guidance and leadership on combating anti-Semitism, and which only weeks
ago released a major report on the unprecedented rise in anti-Semitism
across Europe, would now remove even the tenuous definition of the very
crime it seeks to combat.
In addition to FRA, there is another major European-based body, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which is
tasked with, among other matters, combating anti-Semitism.
It is perhaps no coincidence that the OSCE takes significant guidance
on this from FRA.
The central part of OSCE's mission is the requirement for member
states to collect information and monitor anti-Semitic incidents in their
home states. Yet, in its most recent annual report for
2012, also released last month, only 27 of the 57 OSCE Member States
submitted official statistics. Among the countries that did not submit
the required official statistics include: France, Hungary, Greece, Russia
and Belgium -- some of the very countries identified by FRA as having the
highest levels of anti-Semitism.
Quite simply, without reliable data on anti-Semitic incidents, how can
governments and Jewish communities properly assess levels of
anti-Semitism or propose remedies?
With anti-Semitism in Europe having reached a level unprecedented
since the end of the Holocaust, serious questions must be asked of the EU
about its resolve to tackle this oldest and most enduring form of hatred,
when it cannot even agree on how to define anti-Semitism or comply with
the most elementary laws to help combat it.
So what should be done?
First, the EU should be pressed to immediately reinstate the FRA
"Working Definition of anti-Semitism" as the legislative basis
of the definition of anti-Semitism in Europe.
Any definition of anti-Semitism should also be done in conjunction
with battling against Holocaust denial, which is gaining widespread
prevalence with the rise of far-right neo-Nazi movements across many
parts of Europe.
Under current EU law, Holocaust denial is punishable by a jail
sentence of up to three years. However, EU countries that do not have
such a prohibition in their own domestic legislation are not bound to
enforce the EU law. At present, only 13 of the 28 EU member states have laws
specifically criminalizing Holocaust denial.
Concurrently, European governments should also be pressed to monitor
anti-Semitism, as already required under accords reached between the EU
and OSCE.
And lastly, education, education, education. The history of the
Holocaust and its lessons and implications should be compulsory study in
high schools across Europe. People are not born to hate, they learn to
hate.
If Herman Van Rompuy is sincere in saying that "to be
anti-Semitic is to reject Europe," European political institutions
must lead by example, with deeds, not just words.
Arsen Ostrovsky is an International Human Rights Lawyer, with a
focus on Middle East foreign policy and international law.
Exploiting
the Koran to Target the Jews?
Be the first of
your friends to like this.
Koran-based anti-Jewish themes
that closely resemble typical anti-Semitic stereotypes appear to be part
of a studied effort to convince Christians to view Muslims as their
natural ally against the Jews.
The Koran's prejudicial passages
against Jews might have more traction in Europe, where many of the
continent's citizens, even secular Europeans, seem to have trouble
separating their antipathy for Israel's policies from their feelings for
the surviving remnant of Jews among them.
Anti-Jewish passages in the Koran appear to be undergoing exploitation
by Muslim extremists and neo-Nazi elements alike to form a nexus of sorts
based upon their one common denominator: hatred of "The Jew."
The exploitation of these themes by hate groups should be challenged by
the millions of peace-loving Muslims, and the use of these
Koranic-passages by radicals should be combated by Muslims of good-will
in mosques, Islamic Schools and on Islam-friendly websites. Muslim
clerics and laypeople must fight the Koranic culture of violence[1] that seems to motivate some
Muslims to justify horrific acts against non-Muslims. The following
incidents are just a few of the acts of savagery which have done
irreparable harm to the image of Islam: the Nigerian Muslim converts who
slaughtered British soldier Lee Rigby in the heart of London; the mass
murder of his fellow U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood by Maj. Nidal Hasan, and
the selective killing of "unbelievers' [non-Muslims] at the Westgate
Mall in Kenya. Muslims must lead the fights against these extremists, or
the ranks of those who distrust, fear and hate Islam will continue to
grow.
The Koran-based anti-Jewish themes closely resemble prejudicial
beliefs held by many Christians over the centuries. These themes seem to
be part of an effort to mobilize non-Muslims to view "the Jew"
as the enemy of "the Faithful," of both Islam and Christianity
alike, and by implication, as the adversary of God. They also read as if
they are part of a studied effort to convince Christians to view Muslims
as their natural ally against the Jews.
Sura (chapter) three of the Koran, for example, "The Family of
Imran", seizes upon the most virulent indictment of the Jewish
people by some Christian anti-Semites: the charge of
"Christ-Killer." The chapter describes Allah's providential
intervention to frustrate the plot by Jews to murder Christ. Moreover,
the Sura addresses Allah's decision to honor Jesus, while clearing Christ
of all false charges leveled against him by the Jews.[2]
Allah's protection and elevation of Jesus is further described in Sura
four, an-Nisa (The Women). According to this Sura, Allah made four
specific promises to Jesus.[3]
Allah saves Jesus from crucifixion and promises to allow him to die a
natural death. Secondly, Jesus will forever be exonerated of all
aspersions cast upon his character. Allah then informs Jesus that he will
enjoy an honorable position in the midst of the divine presence. Lastly,
Jesus is told that he will achieve total dominance over his prevaricating
accusers, (the Jews).
As a demonstration of Allah's decency, An-Nisa further declares that
Jesus was not illegitimate, and that Maryam (Mary), his mother, remained
untouched by man, thus acknowledging the virgin birth of the Prophet Isa
(Jesus).[4] This
was a shrewd assertion, as early Christians were probably stung by the
bawdy jokes of some Jews who ridiculed Christianity's doctrine of the
virgin birth of Christ.[5]
The Koran doubles down on this theme by claiming that the Jews also
attempted to assassinate Muhammad. But Islamic scripture relates that
Allah intervened once again, this time to safeguard the Prophet Muhammad,
his Messenger.[6]
The Koran also condemns the Jews for the unseemly manner in which they
treated many of Allah's prophets. Because of this scandalous behavior,
Allah withdrew his favor and selected a more worthy people: presumably,
Arab Muslims. To punctuate this point, some Koranic commentators even
quote from the Gospel according to Matthew, in which he chastises his
fellow Jews for having rejected Him.[7]
Sura 2, al-Baqarah, (The Cow) depicts the Jews as a race of ingrates
who quickly forgot Allah's direct intervention of parting the Red Sea to
help them escape Pharaoh's chariots. Koranic commentary also denounces
the Jews for abandoning Mosaic Law by becoming idolaters, and taking up
the bull-worship of their former masters, the Egyptians.[8] This stereotypical image of the
Jew as fickle ingrate, despite God's favors, was once replete in the
Catholic Good Friday prayer called "The Reproaches," before it
was discontinued by order of Pope John Paul II. That prayer puts words in
God's mouth, where He recounts all the blessings He bestowed upon the
ancient Hebrews, only to have them crucify His incarnate presence in the
Messiah, Jesus Christ.[9]
Moreover, Sura 5, al-Ma'idah (The Spread Table or The Food) even
quotes the Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel[10]
as further theological justification for the suffering of the Jews. This
reference justifies the scattering of the Jews from their ancestral
homeland throughout the globe because of their perverse moral behavior --
a "curse theme" familiar to some Christians.
Just in case any gullible gentile might fall victim to suggestions
that Muslims and Christians are natural allies against the Jews, he
should be aware that every year on October 30, Muslims, especially Shia
Muslims, celebrate Eid Al-Mubahala,[11] a feast that commemorates a
historic meeting in 632 A.D. between Muhammad and a group of Christians
from Najran, a town in the southwestern tip of Arabia's border with
Yemen. According to the Koran, Muhammad and his followers debated with
the Christian delegation over the latter's claim that Jesus was God.
After the inconclusive discussion in the Muslim city of Medina, Muhammad
dared the Christians to pray alongside his Muslim faithful to call down a
curse upon those who argued in falsehood. The Najarani Christian
delegation's refusal to take the dare is viewed by many Muslims as
evidence of lack of belief and therefore a victory for Islam. Following
the meeting, Muhammad agreed to a truce with the Christian inhabitants of
Najran, as long as they agreed to pay an annual tribute. However,
ultimately the Najarani Christians were forced, by the third Caliph Umar
ibn al-Kattab, into exile -- mostly in the southern region of today's
Iraq.
Still another example of Koranic scriptural targeting of Jews while
simultaneously siding with Christians is found in Surat al-Buruj (The
Zodiac).[12]
Most Muslim commentators interpret these verses as an oblique reference
to the slaughter of Najarani Christians by the last King of the Jewish
Himyarite Dynasty of Yemen in 524 A.D.[13] It is possible that Muhammad
aware of the bitter history between the Himyarites and Christians of
Najran and sought to demonstrate that the latter fared better under
Islam. The Christians were allowed to live and practice their faith as
long as they agreed to pay taxes and remove themselves from the affairs
of state.
This type of anti-Semitic scripture-based prejudice is unlikely to win
many converts in America. The overwhelming majority of Americans have no
ill will against their fellow Jewish citizens. Even many Muslims,
particularly American-based Islamic communities, reject the Koranic
justification for attempting to turn Christians against their fellow
Jewish citizens. Certainly, there are many Muslims who are sincerely
dedicated to inter-faith cooperation with both Jews and Christians. Their
rejection and/or reinterpretation of apparent Koran-based enmity for Jews
is a courageous decision – and is quintessentially American.
The Koran's prejudicial passages against Jews seem to have found an
appreciative audience among some neo-Nazis as well as extremist elements
on the left of the political spectrum. This is particularly the case in
Western Europe.[14]
However, some American Jewish students perceive that this affliction has
found its way onto the college campus as well.[15]
Moreover, as early as the turn of the century, there were reports of
contacts between al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist networks with
neo-Nazi groups. This seemingly incongruent phenomenon was denounced by
former German Minister of Interior, Otto Schily, when he publicly
described the relationship between his country's neo-Nazi National
Democratic Party and the now outlawed Muslim extremist organization,
Hizb-ut-Tahir (Party of Liberation)[16]. This alliance seems to have
gained more traction in today's Europe, where many of the continent's
citizens, even when secular, seem to have trouble separating their
opposition to Israel's policies from their feelings for the surviving
remnant of Jews among them.
Notes
[1] Sura 4,
Verse 89, An-Nisa (The Women): "They (the Jews) wish that you reject
the Faith, as they (the Jews) have rejected the Faith and thus wish that
you all become equal (like one another). So take not auliya
(friends/protectors) unbelievers (Jews and Christians) till they emigrate
in the way of Allah. But if they turn back (from Islam) take hold of them
and kill them wherever you find them."; The Noble Quran, Darussalam,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1996, p. 187.
[2] Koran, Sura
3, Al-Imran (The Family of Imran), Verse 55.
[3] Koran, Sura
4, An-Nisa (The Women), Verse 156.
[4] Koran, Sura
19, Maryam, (Mary), Verses 20-21.
[5] Isaiah 7:14
in the Hebrew Tanach claims that the Messiah will be born to a virgin.
Some Jewish commentators refer to the Hebrew word for young girl (almah)
rather than virgin (betulah), which was employed by Isaiah.
[6] Koran, Sura
4, an-Nisa (The Women), Verse 61.
[7] Koran, Sura
3, Al-Imran (The Family of Imran) and Matthew's Gospel, Chapter 21, Verse
43, "The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you (the Jews) and given
to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."
[8] Koran, Sura
2, Al-Baqarah (the Cow), Verse 49-58.
[9] The
Reproaches or Improperia is chanted as Christian worshipers approach to
kiss the Crucifix on Good Friday. This commemoration of Christ's
sacrifice for the sins of man (past, present and future) is called the
Veneration of the Cross.
[10] Koran,
Sura 5, Al-Ma'idah (The Food/The Table Spread). The Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel
22 8-15.
[11] Koran,
Surat (Chapter) 3, Al-Imran (The Family of Amran), Ayat (Verse) 61. Eid
Al-Mubahala (Ibtatala/The Humbling) is a feast memorializing a meeting
between Nestorian Christians and the Alul-Bayt (House of the Holy Family
of Islam) that included Muhammad, his daughter Fatimah, her husband Ali,
and their children Hassan and Hussein. This feast is of particular import
for Shia Muslims. However, Sunni Muslims emphasize the significance that
the Prophet bested the Christians in the discussion that ensued.
[12] Koran
Sura Al-Buruj (The Zodiac) Chapter 85, Ayat (Verse) 5-8. The Holy Koran
English Language Commentary by Maulana Muhammad Ali p.1198. Lahore,
Pakistan, 2002.
[13] The
Jewish Himyarite Dynasty of Saba (Yemen) had reached its most expansive
size during the last decades of its existence. Their territorial control
reached far into the Arabian Peninsula, including the Christian
communities of southeast Arabia. The Himyarites may have doubted the
Najaranis' loyalty. The Yemeni rulers might have calculated that Najarani
sympathies lay with the kingdom's rival, Christian Abyssinia (Ethiopia).
This calculation was a rational, if not correct, deduction, as
Christianity had first arrived in the region during Ethiopia's forty-year
occupation of Yemen in the latter half of the fourth century. Ultimately,
the last Jewish King of Yemen, Dhu Nuwas, liquidated most of Najran's
Christians by mass immolation in 524 A.D.
[14] The
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) at last year's Office of Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) July convocation in Warsaw Poland filed a
request asking that that the OSCE pass a resolution to condemn bigotry
and anti-Semitism "that have been given growing legitimacy in cities
across Europe". British author Howard Jacobson was quoted on
"the Volkh Conspiracy" website in an article by Daniel
Bernstein as analyzing how some European leftists have focused on
anti-Zionism as a convenient substitute for expressing anti-Jewish attitudes
and thereby escaping the accusation of being anti-Semitic. October 23,
2013.
[15]
Investigative Taskforce on Campus Anti-Semitism (ITCA) "Feds
Investigate Claims of Anti-Semitism at UC Berkeley". October 3,
2012. This article addresses a suit filed by two Jewish students at UC's
Berkeley Campus the Civil Rights Office of the U.S. Department of
Education. The suit alleged that during the annual anti-Apartheid week in
February, 2012, campus protests against Israel's policies morphed into
anti-Jewish tirades which created a threatening atmosphere at the
university.
[16]
"Al-Qaeda's Neo-Nazi Connections by William Grim, Jewish Press,
February 25, 2004. G2 Bulletin: Washington D. C., August 5, 2005.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment