Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘rabbi marvin hier’

Museum of In-Tolerance Screens Muslim-Hating Film, Third Jihad

Thursday, May 21st, 2009

3rd-jihad-banner

Los Angeles’ Museum of In-Tolerance, named in honor of Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal, is now steeped in Muslim hatred. Rabbi Marvin Hier, its current leader, has endorsed the Iran yellow star hoax. Now, he’s actively promoting one of the most Islamophobic films ever produced, Third Jihad.

The Clarion Fund is listed as the sponsor of the film, though its creators (including Rabbi Raphael Shore) are affiliated with the pro-settler Aish Hatorah, a group based in Israel.  Clarion appears to be little more than a domestic shell organization designed to enable the producers to claim the film was made in the U.S.

Third Jihad features Zuhdi Jasser, who though he professes to be Muslim, seems to detest almost everything about his religion, especially anything that remotely hints of Islam existing in a political context.  Jasser runs a one man Muslim organization which is characterized in an IPS story thus:

American Islamic Forum for Democracy…according to its website, is a non-profit which seeks to “intellectually stand against the religious fanatics who exploit the religion of Islam for a nihilistic, anti-American anti-Western war.”

Jasser makes common cause with Muslim haters like Daniel Pipes and other Jewish neocons.  Years ago, he was active in CAIR but that relationship turned sour.  Now he detests everything to do with the national Muslim organization and takes every chance he can to attack it.  Third Jihad provides him all the opportunity he needs.

In the film, he purports to have discovered a radical Muslim version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

“The Third Jihad” is largely based on a document the producers say the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) discovered in 2003. The film’s creators purport the document is a “’Grand Jihad Manifesto’ authored by the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, according to the promotional materials.

“The 15-page document outlines goals and strategies for the infiltration and domination of America from within,” says the release. “Among the strategies discussed is the establishment of ‘moderate’ groups, mosques and Islamic centers across North America in an effort to strategically position Islam so that it might weaken western culture and promote the implementation of Sharia Law.”

CAIR wrote a letter of protest to Rabbi Hier about the profound insult that this film poses to all American Muslims.  But Hier has about as much sensitivity to the concerns of Muslims as a deaf person would have to Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony.

The Wiesenthal Center screenings were co-sponsored by another extremist group, the American Freedom Alliance.  One look at its website makes you realize you’re visiting territory so far off the right side of the universe it might as well be Pluto.  Here’s but a taste:

The American Freedom Alliance is a non-political, non partisan, movement of concerned Americans which identifies threats to western civilization. The organization promotes networking, activism and education in the following six areas:

* The Islamic penetration of Europe
* The collapse of academic freedom
* The identification and sources of media bias
* The growth of radical environmentalism
* The necessity for missile defense
* The dangers presented by the global governance movement

IPS notes that the Washington, D.C. screening of the film was promoted and documented by the International Free Press Society, which also heavily publicized the U.S. speaking tour of far-right Dutch Muslim hater, Geert Wilders.  He himself produced an anti-Muslim film screed, Fitna, which I jokingly called here “Dutch for garbage.”  Even the ADL has labelled Wilders “inflammatory” and Britain has refused him entry.  Both Wilders and some members of IFPS have been linked to the Belgian neo-fascist group, Vlaams Belang.

All in all, this is a nice set of bedfellows with whom the Clarion Fund and the Museum of Tolerance are sleeping.  But Rabbi Hier and Raphael Shore should remember what happens when you lie down with dogs…

I find it sad to report that just as Wilders spoke to synagogue audiences during his tour here, Detroit’s Temple Israel also screened Third Jihad.  Someone should ask Rabbi Joshua Bennett what he was thinking when he invited these hatemongers into his shul.

The brutal truth of the matter is that instead of awakening the world to the danger of radical Islam, films like this actually promote Islamophobia and are conducive to an atmosphere that provokes violence against American Muslims.

H/t to Aziz Poonawalla.

Rabbi Hier, Have You Ever Heard of Al Aksa Mosque?

Sunday, February 1st, 2009
Museum of Tolerance map displays Dome of the Rock site (and no other's sacred to Islam)

Museum of Tolerance map displays Dome of the Rock as sole Muslim holy site in Jerusalem

Why is it that Jerusalem’s Museum of Tolerance does not tolerate Islam?

A little birdy brings word of an interesting lapse in Rabbi Marvin Hier’s knowledge of Islam. Which is disappointing considering he’s building a glitzy new “Museum of Tolerance” on the site of an old Jerusalem Muslim cemetery (which has been desecrated in the process). You’d think if he really cared about “tolerance” or embracing the “dignity” of Israel’s religions, that he’d display a elemental level of respect for Islam by showing the Al Aqsa mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, on an interactive map of Jerusalem’s places of interest on his website. Jewish sites listed include most of the luxury hotels, the Kotel, Mount of Olives cemetery, the Hurva synagogue, and the Mamilla shopping promenade. Christians points of interest include the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Via Dolorosa. Only the Dome of the Rock is listed for Muslim holy sites. Prominently omitted are Al Aqsa and the Mamilla cemetery on which Hier’s museum will sit.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that the only religion meant to be shown “dignity” or respect in his new museum is Judaism (and secondarily Christianity)?   In fact, I’d challenge Rabbi Hier to show us any element of the museum or its exhibitions or collection that will reflect upon the valuable role Islam has played among world religions and in the realms of science, culture and art.  I’d challenge him to tell us anything he has done to foster tolerance and respect for Israel’s Palestinian Muslim or Christian population through his museum.  I’m waiting for an answer (but not holding my breath).

By the way, a Google internal search of the Museum of Tolerance website shows no references to “Islam” on the entire site and a single reference to “Muslim.”  Instructive of Hier’s real priorities and intentions, I’d say.  This museum is a charade, a monument to the monumental ego of a Hollywood rabbi who wishes to expand his domain to Israel’s holy city.  Let no one be fooled by the PR and vapid assurances offered by Hier that he has the best of intentions.  His intentions are to glorify Marvin Hier and his own religion and no one or nothing else.  Caveat emptor.

Another reader brings word of Rabbi Hier’s wisdom featured in the pages of that font of ecumenism and tolerance, the N.Y. Daily News.  In his column, he argues that the world owes the people of Gaza nothing.  They supposedly danced for joy when Qassam rockets fell on southern Israel (the fact that I’ve never heard of any Gazan celebrating such rocket launches is but a minor peccadillo for Hier).  They somehow could’ve overthrown Hamas and replaced it with a more reasonable Palestinian party.  Their refusal to do so renders the world free to cut Gaza loose.  The world must tell Gaza that until it picks a representative that refuses to use violence against Israel, it can expect nothing.

So much for Hier’s argument.  Here’s where it falls apart:

Every objective Mideast observer knows that if Hamas had not rocketed southern Israel and deliberately placed its rocket launchers in the proximity of schools, mosques, hospitals and commercial areas, there would neither be a need to repair the Gaza Strip nor would there be any need to restrict free access to the border crossings.

Every “objective” Mideast observer (that would be Hier) knows that the only reason Israel blockades Gaza was because it launched rockets on Israel, right? Wrong. Israel put Gaza under siege not because of rocket launches, but because Hamas refused to accept an Israeli-sponsored coup initiated by it and the U.S. When Hamas took over Gaza, THAT is when Israel laid siege. So much for the good rabbi’s “objectivity.”

Every day, they could see with their own eyes the rockets on their way to Israel or watch Al Jazeera and other networks comment on them. Yet how did they react? With total jubilation and joy.

The truth is that most Gazans are sick and tired of the rockets and would gladly be rid of them IF–Israel would end the siege. But leaving that aside, can Hier provide any evidence of Gazans reacting with “total jubilation and joy to Qassam attacks?” Unlikely. And even if he could find a single instance or even two, does this imply that 1.5 million Gazans all united in jubilation at these attacks? Hardly.

Gazans like to boast of their courage in rising up against the corruption of the Palestinian Authority and throwing them out of office in a democratic election free of intimidation. Where was the display of that same courage in standing up to Hamas, whose ideology and culture have brought ruin to their community?

The cultural condescension of this passage is breathtaking. In the view of the pro Israel apologist it is HAMAS that has brought “ruin” to Gaza, not Israel. The tanks and F-16s and Apaches are somehow extensions of Hamas’ own ideology of hate. Interesting perspective which somehow elides any Israeli responsibility for Gaza’s ruin. Further, because Hier hates Hamas it should be patently obvious to all Gazans that they should too. Pardon me, but there are a few weaknesses in this perspective, not least of which that Gazans, and not Hier, are the ones who choose who represents them. If he or Israel would really like to influence Gazans’ political choices they might start by making it that much more difficult for Gazans to detest Israel and that much easier for Palestinians to see peaceful co-existence as something that offers them practical improvements in their lives. As long as Israel punishes Gaza, there is absolutely no reason for inhabitants to do anything Israel wants.

World leaders must vow that they are not going to rebuild Gaza again, there will be no Round 3.

Marvin must know something I don’t. I missed the time that the world rebuilt Gaza. When was that? Or is it possible that he’s making it up as he goes along. The world never rebuilt Gaza. It’s been under attack going all the way back to the first Intifada. The only difference between previous Israeli attacks and Operation Solid Lead is that the latter did a “Lebanon” on Gaza by attempting to eradicate every public building or piece of infrastructure.

The people of Gaza would be much better served if the international community…did the right thing for a change: deliver a stern warning that they can’t have it both ways. If they choose Hamas and give the terror group free rein, then they’ll have to live with the consequences. Such a warning might wind up to be the greatest humanitarian gesture the United Nations, the EU and President Obama can show to the people of Gaza. It can deliver a simple message: change course, stop propping up the terrorists, learn to live in peace with Israel or lose our numbers and fend for yourselves.

These words are those of bullies and abusers the world over: “Live under conditions I set for you or I will continue knocking you back to Kingdom Come.” It’s really very simple for the Hiers of the world: Hamas must stop rocketing Israel, accept its existence, and not even breath a word about Israeli Occupation or injustice to Palestinians. There really is no Israeli injustice, only Palestinian. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in the other guy.

You’ve got to hand it to Hier: nice work if you can get it. Unfortunately, the “thinking” behind this propaganda is shoddier ‘n shit.

Given this column, can anyone in their right mind imagine that the Museum of Tolerance will have anything to offer any Muslim? So let every donor to the Museum understand that Marvin Hier hates Muslims and loves only Jews. But not all Jews, only his kind of Jews. The ones opening their pocketbooks to build a monument to his ego. The ones who also hate Muslims and love a strong, superior, supercilious, and unforgiving Israel.

Jerusalem’s Museum of In-Tolerance

Tuesday, November 11th, 2008
Museum of Tolerance or object of American Jewish cultural imperialism?

Museum of Tolerance or object of "American Jewish cultural imperialism?"

Rabbi Marvin Hier, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Museum of Tolerance, never seems to miss an opportunity to put his foot in his mouth when promoting his international anti-Semitism carnival show.  Lately, he’s been doing it in spades regarding his $250 million Jerusalem satellite, known rather grandiosely as the Center for Human Dignity-Museum of Tolerance Jerusalem.

The West Jerusalem site in the Mamilla neighborhood chosen for the Museum is an old Muslim cemetery, part of which has been used for several decades as a Jerusalem Municipality parking lot.  During earlier excavations at the site, skeletal remains were unearthed which led to the Islamic Movement of Israel protesting the desecration of the graveyard.  This week, the Israeli Supreme Court, not known as a particularly strong defender of the rights of the Arab minority, ruled in Hier’s favor, allowing construction to continue.

As a result, hundreds of Israeli Arabs have protested continuously since the ruling was made public, calling the museum a betrayal of their dignity:

Mufti of Jerusalem Sheikh Mohammed Hussein called the court ruling a “grave decision” which harms the Muslim holy sites, and said it was difficult to believe the project’s promoters would want to build a Museum of Tolerance “whose construction constitutes an act of aggression.”

The rabbi has made some statements defending and explaining the project which would make anyone other than him wince:

Hier said, the goal is to create “a great landmark promoting the principles of mutual respect and social responsibility.”

…Asked whether he was concerned that the project could become a new flashpoint in the ever-volatile Arab-Israeli conflict, Hier predicted that “you’ll have protests for two or three days,” then things will go back to normal.

This reminds me of something Herbert Hoover probably said after 1929’s Black Thursday.  “Oh, you’ll have a few days of selling and before you know it, we’ll be back to business as usual.”  How can Israeli Muslims possibly come to terms with this defilement of their dead?  Only someone with absolutely no sensitivity to Muslims could possibly make such a comment with a straight face.

Gehry’s comment’s as carried in Samuel Freedman’s excellent 2004 N.Y. Times consideration of the Museum are unintentionally ironic:

Mr. Gehry…designed the museum to be accessible in both literal and metaphorical ways. “People can come from all directions, and all kinds of people can come.  Families and children are constantly in view, in your face, so that you never escape from the issue of what this place is about.”

Which makes one wonder how Mr. Gehry incorporated into his design the fact that the building will sit on an ancient Muslim burial ground.  In fact, it seems to me that the building, its designer, and its creator have a rather limited idea of the “what the place is about.”  That idea closes out all but Jews from consideration.  Can Gehry honestly tell me how it will be “open” to Muslims?  What will be in it for them?

As far as I’m concerned, this is the coup de grace as far as the Museum’s willingness to confront the existence of the “other” within the boundaries of the current State of Israel:

Mr. Hier maintains that, while the museum will not conspicuously avoid the Palestinian situation, “It’s not about the experience of the Palestinian people. When they have a state, they’ll have their own museum.”

I guess someone forgot to tell him that 20% of Israel itself is not Jewish, but Arab, and these Israeli citizens will not become part of this Palestinian state.  Perhaps Rabbi Hier has a bad case of ethnic amnesia?

Freedman’s critique of the vision behind the Museum is prescient:

…The proposed museum is already drawing withering and widespread criticism, years before its opening…The leftist Israeli politician [Benvenisti is an urban planner and journalist, not a politician] Meron Benvenisti, the former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, denounced the museum in the newspaper Ha’aretz as “so hallucinatory, so irrelevant, so foreign, so megalomaniac.” Even mainstream Israelis are dubious that a museum conceived, financed and designed by Americans can possibly fathom, much less redress, the political and social chasms here

…To…Israeli critics…the museum…is flawed in its very conception, because it’s the product of an American rabbi and the object of American philanthropy. The museum strikes many here as the latest version of what Israelis tartly term “the American uncle” — that well-intended, well-endowed know-it-all. In private conversation, one hears the museum disparaged as the “Museum of Nice” or an example of “American Jewish cultural imperialism.”

What have right-wing Orthodox American Jews like Hier contributed to Israeli society?  The settler movement, hamburger and pizza parlors, and Museums like this.  Such contributions are usually toxic to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and utterly devoid of contact with reality on the ground for both peoples.  They are grounded in ideology or theology, rather than common practice or everyday life.

I note that only $115-million of the overall $250-million cost has been raised so far.  Given my fundraising background, I find it odd that a major capital project would be begun without all, or almost all the money already pledged.  You can see that this is not the case by reviewing the Donor Opportunity page at the website.

One reason for the shortfall is that the original lead donor for the project was the infamous Gary Winnick, of Drexel Burnham Lambert and Global Crossing notoriety.  Both companies went belly up amidst a great deal of scandal, financial impropriety and even jail time for some participants (though not Winnick).  In 2000-2001, Winnick pledged $77-million for what was then called the “Winnick Institute Jerusalem.”  Ironically, when I searched the current Museum website I could find only one reference to Winnick and it went far back to 2002.  Otherwise, no Gary Winnick.  No Winnick Institute.  No $77-million.

Winnick was instrumental in this project from its inception.  He was the one who suggested Frank Gehry as the architect.  I doubt Hier would’ve even entered into it without Winnick’s major financial commitment.

It’s instructive to review some of Winnick’s conceptual thoughts about the museum’s purpose as expressed in the Chronicle of Philanthropy in 2001:

The Jerusalem gift comes at a time when the continuing conflict between Palestinians and Jews in Israel hinders the latest attempt at creating a peace process. The new institute will focus on that issue…but it will also deal with other groups in its attempt to promote tolerance of diversity.

“Whether we’re next-door neighbors, whether we’re brothers or sisters, or whether we’re enemies, we need to come to a middle ground,” says Mr. Winnick. “That means we must have tolerance, and until we have tolerance we cannot have peace.”

…Mr. Winnick initially rejected the invitation to make the first big pledge for a new center in Jerusalem because he didn’t think the world needed another place to study the Holocaust, which he said the proposal then included.

Instead…Winnick told…Hier, “I would be interested in a collaboration…that would involve issues unrelated to the Holocaust and would involve issues of world peace.”

Says…Hier, “Gary wanted to make sure that the focus in Jerusalem would be what we consider to be the critical issue facing Israel – that is, the need to build a more tolerant society in which Jews, Christians, and Muslims can live together.”

That’s how a $30-million idea grew into the Winnick Institute…now estimated to cost $120-million.

By 2004, with Winnick apparently out of the picture, Hier had reverted to the more narrow formulation of the museum’s purpose which I noted above.  It’s a shame.  Much as I despise Winnick and the financial wreckage he created through his fiscal “acumen,” his vision of the Museum might have been a more balanced one and more suited to the Israeli context.

Thanks again to a reader who wishes to be anonymous for outstanding research assistance.