The Freemason’s Song.: Je t’appartiens – Let It Be Me

November 13, 2009
VANITAS Je t’appartiens [i.e.: I belong to The Great Architect of the Universe]

Hiram legend was not used when modern Freemasonry started in 1717.

By 1730 (just a few years later) it was the central part of the Masonic ritual. Today it remains the heart of the ritual. It is supposed to teach us Masonic lessons. But what are they?

Freemasonry (remember the period when the Hiram legend started, 1717-1730) teaches that each person is entitled to dignity and respect, freedom of thought and speech, not even our friends, or ourselves, should curtail this freedom. Hiramic legend could be about the universal struggle for freedom.

If so, what is this freedom?

Freedom of speech includes freedom of those who say things we hate, hurtful things that upset people. Otherwise, it is not real freedom.”

(Brother Paul Bessel – Presentation at Benjamin B. French Lodge No.15, F.A.A.M., Washington D.C., February 17, 1999)

LYRICS

Music: Gilbert BécaudWords: Pierre Delanoë, 1955

Comme l’argile
L’insecte fragile
L’esclave docile
Je t’appartiens

De tout mon être
Tu es le seul maître
Je dois me soumettre
Je t’appartiens

Si tu condamnes
Jetant mon âme
Au creux des flammes
Je n’y peux rien

Si tu condamnes
Si tu me damnes
Voici mon âme
Voici mes mains

Avec les peines
L’amour et la haine
Coulant dans mes veines
Je t’appartiens

Que puis-je faire
Pour te satisfaire
Patron de la terre
Sur mon chemin

Comme les anges
Chanter tes louanges
Mais je ne suis pas un ange
Tu le sais bien

Je ne suis qu’un homme
Rien qu’un pauvre homme
Je t’aime bien
Comme un copain

Souvent je pense
Que dans ton immense
Palais de silence
Tu dois être bien

Parfois je pense
Que dans ton immense
Palais de silence
On doit être bien


Did You Ask A Good Question Today?

November 8, 2009

Judaism is a religion of questions.

Rabbi Sacks

by Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

Isidore Isaac Rabi, winner of a Nobel Prize for physics, was once asked why he became a scientist. He replied: “My mother made me a scientist without ever knowing it. Every other child would come back from school and be asked, ‘What did you learn today?’ But my mother used to say, ‘Izzy, did you ask a good question today?’ That made the difference. Asking good questions made me into a scientist.”

Judaism is a religion of questions. The greatest prophets asked questions of God. The Book of Job, the most searching of all explorations of human suffering, is a book of questions asked by man, to which God replies with a string of questions of His own.

The earliest sermons usually began with a question asked of the rabbi by a member of the congregation. Most famously, the Passover Seder begins with four questions asked by the youngest child.

So I can identify with Rabi’s childhood memories. When I left university and went to Israel to study in a rabbinical seminary, I was stunned by the sheer intensity with which the students grappled with texts. Once in a while the teacher’s face would light up at a comment from the class. “Du fregst a gutte kashe,” he would say (you raise a good objection). This was his highest form of praise.

Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski tells of how, when he was young, his instructor would relish challenges to his arguments. In his broken English he would say: “You right! You a hundred prozent right! Now I show you where you wrong.”

Religious faith has suffered hugely in the modern world by being cast as naive, blind, unquestioning.

The scientist asks, the believer just believes. Critical inquiry, so the stereotype runs, is what makes the difference between the pursuit of knowledge and the certainties of faith. One who believes in the fundamentals of a creed is derided as a fundamentalist. The word fundamentalist itself comes to mean a simplistic approach to complex issues. Religious belief is often seen as the suspension of critical intelligence.

As Wilson Mizner once put it: “I respect faith. But doubt is what gets you an education.” To me, this is a caricature of faith, not faith itself.

Questions testify to faith – the universe is not impervious to our understanding, life is not chance.

What is the asking of a question if not itself a profound expression of faith in the intelligibility of the universe and the meaningfulness of human life? To ask is to believe that somewhere there is an answer. The fact that throughout history people have devoted their lives to extending the frontiers of knowledge is a moving demonstration of the restlessness of the human spirit and its constant desire to transcend, to climb. Far from faith excluding questions, questions testify to faith – that the world is not random, the universe is not impervious to our understanding, life is not chance.

That, I suspect, is why Judaism encourages questions. On the phrase: “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness,” Rashi, the 11th-century biblical commentator, says: “This means, with the power to understand and to discern.”

Critical intelligence is the gift God gave humanity. To use it in the cause of human dignity and insight is one of the great ways of serving God. When faith suppresses questions, it dies. When it accepts superficial answers, it withers.

Faith is not opposed to doubt. What it is opposed to is the shallow certainty that what we understand is all there is.

Reprinted with kindly permission of Aish HaTorah International.


Ein (verfehlter) Blick in das Netzwerk der Freimaurer

November 4, 2009

Eine Glosse von Narcisse Caméléon, Ressortleiter Deppologie der HIRAM7 REVIEW

In einem klischeebehafteten Artikel erschienen im Wirtschaftsteil der Tageszeitung Die Welt phantasiert Anette Dowideit im besten Boulevardstil über die bis dato von der Medienverblödung verschonten Freimaurerei. Pünktlich zur Erscheinung der neuen Dan Browns Massenverblödungswaffe – Symbol – musste ja eine Zeitung die Massen mit Verschwörungswahn futtern, um den grausigen Alltag in Zeiten der globalen Finanzkrise erträglicher zu machen und gleichzeitig ein entsprechendes Erklärungsmuster zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Das Springer-Blatt meldete sich freiwillig und schickte eine bis dahin unbekannte Redakteurin. Eine Praktikantin hätte in diesem Fall gereicht.

Dieser Artikel ist überflüssig und noch schlimmer: er verstärkt die bereits vorhandenen Vorurteile gegenüber der Freimaurerei und Freimaurern. Zudem hat dieser Artikel im Wirtschaftsteil nichts zu suchen.

Man sollte diesen Artikel mit den Worten von Sir Winston Churchill zur Kenntnis nehmen und ad acta legen: “Die Freiheit der Rede hat den Nachteil, daß immer wieder Dummes, Häßliches und Bösartiges gesagt wird. Wenn wir aber alles in allem nehmen, sind wir doch eher bereit, uns damit abzufinden, als sie abzuschaffen.”

Lesenswert ist dieser Artikel dennoch: um zu erfahren wie dämmlich und ahnungslos Leserkommentare sein können.

Zum Artikel.

Die in HIRAM7 REVIEW veröffentlichten Essays und Kommentare geben nicht grundsätzlich den Standpunkt der Redaktion wieder.


Jacques Chirac rechnet in seinen Memoiren mit Nicolas Sarkozy ab

November 3, 2009

Jacques Chirac memoires

„Nicolas Sarkozy hatte damals schon diesen Willen, sich unentbehrlich zu machen und immer dabei zu sein, war hibbelig, übereifrig und begierig, zu handeln“, schreibt Jacques Chirac in seinen Memoiren, aus denen die französische Tageszeitung Le Parisien Auszüge veröffentlichte.

Der junge Sarkozy sei stets ein Meister der medialen Inszenierung gewesen.

„Er war immer mehr als ein einfacher Mitarbeiter“, schreibt Jacques Chirac. Sarkozys Unterstützung von Biedermann des bürgerlichen Lagers Edouard Balladur (im Hintergrund von Chiracs Erzfeind Valéry Giscard d’Estaing manövriert worden) bei der Präsidentschaftswahl gegen ihn habe ihn verletzt, gesteht der einstige politische Ziehvater von Nicolas Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac.

Der erste Band der Memoiren, der von Donnerstag an im Handel erhältlich ist, beschreibt den Beginn von Chiracs politischer Karriere bis zur Präsidentschaftswahl 1995.

Externer Link (französisch): Avec ses Mémoires, Jacques Chirac règle ses comptes, Artikel in der französischen Tageszeitung Le Parisien.


Défense et Illustration de Jacques Chirac

October 31, 2009

jc-jacques-chirac

Une tribune de Narcisse Caméléon

Le renvoi de Jacques Chirac devant la justice pour “détournements de biens publics” et “abus de confiance” dans le cadre de l’affaire des chargés de mission de la Ville de Paris est non seulement superflu, mais aussi et surtout moralement douteux, eu égard au fait que les délits reprochés remontent à plus de vingt ans et que tous les partis politiques ont eu recours à ces pratiques.

La justice devrait faire le procès de la classe politique entière au lieu de s’acharner sur un homme qui a servi la France de manière exemplaire pendant plus de quarante ans.

C’est une constante bien française, la nation décapite le Père, celui qui incarne le mieux ce qu’elle est, en érigeant l’échafaud en place publique; observez la chose, elle est invariablement la même: la tête du monarque, bon, débonnaire, doit être donnée aux chacals qui n’en feront qu’une bouchée : Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Comme le disait le Général De Gaulle: “Les Français sont des veaux”. Jacques Chirac s’en sortira, c’est une question d’honneur pour la France. Souvenons-nous des années Mitterrand, des suicides, des scandales personnels et des dépenses royales, corruption et république bananière à tire-larigotOui, il ira devant les juges, il passera quelques nuits blanches, mais il se relèvera, tête haute.

L’ancien président de la République et maire de Paris Jacques Chirac s’exprimait il y a près de deux ans sur tous les chefs d’accusation calomnieuse lancés à son encontre. Sa tribune parue dans le quotidien Le Monde peut être lue ici.

NDLR: Les textes et essais publiés sur HIRAM7 REVIEW n’engagent que leurs auteurs et ne reflètent pas nécessairement l’opinion de la rédaction.


Elvis Presley – Pieces Of His Life

October 30, 2009

Elvis is the greatest cultural force in the twentieth century. He introduced the beat to everything, music, language, clothes, it’s a whole new social revolution — the 60’s comes from it. (Leonard Bernstein)

Elvis was an instinctive actor…He was quite bright…he was very intelligent…He was not a punk. He was very elegant, sedate, and refined, and sophisticated. (Walter Matthau)

Fuck those people of the Scientology Church! There’s no way I’ll ever get involved with that son-of-a-bitchin’ group. All they want is my name and my money. (Elvis Aaron Presley)

ep-piecesofmylifeelvis7

Lyrics

(words & music by Troy Seals)

A water glass full of whiskey
And women that I never knew too well
Lord, the things I’ve seen and done
Most of which I’d be ashamed to tell

I don’t know how it started
But that’s what makes a man a man, I guess
Now I’m holdin’ on to nothing’
Tryin’ to forget the rest

I’m lookin’ back on my life
To see if I can find the pieces
I know that some were stolen
And some just blew away
Well, I’ve found the bad parts
Found all the sad parts
But I guess I threw the best parts away
Lord away, away

Playing the bars, playing like a star
Anything to get a name
Carryin’ on, living on songs
My friends wrote to me to sing

I’m lookin’ back on my life
To see if I can find the pieces
I know that some were stolen
And some just blew away
Well, I’ve found the bad parts
Found all the sad parts
But I guess I threw the best parts away
Away, away

Lord, the pieces of my life
They’re everywhere, they’re everywhere
And the one I miss most of all
Is you and you know who

Lookin’ back on my life, Lord
To see if I can find the pieces
Lookin’ back on my life, today
To see if I can find the pieces
Lookin’ back on my life
God help me find the pieces


Sir James Paul McCartney’s Good Evening Europe Tour 2009

October 24, 2009
Photograph of Paul McCartney as The Beatles arrive in New York City in 1964.]]
Legendary singer and songwriter Paul McCartney (67) – knighted Sir James Paul by Queen Elizabeth II on March 11, 1997 – unveiled his schedule for his “Good Evening Tour Europe 2009”.
 
It will be a seven city run, that will mark his only appearance in Europe this year, starting with his “hometown” Hamburg, where The Beatles Story began.

Good Evening Europe Tour 2009:

December 2, 2009: Hamburg, Germany – Color Line Arena
December 3, 2009: Berlin, Germany – O2 World
December 9, 2009: Arnhem, Holland – Gelredome
December 10, 2009: Paris, France – Bercy
December 16, 2009: Cologne, Germany – Koln Arena
December 20, 2009: Dublin, Ireland – The O2
December 22, 2009: London, England – The O2 Arena


Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle

October 24, 2009

The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle

“The West needs innovation; Israel’s got it,” write Dan Senor and Saul Singer, authors of Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle. They argue that the Israeli economic model, based on innovation, can help the West, in particular, “get out of its economic hole.”

Start-Up Nation addresses the trillion-dollar question: How is it that Israel – a country of 7.1 million people, only sixty years old, surrounded by enemies, in a constant state of war since its founding, with no natural resources – produces more start-up companies than large, peaceful, and stable nations like Japan, China, India, Korea, Canada, and the United Kingdom?

Drawing on examples from the country’s foremost inventors and investors, geopolitical experts Dan Senor and Saul Singer describe how Israel’s adversity-driven culture fosters a unique combination of innovative and entrepreneurial intensity.

As the authors argue, Israel is not just a country but a comprehensive state of mind. Whereas Americans emphasize decorum and exhaustive preparation, Israelis put chutzpah first. “When an Israeli entrepreneur has a business idea, he will start it that week,” one analyst put it. At the geopolitical level, Senor and Singer dig in deeper to show why Israel’s policies on immigration, R&D, and military service have been key factors in the country’s rise – providing insight into why Israel has more companies on the NASDAQ than those from all of Europe, Korea, Japan, Singapore, China, and India combined.

So much has been written about the Middle East, but surprisingly little is understood about the story and strategy behind Israel’s economic growth. As Start-Up Nation shows, there are lessons in Israel’s example that apply not only to other nations, but also to individuals seeking to build a thriving organization. As the U.S. economy seeks to reboot its can-do spirit, there’s never been a better time to look at this remarkable and resilient nation for some impressive, surprising clues.

Reviews & Endorsements

“An eye-opening look at a side of Israel that most people never think about.” (The Week)

“There is a great deal for America to learn from the very impressive Israeli entrepreneurial model—beginning with a culture of leadership and risk management. Start-Up Nation is a playbook for every CEO who wants to develop the next generation of corporate leaders.” Tom Brokaw, special correspondent for NBC News, author of The Greatest Generation

“Senor and Singer’s experience in government, in business, and in journalism—and especially on the ground in the Middle East—come to life in their illuminating, timely, and often surprising analysis.” George Stephanopoulos, host of This Week, ABC News

“In the midst of the chaos of the Middle East, there’s a remarkable story of innovation. Start-Up Nation is filled with inspiring insights into what’s behind Israel’s dynamic economy. It is a timely book and a much-needed celebration of the entrepreneurial spirit.” Meg Whitman, former president and CEO of eBay

“Senor and Singer highlight some important lessons and sound instruction for countries struggling to enter the 21st century. An edifying, cogent report, as apolitical as reasonably possible, about homemade nation building.” Kirkus Reviews

“The authors ground their analysis in case studies and interviews with some of Israel’s most brilliant innovators to make this a rich and insightful read not just for business leaders and policymakers but for anyone curious about contemporary Israeli culture.” Publishers Weekly

To order the book, click here.


Alan Posener’s Column: The Open Society and its Trends

October 23, 2009

by Alan Posener
Die Welt / Welt am Sonntag  / HIRAM7 REVIEW

Something’s going on in Europe, and I don’t like it.

There’s the future German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle’s refusal to even listen to the question of a BBC correspondent, unless it’s put to him in German:

There’s the BBC giving the British National Party’s Nick Griffin a nationwide TV platform for his racist and anti-Semitic views.

And there’s people not only defending German Central Banker Thilo Sarrazin’s right to make racist comments, but denying that they are racist and demanding a muzzle for people who dare to say they are racist.

You only have to look at the comments on Youtube and elsewhere to realize what it is that is going on here: the political and chattering classes have abandoned the rules governing their chatter; nationalism, racism and intolerance in general are being allowed back into polite society after spending the past 40 years out in the cold.

Political correctness – that great civilizer – is dead. Multiculturalism is under siege. And the ban on anti-Semitism – which the Catholic Church has already lifted by welcoming back the anti-Semitic Pius Brotherhood into its ranks – will soon be as worthless as the paper on which Sir Karl Popper’s great book on the Open Society was written.

I mention Karl Popper, because in the age of Totalitarianism he confronted a vexing question of democracy head-on: was the open society bound by its own philosophical, legal and political parameters to tolerate the propaganda of its enemies?

Popper said no: there was no reason to tolerate intolerance; no reason to grant freedom to the enemies of freedom; there should be no openness towards the enemies of openness. People who want one man, one vote one time should not – as they were in Gaza – be allowed to contest elections. Democracy is more important than freedom; more important than truth; more important than justice – or any one of the multitude of ideas, concepts, slogans and ideals in whose name one could (and people have tried to) suspend democracy.

It’s always the enemies of tolerance who chafe at this seeming intolerance of democracy. One shouldn’t let oneself be fooled. People say, “If you stop people from saying what Sarrazin said, you are denying 80 percent of the population a voice.”

Well, if 80 percent of the population are racist, which I don’t believe for a moment, but I’m saying if, then fuck them and there’s all the more reason to keep a tight lid on what is said by public figures, isn’t there?

Popper didn’t call his book “The Majority Rules”, he called it “The Open Society”. Even 99 percent of the population don’t have the right to dismantle the open society and replace it with a society in which privileges are awarded or denied according to race, religion, creed, gender, sexual orientation or social background.

That’s what Europe has been about this past half-century. Let’s keep it that way.


How We Can Win in Afghanistan

October 14, 2009

 

U.S. Soldiers with the 101st Division Special Troops Battalion, 101st Airborne Division watch as two Chinook helicopters fly in to take them back to Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, November 4, 2008.

U.S. Soldiers with the 101st Division Special Troops Battalion, 101st Airborne Division watch as two Chinook helicopters fly in to take them back to Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, November 4, 2008.

 

The most pressing issue on the U.S. president’s agenda today is whether he will commit more troops to Afghanistan – the “good war.”

In an article published in the November issue of Commentary Magazine, military historian Max Boot brings all his expertise to bear on explaining how the U.S. can win in that Taliban-plagued country.

But first we have to win the battle at home – the battle to convince Barack Obama to learn the right lessons from history and to heed the wise counsel of his own general, Stanley A. McChrystal.

Read full story.


Alan Poseners Kolumne: Benedikts Kreuzzug – Der Angriff des Vatikans auf die moderne Gesellschaft

October 13, 2009

Der britisch-deutsche Journalist Alan Posener kommentiert wöchentlich das Zeitgeschehen in Politik, Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Kultur für HIRAM7 REVIEW.

Von Alan Posener
Die Welt / Welt am Sonntag  / HIRAM7 REVIEW

Konservative sind stolz darauf, die besseren Menschen zu sein. Andere mögen bessere Ideen haben; sie mögen moralisch anspruchsvoller sein (dann werden sie von den Konservativen verächtlich „Gutmenschen“ genannt), aber weil der Konservative seinen privaten Anstand über die Ideen der Menschheitsbeglücker stellt, ist er am Ende eben der wahre Gutmensch.

In den letzten Tagen hatte ich zwei Mal die Möglichkeit, dieses konservative Selbstbild zu überprüfen. Zwei Konservative, mit denen ich bekannt, ja beinahe befreundet bin, haben mein Buch über Benedikt XVI besprochen: der katholische Arzt, Psychiater und Theologe Dr. Manfred Lütz, und der CDU-nahe Publizist Dr. Alexander Gauland.

Hier sind die Besprechungen:

Dr. Manfred Lütz, Frankfurter Rundschau, 12.10.2009

Dr. Alexander Gauland, Deutschlandradio Kultur, 04.10.2009

Niemand hat sie gezwungen, das Buch zu besprechen – sie wurden von den Redaktionen darum gebeten, und auch Konservative sind nur Menschen. Beiden war ein wenig unwohl bei der Sache. Das weiß ich, weil der eine mich vorher angerufen hat, ums sich sozusagen von vornherein Absolution erteilen zu lassen für den beabsichtigten Verriss; der zweite rief mich danach an und fragte als erstes: „Na, reden Sie überhaupt noch mit mir?“ Beiden war natürlich klar, dass ich die Absolution erteilen würde, dass ich nicht vorhabe, öffentlich ausgetragene Meinungsverschiedenheiten persönlich zu nehmen. Ich heiße ja nicht Henryk M. Broder oder Ingo Langner.

Ich bin meinen konservativen Freunden schon deshalb nicht böse, weil ich von dem Grundsatz des großen Sam Goldwyn überzeugt bin: „There is no such thing as bad publicity.“ Jedenfalls hat mein Buch bei Amazon.de einen Sprung gemacht, der vielleicht auch auf die Intervention der beiden zurückzuführen ist. Ein weiterer Grund ist: ich bin eben ein netter Mensch.

Wie gesagt, ich bin nicht böse über böse Kritiken; verstört bin ich darüber, dass beide Kritiker es nötig fanden, ad hominem zu argumentieren, also ein Mittel zu verwenden, das sie selbst zu verabscheuen vorgeben, und das nach konservativem Selbstverständnis auch nicht statthaft ist. Nein, Quatsch, ich bin nicht verstört; denn ich habe selten erlebt, dass sich Konservative an ihre eigenen Grundsätze gehalten hätten. Die größten Vertreter von Familienwerten sind notorische Ehebrecher, die größten Schwulenfeinde sind heimliche Schwule, und so könnte man den Katalog konservativer Werte durchdeklinieren, einschließlich des Faktums, dass die drei größten „Konservativen“ der Nachkriegszeit – Adenauer, Reagan und Thatcher – ja nicht konservativ waren, sondern revolutionär. Was mich mit ihnen versöhnt. Aber nun zu unseren Autoren.

Beide müssen mich unbedingt als eifernden Konvertiten hinstellen: Lütz stellt mich als „Jünger“ Richard Dawkins’ hin, als hätte ich Dawkins’ „Gotteswahn“ gebraucht, um Atheist zu werden; Gauland kommt „leider nicht umhin, auf die linksradikale Vergangenheit des Autors hinzuweisen“, die er zwar überwunden habe, aber „wie so oft bei großen Konversionen“ leider „im Sinne des leidenschaftlichen Umarmens von Kapitalismus, Liberalismus, Demokratie und Marktwirtschaft“. Diese seien dessen „neue Götter“.

Man erkennt die Absicht und ist verstimmt: Atheist zu sein, und gar Dawkins zu mögen, gilt in Deutschland – anders als in England, wo es sogar innerhalb der Staatskirche eine agnostische Tradition gibt, und wo Dawkins zu den angesehensten Professoren der Universität Oxford gehört – immer noch als irgendwie anrüchig. Ein „Jünger“ ist jemand, der nicht selbst denkt. Kapitalismus, Liberalismus, Demokratie und Marktwirtschaft zu „umarmen“, ist fast noch schlimmer als Atheist und Darwinist zu sein, und eine „linksradikale Vergangenheit“ – in England Ausweis selbstständigen Denkens, siehe Orwell, Koestler, Berlin, Popper usw. usf. – gilt hier als Beweis von Charakterschwäche und macht einen des Achtundsechzigerturms verdächtig. Nein, man sollte möglichst immer in der Jungen Union gewesen sein, immer irgendwie an den christlichen Gott geglaubt haben, immer irgendwie skeptisch gegenüber „Kapitalismus, Liberalismus, Demokratie und Marktwirtschaft“ gewesen sein (aber nicht linksradikal, gell): sonst ist man irgendwie nicht ganz koscher.

Womit ich bei Alexander Gauland bin, dessen Text mich mehr geärgert hat als jener von Manfred Lütz. Dass mich Gauland mit Heine und Harden vergleich, schmeichelt natürlich. Ist es aber Zufall, dass diese beiden Juden sind? Der Artikel ist illustriert mit einem Bild, auf dem Papst Benedikt XVI dem israelischen Staatspräsidenten Schimon Peres die Hand gibt: Was, bitte sehr, hat das mit meinem Buch zu tun? Es sei denn, man will „dem Juden“ Posener zeigen, dass auch „sein“ Staatspräsident dem Papst wohl gesonnen sei. Nun gut, vermutlich hat Alexander Gauland mit der Illustration nichts zu tun; das war die Redaktion von DeutschlandRadio Kultur. Die jedenfalls auch den Eindruck bekommen haben muss, hier ginge es darum, den deutschen Papst gegen einen jüdischen Angriff zu verteidigen. Und dann: Alexander Gauland und ich kennen uns lange genug, um wenigstens unsere Namen richtig schreiben zu können; er schreibt aber durchweg „Posner“. Immerhin steht „Posener“ auf dem Buchdeckel. Wie genau hat er also gelesen, bevor er seinem Zorn freien Lauf ließ?

Nichts für Ungut. Mit Manfred Lütz bin ich auf der Buchmesse zum Kaffee verabredet; mit Alexander Gauland werde ich sicher bald wieder in der Potsdamer „Ratswaage“ essen gehen. Die andere Wange, nicht wahr. Christen halten sie selten hin, Nichtchristen dafür umso öfter. Und meine Kritik an Benedikt war konservativer – im Sinne des konservativen Anspruchs, anständig zu sein – als diese konservative Kritik jener Kritik.

Link: Der anmaßende Papst, von Alan Posener, Frankfurter Rundschau, 15.10.2009

Die in HIRAM7 REVIEW veröffentlichten Essays und Kommentare geben nicht grundsätzlich den Standpunkt der Redaktion wieder.


Boycott Ahmadinejad’s speech at the United Nations!

September 15, 2009

Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war. (1938, Winston Churchill to Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons, after the Munich accords)

An Open Letter to His Excellency Ambassador Thomas Matussek
Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany to the United Nations

by Narcisse Caméléon, Deputy Chief Editor HIRAM7 REVIEW

Excellency,

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has announced his intention to attend the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York later this month.

We are writing to express our concern that President Ahmadinejad be allowed to abuse the platform of the UN to propagate hate, to spread false accusations against other members of the UN, and to hijack the agenda of the UN, as he has done recently at other UN conferences.

The government of Iran is in defiance of several sets of UN sanctions, has failed to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and might soon be capable of building an atomic bomb.

The Iranian government is also defying the will of its own people. People are imprisoned for their political beliefs, and women and religious minorities are being oppressed and persecuted. President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly denied the Holocaust, spread anti-Semitic libels, and threatened to wipe Israel off the map. He regularly incites to genocide.

Should President Ahmadinejad once again show complete disregard for the UN Charter we would respectfully ask that Germany’s delegation absent itself from the meeting for the duration of his address, in order not to dignify his remarks with the presence of a modern and liberal democracy like Germany.

Remember Munich 1938. No apeasement with ennemies of democracy!

Yours sincerely,

Narcisse Caméléon


The United States commemorates 9/11 anniversary

September 11, 2009

Memorial services in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania commemorate the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. Eight years ago, al-Qaeda terrorists from Hamburg, Germany, hijacked planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center tower, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, killing 2,752 people.

The New York Times notes “the fortress city,” many New Yorkers feared to protect against a future attacks, never came to pass.

In an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami, adjunct fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, discusses the relationship between 9/11 and the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

Read full story.


Alan Posener’s Column: In response to David Gelernter’s criticism of Old Europe

September 7, 2009

In his contribution to the symposion on Why are Jews Liberals hosted this month by Commentary Magazine, American neoconservative author David Gelernter charged that Old Europe has nothing to offer to mankind in terms of culture and spirituality. Now Alan Posener fires back in the following op-ed.

David Gelernter’s Piece of Bullshit on Old Europe

An op-ed by Alan Posener
Die Welt / Welt am Sonntag  / HIRAM7 REVIEW

David Gelernter’s contribution to the Commentary Magazine’s Symposion on Why (American) Jews are Liberals was one of the most amazing pieces of bullshit I have ever read. And my job as a journalist forces me to read a lot of bullshit.

In his criticism of Europe – a kind of mirror-image of the typical French intellectual’s criticism of the USA and just as fact-free – Gelernter makes a number of astounding observations.

Gelernter writes: “The peoples of Western Europe have mostly lacked the religious intensity and genius of the Jews.” I realize that you don’t need to know anything about culture in order to become a computer scientist, but maybe Mr. Gelernter should take time out from studying bits and bytes (and raving) in order to visit a Gothic cathedral or to listen to one of Johann Sebastian Bach’s religious works – the Christmas Oratorio is quite accessible. So much for religious genius. And as for religious intensity, maybe Mr. Gelernter should study the history of the European religious wars, which led us to conclude that keeping religion out of government was a key to peace – a lesson enshrined in the US Constitution.

Gelernter writes: “America has a habit of despising intellectuals” (this is meant as a compliment), “while Europe worships and obeys them”. One would be hard put to find a single example of Europeans “worshipping and obeying” an intellectual. However, there are many instances of hatred for the intellectual – Nazi Germany, where “intellectual” was virtually synonymous with “Jewish”, and the Communist bloc, where “intellectual” was virtually synonymous with “petit-bourgeois class enemy” being two of the more recent examples.

Gelernter writes: “European sex seems to have developed the moral significance of an ATM transaction on a street corner.” I’ve no idea where Gelernter gets his data on European sex. I would like to point out, though, that, like the ATM machine, casual sex is an American import, via Hollywood movies and rock’n'roll. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Woodstock is a village in the State of New York. As it happens, I’m a great fan of Hollywood, rock’n'roll and ATM machines, unlike the cultural conservatives who tell us that these inventions of the decadent Americans are sapping Europe’s moral fibre in order to deliver us into the hands of American capitalism (i.e. Jewry). But I must say I find it rich that Gelernter should simply turn the argument around. Nice joke. But bullshit.

Gelernter says that Europe has “a love affair with death”. A strange comment from someone who lives in a country where infant mortality rates are higher and life expectancy is lower than in Western Europe. (Of course, the bullshitter then turns around and says wimpy Europeans are afraid of death, which is why they want to cut and run in Afghanistan.) As proof for his assertion, Gelernter cites low birth-rates and high immigration levels. To start with the second aspect: until very recently, European conservatives criticized the USA for being a “mongrel culture” due to ist high levels of immigration. Again, Gelernter seems to have imbibed these European ideas and now switches into “Yah, boo, same to you”-mode. Cute, but bullshit. People come to Europe, as they do to America, because it is a damn good place to live. The idea that Europe’s “nations will be gone within a few generations” (Gelernter) can only occur to someone who doesn’t actually bother to do a reality check before sounding off. All studies show that immigrants to Europe are fast adopting European mores. Their birth-rate is declining, too. There is no reason to believe that a Muslim French woman should be less patriotic than a Jewish American.

David Gelernter writes: “Mulling German history in particular, one wonders whether the Germans were ever more than half-Christianized, whether paganism hasn’t always appealed to the lofty German Geist.” As we’ve seen, Gelernter doesn’t really “mull” history at all, or if he does, he only mulls his own preconceptions of history, not bothering with actual facts. The idea that the nation that brought forth Martin Luther – no name but one exemplar of the “lofty German Geist” – was only “half-Christianized” is absurd. But it does serve to obfuscate one fact that none of the contributors to the symposion reflect: the millions of Germans who voted for Hitler and served him till the last, the hundreds of thousands who worked on the “Final Solution” were not “half-Christianized” pagans. They were – often devout – Catholics and Protestants. This is an uncomfortable truth, a truth that the current Pope (a former Hitler Youth member) tries to deny, but a truth nevertheless.

It is for this reason that Jews in Europe and America would do well not to rely too heavily on Christian goodwill. Just because many Christians are more afraid of the Muslims at the moment does not mean that they are natural allies of the Jews. Antijudaism is enscribed into Christian teaching. I imagine that Gelernter, who apparently knows nothing about the history of Europe, hasn’t actually got round to reading the “New” Testament or the teachings of the Church Fathers, or the Acts of the Spanish Inquisition, or the Anti-Semitic rantings of Martin Luther. (But maybe he remembers Father Coughlin?)

I’m no friend of reactionary liberalism. But throwing yourself into the arms of reactionary conservativism isn’t the answer. Thinking for yourself is.


Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s Accomplishments

August 29, 2009

ted-kennedy

Senator Edward M. Kennedy (1932-2009) has authored more than 2,500 bills throughout his career since 1962 in the United States Senate.  Of those bills, several hundred have become Public Law. 

Here is a sample of some of those laws, which have made a significant difference in the quality of life for the American people.


Schulle im Gewöhnlichen Sozialismus – Ein Episodenroman zur deutschen Zeitgeschichte

August 29, 2009
p-schulle
Von Dr. Christof Tannert

Erschienen im Forum-Verlag Leipzig, Februar 2009

Exposé

Prototypische Charaktere der DDR werden in teils fiktiven, teils erlebten Biografien geschildert. Die Personen werden miteinander sowie mit einigen exemplarischen Westdeutschen konfrontiert. Als dramaturgische Kulisse dienen Szenario und Umfeld einer psychosomatischen Gruppentherapie. Es entstehen Einblicke in den „gewöhnlichen Verbalsozialismus“: Formungen und Verformungen von Menschen durch Alltag, Kleinbürgerei, Erziehungsdiktatur und staatliche Vormundschaft. Ein langsames Romanmittelteil vermittelt zwischen Generationen und Ideologien und zwischen den beiden (relativ schnellen) Eckteilen.

Der Roman hat autobiografische Bezüge. Er wurde vor allem gegen das Vergessen und gegen das immer mehr forcierte Verdrängen geschrieben.

Prolog

nach einem Suizidversuch.

Teil I  Karrieren

Kapitel 1: Der Dissident

Stephan Schulz, genannt Schulle: Physiker, DDR-Dissident, Stasi-Knast, danach von der Stasi andauernd überwacht, aber aus sozialistischer Überzeugung dennoch im Osten geblieben. Weil er de facto mit Berufsverbot belegt ist, arbeitet er seit Anfang der 80er Jahre als Hausmeister, und dann weiter nach 89, weil ihm das eine stressfreie, komfortable Nische zu sein scheint. Er ist aber nun wirtschaftlich von Entlassung und seelisch durch den Verlust von Hoffnung bedroht.

Kapitel 2: Die Anwältin

Cornelia, genannt Rote Conny: Tochter eines südwestdeutschen Schnapsfabrikanten, aktive 68erin aus der Frankfurter Sponti-Szene, Rechtsanwältin in Berlin-W, mit Schulle lange Zeit befreundet, auch sexuell liiert. Nach 89 politisch heimat- und bindungslos, Identitätskrise.

Kapitel 3: Der  Offizier

Jürgen-Dieter Henne, genannt Hühnchen, manchmal auch Hühnchen-Jüdie: Ex-Offizier der NVA („Nationale Volksarmee“ der DDR) und dort eine Art Liegenschaftsbeauftragter. Stasi-Zuträger aus Opportunismus, nach `89 mit Immobiliengeschäften in Sachsen betrauter Makler bei einer großen Firma. Später selbständig in der Branche und damit überfordert. National.

Kapitel 4: Die Pionierleiterin

Christa Krauss: ehemalige Pionierleiterin und Aushilfs-Lehrerin für Erdkunde. Ideologisch vormals übereifrig, eher zufällig von der Stasi nicht als Informelle Mitarbeiterin (IM) rekrutiert. Nach `89 virtuos gewendet („was diese Bonzen mit uns gemacht haben, wenn man das damals gewusst hätte, da  hätte man viel früher aufbegehrt“) und vom Nachfolgestaat als Lehrerin für Politische Weltkunde verbeamtet und damit überfordert. Politischer Rechtsdrall.

Kapitel 5: Der Politiker

Johannes Becker: Feingeist und Nischenmensch in der DDR, hoch gestellter Politiker nach dem 89er Umsturz. Konnte in der DDR keinen wirklichen Grund zum wirklichen Handeln erkennen.  Hat aber seinerzeit Schulle beim Stasi-Verhör aus Ängstlichkeit und aus Abneigung gegen dessen „Aktionismus“ belastet und will nun von ihm Absolution.

Kapitel 6: Die Müllwerkerin, der Müllwerker

Ilona Lehmann: der DDR-Prototyp schlechthin, d.h. um politische Unauffälligkeit bemüht, leise, akkurat, fleißig. Gastwirtstochter, Buchhändlerin. Nach dem 89er Umsturz Weiterbildung zur Betriebswirtin und nun städtische Angestellte im Personalbüro der Müllabfuhr. Muss sich dort vor allem mit Personalabbau befassen, was sie deprimiert.

„Blacky“, ehemaliger Chemielaborant, Müllfahrer, arbeitslos. Eigentlich „unpolitisch“, aber erpresst worden, für die Stasi zu spitzeln („IM“). Hat das nicht wirklich getan, wird dafür aber nun trotzdem und dauerhaft mit sozialer Deklassierung bestraft. Alkoholprobleme. In der Klinik beginnende Freundschaft mit Schulle, Ilona, Conny.

Teil II Ältere Damen in deutschen Gesprächen
Kapitel 7: Hilde und Herta

Zwei gebildete und wohlständige Damen gleichen Alters, die eine aus Ost-, die andere aus West-Deutschland, alleinstehend, unternehmungslustig, kulturvoll, streitbar.

Kapitel 8: Eisenbahngespräche

Mitte ihrer 70 lernen die beiden sich im Eisenbahnabteil auf der Fahrt von Warschau nach Berlin kennen. Sie stammen aus dem Memelgebiet, waren dort zur Besichtigung und sind sich in vielem gleich: Germanistinnen, wieder solo, ironisch. Besuch in Königsberg/ Kaliningrad, der Landschaft ihrer Kindheit und Jugend und Immanuel Kants und Hannah Ahrendts, Besuch in Warschau und dort auch am ehemaligen jüdischen Ghetto.

Spannungen (geringe) beim Kennenlernen àEisenbahngespräche über dt. Geschichte, Kant, Ethik, Totalitarismus, Alter, Zukunft, dt. Einheit

Kapitel 9: Schlössergespräche

Fortsetzung von Kapitel 7 und 8 und Verknüpfung zu Teil I und Teil III: Die Beiden gehen auf eine gemeinsame Schlösserfahrt durch Brandenburg, kommen dabei u.a. in die Psychosomatische Reha-Klinik und werden dort in einen akuten O-W-Streit einbezogen. Ausklang: Sie wollen ein brandenburgisches  „Herrenhaus“ kaufen und eine (Senioren)Kommunität begründen.

Teil III Reha-Klinik
Kapitel 10: Konzeptionen

Ein Arzt entwirft eine psychotherapeutische Gruppenkonzeption, kalkuliert mögliche Ost-West-Auseinandersetzungen ein und versucht auszutarieren, z.B. mit einer Oberstudienrätin aus Hessen (Frau Dyba).

Kapitel 11: Konstellationen

Begegnung der Hauptpersonen aus Teil I und Kapitel 10, manche kennen sich überraschenderweise von früher.

Kapitel 12: Konfrontationen

von Lebensgeschichten und gegenwärtigen „Befindlichkeiten“ im Therapiegespräch und an dessen Rand, oszillierend zwischen Opportunismus, Dissidenz, DDR-Erinnerungen, Nischen- und Beamtendasein.

Kapitel 13: Eskalationen

dramatische Fortsetzung von Kapitel 12 mit verbalen und körperlichen Schlagabtauschen

Kapitel 14: Grübeleien

einzeln und in Gruppe

Kapitel 15: Vorletzter Versuch

In dem Schloss, in dem die Reha-Klinik untergebracht ist, treffen die beiden alten Damen, der Politiker und die Therapiegruppe aufeinander à Konflikte und Diskurse.

Epilog

die Protagonisten gehen ihren Charakteren entsprechende mehr oder minder zeitgemäße Wege, Schulle ist definitiv gescheitert und hat sich bei Florenz das Leben genommen. Er hinterlässt ein Gedicht mit rätselhaftem Schluss.


Lockerbie Aftermaths

August 24, 2009

MemorialPanAM103

Scotland’s parliament has been recalled for an emergency session today amid mounting international outrage over last week’s release of terrorist Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, convicted for the Lockerbie plane bombing.

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will address the meeting to defend his decision to free al-Megrahi on “compassionate” grounds. Al-Megrahi was serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, and received a hero’s welcome on return to his home country Libya.

Read full story.


Earl Shugerman’s Corner: Jerusalem

August 24, 2009

Earl Shugerman, will bring every week a serie of stories about Anglo-Saxon immigrants to Israel. This project is aimed to promote a more realistic view of life in Israel.

Chaya is a form of the Hebrew word for life. It is also the name of my favourite cousin in Jerusalem.

She is Orthodox and by the age of thirty has six wonderful children. She is also an American Oleh. Her family immigrated to Israel, two decades ago. Their intention was to be in the holiest city of the holiest nation on earth. My pride and joy is her three year old son El Chanon. El Chanon is a handsome, brilliant, and very precocious young man with dark hair, brown eyes, and a very enchanting but somewhat sly smile. His mom refers to him as a walking Chamsin (turbulent storm), and his proud grandma jokes that he is Israel’s greatest threat to stability. 

Needless to say, life has special meaning to the Jewish people considering the struggles of the past five thousand years culminating with the Holocaust. The heart of Israel is the holy city. For two thousand years Jews living in exile annually chanted “Next Year in Jerusalem”. Jerusalem is the soul of Judaism, the heart of the Jewish homeland. 

 “Without Jerusalem there is no Israel“. David Ben-Gurion stated emphatically to Mickey Marcus, Israel’s first Aloof (General) during the 1948 battle for the city.

Marcus was an American volunteer. Chaya, like most residents of the holy city takes great pride in giving guided tours of her beloved metropolis.

During my last visit, we enjoyed touring the city on Israel’s double decker bus 99. El Chanon managed to get into everything and talk to everyone to the merriment of all, including our bus driver Haim, a resident of the city for forty years and proud grandfather.

Jerusalem Bus

The 99 bus navigates a route of both scenic and cultural interest. Mount Scopus boasts a visage encompassing the Old City, the Temple Mount and Bethlehem. As the Old City passes into the remote distance, the New boasts iconographic sites. The Knesset houses Israel’s parliament. The Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial is a poignant reminder of a lost world – the 6 million Jews that perished in humanities most insidious crime.  However, the Israel Museum is a testimony to Jewish endurance. It exhibits Judaic items both past and present.

By the end of the tour many of the travellers felt like old friends. Next year in Jerusalem is now.

About the author: Earl Shugerman is a retired American Government public relations specialist,  currently spokesperson in Haifa for The Jewish Agency and a writer specializing in interfaith relations. He has worked together with the Catholic and Southern Baptist Movements, the Reformed Jewish Movement and Muslim groups in interfaith activities.


The Death of Conservatism

August 22, 2009

THE DEATH OF CONSERVATISM

The twenty-first season of American Enterprise Institute (AEI)’s Bradley Lecture Series will commence September 8, 2009 with Sam Tanenhaus, editor of The New York Times Book Review, discussing his book, The Death of Conservatism (Random House, 2009).

Sam Tanenhaus argues that for seventy-five years conservatives have been split into two factions: the “realists” who believe in the virtues of government and the “revanchists” who distrust government and society. He argues that the revanchists have won the argument and that this has caused conservatism to falter.

AEI’s Steven F. Hayward and Henry Olsen will respond to Sam Tanenhaus.

Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Time: 5:00 PM – 6:30 PM
Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Media Contact: Veronique Rodman
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: 202-862-4870
E-mail: VRodman@aei.org


Lockerbie bomber may be freed

August 13, 2009

Several news reports say Britain will release from a Scottish prison Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, a former Libyan secret service agent convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people. Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill denied the reports that a decision has already been made, but said he is taking into consideration whether al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, should be freed on compassionate grounds.

CIAPA103D

The reports that al-Megrahi would be released aroused ardent debate between family members of the Lockerbie victims. Al-Megrahi is serving a life sentence for the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. Most of the victims were U.S. citizens.

Reuters considers the implications of al-Megrahi’s release for Libya.

The Times of London looks at divisions between U.S. and British relatives of Lockerbie victims over the news that al-Megrahi may be freed, noting that many British family members have long doubted his guilt and are supporting his release.

The BBC has an audio slideshow of the Lockerbie bombing.

The Guardian profiles al-Megrahi.


Former U.S. President Bill Clinton in North Korea

August 4, 2009

 

John Fitzgerald Kennedy shaking hands with teenager Bill Clinton.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy shaking hands with teenager Bill Clinton.

 

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton made a surprise visit to North Korea to try to convince the government to liberate two imprisoned U.S. journalists.

The journalists – Euna Lee and Laura Ling, of U.S. media outlet Current TV – were arrested on the North Korea-China border in March. The women were sentenced to twelve years of hard labour for entering the country illegally and for “hostile acts.”

Bill Clinton is well respected in North Korea, as he almost visited Pyongyang toward the end of his presidency, and because he met with North Korea’s top military commander, Jo Myong-rok, in Washington in 2000. North Korea and the United States also made a deal to freeze plutonium-based nuclear reactor at Yongbyon under the Clinton administration.

Former South Korean government official Park Chan-bong tells the Wall Street Journal the talks will probably serve as a launching point for bilateral discussions between the two countries.

Read full story.


The targeting of Israel and Darfur by the Arab world

August 2, 2009

by Dr. Kenneth Levin

The world’s media have given scant coverage lately to the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and – despite extensive reporting on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict – they have likewise offered little on the continuing campaign of genocidal incitement against Israel by her enemies.

While seeming very separate issues, the two campaigns, and the choice by media and world leaders largely to ignore both, are, in fact, connected.

On one level, of course, the connection is obvious. Israel-hatred is spearheaded by the Arab world; in virtually every Arab nation, demonizing and delegitimizing of Israel, and often of Jews, is a staple of government-controlled media, schools and mosques. This is true even of the Arab states with which Israel is formally at peace. At the same time, the Arab world is the chief support of fellow Arab leader Omar Hassan al-Bashir and his Sudanese regime’s genocidal assault on the Muslim blacks of Darfur. Illustrative was the Arab League’s unanimous, effusive embrace and defense of al-Bashir at its meeting in Doha, Qatar, in March, shortly after his indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Efforts at mass murder directed at Israel and the genocidal assault on the Muslim but non-Arab people of Darfur flow from the same mindset.

Tunisian human rights activist Mohammed Bechri several years ago argued that to understand Arab support for the genocide in Darfur, one has to recognize the “twin fascisms” – Bechri’s term – that dominate the Arab world: Islamism and Pan-Arabism. The first rejects the legitimacy of any non-Muslim group within what the Arabs perceive as their proper domain; the latter takes the same view towards any non-Arab group. The genocidal rhetoric, and efforts at mass murder, directed at Israel, and the genocidal assault on the Muslim but non-Arab people of Darfur follow from this mindset. (Bechri’s “twin fascisms” also account for the besiegement of Christians across the Arab world and backing for Sudan’s murder of some two million Christian and animist blacks in the south of the country. They help explain as well broad Arab support for the mass murder of Kurds – a Muslim but non-Arab people – in Iraq by Saddam Hussein and for the besiegement of the Kurds of Syria and the Berbers – another non-Arab Muslim group – in Algeria.)

But the connection between animosity towards Israel and coldness towards the victims in Darfur extends beyond the Arab world. It embraces, for example, all those European leaders who bend their consciences to accommodate Arab power – in oil, money and strategic territories – and who may pay lip service to recognizing the murderous incitement and related threats faced by Israel or to deploring the crimes suffered by Darfur but refuse to take serious steps to curb either.

Nor are American leaders entirely free of similar predilections. President Bush (43) was certainly sympathetic to Israel’s predicament. But he sought to assuage Arab opinion by pushing for rapid movement towards a Palestinian state and endorsing Machmoud Abbas as Israel’s “peace” partner, even as Abbas refused to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, consistently praised anti-Israel terror and stood fast in demanding a “right of return” that would turn Israel into yet another Arab-dominated entity. (On Darfur, the “moderate” Abbas responded to the ICC indictment by declaring, “We must also take a decisive stance of solidarity alongside fraternal Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir.”) Regarding Darfur, President Bush led the way in condemning Sudan’s campaign of mass murder and rape and first calling it a genocide. But — already attacked for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — he was not prepared to act aggressively against a third Muslim nation, even though doing so would have been aimed at saving hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives.

President Obama has adopted winning over Arab and broader Muslim opinion as a foreign policy priority and he has shown little interest in according more than verbal acknowledgment to the threats facing Israel. At the same time, those in the Muslim world whose good opinion he is most seeking to win are not the Muslims of Darfur but rather Darfur’s oppressors and their supporters. Some of President Obama’s ardent backers have expressed dismay, and have been openly critical of him, for what they see as his reneging on campaign pledges to put Darfur at the top of his agenda. (For example, Kirsten Powers, “Bam’s Darfur Sins,” in the New York Post, May 11, 2009). But given his focus on appeasing Muslims hostile to America, his inaction on Darfur should not surprise.

In major Western media as well, deference to Arab opinion vis-a-vis Israel has generally been accompanied by silence on the central role of the Arab world in providing support for Sudan’s actions in Darfur. While the Arab League’s embrace in Doha of Sudanese President al-Bashir was widely reported, few major outlets offered editorial criticism of the Arab stance — The Washington Post being a notable exception. The New York Times, which for decades has used both “news stories” and editorials to argue that Israeli concessions are the key to peace and has refused to cover the genocidal incitement against Israel and Jews endemic in Palestinian and broader Arab media, mosques and schools, offered no editorial opinion on the Doha meeting.

Kristoff generally avoided the Arab role in supporting the genocide.

Several years ago, the Times‘ Nicholas Kristof won a Pulitzer Prize for his op-ed coverage of the slaughter in Darfur. Kristof is a constant critic of Israel and, like his bosses, avoids the issue of rejection of Israel’s legitimacy, and promotion of genocidal hatred towards the Jewish state, by its Arab neighbors. In a similar vein, for all his extensive writing on Darfur, he generally avoided the Arab role in supporting the genocide. In some forty op-eds on Darfur published between March, 2004, and April, 2006, shortly after he won the Pulitzer, Kristof devoted only five sentences to Arab backing of the Sudanese regime, and that in an article focused on China’s shameful complicity in Darfur.

But if all this not is very surprising, there are also more curious aspects to the convergence of animosity, often of murderous dimensions, towards Israel and sympathy for, or at least indulgence of, those who perpetrate the genocide in Darfur.

For example, while Egypt has not overtly broken with the unanimous Arab League support for al-Bashir, Egyptian President Mubarak chose not to attend the Doha conference, and he and some other Arab leaders have been worried about the Islamist Sudanese regime’s close ties to Iran and to Iran’s radical Arab allies, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. Yet a number of Western leaders, who advocate “dialogue” with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, prefer to ignore their genocidal agenda towards Israel and their leading role in aiding Sudan’s genocidal government – in effect, outpacing Egyptian backing of al-Bashir by soft-pedaling the role in Sudan of those most supportive of al-Bashir’s murderous regime.

Iran has long given extensive financial assistance to the Sudanese government, has provided its forces with weapons and training and has underwritten Chinese provision of arms to al-Bashir. Sudan, again with Iran serving as financier and mid-wife, has also been a training ground for Hamas, fostering as well an ongoing cross-fertilization between Hamas and the militias responsible for the Darfur genocide. Hezbollah and Syria have likewise been in the forefront of Sudan’s supporters and enablers.

Following the International Criminal Court’s action against al-Bashir, a delegation of his radical allies quickly arrived in Khartoum in a show of solidarity with their indicted brother. It included the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani, Hamas leader Moussa Abu Marzouk, Syrian parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash and an official of Hezbollah. Hamas also sponsored a large pro-Sudan march in Gaza.

But inevitably, Khartoum’s allies’ contributions to the Darfur genocide, like their promotion of genocide vis-a-vis Israel, are ignored by those eager for diplomatic engagement with them.

Also in early March, around the time of the ICC indictment, the British Foreign Office, led by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, announced its agreement to talks with Hezbollah. More recently, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner have met with Hezbollah representatives. Hezbollah head Nasrallah’s commitment to the murder of all Jews – as in his 2002 statement that “if [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide” (in the past Hezbollah has gone after them as far afield as in Argentina) – was hardly something Miliband and the Foreign Office, or the Quai D’Orsay, or Solana and the European Union, or those British and continental media sympathetic to Hezbollah, were about to note. Nor were they going to note Hezbollah’s support for Sudan’s policies in Darfur.

Similarly, those many European leaders promoting engagement with Hamas typically avoid acknowledging Hamas’s call in its charter for the slaughter of all Jews, its teaching Palestinian children – in its schools and on children’s television – that Jews are eternal enemies of Islam and must be annihilated, and its other purveying of genocidal Jew-hatred. In April, the Dutch Labor party demanded that the European Union sanction Israel if it refuses to accept Hamas as a negotiating partner. Dutch Labor party leaders and like-minded European politicians, in their efforts to push acceptance of Hamas, soft-pedal its aims regarding Israelis and Jews and likewise say little about Hamas’s support of and contributions to Sudan’s genocidal assault on the blacks of Darfur.

European media that are hostile to Israel also virtually ignore Hamas’s genocidal policies and actions regarding both Israel and Darfur. British news outlets such as The Guardian and The Independent, which had barely covered years of Hamas rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli communities, or Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for its attacks, but excoriated Israel when it responded with its assault on Hamas beginning in December, 2008, are likewise essentially silent regarding Hamas’s promotion of mass murder in Israel and support for mass murder in Darfur. The same is true for myriad news outlets on the Continent.

Most American political leaders have shunned Hamas for its commitment — in words and deeds – to Israel’s destruction and for its genocidal agenda. (There are some notable exceptions such as Jimmy Carter, who has met with Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal and urged including Hamas in “peace” talks.) But many American media organizations, particularly those, like the New York Times, most committed to portraying Israeli policy as the major obstacle to peace, have followed their European counterparts in saying little of Hamas’s genocidal policies regarding Jews or of its support for Sudan’s genocidal policies in Darfur.

Even people whom one might expect to identify most closely with the victims of the Darfur genocide often do nothing, or limit their actions to words, or actually lend support to the perpetrators, in large part because of pro-Arab sympathies or hostility to Israel. Congress has one Muslim black representative, Minnesota’s Keith Ellison, and Ellison has at times spoken out against the Darfur genocide. In April, for example, he joined a protest at the Sudanese embassy in Washington and was arrested along with other demonstrators. But Ellison has consistently supported pro-Hamas groups in America. He also aggressively embraced the Hamas line in last winter’s Gaza War in terms of alleged civilian casualties and Israeli misdeeds while remaining silent on Hamas use of civilians and civilian facilities as shields for attacks on Israel. Ellison has likewise never publicly addressed Hamas’s alliance with Sudan and its backing of Sudanese policies in Darfur. Alignment with those arrayed against Israel seems to trump criticism of those arrayed against Darfur for the Minnesota congressman.

The major force driving genocidal agendas toward Israel and Darfur is, again, Arab supremacism. It is abetted in the wider world by power politics, as well as by, in many quarters, a twisted ideological allegiance whose credo requires that hostility to the Jewish state and consequent sympathy for, or prettifying of, those dedicated to her destruction trumps sympathy for Darfur and criticism of those participating in its people’s annihilation. The overall result is that powerful links between murderous hatred towards Israel and support for, or at least accommodation of, genocide in Darfur are a fixture of today’s geopolitics and go largely unchallenged.

A longer version of this article originally appeared on www.frontpagemag.com.

Reprinted with kindly permission of Aish HaTorah International.


Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s favorite gospel song

July 27, 2009

In memory of Dr. Martin Luther King (1929-1968)

Take My Hand, Precious Lord – sung by Elvis Aaron Presley

Lyrics
Written August 1932 by Reverend Thomas A. Dorsey (1899-1993), melody by George N. Allen (1812-1877)

Precious Lord, take my hand
Lead me on, let me stand
I am tired, I am weak, I am worn
Through the storm, through the night
Lead me on to the light
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home

When my way grows drear
Precious Lord linger near
When my light is almost gone
Hear my cry, hear my call
Hold my hand lest I fall
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home

When the darkness appears
And the night draws near
And the day is past and gone
At the river I stand
Guide my feet, hold my hand
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home

Precious Lord, take my hand
Lead me on, let me stand
I’m tired, I’m weak, I’m lone
Through the storm, through the night
Lead me on to the light
Take my hand precious Lord, lead me home


U.S. PR Image Improved

July 24, 2009

A new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project finds that global public opinion about the United States of America has improved obviously since President Barack Obama took office.

Still, the poll shows Muslims, particularly in Turkey, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories, remain sceptical of Barack Obama and the United States.

Read full story.


Dangerous Games: The Uses and Abuses of History

July 16, 2009

Dangerous Games The Uses and Abuses of History

Provocative…Dangerous Games should be read by anyone concerned with making the public dialogue as open and honest as possible. (The Washington Post – Jonathan Yardley)

Oxford University professor Margaret MacMillan issues a call to arms for academic historians to take back history from those who would abuse it. This book, first published last year in Canada, is newly available in the U.S. and Europe from Random House.

She admonishes governments and leaders using history to undermine the past, going so far as to question the significance of apologizing for historical wrongs. Using example after example, MacMillan demonstrates the violence that skewed history can create and mourns a trend of poorly researched historical biographies pouring from the press to fill a demand for new heroes.

To order this book, click here.


Der zweite Libanonkrieg – drei Jahre danach

July 16, 2009

 Am 12. Juni 2006 drang ein Trupp von Hisbollah-Terroristen in israelisches Territorium ein und attackierte eine Patrouille der israelischen Armee. Während des Angriffs und dem nachfolgenden Versuch der Rettung von zwei entführten Soldaten würden acht israelische Soldaten getötet. Die Leichen der entführten Soldaten, Stabsfeldwebel der Reserve Ehud Goldwasser und Hauptfeldwebel der Reserve Eldad Regev, wurden am 16. Juli 2008 nach Israel zurückgeführt.

In Reaktion auf den Überfall griff die israelische Armee das Hisbollah-Hauptquartier im Libanon sowie den internationalen Flughafen von Beirut an und verhängte eine Luft- und Seeblockade, gefolgt von einer Bodenoffensive im Südlibanon.

Während des Krieges, der vom 12.Juli bis zum 14. August 2006 dauerte, griff die Hisbollah absichtlich die israelische Zivilbevölkerung an, indem sie mehr als 4000 Raketen auf dicht bevölkerte Gebiete abfeuerte. 44 israelische Zivilisten wurden getötet und über 600 verletzt. Außerdem wurden 121 israelische Soldaten getötet und 450 verwundet. Die Hisbollah konnte sich auf ein ansehnliches Waffenarsenal stützen, darunter 1000 Langstreckenraketen, über 13 000 Kurzstreckenraketen sowie Luftwaffen- und Marineeinheiten und Guerilla-Truppen zu Land mit Panzerabwehrwaffen.

Die Antwort der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte beinhaltete den Einsatz von etwa 10 000 Soldaten im Libanon, 18 800 Lufteinsätze, den Beschuss mit 120 000 Artilleriegranaten. Mehr als 600 Hisbollah-Terroristen wurden getötet, und die Infrastruktur der Terrororganisation, darunter 15 000 ihrer Stellungen, wurde schwer getroffen. Während des Krieges koordinierte die israelische Armee erfolgreich 800 Hilfskonvois sowie 613 Evakuierungen auf dem Luft-, Land- und Seeweg.

Am 12. August 2006 wurde die UN-Sicherheitsratsresolution 1701 angenommen, die zu einem Waffenstillstand und dem Ende des Krieges führte. Die Resolution rief zur völligen Einstellung der Kampfhandlungen auf und grenzte das Gebiet zwischen der Blauen Linie und dem Litani-Fluss als Pufferzone ab, die frei sein sollte von „bewaffneten Kämpfern, Posten und Waffen, die nicht der libanesischen Regierung oder UNIFIL angehören“. Außerdem wurden die UN-Truppen auf 15 000 Mann aufgestockt.

Drei Jahre nach dem zweiten Libanonkrieg bleibt die Hisbollah von den Nachwirkungen des Krieges beeinflusst. Die Terrororganisation hat sich im Libanon sowohl in politischer als auch militärischer Hinsicht als einflussreiche Kraft etabliert.

Durch den militärischen Erholungsprozess sowohl in qualitativer als auch quantitativer Hinsicht besitzt die Terrororganisation in ihrer Funktion als verlängerter Arm des radikalen Lagers unter der Führung des Iran ein größeres Waffenarsenal als viele Staaten.

Dadurch hat die Hisbollah raffiniertere und weiter reichende Möglichkeiten sowohl im Nord- als auch im Südlibanon erhalten, die in direktem Widerspruch zur UN-Sicherheitsratsresolution 1701 stehen. Wiederholt hat sie ihre Absicht gezeigt, ein politischer Faktor im Staat zu bleiben, und ist dabei so weit gegangen, dass sie ihre Waffen im Mai 2008 gegen die libanesische Armee gerichtet hat.

Das anschließende Doha-Abkommen verlieh ihr in der Regierung die Möglichkeit des „blockierenden Dritten“. In den Wahlen vom Juni 2009 scheiterte die Hisbollah daran, diesselbe Unterstützung wieder zu gewinnen; die moderne 14. März-Fraktion gewann 71 von 128 Sitzen. Aufgrund fehlender Errungenschaften vor Ort bleibt dies jedoch von lediglich symbolischer Bedeutung.

Quelle: Außenministerium des Staates Israel.


U.S. President Barack Obama’s Historic Visit to Africa

July 13, 2009

In a major speech during a visit to Ghana, Africa, on Saturday, U.S. President Barack Obama pushed his $63 billion global health initiative and the food security program he announced at the G8 summit last week.

Barack Obama called on African leaders to bolster democratic institutions and fight corruption, calling good governance “the change that can unlock Africa’s potential”.

In the BBC, Michael Zubrow, foreign policy expert at the think tank Center for a New American Security, compares themes of Obama’s four major international speeches.

TIME also details the “five pillars” of Obama’s foreign policy.

Last but not least: Foreign Policy looks at Obama’s choice to visit Ghana, as opposed to countries with more “geopolitical relevance,” such as South Africa or Nigeria.

***

REMARKS BY U.S. PRESIDENT  BARACK OBAMA
TO THE GHANAIAN PARLIAMENT
Accra International Conference Center
Accra, Ghana

July 11, 2009

THE PRESIDENT: (Trumpet plays.) I like this. Thank you. Thank you. I think Congress needs one of those horns. (Laughter.) That sounds pretty good. Sounds like Louis Armstrong back there. (Laughter.) 
 
Good afternoon, everybody. It is a great honor for me to be in Accra and to speak to the representatives of the people of Ghana. (Applause.) I am deeply grateful for the welcome that I’ve received, as are Michelle and Malia and Sasha Obama. Ghana’s history is rich, the ties between our two countries are strong, and I am proud that this is my first visit to sub-Saharan Africa as President of the United States of America. (Applause.)
 
I want to thank Madam Speaker and all the members of the House of Representatives for hosting us today. I want to thank President Mills for his outstanding leadership. To the former Presidents — Jerry Rawlings, former President Kufuor — Vice President, Chief Justice — thanks to all of you for your extraordinary hospitality and the wonderful institutions that you’ve built here in Ghana.
 
I’m speaking to you at the end of a long trip. I began in Russia for a summit between two great powers. I traveled to Italy for a meeting of the world’s leading economies. And I’ve come here to Ghana for a simple reason: The 21st century will be shaped by what happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in Accra, as well. (Applause.)
 
This is the simple truth of a time when the boundaries between people are overwhelmed by our connections. Your prosperity can expand America’s prosperity. Your health and security can contribute to the world’s health and security. And the strength of your democracy can help advance human rights for people everywhere.
 
So I do not see the countries and peoples of Africa as a world apart; I see Africa as a fundamental part of our interconnected world — (applause) — as partners with America on behalf of the future we want for all of our children. That partnership must be grounded in mutual responsibility and mutual respect. And that is what I want to speak with you about today.
 
We must start from the simple premise that Africa’s future is up to Africans.
 
I say this knowing full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world. After all, I have the blood of Africa within me, and my family’s — (applause) — my family’s own story encompasses both the tragedies and triumphs of the larger African story. 
 
Some you know my grandfather was a cook for the British in Kenya, and though he was a respected elder in his village, his employers called him “boy” for much of his life. He was on the periphery of Kenya’s liberation struggles, but he was still imprisoned briefly during repressive times. In his life, colonialism wasn’t simply the creation of unnatural borders or unfair terms of trade — it was something experienced personally, day after day, year after year.
 
My father grew up herding goats in a tiny village, an impossible distance away from the American universities where he would come to get an education. He came of age at a moment of extraordinary promise for Africa. The struggles of his own father’s generation were giving birth to new nations, beginning right here in Ghana. (Applause.) Africans were educating and asserting themselves in new ways, and history was on the move.
 
But despite the progress that has been made — and there has been considerable progress in many parts of Africa — we also know that much of that promise has yet to be fulfilled. Countries like Kenya had a per capita economy larger than South Korea’s when I was born. They have badly been outpaced. Disease and conflict have ravaged parts of the African continent.
 
In many places, the hope of my father’s generation gave way to cynicism, even despair. Now, it’s easy to point fingers and to pin the blame of these problems on others. Yes, a colonial map that made little sense helped to breed conflict. The West has often approached Africa as a patron or a source of resources rather than a partner. But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my father’s life, it was partly tribalism and patronage and nepotism in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch derailed his career, and we know that this kind of corruption is still a daily fact of life for far too many.
 
Now, we know that’s also not the whole story. Here in Ghana, you show us a face of Africa that is too often overlooked by a world that sees only tragedy or a need for charity. The people of Ghana have worked hard to put democracy on a firmer footing, with repeated peaceful transfers of power even in the wake of closely contested elections. (Applause.) And by the way, can I say that for that the minority deserves as much credit as the majority. (Applause.) And with improved governance and an emerging civil society, Ghana’s economy has shown impressive rates of growth. (Applause.)
 
This progress may lack the drama of 20th century liberation struggles, but make no mistake: It will ultimately be more significant. For just as it is important to emerge from the control of other nations, it is even more important to build one’s own nation.
 
So I believe that this moment is just as promising for Ghana and for Africa as the moment when my father came of age and new nations were being born. This is a new moment of great promise. Only this time, we’ve learned that it will not be giants like Nkrumah and Kenyatta who will determine Africa’s future. Instead, it will be you — the men and women in Ghana’s parliament — (applause) — the people you represent. It will be the young people brimming with talent and energy and hope who can claim the future that so many in previous generations never realized.
 
Now, to realize that promise, we must first recognize the fundamental truth that you have given life to in Ghana: Development depends on good governance. (Applause.)  That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That’s the change that can unlock Africa’s potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.
 
As for America and the West, our commitment must be measured by more than just the dollars we spend. I’ve pledged substantial increases in our foreign assistance, which is in Africa’s interests and America’s interests. But the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of perpetual aid that helps people scrape by — it’s whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change. (Applause.)
 
This mutual responsibility must be the foundation of our partnership. And today, I’ll focus on four areas that are critical to the future of Africa and the entire developing world: democracy, opportunity, health, and the peaceful resolution of conflict.
 
First, we must support strong and sustainable democratic governments. (Applause.)
 
As I said in Cairo, each nation gives life to democracy in its own way, and in line with its own traditions. But history offers a clear verdict: Governments that respect the will of their own people, that govern by consent and not coercion, are more prosperous, they are more stable, and more successful than governments that do not.
 
This is about more than just holding elections. It’s also about what happens between elections. (Applause.) Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves — (applause) — or if police — if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. (Applause.) No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top — (applause) — or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. (Applause.) That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end. (Applause.)
 
In the 21st century, capable, reliable, and transparent institutions are the key to success — strong parliaments; honest police forces; independent judges — (applause); an independent press; a vibrant private sector; a civil society. (Applause.) Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in people’s everyday lives.
 
Now, time and again, Ghanaians have chosen constitutional rule over autocracy, and shown a democratic spirit that allows the energy of your people to break through. (Applause.) We see that in leaders who accept defeat graciously — the fact that President Mills’ opponents were standing beside him last night to greet me when I came off the plane spoke volumes about Ghana — (applause); victors who resist calls to wield power against the opposition in unfair ways. We see that spirit in courageous journalists like Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who risked his life to report the truth. We see it in police like Patience Quaye, who helped prosecute the first human trafficker in Ghana. (Applause.) We see it in the young people who are speaking up against patronage, and participating in the political process.
 
Across Africa, we’ve seen countless examples of people taking control of their destiny, and making change from the bottom up. We saw it in Kenya, where civil society and business came together to help stop post-election violence. We saw it in South Africa, where over three-quarters of the country voted in the recent election — the fourth since the end of Apartheid. We saw it in Zimbabwe, where the Election Support Network braved brutal repression to stand up for the principle that a person’s vote is their sacred right.
 
Now, make no mistake: History is on the side of these brave Africans, not with those who use coups or change constitutions to stay in power. (Applause.) Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions. (Applause.) 
 
Now, America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation. The essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny. But what America will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and responsible institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance — on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard — (applause); on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved; and on concrete solutions to corruption like forensic accounting and automating services — (applause) — strengthening hotlines, protecting whistle-blowers to advance transparency and accountability.
 
And we provide this support. I have directed my administration to give greater attention to corruption in our human rights reports. People everywhere should have the right to start a business or get an education without paying a bribe. (Applause.) We have a responsibility to support those who act responsibly and to isolate those who don’t, and that is exactly what America will do.
 
Now, this leads directly to our second area of partnership: supporting development that provides opportunity for more people.
 
With better governance, I have no doubt that Africa holds the promise of a broader base of prosperity. Witness the extraordinary success of Africans in my country, America. They’re doing very well. So they’ve got the talent, they’ve got the entrepreneurial spirit. The question is, how do we make sure that they’re succeeding here in their home countries? The continent is rich in natural resources. And from cell phone entrepreneurs to small farmers, Africans have shown the capacity and commitment to create their own opportunities. But old habits must also be broken. Dependence on commodities — or a single export — has a tendency to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few, and leaves people too vulnerable to downturns.
 
So in Ghana, for instance, oil brings great opportunities, and you have been very responsible in preparing for new revenue. But as so many Ghanaians know, oil cannot simply become the new cocoa. From South Korea to Singapore, history shows that countries thrive when they invest in their people and in their infrastructure — (applause); when they promote multiple export industries, develop a skilled workforce, and create space for small and medium-sized businesses that create jobs.
 
As Africans reach for this promise, America will be more responsible in extending our hand. By cutting costs that go to Western consultants and administration, we want to put more resources in the hands of those who need it, while training people to do more for themselves. (Applause.) That’s why our $3.5 billion food security initiative is focused on new methods and technologies for farmers — not simply sending American producers or goods to Africa. Aid is not an end in itself. The purpose of foreign assistance must be creating the conditions where it’s no longer needed. I want to see Ghanaians not only self-sufficient in food, I want to see you exporting food to other countries and earning money. You can do that. (Applause.)
 
Now, America can also do more to promote trade and investment. Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way. That will be a commitment of my administration. And where there is good governance, we can broaden prosperity through public-private partnerships that invest in better roads and electricity; capacity-building that trains people to grow a business; financial services that reach not just the cities but also the poor and rural areas. This is also in our own interests — for if people are lifted out of poverty and wealth is created in Africa, guess what? New markets will open up for our own goods. So it’s good for both.
 
One area that holds out both undeniable peril and extraordinary promise is energy. Africa gives off less greenhouse gas than any other part of the world, but it is the most threatened by climate change. A warming planet will spread disease, shrink water resources, and deplete crops, creating conditions that produce more famine and more conflict. All of us — particularly the developed world — have a responsibility to slow these trends — through mitigation, and by changing the way that we use energy. But we can also work with Africans to turn this crisis into opportunity.
 
Together, we can partner on behalf of our planet and prosperity, and help countries increase access to power while skipping — leapfrogging the dirtier phase of development. Think about it: Across Africa, there is bountiful wind and solar power; geothermal energy and biofuels. From the Rift Valley to the North African deserts; from the Western coasts to South Africa’s crops — Africa’s boundless natural gifts can generate its own power, while exporting profitable, clean energy abroad.
 
These steps are about more than growth numbers on a balance sheet. They’re about whether a young person with an education can get a job that supports a family; a farmer can transfer their goods to market; an entrepreneur with a good idea can start a business. It’s about the dignity of work; it’s about the opportunity that must exist for Africans in the 21st century.
 
Just as governance is vital to opportunity, it’s also critical to the third area I want to talk about: strengthening public health.
 
In recent years, enormous progress has been made in parts of Africa. Far more people are living productively with HIV/AIDS, and getting the drugs they need. I just saw a wonderful clinic and hospital that is focused particularly on maternal health. But too many still die from diseases that shouldn’t kill them. When children are being killed because of a mosquito bite, and mothers are dying in childbirth, then we know that more progress must be made.
 
Yet because of incentives — often provided by donor nations — many African doctors and nurses go overseas, or work for programs that focus on a single disease. And this creates gaps in primary care and basic prevention. Meanwhile, individual Africans also have to make responsible choices that prevent the spread of disease, while promoting public health in their communities and countries.
 
So across Africa, we see examples of people tackling these problems. In Nigeria, an Interfaith effort of Christians and Muslims has set an example of cooperation to confront malaria. Here in Ghana and across Africa, we see innovative ideas for filling gaps in care — for instance, through E-Health initiatives that allow doctors in big cities to support those in small towns.
 
America will support these efforts through a comprehensive, global health strategy, because in the 21st century, we are called to act by our conscience but also by our common interest, because when a child dies of a preventable disease in Accra, that diminishes us everywhere. And when disease goes unchecked in any corner of the world, we know that it can spread across oceans and continents.
 
And that’s why my administration has committed $63 billion to meet these challenges — $63 billion. (Applause.) Building on the strong efforts of President Bush, we will carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS. We will pursue the goal of ending deaths from malaria and tuberculosis, and we will work to eradicate polio. (Applause.) We will fight — we will fight neglected tropical disease. And we won’t confront illnesses in isolation — we will invest in public health systems that promote wellness and focus on the health of mothers and children. (Applause.)
 
Now, as we partner on behalf of a healthier future, we must also stop the destruction that comes not from illness, but from human beings — and so the final area that I will address is conflict.
 
Let me be clear: Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at perpetual war. But if we are honest, for far too many Africans, conflict is a part of life, as constant as the sun. There are wars over land and wars over resources. And it is still far too easy for those without conscience to manipulate whole communities into fighting among faiths and tribes.
 
These conflicts are a millstone around Africa’s neck. Now, we all have many identities — of tribe and ethnicity; of religion and nationality. But defining oneself in opposition to someone who belongs to a different tribe, or who worships a different prophet, has no place in the 21st century. (Applause.) Africa’s diversity should be a source of strength, not a cause for division. We are all God’s children. We all share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to access education and opportunity; to love our families and our communities and our faith. That is our common humanity.
 
That is why we must stand up to inhumanity in our midst. It is never justified — never justifiable to target innocents in the name of ideology. (Applause.) It is the death sentence of a society to force children to kill in wars. It is the ultimate mark of criminality and cowardice to condemn women to relentless and systemic rape. We must bear witness to the value of every child in Darfur and the dignity of every woman in the Congo. No faith or culture should condone the outrages against them. And all of us must strive for the peace and security necessary for progress.
 
Africans are standing up for this future. Here, too, in Ghana we are seeing you help point the way forward. Ghanaians should take pride in your contributions to peacekeeping from Congo to Liberia to Lebanon — (applause) — and your efforts to resist the scourge of the drug trade. (Applause.) We welcome the steps that are being taken by organizations like the African Union and ECOWAS to better resolve conflicts, to keep the peace, and support those in need. And we encourage the vision of a strong, regional security architecture that can bring effective, transnational forces to bear when needed.
 
America has a responsibility to work with you as a partner to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there’s a genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia, these are not simply African problems — they are global security challenges, and they demand a global response.
 
And that’s why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy and technical assistance and logistical support, and we will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable. And let me be clear: Our Africa Command is focused not on establishing a foothold in the continent, but on confronting these common challenges to advance the security of America, Africa, and the world. (Applause.) 
 
In Moscow, I spoke of the need for an international system where the universal rights of human beings are respected, and violations of those rights are opposed. And that must include a commitment to support those who resolve conflicts peacefully, to sanction and stop those who don’t, and to help those who have suffered. But ultimately, it will be vibrant democracies like Botswana and Ghana which roll back the causes of conflict and advance the frontiers of peace and prosperity.
 
As I said earlier, Africa’s future is up to Africans.
The people of Africa are ready to claim that future. And in my country, African Americans — including so many recent immigrants — have thrived in every sector of society. We’ve done so despite a difficult past, and we’ve drawn strength from our African heritage. With strong institutions and a strong will, I know that Africans can live their dreams in Nairobi and Lagos, Kigali, Kinshasa, Harare, and right here in Accra. (Applause.) 
 
You know, 52 years ago, the eyes of the world were on Ghana. And a young preacher named Martin Luther King traveled here, to Accra, to watch the Union Jack come down and the Ghanaian flag go up. This was before the march on Washington or the success of the civil rights movement in my country. Dr. King was asked how he felt while watching the birth of a nation. And he said: ”It renews my conviction in the ultimate triumph of justice.”
 
Now that triumph must be won once more, and it must be won by you. (Applause.) And I am particularly speaking to the young people all across Africa and right here in Ghana. In places like Ghana, young people make up over half of the population. 
 
And here is what you must know: The world will be what you make of it. You have the power to hold your leaders accountable, and to build institutions that serve the people. You can serve in your communities, and harness your energy and education to create new wealth and build new connections to the world. You can conquer disease, and end conflicts, and make change from the bottom up. You can do that. Yes you can — (applause) — because in this moment, history is on the move.
 
But these things can only be done if all of you take responsibility for your future. And it won’t be easy. It will take time and effort. There will be suffering and setbacks. But I can promise you this: America will be with you every step of the way — as a partner, as a friend. (Applause.) Opportunity won’t come from any other place, though. It must come from the decisions that all of you make, the things that you do, the hope that you hold in your heart.
 
Ghana, freedom is your inheritance. Now, it is your responsibility to build upon freedom’s foundation. And if you do, we will look back years from now to places like Accra and say this was the time when the promise was realized; this was the moment when prosperity was forged, when pain was overcome, and a new era of progress began. This can be the time when we witness the triumph of justice once more. Yes we can. Thank you very much. God bless you.  Thank you. (Applause.)