Middle East

UNESCO Approves Full Membership for Palestinians

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:34:00 GMT

By STEVEN ERLANGER and SCOTT SAYARE -PARIS — Palestine became the 195th full member of Unesco on Monday, as the United Nations organization defied a threatened cutoff of American funds under federal legislation from the 1990’s. The vote of Unesco’s full membership was 107 to 14, with 52 abstentions.

The step will cost the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization one-quarter of its yearly budget — the 22 percent contributed by the United States (about $70 million) plus another 3 percent contributed by Israel. Unless that shortfall is made up by other nations, Unesco will have to begin closing offices and laying off staff.

Cheers filled the hall at Unesco’s headquarters here after the vote, with one delegate shouting “Long live Palestine!” in French. The Palestinian foreign minister, Riad al-Malki, praised the organization, saying that “this vote will help erase a tiny part of the injustice done to the Palestinian people” and will help protect world heritage sites in Israeli-occupied territory.

In a long speech that was met with applause, Mr. Malki said that “this membership will be the best step toward peace and stability,” insisting that the Palestinian request for membership in Unesco was “linked in no way to our request to join the United Nations.”

The Obama administration, which values its membership in Unesco, tried unsuccessfully to keep the vote from taking place, while Irina Bokova, the American-supported director-general of the organization, traveled to Washington to meet with congressional leaders and ask them to alter the law.

Legislation dating from 1990 and 1994 mandates a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts the Palestinians as a full member. State Department lawyers judged that there was no leeway in the legislation, and no possibility of a waiver, so the United States contribution for 2011 and future years will not be paid.

Addressing Unesco’s general conference after the vote, the American ambassador to the organization, David T. Killion, said that the United States “remains deeply committed to Unesco,” which he called a “vital organization.” But he repeatedly called the vote on Monday “premature” and said the United States would seek other means to support the agency, Mr. Killion said, though he did not offer specifics.

The United States argues that Unesco should have waited to act because the Palestinians applied in September for full membership in the United Nations, and that application is still under study. Washington also argues that Palestinian statehood should emerge from negotiations with Israel, not from acts by third parties or international groups, and it has been pushing the two sides to restart those talks. Otherwise, Washington has argued, U.N. membership will change little for Palestinians on the ground.

Arab diplomats say that the American positionn is a bit disingenuous, though, since Washington has promised to veto full Palestinian membership in the Security Council. At Unesco, no country has a veto.

In a statement, Mr. Killion said that “the only path to the Palestinian state we all seek is through direct negotiations.” He added: “There are no shortcuts, and we believe efforts such as the one we have witnessed today are counterproductive.”

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Unesco application “inexplicable.”

Elias Sanbar, the Palestinian ambassador, said that in talks with Mr. Killion over the weekend, the American described Washington as “prisoners of this law.”

Both parties in Congress denounced the Unesco action on Monday. Representative Nita Lowey, Democrat of New York, called it “counterproductive,” saying in a statement that “Unesco is interfering with the prospects for direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians at a time when both parties have taken the positive step of committing to present comprehensive proposals on borders and security.”

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Florida Republican who heads the House foreign affairs committee, characterized the Unesco move as “anti-Israeli and anti-peace” and called for the group’s money be cut off promptly. “The administration must stop trying to find ways not to fully implement this law,” she said.

There has been some discussion of Arab nations contributing more to make up the budget shortfall, but nothing has been promised. And the Unesco bylaws seem to require that extra funds contributed to the group cannot be used for its operating budget.

Ms. Bokova. the Unesco director-general, said in interviews that she was concerned about immediate financial problems for her agency, and about American disengagement from the United Nations, which she said ran counter to America’s “core security interests” and which she hoped would be temporary. After the vote, she said that she was worried that “the universality and financial stability” of Unesco would be jeopardized.

The Israeli ambassador, Nimrod Barkan, said that Unesco has done “a great disservice” to international efforts to restart negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. “Unesco deals in science, not in science fiction,” he said, noting that a Palestinian state is not otherwise recognized by the international community. Unesco, he said, had acted on a “political subject, outside of its competence.” he said.

Yigal Palmor, the Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, said the vote would not give the Palestinians “any advantage on the ground” and called the Unesco vote “a big diplomatic car crash.”

Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian spokesman in the West Bank, urged Washington to provide the funds for Unesco regardless of the law. He called the action on Monday “a vote of confidence from the international community” and said it was “especially important because part of our battle with the Israeli occupation” and what he called Israeli attempts “to erase Palestinian history or Judaize it.” Israel says it takes the obligation of protecting world heritage sites extremely seriously.

Palestinian officials on the West Bank rejected the notion that they had harmed Unesco and embarrassed Washington by pressing for the vote. “Washington has to look at these laws that should have been changed ages ago,” said Muhammad Shtayyeh, a close aide to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. “The P.L.O. is not a terrorist organization any more. It exchanged letters of recognition with Israel back in 1993.”

Unesco, perhaps best known for designating world heritage sites, is a major global development agency whose missions include promoting literacy, science, clean water and education, including sex education and equal treatment for girls and young women.

The United States rejoined the organization in 2003 under President George W. Bush, ending a boycott that began under President Ronald Reagan in 1984 that arose from charges that the organization then was corrupt, anti-Israel, anti-Western and had made efforts to impose licensing on the international press.

On Monday, the United States voted against Palestinian membership, joined by Germany, Australia, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands and Israel, among others.

The European Union failed to come to a common position. Some European nations, including France and Belgium, voted in favor, joining China, Russia, Brazil, India and most African and Arab states. Many other Western nations abstained, including Romania and Latvia, which had earlier voted no in the executive council. Others abstaining included Britain, Poland, Portugal, Denmark, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine and Switzerland.

Earlier in October, Unesco’s 58-member executive board voted to put Palestinian membership on the agenda of the general meeting by a vote of 40 to 4, with 14 abstentions.

Unesco has a two-year budget of $643 million for 2010-11 and a projected budget of $653 million for 2012-13.

Isabel Kershner contributed reporting from Jerusalem, and Steven Lee Myers contributed from Washington.

China & Russia Veoted Resolution on Syria

Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:43:00 GMT

With Rare Double U.N. Veto on Syria, Russia and China Try to Shield Friend

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

UNITED NATIONS — By vetoing a Security Council resolution condemning Syria for its oppression of antigovernment forces, Russia and China effectively tossed a life preserver to President Bashar al-Assad, seemingly unwilling to see a pivotal ally and once stalwart member of the socialist bloc sink beneath the waves of the Arab Spring.

A double veto at the United Nations is rare, in this case driven by similar if not exactly parallel concerns in Moscow and Beijing about losing influence in the Arab world as one authoritarian government after another built on the now-faded Soviet model collapses.

“They are gambling that Assad can hold on now; it seems to be an expression of confidence that he can cling to power,” said Fiona Hill, a Russia expert at the Brookings Institution.

Russia enjoys military and commercial deals with Syria worth billions of dollars annually, plus its alliance and only reliable Arab friend give it an entree into the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations. In addition, Moscow maintains perks left over from its superpower days, for instance, a naval base at Tartus, Syria, that accommodates visits by warships like Peter the Great, a nuclear-powered missile cruiser, during its Mediterranean jaunts.

China worries that the reverberations from falling Arab despots will inspire civil disobedience at home.

But beyond those concerns, and a stated interest in averting violent change in Syria, China and Russia are also increasingly allied in shutting down what they see as Western efforts to use sanctions and other economic measures to put the United Nations seal of approval on Western-friendly regime change.

There is a sense in both capitals that the West in general, and the United States in particular, is feeding the protest movements in the Arab world to further its own interests, experts said. Both the Chinese and the Russians are determined to reassert their long opposition to anything that smacks of domestic meddling by outside powers.

In that effort they have been joined by emerging powers like Brazil, India and South Africa, which have formed their own alliance and as current members of the Security Council all abstained from the Syria vote late Tuesday. Lebanon, where Syria holds sway, also abstained.

The resolution itself was toothless, demanding that the violence in Syria stop. The draft underwent repeated dilutions, which dropped all but the most vague reference to sanctions as a future possibility. But even that drew objections, in part because the cloud of Libya cast a long shadow over the Syria deliberations. The Russians and the Chinese said they felt bamboozled after a resolution they thought was meant to protect Libyan civilians became what they condemned as a license to wage war on the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. They are determined to avoid that in the Middle East and anywhere else.

Western diplomats said the consequences of the Libyan resolution were clearly laid out before the March vote.

Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador, told the Security Council on Tuesday night in his speech explaining the veto, “The demand for a rapid cease-fire turned into a full-fledged civil war.” He said that NATO bombed targets like television stations and oil facilities that were not a military threat to civilians.

Mr. Churkin said the veto was prompted by political differences over the use of force endorsed by the Council, rather than Syria’s long ties to the Soviet Union and any economic or arms sales losses. Indeed, Mr. Churkin seemed to go out of his way after the vote to distance Russia from the bloodshed fomented by the Syrian government while noting that unlike others, Moscow does not “cast aside old allies in a single breath.”

But there is a long history of close military and commercial ties. Hafez al-Assad, the current president’s father, was educated in Moscow and relied on the Soviet Union for weapons during the many Arab-Israeli wars. He died in 2000. Reports by Russian news outlets put current arms contracts at $4 billion. Beyond jet fighters and tanks, Russia has varied interests in Syria, like oil and gas and cement. Russia is ranked as the country’s fifth-largest trading partner, experts said.

“The departure of Assad would cause serious problems for us,” Aleksandr Sharavin, director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis in Moscow, told the Prime-Tass news agency, noting that not just weapons sales but also maintenance contracts bring in large sums.

The Russian foreign minister issued a statement on Wednesday echoing the Syrian government line, condemning what it called extremists among the population for engaging in “open terror” through violent attacks.

“Assad simply has a better chance to resist than the opposition does to win,” Aleksandr Shumilin, director of the Center for the Analysis of Middle East Conflicts, told the BBC Russian service. Moscow, he said, “is betting on Assad. As soon as it seems that the opposition has become comparable to him in strength and there appears a possibility they will win, Russia will change its behavior.”

In many ways, Russian’s foreign policy machinery exists in a black box. But in the background, the looming shadow of Vladimir V. Putin’s returning to the presidency next year has to enter the calculus. “Everyone is reorienting toward the relatively more competitive attitude he had toward rolling back Western influence,” said Matthew Rojansky of the Carnegie Endowment.

As for the Chinese, it is exceedingly rare for them to exercise a veto. They would not have done it without Russia’s leading the way, Security Council diplomats said, and indeed the Chinese delegation told other diplomats that it was under pressure from Moscow not to abstain.

But the move coincides with numerous goals, experts said, including protecting commercial interests, avoiding any domestic contagion from the Arab Spring and choosing the status quo over an unpredictable future. “Their operative approach is ‘Just Say No,’ to stand in the way for fear they will lose what influence or control they have,” said Jonathan D. Pollack of Brookings.

Often when a great power exercises a veto to protect a client state, like the United States so often does for Israel, the issue disappears. But the Syria issue is likely to return, mainly because the country remains volatile and important neighbors like Turkey and the Arab League states want the issue addressed.

“We can all understand the push back against Western domination of the sanctions approach,” said George Lopez, a sanctions expert at the University of Notre Dame. “But sanctions at their best — sharp, targeted at the elites giving orders for the killing of civilians — can be effective.”

Michael Schwirtz contributed reporting from Moscow.

Israel Without Clichés

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:00:00 GMT

By TONY JUDT

THE Israeli raid on the Free Gaza flotilla has generated an outpouring of clichés from the usual suspects. It is almost impossible to discuss the Middle East without resorting to tired accusations and ritual defenses: perhaps a little house cleaning is in order.

No. 1: Israel is being/should be delegitimized

Israel is a state like any other, long-established and internationally recognized. The bad behavior of its governments does not “delegitimize” it, any more than the bad behavior of the rulers of North Korea, Sudan — or, indeed, the United States — “delegitimizes” them. When Israel breaks international law, it should be pressed to desist; but it is precisely because it is a state under international law that we have that leverage.

Some critics of Israel are motivated by a wish that it did not exist — that it would just somehow go away. But this is the politics of the ostrich: Flemish nationalists feel the same way about Belgium, Basque separatists about Spain. Israel is not going away, nor should it. As for the official Israeli public relations campaign to discredit any criticism as an exercise in “de-legitimization,” it is uniquely self-defeating. Every time Jerusalem responds this way, it highlights its own isolation.

No. 2: Israel is/is not a democracy

Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is largely true: the country has a constitution, an independent judiciary and free elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from most other democracies today. The expression of strong dissent from official policy is increasingly discouraged.

But the point is irrelevant. “Democracy” is no guarantee of good behavior: most countries today are formally democratic — remember Eastern Europe’s “popular democracies.” Israel belies the comfortable American cliché that “democracies don’t make war.” It is a democracy dominated and often governed by former professional soldiers: this alone distinguishes it from other advanced countries. And we should not forget that Gaza is another “democracy” in the Middle East: it was precisely because Hamas won free elections there in 2005 that both the Palestinian Authority and Israel reacted with such vehemence.

No. 3: Israel is/is not to blame

Israel is not responsible for the fact that many of its near neighbors long denied its right to exist. The sense of siege should not be underestimated when we try to understand the delusional quality of many Israeli pronouncements.

Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because this worked for so long — the easy victories of the country’s early years are ingrained in folk memory — Israel finds it difficult to conceive of other ways to respond. And the failure of the negotiations of 2000 at Camp David reinforced the belief that “there is no one to talk to.”

But there is. As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. From French Algeria through South Africa to the Provisional I.R.A., the story repeats itself: the dominant power denies the legitimacy of the “terrorists,” thereby strengthening their hand; then it secretly negotiates with them; finally, it concedes power, independence or a place at the table. Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only question is why not now.

No. 4: The Palestinians are/are not to blame

Abba Eban, the former Israeli foreign minister, claimed that Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He was not wholly wrong. The “negationist” stance of Palestinian resistance movements from 1948 through the early 1980s did them little good. And Hamas, firmly in that tradition though far more genuinely popular than its predecessors, will have to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

But since 1967 it has been Israel that has missed most opportunities: a 40-year occupation (against the advice of its own elder statesmen); three catastrophic invasions of Lebanon; an invasion and blockade of Gaza in the teeth of world opinion; and now a botched attack on civilians in international waters. Palestinians would be hard put to match such cumulative blunders.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak — bombing civilian targets was not invented by Arabs (nor by the Jews who engaged in it before 1948). Morally indefensible, it has characterized resistance movements of all colors for at least a century. Israelis are right to insist that any talks or settlements will depend upon Hamas’s foreswearing it.

But Palestinians face the same conundrum as every other oppressed people: all they have with which to oppose an established state with a monopoly of power is rejection and protest. If they pre-concede every Israeli demand — abjurance of violence, acceptance of Israel, acknowledgment of all their losses — what do they bring to the negotiating table? Israel has the initiative: it should exercise it.

No. 5: The Israel lobby is/is not to blame

There is an Israel lobby in Washington and it does a very good job — that’s what lobbies are for. Those who claim that the Israel lobby is unfairly painted as “too influential” (with the subtext of excessive Jewish influence behind the scenes) have a point: the gun lobby, the oil lobby and the banking lobby have all done far more damage to the health of this country.

But the Israel lobby is disproportionately influential. Why else do an overwhelming majority of congressmen roll over for every pro-Israel motion? No more than a handful show consistent interest in the subject. It is one thing to denounce the excessive leverage of a lobby, quite another to accuse Jews of “running the country.” We must not censor ourselves lest people conflate the two. In Arthur Koestler’s words, “This fear of finding oneself in bad company is not an expression of political purity; it is an expression of a lack of self-confidence.”

No. 6: Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, and Israel is a Jewish state, so of course some criticism of it is malevolently motivated. There have been occasions in the recent past (notably in the Soviet Union and its satellites) when “anti-Zionism” was a convenient surrogate for official anti-Semitism. Understandably, many Jews and Israelis have not forgotten this.

But criticism of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews, is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism. The same is true of contemporary anti-Zionism: Zionism itself has moved a long way from the ideology of its “founding fathers” — today it presses territorial claims, religious exclusivity and political extremism. One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist (or “post-Zionist”). Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed.

We should beware the excessive invocation of “anti-Semitism.” A younger generation in the United States, not to mention worldwide, is growing skeptical. “If criticism of the Israeli blockade of Gaza is potentially ‘anti-Semitic,’ why take seriously other instances of the prejudice?” they ask, and “What if the Holocaust has become just another excuse for Israeli bad behavior?” The risks that Jews run by encouraging this conflation should not be dismissed.

Along with the oil sheikdoms, Israel is now America’s greatest strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey: a Muslim democracy, offended at its treatment by the European Union, that is the pivotal actor in Near-Eastern and Central Asian affairs. Without Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its regional objectives — whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab world. The time has come to cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a “normal” state and sever the umbilical cord.

Tony Judt is the director of the Remarque Institute at New York University and the author, most recently, of “Ill Fares the Land.”

A Black Imam Breaks Ground in Mecca

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:00:00 GMT

By ROBERT F. WORTH
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia

TWO years ago, Sheik Adil Kalbani dreamed that he had become an imam at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Islam’s holiest city.

Waking up, he dismissed the dream as a temptation to vanity. Although he is known for his fine voice, Sheik Adil is black, and the son of a poor immigrant from the Persian Gulf. Leading prayers at the Grand Mosque is an extraordinary honor, usually reserved for pure-blooded Arabs from the Saudi heartland.

So he was taken aback when the phone rang last September and a voice told him that King Abdullah had chosen him as the first black man to lead prayers in Mecca. Days later Sheik Adil’s unmistakably African features and his deep baritone voice, echoing musically through the Grand Mosque, were broadcast by satellite TV to hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world.

Since then, Sheik Adil has been half-jokingly dubbed the “Saudi Obama.” Prominent imams are celebrities in this deeply religious country, and many have hailed his selection as more evidence of King Abdullah’s cautious efforts to move Saudi Arabia toward greater openness and tolerance in the past few years.

“The king is trying to tell everybody that he wants to rule this land as one nation, with no racism and no segregation,” said Sheik Adil, a heavyset and long-bearded man of 49 who has been an imam at a Riyadh mosque for 20 years. “Any qualified individual, no matter what his color, no matter where from, will have a chance to be a leader, for his good and his country’s good.”

Officially, it was his skill at reciting the Koran that won him the position, which he carries out — like the Grand Mosque’s eight other prayer leaders — only during the holy month of Ramadan. But the racial significance of the king’s gesture was unmistakable.

Sheik Adil, like most Saudis, is quick to caution that any racism here is not the fault of Islam, which preaches egalitarianism. The Prophet Muhammad himself, who founded the religion here 1,400 years ago, had black companions.

“Our Islamic history has so many famous black people,” said the imam, as he sat leaning his arm on a cushion in the reception room of his home. “It is not like the West.”

It is also true that Saudi Arabia is far more ethnically diverse than most Westerners realize. Saudis with Malaysian or African features are a common sight along the kingdom’s west coast, the descendants of pilgrims who came here over the centuries and ended up staying. Many have prospered and even attained high positions through links to the royal family. Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States, is the son of Prince Sultan and a dark-skinned concubine from southern Saudi Arabia.

But slavery was practiced here too, and was abolished only in 1962. Many traditional Arabs from Nejd, the central Saudi heartland, used to refer to all outsiders as “tarsh al bahr” — vomit from the sea. People of African descent still face some discrimination, as do most immigrants, even from other Arab countries. Many Saudis complain that the kingdom is still far too dominated by Nejd, the homeland of the royal family. There are nonracial forms of discrimination too, and many Shiite Muslims, a substantial minority, say they are not treated fairly.

“The prophet told us that social classes will remain, because of human nature,” Sheik Adil said gravely. “These are part of the pre-Islamic practices that persist.”

BLACK skin is not the only social obstacle Sheik Adil has overcome. His father came to Saudi Arabia in the 1950s from Ras al Khaima, in what is now the United Arab Emirates, and obtained a job as a low-level government clerk. The family had little money, and after finishing high school, Adil took a job with Saudi Arabian Airlines while attending night classes at King Saud University.

Only later did he study religion, laboriously memorizing the Koran and studying Islamic jurisprudence. In 1984 he passed the government exam to become an imam, and worked briefly at the mosque in the Riyadh airport. Four years later he won a more prominent position as the imam of the King Khalid mosque, a tall white building that is not far from one of the Intelligence Ministry’s offices.

Theologically, Sheik Adil reflects the general evolution of Saudi thinking over the last two decades. During the 1980s he met Osama bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, a leader of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He initially sympathized with their radical position and anger toward the West. Later, he said, he began to find their views narrow, especially after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Now he speaks warmly of King Abdullah’s new initiatives, which include efforts to moderate the power of the hard-line religious establishment and to modernize Saudi Arabia’s judiciary and educational establishment. He reads Al Watan, a liberal newspaper.

“Some people in this country want everyone to be a carbon copy,” Sheik Adil said. “This is not my way of thinking. You can learn from the person who is willing to criticize, to give a different point of view.”

His life, like that of most imams, follows a rigid routine: he leads prayers five times a day at the mosque, then walks across the parking lot to his home, which he shares with two wives and 12 children. On Fridays, he gives a sermon as well.

HE expected it to continue that way for the rest of his life. Then in early September he woke up to hear his cellphone and land line, both ringing continuously. Stirring from bed, he heard the administrator of the Grand Mosque leaving a message. He picked up one of the phones, and heard the news that the king had selected him.

Two days later he walked into a grand reception room where he was greeted by Prince Khalid al-Faisal, the governor of Mecca Province. Sheik Adil tried to introduce himself, but the prince cut him off with a smile: “You are known,” he said.

Next, Sheik Adil was led to a table where he sat with King Abdullah and other ministers. He was too shy to address the king directly, but as he left the room he thanked him and kissed him on the nose, a traditional sign of deference.

Remembering the moment, Sheik Adil smiled and went silent. Then he pulled out his laptop and showed a visitor a YouTube clip of him reciting the Koran at the Grand Mosque in Mecca.

“To recite before thousands of people, this is no problem for me,” he said. “But the place, its holiness, is so different from praying anywhere else. In that shrine, there are kings, presidents and ordinary people, all being led in prayer by you as imam. It gives you a feeling of honor, and a fear of almighty God.”

Muhammad al-Milfy contributed reporting.

In Madoff Scandal, Jews Feel an Acute Betrayal

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:00:00 GMT

By ROBIN POGREBIN

There is a teaching in the Talmud that says an individual who comes before God after death will be asked a series of questions, the first one of which is, “Were you honest in your business dealings?” But it is the Ten Commandments that have weighed most heavily on the mind of Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles in light of the sins for which Bernard L. Madoff stands accused.

“You shouldn’t steal,” Rabbi Wolpe said. “And this is theft on a global scale.”

The full scope of the misdeeds to which Mr. Madoff has confessed in swindling individuals and charitable groups has yet to be calculated, and he is far from being convicted. But Jews all over the country are already sending up something of a communal cry over a cost they say goes beyond the financial to the theological and the personal.

Here is a Jew accused of cheating Jewish organizations trying to help other Jews, they say, and of betraying the trust of Jews and violating the basic tenets of Jewish law. A Jew, they say, who seemed to exemplify the worst anti-Semitic stereotypes of the thieving Jewish banker.

So in synagogues and community centers, on blogs and in countless conversations, many Jews are beating their chests — not out of contrition, as they do on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, but because they say Mr. Madoff has brought shame on their people in addition to financial ruin and shaken the bonds of trust that bind Jewish communities.

“Jews have these familial ties,” Rabbi Wolpe said. “It’s not solely a shared belief; it’s a sense of close communal bonds, and in the same way that your family can embarrass you as no one else can, when a Jew does this, Jews feel ashamed by proxy. I’d like to believe someone raised in our community, imbued with Jewish values, would be better than this.”

Among the apparent victims of Mr. Madoff were many Jewish educational institutions and charitable causes that lost fortunes in his investments; they include Yeshiva University, Hadassah, the Jewish Community Centers Association of North America and the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. The Chais Family Foundation, which worked on educational projects in Israel, was recently forced to shut down because of losses in Madoff investments. Many of Mr. Madoff’s individual investors were Jewish and supported Jewish causes, apparently drawn to him precisely because of his own communal involvement and because he radiated the comfortable sense of being one of them.

“The Jewish world is not going to be the same for a while,” said Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky of Congregation Ansche Chesed in New York.

Jews are also grappling with the implications of Mr. Madoff’s deeds for their public image, what one rabbi referred to as the “shanda factor,” using the Yiddish term for an embarrassing shame or disgrace. As Bradley Burston, a columnist for haaretz.com, the English-language Web site of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, wrote on Dec. 17: “The anti-Semite’s new Santa is Bernard Madoff. The answer to every Jew-hater’s wish list. The Aryan Nation at its most delusional couldn’t have come up with anything to rival this.”

The Anti-Defamation League said in a statement that Mr. Madoff’s arrest had prompted an outpouring of anti-Semitic comments on Web sites around the world, most repeating familiar tropes about Jews and money. Abraham H. Foxman, the group’s national director, said that canard went back hundreds of years, but he noted that anti-Semites did not need facts to be anti-Semitic.

“We’re not immune from having thieves and people who engage in fraud,” Mr. Foxman said in an interview, disputing any notion that Mr. Madoff should be seen as emblematic. “Why, because he happens to be Jewish, he should have a conscience?”

He added that Mr. Madoff’s victims extended well beyond the Jewish community.

In addition to theft, the Torah discusses another kind of stealing, geneivat da’at, the Hebrew term for deception or stealing someone’s mind. “In the rabbinic mind-set, he’s guilty of two sins: one is theft, and the other is deception,” said Burton L. Visotzky, a professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary.

“The fact that he stole from Jewish charities puts him in a special circle of hell,” Rabbi Visotzky added. “He really undermined the fabric of the Jewish community, because it’s built on trust. There is a wonderful rabbinic saying — often misapplied — that all Jews are sureties for one another, which means, for instance, that if a Jew takes a loan out, in some ways the whole Jewish community guarantees it.”

Several rabbis said they were reminded of Esau, a figure of mistrust in the Bible. According to a rabbinic interpretation, Esau, upon embracing his brother Jacob after 20 years apart, was actually frisking him to see what he could steal. “The saying goes that, when Esau kisses you,” Rabbi Visotzky said, “check to make sure your teeth are still there.”

Rabbi Kalmanofsky said he was struck by reports that Mr. Madoff had tried to give bonus payments to his employees just before he was arrested, that he was moved to do something right even as he was about to be charged with doing so much wrong. “The small-scale thought for people who work for him amidst this large-scale fraud — what is the dissonance between that sense of responsibility and the gross sense of irresponsibility?” he said.

In a recent sermon, Rabbi Kalmanofsky described Mr. Madoff as the antithesis of true piety.

“I said, what it means to be a religious person is to be terrified of the possibility that you’re going to harm someone else,” he said.

Rabbi Kalmanofsky said Judaism had highly developed mechanisms for not letting people control money without ample checks and balances. When tzedakah, or charity, is collected, it must be done so in pairs. “These things are supposed to be done in the public eye,” Rabbi Kalmanofsky said, “so there is a high degree of confidence that people are behaving in honorable ways.”

While the Madoff affair has resonated powerfully among Jews, some say it actually stands for a broader dysfunction in the business world. “The Bernie Madoff story has become a Jewish story,” said Rabbi Jennifer Krause, the author of “The Answer: Making Sense of Life, One Question at a Time,” “but I do see it in the much greater context of a human drama that is playing out in sensationally terrible ways in America right now.”

“The Talmud teaches that a person who only looks out for himself and his own interests will eventually be brought to poverty,” Rabbi Krause added. “Unfortunately, this is the metadrama of what’s happening in our country right now. When you have too many people who are only looking out for themselves and they forget the other piece, which is to look out for others, we’re brought to poverty.”

According to Jewish tradition, the last question people are asked when they meet God after dying is, “Did you hope for redemption?”

Rabbi Wolpe said he did not believe Mr. Madoff could ever make amends.

“It is not possible for him to atone for all the damage he did,” the rabbi said, “and I don’t even think that there is a punishment that is commensurate with the crime, for the wreckage of lives that he’s left behind. The only thing he could do, for the rest of his life, is work for redemption that he would never achieve.”

Ideological clash of two jihadi titans shakes Al Qaeda

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:00:00 GMT

By Caryle Murphy Caryle Murphy, Mon Dec 15, 3:00 am ET

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA – A bitter, year-long feud that has shaken Al Qaeda's ideological pillars grew even sharper last month. A former associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri accused him of working for Sudanese intelligence, wearing "women's garments" to flee Afghanistan, and spreading an incorrect Islamic theory of jihad.

Mr. Zawahiri "is only good at fleeing, inciting, collecting donations, and talking to the media," wrote Sayyed Imam al-Sharif in his latest attack on Al Qaeda's No. 2.

Sayyed Imam, serving a life sentence in Egypt, is an esteemed theoretician of jihad whose ideas helped shape Al Qaeda's ideology. But now he's decrying its stock in trade – mass murder – in a clash that is an example of how some once-fierce zealots of violent jihad are having second thoughts.

"It is really an argument about ... what means are militarily effective and Islamically legitimate," says William McCants, a Washington area-based analyst of militant Islamism. Imam, he adds, is saying that only "a guerrilla war conducted against enemy soldiers" is permitted.

Imam's prison writings were preceded by a series of books and commentaries from imprisoned members of Islamic Group, a group that waged a guerrilla war against the Egyptian government in the 1990s. Their so-called "revisions" renounced violence and some put forward ideas on how to peacefully create an Islamic society.

Terrorism experts disagree on the impact that Imam's scathing critiques of Zawahiri and Al Qaeda will have on the global jihadi movement, particularly since he writes from prison where he is believed subject to influence from Egyptian and US intelligence agencies.

But his writings have put Zawahiri on the defensive. And they come amid other pressures, including the disabling of several Al Qaeda-linked online forums – presumably by Western and Middle Eastern intelligence agencies – and an intensification of US military activity in Pakistan's tribal areas, where Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden are believed to be hiding.

"One shouldn't overestimate the impact of this [ideological feud] in the overall war on terror, but it is definitely going to divert some of Zawahiri's creative energy away from operations," says Thomas Hegghammer, a fellow in Harvard Kennedy School's international security program.

"Zawahiri's support among jihadis is still strong, but he is losing the media battle to convince the public that Al Qaeda is winning," adds Mr. McCants, who monitors Al Qaeda Web activity at jihadica.com. "That, coupled with the US Predators attacks in Pakistan, put him under tremendous pressure."

Bruce Hoffman, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University and author of "Inside Terrorism," says he does not believe that Imam's writings are going to have a huge adverse impact on Al Qaeda's hard-core followers. If you are a hard-line militant, "are you going to listen to an elderly, geriatric guy in an Egyptian prison?" Mr. Hoffman asks. "It's not as if Zawahiri himself changed his mind."

Far more problematic for Al Qaeda, Hoffman says, is the sabotage of its online forums, some of which have not been working since September. As the principle means of communicating with followers and potential recruits, their loss "has been a serious blow," Hoffman says.

Imam, also known as Dr. Fadl, was a close ally of Zawahiri when Imam led Egypt's Islamic Jihad in the 1980s. His reputation as a top jihadi ideologue rested on his books, particularly his 1994 "A Compendium for the Pursuit of Divine Knowledge."

But Imam and Zawahiri disagreed about many things and grew estranged. When Imam stepped down as Islamic Jihad leader in 1993, Zawahiri took his place. Though Al Qaeda cited Imam's writings, he never joined the group.

In Nov. 2007, Imam released "Rationalizing Jihad in Egypt and the World," a book that refuted Al Qaeda's terrorist tactics and ideology and was especially critical of Zawahiri.

After months of heated debate among militants on jihadi online forums, Zawahiri responded in March with a 200-page book called "Exoneration." He charged that Imam lacked credibility because he wrote from prison and was supervised by US intelligence.

Last month, Imam's reply to Zawahiri, a book titled "Denudation of the Exoneration," was serialized in Cairo's Al Masri Al Youm newspaper. It also was published at IslamOnline.net and in the Saudi-owned Al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper, according to McCants, who posted English summaries of the Masri Al Youm installments on his site.

In the first, called "The Lies of Zawahiri," Imam claims that Zawahiri told him in 1993 that "he had to carry out 10 operations for the Sudanese in Egypt and that he received $100,000 from them."

Apparently aiming to play down Zawahiri's importance inside Al Qaeda, Imam asserts that "only three people knew of the 9/11 operation before it happened: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Hafs al-Masri, and a third person – not Zawahiri." The third person was only told 24 hours before the attack.

As for Al Qaeda's idea of violent jihad, Imam calls it "a corrupt, wayward school [of Islamic thinking] to justify excess in shedding blood." In order to sell it, the group launched "media propaganda to promote the corrupt idea that America is the cause of all the ills afflicting Muslims."

Imam's latest attacks on Zawahiri are so vituperative that some analysts say he has damaged his own credibility. "This is an embarrassment," former Islamic Jihad member Kamal Habib told Agence France-Presse in Cairo. "I don't think he realizes what this does to his image."

McCants argues that Imam's arguments will likely be most influential outside Al Qaeda's inner circle of die-hard jihadis. "We shouldn't be assessing the impact of Imam's book on jihadis but rather on neutral pious, educated Arabs, particularly high school and college-age youth, whom Imam considers his primary audience," McCants wrote on his website.

McCants also singles out Imam's "vigorous rejection of the victimization" theme in jihadist thinking.

"The cause of Muslims' problems is Muslims themselves," Imam writes. Noting that Muslims are killing Sudanese in Darfur, Imam asks: "What was the reason the US opened the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba for imprisoning Muslims? Bin Laden's stupidity…. Putting blame on others while not accepting it yourself ... is the school of Satan."

Some analysts say Imam's writings are not all that significant because he does not reject jihad per se, only Al Qaeda's tactics. But a total abandonment of jihad would be tantamount to rejecting a Koranic concept integral to Islam since its inception, leaving Imam with no credibility.

For centuries, jihad was embedded in the legal framework of Islamic law, or sharia, making it pretty much the prerogative of an Islamic ruler, that is, of the state. Sharia also imposed clear rules on jihad, prohibiting the slaughter of innocent civilians, for example. It is this legal framework that Al Qaeda has tossed aside in its glorification of jihad.

Perhaps Zawahiri's strongest argument against Imam is that he is a prisoner. Indeed, some passages in Imam's latest book seem made-to-order for intelligence agencies. For example, he writes, "Regardless of the legitimacy of their presence, the American forces did not kill a single Muslim in Saudi Arabia during their presence there after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990."

He does not mention Iraqi deaths caused by US forces during the war in Iraq. Instead, he focuses on Al Qaeda in Iraq, which he said "killed far more Iraqis than it killed Americans."