The weaknesses of democracy

https://aishaudio.com/Audio/GetStream?id=37156&sp=true&ce=37155

Rav Yaakov Weinberg ZTL
OUR PRINCIPLES USED AGAINST US BY TERRORISTS

CENSORSHIP WOULD ABOLISH TERRORISM
The Weaknesses of Democracy WY 868 C


by Weinberg ztl, Rav Yaakov



What possibility is there that terrorists are exploiting the morality and decency of Western society to promote their agendas? For instance, they set up their innocent women and children as human shields and then viciously attack our innocents, while demanding freedom of speech to broadcast their hatred and intolerance? Rav Yaakov explains the irony of how blatantly the noble principles we espouse are being used against us, and that under the circumstances it may be ethical to adopt a more assertive response.

The matter of the law of Rodef is explained here. http://www.dinonline.org/2012/07/08/parshas-pinchas-the-laws-of-rodef-the-matter-of-conjoined-twins/
Parshas Pinchas – The Laws of Rodef : The Matter of Conjoined Twins


17 Tamuz 5772

Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer

This week’s parashah is named after Pinchas, whose act of zealotry in killing Zimri and Cozbi lifted the Divine curse from upon the nation of Israel.



The Gemara (Sanhedrin 82a) makes us aware of the tremendous selflessness exhibited by Pinchas in the performance of the daring deed. The halachah of “zealots punish him,” which Pinchas applied to Zimri, is a halachah that Beis Din does not instruct. The decision to go ahead with the deed, while the great leaders of the nation stood round helplessly, was bold indeed.



Moreover, the Gemara explains that had Zimri, seeing Pinchas approach with the intent of killing him, turned around and killed the oncoming aggressor, Zimri would have been cleared of all punishment. The reason for this is that Pinchas, though acting according to halachah, was defined as a rodef, a halachic ‘pursuer,’ and Zimri’s killing him in self-defense would have been considered legitimate.



Leaving aside the discussion of Pinchas’ courageous act of zealotry, we would like to focus in this two-part series on the halachic concept of rodef. Although the concept of self-defense is common to all legal systems, the Torah idea of rodef has its own parameters and its own halachic ramifications.



This article will discuss the definition and parameters of rodef, including a number of fascinating applications. The second article of the series will expand the issue to address the difficult and highly emotive question of killing one man for the sake of saving many, and how this issue affects the halachah of rodef.



The Question of Conjoined Twins



Early in September, 1977, a pair of Siamese twins was born to a prestigious family of Torah educators living in Lakewood, New Jersey. Shortly after their birth the twins were flown by helicopter to the Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia, where Dr. C. Everett Koop, who subsequently became the Surgeon General of the United States, was the Chief of Surgery.



Immediately after the initial evaluation, it was obvious to all the physicians called in to assess the twins that both would die unless they were separated. The only way by which one child could be viable was if the other child was killed during surgery.



It was clear to all concerned that this was a major ethical issue that had deep ramifications for questions of medical ethics, and the Chief Surgeon was fully aware of the ethical import of any decision in this case. Dr. Koop referred the case to the courts so as to avoid the possibility of being accused of premeditated murder. In addition, nurses and doctors at Children’s Hospital consulted with their religious guides, and many reported back that they would not be able to participate in the surgery.



A team of top surgeons was gathered to analyze the case. In spite of X-rays and wide-ranging tests, nobody could know what they might actually encounter during surgery, and virtually every surgical and medical specialty was therefore represented. In the meantime, the family referred the case to Rav Moshe Feinstein to decide if they could proceed with the surgery or not.



It was only after much deliberation and consultation with the team of experts that Rav Feinstein came to his decision. While awaiting the decision, Dr. Koop had to quiet his group of experts, who were anxious over the lapse of time—aside from personal considerations, the babies shared a single six-chambered heart, which was showing signs of failure due to the load of supplying blood to two infants.



Dr. Koop calmed his team with the following statement (as quoted by Rabbi M. D. Tendler, ASSAI, Vol IV, No 1, February 2001): “The ethics and morals involved in this decision are too complex for me. I believe they are too complex for you as well. Therefore I referred it to an old rabbi on the Lower East Side of New York. He is a great scholar, a saintly individual. He knows how to answer such questions. When he tells me, I too will know.”



Finally, Rav Moshe gave his reply, permitting the operation to go ahead. In order to understand the answer he gave, we must first introduce a basic analysis of the Torah principle of rodef.



The Jewish Value of Life



There is almost no greater value in Judaism than the value of life. The verse states that life is the essential will of Hashem (Tehillim 30:6), and life takes precedence over all the mitzvos of the Torah but three. The Tosefta (Shabbos 16:14) clarifies the idea: “The mitzvos given to Israel to live by them, as it is written (Vayikra 18), ‘that a person will do them and live by them’—to live by them, and not to die by them. There is nothing that stands before endangering life but idolatry, forbidden sexual relationships, and murder.”



The Gemara (Sanhedrin 74a) reiterates the same teaching: “For all the sins of the Torah, if somebody tells a person, ‘transgress and do not die,’ he should transgress and save himself, apart from idolatry, forbidden sexual relationships, and murder.”



On the one hand, the value of life permits a person to transgress almost any sin of the Torah for the sake of preserving life. Yet, on the other hand, the same value of life forbids us from taking another’s life for the sake of saving one’s own—the prohibition of murder is not deferred by the need of another’s life preservation.



The Gemara explains that this principle is derived by means of sevara, human logic: “For why do you think that your blood is redder—perhaps the blood of that man is redder?” When one of two people will inevitably die, the Torah is not prepared to prefer one above the other, and to sacrifice one life for the others’ sake. There is therefore no permission for a person to sake his own (or somebody else’s) life by means of taking the life of another.



Protection from a Pursuer



Although the Torah forbids murder, even for the sake of saving one’s own life, it is permitted for a person to kill somebody who threatens to kill him. Rava coined the famous Talmudic dictum (Sanhedrin 72a), “If Someone Comes to Kill You, Rise Up and Kill Him First.”



This principle is not limited to acts of self-defense, but obligates a third party to save a victim from his pursuant, even if this requires killing the pursuer (Sanhedrin 73a): “One who chases after his fellow to kill him, it is permitted to save the chased with the life of the pursuer.”



Moreover, unlike modern legal systems where the criminal justification of ‘protection’ developed from the initial claim of ‘self-defense,’ the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 8:7) makes no mention of self-defense: “These are the ones that may be saved by taking their lives: one who chases after his fellow to kill him. . .” Self-defense is a case in point of the general justification of coming to the aid of a victim (though as we will mention later, the justification of self-defense can possible go further than saving another).



An important point is that there is no permit to kill the pursuant where there is a possibility of preventing him from killing by alternative means. The Rambam (Rotze’ach 1:13) rules that where a murder can be prevented by striking at the aggressors limbs (for instance, shooting at his legs) rather than killing him, one who kills him “is a murderer, and is liable for the death penalty”—though in practice, Beis Din do not put him to death.



The Rodef Problem



The halachah of the ‘pursuer,’ which permits a person to kill the pursuant in defense of the victim, requires some scrutiny. Surely, we have learned above that it is forbidden for a person to save one life by taking another? Is not the halachah of rodef a precise example of taking one life (the pursuer’s) for the sake of saving another?



One approach to this problem, which emerges from a number of Talmudic sources, is that the halachah of killing the rodef is a form of punishment. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 72a), indeed, teaches that a pursuer who causes damage to a person’s property is not liable to pay damages. Because he is liable for the death penalty, he is automatically exempt from paying smaller penalties (such as damage compensation). This clearly indicates that killing the rodef is a form of punishment.



However, the Rambam rules (Rotze’ach 1:6, based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin 72b) that even a child who pursues a victim with intention to kill is considered a rodef, and must be prevented even at the cost of his life. This halachah indicates that the killing of a rodef is not a punishment, for minors are exempt from all punishment.



Moreover, if the halachah of rodef is merely a punishment for a pursuer who wishes to transgress the sin of murder, why does it not apply to other sins that carry the death penalty? Although there is a discussion of tana’im concerning somebody who ‘pursues’ other sins, the Mishnah rules explicitly that a person ‘pursuing’ idolatry, or desecration of the Shabbos, is not considered a rodef, and may not be killed without proper procedure after the deed is done. Surely, then, there is more to the halachah of rodef than merely a punishment for wrongdoing.



The problem of the dichotomy of the rodef halachah is discussed at some length by the Noda Biyhuda (Tinyana, Choshen Mishpat, no. 60), who leaves the matter as requiring further consideration.



Combination of Punishment and Salvation



It would appear, however, that the halachah of rodef combines the concept of saving the victim’s life and punishing the aggressor into a single law.



For ordinary sins—even those that carry the death penalty—a person cannot be punished before the sin is actually committed. With regard to a potential killer, however, whose murderous sin is liable to cause irreparable damage, the Torah obligates the killing (if necessary) of the rodef, ‘punishing’ the evil deed in advance of its taking effect.



This combination emerges from the writings of the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (Part 3, Chap. 60):



This law… is only permitted in two cases, which are the case of somebody pursuing his fellow to kill him, and the case of somebody pursuing a married woman, for this is a wrong that cannot be repaired after it is done. However, other sins that carry the death penalty, such as idolatry and Shabbos, do not include an injustice to others, and are only evil dispositions, and therefore a person is not killed for their intention, but only after they are committed.”



The idea of rodef thus comes to save a person from sin (see also Rashi on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 72b), but only on condition that another person is being saved from irreparable harm.


Rav Shlomo Ha-Cohen of Vilna (cited in Kuntress Yedei Moshe no. 3) explains how the halachah of rodef can apply even to a child. Although children are not punished for their misdeeds, the reason for this is not because their actions are devoid of intent or consciousness, and not because their sins are not considered to be sins. Rather, although transgressions of children remain transgressions, and their intent is true intent, the Torah’s punishments do not apply.



Based on this idea, even the deed of a child can be deemed to be a wrongdoing and a transgression. Combined with the need to save the victim, the unlawful redifah of the child may be stopped by any means.



The Case of the Baby Rodef



Several authorities have discussed the horrifying halachic question, which arose on many tragic occasions during the Holocaust, of killing a baby to avoid discovery by the Nazi killers. Is it permitted to smother the baby, causing his death to avoid his revealing a group’s hiding place, or is this prohibited as an act of murder?



The Gemara cites the opinion of Rav Huna, who states that a child rodef may be treated as every other rodef, and killed if necessary. Rav Chisda is quoted as challenging this position from a teaching of a beraisa: “If the head [of the child] has emerged [from the mother], he is not touched, because one life is not deferred before another.” In the case of a mother, whose newly born infant endangers her life, the beraisa teaches that once the child is born, he may not be touched. Rav Chisda thus poses a question on the ruling of Rav Huna: Surely, the child is a rodef?



To this question, Rav Huna replies: “That case is different because it is considered as though Heaven is pursuing her.” The process of childbirth is a natural process, directed by Heaven and not by the child himself. Therefore, the child is not considered to be a rodef, for nature, rather than the child, is threatening the mother’s life. In the words of the Rambam (Rotze’ach 1:9), “this is the natural order of the world.”



Based on the explanation given above for the basic concept of rodef, it is possible that the rationale of Rav Huna will extend beyond a case of childbirth, to include any case in which a child lacks basic awareness of his own deeds. Only a child who consciously commits a wrongdoing can fall under the ‘punishment’ of rodef; an infant that functions not by conscious choice but by the ‘natural order of the world’ will not be subject to the law of rodef.



This, indeed, is the ruling given by Shut Divrei Renanah (Rav Natan Nata Kahana, of the early seventeenth century, no. 57), who writes that the cry of an infant is considered the ‘natural order of the world,’ and the infant cannot be considered to be a rodef.



It is possible, however, to distinguish the case of the crying infant, in which the infant himself is causing the danger, from the case of childbirth, in which the birth, rather than the infant, causes the danger.



Moreover, Shut Panim Me’iros (Vol. 3, no. 8) writes that where both mother and child are in danger of death, it is permitted to kill the child even after he has emerged from his mother. Thus, in the case of a crying baby, where discovery will mean the inevitable death of everybody present, it would be permitted to suffocate the baby in order to save others.



A further consideration is the ruling of the Me’iri (Sanhedrin 82), who distinguishes between a third party, who is forbidden to touch the baby after his head has emerged, and the mother herself. For the mother, who is herself endangered by the baby, it remains permitted to kill the infant. In a similar vein, those in the hideout are directly threatened by the crying infant, and according to the Me’iri, it would be permitted for them to suffocate him (see Mishnas Pikuach Nefesh, no. 45; see also Shut Migei Ha-Harigah, no. 1-3, who writes that his brother was killed by the Nazis after he refused to smother a crying baby).



Separating Conjoined Twins

We can now return to the question of the conjoined twins. As noted above, after much deliberation, Rav Moshe came to his decision of permitting the operation based on principles of rodef.



His rationale (see J. David Bleich, Tradition, Fall 1996, pages 92-125) was based on a novel explanation of above Gemara, which states that something following the ‘natural order of the world’ is not considered redifah. According to the simple understanding of the Gemara, the limitation should apply to the case of the twins: Although one twin is causing the other to die, neither twin can be designated a rodef, because the ‘pursuit’ is only a natural (if uncommon) phenomenon.



Yet, based on a teaching of the Yerushalmi, Rav Moshe (Iggros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah Vol. 2, no. 60) offers a different interpretation. According to the Yerushalmi, the reason why the baby and mother are left alone during childbirth is because they are both considered to be mutual antagonists, two people who are both pursuing each other. As a result, neither has the status of rodef. Thus, if two people are fighting a duel, neither is considered a rodef, because the threat is mutual; so, too, the mother and child are endangering each other’s lives, and the law of rodef does not apply.



As mentioned above, the conjoined twins, who were designated Baby A and Baby B, shared one six-chambered heart. The wall separating the essentially normal four chambers from the other two, most likely the stunted heart of Baby A, was too thin to be divided. It was not possible to give the two chambered heart to Baby A, so that she would survive for as long as a two-chambered heart could carry her physiological needs. Therefore, the only solution was to give the entire six-chambered heart to Baby B, thereby sacrificing the life of Baby A. As Rav Moshe clarified several times with the medical team, there was no way that the heart could be given to Baby A, allowing her to live. The issue was only if both should die, or if an attempt should be made to save Baby B.



Based on Rav Moshe’s interpretation, Baby A, the weaker of the two babies, was therefore considered a rodef. This is because by their continued attachment, Baby A is threatened Baby B, but Baby B did not threaten Baby A, because Baby A’s life was not viable, with or without the operation. Since there was no mutual threat, and Baby A was the singular cause of danger, she was considered to be a rodef, and the exclusion of the Gemara did not apply.



The operation was successfully carried out, and Baby B was given a chance to live.



Saving Many by Killing Few



A further issue that requires analysis, and which has bearing on the above case of the crying infant, is the question of saving the lives of many by killing one or few. Is it permitted to hand over a Jew to certain death if this will mean saving an entire town? Is it permitted to disconnect a life saving machine from one person if it can be used to save many lives? Is it permitted to kill a terrorist even when this will cause the death of innocent bystanders, if this will save the lives of many? We will please G-d deal with these questions in the second part of this series.

DR. LOUIS TURI

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/brightside1/2013/05/19/the-bright-side-show

DR. LOUIS TURI is an accomplished leading Hypnotherapist, Astropsychologist, motivational speaker, and author. He is the personal counselor of many celebrities, including Ivana Trump, Peter Fonda, Gary Busey, Denis Haysbert. and others. He was born and raised in Provence, France. He was influenced by Nostradamus, and spent many years reviving the Seer’s method, which he calls “astropsychology.” He moved to the US in 1984. He is known for the hundreds of accurate predictions he makes. He writes a yearly periodical with all these predictions, called “Moon Power Starguide.” In the 2003, Dr. Turi was recognized by Marquis “Who’s Who in America.” His perceptive and predictive powers are well documented in his books and television appearances. Dr. Turi also leads healing tours to Thailand and France with Destination Tropics Inc. His articles are also featured in Australia’s New Dawn Magazine, UFO Encounter Magazine, and India’s StarTeller, and many other magazines in the US and Europe. Recently Free Spirit Journal and Mystic Pop Magazine and UFO Enigma have picked up his articles on the Dragon and daily forecasts. Dr. Turi has appeared on numerous radio and television programs worldwide, including Coast to Coast with George Noory, the BBC in London, NBC’s “Ancient Mysteries” series, TLC and the Discovery Channel’s “Journal of the Unknown-More Than Human” to name a few. His website is www.drturi.com


Memo! from an old newsletter published May 12, 2013 - ”The current Scorpius Draconis is drastically steering the deadly Plutonic forces in all human beings, including children and yet, my work is perceive as “pseudo-science” only! This Dragon is with us all the way to February 2014 and the dramatic news ahead of you involving children and adults alike won’t be pretty! 24 dead including 9 kids!



Remember knowledge is power, ignorance is evil and if there an EVIL energy you must recognize and control it is indeed Pluto. Now do not fall for a bunch of moronic educated astronomers who; depraved of Cosmic Consciousness see Pluto, the moon and the stars as pretty rocks hanging above the earth for the sake of beauty only. First I would suggest the reader to read Pluto True Power and What The Bleep Do They Know?



Once you acknowledge the planet Pluto inner life and its karmic influence upon humankind you will be ready to assimilate the DO and DON’T - This long list of advises can make the difference between life and death or/and a very costly dramatic experience you and your loved ones certainly do not need.



The DO’s:



· Time for you to dig into deep secrets, Pluto loves bringing back dirt so you will meet the people or get the information you need.

· Time for you to dwell with magic and do some Cabalistic ritual to cleanse your home and spirit from low entities. My Cabalistic Cleansing ritual is a good start. Don’t ask for it unless your are a VIP.

· Time for you to dig into your bank account and see any fraud activity.

· Time for you to get rid of your current credit card and ask for another one

· Stay clear from doing or saying anything wrong to the police, remember the Rodney King dilemma?
Stay clear from Sunday psychics, psychic accidents are very real.


· Stay clear from haunted houses; bad entities could succeed stealing your mind, body and spirit.

· Stay clear from prostitutes an STD or AIDS is lurking around.

· Time for you to visit your departed ones and ask them for guidance and protection.

· Time for you to take serious notice of all your dreams or learn all about a prophetic or imaginative dream.

· Time for you to for you to dig into my long list of newsletter to find what you really need or the answer of a question you may have.

· Time for you to think about your own mortality and write your will.

· Time for you to investigate any form of legal or corporate endeavor.

· Time for you to regenerate your spirit and learn more about witchcraft.

· Time for you to look for ghost’s manifestation.

· Time for you to enjoy a horror movie or sex movie, yes nothing wrong with porn if you are French or if you are normal. God made sex to feel good so we do it often.

· Time for you to tell the truth to anyone but be cautious doing so.

· Time for you to deal with the police if the moon is waxing.

· Time for you to join the Law Enforcement Agency if you UCI endorse such a dangerous job.

· Time for you to clarify your situation in court of a cop did you wrong.

Salim Halali

Born Simon Halali in Algeria, the singer was performing in Paris by the late 1930s. The artsy and intellectual Ben Ghabrit was also an amateur violinist and oud player. He frequented high-toned Gallic salons, where he was admired as the “most Parisian of Muslims.” He hired Halali to perform at the Café Maure de la Mosquée, a North African-style coffeehouse and tearoom still located within the Great Mosque in Paris’s 5th Arrondissement.


If not quite this heroic, Ben Ghabrit did indeed save Halali by issuing him a false certificate of Muslim religion to mislead the Nazis. To back up this document, the name of Halali’s father was even inscribed on a blank headstone in the Muslim cemetery of the Parisian suburb of Bobigny.


In an October reply posted on the website, Stora explained that the film was centered on the true story of Halali as well as that of two little Jewish girls whose rescue by Mosque officials was authentic because Stora had personally interviewed them as part of his previous research..This reply http://www.rue89.com/2011/10/04/lhistorien-benjamin-stora-repond-aux-detracteurs-des-hommes-libres-224831
was written in French and I would so like to hve it translated to English.


In an October reply posted on the website, Stora explained that the film was centered on the true story of Halali as well as that of two little Jewish girls whose rescue by Mosque officials was authentic because Stora had personally interviewed them as part of his previous research. Stora further explained that “Free Men” is a fictional film based on factual incidents, in the manner of Claude Berri’s much loved “Le Vieil Homme et L’enfant,” “The Two of Us”, about an old Frenchman who shelters a Jewish child during the Nazi occupation. Stora concluded the polemic over how many Jewish lives were actually saved by Arabs by reminding readers of the talmudic saying “Whoever saves one life, if it is as if they had saved the whole world.”
http://www.criterion.com/films/757-the-two-of-us
http://www.criterion.com/films/684-le-corbeau

Precisely the same phrase is cited in a 2006 Washington Post article by Robert Satloff, author of “Among the Righteous: Lost Stories From the Holocaust’s Long Reach Into Arab Lands (PublicAffairs, 2006).” In The Washington Post, Satloff stated: “There is strong evidence that the most influential Arab in Europe — Si Kaddour [Ben Ghabrit], the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris — saved as many as 100 Jews by having the mosque’s administrative personnel give them certificates of Muslim identity, with which they could evade arrest and deportation.”



http://www.learntoquestion.com/resources/database/archives/001376.html
Robert Satloff, "The Holocaust's Arab Heroes," Washington Post (October 8, 2006)


The Holocaust's Arab Heroes



By Robert Satloff

Sunday, October 8, 2006; B01



Virtually alone among peoples of the world, Arabs appear to have won a free pass when it comes to denying or minimizing the Holocaust. Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah has declared to his supporters that "Jews invented the legend of the Holocaust." Syrian President Bashar al-Assad recently told an interviewer that he doesn't have "any clue how [Jews] were killed or how many were killed." And Hamas's official Web site labels the Nazi effort to exterminate Jews "an alleged and invented story with no basis."



Such Arab viewpoints are not exceptional. A respected Holocaust research institution recently reported that Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia all promote Holocaust denial and protect Holocaust deniers. The records of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum show that only one Arab leader at or near the highest level of government -- a young prince from a Persian Gulf state -- has ever made an official visit to the museum in its 13-year history. Not a single official textbook or educational program on the Holocaust exists in an Arab country. In Arab media, literature and popular culture, Holocaust denial is pervasive and legitimized.



Yet when Arab leaders and their people deny the Holocaust, they deny their own history as well -- the lost history of the Holocaust in Arab lands. It took me four years of research -- scouring dozens of archives and conducting scores of interviews in 11 countries -- to unearth this history, one that reveals complicity and indifference on the part of some Arabs during the Holocaust, but also heroism on the part of others who took great risks to save Jewish lives.



Neither Yad Vashem, Israel's official memorial to Holocaust victims, nor any other Holocaust memorial has ever recognized an Arab rescuer. It is time for that to change. It is also time for Arabs to recall and embrace these episodes in their history. That may not change the minds of the most radical Arab leaders or populations, but for some it could make the Holocaust a source of pride, worthy of remembrance -- rather than avoidance or denial.



The Holocaust was an Arab story, too. From the beginning of World War II, Nazi plans to persecute and eventually exterminate Jews extended throughout the area that Germany and its allies hoped to conquer. That included a great Arab expanse, from Casablanca to Tripoli and on to Cairo, home to more than half a million Jews.



Though Germany and its allies controlled this region only briefly, they made substantial headway toward their goal. From June 1940 to May 1943, the Nazis, their Vichy French collaborators and their Italian fascist allies applied in Arab lands many of the precursors to the Final Solution. These included not only laws depriving Jews of property, education, livelihood, residence and free movement, but also torture, slave labor, deportation and execution.



There were no death camps, but many thousands of Jews were consigned to more than 100 brutal labor camps, many solely for Jews. Recall Maj. Strasser's warning to Ilsa, the wife of the Czech underground leader, in the 1942 film "Casablanca": "It is possible the French authorities will find a reason to put him in the concentration camp here." Indeed, the Arab lands of Algeria and Morocco were the site of the first concentration camps ever liberated by Allied troops.



About 1 percent of Jews in North Africa (4,000 to 5,000) perished under Axis control in Arab lands, compared with more than half of European Jews. These Jews were lucky to be on the southern shores of the Mediterranean, where the fighting ended relatively early and where boats -- not just cattle cars -- would have been needed to take them to the ovens in Europe. But if U.S. and British troops had not pushed Axis forces from the African continent by May 1943, the Jews of Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and perhaps even Egypt and Palestine almost certainly would have met the same fate as those in Europe.



The Arabs in these lands were not too different from Europeans: With war waging around them, most stood by and did nothing; many participated fully and willingly in the persecution of Jews; and a brave few even helped save Jews.



Arab collaborators were everywhere. These included Arab officials conniving against Jews at royal courts, Arab overseers of Jewish work gangs, sadistic Arab guards at Jewish labor camps and Arab interpreters who went house to house with SS officers pointing out where Jews lived. Without the help of local Arabs, the persecution of Jews would have been virtually impossible.



Were Arabs, then under the domination of European colonialists, merely following orders? An interviewer once posed that question to Harry Alexander, a Jew from Leipzig, Germany, who survived a notoriously harsh French labor camp at Djelfa, in the Algerian desert. "No, no, no!" he exploded in reply. "Nobody told them to beat us all the time. Nobody told them to chain us together. Nobody told them to tie us naked to a post and beat us and to hang us by our arms and hose us down, to bury us in the sand so our heads should look up and bash our brains in and urinate on our heads. . . . No, they took this into their own hands and they enjoyed what they did."



But not all Arabs joined with the European-spawned campaign against the Jews. The few who risked their lives to save Jews provide inspiration beyond their numbers.



Arabs welcomed Jews into their homes, guarded Jews' valuables so Germans could not confiscate them, shared with Jews their meager rations and warned Jewish leaders of coming SS raids. The sultan of Morocco and the bey of Tunis provided moral support and, at times, practical help to Jewish subjects. In Vichy-controlled Algiers, mosque preachers gave Friday sermons forbidding believers from serving as conservators of confiscated Jewish property. In the words of Yaacov Zrivy, from a small town near Sfax, Tunisia, "The Arabs watched over the Jews."



I found remarkable stories of rescue, too. In the rolling hills west of Tunis, 60 Jewish internees escaped from an Axis labor camp and banged on the farm door of a man named Si Ali Sakkat, who courageously hid them until liberation by the Allies. In the Tunisian coastal town of Mahdia, a dashing local notable named Khaled Abdelwahhab scooped up several families in the middle of the night and whisked them to his countryside estate to protect one of the women from the predations of a German officer bent on rape.



And there is strong evidence that the most influential Arab in Europe -- Si Kaddour Benghabrit, the rector of the Great Mosque of Paris -- saved as many as 100 Jews by having the mosque's administrative personnel give them certificates of Muslim identity, with which they could evade arrest and deportation. These men, and others, were true heroes.



According to the Koran: "Whoever saves one life, saves the entire world." This passage echoes the Talmud's injunction, "If you save one life, it is as if you have saved the world."



Arabs need to hear these stories -- both of heroes and of villains. They especially need to hear them from their own teachers, preachers and leaders. If they do, they may respond as did that one Arab prince who visited the Holocaust museum. "What we saw today," he commented after his tour, "must help us change evil into good and hate into love and war into peace."



rsatloff@washingtoninstitute.org



Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, is author of "Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust's Long Reach into Arab Lands" (PublicAffairs).


Customer Review




http://www.amazon.com/review/REQOIJAS8EKZ0/ref=ep_new_rv#REQOIJAS8EKZ0

Salim Halali, king of North African music, November 26, 2005

By Daniel J. LavThis review is from: L'album D'or 2 (Audio CD)

Salim Halali is one of the great "undiscovered" gems of all time. I say undiscovered because few in the West know about him. Among the older generation of Israelis of North African descent, though, he is a household name (and rightfully so) and I imagine he's well known in the immigrant communities in France as well. He sang his own magical version of "sha'bi" - popular North African music. It's impossible to hear "Dor biha ya shibani (Danse de la mariee)" or "Ya Qalbi" without being completely swept up in the beautiful simplicity of his music. He was also quite versatile and recorded some classic "hafla" (celebration) songs - "Ila eina zarga" and "Quli 'alash". In addition, he did flamenco- and tango- influenced songs, such as "Nadira" and "Al-Andalusia" which have the ambience of pre-independence nightlife in Tangiers or Tunis.



Unless you're North African, you're not going to understand any of the lyrics. I know literary Arabic fairly well but I still can't understand anything he says. Oh well.



This album is a good complement to vol. 1, but since Salim's repertoire is so varied it's well worth getting everything you can find.



And if anyone can tell me of other musicians who made music similar to Salim's I would love to know. There's Sami Al-Maghribi and a few others, but no one I know of who quite has his flair and talent.








Read more: http://forward.com/articles/149041/muslims-who-helped-save-french-jews/?p=all#ixzz2U6EiMjFn





Read more: http://forward.com/articles/149041/muslims-who-helped-save-french-jews/?p=all#ixzz2U6E4WiM1

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/149041/muslims-who-helped-save-french-jews/?p=all#ixzz2U6BAn4AQ

“







Read more: http://forward.com/articles/149041/muslims-who-helped-save-french-jews/?p=all#ixzz2U6AeC96w





Read more: http://forward.com/articles/149041/muslims-who-helped-save-french-jews/?p=all#ixzz2U69uNA3R