Tag: Barack Obama

  • Black and Jewish: Synagogue gains acceptance

    Black and Jewish: Synagogue gains acceptance

    By KATHY MATHESON • Associated Press • April 25, 2009

    Temple Beth'El congregation member Reubin Register cries as he carries the congregation's new Torah March 29 in Philadelphia during a Torah dedication ceremony. (Associated Press)
    Temple Beth'El congregation member Reubin Register cries as he carries the congregation's new Torah March 29 in Philadelphia during a Torah dedication ceremony. (Associated Press)

    PHILADELPHIA — The jubilation in Temple Beth’El’s packed sanctuary overflowed into the aisles, with members dancing, clapping and singing as they welcomed their first Torah from Israel.

    A new sacred scroll — the holiest object in Judaism — is cause for celebration in any synagogue. But for this congregation, it meant much more. It signified a tentative step toward the mainstream of American Jewish life.

    “We have been unable to sleep and to eat,” said Debra Bowen, who is the rabbi. “We have Torah fever!”

    Temple Beth’El is a predominantly African-American synagogue formed more than 50 years ago by the daughter of a Baptist preacher at a time when many blacks were rejecting Christianity as a slave religion. The same motivation led many African-Americans to move toward Islam.

    Rabbi Rigoberto Vinas, right, shows Temple Beth'El congregation members the proper method of storing the congregation's new Torah March 29 in Philadelphia. (Associated Press)
    Rabbi Rigoberto Vinas, right, shows Temple Beth'El congregation members the proper method of storing the congregation's new Torah March 29 in Philadelphia. (Associated Press)

    The founder of Temple Beth’El, Louise Dailey, studied with a rabbi, but was not ordained by a recognized branch of Judaism. The synagogue has a kosher kitchen and a mikvah, or ritual bath, but Dailey also adopted some traditions that are alien to the ancient faith. Congregants called her “Mother Dailey,” and she ordained Bowen, her daughter, before she died.

    Yet, recently, Bowen has been reaching out to the broader Jewish community, holding joint services with other congregations and speaking to service groups such as Hadassah. Her timing is good. American Jews have been showing a new willingness to build ties to African-American Jews.

    Rabbi Capers Funnye, cousin of first lady Michelle Obama, has just started receiving invitations to speak to white congregations. He is chief rabbi of Beth Shalom B’nai Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation in Chicago, one of the largest black synagogues in the country.

    The San Francisco-based group Be’chol Lashon, which means “In Every Tongue,” has been working to persuade Jews to break through the racial divisions that have alienated African-American, African and other ethnic minority Jews from the larger community.

    Estimates of the number of American Jews and the makeup of the community vary. But Be’chol Lashon says that about 600,000 of the 6 million or so U.S. Jews identify themselves as nonwhite or from non-European countries.

    The question of who can be considered a Jew is a subject of intense debate, since individual streams of Judaism have different ways of deciding the question under Jewish law. But in the case of most African-American Jews, the issue is even more complicated, since many did not follow any generally accepted religious law when they joined the faith.

    “What makes somebody Jewish is not the congregation you belong to, but whether you were converted appropriately,” said Jeffrey Gurock, a professor at Yeshiva University, an Orthodox school in New York.

    Still, Bowen has had some success in her outreach. The fruit of her work could be seen at the recent Sunday service dedicating the Torah. Funnye read a prayer at the event. In the audience was Gloria Gelman, a white Jew from the liberal Reform branch, who had heard Bowen’s presentation to Hadassah. She is encouraging the synagogue to start its own Hadassah group.

    Dan Ross, a 21-year-old University of Pennsylvania student, is a white Jew who is writing his senior thesis on Beth’El and has brought many other Jewish students to visit. At the Torah commemoration, he said, “It really hits you how significant it is that they have it.”

    The ceremony was a mix of Hebrew readings and shouts of “Hallelujah!” — a worship style typical of African-American churches. The booming music came from what Christians would call a “praise band” — with electric guitars, drums and keyboard. There was a dress code — another unusual tradition for Jews — of blue, silver or white clothing. Bowen’s garb was far from typical for a rabbi. She wore an elaborate, flowing white gown — like a wedding dress — with matching white shawl and a yarmulke.

    The Torah was acquired by Rabbi Emmanuel “Manny” Vinas, who leads a Spanish-Jewish synagogue in Yonkers, N.Y. Vinas noted that many suppliers had been reluctant to sell a Torah to Temple Beth’El because of its history, and he expected strictly traditional Jews would criticize him for brokering the purchase.

    “I saw the service that was held for the Torah,” Vinas said. “You see those people crying and so deeply moved … . That’s a congregation that’s going to honor and uphold the Torah.”

    Source: 

  • President Obama’s  Armenian dilemma

    President Obama’s Armenian dilemma

    Jim Kirdar

    The issue of contention is whether the deaths of Armenians during World
    War I who revolted against the Ottoman Empire (more than once) was an
    alleged genocide or casualties of war.  I choose to believe the latter
    as an objective American with ancestral ties to the region.  As a
    federal employee, I have traveled on official business to Turkey and
    the neighboring Commonwealth of Independent States (Georgia,
    Azerbaijan, and Armenia).  During the course of my travels, I have
    researched the issue of the alleged “genocide” and engaged in numerous
    conversations with the layman of both Turkey and Armenia to determine
    the root cause of the ongoing dilemma.

    For nearly a century, the Armenians claim to have been victims of a
    so-called genocide without merit.  An accurate account of the “event”
    during World War I against the Armenians by the Ottomans was
    retaliatory to the Armenian revolt/uprising.

    ..hence, an effort to
    eradicate NOT exterminate!  There is no denying hundreds of thousands
    of Armenians were deported a
    nd/or lost their lives…but many thousands
    of Turks were also killed.

    You see, the Armenian Diaspora does not want the logical person to ask
    the most fundamental and basic question of all…”Were your [Armenians]
    actions thegenesis for the [Turks] reaction?”  The educated would have
    to conclude regarding the Armenians siding with the Russians to destroy
    the Ottoman Empire as an act of betrayal for nearly 600 years of
    peaceful coexistence.

    The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were esteemed citizens of which a
    grand portion achieved nobility by serving in official capacities
    within the Ottoman hierarchy as diplomats, cabinet officials, as well
    as scholars and literary icons.

    We need not venture far into our own past to realize the tragic attack
    on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese that directly threatened our national
    security.  As the United States, we reacted accordingly to preserve the
    integrity of a nation by creating internment camps to isolate and
    contain the Japanese community in America.

    I implore CNN, for the sake of journalistic integrity, to inquire
    further  and research on the following:

    The Armenian Revolt against the Ottomans (1890-1920)

    www.tallarmeniantale.com (by American scholars)

    I have been located extensively in both Armenia and Turkey on official
    travel for over 12 years.  I must say in all sincerity neither
    ethnicity wants to continue in defend
    ing or advocating events of nearly
    100 years ago; people want to move on despite political pressure.
    Unfortunately, the Diaspora feels otherwise, thus hampering positive
    and meaningful relationships in the land thousands of miles away from
    Glendale, CA.

    Regards,

    Jim M. Kirdar

    Special Agent at U.S. Department of Justice

    Greater Los Angeles Area

    <[email protected]>

    000000000000000

    BRAVO JIM KIRDAR
    YOUR GRAND FATHER LUTFU KIRDAR ( EX GOVERNOR OF ISTANBUL) WOULD BE PROUD OF YOU ME TOO
    VEDAT ASLAY ABD

    —————————————————000

    On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Volkan Duygun
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    I just posted my comment.

    Volkan Duygun

    Los Angeles Turkish American Assocation President

  • Turkey criticises Obama comments

    Turkey criticises Obama comments

    Men stand beside the skulls and corpses of Armenian victims of the Turkish deportation circa 1915 Armenia estimates that 1.5 million people were killed

    Barack Obama’s words on the day marking the killing of Armenians by Turks in World War I were “unacceptable”, Turkey’s foreign ministry has said.

    Though Mr Obama did not use “genocide”, as he did during his election campaign, Ankara said he failed to honour those Turks killed by Armenians at the time.

    “Everyone’s pain must be shared,” President Abdullah Gul of Turkey said.

    President Obama described the deaths of the Armenians as “one of the great atrocities of the 20th Century”.

    He appealed for Turks and Armenians to “address the facts of the past as a part of their efforts to move forward”.

    The two countries agreed this week on a roadmap for normalising relations.

    International recognition… is a matter of restoring historic justice
    Serzh Sarkisian
    Armenian president
    Armenians remember 1915 killings In pictures: Gallipoli remembered

    While admitting many Armenians were killed, Turkey, a Nato member and key American ally in the Muslim world, denies committing genocide, saying the deaths resulted from wartime fighting.

    Armenia has long campaigned for the loss of its people to be recognised as a crime of genocide and it commemorated the event with ceremonies on Friday.

    ‘My view unchanged’

    “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed,” Mr Obama said in a written statement.

    “My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts.”

    In a January 2008 statement on his campaign website, Mr Obama wrote: “The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.”

    “America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides,” the 2008 statement added.

    On Friday, he said the Armenians killed in the final days of the Ottoman Empire “must live on in our memories”.

    “I strongly support efforts by the Turkish and Armenian people to work through this painful history in a way that is honest, open, and constructive,” he added.

    That part of the Obama statement was considered positive by Turkey, a key US ally in the region.

    But “history can be construed and evaluated only on the basis of undisputed evidence and documentation,” Turkey’s foreign ministry statement said.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8018327.stm

  • New Address, Same Politician

    New Address, Same Politician

    Op-Ed Contributor

    Published: April 25, 2009

    Ellijay, Ga.

    Illustration by J. Abbott Miller; Photographs courtesty of the Library of Congress

    “CHARACTER is fate,” Heraclitus told us. The adage is telling for presidencies. And the characters of key appointees — their intellects and professional ethics as well as their personal integrity — also hold a government’s destiny. On both fronts, Richard Nixon’s first 100 days in 1969 were filled with omens, and that history poses its questions for Barack Obama.

    Nixon officials foreshadowed both the historic distinction and seamy underside of the presidency. In his scholarship, careful patronage and freedom from convention, the national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, brought insight and bureaucratic skill that would make him the president’s singular partner in statesmanship, most notably their opening to China and détente with the Soviet Union. But no less indicative in his rise was a pettiness that augured the destructive infighting of the administration and the Eurocentric foreign-policy mentality that indulged Nixon’s pursuit of the Vietnam War, his obliviousness to tragedies from Bangladesh to Chile to Indonesia, and the policies in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan that haunt us today.

    The men Kissinger eclipsed were largely responsible for their own defeats. Nixon named William P. Rogers secretary of state largely because, as a former attorney general, he was bereft of diplomatic expertise and thus would not rival the White House-dominated foreign policy Nixon planned. Rogers was also a figure of exceptional diffidence, leaving an intellectual-political vacuum that was filled by the worst as well as the best of the Nixon-Kissinger policies.

    Defense Secretary Melvin Laird, a congressman from Wisconsin with a history of deferring to the military, had similar effect. His cession of budget and contracting authority to the services had “the military-industrial complex … singing ‘Praise the Laird,’” The Washington Post reported. Meanwhile, policy power grew so concentrated in a secretive White House that the Joint Chiefs of Staff began their own espionage program against Kissinger, the so-called admirals’ spy ring of 1971.

    Nixon’s closest aides carried their own portents. The chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, and the White House counsel, John Ehrlichman, were college friends and former campaign workers whose lack of political acumen and slavishness to Nixon helped bring about the isolation of the presidency and their own ruin in Watergate. When Nixon eventually gave Ehrlichman oversight of domestic affairs, it deepened the disarray in economic and social policy.

    Not least was Spiro Agnew, who rose from Baltimore County executive to vice president in just three years. While the right relished his press-baiting speeches, in inner councils Nixon found him an embarrassment. Asked why he had not replaced Agnew on the 1972 ticket, Nixon replied, that Agnew was his “insurance policy” because “no assassin in his right mind would kill me.” Agnew resigned in October 1973, pleading no contest to charges relating to bribes he took while governor of Maryland.

    Other figures who later proved to be pivotal were still obscure in 1969, though their lives, too, were telling: a remarkably ambitious Army colonel and Kissinger aide named Alexander Haig would be Nixon’s last chief of staff. G. Gordon Liddy, a Treasury officer known for right-wing zealotry, would lead the Watergate burglars. And John Dean, who would replace Ehrlichman as White House counsel only five years out of law school, would give testimony in 1973 that would be crucial in bringing down the president.

    And while there are obvious differences between the presidencies of 1969 and 2009, history echoes over the new government. Can Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Mr. Obama’s top economic aide, Lawrence Summers, overcome careers entwined with a despoiled corporate system and now chart its cleansing? Can officials who rose over four decades in the conventions of the political-bureaucratic culture — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; the national security advisor, James Jones; and Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan — forge truly new policies and politics? Can such figures transcend what Heraclitus called their very ethos?

    President Obama will share at least one fate with Richard Nixon. The verdict on his presidency will lie with the public, and for that, too, the philosopher had a warning: “The way down and the way up are one and the same.”

    Roger Morris, a National Security Council staff member under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon, is the author of “Richard Milhous Nixon: The Rise of an American Politician.”

    A version of this article appeared in print on April 26, 2009, on page WK13 of the New York edition

    Source: www.nytimes.com, April 25, 2009

  • Barack Obama Is No Jimmy Carter. He’s Richard Nixon.

    Barack Obama Is No Jimmy Carter. He’s Richard Nixon.

    THE NEW REALISM

    By Michael Freedman | NEWSWEEK

    Published Apr 25, 2009
    From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009

    Republicans have been trying to link Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter ever since he started his presidential campaign, and they’re still at it. After Obama recently shook hands with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, GOP ideologue Newt Gingrich said the president looked just like Carter—showing the kind of “weakness” that keeps the “aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators” licking their chops.

    But Obama is no Carter. Carter made human rights the cornerstone of his foreign policy, while the Obama team has put that issue on the back burner. In fact, Obama sounds more like another 1970s president: Richard Nixon. Both men inherited the White House from swaggering Texans, whose overriding sense of mission fueled disastrous wars that tarnished America’s image. Obama is a staunch realist, like Nixon, eschewing fuzzy democracy-building and focusing on advancing national interests. “Obama is cutting back on the idea that we’re going to have Jeffersonian democracy in Pakistan or anywhere else,” says Robert Dallek, author of the 2007 book, “Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power.”

    Nixon met the enemy (Mao) to advance U.S. interests, and now Obama is reaching out to rivals like Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the same reason. “The willingness to engage in dialogue with Iran is very compatible with the approach Nixon would have conducted,” says Henry Kissinger, the architect of Nixon’s foreign policy. “But we’ll have to see how it plays out.” Hillary Clinton has assured Beijing that human rights won’t derail talks on pressing issues like the economic crisis, another sign of Nixonian hard-headedness. And echoing Nixon’s pursuit of détente, Obama has engaged Russia, using a mutual interest in containing nuclear proliferation as a stepping stone to discuss other matters, rather than pressing Moscow on democracy at home, or needlessly provoking it on issues like missile defense and NATO expansion, which have little near-term chance of coming to fruition and do little to promote U.S. security. Thomas Graham, a Kissinger associate who oversaw Russia policy at the National Security Council during much of the younger Bush’s second term, says this approach by Obama, a Democrat, resembles a Republican foreign-policy tradition that dates back to the elder George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, and then even further to Nixon and Kissinger.

    It’s hard to know if such tactics will work, of course. But Obama has made clear he understands America’s limitations and its strengths, revealing a penchant for Nixonian pragmatism—not Carter-inspired weakness.

    © 2009

    Source: Newsweek, Apr 25, 2009

  • Obama’s April 24 statement no comfort for Turks

    Obama’s April 24 statement no comfort for Turks

    by Ferruh Demirmen

    It is becoming almost an annual ritual for American presidents to issue commemorative declarations every year on April 24 to remember the Armenian “victims” of a tragic historic episode that took place almost 100 years ago. How many other foreign historic episodes nearly a century old do the American presidents commemorate every year? The answer: “zero.”

    And wherein lies the secret for such homage to Armenian people? Money, my friends, and lots of it in the form of campaign contributions.

    And the hapless Turks, ever watchful if the dreaded word “genocide” will be spelled out on such occasions, take a deep breath if that does not happen. They sit mostly on the sidelines, waiting for the events to unfold. Never mind that, the “g” word or no “g” word, they may be blamed for atrocities in history they did not commit.

    The Turk’s attitude is the poor man’s consolation for being spared a bigger affront.

    The litany

    Last year, referring to “human dignity” and “epic human tragedy,” President Bush issued a statement to “honor the memory of the victims of one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the mass killings and forced exile of as many as 1.5 million Armenians at the end of the Ottoman Empire.”

    Not a single word about the context, and the Moslem victims.

    It is a melodramatic soap opera that takes place every year, and this year it was no different.

    A few days ago President Obama, referring to “man’s inhumanity to man,” called the 1915 events “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century.” He remembered the “1.5 million Armenians who were subsequently massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.”

    So, Obama didn’t use the “g” word. Big deal! But he used the equivalent term in Armenian: “Medz Yeghern,” meaning Big Calamity. To the Turks, it is nearly as offensive as the “g” word. And Obama, a smart and perceptive man, should have known.

    Never believe the ANCA-type hypocrites who feigned disappointment in Obama’s choice of words because he didn’t use the “g” word. The Dashnakians must have relished Obama’s use of the term “Medz Yeghern.”

    It is the first time an American president pandered to the Freudian psyche of the Armenian lobby.

    The term “genocide” is a legal term, anyway, and notwithstanding the untoward motives of ANCA-swayed politicians, the UN and the International Court of Justice are the only legal entities empowered  to give credibility to that word.

    A matter of balance

    In all honesty, no one can blame Obama, or any other American president for that matter, to commemorate the tragic sufferings and deaths of Armenians during World War I. We must all condemn tragic events that befell humanity.

    But humanity also calls for a sense of balance, or justice. Where is the context, the faithfulness to historical truth, and remembrance of Turkish and Kurdish sufferings and casualties in such condemnations?

    Why is the number of Armenian casualties in these statements, which historical records show could not have exceeded half a million, boosted to 1.5 million?

    Why is there no mention of the betrayal of the Ottomans by the Armenian populace, who, by forming armed gangs, attacked the Ottoman civilians and Ottoman armies from behind during wartime when the country was under Russian, French and British occupation?

    More Moslems perished in the hands of terrorist Armenian gangs than the Armenians under Moslem backlash.

    Do the American presidents, or politicians of all stripes for that matter, have the right to be selective in condemning “man’s inhumanity to man?”

    Did the sufferings and deaths of Turks, Kurds, and even Jews in some cases, matter at all?

    As Obama-the-candidate was being indoctrinated by Dashnakians as to the events during World War I and learn diligently the words “Medz Yeghern,” he should have asked his hosts to teach him how to say “betrayal”or “treason” in Armenian. And cite that word in his April 24 statement.

    Those irresistible greenbacks

    President Obama is a clever man with a huge popularity at home and abroad. Unlike President Bush, who had a habit of bumbling through his unscripted speeches, Obama chooses his words carefully. His language in his April 24 statement is a testimony to the irresistible effectiveness of ANCA’s lobbying efforts. His perception of history was clouded by Armenian propaganda.

    The enthusiastic sponsorship that Obama received on ANCA’s website, through videos and webcasts, in apparent violation of ANCA’s tax-exempt status, is all too fresh in minds.  

    Obama didn’t stop with one-sided depiction of history. Adding insult to injury, he paid homage to Americans of Armenian descent for their contributions to the American society while ignoring Turkish Americans.

    Fair is fair. Does Obama think Turks are zombies of no redeemable value?

    Surely, the greenbacks, lots of them, must have done wonders for the Armenian propagandists in shaping Obama’s mind.

    Dubious diplomacy

    Will the Turks take notice of such indignity? We don’t know. But the higher-ups in the Turkish government in Ankara probably will not. They engaged in secret negotiations in Switzerland toward normalization of relations between Ankara and Yerevan, reporting the “progress” to the Obama administration but leaving the Turkish people – as well as the Azeri people – in the dark.

    Which begs the question: Did those high-flying Turkish diplomats in Switzerland think they were representing the Obama administration instead of the Turkish people?

    The Azeri have a very legitimate stake in the Turkish-Armenian talks because of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

    In the meanwhile the Azeri, being briefed about the Switzerland talks by the Russians, who in turn were briefed by the Armenians, became incensed at Turks’ audacity at conducting diplomacy behind their back. The Azeri showed their displeasure by starting energy-related talks with the Russian energy giant Gazprom. Turkey’s east-west Nabucco energy transit project, already suffering from a cold bout, has become shakier still. The Azeri gas is supposed to be the initial feed gas for the project. Ankara now has its hands full trying to placate a jittery Baku.

    The imponderables

    Setting all this aside, President Obama perhaps deserves credit for tempering his April 24 statement with some moderation. Even Vice President Joe Biden, the inveterate genocide hawk, softened his stance. Obama could have been harsher in his statement. The moderation, of course, stems from anticipation of a growing dialog between Turkey and Armenia that started in Switzerland. Whether that will materialize, is something else. Obama didn’t want to throw cold water on the process.

    But with his unmistakable pro-Armenian bias, most Turks will remain unimpressed with Obama’s stance.

    The outcome of the Turkish-Armenian talks so far is a “road map” of which details are kept under wraps. Apparently there are no pre-conditions to advance talks to the next level. But the road map has many roadblocks for both sides – as well, for the Azeri.

    In the meantime, the Turkish-American relations will become hostage to the outcome of diplomatic traffic between Ankara, Yerevan and Baku. With “Medz Yeghern” language in the background, it is not a reassuring thought. Turks are not comforted by Obama’s language.

    Separately, there is no guarantee that a Democratically controlled U.S. House of Representatives under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi will not pass a pro-genocide resolution soon.

    [email protected]