David’s Heir

Rabbi Wein The old new anti Semitism, From the Crusades to Toulouse

Torah Defense, Part I: Quality versus Quantity & Torah Defense, Part 2: Morale in the IDF

Recent generations have witnessed a paradigm shift in the art of warfare. Whereas it used to be the quantity of one's soldiers and weaponry that deterred war or proved victory in the battlefield, today it is the quality of one's arsenal that matters most. One technologically advanced weapon outweighs vast quantities of enemy manpower. How much more so when it comes to the quality of holiness that pervades the army camp: "For the L-rd, your G-d, goes along in the midst of your camp, to rescue you and deliver you your enemies before you. Therefore, your camp shall be holy..." (Deuteronomy 23:15) A Jewish soldier guarding the Holy Nation in the Holy Land is an emissary of the true watchman above him, G-d A-lmighty Himself. Therefore, the greatest determining force in the success of his mission is the force of holiness that surrounds and supports him.



In past generations, the numbers of one's armies determined the outcome of war. Today, the quality of one's forces far outweighs the significance of its numbers. This is true with regard to the technological superiority of weaponry, but, and even more so, the superiority of the soldiers themselves. The psychological state of the soldier is everything. Soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces have recently been asking for deeper spiritual inspiration. The leaders have been attempting to "boost morale" by sending entertainers and comedians who confuse and distract the soldiers, while they are searching for true meaning and direction. The enemy must know that a Jewish soldier is ready not only with proper weapons, but with a healthy and inspired state of mind. Some people ask how tefillin or tzitzis assist in achieving this goal. The answer is: It doesn't really matter 'how' a medicine works, only that it actually does. Torah and mitzvos have successfully achieved this goal, sustaining and fortifying the Jewish people through every imaginable situation for over three thousand years.

ELDER OF ZIYON: Yemen rabbi complains about antisemitism in school textbooks

A Yemen website reports that the leader of Yemen's Jewish community, Yahya Youssef, has urged that the nation halts its incitement against Jews published in the media and in school curricula. 

Last week he said that the Jews of Yemen do not want a separate school system, but are happy to send their children to public schools where they learn Arabic and Islam; they learn English and Hebrew afterwards, it seems. Even so, he said that the Jewish children are harassed in school. Youssef is demanding equality. His own children are part of the Children's Parliament.

Youssef also complained about the Houthis who drove the Jewish community out of the al-Salem area of Saada with little notice; they claimed that the Jews drank alcohol, a charge that Youssef denies - he says that Yemenite Jews don't even drink the wine that Judaism allows.

He says that a priceless library was left behind in Sadaa and he wants to ensure its safety.

ELDER OF ZIYON: Video: Islamists in Syria publicly lash two men for marriage too soon after girl's divorce

The Syrian opposition publicly flogged two men in a town in northern Syria this week, according to reports.

Their crime?

In Islamic law, a woman is divorced before she can be remarried (so that there is no doubt as to the parentage of any children she has - this was taken from Jewish law but claimed by Muslims to be one of their innovations.)

A father in Syria married his daughter to a young man before the three months were complete.

So the Islamists who control the town gave both the father and the groom a public flogging, apparently with electrical wire, after reading their verdict.

Gaza Students: Clean the World of Jews Hamas student group posts cartoon with ‘Palestine’ throwing Star of David in the trash.

The Hamas-affiliated student union in Gaza published a cartoon Tuesday in which a person whose body is made of a Palestinian Authority flag is seen throwing a Star of David – one of the best-known Jewish symbols – into agarbage can.

Text under the picture says, “Keep the world clean.”

The cartoon uses a Star of David rather than an explicitly Israeli symbol, indicating that it is meant to refer to Judaism or the Jewish nation as a whole and not the state of Israel alone.

The student union in question is known as the Islamic Bloc – in Arabic, al-Kutla al-Islamiya. It operates in high schools, universities and other educational institutions in Gaza. Its primary purpose is to teach the next generation about the importance of, in Hamas’ words, freeing Palestine from the Israeli occupation.

Hamas views all of Israel as occupied territory and justifies attacks on Israeli civilians as “resistance.”

Many teenagers active in the Islamic Bloc are sent to join the al-Kassam Brigades – the Hamas cells responsible for rocket fire on Israel. Some teen boys are sent to join the cells before finishing high school.

MY RIGHT WORD: Another Pal. Pallywood Prevarication

Last Tuesday, I caught out our neighbors prevaricating about a supposed fire we set that destroyed Arab trees and crops.

It was all a lie.

And now they are doing it again, or at least, trying to do so.

Don't believe them.

They've published this:

UPDATED WITH VIDEO: 
13 year-old boy shot at by settlers, tortured by soldiers, denied medical attention

19th May 2013 | International Solidarity Movement, Team Nablus | Qaryut, Occupied Palestine

UPDATED: The 13-year-old Qaryut boy attacked by settlers on 16 May completed an operation on his lower leg and foot on Friday and has since been released to recover at home. He also provided a full account of his attack and the time he spent in an Israeli jeep untreated and tortured for information he neither had nor could speak of due to the pain from his untreated injury.

The boy said he was alone on his land near the illegal settlement of Eli when he was attacked. His friend was coming to join him when settlers began shooting at the boy. He ran, but fell from a big drop in the land, being on the mountainside. Settlers pursued him but he dragged himself on his stomach by some bushes. He was in great pain but kept quiet, afraid of settlers or soldiers finding him and continuing to attack him. After some time, his phone rang when his sister and friend called him. The soldiers then found and descended on him, threatening him with their guns while he lay, unable to move, on the ground.

Below is video [shot by B. Qaryoute] of the boy’s harassment when the Israeli soldiers found him; the video is taken in the village area down the mountain from the nearest illegal Eli settlement houses, in view of the land where the boy was attacked. He said that the soldiers and settlement security official (DCI) threatened to kill him.

No one from the village could come to the boy’s aid for risk of being shot at by the soldiers. Local Red Crescent representatives said that a man from the municipality was with the soldiers and was told that the boy would be treated in an Israeli ambulance and possibly taken to an Israeli hospital. However, as the Red Crescent, the boy’s family, solidarity activists and nearby villagers waited, watching the soldiers on top of the mountain for two to three hours, the boy was untreated and tortured by Israeli army officials for information. “They said I was trying to set fire to the land by the settlement; they said I was with three others and had a lighter and a firebomb,” the boy said. “They would twist my leg every ten minutes or so when I would not give them names [of those with whom he was accused of conspiring].” The boy said he was also beat for information.

The boy’s interrogators also told him they had pictures him, evidence against him, and that a soldier had seen him. “Why don’t you ask the soldier, then?” the boy said. Reportedly the response to this question was, “No, I want to ask you.”

Finally, the local Red Crescent brought an ambulance to the entrance of the illegal settlement where they were given the boy, untreated. The boy’s grandfather said that his grandson’s flesh near his ankle was open, his leg wobbly, and black flesh showed from the boy’s yet untreated injury. The Red Crescent immediately took the boy to the nearest hospital in Nablus: Rafedia hospital 30-45 minutes away.  
When solidarity activists saw the boy, his entire right leg was wrapped in a cast. Later he described that he was sitting on his land which is close to an illegal Israeli settlement bordering Qaryut and famous for attacks such as olive tree torching. Settlers shot at him and he ran from the shots. When he fell, the settlers beat him and were going to kill him, but soldiers arrived and told the settlers could not. Afterwards, the soldiers also shouted at the boy with guns pointed at him.
The boy may undergo surgery for his broken bones.
Just two days before this attack, Qaryut faced an olive tree torching attack from another nearby illegal Israeli settlement and the village has a history of well-documented settler attacks on its land.  In addition, Israeli military have closed a Qaryut road to Nablus and Ramallah for Palestinian use as the road is not far from illegal Israeli settlements on Qaryut land. Currently, 15 mostly young Qaryut men have been arrested for activism in peaceful demonstrations against the key road’s closure.

The simple truth is that that boy and his friend attempted to infiltrate the HaYovel neighborhood of Eli.

The alert system caused soldiers to begin scouting the area, which is not far from Qaryut.  Seeing that they were about to be discovered, they two fled.  One managed to escape while the other fell while descending the terraced hillside and severely fractured his leg. 

He lay there for at least 20 minutes, undiscovered.

Once he was spotted, the first concern was that he had a bomb on his body and you can observe them approaching him with extreme caution.  His injury was not immediately apparent until the soldiers drew close.

They did not torture him. 

They did call an ambulance which, after a complicated extraction off the slope, transferred him to a Red Crescent ambulance with due haste.

All the rest is lies, fabrications.

Again,, the Pals. or the ISMers, perhaps, engaged in a Pallywood production.

Worse, as I suspect, they sent the kids off of a mission so they could film perhaps a real death and thus create a martyr.

These people are dangerous - dangerous to Arab children.

Belzer Forshpil Motzei Shabbos in Jerusalem

Thousands of Belzer Chasidim gather in a tent (spacial built for the wedding) in Kiryas Belz in Jerusalem for the forshpeil motzei shabbos May 18 2013

The Historic Wedding Of The Belzer Rebbe's First Grandson is Bringing Belzer Hasidim Worldwide Together For the first Time In 20 Years For A Week Of Celebrations

שמחת הפארשפיל לנכדו בכורו של כ"ק אדמו"ר מבעלזא שליט"א בקרית בעלזא בירושלים

ELDER OF ZIYON: Al Jazeera pulls antisemitic Massad piece; Israel haters freak

Last week I - and many others - criticized an absurd article by Columbia professor Joseph Massad in Al Jazeera that pretty much said Zionists were Nazis and antisemitic, while those who are against Jewish self-determination were the only people who were against antisemitism.

Petra Marquardt-B. at JPost even created a little quiz to see if people could distinguish between Massad's hate and that from neo-Nazi websites. In fact, they are literally indistinguishable. 

Surprisingly, Al Jazeera pulled the article after this criticism. Some things go even too far for them!

But not far enough for the rabid haters at Electronic Intifada. They are foaming at the mouth:

In an unprecedented act of political censorship Al Jazeera English has deleted an article by noted Columbia University Professor Joseph Massad after coming under intense criticism from Zionists in recent days.

The backlash has been so intense precisely because Massad goes to the core of Israel’s claim to represent Jews and to cast its critics as anti-Semites by showing that indeed it is Israel and Zionism that partake of the same anti-Semitism that targeted European Jews.

In doing so, Massad pulls the rug from under Zionists and Israel lobbyists by demonstrating that they are the anti-Semites and taking away the most formidable weapon they wield against critics of Israel: the accusation that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

By neutralizing this ideological weapon that Israel has used so effectively in the Western media to cover up its colonization of Palestine, Massad’s pro-Jewish position and strenuous attack on Zionist anti-Semitism is clearly understood by Israel lobby figures such as Goldberg as a complete obliteration of their ideological arsenal.

Yet, I showed easily how Massad's main argument, that EI considers "convincing," is simply a lie.

I'm actually surprised that Al Jazeera pulled it; I was not aware of anyone who complained to them. I'm sure some complained to Columbia for employing a professor for whom facts are mere props to be used, shaped or discarded at will. 

ELDER OF ZIYON: Anti-Israel stamps from Algeria First of a series looking at anti-Israel postage stamps from Arab countries.

1966 - "Massacre at Deir TYassin"

1976 - "Solidarity with Palestinian People" - Map erasing Israel

1990 - "Solidarity with Palestinians"

2001 - Celebration of Intifada

ELDER OF ZIYON: Arab stamps commemorating the Al Dura hoax

Today, the Israeli government released a report saying that Mohamed Al Dura, the young boy who symbolized the second intifada for so many, was not killed by Israel and indeed was probably not killed at all.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received today the report of the Government Review Committee on "The France 2 Al-Durrah Report, its Consequences and Implications." The report was presented by the Minister of International Affairs, Strategy and Intelligence Yuval Steinitz, in the presence of Director General of the Ministry of International Affairs and Strategy, Yossi Kuperwasser.

Prime Minister Netanyahu directed then Minister of Strategic Affairs Yaalon to set up the governmental review committee in September 2012. The purpose of the committee was to examine the Al-Durrah affair in light of the continued damage it has caused to Israel, and to formulate the Government of Israel's position with regards to it.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "It is important to focus on this incident – which has slandered Israel's reputation. This is a manifestation of the ongoing, mendacious campaign to delegitimize Israel. There is only one way to counter lies, and that is through the truth. Only the truth can prevail over lies."

Minister of International Affairs, Strategy and Intelligence Yuval Steinitz: " The Al-Durrah affair is a modern-day blood libel against the State of Israel, alongside other blood libels like the claims of an alleged massacre in Jenin. The France 2 report was utterly baseless."

The Al-Durrah affair has its origins in a media report first aired by the French public television channel France 2 on September 30, 2000. The report claimed to show the killing of a Palestinian boy, targeted along with his father, according to the report, by fire from an Israeli position. The story was quickly relayed worldwide by the international media, which repeated the report's claim. The report had the immediate effect of harming Israel's international standing and fanning the flames of terror and hate.

Since that day, the narrative spawned by the France 2 report has served as an inspiration and justification for terrorism, anti-Semitism, and the delegitimization of Israel. The echoes of the Al-Durrah report, both in terms of accusations against Israel and in terms of media reports adopted uncritically by the international media which are later revealed to be false or misleading, have continued to resonate in the media coverage of Israel's operations against terrorist organizations.

This news is only 13 years too late. 

The incompetence of the extraordinarily late Israeli response to this modern blood libel would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.

One appendix of the report shows stamps issued in Arab countries playing up the hoax as a means of inciting the world against Israel, from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Morocco and Tunisia:

They missed Jordan's stamp series:

And Sudan's:

And Yemen's:

And Saudi Arabia's:

And a second stamp from Morocco:

At least nine Muslim countries - including "moderate" countries like Jordan and Morocco -  commemorated a death that was nothing more than a hoax, for the sole purpose of inciting hundreds of millions of Muslims and Arabs against the Jewish state.

If you want to see all the Al Dura evidence yourself, this website has tons of materials, including videos and maps showing the impossibility of Israeli fire hitting the boy.

ELDER OF ZIYON: "Israeli bride performs Talmudic rituals" near Cotton Gate of Temple Mount

A Jewish bride, apparently on her wedding day, decided to go as close as possible to the Temple Mount to say Psalms.

Along with some friends, she walked down the Cotton Market in Jerusalem during a Muslim prayer time when the market is nearly empty. She was stopped, and protected, at the entrance to the Cotton Gate by Israeli police.

Arabic media is reporting that she performed "Talmudic rituals" and that this was an "extreme provocation." (They also called the bride and her small entourage "settlers.")

Apparently, Muslims can whip out their prayer rugs and worship wherever they want, but Jews don't share that right.

A Christian-Jewish group condemned the peaceful event as well.

In fact, according to Sheikh Nageh Pkarat, any prayers in the area of the holiest spot in Judaism is a"violation of international law" since it is a place for Muslim prayers only.

Pkarat also said that Jewish prayers in the area are against the Jewish religion as well.

It is always nice to have an expert on Judaism around to be authoritatively quoted in the Arab media.

TIMES OF ISRAEL: Canada and Israel — best friends forever?Why is Ottawa so extraordinarily supportive of the Jewish state? Has the Harper administration gone too far, and cost itself influence in the Arab world? And would a change of government see an altered stance?

On November 28, 2012, one day before the United Nations General Assembly voted to upgrade Palestine to a nonmember state, a few Palestinian protesters gathered in front of the Canadian representative offices in Ramallah. They were holding posters saying “Shame on You, Canada,” and other slogans accusing the country of being a “subcontractor of apartheid.” Many demonstrators also held up banners showing a photo of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, superimposed with a face of a dog, next to the slogan “This dog doesn’t hunt.”

Of course that didn’t change Ottawa’s determination: Canada voted against the Palestinian statehood bid, one of only nine countries to do so (138 nations voted in favor and 41 abstained.)

Canada has always been a friend of the Jewish state, but in recent years — especially since the Harper government came to power in 2006 — Ottawa has redefined what it means to be staunchly pro-Israel. Indeed, in the Middle East conflict, no other nation, not even the United States, has been so unstintingly supportive of the policies of Israel’s government as the Great White North.

The UN vote was just one of many examples when Canada stood up for Israel, and against much of the world consensus. Just this Thursday, Harper rebuked the world for its stance on what he called the “one stable, democratic” country in the Middle East. “There’s nothing more shortsighted in Western capitals in our time than the softening of support we’ve seen for Israel around the globe,” he said during a visit in New York.

Which begs the question: why? What is in it for Canada?

Palestinians hold pictures of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper superimposed with a face of a dog during a protest following Harper’s remarks about the Palestinian UN bid for an observer state status, in front of Canadian representative offices in Ramallah, November 28, 2012. (photo credit: Issam RImawi/Flash90)

It has been argued, not unconvincingly, that the world’s second-largest country’s determined support for the world’s 153rd-largest country has cost Ottawa dearly in terms of influence on the international stage. Yet the support doesn’t falter. Could it be that Canada’s vast oil and gas reserves make it less dependent on resources from the Arab world, allowing the government to do what it pleases, as opposed to, say, oil-devoid European countries?

Or, perhaps even more important, would this uncompromising support for Israel disappear were Harper’s Conservative Party to lose power, as polls indicate it could in 2015?

‘When the victim is portrayed as the perpetrator and the perpetrator as the victim, this is not something we want to be associated with’

Canadian officials like to explain their government’s diehard friendship to Israel by pointing out that the two countries share many common values.

“I would characterize the position as one of moral clarity,” Canadian Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver told The Times of Israel earlier this month in Jerusalem. “If there’s a conflict between a democratic ally and terrorist groups that want to destroy it, we don’t see grays. The moral relativism that is sometimes a big factor is not what guides us. We think it’s important for countries to walk the walk as well as talking the talk.”

Minister Joe Oliver in Israel, May 2013 (photo credit: Mati Milstein/courtesy Canadian embassy)

But other Western countries also don’t love terrorism but still criticize Israel, for example over settlement expansions. “We have said that unilateral action on either side isn’t particularly helpful,” the minister responded, emphasizing that Canada doesn’t support the settlements. “I don’t know what else to say in this regard. There’s willingness on our part to demonstrate moral leadership.”

Oliver then quickly added that he doesn’t mean to say Canada is more moral than other countries. But, he said, “when you confront a situation like one sees at the United Nations constantly, where Israel is singled out for special criticism to the exclusion of massive abuses in all parts of the world… it’s very obvious you’re dealing with double standards. And when the victim is portrayed as the perpetrator and the perpetrator as the victim, this is not something we want to be associated with.”

Canada’s support for Israel — and opposition to Israel’s enemies — doesn’t only play out at the General Assembly. In 2008, Canada was the first country to boycott the Durban Review Conference against racism because it anticipated, correctly, that the conference would turn into an anti-Israel hate fest.

In September 2012, Canada severed diplomatic relations with Iran. Foreign Minister John Baird explained the move, by saying the regime in Tehran, among other things, “routinely threatens the existence of Israel.”

When Jerusalem punished the Palestinians for the statehood bid by announcing to build homes in the controversial E1 corridor east of Jerusalem, the whole world forcefully condemned the plans. Except the Canadians: the government merely noted that such steps aren’t “helpful.”

Last month, however, marked a high point in Canada’s pro-Israel (and ostensibly anti-Palestinian) moves, when Foreign Minister John Baird visited Israel’s justice minister, Tzipi Livni, in her East Jerusalem office. Since the international community doesn’t accept Israel’s annexation of the eastern part of the city, foreign diplomats usually refuse to meet Israeli officials there lest it be interpreted as a tacit recognition of Israeli sovereignty.

“Either he’s ignorant of east Jerusalem being occupied territory, which is unforgivable in a foreign minister, or it’s a deliberate attempt to change the international consensus,” fumed Hanan Ashrawi, a spokesperson for the Palestine Liberation Organization.

John Baird (left) and Shimon Peres (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

Baird tried to play down the issue, saying that where he “had coffee with Tzipi Livni is, I think, irrelevant [and] doesn’t signal a change in Canadian foreign policy.”

Until relatively recently, Ottawa’s unequivocal support for Israel did not seem to have damaged it ties to the Arab world. But this is changing.

In 2010, Canada lost its bid to gain one of the non-permanent seats on the UN Security Council for the first time since 1945. Many observers, including Harper himself, linked the defeat in part to Ottawa’s support for Israel.

Earlier this month, some Arab nations tried to push for the relocation of the UN-affiliated International Civil Aviation Organization, from Montreal, where it has been headquartered since 1947, to Qatar. This move should be seen as the “combined efforts to strike back at Canada for its stand on Palestinian issues,” the country’s Globe and Mail newspaper wrote.

And Baird’s East Jerusalem meeting broke the camel’s back, claimed Michael Bell, a former Canadian ambassador to Israel and the Palestinian territories.

While last month it still appeared that “the Canadian government might be able to pull off a dual Middle East strategy, combining co-operation with the conservative Gulf Arab states on security matters and sweeping support for current Israeli policies, the Livni meeting destroyed that hope,” Bell asserted in the Globe and Mail. That encounter “crossed a critical red line in the competing narratives of Arabs and Israelis. While Qatar and others were prepared to overlook their concerns about Canada more generally, Mr. Baird’s Jerusalem gesture went too far.”

‘Is the recommendation that we should have been anti-Israeli in order to get on the Security Council so we could be pro-Israeli?’

Still, Canadian politicians from both sides of the aisle continue to refute the notion that support for Israel is costing the country dearly on the international stage.

“The argument is made that we could have more influence in the Middle East if we got on the Security Council. Is the recommendation that we should have been anti-Israeli in order to get on the Security Council so we could be pro-Israeli?” Oliver, the natural resources minister, said laughingly. “We’re willing to make the sacrifices necessary to stand up for what we believe. Sometimes there’s a price to pay. Does it reduce our influence in the world or does it increase it? That’s something one can debate.”

Personally, Oliver actually believes that Canada’s global influence “has been enhanced” by the government’s principled stance. So far, he said, no Arab country has refused to do business with his government because of Israel. “They’re selling their oil to people who want to buy it,” he said.

Canada’s vast reserves of natural resources, some analysts believe, allow the government to irritate the Arabs because it doesn’t depend on their oil. “Canada has its own oil and so it doesn’t really need oil from Arabia,” said Israeli-Canadian journalist David Sheen. “Even without Canada on the Security Council, Canadian mining companies aren’t having any problems getting what they want. So Canada hasn’t really had to pay any price for its Israel policy.”

Indeed, few analysts argue that Israel alone was the main factor that caused Canada the coveted seat in New York.

“Canada lost its Security Council bid primarily because the European Union wanted two seats and threw its support behind Portugal,” said Shimon Fogel, the CEO of the Toronto-based Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. A “perceived shift in aid priorities away from Africa” also played a key role, he said. “Perhaps Arab and Muslim States cast their votes with Canada’s Middle East policy as a factor,” he allowed, “but none of them declared that to be the case. You’d think that if they were trying to flex their muscles on the Israel issue they would have been explicit about it.”

Benjamin Netanyahu and wife Sarah, right, meet with Canadian PM Stephen Harper, left, in London. April 17, 2013. (photo credit: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO/Flash90)

Irwin Cotler, a Canadian MP from the Liberal Party and former justice minister, tends to agree. Ottawa didn’t lose the Security Council seat because of Israel, he said, but because of Africa and because it generally did not appear interested in multilateralism. In 2009, he recalled, Harper attended the opening of a donut store in New York rather than the UN General Assembly, which was taking place at the same time in the city.

In Cotler’s view, it is not so much support for Israel — which has been a “cornerstone” of Canadian foreign policy for 35 years, he said — that’s damaging the country, but the bluntness with which it is presented to the world. The Harper government believes in the rightness of its cause and therefore doesn’t care about what the world thinks, Cotler suggested, and that’s not a bad thing. “But I think that you can do the right thing but not necessarily have to turn people off in the way you do it. My critique of the Conservative government is not the principles that they espouse but the manner in which they give expression to those principles.”

Support for Israel is bipartisan. The Conservative Party has been “more sustained in its declaratory approach and more unequivocal in its rhetorical expression,” yet the actual policy positions of the Conservatives and the Liberals aren’t far apart, Cotler said.

Irwin Cotler speaking to a Knesset Committee (photo credit: Miriam Alster/Flash90)

On Iran, for example, the current opposition party had and still has “a stronger policy” than the Harper government, in that it calls for tougher sanctions, he said. And on the peace process, the status of Jerusalem, and the settlements, the two parties actually agree.

Indeed, Harper’s unequivocal pro-Israeli rhetoric does not always match his official positions.

For instance, the Canadian government does not list Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and, its Foreign Ministry makes plain, “does not recognize permanent Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip).” According to the Foreign Ministry’s website, “Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention” — and thus illegal under international law — and constitute “a serious obstacle” to peace.

“Baird doesn’t say that,” Cotler said. Rather, the Harper government makes a point of reaffirming that it is Israel’s best friend ever, without telling the world that Canadian foreign policy is not merely focused on Israel. Ottawa supports the Palestinian Authority with $300 million over the last five years, he noted. “But they don’t speak about it, so it’s not well-known.” If support for Israel were treated as one among several pillars of Canadian foreign policy, it would attract less media scrutiny and less Arab hostility, he argued.

Harper’s touting of his pro-Israel stance is also the reason why the current government is perceived as so much friendlier toward Jerusalem than its predecessor, according to Cotler. “If a liberal government got into power, it might adopt the same positions and policies, but it would be among a whole set of positions with regards to foreign policy as a whole, whereas for the Conservative government this is a centerpiece of their overall foreign policy.”

The next elections in Canada will take place in 2015, and the latest polls currently predict a loss for the ruling Conservatives. Will a different, more left-oriented government match that level of support for Jerusalem?

Most Canadians don’t think too much about their government’s policy vis-à-vis the Middle East, and so Israel is unlikely to become a wedge-issue in the elections, several observers agreed.

“No government can move substantially beyond where its constituency is for very long. Therefore, we have to conclude that a majority of Canadians are indeed comfortable with the positions articulated by this government, and by-and-large supported by the opposition parties,” said Fogel, of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. “While nobody can predict the future, there is a general consensus of support towards Israel in all the parties, and among Canadians in general.”

The Land without Muslims The Japanese do not feel the need to apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they relate to Islam. By: Dr. Mordechai Kedar

There are countries in the world, mainly in Europe, that are presently undergoing significant cultural transformations as a result of Muslim immigration. France, Germany, Belgium and Holland are interesting examples of cases where immigration from Muslim countries, together with the Muslims’ high fertility rate, effects every area of life.

It is interesting to know that there is a country in the world whose official and public approach to the Muslim matter is totally different. This country is Japan. This country keeps a very low profile on all levels regarding the Muslim matter: On the diplomatic level, senior political figures from Islamic countries almost never visit Japan, and Japanese leaders rarely visit Muslim countries. The relations with Muslim countries are based on concerns such as oil and gas, which Japan imports from some Muslim countries. The official policy of Japan is not to give citizenship to Muslims who come to Japan, and even permits for permanent residency are given sparingly to Muslims.

Japan forbids exhorting people to adopt the religion of Islam (Dawah), and any Muslim who actively encourages conversion to Islam is seen as proselytizing to a foreign and undesirable culture. Few academic institutions teach the Arabic language. It is very difficult to import books of the Qur’an to Japan, and Muslims who come to Japan, are usually employees of foreign companies. In Japan there are very few mosques. The official policy of the Japanese authorities is to make every effort not to allow entry to Muslims, even if they are physicians, engineers and managers sent by foreign companies that are active in the region. Japanese society expects Muslim men to pray at home.

Japanese companies seeking foreign workers specifically note that they are not interested in Muslim workers. And any Muslim who does manage to enter Japan will find it very difficult  to rent an apartment. Anywhere a Muslim lives, the neighbors become uneasy. Japan forbids the establishment of Islamic organizations, so setting up Islamic institutions such as mosques and schools is almost impossible. In Tokyo there is only one imam.

In contrast with what is happening in Europe, very few Japanese are drawn to Islam. If a Japanese woman marries a Muslim, she will be considered an outcast by her social and familial environment. There is no application of Shari’a law in Japan. There is some food in Japan that is halal, kosher according to Islamic law, but it is not easy to find it in the supermarket.

The Japanese approach to Muslims is also evidenced by the numbers: in Japan there are 127 million residents, but only ten thousand Muslims, less than one hundredth of a percent. The number of Japanese who have converted is thought to be few. In Japan there are a few tens of thousands of foreign workers who are Muslim, mainly from Pakistan, who have managed to enter Japan as workers with construction companies. However, because of the negative attitude towards Islam they keep a low profile.

There are several reasons for this situation:

First, the Japanese tend to lump all Muslims together as fundamentalists who are unwilling to give up their traditional point of view and adopt modern ways of thinking and behavior. In Japan, Islam is perceived as a strange religion, that any intelligent person should avoid.

Second, most Japanese have no religion, but behaviors connected with the Shinto religion along with elements of Buddhism are integrated into national customs . In Japan, religion is connected to the nationalist concept, and prejudices exist towards foreigners whether they are Chinese, Korean, Malaysian or Indonesian, and Westerners don’t escape this phenomenon either. There are those who call this a “developed sense of nationalism” and there are those who call this “racism”. It seems that neither of these is wrong.

And Third, the Japanese dismiss the concept of monotheism and faith in an abstract god,  because their world concept is apparently connected to the material, not to faith and emotions. It seems that they group Judaism together with Islam. Christianity exists in Japan and is not regarded negatively, apparently because the image of Jesus perceived in Japan is like the images of Buddha and Shinto.

The most interesting thing in Japan’s approach to Islam is the fact that the Japanese do not feel the need to apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they relate to Islam. They make a clear distinction between their economic interest in resources of oil and gas from Muslim countries, which behooves Japan to maintain good relations with these countries on the one hand, and on the other hand, the Japanese nationalist viewpoints, which see Islam as something that is suitable for others, not for Japan, and therefore the Muslims must remain outside.

Because the Japanese have a gentle temperament, and project serenity and tranquility toward foreigners, foreigners tend to relate to the Japanese with politeness and respect. A Japanese diplomat would never raise his voice or speak rudely in the presence of foreigners, therefore foreigners relate to the Japanese with respect, despite their racism and discrimination against Muslims in the matter of immigration. A Japanese official who is presented with an embarrassing question regarding the way the Japanese relate to Muslims, will usually refrain from answering, because he knows that a truthful answer would arouse anger, and he is both unable and unwilling to give an answer that is not true. He will smile but not answer, and if pressed, he will ask for time so that his superiors can answer, while he knows that this answer will never come.

Japan manages to remain a country almost without a Muslim presence because Japan’s negative attitude toward Islam and Muslims pervades every level of the population, from the man in the street to organizations and companies to senior officialdom. In Japan, contrary to the situation in other countries, there are no “human rights” organizations to offer support to Muslims’ claims against the government’s position. In Japan no one illegally smuggles Muslims into the country to earn a few yen, and almost no one gives them the legal support they would  need in order to get permits for temporary or permanent residency or citizenship.

Another thing that helps the Japanese keep Muslim immigration to their shores to a minimum is the Japanese attitude toward the employee and employment. Migrant workers are perceived negatively in Japan, because they take the place of Japanese workers. A Japanese employer feels obligated to employ Japanese workers even if it costs much more than it would to employ foreign workers. The traditional connection between an employee and employer in Japan is much stronger than in the West, and the employer and employee feel a mutual commitment to each other: an employer feels obligated to give his employee a livelihood, and the employee feels obligated to give the employer the fruit of his labor. This situation does not encourage the acceptance of foreign workers, whose commitment to the employers is low.

The fact that the public and the officials are united in their attitude against Muslim immigration has created a sort of iron wall around Japan that Muslims lack both the permission and the capability to overcome. This iron wall silences the world’s criticism of Japan in this matter, because the world understands that there is no point in criticizing the Japanese, since criticism will not convince them to open the gates of Japan to Muslim immigration.

Japan is teaching the whole world an interesting lesson: there is a direct correlation between national heritage and permission to immigrate: a people that has a solid and clear national heritage and identity will not allow the unemployed of the world to enter its country; and a people whose cultural heritage and national identity is weak and fragile, has no defense mechanisms to prevent a foreign culture from penetrating into its country and its land.

Originally published at Middle East and Terrorism under the title, A Country without Muslims. Translated into English by Sally Zahav.