Monday, July 30, 2012

Gatestone Update :: Mark Durie: The Ramadan Olympics and Islam's "Law of Necessity", and more


Facebook  Twitter  RSS
Gatestone Institute
In this mailing:

The Ramadan Olympics and Islam's "Law of Necessity"

by Mark Durie
July 30, 2012 at 5:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Because Islam's "Law of Necessity" fully permits Muslims to find creative ways to adapt when Sharia Law conflicts with practical life, the argument that societies are obliged to make concessions to privilege all the demands of strict Sharia Law is considerably weakened.
Islam Is a flexible religion: religious obligations allow exceptions, subject to circumstances. Muslim religious scholars balance countervailing obligations to determine when exceptions apply. Understanding such balancing of necessities in Islam is not only important for public policy, but also for understanding how an identical set of religious beliefs can be used to justify war or peace, terrorism or peaceful coexistence.

Fasting During a Ramadan Olympics

As the London Olympics are underway, London organizers of the Olympics, according to a report in the New York Times, are supporting the needs of Muslims athletes, "with more than 150 Muslim clerics on hand to assist athletes, as well as fast-breaking packs including dates and other traditional foods."
As it is also the month of Ramadan, during which Muslims are obligated not to eat or drink, even their own saliva, from sunrise to sunset, spare a thought for the more than 3,500 Muslim competitors, who, if they strictly observed Ramadan, would be abstaining from food and drink from the first prayer of the day (Fajr) at 2.44 am through to the dusk prayer (Maghrib) at 8.53 pm (as at July 29, 2012, see Islamicfinder.org).
Optimum sporting performance cannot be expected from athletes who go without food or drink for over 18 hours -- a circumstance which would not be fair to them.
Many Muslim Olympians now in London will therefore not be fasting. Some may rely on religious rulings (fatwas) which exempt sportspeople from the Ramadan fast, such as a ruling issued in 2010 by the German Central Council of Muslims, that Muslim professional footballers, because they depend upon football for their living, need not fast during Ramadan.
The United Emirates, using a different approach stated that players may omit the fast as long as they do not stay in one place for more than four days. This is based upon a standard exemption for travelers during Ramadan (Sahih Bukhari, 3:31:167). Another exemption, following advice from imams in Morocco, is being used by English Olympic rower Moe Sbihi, who announced that he will donate 60 meals to poor people in Morocco for each missed fast day. Many Olympic athletes are postponing their fasts until their sporting commitments are completed. However, the Moroccan football team are fasting and trusting that Allah will help them to victory. All Muslims agree that fasting is obligatory during Ramadan; they differ in the exceptions they make.

"Necessity": Balancing What Is Forbidden with What Is Permitted

There is a powerful principle in Islamic jurisprudence, the "Law of Necessity," that permits what is forbidden -- the end justifying the means. If a goal is obligatory, then the means can also be obligatory, even if otherwise they might be forbidden.
In Islam the universe of possible human deeds is divided into what is obligatory, permitted neutral, disliked, or forbidden. Then there is the need to balance the pros and cons of every act. This is a world of choice which can embrace a necessary evil, or take a pass on a good deed for the sake of a greater good.
Some "Law of Necessity" exceptions go back to Muhammad; they are hard-wired into Islamic law. A case in point is the exemption for travelers during Ramadan, which some athletes rely on. Another exemption for travelers, which also comes straight from Muhammad, allows Muslims to catch up on prayer times later than the correct hour.
Life raises many complex challenges, and the balancing of obligations and prohibitions may require more subtle reasoning, dependent on context. The renowned medieval Muslim scholar al-Ghazali explained how the principle of balancing necessities can be used to make lying permitted or even compulsory, according to the circumstances:
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible … and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory . …" (The Reliance of the Traveller, p.745-46, paragraph r8.2)
Yusuf al-Qaradawy has written extensively about the jurisprudence of "balancing necessities." He explains that interests and pros and cons of any deed must be balanced, one against each other and weighed carefully.
Al-Qaradawy's focus was politics, not sport. He cited an example of the support given by the Islamist political leader Maulana Maududi to Fatima Jinnah in the 1965 presidential elections in Pakistan. Previously Maududi had declared that it was not permissible in Islam for a woman to govern (based on the teachings of Muhammad). He came, however, to regard Jinnah as the lesser of two evils, so he commanded his followers to vote for the female candidate, and against General Ayub Khan.
Understanding such balancing of necessities in Islam is important for public policy -- to grasp how an identical set of religious beliefs can be used to justify war or peace, terrorism or peaceful coexistence -- or any other decision, based solely on the circumstances at the time.

Balancing Necessities and Public Policy

Consider the issue of the timing of the Olympics: Was Juan Cole correct to suggest that the Olympic Games should be rescheduled so they did not fall in Ramadan?
The fact that the "Law of Necessity" allows Muslims to get around restrictions suggests that although it might certainly have been thoughtful or considerate, it would not in any way necessary to reschedule the Olympics for the sake of Muslim religious sensitivities.
The possibility of balancing necessities needs to be taken into account when organizations and governments are faced with demands that they make concessions for the sake of complying with Islamic Sharia Law. Because the Islamic "Law of Necessity" fully permits Muslims to find creative ways to adapt when Sharia law conflicts with practical life, the argument that societies are obliged to make concessions to privilege all the strict demands of Sharia Law is considerably weakened.
Non-Muslims in particular need to take balancing necessities into account. Consider Sheikh Ahmed al-Mahlawi of Egypt who accepts that it is not a sin for Muslim religious scholars to see women in the streets with unveiled faces: the need for Muslim scholars to get around in public places outweighs the prohibition against men seeing women's unveiled faces. He boasted, all the same, that he had compelled a US consular official to wear the hijab [headscarf] when she met with him. If the U.S. official had been better informed, she might have asked that Sheikh al-Mahlawi take a more moderate, balanced approach. She might have refused to submit to the hijab, pointing out that the Sheikh copes very well with looking at the unveiled faces of women whenever he goes into the street.

Balancing Necessity and Terrorism

Al-Qaradawi concluded that although it is wrong in general for Muslims to participate in non-Islamic governments or to make alliances with non-Muslim nations, compromises may be made when such lesser evils are 'balanced' against the greater good of the Muslim cause.
He also made the observation that many of the conflicts between different factions working for the success of Islam exist because of different interpretations about how to "balance" the different necessities and interests in Islam. Of course, Muslims who agree on their fundamental principles of faith can have very different views on how to balance these beliefs in any given situation.
Jihadi [holy war] martyrs make use of theological balancing necessities when they justify their methods for killing enemies. In Islam, for example, it is forbidden to kill oneself, but suicide, if it can be justified in the cause of Allah or furthering Islam, is not only permissible but heroic. Jihadi clerics are more than willing to write fatwas which ensure that a would-be martyr goes to his death with a clear conscience.In Islam, it is forbidden to kill women and children, but "collateral damage" is acceptable if a greater end is in sight. It is also forbidden in Islam to lie, but it is recommended that a pious jihadi using taqiyya [dissimulation] if necessary to achieve, say, a "martyrdom operation." The Al-Qaeda manual, for instsnce, appeals to the principle that "necessity permits the forbidden" to justify criminal acts; and the Indonesian jihad cleric Abu Bakar Bashir argued that jihadis were entitled to hack foreigner's bank accounts to obtain funds (see The Crime-Terror Nexus, New York State Office of Homeland Security). (For a bizarre example of the extremes to which jihad fatwas can go, see this report by Raymond Ibrahim.)
The ramifications can be momentous for Muslims and non-Muslims alike: consider the difference in opinion between the Saudi leaders and Usama Bin Ladin concerning the presence of American soldiers in the Kingdom after the invasion of Kuwait. Bin Ladin opposed this infidel 'occupation'. In his 1996 fatwa declaring war on America he counted the presence of US soldiers as "one of the worst catastrophes to befall the Muslims" since the death of Muhammad.
Saudia Arabia's Grand Mufti and supreme religious authority Sheikh Ibn Baz, however, allowed American troops into Saudi Arabia, although in another fatwa he had stated that Christian servants could not be employed in Arabia:
"It is not allowed to have a non-Muslim maid. It is not allowed to have a non-Muslim male or a non-Muslim female servant, or a worker who is a non-Muslim for anyone living in the Arabian peninsula. This is because the Prophet Muhammad ordered the Jews and Christians to be expelled from that land. He ordered that only Muslims should be left there. He decreed upon his death that all polytheists must be expelled from this Peninsula. (Islamic Fatawa Regarding Women, p. 36 compiled by Abdul Malik Mujahid).
Both Usama Bin Ladin and the Saudi authorities agreed on the principle that infidels could not be permitted to live in Saudi Arabia. What they disagreed on was how to balance this against other requirements, such as the need to safeguard the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This difference was enough to trigger Bin Ladin's war on America.
What distinguishes a jihadi terrorist from a more peaceful Muslim, therefore, may not be any fundamental difference in belief, but, as in the West, merely in a given instance, how the religious legal principles of his faith should be applied.
Mark Durie is an Anglican vicar in Melbourne, Australia, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum.
Related Topics:  Mark Durie

Germany Tackles Islamic Radicalization

by Soeren Kern
July 30, 2012 at 5:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
"The long-term strategic objective of these Islamist organizations is to destabilize and democratically and liberally elected states and to influence political decision-making." — Report, German State of Lower Saxony
The German state of Lower Saxony has published a practical guide to extremist Islam to help citizens identify tell-tale signs of Muslims who are becoming radicalized.
Security officials say the objective of the document is to mitigate the threat of home-grown terrorist attacks by educating Germans about radical Islam and encouraging them to refer suspected Islamic extremists to the authorities.
The move reflects mounting concern in Germany over the growing assertiveness of Salafist Muslims, who openly state that they want to establish Islamic Sharia law in the country and across Europe.
The 54-page document, "Radicalization Processes in the Context of Islamic Extremism and Terrorism," which provides countless details about the Islamist scene in Germany, paints a worrisome picture of the threat of radical Islam there.
The document states: "The threat posed by Islamic terrorist organizations continues apace, and the risk of radicalization and recruitment by Islamists continues unabated. Young Muslims are being courted by Islamist propaganda. The threat level in Western countries has escalated to a higher level. A particular risk increasingly stems from self-radicalized individuals or small groups without formal networks of connections. This poses special problems for law enforcement. The long-term strategic objective of these Islamist organizations is to destabilize democratically and liberally oriented states and to influence political decision-making."
The document continues: "Islamist terrorism poses a significant threat to the internal security of Germany. National security authorities have identified at least 235 Islamists with German citizenship who have sought or received paramilitary training in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. It is assumed that more than half of these individuals have returned to Germany. Of these, approximately ten are currently in prison. There is a very real danger that these individuals have returned to Germany with the aim of committing acts of terrorism."
According to the report, German security agencies estimate that approximately 1,140 individuals living in Germany pose a high risk of becoming Islamic terrorists. The document also states that up to 100,000 native Germans have converted to Islam in recent years, and that "intelligence analysis has found that converts are especially susceptible to radicalization…Security officials believe that converts comprise between five to ten percent of the Salafists."
The document provides a frank assessment of political Islam. It describes Islamism as "a political ideology that disputes the constitutional order of the Federal Republic of Germany. Unlike secular extremist ideologies like Communism or National Socialism, which are not based on religious ideas, Islamism is based on the religion of Islam. At the core, Islamists advocate a politicized form of Islam. Religion for them is not only an individual matter of faith, but Islam is seen as a comprehensive political-religious societal concept. Islamist organizations and movements, despite their differences, all seek to create societies based on the legal system of Sharia. This law divides people according to their beliefs, their gender and their relationship to the Islamic state in different legal categories. It rejects the idea of democratically legitimized governance, particularly by non-Muslims over Muslims, because only Allah is recognized as a sovereign. Thus Islamism, with its strict commitment to Sharia, is directed against the Constitution and the rights and freedoms guaranteed therein, equality and respect for human rights. The Islamic idea of a theocratic state and social system is also opposed to the principle of popular sovereignty and the separation of powers."
The document also includes a list of 26 "possible characteristics of radicalization processes" to help German citizens identify potential radicalization.
Some of the items on the list include: "critical questions about Islam are viewed as an attack on the addressed person or group; questioning certain views on the interpretation of Islam is interpreted as a betrayal of the group; increasingly stringent interpretation of religion; rejection or aggression against anything "Western;" Islam is the solution, the so-called Western world is seen as the cause for all the problems; dualistic worldview, applying a strict friend-foe schema; repeating Islamist slogans; religious strictness is required of the entire society; Muslims with different orientation (that is, Shiites) are called infidels."
Other items on the list include: "visiting radical mosques or Islamic or preachers; participating in religious seminaries with radical preachers; solidifying contacts with other radical extremists and individuals; visiting Islamist websites; watching films that promote violent jihad; increasing willingness to aggressively and violently enforce religious or religiously colored political claims on others (possibly by also increasing interest in weapons); potentially criminal activity against property and persons with reference to the inferiority of the so-called infidels and/or committed to harm the alleged enemies of Islam; implementation of survival training, combat training or similar paramilitary activities; frequent and/or lengthy trips to countries with majority Muslim populations, particularly language classes, visits to paramilitary training camps; preoccupation with life after death or martyrdom; changes in financial position (no verifiable income or sudden debt)."
Not surprisingly, the document has been greeted with outrage by Muslims, who have accused the government of Lower Saxony of "scare-mongering." The opposition Social Democratic Party (SPD) has described it as "absurd" and "outrageous."
Interior Minister Uwe Schünemann has rejected the criticism; he says he has no intention of withdrawing the document, which is part of a concerted strategy by German officials to step up their monitoring of Salafist groups after a series of violent clashes with police.
In May, for instance, more than 500 Salafists attacked German police with bottles, clubs, stones and other weapons in the city of Bonn, to protest cartoons they said were "offensive."
The clashes erupted when around 30 supporters of a conservative political party, PRO NRW, which is opposed to the further spread of Islam in Germany, participated in a campaign rally ahead of regional elections in the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW).
Following the fights -- in which 29 police officers were injured, two of them seriously -- a video surfaced on the Internet by a known terrorist, the German-born Yassin Chouka, a member of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region.
In the German-language video, Chouka calls for members of PRO NRW and German media to be killed. He also urges the Salafists to move away from street confrontations, where the risk of being arrested is great, and instead to target PRO NRW members in their homes and workplaces.
In nation-wide raids on June 14, over 1,000 German police searched about 70 Salafist homes, apartments, mosques and meeting places in seven of Germany's 16 states in search of evidence that would enable the German government to outlaw some of the dozens of Islamist groups operating in the country.
Announcing the crackdown, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said he had banned a Salafist group called Millatu Ibrahim, based in the western city of Solingen. "The Millatu Ibrahim group works against our constitutional order," he said, "and against understanding between peoples." Among other things, Millatu Ibrahim teaches its followers to reject German law and to follow Islamic Sharia law, and that "the unbelievers are the enemy."
Friedrich also said that the raids in Bavaria, Berlin, Cologne, Hamburg and North Rhine-Westphalia, among other locations, may unearth evidence that would allow outlawing two other Salafist groups, the DawaFFM and "Die Wahre Religion" [DRW, "The True Religion"].
In a June 8 interview with the newspaper Die Welt, Interior Minister Friedrich said: "Radical Salafism is like a hard drug. All of those who succumb to her become violent."
Friedrich also said the recent Salafist attacks on German police show "that the threshold for violence has decreased in an alarming way. There can be only one answer: The government must make it clear with all the force of the law that our democracy is fortified. Salafists fight the liberal-democratic legal system and in its place want to introduce their radical ideology in Germany. But we will not let that happen. We will defend our freedom and our security with all our might."
Soeren Kern is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.
Related Topics:  Germany  |  Soeren Kern

The Circumcision Debate in Germany, Austria and Switzerland

by Veli Sirin
July 30, 2012 at 4:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Medical researchers have affirmed that circumcised males are less susceptible to sexually-transmitted diseases and to penile cancer; yet only 11 percent of German males are circumcised.
A German regional court held at the end of June that circumcision of males, practiced by Jews and Muslims, is a "bodily injury" of the child and punishable as a crime. German political leaders reacted against the opinion, and the probability that it would portray today's Germany in a negative light. The court order will likely be nullified definitively by the German parliament and constitutional court, but anti-circumcision policies have spread to Switzerland and Austria as well.
A month later, on July 20, the German federal parliament, the Bundestag, passed a resolution calling for the protection of the rights of Jewish and Muslim parents to circumcise of their male offspring with medically-qualified personnel. A draft law guaranteeing these religious liberties has been proposed for introduction this autumn.
The action by German politicians was followed, however, by news that two medical institutions in Switzerland, the Children's Hospital in Zurich and the St. Gallen teaching hospital, decided temporarly to suspend circumcision of infants unless medically necessary.
Then, on July 24, came an order by Markus Wallberg, governor of the western Austrian province of Vorarlberg, also prohibiting the circumcision of males for non-medical reasons in all public hospitals, pending clarification of the German situation.
The Cologne case originated in November 2010, when a four-year old Muslim boy was circumcised at a clinic in the city, on the request of his parents. After two days, because the child was bleeding, the parents took him to the emergency room at the University Hospital of Cologne.
The public prosecutor in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia filed a complaint against the doctor who performed the procedure. The lower, district court determined in June 2012 that the doctor was blameless, and the doctor was acquitted. The district court held that circumcision was a form of "bodily injury," but was justified by the approval of the parents, the cultural prevalence of circumcision among Muslims, and evidence of medical advantages among circumcised males.
Medical researchers have affirmed that circumcised males are less susceptible to sexually-transmitted diseases and to penile cancer. Der Spiegel acknowledged that "It remains undisputed that circumcision leads to better hygiene and can also be helpful in preventing some forms of cancer," but noted that while common in the U.S., Israel, Muslim countries, and elsewhere, male circumcision is less widespread in Europe. Currently, about 55 percent of newborns in the U.S. are circumcised. Only 11 percent of German males are circumcised.
The public prosecutor in North Rhine-Westphalia appealed and the case was moved up to a regional court. The regional court also rejected the charge against the doctor in the matter, ruling that the "grey area" of legal uncertainty about male circumcision left the practitioner innocent. The judges, however, reaffirmed that, as a precedent for the future, circumcision was a form of "bodily injury" that was not justified by the parents' wishes, and was unnecessary for the health of the child.
The regional court determined that the child's "right to physical integrity" was more important than the constitutionally-guaranteed religious rights of the parents. The judges held that the religious freedom of parents, and their right to decide how to raise their children, would not be restricted if they were compelled to wait until the child himself decided whether he wanted to be circumcised. As described by the German weekly Der Spiegel, the court concluded that "a child's right to self-determination should come first."
The regional court opinion did not apply to the whole of Germany. But the Berlin Jewish Hospital announced that in accord with the law, it would suspend circumcision for religious purposes.
The controversy brought universal condemnation of Germany by Jewish and Muslim representatives, who were joined by Christian religious leaders in condemning the court action. Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that the criminalization of circumcision could make Germany a "laughing-stock" of the world. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle pointed out that it would harm Germany's efforts to present itself as a tolerant country. Many commentators agreed that the court opinion was especially problematic because of Germany's history of anti-Jewish genocide during World War II.
Religious leaders were more severe in their comments. Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, President of the Conference of European Rabbis, called the court decision the worst attack on Jews in Germany since the Holocaust. Noting that the opinion was based on the ostensible rights of the child, Rabbi Goldschmidt warned that "the language of the human rights" is a new medium for anti-Jewish prejudice.
The Central Council of Muslims in Germany denounced the regional court decision as a "blatant and inadmissible interference" with parents' rights. It stated, "Freedom of religion is highly valued in our constitution and cannot be the plaything of a one-dimensional case law which, furthermore, consolidates existing prejudices and stereotypes."
Among German Christian religious authorities, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Aachen, Heinrich Mussinghoff, described the regional court ruling against male circumcision as "contradicting basic rights on freedom of religion," adding that the court argument about "the well-being of the child" was "not convincing." A legal affairs official of the German Evangelical Church, Hans Ulrich Anke, said the ruling did not "sufficiently" take into account the religious importance of the ritual.
The case opened many areas for contention, including the belief that children have a "right to self-determination," what the limits of such "self-determination" would involve, and whether parents have a right to raise their children in the religious traditions parents choose. In addition, Catholic, Protestant and some Muslim exponents viewed the decision as reflecting growing disregard for religious sensibilities rather than as an expression of anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim prejudice. Finally, the link between Jews, numbering about 200,000 in Germany, for whom circumcision is a religious obligation, and Muslims, numbering at least four million in the country, among whom circumcision is required or recommended, according to different Islamic interpretations, raises questions about the security of both minorities, and potentially of others, in maintaining their religious practices.
Rabbi Goldschmidt, in an address to a conference of European Orthodox rabbis in Berlin, called on them to defy the German law and to continue circumcising newborn boys. He told the group that if the law is enforced, "it would mean that a large part of the (Jewish) community does not have a future in Germany."
Similarly, Serkan Tören, a Turkish-born representative of the centrist Free Democratic Party, which governs Germany in a coalition with the larger Christian Democratic Party, warned that "a ban on circumcision would be the clearest signal to the Muslims in our country that they are not part of Germany, that they are not even welcome."
Legal obligations and guarantees of human rights should be universally applied – but these should include mutual respect between religious and non-religious people, and members of differing religious communities. Germany would do well to examine thoroughly, respectfully and seriously, the beliefs of its Jewish and Muslim citizens about the circumcision of their sons, not to mention the unquestionable medical advantages. In favoring the freedom of parents to choose circumcision, Germany will rid itself of an absurd and unnecessary diversion at a time of much greater political and financial responsibilities both in Europe and the world.
Related Topics:  Germany  |  Veli Sirin

A Truly Heroic Sportsman

by Michael Curtis
July 30, 2012 at 3:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Gino Bartali was a modest man who, during World War II, helped save 800 Jews from death.
Gino Bartali, the legendary Tuscan Italian cyclist who died in 2000 and is acclaimed in his home country of Italy, but less well known internationally, is a heroic figure, not only in his sport, but even more outside of it, as documented in a recent biography.
Bartali's greatest sporting feats as a cyclist were to win the Tour de France twice, in 1938 at the age of 24, and in 1948, and the Giro d'Italia three times. His skill as a cyclist was widely admired, especially for his winning three consecutive mountain stages of the Tour in 1948, a feat that remained unequalled until Mario Cipollini's four consecutive sprints in 1999.
However Bartali is even more worthy of admiration for his heroic wartime activity. More deadly than the Italian cycling rivalry between Bartali and Fausto Coppini -- with the country divided into "bartalini" and "coppini" adherents -- was the wartime division between fascists and partisans. Bartoli, an active member of Catholic Action and a Tertiary of the Carmelites, kept his distance from Fascist authorities and refused to dedicate his cycling triumphs to Mussolini as the Duce expected.
Bartali was a modest man who helped save 800 Italian Jews from death. After Nazi Germany had occupied Italy in the fall of 1943, Bartali was asked by the Archbishop of Florence, Cardinal Elia Dalla Costa, to help supply local Jews with food, shelter, and false identity papers. Bartali's Jewish friend Giacomo Goldenberg, just outside Florence, in Fiesole, informed him about the Holocaust that was under way, and the danger to the Jewish community. The Nazis at the time were deporting 10,000 Italian Jews to death camps.
Bartoli, though aware of the danger; with a wife and two year old son, and as a member of the Assissi underground resistance, distributed funds to Jewish families hiding in Florence, and helped Jewish refugees escape through the Swiss Alps.
Wearing his racing jacket with his name on it, he made over 40 cycling trips between Florence and Assisi -- a trip of 110 miles – and carried false documents in the tube of his cycle as far as Rome. He took photos and paper to the Resistance's clandestine printing presses, which produced the forged documents by which Jews could conceal their identity. It was revealed only in December 2010 that Bartoli had also saved the lives of a Jewish family by hiding them in a cellar in Florence.
Although Bartali was often stopped on his trips by the Fascist police force, he managed for some time to avoid arrest. At last he was questioned by the notorious and brutal Major Mario Carita, head of the Florentine secret police who, with his gang o 200 fascists, pursued Jews and anti-fascists, imprisoned for over a month, but was never tried and was later released.
For his deeds and courage as a man who dedicated himself to saving others, Bartali has been honored by a tree planted in his name in his hometown of Florence, and has been nominated as one of the Righteous among Nations at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem.
By contrast, a man who has no claim to be honored is Jacques Goddet, the French sports journalist and director of the Tour de France from 1936 to 1986, years in which Bartali won twice. At best, Goddet's record during the Vichy regime in World War II can be viewed as ambiguous. He protected the Tour de France from collaboration with the Nazis; President Jacques Chirac called him one of the inventors of French sport. At worst, however, he can be seen as a personal collaborator in the most despicable event in France.
As a journalist, Goddet, at least in the first years of Vichy, expressed strong support for Marshal Petain. The Marshal, he wrote, was giving France a purifying bath. Goddet, more of a right wing traditionalist rather than a Nazi or Fascist, claimed to be upholding the true patriotic intentions of the old soldier.
Goddet will, however, always be infamous for having handed over the keys to the Velodrome d'Hiver ( "Vel d'hiv"), the Parisian cycling stadium, when the Nazis wanted to intern thousands of Jews there. Goddet never clearly explained his behavior on this occasion. This concession can be regarded as the single most appalling even in the story of Vichy. On July 16, 1942 the French police, together with French fascists and the Nazi SS, arrested 13,000 Jews in Paris. About 8,000 of them were confined to the Vel d'hiv before being sent, via Drancy, to Auschwitz and other camps.
After the war Goddet was charged with collaboration, but through the intervention of friends, especially Emilien Amaury, he was not punished. The bitter end of this story is that on July 16, 2012, the Amaury Sports Organization (ASO), which now runs the Tour de France, refused to commemorate the event which had discredited France seventy years earlier at the Vel d'hiv, the stadium which was torn down in 1959.
It is good to remember, therefore, that other people displayed such surpassing courage, such as the hero, Gino Bartali.
Michael Curtis is author of Should Israel Exist? A Sovereign Nation under Attack by the International Community.
Related Topics:  Michael Curtis
You are subscribed to this list as vicky13@rogers.com.
To edit your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posted by solsticewitch13 at 10:46 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)