Muslim female doctor: “To save Islam, Muslim children must learn truth about the Shoah” (& “Sorry, Charlie”)

May 05, 2015

Qanta Ahmed: “While the Shoah may seem remote, within Islamism, lethal anti-Semitism thrives anew”

 

* Pakistani-British physician Qanta Ahmed (who has previously written a book about her experiences as a female doctor working in Saudi Arabia): “I first met Wilhelm Lerner at the Jewish Holocaust Center in Melbourne. Two months later, I retraced his steps at Auschwitz. There, Shoah survivors I had treated on both sides of the Atlantic returned to my physician’s memory: a bronchitic British woman betrayed by tattoos; in New York, an octogenarian ‘hidden child;’ and an insomniac nonagenarian, each vivid landmarks in my life of medicine. But it was as I studied the half-demolished crematoria that my motives for traveling to Auschwitz became clear.

“As an observant Muslim deeply opposed to Islamism, I must confront not only crematoria old, but crematoria new… While the Shoah may seem remote, within Islamism, lethal anti-Semitism thrives anew… In lending anti-Semitism false religious legitimacy, faith-illiterate Muslims are beguiled into to accepting anti-Semitism as Islamic creed, a grave distortion of Islam which, in the Koran, documents Jews as Peoples of the Book; their Prophets, Moses and Aaron, as Holy both to Jews and Muslims; and their Torah as divine and as much a legitimate path to God as the Koran…

“Every Muslim must experience [learn] the history of the Shoah in order to demolish these falsehoods... It is as essential for a Muslim child to learn of the Shoah as it is for a Jewish child. Our survival, whether as Muslims or as Jews, depends on examining and sharing the historical truth of the Holocaust. Only when a Muslim is allowed to learn the history of the Holocaust can he or she expose Islamist Holocaust deniers as fraudulent imposters, and differentiate manmade Islamism from Islam as it was revealed in the Koran.”

 

* UK taxpayers fund ‘pro-terrorist’ play: £15,000 of public money from the Arts Council England is to be given to show based on the words of Hamas killers in a ten-city UK tour starting in Manchester on May 13.

 

* Haaretz: “The indirect talks between Israel and Hamas on a long-term cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, which have been reported primarily in the Arab media, are ultimately likely to produce an agreement. Such a deal, if achieved, would significantly affect the balance of power among Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and could also affect the close ties between Israel and Egypt…

“Such a deal could appeal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, because it would enable him to portray last summer’s war in Gaza as a long-term achievement instead of a highly controversial, unfinished job. Just as former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert retroactively defended a much worse war, the Second Lebanon War of 2006, by boasting of the quiet on the northern border since then, Netanyahu could retroactively justify the Gaza war on similar grounds and say Hamas’ agreement to a long-term cease-fire proved that Israel won…”

“An indirect deal wouldn’t require Netanyahu to make any major concessions like recognizing Hamas or ceding territory. Moreover, it would enable him to outflank PA President Mahmoud Abbas and rebut some of the international criticism of his lack of movement on the Palestinian front.”

 

* Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “Radical Islam is the issue that dare not speak its name in this [British] election [on Thursday]. Voters say they regard the NHS, immigration and the economy as the three most important issues facing Britain. Islamic extremism does not even make the top ten. To anyone watching from abroad, this seems bizarre.

“The problem in the UK is personified by Mohammed Emwazi [“Jihadi John”], the murderous Islamic State executioner who grew up in London and has a degree from the University of Westminster. Fusilier Lee Rigby and the aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning are only the best known British victims of the jihadists… Only David Cameron can tackle the scourge of Islamic extremism in Britain.”

 

* Tom Gross writes: I attach five articles below (and summaries above) from the British, American and Israeli press, three of them published today. Two are follow-ups to items 1 and 7 in this dispatch last month: Israel’s secret cooperation with Hamas revealed (& Khamenei: Obama “oppresses” blacks)

You can see additional items not in these dispatches if you “like” this Facebook page www.facebook.com/TomGrossMedia.

 

CONTENTS

1. “Islamist anti-Semitism: Confronting Holocausts past and potential” (By Qanta Ahmed, Haaretz, May 5, 2015)
2. “UK taxpayers fund ‘pro-terrorist’ play: £15,000 of public money given to show based on the words of Hamas killers” (By Nick Craven, The Mail on Sunday, May 3, 2015)
3. “Analysis / Secret talks hold hope for lengthy Hamas-Israel truce” (By Amos Harel, Haaretz, May 1, 2015
4. “Sorry, Charlie Hebdo: Western writers abandon their support for free speech” (Wall St Journal editorial, May 5, 2015)
5. “Only one party will tackle the Islamist threat: David Cameron recognises that Britain faces a battle of ideas, not just of preventing terror” (By Ayaan Hirsi Ali, The Times of London, May 5, 2015)


“IT IS AS ESSENTIAL FOR A MUSLIM CHILD TO LEARN OF THE SHOAH. ONLY THEN CAN HE OR SHE EXPOSE ISLAMIST HOLOCAUST DENIERS AS FRAUDULENT IMPOSTERS.”

Islamist anti-Semitism: Confronting Holocausts past and potential
By Qanta Ahmed
Haaretz
May 5, 2015

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.655066

“From time to time, the officers’ dogs would get sick. One day, the SS officer told us, ‘Bury the dog where the dogs are buried,’ signaling to the body of his German shepherd. We buried the dog, and returned to the hut. Later that night, a prisoner came to find me. He whispered, ‘If you help me dig up the dog, I will give you a piece.’

“That night, we returned to the place where the dogs were buried. The ground was frozen. Somehow, we dug up the dog. Dividing the body between us, I took a piece of the dog back with me to my hut.

“I had a pot which was tied here to my waist.” Willie pointed to his left hip. “I got some snow from the ground and put it in the pot. Inside, I made a fire to melt the ice. I put the piece of dog into the pot. I had saved some salt from the ground.” He smiled, remembering his ingenuity of 70 years earlier. “The Nazis used salt to stop the ground cracking in the winter, a pink salt. Scraping it up from the ground I had saved some. I added it to the pot. Then, I waited.

“It was so cold, and the piece of dog was so frozen, that it took hours. I sat over the fire, fighting sleep as the pot was cooking, but, believe me, the hunger was so great, I stayed awake. Finally, I could drink the soup. I had been so hungry, I finished it all.”

We both fell silent. Ninety-year old Willie stretched to his full six-foot two. Assessing my frame, he made his final remark:

“At the end of the Holocaust I weighed 38 kilograms. That’s less than you weigh now.”

I first met Wilhelm Lerner at the Jewish Holocaust Center in Melbourne. Two months later, I retraced his steps at Auschwitz. There, Shoah survivors I had treated on both sides of the Atlantic returned to my physician’s memory: a bronchitic British woman betrayed by tattoos; in New York, an octogenarian “hidden child;” and an insomniac nonagenarian, each vivid landmarks in my life of medicine. But it was as I studied the half-demolished crematoria that my motives for traveling to Auschwitz became clear.

As an observant Muslim deeply opposed to Islamism, I must confront not only crematoria old, but crematoria new. Days before my travel to Auschwitz, Jordanian pilot Lt Muath al-Kaseasbeh had been cremated alive in a cage to an audience of Islamists. While the Shoah may seem remote, within Islamism, lethal anti-Semitism thrives anew.

The kingpin of Islamist ideology is cosmic anti-Semitism – that which is pursued as a divine mission to combat a cosmic, not mortal, enemy. In contrast to the Nazis, Islamists render the hatred of Jews a religious creed, adding to its ferocity and their own fanaticism. In lending anti-Semitism false religious legitimacy, faith-illiterate Muslims are beguiled into to accepting anti-Semitism as Islamic creed, a grave distortion of Islam which, in the Koran, documents Jews as Peoples of the Book; their Prophets, Moses and Aaron, as Holy both to Jews and Muslims; and their Torah as divine and as much a legitimate path to God as the Koran.

In contrast, Islamism, a political totalitarian ideology masquerading as Islam, reminds us that what was once past, as Shoah, becomes newly possible in the present. Islamists, whether violent or nonviolent, rely on Holocaust denial to augment their lethal anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli fanaticism. Holocaust denial is used to recruit Hamas foot-soldiers: because the Holocaust “wasn’t real,” Islamists argue, Israel was created on “false pretenses.” In that context, it becomes increasingly legitimate to seek the destruction of Israel.

Every Muslim must experience the history of the Shoah in order to demolish these falsehoods – both those that are constructed of my Islamic faith and that of my sibling faith, Judaism. It is as essential for a Muslim child to learn of the Shoah as it is for a Jewish child. Our survival, whether as Muslims or as Jews, depends on examining and sharing the historical truth of the Holocaust. Only when a Muslim is allowed to learn the history of the Holocaust can he or she expose Islamist Holocaust deniers as fraudulent imposters, and differentiate manmade Islamism from Islam as it was revealed in the Koran.

Even as we mark 70 years since the liberation of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, around the world countless Muslims are intellectually straitjacketed by Islamist ideology. They are indoctrinated with a false, manmade supremacist outlook that breeds enmity with not only non-Muslims but all Muslims who do not conform to Islamism. Because of Islamism, too many Muslims are caged in the cultivated, un-Islamic hatred of Jewry and Judaism. Today’s purveyors of anti-Semitism, today’s indoctrinators and propagandists fueling anti-Semitism, are Muslim Islamists, not European Nazis. Only by freeing Muslims from the ideological shackles of manmade Islamism can we return to divine, pluralistic Islam. And in our return to pluralistic Islam, bring Islamist ideologies to rubble ensuring the crematoria of old may never be raised anew.

 

BRITISH TAXPAYERS MONEY (YET AGAIN) TO BE USED TO PROMOTE PRO-HAMAS PROPAGANDA

UK taxpayers fund ‘pro-terrorist’ play: £15,000 of public money given to show based on the words of Hamas killers

* Arts Council England is funding a UK tour of their play, called ‘The Siege’
* Tells of 2002 stand-off when Israeli troops cornered gunmen in Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem
* Play is based on accounts of Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade militants
* Jewish leaders fear taxpayers might be funding play promoting ‘terrorism as legitimate’

By Nick Craven
The Mail On Sunday (UK)
May 3, 2015

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065771/UK-taxpayers-fund-pro-terrorist-play-15-000-public-money-given-based-words-Hamas-killers.html

British taxpayers are to fund a play sympathising with Palestinian terrorist groups who have murdered civilians and carried out suicide bombings on crowded commuter buses.

Arts Council England is handing over £15,000 to producers of a unashamedly one-sided drama based on accounts from the gunmen and bombers of Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade.

The money will fund a UK tour of their play The Siege, telling of a 2002 stand-off when Israeli troops cornered militants in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, worshipped as Christ’s birthplace.

The production has already received cash from the British Council and the EU for performances in the Palestinian territories, and the new handout will fund a ten-city UK tour starting in Manchester on May 13.

Jewish leaders last night raised ‘extreme concern’ that the British taxpayer might be funding a play promoting ‘terrorism as legitimate’.

In publicity for the play, Hamas and Al Aqsa Brigade terrorists are merely referred to as ‘fighters’ with no acknowledgement of their cold-blooded murder of civilians.

The siege lasted 39 days and only ended when 13 of the ring-leaders were allowed safe passage and deported to various European countries. It is from these men’s accounts that the play’s script has been woven together.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry insists that all the men have blood on their hands, but two in particular have admitted as much.

Their leader, Ibrahim Abayat, exiled to Zaragoza in Spain, told the New York Times that he and his men shot and killed a female Israeli settler near Jerusalem in 2002. The Israelis say he was also involved in countless other atrocities.

Another of the exiles, Jihad Jaara – who went to Ireland – also told journalists that he kidnapped and murdered 71-year-old Avi Boaz, a Jewish US citizen living in Israel.

Among the other atrocities linked to some of the 13 is a suicide bombing in a Jerusalem suburb in March 2002 which killed 11 Israelis.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said: ‘We would be extremely concerned if British taxpayers were funding a play that promoted terrorism as positive and legitimate.’

The play’s British co-director, Zoe Lafferty, left no doubt where her sympathies lay, saying Palestinians pick up arms ‘not because they’re crazy religious fanatics [but] to defend their families’.

She said last night: ‘This production is pro-human rights, pro-justice and pro-equality. Our work is trying to talk about the truth of what’s happening on the ground and counter the propaganda that’s constantly being directed at the Palestinians.’

Asked if the play was pro-terrorists, she said: ‘That’s just insulting and comes from a very biased misunderstanding of what we’re doing. To have to engage in whether Hamas and the Al Aqsa Brigade are terrorists is the wrong question to ask.’

Arts Council England confirmed the grant but said it was ‘not our role to censor the artists’ message.’

The British Council confirmed they had given £14,000 for the West Bank tour, adding: ‘We also support projects in Israel.’ The EU did not reply to a request for comment.

 

WILL ALL BE QUIET ON THE GAZA FRONT?

* Tom Gross: This is a follow up to my dispatch of April 27:
Israel’s secret cooperation with Hamas revealed (& Khamenei: Obama “oppresses” blacks)

***

Analysis / Secret talks hold hope for lengthy Hamas-Israel truce
Indirect negotiations going on for months; Hamas political wing in favor, Mohammed Deif and military wing opposed.
By Amos Harel
Haaretz
May 1, 2015

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.654429

Far from the public’s eye, negotiations are happening that could, under certain conditions, effect an important change on the Palestinian front. The indirect talks between Israel and Hamas on a long-term cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, which have been reported primarily in the Arab media, are ultimately likely to produce an agreement. Such a deal, if achieved, would significantly affect the balance of power among Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and could also affect the close ties between Israel and Egypt.

The talks have been conducted intermittently for months. Media reports say numerous intermediaries are involved, including officials from the United Nations, Europe and Qatar. Thus the talks are happening via several different channels, with only partial coordination among them.

The goal is to extract a commitment to a humanitarian cease-fire from Hamas, perhaps accompanied by third-party guarantees. Hamas would promise to refrain from any hostilities against Israel for a given period, possibly three to five years. In exchange, Israel would significantly ease its partial blockade on Gaza and take other steps to help Gaza’s economy. Later – though this seems unlikely – Israel might even reconsider ideas it has rejected in the past, like letting a seaport be built in Gaza under external supervision.

Such a deal could appeal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, because it would enable him to portray last summer’s war in Gaza as a long-term achievement instead of a highly controversial, unfinished job. Just as former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert retroactively defended a much worse war, the Second Lebanon War of 2006, by boasting of the quiet on the northern border since then, Netanyahu could retroactively justify the Gaza war on similar grounds and say Hamas’ agreement to a long-term cease-fire proved that Israel won.

An indirect deal wouldn’t require Netanyahu to make any major concessions like recognizing Hamas or ceding territory. Moreover, it would enable him to outflank PA President Mahmoud Abbas and rebut some of the international criticism of his lack of movement on the Palestinian front. And if Netanyahu thinks tensions with Hezbollah might lead to war in the coming years, a long-term cease-fire in Gaza would temporarily relieve the army of a headache and let it focus on the far more dangerous enemy to the north.

Hamas’ political leadership in Gaza apparently favors a deal. After three military conflicts against Israel in less than six years, each of which wreaked devastation in Gaza, it seems unlikely that Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and his colleagues would want another round anytime soon. Khaled Meshal, the Qatar-based head of Hamas’ political wing, also seems to have moderated the hardline positions he took during the war a bit; this might be connected to the rapprochement between Hamas’ political wing and Saudi Arabia.

At the moment, Hamas seems readier to accept a deal than Israel is. Some Israeli defense officials think it’s better to continue the status quo, with minor changes, than to tie Israel’s hands with rigid obligations.

But in any case, numerous obstacles remain. The PA objects vehemently, fearing a deal would bolster Hamas at its expense and perpetuate the freeze in its own talks with Israel; this has been reflected in the West Bank’s negative press coverage of the emerging deal. Ramallah accuses Hamas of abandoning the demand for a solution to the Palestinian problem and of acquiescing in the separation of Gaza from the West Bank.

Egypt, which recently deferred legal proceedings for declaring Hamas an illegal terrorist organization, also remains skeptical of Hamas’ intentions.

But the principle obstacle is Hamas’ military wing. On Wednesday, the Israeli media reported that military wing leader Mohammed Deif, who survived an Israeli assassination attempt during last summer’s war, had resumed full-time activity. Deif dragged Israel and Hamas into the last conflict by planning a tunnel attack near Kerem Shalom in early July, then escalating after the army thwarted the attack.

Since the military wing is currently at loggerheads with the political leadership and has also renewed its ties to Iran, one can confidently assume it isn’t enthusiastic about the idea of a long-term truce. Thus, as the negotiations progress, the chances of the military wing launching attacks on Israel in an effort to thwart it increase.

The military wing is working hard to restore its operational capabilities, which suffered substantial damage during the war and have also been harmed by Egypt’s clampdown on arms smuggling to Gaza. Though Hamas is now churning out its own rockets in Gaza, they don’t match the capabilities of the arms it used to smuggle from Iran. But rebuilding its network of attack tunnels has proved easier, and it’s reasonable to assume Hamas will try to use them if another war breaks out.

 

NOT EVERYONE IS CHARLIE

Sorry, Charlie Hebdo
Western writers abandon their support for free speech
Wall Street Journal editorial
May 5, 2015

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sorry-charlie-hebdo-1430783250

Je suis Charlie. French for “I am Charlie,” the phrase became a global expression of solidarity and resolve after Islamist gunmen murdered 12 people at the Paris offices of the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo.

In a terrifying copycat attack Sunday in Garland, Texas, two men with assault rifles attempted to gun down people attending an event satirizing Muhammad with cartoons. A single police officer managed to shoot and kill both gunmen before they got inside the event. With some 200 people in the building, the potential for another politicized mass murder was great.

On Monday authorities said one of the gunman, Elton Simpson of Phoenix, had been under surveillance for years because of interest he’d shown in joining jihadist groups overseas. He was found guilty of making false statements to the FBI, but a federal judge ruled there wasn’t enough evidence that Mr. Simpson’s activities were “sufficiently ‘related’ to international terrorism.”

Against this backdrop we have the extraordinary – almost comical – irony of some of America’s bien pensant intellectuals boycotting a ceremony Tuesday by the PEN American Center to confer its annual courage award for freedom of expression on Charlie Hebdo. PEN is an association of writers, and six prominent novelists – Peter Carey,Michael Ondaatje,Francine Prose,Teju Cole,Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi – have been trying to repeal the award for Charlie Hebdo.

Ms. Kusher said she was uncomfortable with the “forced secular view” and “cultural intolerance” represented by Charlie Hebdo, whose signature attacks were on organized religion. Before the boycott, Mr. Cole wrote in the New Yorker magazine questioning the praise for Charlie Hebdo in the wake of the massacre. He lamented that the concern for Charlie Hebdo’s murdered cartoonists won’t be matched by concern for the young men of military age “who will have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere.”

A separate petition signed by more than 200 PEN members complains that their organization is “not simply conveying support for freedom of expression, but also valorizing selectively offensive material: material that intensifies the anti-Islamic, anti-Maghreb, anti-Arab sentiments already prevalent in the Western world.”

Trumpeting the list of petition signers was no less than Glenn Greenwald, last seen lionizing Edward Snowden’s right to go public with information stolen from the National Security Agency’s efforts to track the people who committed the Paris murders and tried to do it again in Texas this week.

Much of what Charlie Hebdo published was insulting and not infrequently obscene. No doubt that was true at the event in Texas. We would not routinely publish it in this newspaper. But insults are protected under the First Amendment. The terrorists who attacked cartoonists in Paris and in Texas hoped that murder would intimidate them – and others – into silence. As such theirs was not merely an attack on a publication; it was an attack on the foundations of liberal democracy.

All this PEN award does is underscore that in a civilized – indeed “tolerant” – society, you don’t get to murder people who insult or offend you. It is a principle that should be easy for everyone – especially acclaimed writers – to understand.

***

* Tom Gross adds:

Among related dispatches, please scroll down to January 2015, and read these:

* “Je suis Raif Badawi” (& Lebanese writer: “We are all ISIS”)

* Paris terror mentor’s wife lives for free on UK govt benefits (& Muslim saved Jews during supermarket siege)

* The future of free speech?

 

AYAAN HIRSI ALI SAYS “VOTE CONSERVATIVE”

Only one party will tackle the Islamist threat
David Cameron recognises that Britain faces a battle of ideas, not just of preventing terror
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The Times of London
May 5th, 2015

With the general election two days away, as many as four in ten voters are still undecided. I believe the choice is an easy one. They should vote to keep David Cameron in No 10 because of his determination to tackle the scourge of Islamic extremism in Britain.

Radical Islam is the issue that dare not speak its name in this election. Voters say they regard the NHS, immigration and the economy as the three most important issues facing Britain. Islamic extremism does not even make the top ten. To anyone watching from abroad, this seems bizarre.

For the past 13 years I have been following closely the rise and spread of Islamic extremism in the West. During that time, I have seen the problem grow in the UK. It is a problem personified by Mohammed Emwazi, the murderous Islamic State executioner who grew up in London and has a degree from the University of Westminster. Fusilier Lee Rigby and the aid workers David Haines and Alan Henning are only the best known British victims of the jihadists.

Most western leaders have been thrown into moral confusion by the rise of radical Islam within their own societies. Mr Cameron is an exception. He has been vocal in his call for the acceptance of Muslims as fellow Britons. He has gone out of his way to include Muslims in his cabinet and in other positions of leadership. He has been meticulous in his choice of language, always stressing the point that British Muslims are a part of the fabric of Britain.

But he has also been one of the first western leaders to admit that multiculturalism has failed as a philosophy. Britain is a place of many ethnicities and religions, he has argued, but there is one dominant culture and that is British.

Mr Cameron empowered Michael Gove, then education secretary, to address the so-called Trojan Horse penetration of the Birmingham schools system by Islamic extremists. Mr Cameron also encouraged Theresa May, the home secretary, to make British anti-terror legislation the toughest in Europe. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act creates a new public duty to prevent people being drawn into terrorism.

On Mr Cameron’s watch, websites promoting Islamic extremism have been targeted and hate preachers kept out or kicked out of the country. The charity commission has also been given new powers to investigate charities with extremist links.

The prime minister has called Islamic extremism “a poisonous ideology” that justifies “the most sickening barbarism and brutality”. If re-elected, he has pledged to come down even harder on those organisations that “stay just within the law but still spread poisonous hatred”.

It takes courage, commitment and leadership to make these hard choices. Contrast this with Ed Miliband, who last month criticised the government’s approach and promised Muslim Newsthat he would make “Islamophobia” an “aggravated crime”. In my experience, the term “Islamophobia” is a ruse to prevent frank discussion of the true nature of Islamic extremism. The disgraced former mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman – who last month was found to have used corrupt and illegal practices – made a habit of accusing his political opponents of Islamophobia.

Voters may not want to face up to it, but Britain has a major fight on its hands to limit the spread of Islamic extremism. Hundreds if not thousands of British citizens have already joined Isis. These young people are not the victims of poverty or social exclusion – they are often from prosperous backgrounds. Their behaviour tells us we are losing the battle for hearts and minds in parts of the British Muslim community.

David Cameron is the first western leader to commit himself to tackling the phenomenon of “non-violent extremism” – the process of proselytisation or dawa whereby Islamists recruit their followers. In other words, the prime minister sees that this is a battle of ideas, and not just a matter of preventing terrorism.

Mr Miliband, by contrast, shows every sign of wanting to turn Britain into France – not only economically, by cranking up welfare spending in the old Labour way, but also socially, by encouraging British Muslims to see themselves as victims of Islamophobia.

For me, the choice is a simple one. On Thursday, Britons can vote for one of the few western leaders who understands that Islamic extremism is to their generation what Nazism was to their grandparents’ generation: a mortal threat to freedom. David Cameron gets it. Ed Miliband doesn’t.

All notes and summaries copyright © Tom Gross. All rights reserved.