Godheval.net

Read More »

Nowhere in these statements does Ahmadinejad disparage Jewish people. Nowhere does he make any sweeping negative statements about any people or culture. In fact, he even seems to reverse his previous stance as a Holocaust denier by acknowledging – twice – that the Jews suffered much during World War II. Note the phrases “Jewish suffering” and “dire consequences of racism” – both referring to the Holocaust. He then goes on to say that under this pretext – pretext not pretense – Israel has gone on to establish a racist government, that is, one that is anti-Palestinian.

Anti-Semitism, which for reasons unknown as been given its own separate status apart from prejudice of any other kind, has come to mean not only racism towards Jewish people, but any sort of condemnation of the state of Israel or its government. This is a strange phenomenon which has allowed Israel to be cavalier on the global stage, for to speak out against their actions means the possibility of being dubbed an Anti-Semite. One can even be an Anti-Semite by association, it seems, as Israel condemned Swiss president Hans-Rudolf Merz – host of the event – for even meeting with Ahmadinejad.

The diplomats who walked out – and they were out of their chairs within seconds after Ahmadinejad started speaking – had already made up their minds about what he was going to say, and must not have heard his actual words.  If they had, could they honestly deny that Israeli aggression towards Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank – looks even a little like racism?  Could they deny the overtly racist statements of one Avigdor Lieberman – an influential member of the Knesset – who is unapologetic in his Anti-Arab rhetoric, going so far as to say that Arab Israelis (not Israelis in general) should take a test of their loyalty to Israel in order to retain their right to vote?

How could anyone capable of such a denial, in good faith, attend an anti-racism conference?  It is a strange sort of thing when people acknowledge racism where it is to their political advantage, but ignore it otherwise.  It is also a very common thing.

If Anti-Semitism is saying anything negative about Jewish people or the state of Israel, then how can defaming, oppressing, and killing Palestinians not even be considered within the context of racism?

«

Read More »

President Shimon Peres of Israel

What he said:

“I think the Iranian nation will topple these leaders – leaders that do not serve the people. In the end, people will understand this.”

and:

“To our dismay, our diplomatic relations are at a low point flowing from the desires leading the current leaders of your land to act in every way possible against the state of Israel and its people, but I am confident that the day we are hoping for is not far, when the good neighborly relations and the cooperation will flourish in all fields for the welfare of our nations and for the betterment of our common future.”

Why he should shut up:

Today President Obama released a video calling for a new relationship between the United States and Iran, a symbolic gesture given that it came on Nowruz, the start of the Iranian new year.  Obama, as usual, was savvy and tactical in giving his speech, even going as far as to refer to Iran by its official name – the Islamic Republic of Iran, something which shows recognition of its current leadership.  It is under this current leadership – following in the wake of the revolution of 1979 – under which Iran-U.S. relations deteriorated, beginning with the hostage crisis that same year, and perhaps culminating in George W. Bush naming Iran a member of the “Axis of Evil”.  Obama’s gesture throws such combative rhetoric out the window by accepting and acknowledging the current leadership in a proactive way.

Unfortunately, Peres timed his comments to coincide with those of Obama, as if he were joining in this venture towards peaceful collaboration.  The trouble is that while Obama’s words were friendly and optimistic, those of Peres were critical and condescending.  Not only does he take legitimacy away from the Iranian leadership by suggesting that the people will overthrow them, but he places the blame for poor relations between Iran and Israel solely and squarely on their shoulders.

One would think by listening to Peres that Israel was a country singlemindedly dedicated to Middle East peace, while the Iranian leadership are merely the antagonists standing in the way of that goal.  It would seem to imply that Israel’s own actions played no role in its adversarial relationship with Iran or other Arab nations, which is not only ridiculous but offensive.

Furthermore, Peres seems to be suggesting that at least since 1979 the people of Iran have been misguided in their acceptance of the current leadership, and that is only a matter of time before they become “enlightened” and see things the right way (i.e. the Israeli way), and overthrow those leaders.  Such an implication undermines the overwhelming public support that came behind the 1979 revolution, and the judgment of the Iranian people in selecting their Presidents since then.  Oh, poor misguided Iranians, one day you will see the truth!

At a time when any peace in the Middle East is tenuous, the next phase of war only an impulse away, the country at the center of the tensions might not want to get on the high horse when speaking to those who view it as the antagonist.

So President Peres, with all due respect, please shut the hell up.

Pope Benedict XVI

Ever since taking over the papacy in April 2005, the new Pope has become notorious for making controversial statements.  In October 2006, he quoted a 14th century emperor – who at the time was at war with the Muslim Ottoman Empire – saying:

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Within the context of the intensely adversarial relationship between that Christianity and Islam through the proxy of the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires, the quote’s obvious bias can be understood.  In 2006, without any pretext, Benedict’s use of the quote was irresponsible and offensive.

Most recently, during a trip to Cameroon, he said:

“HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.”

These comments, which fly in the face of every scientific conclusion with regards to condoms and HIV prevention, place ideology above practicality. Such comments, made by a figure of immense visibility and influence, to the people of a region where millions are infected with HIV/AIDS, are outright dangerous.  They undermine the efforts of health workers and global initiatives to combat the deadly disease.

All for the sake of pushing for abstinence, a position the Pope also says should be taken by homosexuals indefinitely in order to uphold the mandate of the creation, but on which, hypocritically, he was more lenient when it came to the moral weaknesses – i.e. pedophilia – of his fellow clergymen.

As his tour of Africa continued, the Pope offered some additional words of wisdom, this time drawing upon the church’s pro-life ideology:

“Today it is high time to place greater emphasis on this: every human being, every tiny human person, however weak, is created in the image and likeness of God.  [...] Every person must live. Death must not prevail over life. Death will never have the last word.”

Actually, sir, death by its very definition does have the last word.  Now while I recognize that he is invoking the Christian ideal of an afterlife, a person so focused on the afterlife might not be the best one to talk to those who are struggling to survive in this life.  In talking about earthly issues such as abortion and the AIDS epidemic, it might be prudent to limit the discussion to this realm.

And so, your Holiness, with all due respect, just shut the hell up.

«

Read More »

Speaking of prejudices, another interesting point was made by Andrew Liepman, deputy director for intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center.  He said:

The potential terrorist indoctrination and recruitment was a consequence of these clusters, and is the product of “the refugee experience of fleeing a war-torn country combined with isolation, perceived discrimination, marginalization and frustrated expectations.

“Perceived discrimination” is a troublesome phrase, because it eliminates by default the suggestion that the discrimination was real.  It suggests that not only did Liepman consider discrimination as a potential cause for radicalization, but that he then consciously decided that it was only a matter of Somali perception.  He could’ve simply said that the Somalis face discrimination – something no one would’ve doubted – without any additional qualifiers.  It could’ve been left to the audience to decide whether or not it was real or perceived.

To downplay the possibility of discrimination as a mere matter of Somali perception is to potentially ignore a critical aspect of their experience.  Xenophobia, after 9/11, has reached new heights, and so it is not only possible, but likely that Somali-Americans experience discrimination as a result of this fear.  Nevermind the prevailing prejudices that mark the experiences of anyone considered “black” in the United States.  Perceived discrimination indeed, Mr. Liepman.

It is all too common for members of the demographic majority, who are not likely to experience any meaningful discrimination, to downplay the discrimination of minorities as either exaggerated or as cases of “hypersensitivity”.  This turns responsibility for discrimination away from the perpetrators and towards the aggrieved, in effect blaming them for their own negative experiences.  Framed within a discussion about homegrown terrorism, this diminishes any attempts at empathy, and bolsters the case for considering Somali-Americans a threat, because not only are they frustrated and isolated, but also delusional.

Ultimately, in identifying discrimination as a risk factor for radicalization, it doesn’t even matter whether it is real or perceived, and either way suggests a need for a more equitable interface between the Somali-American community and the greater American society.

If we are going to dismiss any or all experience of discrimination as existing only within the perception of the aggrieved, then perhaps this rising threat of homegrown terrorism is a mere matter of perception as well.  At what point does a problem cross over from simple perception to a living breathing phenomenon?  Is it only when it affects the demographic majority?  Which then is more real, the “threat” presented by innocent Arab and Muslim American citizens in the aftermath of 9/11, or the prejudices those Americans have faced since that fateful day?  Which then, was a mere matter of perception?

Shirwa Ahmed, if we can even be certain that he was involved in the Hargeisa-Bobaso bombings, would be the only known example of terrorist threat emerging from the Somali-American community.  It is important to note in this case, that the attacks were conducted in Somalia, probably in response to the lingering tensisons and political instabilities there.  It is not completely unreasonable for a recent Somali transplant, culturally isolated in the United States, to seek purpose in his homeland, where his memories and emotions are still tethered.  None of this implies that any other individual with similar experiences would turn any such frustration or isolation into a desire to attack the United States.

Connecting terrorist activities in another country to the fears of potential terrorist attacks in this country is not only reckless, but intellectually irresponsible.  At the same time, to dismiss what may be a very real experience with prejudice as only a matter of perception is to ignore one of the factors that may make certain members of the Somali-American community susceptible to radical ideology.

Terrorism is too often viewed as a random and/or purely evil act, with no precedent or rational cause.  There is no group of people, national, cultural or religious, that in itself presents a greater threat of terrorism than any other.  It is always the situations surrounding a group that increases the risk – situations that create fear, desperation, or a hopelessness so pervasive that death becomes a viable option.  Addressing the problems facing any community before they become risk factors is vital to reducing the threat of terrorism.  Addressing a problem begins by acknowledging it, rather than dismissing it as a mere matter of perception.

«

Read More »

So I would like to discuss some of these perceived memes, in hopes of better understanding them, and perhaps not allowing them to color my perceptions of Jewish people.  Note that I say “perceived memes”, as I recognize that these things may not be characteristics of Jewish culture, but just how things look to me from the outside.

1) Extreme Ethnocentricism – Jewish ethnocentrism seems to reach the point of perceived ethnic superiority, including thoughts of being a “chosen people”.  Solidarity for the sake of preserving one’s culture or heritage makes sense, but Jewish ethnocentrism seems to take on a self-righteous bent.

2) Anti-Semitism – To my knowledge, this is the only term for prejudice against a specific group of people, all other forms of prejudice categorized under the general “isms”.  If that weren’t enough, there’s the matter of this term being used at countless turns, where Jewish people, their culture, or the state of Israel are criticized – a “politics of Anti-Semitism” if you will.  Other minority groups are called hypersensitive for referring to their experiences with prejudice, but Jews seem to get endless sympathy in cases of so-called Anti-Semitism.

3) Zionism – To be frank, I do not think that the state of Israel should have come into being at all.  It was an initiative started far earlier than the gross atrocities of the Holocaust, which only placed an exclamation point at the end of every justification for creating a Jewish state.  If it had to be created, then perhaps out of fairness, it should’ve been carved out of Nazi Germany.  That it was created in Palestine – a place which had nothing to do with World War II – only highlights the fact that it was based on pre-existent Jewish claims to the land.  Zionism seems to run strong amongst Jewish people, which as a consequence often means disregarding the lives of Palestinians.  Now that Israel does exist and is not likely to go anywhere, I concede that peace will necessarily include a safe and prosperous Jewish state.  Still, Zionism seems to prioritize the prosperity of the Jewish state over all else.

4) White Privilege/Minority Victimization Duality – Jewish people have the unique advantage of being able to (in most cases) claim white privilege, while at the same time being able to count themselves as an aggrieved minority.  I do not begrudge them the latter, because the more people in the fight against prejudice the better, but far too often have I seen it where white privilege is the default position, with claims to victimization brought to bear against situations of “Anti-Semitism”.  Along with this comes the idea that the Holocaust was the foremost example of human cruelty the world has ever seen, and having overcome it, Jews set the example by which others should follow, in “getting over” their own hardships.

These four perceived memes are the most prominent in my thinking, and will hopefully serve as a good start to the conversation – that is, if anyone is willing to have it.  My intentions in writing this essay are not – I emphasize, NOT – to lend any legitimacy or support for real Anti-Semitism.  On the contrary, I am putting my thoughts on display here in hopes of deconstructing and eliminating prejudice through understanding.

«