Godheval

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.

«

Read More »

Castro’s success in his revolution, and the long-standing government that followed, in achieving a better livelihood for his people, is subject to debate.  There are arguments both that favor him and condemn him, from Cubans and foreigners alike.  The former refugees who relocated to the United States have mostly condemn Castro and his regime, while most people still living within Cuba appear to support him.  However, those still living in Cuba who do not support Castro may not be the most vocal, so it is hard to garner a true consensus.

Regardless of Castro’s success as a leader, the one thing that is certain, is that the U.S. embargo has been devastating to Cuba.  As Lugar has pointed out, it has done absolutely nothing to accelerate Cuba’s move towards “democracy” – a term here that means “government amenable to U.S. ideology and interests”.  But since this much became clear one, five, ten, and twenty years after the sanctions were imposed, one has to wonder why U.S. officials are now coming to this realization – or at least acknowledging it publicly.

With the U.S. economy in shambles, it is unlikely that this potential ideological shift is an unrelated phenomenon.  The Senate Republicans have drafted a report called Changing Cuba Policy — In the United States National Interest, the mere title of which makes it clear that this shift would have at least as much to do with the United States’ personal interests as it does with ameliorating the gross injustices perpetrated against the Cuban people.

If this does signal a new era of U.S.-Cuban relations, it will be interesting to see how the dialogue is framed – whether the U.S. will eat crow after all the rhetoric on democracy.

«

Read More »

Today, as I read extensively about the Palestine-Israel conflict and more on the background of the general tension between the so-called “Muslim world” and the west, I often run into the term Islamist.  And everytime it stands out like a beacon.  The term is taken by those knowledgeable in these matters to mean “Islamic radical”, or a person who generally perverts the foundational messages of the religion towards political ends, and often in violent ways.

There are two problems, however, with using the term.  The first is that the suffix “ist” is not an adequate substitute for “radical” or “militant”, although perhaps it could be argued – spuriously – that it is the last three letters of “terrorist”, which for all intents and purposes is what Islamist is meant to infer.  For those who know very little or nothing about Islam – which is probably the majority of non-Muslims – “ist” does absolutely nothing to separate the religion from the violent activities conducted in its name.  The uninformed person is not likely to recognize the difference between “Islamist” and “Islamicist”, the latter being a person who engages in the academic study of Islam.  Nor are they likely to know the difference between “Islamist” and “Muslim”.  And in a climate ripe with anti-Islamic sentiment, the uninformed and angry have very little incentive to make the distinction.

The second problem is that Islam is mentioned at all when discussing radical, militant, or terrorist activities.  Because as I mentioned above, a more thorough investigation into the relationship between the religion and violence is tenuous.  That an ideologue like Osama bin Laden recites – or misreads – a passage from the Qur’an does not bind the rest of his words or his actions to Islam.  In any case, he cites the Qu’ran very little in his communications, either because his knowledge of Islam is wanting, or because he does not wish to expose the dubious connection between the religion and his personal ideology.

Most Muslims – for whom Islam is an inexorable part of their cultures and lifestyles – do not associate the words or actions of a bin Laden with their faith.  And they are surprised and offended whenever that connection is made.  Imagine, if you are an average American citizen, with no involvement in politics or the military, being labeled an imperialist by others around the world simply because you live in a country which many regard as the modern day empire.

As you consider the inadequacy of that classification – unless, of course, you are an imperialist – multiply that inadequacy by about four.  America is home to about 300 million people, at least some of which certainly are imperialists.  But those few do not necessarily speak for the majority.  The same is true for Islam and radicals, except to a greater extent, since there are around 1.2 billion Muslims, and probably fewer of them who are radicals, terrorists, and militants, than there are Americans who support imperialism – if only implicitly.

So with that said, what need is there to use the term “Islamist” in discussing the actions of a Hamas or a Hezbollah or a Lashkar-e-Taiba?  For these three groups in particular, all of which with varying degrees of legitimacy are considered terrorist organizations, Islam has little to nothing to do with their stated motivations.  The actions of Hamas have everything to do with the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.  The actions of Hezbollah purport to represent the people of Lebanon, particularly in their relationship with Israel.  And Lashkar-e-Taiba – those responsible for the Mumbai attacks – acted in response to the relationship between Pakistan and India.

Regardless of how we see these organizations, whether as terrorists or radicals or a militant resistance, it is important to separate their actions – almost always politically motivated – from their religion, unless the two are truly inexorable.  Otherwise we risk maintaining an unnecessary distance and animosity between people who apart from their particular beliefs and practices, have many of the same needs and values.

It is the responsibility of a lawful and moral press to bridge that distance, to squelch that animosity, by providing the information we need to better understand our surroundings and the people who occupy them.

An example of how to provide information constructed with the appropriate cultural and/or religious context is this article by the Washington Post discussing pending peace talks between Hamas and Israel.

«

Read More »

Today the Associated Press reports that the Israeli Defense Forces, in their continuing incursion into Gaza, attacked the United Nations headquarters, destroying large supplies of food intended for the suffering Palestinians.  That, along with a hospital, five high-rise apartment buildings and a media outlet, appear to be the latest in a list of targets that have nothing to do with Hamas and the stated purpose of the offensive.

This raises the question of whether or not Israel is simply incompetent – in killing more civilians than soldiers and “accidentally” destroying benign civilian infrastructure – or merely careless and arrogant in its apparent infallibility.  Interestingly enough, the associated press article goes on to reiterate the purpose of the Israeli offensive:

[A]n effort to stop militant rocket fire from Gaza that has terrorized hundreds of thousands of Israelis.

In characteristic fashion, in the same virtual breath as it reports an obvious offense on the part of Israel, the press seems to want to justify it by overstating the causes.  “Hundreds of thousands” of Israelis are being terrorized by Hamas rockets?  Really?  The latest reports say that altogether Israel has had thirteen casualties – three of which were civilians killed by the rockets, the others Israeli soldiers who fell during the ground offensive.  Three of those were killed by friendly fire – perhaps further evidence of incompetence.

No loss of innocent life should be dismissed as insignificant, but there is a matter of proportionality to be discussed here.  Hamas, in spite of representing a legitimately aggrieved Palestinian citizenry, was misguided in launching its rockets.  However, they also appear to be quite inept, failing to hit any meaningful targets.  Israel, who has them out-manned, out-gunned, and seems to have the moral imperative of “infallibility”, has killed as many as 1,100 Palestinians, more than half of which have been civilians – and too many of which have been children.  There simply is no argument that can be made to justify Israel’s exaggerated response to the utterly ineffective actions of Hamas.

That Hamas continues to launch rockets – and continues to miss everything that matters – shows not only the kind of illogical reasoning that inspires terrorism, but the clear sense of desperation felt by the Palestinian people.  It can be only foolish pride or a sense of having nothing more to lose that an organization would invite upon itself complete annihilation.  Either that, or a desperate last ditch appeal to the world community to pay attention to the chronic injustices that continue to plague the people of the Gaza strip.

But that plea continues to be ignored due to the self-victimization of Israel – affirmed by the mainstream press corps – and the infallibility license extended by the rest of the world.  If the United States can be maligned by the global community for the ill-motivated war in Iraq, then why can’t that same sense of right and wrong be applied to Israel?  What is it about that little country that gives it carte blanche authority to violate every established moral and legal convention of the civilized world?  And what is it that makes us – the rest of the world – so complicit?

It must be the power of infallibility.

«