Fear and Loathing in the USA

I received this piece via email yesterday, and thought that Rabbi Warshal's comments were worth sharing. Make no mistake about what this movement is, regardless of the legitimacy it has been granted by the "mainstream media." The people who are arguing against this community center are not being good Christians or Jews. They are not being patriotic. They are not using "common sense," unless that refers specifically to the lowest common denominator of society.

They are succumbing to politically motivated fear mongering. This is not a new practice. We know what it is, and how effective it can be. We can see it in some of the most horrendous events of the last century, from Rwanda to Bosnia, and from Germany to Argentina. We can see it in the opportunistic use of anti-Americanism in places like Iran and North Korea. We can see it in many many places in which political entrepreneurs use fear and loathing of an "other" in order to whip their population into a frenzy such that the power of said political operatives is increased. That is it. Nothing more.

In this case, Americans with political motivations, who whether sincere in their loathing of Islam or not, understand fully the power of promoting fear and a sense of insecurity amongst the wider population. Most people who are selling and buying this line of argument have very little understanding of either Islam or transnational terrorism. Yet they either are scared or benefit from people being so. It is, as the Rabbi says, shameful. It is disgusting. And it is dangerous.

Here is Rabbi Warshal's piece, which originally appeared in the Florida Jewish Journal:

Shame on America , Jews & the ADL

By Rabbi Bruce Warshal*

To begin, the mosque controversy does not involve a mosque. It is planned as a 13-story community center encompassing a swimming pool, 500-seat performing arts center, gym, culinary school, restaurant and, yes, a prayer space for Muslims, which already exists in the current building. A formal mosque would forbid eating or the playing of music on the premises. I guess that we are now at the point in America where Jews can have our JCC’s and Christians their YMCA’s, but Muslims are not wanted.

There is also the controversy over the proposed name, Cordoba House. The hate-mongers have described this as a reference to Muslim designs to attack western culture, hearkening back to the Muslim-Christian wars of domination in medieval Spain . The name was chosen for precisely the opposite reason. In the tenth century Cordoba was the center of the most liberal and sophisticated Caliphate in the Islamic world. All religions were not merely tolerated but respected.

The caliph, Abd al-Rahman III, had a Jew as his foreign minister and a Greek bishop in his diplomatic corps. He also had a library of 400,000 volumes at a time when the largest library in Christian Europe numbered merely 400 manuscripts. There were also 70 other smaller libraries in Cordoba . The very reference to Cordoba reflects the sophistication and liberality of the Muslims behind this project. They have changed the name of the center to the address of the building, Park 51, to deflect criticism. This was unfortunate, since nothing will quiet a hate-monger.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam behind the proposed community center, has been attacked as an Islamic terrorist, even though he is a practitioner of Sufi Islam, which reaches out to all other religions as manifestations of the Divine. My God, the conservative Bush administration utilized Rauf as part of an outreach to the Muslim world. You can bet your life that he was thoroughly vetted by our government. He is currently being used by the Clinton State Department as well in the same capacity. Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek and CNN succinctly put it, “His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.”

And what is Rauf’s sin? He will build a Muslim community center two blocks away from Ground Zero, variously described as a “hallowed battlefield,” “holy ground,” and a “war memorial.” Even President Obama in his defense of religious freedom commented that, “Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.” I beg to differ.

If Ground Zero is holy ground, then the railroad station in Madrid , the Underground in London , the federal building in Oklahoma City , the Pentagon (where there is presently a prayer space for Muslims – yes, patriotic, religious Muslim Americans work at the Pentagon) and every other physical location that has been the object of terrorism is holy ground. If Ground Zero is holy space why plan for it to be developed with office buildings (in which the object will be to amass money – obviously a holy pursuit), a shopping center (in which consumer goods will be peddled to continue to gorge the American appetite for material possessions), and with a theater for modern dance (a project to which I personally look forward as a devotee of the Joyce, the modern dance Mecca of New York)? I’m sorry, but someone has to tell America that this designation of holy space is merely part of a mass hysteria that really scares me.

The question which must be asked is why this hysteria? The impetus comes from a triumvirate of right-wing Christians, Jews and politicians. Fundamentalist Christians are still fighting the crusades, still vying to convert the world to their truths. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, to the distress of these Christian proselytizers. What better way to win this battle than to brand all Muslims as terrorists?

Right-wing Jews think that they are doing Israel a favor by painting Islam as a terrorist religion thereby proving that Israel need not negotiate with the Palestinians. The idea is to project the concept that we are civilized and they are not. This theme is picked up in the right-wing press of Israel . Commenting on the New York proposed “mosque,” a columnist in the Jerusalem Post declares that “Islamism is a modern political tendency which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930’s and ‘40’s.” Ground Zero isn’t Israel ’s “holy ground.” Why would he be involved with this discussion? Simply because right-wing Jews in Israel as well as the United States believe that demonizing the religion of 1.3 billion people is good for Israel . God help us.

Right-wing politicians join the fray. On Fox News Newt Gingrich compares a mosque at Ground Zero to Nazis protesting at the United States Holocaust Memorial. The Democrats are cowed by the American outpouring of hate and even Harry Reid voices disapproval of the Park 51 site. It’s a perfect storm of hate.

Periodically we go through this in America . The anti-Catholic No-Nothing party ran ex-President Millard Fillmore in the presidential election of 1856 and garnered 27 percent of the votes. We deported over 10,000 people during the First World War because they opposed our entry into that war and we incarcerated loyal Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Now during this “war on terror” I shudder to think where we are headed.

The tool used in this hate campaign is the concept of collective guilt. Based on that, all Jews are traitors since Ethel and Julius Rosenberg sold out this country. All Christians are terrorists sinceTimothy McVeigh attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City . Neither are all Muslims traitors nor terrorists. Islam is not monolithic. Its forms are as varied as Judaism or Christianity. I do not practice Judaism the same as a Satmar Hasidic Jew. A Catholic does not practice Christianity the same as a Jehovah Witness. Imam Rauf does not share the same Islamic beliefs as bin Laden.

Of all people Jews should beware of collective guilt since we have suffered from it for millennia. Yet the organization that started this hysteria is headed by a right-wing Jewish supporter of Israel by the name of Pam Geller. She is quoted in the mainstream media (including the Jewish Journal) as if she is a legitimate political voice. Yet on her blog, Atlas Shrugs, she has declared that “Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcom X.” She has written that we have “an American-hater for president.” She has proposed that devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. She asks, “Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?” To all of the rabbis quoted in the Jewish Journal urging that the “mosque” be moved, know who is pulling your strings.

Finally, to the role of the Anti-Defamation League and its director, Abe Foxman. The world was literally “shocked,” that’s the word used by the Associated Press, by ADL’s call for the mosque to be moved. Fareed Zakaria called it a “bizarre decision.” Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, said, “Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational.” Referring to loved ones of the September 11 victims, he continued: “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

How dare Foxman use the Holocaust to justify prejudice. He does blasphemy to the memory of Jews and other oppressed minorities whose lives were sacrificed on the altar of bigotry. Zakaria responds: “Does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?”

Five years ago the ADL honored Zakaria with the Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. Incensed over ADL’s succumbing to bigotry, he has returned the award with the $10,000 honorarium that came with it.

The last word was recently written by Daniel Luban, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago , in Tablet Magazine: “While activists like Pam Geller have led the anti-mosque campaign and the broader demonization of Muslims that has accompanied it, leaders like Abe Foxman have acquiesced in it. In doing so they risk providing an ugly and ironic illustration of the extent of Jewish assimilation in 21^st-century America . We know that Jews can grow up to be senators and Supreme Court justices. Let’s not also discover that they can grow up to incite a pogrom.”

Race and Political Subtext

There has been a lot of talk this week about the issue of race in American politics. It is not necessary to run through the political hack job that Andrew Breitbart and FOX News did on Shirley Sherod, and the follow-on rush to judgment (cowardice) by the White House, the N.A.A.C.P., and the Department of Agriculture.

This all followed on to an N.A.A.C.P. condemnation of racist elements within the Tea Party movement. This was greeted with shock and dismay by spokespeople like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Later, the movement had to jettison Mark Williams and his Tea Party Express given his clear demonstration of outright racism in the form of his self-authored 'note from N.A.A.C.P. head Ben Jealous to President Lincoln'.

Whether or not or to what extent the Tea Party movement is inclusive of a racist element is really not the central issue, in my mind. The problem with such an angle is that it avoids the broader issue. That is that there is clearly a significant segment of the population that is disposed toward a pretty high level of racial animosity - a level that most Americans are uncomfortable discussing. The Tea Party and much of the concern that is being expressed over growing government programs, spending, and debt relates to an important discussion too. But the visceral nature of the language and the response by too many people, as well as the lack of reason that is demonstrated in their accusations and conspiratorial ideas about the Obama administration bespeaks troubling levels of fear and disdain.

One could chalk up the vitriol to concerns about socialism, or oppressive government, or too little attention to the border, etc. if it were not for two uncomfortable things: (1) the level of hatred that is being spewed by this movement is not consistent with its response to the same sorts of policy orientations by the previous administration, and (2) the issue of race just keeps emerging in overt as well as more subtle ways in the opposition's narrative.

I found Professor Harris-Lacewell's comments in the Hardball segment posted below to be particularly thought-provoking. While I think that it is going too far to say that reverse racism is a complete myth, I do think that a couple of her points are right on the mark. First, the fact that the story got the initial reaction and coverage that it did reflects the reality that a sizable portion of American society operates at a steady simmer about what it believes to be double-standards when it comes to race. These double-standards relate to both opportunities and standards.

The opportunities narrative is displayed clearly in the clip from the movie, Crash. The narrative is in many ways a reaction to and resentment over affirmative action programs. It is one that I frequently hear in public and private discourse. It comes in many forms, some of which I genuinely believe are quite reasonable. It also often comes in the form of personal experience in which one strongly feels that he/she was 'passed over' because he/she was up against a minority (perhaps even one who is viewed by the offendee as less qualified). The core perception is that minorities get jobs and promotions unfairly. The resulting common assumption is that black people in high positions got there because of race, not ability. Such was part of the context, I think, with Shirley Sherrod. The lens through which many people saw the small segment of her speech was one that held that she did not belong in the job she was in in the first place.

The other part of the opportunities narrative that people are less open about is the perceived exploitation of public programs by minorities. This view is typically bolstered by anecdotes about black mothers (in particular) with multiple children who are abusing the social welfare system, and is generalized as a systemic reality. One can see this demonstrated in Mark Williams' letter mentioned above.

But is the opportunities narrative really valid in broad terms? I don't mean do you know someone or were you personally 'passed over' by an affirmative action hire or promotion. I mean in the broad terms that relies upon such individual stories and generalizes them into a more systemic truth.

Look at outcomes and overall experience. Don't limit yourself to before the Civil War. Don't stop at the Civil Rights Movement. Don't even stop when you find out that the U.S. elected a black president. Look at in terms of socio-economic, health, educational, criminal justice, or whatever other data you want to. Once you have done that, in all honesty answer the following question. Do 'they' really have it so easy, and get all the breaks?

The standards narrative is even more relevant to the Sherrod story. The subtext was that she was an angry black woman who operated out of spite for white people. It is easy to jump to such a conclusion when you are already operating from the assumption that this 'reverse racism' permeates black society in America, and the clip that 'we' saw was a window into how 'they' talk about us when we're not there. As Harris-Lacewell argues, this was the reason for the resonance among the same group when Michelle Obama said that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."

Second, the assertion that such expressions of criticism and even anger by black people reflects racism rather than a justifiable resentment about one's experience as a minority - and particularly a black minority - in the United States, is as ridiculous as it is widespread. To argue that there are not both historic and contemporary reasons for such a perspective is to stand in the face of facts and say, "but I heard on (name your favorite pundit's show) that this one black woman was totally doing (choose your favorite stereotypical tendency), and that this is part of a big trend." As Harris-Lacewell points out, the utitlity of this belief is that it justifies one's own racist feelings by working on the assumption that everyone really is kind of racist.

I heard someone say once that slavery is America's original sin. The racial division that was borne out of this historic wrong has permeated American society since that time. It is an issue that we have not for a long time had open and honest conversations about. Many of us like to tell ourselves that it is a problem that has gone away. It seems to me that the Sherrod story and its underlying subtext is evidence that it has not.

I intend to post another blog soon relating to the parallel story that is being ginned up by FOX News and the standard sources about the Obama administration's dual treatment of civil rights offenses, as displayed by the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation. Needless to say, I think that the very same subtexts can be seen underlying the accusations that are being made. I began this blog thinking it was going to be short and to the point. It is clearly not, and there is more to be said. I will continue to do in coming blogs.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What's in a Name?

My recent travels brought me back to the U.S. with a group of 20 AUS students. I and two other faculty members in the International Studies Department accompanied these students to Boston, where they participated in the Harvard Model United Nations. What an adventure it was for us all, and quite a learning experience for our students.

To begin, we were all booked as a group on a flight from Dubai to Washington, and then from Washington to Boston. But this was during the blizzards that hit D.C. and the east coast during February. So we woke up on our day of departure to find out that the flight from Dubai to Washington had been canceled, and that we all had been broken up into separate flights. Given that the three of us faculty members were responsible for accompanying the students, this was clearly not going to work. So I spent that day getting us all booked onto the same Swiss Air flight to Zurich and then to Boston. Great!

Well, after a series of additional mishaps between that point and Zurich that I won't go into, we did in fact arrive in Switzerland at approximately 5 in the morning. Our departure for Boston was at 9 that night. Great! A free day in Zurich right? Wrong. Because of where most of our students are from (around the Middle East and South Asia), they needed a Schengen Visa to get into Zurich. And of course, given that we did not ever plan on being in Europe, we had not gotten those. No problem. We could just hang out at the airport, wander around the shops, and eat at the restaurants for the day, right? Wrong. The students needed a Schengen Visa to enter the main part of the airport as well.

So we all remained in a lame corner area of the airport for the day, watching as flight after flight to the U.S. was canceled, awaiting our ultimate notification that ours was too. Without going into the grueling details of what transpired once our flight was canceled, the bottom line is that we got booked on the same flight out at 9 pm the next night and were placed in the political asylum dorm with other refugees. That's right. We stayed in the asylum. I had the pleasure of sharing a bunk bed with a Serbian refugee from Kosovo. I shudder to imagine what this guy was running away from. But there we were...

Eventually we did make it to Boston though. Of course, there was not a flake of snow on the ground. Thanks to the mayor for the unnecessary state of emergency having heard that there might be a snow storm.

Once there, the students really did have a great experience. I think that the most rewarding thing to see was the transition from a high level of anxiety among our students as they were preparing for their first session. They were clearly intimidated by the idea that they were going to go in and engage in debates with these kids from Harvard and other Ivy League schools. We told them not to worry, just to go and do their thing. And when they returned from that first session, the transformation was amazing. They came to us excitedly describing how they were so much more prepared than those other students. "The don't know what they're talking about." We told them to let that be a lesson never to be intimidated just because of a name. I think that this alone was worth the trip.

The final thing that I will say is that these kids are truly amazing. They dealt with the difficulties and disappointments (and trust me, some of them are not accustomed to slumming it like we did) with fantastic attitudes. I was so proud to take them to the program, and hope that we are able to again next year.

Making Another Go At This Thing

So here goes nothing. My last post was in September, and came just as I was getting settled in Sharjah. It was my intent to post somewhat regularly to provide an ongoing glimpse into the experience here in UAE and the many things that I am learning. It also was meant to provide a forum to work through some of the issues that I am thinking about and working on with respect to world politics. As I said, that was around 5 months ago.

So being prone to over-analysis (and unwilling to admit to slacking), I have decided that the big sticking point is feeling too much pressure to post something extensive and profound every time. Given that I am not always feeling so profound and energetic in the later evenings (when I usually have time to do this), I have generally opted not to blog as a result.

I have determined though that such depth is not necessary in every blog. After all, it is just a blog, right? That being said, I am going to make an effort to try to do this more regularly. And just maybe there will be a gem every now and then.

I feel motivated, as I often do when I return from ISA. Something about being around lots of people who are working on interesting stuff gets me motivated myself. And aside from the normal energy I get from this, I am again reminded about the value and timeliness of the Regional Powers and Security Framework. I will be writing more about each of these things, as well as the experience of taking a group of 20 AUS students to the Model UN program in Harvard in the coming days.