Can We Talk?

Islamophobia is bad. It paints an entire population with the faults of some. If most Muslims favor Sharia law and the destruction of Western culture, that is their right. Criticism of their views, however, is not ours. In the United States if there is a verbal expression of anxiety over the fact of Islamic ideas it is considered “hate” speech. If someone labels a terrorist bombing or other incident as a terrorist bombing or other incident, it is viewed by many as Islamophobia and shifts guilt from the bomber to the one speaking. Academia has created “safe spaces” where students, purportedly in universities to learn the views of the world around them, can protect themselves from ideas they don't want to hear.

There is a German song, “Die Gedanken sind frei” – Thoughts are free. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedoms of speech, thought, and religion, but that only seems to apply if the concept you're considering is in fashion politically, and if it can be taken out of context to make a political point or to express something fashionable. You may decry whatever “common knowledge” has decided is evil, but not any thoughts you may have about some taboo topic. Thoughts are free but not their expression.

Muslims participated in slave trade long before it became a way of life in America. And most of the African blacks who wound up here were rounded up by black African leaders who made a great profit from the transactions. We don't talk about that – that part of history is of no interest to us. Rather we undo American history by desecrating and destroying as many as we can of those aspects of the slave trade and the Confederacy with which we disagree. They may have been blights on our heritage (irrespective of how they were viewed at the time), but the blight – and responsibility for indemnification and apology are ours, and not in any way associated with those who sold us the slaves. Vilifying America is virtuous – especially if accompanied by mass action. It is an expression of freedom of speech. But we are not free to question that point of view. We are bigots if we do so. The only thing we're privileged to discuss is what happened in our country, not elsewhere. Context is irrelevant. And discussion of context is forbidden in safe spaces.

Let's take another example. Antisemitism has been around for millennia. And that includes the United States where it can still be found. We don't talk about it. Prejudice against Jews and many other groups – is not a subject of conversation. There is no discussion of “Affirmative Action” anchored in the quotas of the past. It is of no interest to universities. And, of course, what happened to them in the past – history – is not our concern if it doesn't fit into the current narrative. What fits should be excoriated in the names of justice and free speech. What contradicts our current views is hateful and its discussion should be repressed, irrespective of the means necessary.

One more example: whatever is said against blacks or Muslims is hate speech. If it is mentioned at all in the media it is only to be condemned. Better – it should not be mentioned at all. Similar accusations against conservatives, however, are not only legitimate – whether false or true – should be shouted from the rooftops. And those having a different opinion are bigots. Our media tell us so.

Look at the New York Times on almost any day. (That paper is merely my example because I live in New York, but I suspect the pattern holds true in most homes of “liberalism” – the only truly American point of view.) The opinion section is almost entirely about the evils of conservatives and conservatism. It is heavy-handed and it rarely prints contrary ideas, no matter how important and logical the perspectives are – and it's only to provoke outrage among its readers. That's expressed in the letters they choose to print.

Worse. Conservative views are overlooked and even the “objective” articles are filled with the newspaper's opinion (advocacy journalism). Indeed, the choice of what “news” to cover seems to be based on a paper's editorial views, rather than its inherent worthiness.

In short, free speech seems to be limited to politically acceptable ideas. Anything contrary to them is beyond the pale and should be suppressed. In part it's about (political) fashion, but more important it's about the Constitution, and what students nowadays are taught is its meaning and that of the amendments.

Can we talk? Only if you say what I want to hear.

Who's To Blame?

Yesterday was Bastille Day. Ordinarily it would be a day of great joy in France, however there was an attack on revelers then – a fatal attack. At least eighty-four were killed, although there were many injured and the number is likely to rise. The perpetrator drove a truck into those celebrating the holiday, and started shooting them after he left the truck. At the moment the most likely cause, in the view of authorities, is that it is related to a previous episode of “road rage.” That is what is assumed to be the reason for the massacre by a Tunisian citizen. According to official reports, there is no evidence that the killer had any terrorist connections or that this was a terrorist attack.

Last month, in Orlando, Florida, a man attacked the patrons of a night club, killing forty-nine and injuring many others. The man was the son of Afghan immigrants, and he pledged allegiance to ISIS during the spree. The night club was a gay establishment – one which he had attended several times before, yet there are many who view this as an act of homophobia. And there are others who emphasize the point that a Latin American celebration was taking place. They see it is as an attack on the Latin community. An action against “minority” members is a more politically palatable explanation than anything implying that Islamic culture and religion were in any way involved.

There have been several other such incidents which have caused deaths in this, and other countries, and which we have attributed to a wide variety of causes, although we usually obscure the origins and activities of the offenders, trying hard not to mention that the vast majority of them are Muslims. To say so would be evidence that we are Islamophobic for that would be a blemish on us, rather than on the culprits, so we come up with other causes for their actions that distract us from any consideration of the facts. Or we intentionally distort the facts we have; hence there are many who still believe that the events of September 11, 2001 were caused by the United States or Israel.

It's not a surprise that many groups would like to distract us from the actual situation – many in order to get our sympathy for their cause, while others would like us to blame them for the violence. The blame not only gives credence to their movement but also serves as a call to arms and as a recruiting tool. Both distractions present dangers to our society.

Certainly we are threatened by groups that have the goal of disrupting our lives and, ultimately, of defeating our nations. It is a challenge, however, that we are loath to face because to do so would be viewed as evidence of prejudice, and we Americans are not biased people. So it is governmental policy to play down any suggestion of a predisposition of any religious group toward violence, since that would be evidence of our partiality.

Equally deleterious – or, perhaps more so – is the attribution of a problem to a cause other than the one we know to be responsible. We cannot hope to solve a problem whose existence we refuse to recognize or admit. When we claim a problem to be other than it really is, we look for a solution that is not likely to provide any help. And we convince others that another problem exists, or is more severe than we have recognized, and they should turn their attention to that. In addition we give credibility to those who have been making such a claim even if their arguments have been fallacious.

Admit it or not, however, a problem exists. There seems to be a predisposition of Muslims to violence, whether as part of a specific campaign or as a general solution to any perceived injustices. Perhaps it is cultural, perhaps it is provoked, but it is real. As long as we deny the problem we will not solve it. And if we ignore the problem, we are to blame for it.

The Trouble With Israel

The trouble with Israel is that it's a democracy.

That's a little flat-footed and limiting. In fact there are a lot of troubles with Israel (though not as many as with its neighbors), rather than just one, but I'll emphasize democracy both because it's a problem itself, and because it causes other problems. (I'll add some other ideas in a few months.)

Israel has gotten a lot of admiration and support, especially in the United States, from the fact that it is an island of democracy in a sea of monarchies, tyrannies, and theocracies. At least until recently it has. Under the current administration – one that views dialogue with our enemies and distancing ourselves from our friends as the best foreign policy – some of our identification with it is gone, but that does not change Israel's political structure. Like the United States it is an imperfect democracy, but because of the path we have taken we now find it advantageous to emphasize Israel's faults, real and imagined, while ignoring our own, and to trumpet them to whoever will listen.

And Israel's enemies do likewise. Those in the United Nations have institutionalized the condemnation of Israel. The starting point among the nations are the surrounding countries, which call for an end of Israel's “oppressive” policies. Nations that kill their own citizens, promote terrorist organizations, and make war on their neighbors, call for the destruction of the democracy on which they blame their own problems, and whose elimination they claim would solve the region's difficulties. That is the only message they permit to emanate from their borders. Reporters who state otherwise are subject to penalties, and journalists from outside those countries are openly discouraged. Consequently the only negative stories that originate there are those that cannot be suppressed. And, lacking on-site coverage, little negative information is provided the rest of the world. So the world hears little about honor killings, female genital mutilation, internecine violence, and the oppression of women and members of the LGBT community, among other horrors.

But Israel is a democracy. Freedom of the press is one of its hallmarks. And life there is much more salutary than in the adjacent countries. So members of the press, including those barred from Islamic nations, congregate there, with more reporters than in most of the rest of the world. There is a competition for headlines, and what is negative sells best. Thus, from the comfort of their hotels, foreign correspondents compete to tell the world how bad things are in Israel. It's a story that the world – even the democracies – wants to hear. With little information from other Middle-Eastern nations it is easy to construct the evil straw man that the world seeks. If Israel weren't a democracy – if it didn't allow the transmission of negative information – there would be far less for the world to discuss, although they would probably denounce the country for some press limitations, even if they don't follow that policy for those countries that practice censorship now. (But Israel should act like its neighbors. It should be undemocratic. Tyranny. No LGBT tolerance. It should exclude or limit journalists. It should lower the world's expectations. Were Israel a closed society like its neighbors, with no press freedom, it would be of far less interest to some of those who now fault it.)

The press also ignore anything positive that happens in Israeli society – at least anything that reflects favorably on Jews. But they are quick to focus on the negative. There are no beheadings in Israel, so while playing down violence against Jews, reporters emphasize occasional acts against Muslims. They ignore, however, the condemnation of such acts by the government and people of Israel. Not only is that not done in the surrounding countries, but the killing of Israelis is cause for celebration, and the killers are praised as heroes for whom streets are to be named and rewards given. Were that to happen in Israel it would be justifiably condemned, yet it is considered understandable and praiseworthy among Muslims.

There is a double standard. Israel is held to a higher standard than any other nation. Even the United States seeks unilateral concessions from Israel, ones it would never accept for itself in similar circumstances. And countries that would never “turn the other cheek” if attacked demand that those who consider themselves the chosen people do so, even though that is not a Jewish teaching and it is certainly not their approach. If Israel were just another tyranny like its neighbors and forbade democratic institutions, less would be expected.

No. That is giving too much credit to haters of Western institutions. The claim that the cause of all the problems in the Middle East is Israel – that Zionism is racism – results from the long-standing hatred of Jews by others. And Zionism is a code word for Jews. In 1929 – long before there was an Israel – Arabs slaughtered large numbers of Jews in Palestine. Between sixty-five and seventy Jews were murdered in Hebron, most of them students and their teachers, with scores of others injured or maimed. The response of British authorities, who controlled the area at the time, was to remove the Jews, ostensibly for their own safety. Jewish victims were exiled from their homes. More recently the world has demanded that the Jews be removed from their homes – and this happened in Sinai and Gaza – for the benefit of the Arabs. There is always a reason to punish Jews.

Antisemitism. The world denies it and accuses the Jew of crying antisemitism whenever Israel or Jews are attacked or criticized. But seeing antisemitism in such criticisms is usually justified. It has flourished through the ages. In the past the accusations were of various types, including the spreading of disease, deicide, and the murder of Gentile children for their blood. In 2001, Daniel Bernard, as French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, was quoted as saying: "All the current troubles in the world are because of that shitty little country Israel." He added, "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" The French Foreign Ministry defended Bernard and dismissed the charges of antisemitism.

And in 2015, a few days after others attacked the French newspaper Charlie Hebdo, a Muslim terrorist fired on and killed shoppers in a kosher delicatessen. President Obama attacked the [Muslim, though he didn't say so] assassins at the newspaper and the one in the delicatessen as “vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” The killing of Jews by a Muslim was a random act. They shouldn't have patronized a kosher delicatessen. Jews are belittled, and Islamophobia is to be condemned.

The trouble with Israel is that it is a Jewish state. And the world does not like Jews.

Next episode: “Insanity” – Maybe not.

Je Suis An Islamophobe

There are lines between fashion, fawning, and fear. They're almost invisible, so you don't always know when you're crossing them. And there are times when they become irrelevant – it doesn't matter what the motive is, as long as the action is suitable. Now is one of those times.

Several decades ago – it's not clear when – it became fashionable to substitute euphemisms for the terminology that most people used. Whether it began with “gender neutrality” or in response to other perceived slights, political correctness became the answer selected to deal with the hurt feelings.ⁱ It was trendy to speak of postal workers instead of mailmen, Native Americans instead of (American) “Indians,” Afro-Americans rather than blacks – at least in this country, “special needs” as an alternative to mental or physical disability, and visually challenged rather than blind. And there were many other terms – some facetious – to describe individuals or groups that might object to existing terminology. Short people were “vertically challenged,” deaf people were “hearing impaired,” and French Fries became Freedom Fries.

It may have begun as a fad, with the “correct” people as examples for the rest of us, but it soon became virtually mandatory. The practice of using the new jargon became an attempt to ingratiate ourselves with everyone and those who didn't follow the trend were considered insensitive and prejudiced. It was, and is, especially prevalent in academiaⁱⁱ – in its practices and in its publications. They were catering to anyone who might be offended by something someone said or did.ⁱⁱⁱ Well, not “anyone,” but to certain groups. It was again a matter of fashion. For a long time the catering was to blacks, and one of its major manifestations was affirmative action. The tool has been applied to other groups as well – women, the poor, people from particular areas.^iv

Fear came into play when some of those groups took offense to something they viewed as a manifestation of prejudice or blasphemy and responded with violence. The tactic was often effective, and following the publication in Denmark of cartoons that many Muslims viewed as blasphemous there was rioting and killing. Out of fear, many newspapers would not reproduce the cartoons to prevent the violence from affecting them. Yale University Press would not allow their inclusion in a book specifically about them.^v

Ever since the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001, anger at Muslims, and fear as well, have been increasing. So has our vigilance. But the response to increased security efforts – a response by non-Muslims as well as Muslims – is that they represent Islamophobia and should be discontinued.

The recent events in Paris and elsewhere in Europe, suggest that preoccupation with the Danish cartoons and those of a Paris magazine justify additional violence. And there have been numerous other terrorist incidents around the globe, including the United States. One common feature of such terrorism is that the perpetrators are almost invariably Muslims.^vi And the attacks do not have to be aimed at those seen as the attackers of Islam. They are aimed at terror, and unpredictability is a feature of terrorism. And they are justified by the belief that there are Islamophobes everywhere.

But what is Islamophobia and is it justified? A phobia is a fear. It is not opposition or hatred. As such, it may be justified. “Anti-” signifies such opposition, and often hated. Someone with acrophobia is afraid of heights. An antisemite hates Jews. So Islamophobia is not a manifestation of an anti-Muslim philosophy, but a fear of Muslims and of the religion that teaches its children and its adults that killing, and dying as martyrs, are worthy goals.

Is it irrational to be afraid of those who may be infected with this philosophy as we are afraid of those with an infections disease? That's all Islamophobia is. And to that degree Islam is winning. It is inspiring fear in many people who realize that a terrorist attack may come at any time, and if it does, it will most likely be caused by a Muslim. The fear may be irrational and the likelihood of harm may be overstated, but that fear is caused by those who are working to provoke this reaction.

I am not anti-Muslim. I believe that the vast majority of Muslims, whatever their personal concerns about the world around them, do not represent a threat. But a few do. And they are unpredictable. And I am afraid.

I       Actually the term was used much earlier, although it's original citation (see Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. {2 Dall.} 419, 1793) gives it a straightforward meaning, speaking of conformance with existing political doctrine.

ii      Most recently, Duke University wanted to let Muslim students use the tower of the church on campus for heir call to prayer. After protests the decision was revoked.

iii      Those who opposed this form of censorship were considered reactionaries and right wing crazies for their criticism of this form of censorship.

iv       Affirmative action has a long history, apart from its use racially. For example, donors and alumni get preference when it comes to college admissions and veterans often get extra points in examinations for jobs.

v        See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html?_r=0 The report in the New York Times is interesting since the “Gray Lady” also kept the cartoons off its pages.

vi       Jews have been described as the world's canaries. What happens to them will ultimately be visited on everyone. (A recent citation – one of many that have appeared over the years – is http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Canary-in-the-coal-mine-387914) Muslims have long tried to kill Jews and destroy Israel. Now their terror attacks are affecting others.