| Subject: Re: fundamentalism is scary |
Author:
Astrid
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:03:08 07/15/02 Mon
In reply to:
Raisinmom
's message, "Re: fundamentalism is scary" on 06:49:37 07/15/02 Mon
>Let me take the last question first. Usually, the
>mistreatment of women begins in the working sphere
>(restrictions on what jobs women can hold, education
>permitted, etc.) and then moves into the domestic
>sphere (restrictions on what they can wear, inability
>to complain about domestic abuse, removal of property
>and inheritance rights).
It's also interesting, though, that the post-WWII boom resulted in MORE women staying out of the workforce. And their clothing, while liberating compared to other recent centuries, was more proscribed and impractical. There is a theory that the more SUCCESSFUL women are in the public sphere, the more ridiculous their fashion becomes (higher heels, shorter skirts, etc.)
>The other question -- are Jews targeted because they
>are distinct? -- is a complex one. On one hand, Jews
>are a distinct group, and the religion stresses the
>separateness: the kosher laws, the emphasis on being
>the Chosen People, the circumcision, and all the other
>things that marks Jews as separate. On the other
>hand, Jews in Europe and America have been
>tremendously successful in assimilating, so much so
>that some Jews now get extremely upset about issues
>such as intermarriage and "cultural" (rather than
>religious) Judaism. That Jews have become so enmeshed
>in their societies, often rising to positions of great
>power (politically and/or economically, or in terms of
>popular influence, like successful Jews in Hollywood)
>paradoxically makes them a target as "infiltrators"
>and increases the resentment against them. I think
>your parallel to mistreatment of Asians is an
>interesting one and shares many of the same
>characteristics, though Asians have the additional
>disadvantage of visible difference, while Jews can
>often "pass" if they want.
Interesting--so you see the primary objection of anti-Semites to be both a sameness and a differentness that causes people to view Jews as interlopers of sorts in society. So while other ethnic groups are mistreated because of a sense of "otherness" (as well as all the hatred that fuels bigotry), Jews have that but also the concern that they are actually infiltrating dominant culture without the knowledge of the dominant people.
Does Arab hatred stem from other than the conflict in Israel? I had once thought it was an ancient conflict, but apparently Muslims and Jews coexisted quite well in the past (and it was the Christians who caused most of the conflict in the region).
>Well, sure! They are fanning the flames of
>anti-Semitic fanaticism in their own people to divert
>attention from, for example, Saudi corruption. The
>people, in turn, influence their friends and relatives
>in Europe. And their press, such as it is, is read
>outside of their own countries (the Egyptian press,
>for example, has run some truly disgusting pieces
>wishing Hitler had "finished the job," etc. -- check
>out memri.org for some seriously terrifying stuff).
>In France, for example, the sizeable Arab population
>is certainly a factor in that country's rising number
>of anti-Semitic incidents, and I think it entirely
>possible that they are influenced by events and
>attitudes in Arab countries, not just in France.
So would you say then that there are two different anti-Semitic movements in Europe? One fueled by the traditional skinhead racist groups (perhaps being opportunistic because of recent events) and the other fueled by Arab anti-Israeli sentiment?
>John Malkovich the actor? Well, if he wants to kill
>Fisk based on this piece, he's just unreasonable.
>Fortunately, I don't consider him a representative of
>Jewish thought. Is there a link to the response?
http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/fiskthreats.cfm
I don't think it is based on one thing Fisk has written, although I don't think Malkovich said. He was asked who he'd like to fight to the death, and he responded with a British MP who I gather has spoken out for the Palestinians and Robert Fisk, who writes sympathetic articles about Arabs in the Middle East.
I don't presume that Malkovich is representative of Jewish thought (I am not even sure if he himself is Jewish, I hadn't assumed that he was because it doesn't matter--plenty of WASPs have expressed similar distaste for Fisk, too). I just find the idea that someone wants to SHOOT a journalist for printing his views (which again, I feel are objectively NOT racially motivated) horrifying. And an indicator that this issue is highly charged, obviously. I've been slogging through rantings on both sides of the issue for months now, and it's the most depressing issue imagineable, because I don't see a glimmer of hope that I'll live to see any sane resolution.
>In any event, one guy's unreasonable view does not
>negate the reams of self-criticism and measured
>response from countless pro-Israelis.
I'm not trying to imply that all pro-Israelis are foaming at the mouth. I just see this as a tremendously volatile issue where it can be dangerous to present even legitimate criticism. And I think that the mood is such where even legitimate criticism is being viewed with suspicion. I'm not condemning this, I am trying to understand it.
>Yes, I agree about increased scrutiny. I don't think
>anyone is surprised -- but again, I have to emphasize
>that just as it's legitimate to criticize Israel, it's
>legitimate to defend it.
I wouldn't presume otherwise. My focus here is on exploring to what extent anti-Semitism is fueling criticism of the state of Israel.
>Well, they haven't kicked out Arafat either, have they
>(instead of cleaving to him in the wake of Bush's call
>for a new leader)? Or turned Hamas out of the
>country, or refused to let Hizbollah reimburse the
>families of suicide bombers? Or turned in the
>ostensible few terrorists causing all the trouble?
No, and most people in the world live under the thumb of dictators and corrupt government. I have sympathy for all of these people. I disagree strongly with the entire idea of suicide bombing, just as I do with any form of terrorism, but when I put myself in their shoes, I find myself understanding it (just as I can understand how Israelis can support a Sharon in dealing with such terrorism).
>Maybe, but I'm not sure where that goes. They are
>"oppressed" by circumstances (I disagree that they are
>oppressed by Israel), but then so are lots of other
>people all over the world. What's the definition of
>oppressed?
I believe they are oppressed by Israel, absolutely. They are not allowed to move freely or even progress freely beyond checkpoints, they are mistreated by soldiers and even murdered in some cases (to what extent I do not know because one side says it's rampant and the other says it's isolated incidents), and then you have Israelis building settlements in the occupied territories with the blessing of the government.
Now, you can argue that some of this is of their own making, but to be fair, the Palestinians were dispossessed because they didn't want to share a land they saw as theirs. It isn't like they invaded a country and tried to displace the Jews--they saw the increasing Jewish population as threatening to their way of life and fought back. So you have two populations fighting over one small country, and one group emerges victorious over the other, and dominates the other. So of course the victorious group is oppressing the dominated group--you can't argue that they are sharing power.
>Those comments (surprise, surprise) were in my first
>post, and I subsequently said I did not see evidence
>that he was an anti-Semite. I think I was very clear
>that I was dismissing it as a basic anti-Israel piece,
>not an anti-Semitic piece, and I didn't find it
>particularly thoughtful. Astrid, you got annoyed when
>two posters took issue with your initial comment about
>"how can one country cause so much hate?" And we let
>it drop when you said you didn't mean it in the way it
>was taken. So let this drop.
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to put you on the spot, I am just explaining why I am highlighting the issue of anti-Semitism in these recent posts. Your reaction, which I'm not criticising btw, surprised me and so I have been reading the links you have posted and digging deeper into this idea.
I've said several times
>now that I don't see from this article that Fisk is
>anti-Semitic, but I do see that he's anti-Israel, and
>I think he's wrong and the article's arguments are
>trite.
Ok, I don't see him as anti-Israel, which to me would indicate that Fisk thinks Israel has no right to exist. I wouldn't assume that to be his belief at all. However, I do think he is critical of the power differential he sees and wants his public to think critically about the issue also. The fact is, the mainstream media tends to be biased in favour of Israel's position. Perhaps this is because it is the most legitimate position. But when we hear those dominant voices we don't get the opportunity to consider other POVs.
I see Fisk as almost playing the role of devil's advocate. I would suggest that ultimately he just wants to see peaceful coexistance the same way most people do.
I don't see why being "emotional" indicates
>that I thought he's an anti-Semite -- can't I be
>passionate about politics?
Of course--I was just explaining where my own thinking was originating from. Your passion (I wasn't trying to be dismissive) sparked my interest in digging deeper into the idea that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe.
Can't I believe he is
>wrong, and be bored by and disdainful of his article,
>without it being something deeper? Do you see that
>what you've implied about me or other pro-Israel
>debaters is itself a bit odd -- that underneath it
>all, we *must* think everyone who criticizes Israel
>and to whom we respond strongly is anti-Semitic?
I am not trying to imply that. I am actually trying to grasp exactly where people are coming from on both sides of this issue, and to better understand where the emotion comes from.
>Yes, I think that's an interesting point. Do you
>think some of the Israel/Palestine debate has become
>enmeshed with anti-American sentiment?
I think that, as a Canadian who associates mostly with left-leaning types, the two often go hand in hand. There is a knee-jerk reaction against power and authority--a distrust of those who claim to be representing democracy and justice in the world, while making backroom deals with tyrants and criminals. I think that the allegiance that the US has for Israel does automatically cause some to view it as neocolonialistic exploitation, blah blah blah. Where is Alan when you need him?
Here in Canada, where we are truly free, we feel resentment toward the influence and domination of the US. Maybe that also makes us sympathetic to some extent with the Palestinian cause--if we can feel oppressed culturally when we are in reality as free as a nation has ever been, how difficult must it be to have no political voice, no self-determination, etc?
So I think the issue is linked to anti-Americanism on many levels but it would be different here than in Europe.
Astrid
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 