This is in response to a speech given by Brigitte Gabriel at Duke University on the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma (available for your reading pleasure at http://www.lawschool.com/ remarks.htm ) that my Dad sent me. As you can tell, I wasn't entirely impressed. Whether her speech was intended to be academic in nature or simply an expression of personal political ideology, I cannot say. I don't propose to be any expert on the issue; my knowledge is admittedly limited. Keep in mind that this was originally written as an email. Hence, the lack of coherent introduction. It isn't always cohesive, and often abandons points before they come to fruition, but I wanted to share it anyway. Enjoy (or possibly hate it). I would like to hear your thoughts. v(^-^)v
[Gabriel discusses her experiences as an Arab in an Israeli hospital, and her surprise that the Israeli hospital staff was willing to treat the wounded, irrespective of their racial or religious identity. She then proceeds to compare the indiscriminant humanitarianism of the Israelis with the savage "barbarism" of Muslims in general, and Palestinians in particular.]
That's an interesting perspective. The part about the kind nature of the hospital staff was touching. Indeed, there should be more people like that in the world. It is also nice that this woman learned the importance of questioning state doctrine and the media.
The rest, however, I found to be strewn with broad, harmful generalizations and blatant racism. I found the following particularly offensive:
"The difference between the Arabic world and Israel is a difference in values and character. It's barbarism verses civilization. It's democracy verses dictatorship. It's goodness verses evil.
"Once upon a time, there was a special place in the lowest depths of hell for anyone who would intentionally murder a child. Now, the intentional murder of Israeli children is legitimized as Palestinian "armed struggle.""
Now, I in no way condone terrorist actions of any kind, and I don't want to give that impression. The methods currently employed by Islamic fundamentalists are despicable. However, it is an injustice to assert that these methods are supported by all Muslims; that all Muslims are, in fact, fundamentalists.
Brigitte Gabriel's rhetorical style makes it seem as though she is speaking not only as an Arab, but also as a Muslim, though she does not ever mention whether or not she practices such a "barbaric" religion. Consequently, I believe the listener is encouraged to come to the conclusion, "if a Muslim despises Muslims, why shouldn't I?" This notion of anti-Islamic barbarism she seems to condone is supported by decades of anti-Palestinian propaganda that has been fashioned by the American media, and hence the American government.
She is endorsing an "Us versus them" mentality, where the "Us" is capitalized while the "them" is not. Who the "Us" is comprised of is left fairly undefined, but the "them" is made quite clear: They are a barbaric people who embrace dictatorship. They are foreign (not "Us"). They are dangerous. The are evil. They kill children. After all, they are Muslim.
Perhaps Ms. Brigitte Gabriel was addressing certain aspects of an enormous issue per the request of those who invited her to speak. However, I believe it did her no favors to address the topic completely out of context. Two issues in particular would have helped to give a clearer idea of the horrific subject she was discussing, and could have made her seem a bit less racist: Namely, 1. The cause of the Israel-Palestinian dilemma, and 2. The state of terrorism in our current globalized world (after all, it is quite diverse).
1. Now, I am undecided as to where I stand on the issue in general, though I know that the international community has to work to come to a feasible solution. The burden should lie particularly heavily on the shoulders of the Allied nations, who took it upon themselves to divvy up land that was not theirs to give.
Let's imagine that those god-awful Commies, you know, those dreadful Russians (or worse yet, the United Nations), decided that, due to the injustices committed against them by the US, the Vietnamese were now entitled to New York state, and the Iraqis get California. How would the people of the United States respond? What would the displaced people of CA and NY think? Would they rebel? Perhaps adopt a "by any means necessary" attitude?
Granted, this exercise is a bit unfair, given that the US has committed devastating atrocities against the people of Vietnam and Iraq, which have been widely acknowledged. Perhaps I'm uninformed, or perhaps my memory simply fails me, but wasn't it the Nazis that committed genocide against the Jews? Why didn't the Jews get Berlin? I mean, several of the Holy sites in Israel are holy for Muslims as well, as I learned in my Comparative Religious Fundamentalisms class.
And what about the Gypsies, homosexuals, and others? Where's their country? (This is not an attempt to compare the scale of brutality afflicted upon the Jews with other groups, nor to downplay the tragic plight of Jews.)
2. Unfortunately, terrorism plagues our modern world. Groups like Al Qaeda have come to the forefront of our attention, and have, not too surprisingly, come to represent all of Islam to the Western world. It is important to remember, however, that terrorism is not uniquely an aspect of the Muslim world.
Where were the Muslims in the Oklahoma city bombing in 1995? And what role did Islamic fundamentalists play in the sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subways, also in 1995? Oh, that's right, they were just a bunch of crazies, not Muslims. Aum Shinrikyo, the group responsible for the Tokyo attack, was a "cultish" religious group, but not based in any branch of Islam. And sarin is a German invention created by people who followed a more scientific creed.
And let us not forget the bloody massacre at Columbine High School in 1999, the population of which is as white-bread as they come.
There is plenty of evidence of terrorist acts committed by various groups throughout our modern history, some of them religiously motivated, and some of them not. It is important, I think, to question our current understanding of the definition of "terrorism". I believe it includes a lack of clear and expressed motives. It is not simply violence on a large scale. If that were the case, then the US administration would certainly be considered the largest terrorist organization on the face of the planet.
I would like to talk about State initiated terrorism committed by the US, but I don't have sources to cite, and I think I would do it no justice. It is worthwhile, however, to mention the repeated and systematic assassination of African-American leaders and organizations on American soil, instigated by the administration and conducted in large part by the FBI. To name a few: Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, the Black Panther Party, Mumia Abu-Jamal (Yes, I know he, as of yet, has not been assassinated. He has, however, been continually terrorized for the past 24 years), and MOVE. The US used these groups and individuals when it suited their needs, and disposed of them when they were no longer advantageous or considered dangerous.
In "Live from Death Row" (2002, Perennial Press), author Mumia Abu-Jamal considers the differences in the US administrations views of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. As he says, the US demonized Malcolm X's revolutionary, non-pacifist tactics and viewed them as the epitome of everything that is Black (Interesting that the Other--the Blacks, the Muslims--are consistently viewed as evil in juxtaposition to Us--the clean, the safe, the just, and the intelligent). In contrast, the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. was Black was largely ignored, while his insistence on a non-violent approach was applauded.
Mumia Abu-Jamal writes:
"The system used the main nonviolent theses of Marin Luther King's life to present a strategy designed to protect its own interests--imagine the most violent nation on earth, the heir of Indian and African genocide, the ONLY nation to ever drop an atomic bomb on a civilian population, the world's biggest arms dealer, the country that napalmed over ten million people in Vietnam (to "save" it from communism), the world's biggest jailer, waving the corpse of King, calling for nonviolence!" (page 116)
Now consider that.
And isn't it interesting, the similarities that can be found between Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Israelis, or Malcolm X and the Muslims?
I guess it now shows, I don't know exactly where my opinion lies in this difficult debate, but I do feel strongly about the issue at hand. It seems that revolution--whether it's considered justified as the American Revolution, or an act of terrorism as was the case with many facets of the Civil Rights movement and the current Palestinian effort--is, time and again, a response to an environment that is perceived to be unjust, unfair, perhaps racist, and certainly driven by hatred and a strong sense of fear of a well-defined Other (The environment, that is, not the revolutionaries. Although they, too, experience feelings of hate).
It's time we address important issues without promoting fear-driven logic, which only contributes to the cycle of hate, violence, and yes, terror.
