Identity:
The literary basis of the identity problem begins in Homer’s Odyssey. The hero travels back and forth in time and space in order to return home. His home as for most of us represents identity. Homer does not tell us that the people Odysseus visited spoke different languages (being written after the event of Babel) and consequently were largely barbarians, with thus according to the Greeks, no real identity. We can surmise from this logic that language is another ingredient of identity.
Odysseus’s identity required him to be home, exile was a real
punishment.
The Islamic ninth century historian Taban (writing 2,000 years after Homer) recorded a governor who banned a dissident stating ‘for a man who is exiled from his country becomes less powerful.’ This is no longer true. This radical change is only ten years old. Saad al Fagih, a Saudi Arabian dissident was exiled ten tears ago to London, he might have lost his identity. But he developed high tech support and through his website has managed to retain a significant identity in his home country. He has recently solicited and received oaths from 99 Arabian tribes of support. In these times exile is not a loss, Saudi Arabia would today have to jail him and perhaps execute him to have him lose his identity.
The high literary point of identity can be seen in the writer Franz
Kafka. What kind of an identity does Kafka write from? He is Jewish
despite never using the term Jew or Judaism in his writing. (His Jewish
name was ‘Amschel’.) When he spoke Yiddish not even his grandfather who
understood Yiddish (as opposed to his father who did not) could
understand him. His father spoke German but lived in a community that
spoke Czech, thus Kafka wrote in German. He feared his father and wrote
him a seventy page handwritten letter to explain his fear. He gave it
his mother who he loved rather than feared, she read it and never gave
it to her husband. Fortunately for us he was obsessed and saved
everything. He asked his last girl friend Dora, the daughter of a
Hasid, to destroy his notes and diaries after his death. She did;
however he left some with his friend Max Brod. He asked him to destroy
them after his death, he did not. Some of us will be forever grateful
to Brod.
His lack of identity fragmented his personality and his soul. How does
one define a fragmented personality or fragmented soul? Kafka did it
for himself and for us!
He wrote in this letter to his Father:
‘The world was for me divided into three parts: one in which I lived under laws which had been invented only for me and which I could, I did not know why, never completely comply with; then a second world, which was infinitely remote from mine, in which you lived, . . . and finally a third world where everybody else lived happily’. . . .If a man does not know where he belongs he cannot know to whom he is bound in duty; his need for a clearly defined area of obligation must remain unappeased. . . is not [your] power such that nothing could resist [your] decree.’
He said of his father (in his diary) you `down the Czechs, and then the
Germans, and then the Jews. . .and nobody was left except yourself . .
. I have hardly anything in common with myself.’
Despair was his inspiration. ‘What is laid upon us is to accomplish the
negative; the positive is already given.’
As a result of his fragmented personality and soul Kafka thought of
women as both the sacred and the profane.
Shakira Hussein notes her father had four marriages with women of four
different ethnic and religious identities. ‘Last year, I attended the
weddings of two of my brothers. In London, my devoutly Muslim brother,
born and raised in Pakistan, finally married his straight-talking Sikh
girlfriend, having agreed to a Sikh as well as a Muslim ceremony. A few
months later, in Australia, another brother married in a ceremony that
combined readings from his chosen spiritual teacher, the Indian Parsi
Meher Baba, with the bride’s Buddhist faith. Then there is my youngest
brother, who is thus far quite happy with his own “God–shaped hole”,
but who cheerfully attends Eid at the Islamic Centre with me, or
Christmas Mass with our Catholic mother; the sister who is currently
considering converting to Coptic Christianity; and the fact that thanks
to two years as a live-in housekeeper to an Iranian Orthodox Jewish
family, I know how to keep a kosher kitchen and prepare a three-course
Passover meal for ten at short notice.’
She asks ‘Does a particular religion look a particular way! Or is it
our beliefs, our names, style of dress, physical appearance, even our
diet? Are these signifiers as shallow or as significant as any racial
marker. My young pink and white daughter is already highly aware of the
anti-Islamic prejudice that confronts her, prejudice which has nothing
to do with who she is or what she thinks.’ (In Open Democracy –
Feb. 25, 2005)
Shakira despite being Jewish under Jewish law (mothers in Judaism
determine religion) and Muslim under Muslim Law (fathers in Islam
determine religion) does not have a lack of identity but a surfeit of
wonderful identities. There is nothing fragmented about her personality
or her soul.
Father Aleksandr is a Greek Orthodox Priest with a parish in Jerusalem
with partly Arabs (most Christians in Israel are Arabs) but a largely
Slavic congregation. His original name was Abraham ben Baruch. His
mother, a German Jewess survived the Majdanek extermination camp in
Poland, his younger brother and his maternal grandmother were killed in
the camp. His father, also a Jew survived while part of the underground
resistance in France. He was born after the war. His mother rejected
ever speaking German or setting foot on its soil, but also insisted
that he speak German perfectly without accent. He Did. As a child he
studied the Hebrew Bible and Talmud, spoke Hebrew and Yiddish. Later in
University he studied comparative linguistics, Rabbinic Studies and the
Jewish French Philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. At age 25 he converted to
Greek Orthodox Christianity. Since his parents were Zionists he chose
and as a result of his fluency in Hebrew, the Slavic languages and his
Jewish knowledge, was accepted by Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in
Jerusalem. (Most of the Christian Slavs in Israel have partly Jewish
blood and knowledge. Consequently his Judaic knowledge was an advantage
in understanding that community.)
He considers himself part of the Jewish nation. He has never sought
Israeli citizenship nor acceptance under the Law of Return. He reads
the liturgy 80 percent in Hebrew and the remainder in Russian or
Ukrainian (a version of Russian). The Greek Orthodox Bible is the
ancient Septuagint, translated by the Jews for their Greek
co-religionists in Alexandria. Father Aleksandr preaches using the
section of the Hebrew Bible Jews recite for that week. When appropriate
to his particular congregants who have more Jewish knowledge that usual
he uses certain Jewish Hasidic masters. Despite his Jewish family
rejecting his conversion when he mother was about to die she allowed
him to assist her in her final hours. After his mother’s death he
placed his father in a Jewish home for the elderly. He helped arrange
for both of them to be buried in Jewish cemeteries under Orthodox
Jewish law. He never tried to convert his parents. For Christians he is
considered to have a Jewish identity. The author who knows Father
Aleksandr can attest that his personality, if not his soul, are
holistic.
Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, an early nineteenth century Jewish Hasidic
Rabbi wrote of a holistic soul. ‘If I am I because you are you
and you are you because I am I, then neither you nor I truly are; but
if I am I because I am I and you are you because you are you, then both
I am you truly are.’
Can Brother Daniel of the Carmelites, born of a Polish Jewish mother
and Jewish father, but converted to Catholicism have a Jewish and
Christian Identity? The Israeli Supreme Court said No!
Father Aleksandr never sought citizenship under the Jewish Law of Return and consequently the Israeli Supreme Court was never asked to rule.
Cardinal Lustiger, Arch Bishop of Paris was born of a Jewish father and Jewish mother, burnt at Auschwitz; claims Jewish and Christian identity. The Cardinal has never been to Israel and his identity was never subject to legal scrutiny.
Since Jews, Christians and Muslims claim the same father – Abraham – can one identify oneself as a Jew, a Christian and a Muslim? Since Islam is based on patrilineal descent perhaps; since Judaism is based on matrilineal descent apparently not.
Tolerance:
Tolerance is related to Freedom of Speech. To tolerate those who agree with you or whom you respect or whom you love is appropriate but not related to tolerance. To tolerate those with whom you disagree or whom you disrespect or whom you even hate is Tolerance. Tolerance does not require respect. To be accused of Blasphemy is the opposite of Tolerance.
If I proclaim myself on a street corner in Hyde Park or at the Wall in
Jerusalem to be the new Messiah, you are within your rights to ridicule
me, but not to beat me and certainly not to execute me. The right to
offend is in fact Free Speech. I am under no obligation to respect your
beliefs. Respect is earned. Who decides? Each of us. Respect is
not an entitlement. I am however obligated to tolerate your beliefs.
A recent BBC television broadcast of an Opera written by Jerry Springer
produced enormous controversy; almost 50,000 complaints about foul
language were received; some of the complainers threatened BBC
executives. They were either 300 or 8,000 words or somewhere in
between, according to the complaints. The distinction depends one on
whether one considers ‘nipple’ and ‘poop’ as foul. A second discrepancy
is whether the same word sung by the 27 members of the chorus counts as
one word or 27 words. 1,800, 000 saw and listened to the broadcast, the
complaint ratio is thus less three percent. Yes some, perhaps more
people were offended but did not complain in writing, by phone or by
Email. Oh yes 40% of the phone calls were complimentary, according to
the Guardian newspaper. Was anyone forced to watch or listen? I do not
live in Britain and was thus not able to see the broadcast. But if it
was available to me I might or might not have seen the broadcast,
probably not; I do not like opera. Is my view relevant; are the 50,000
people who complained relevant? Yes to marketing people, not to
censors.
Tolerance to be real must be embedded in ones soul. Tarek Heggy, an Egyptian, stated that unless one accepts that all human beings are members of Humanity this discussion is a dialogue of the deaf. (He was referring to Christian Copts in Egypt.)
Intolerance is offering justification to the killer of Theo van Gogh,
whose sin was to have made a short movie about the mistreatment of
women in Islamic societies. Intolerance is offering justification for
the slaughtering of 350 children in Beslan, or of 200 commuters in
Madrid. And for the execution of Margaret Hassan, the Irish-born Iraqi
citizen who devoted her life to humanitarian relief and opposed the
prewar sanctions as well as the invasion itself. Intolerant Jihadists,
it turns out, issue no exemptions for humanists when drawing up their
lists of those deserving execution. They have an insane obsession with
honor and vengeance that has infected their minds. And yes I have read
their supposed God given justification. There God does not resemble my
God! And my Old Testament God who specified in that same book over
forty times about the kindness and equality owed to the stranger is
supposed to be intolerant.
Neither Kafka, Shakira Hussein nor Father Aleksandr are intolerant,
despite two having holistic personalities and one a fragmented
personality. Since the next section ‘The Virgin Seekers’ is about those
who choose to bring in the ghastly Horsemen of the Apocalypse can we
understand something about their personalities? We have already written
about suicide bombers (October 22, 2004). We noted that the major
reasons used suicide bombers was the zealous defense of honor and
vengeance. To honor ones parents is a positive commandment in the
Judeo-Christian tradition. But to murder for honor is not part of that
commandment. To take vengeance is a sin, ‘Vengeance is mine, I shall
repay’ said the Lord (Deut. 32:35 and Romans 12:19) again in the
Judeo-Christian tradition. A zealot personality is an intolerant
personality (When Senator Barry Goldwater stated in his acceptance
speech for the nomination of the President of the United States on the
Republican Party in 1964 that ‘extremism in the defense of liberty is
no vice’ he was wrong. Zealotry of any sort is wrong and condones
Evil.)
A key belief in the Judeo-Christian tradition is ‘love your neighbor as
yourself’ and ‘love the stranger as yourself’. Love is more than
tolerance it requires respect and acceptance of the ‘other’. If your
neighbor or the stranger sees God’s face differently than you do you
still have to love him? Apparently so. If her model of the good life
differs from yours do you still have to love her?
Intolerant personalities come in all religions, all colors, all races
and as Shakira stated in different styles of dress and diet. These
personalities cannot envisage that other ways of life (whether other
religions or forms of secularism) can be models of the good life. They
are illegitimate. Since, in their view, there is only on truth and it
is absolute, all other views are sinful and those following them devil
worshippers; legitimately subject to death.
In the Orient one can be a Buddhist and a Christian. (Most Buddhists in
America are Jewish by birth.) In Africa one can be an Animist and a
Christian. In the Caribbean Islands one can be a Voodooist and a
Christian.
The Virgin Seekers:
The identity and personality of those intolerant Jihadists can be surmised by their supposed reward; going directly to heaven and meeting seventy doe eyed dark haired virgins. They are macho sex fiends as well as cowards.
Two examples of macho sex fiends and cowardice should suffice.
According to Kanan Makiya an Iraqi dissident, he saw a copy of the
index card of a security officer which described his activities in
Arabic as ‘violation of women’s honor’ – an official government
sanctioned rapist (‘Cruelty and Silence’).
The second example is that of Mukhtaran Bibi, a young Pakistani woman.
She was accused of having a brother – 14 years of age – who was seen in
public with a girl from another tribal family; this rumor was never
confirmed and Bibi denied it. She was judged by a Tribal Elders Council
of six men to be punished for her brother’s sin. She was sentenced to
be gang-raped. The sentence was carried out by five men, her neighbors.
Hundreds waited outside her she was gang raped. She was then send home
naked in the streets. Amazingly and with great courage Mukhtaran Bibi
went to the Courts seeking justice. The four men were originally
convicted of the rape. A recent court had overturned the conviction as
illegal. The requirement for conviction of rape in Pakistan’s family
law is that four men (all Muslims) have to testify they witnessed the
event. The four witnesses in this case the rapists, were unlikely to
testify against themselves. Would four men who forcibly rape a young
woman still expect virgins in heaven? The Highest Islamic court
overturned the acquittal of the five rapists.
Americanism and Anti-Americanism are identities. Semites (really Jews) and Anti-Semites are also identities. Is it Americanism or Anti-Americanism that breeds terrorism? Is it Jews or Anti-Semites that breed terrorism? I had not noticed that the murderers of Theo van Gogh, the children in Beslan, the commuters in Madrid or the executor of Margaret Hassan were Americans or Jewish. As the Arab Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, (Manager of TV News of al Arabiya and former editor of the daily London based Arabic Asharq Al Awsat) noted ‘It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. Does all this tell us something about ourselves, our societies and our culture?’
Within the American identity noted above there are sub-identities; Red
and Blue Americans. Red Americans are right-wingers and Blue Americans
are left-wingers. (The Red does not apply to Red Indians known in
politically correct terms as ‘Native Americans’ since the Red Americans
are not likely to have favored those Red ones in the olden of days.) In
the recent United States election approximately 50 million Americans
voted for the Red’s and approximately 50 million Americans voted for
the Blues; it was not (to use a sporting metaphor) ‘a sudden death
overtime’ since the Reds won by a slight margin, thus electing George
W. Bush. A great deal has been written about these differences in the
days since the elections, so I will not bother you with these
distinctions, but while one should not disregard those
differences; another election will come soon enough.
What are the Americans to do? What are the Jews to do? Neither
Americans nor Jews have committed suicide missions. Presumably neither
Americans nor Jews are enticed by the seventy virgins (doe eyed and
probably blonde haired for Americans) in heaven. They prefer their own
wives and children here on earth.
Arik Sharon is not, in my opinion a nice man, I never have nor ever
would consider voting for him. But can he be compared to Yasser Arafat,
an evil corrupt venial man who allowed his own people to suffer
endlessly for his narcissistic and ‘noble’ minded victim-hood? Who has
committed ‘crimes against humanity – Sharon or Arafat? I may be a
suspect witness since I dislike both men, but loving either is more
suspect. The not nice man Sharon was trying to protect his people’s
lives; and yes he should have been more concerned with innocent
civilian Palestinian lives and especially children. He did many things
I as a Jew and as an Israeli citizen am not proud of. But can he be
compared to Arafat who did not care for any people’s lives, his own or
mine. He favored the macho virgin-seekers.
Continuing with Sharon (I will continue with Arafat in my next
article), none of us is perfect, neither Sharon nor his public. His
vices have recently become more obvious to the Israeli public.
Apparently when Israeli civilians and soldiers were being killed by
suicide bombers and Palestinian soldiers and when the Israeli economy
was in the dregs Sharon’s popularity was quite high, in fact he was a
Hero. Since the deaths have significantly been reduced and the economy
has improved his popularity has declined significantly.
Even before when he was an opposition politician he was held by the
public as a hero. He could and did always blame the Prime Minister, the
ultimate authority. Since becoming Prime Minister four years ago he had
no one to blame for events. He was the ultimate authority. Who is he
and the public to blame for untoward events. He has now lost half his
party and had to add the opposition into his coalition. He and his
entire family including not only his two sons but his dead wife Lily
are being cursed. If fact the curse towards Lily is that her bones be
overturned. One of choices approved by his opposition in his own party
and among other parties is for him to back to his Ranch. In this way he
can be compared to his friend George W. Bush who some or many Americans
also wish would go back to his Ranch (the weather is even comparable.)
I will attempt next time to elaborate on the ‘Israeli Palestinian Conflict’. I accept the moral equivalence of the rights of the Palestinians for their land as compared to the rights of the Israelis for their land. I do not accept the moral equivalence of the deaths perpetrated. My major question will be, given that the Israeli’s have a democratic and mixed government will the Palestinians be allowed to choose their own system of government – Islamic, secular or mixed – by the Palestinians themselves. It is obvious – whether you choose to believe that or not - that Israel is withdrawing from this fray – not immediately but in the near future. How many more lives (Palestinian and Israeli; Jewish and Muslim) does the six percent or so which Sharon refuses, wrongly, again in my opinion, (but perhaps understandably) to concede really worth? Neither my children nor my Arab friend’s children.