Last month, on the controversial Palestinian children’s program, The Pioneers of Tomorrow, a cartoon was aired (on the Hamas owned Al-Aqsa TV) ostensibly aimed at teaching kids Islamic values. The cartoon features a conversation between a Palestinian boy and a young Israeli Jewish settler. Through their dialogue and interaction, the Jewish settler learns to question everything negative he had been taught about Palestinians.

The problem is that while the cartoon is designed to empower Palestinian children, it does so through the use of anti-Semitic stereotypes. This is not all together uncharacteristic for the Hamas run TV program: Past episodes of the show, for example, have shown a cute and cuddly rabbit who desires to kill and eat Jews. Yet, unlike previous shows, the message of this cartoon is less than clear: Is Hamas (in its unique way) calling for dialogue with the enemy, or is the organization using dialogue to perpetuate fear and mistrust? Have a look and decide for yourself:

[Below are my comments, along with thoughts from Palestinian and Israeli peace activists Aziz Abu Sarah and Kobi Skolnick.]

Roi Ben-Yehuda: From an Israeli, Jewish and humanistic perspective, this is a disturbing cartoon. The faces of the Jews (who are all settlers) are evil looking: they have angular shapes, scowling eyebrows, and thin mouths. This is in contrast to the rounded facial features of the Palestinian boy, which make him look friendly and unthreatening. Moreover, the film uses some subliminal techniques to carry the anti-Semitic messages home. The opening close-up of the Jewish child, for example, appears (for a second) to have blood spilling from his mouth. While the older brother, with his red eyes and goatee, literally looks like Satan. The physical posture, vocal intonations and actions of the Jewish teacher and father clearly portray them as sinister and diabolical characters. All together, the cartoon depicts the Jews as fearful yet demonic figures who, on the one hand, believe it is necessary to fight against the evil Palestinians, and on the other hand, actually enjoy killing their neighbors. Ironically, this is exactly the type of negative misrepresentation the cartoon criticizes the Jews for originally engaging in vis-à-vis the Palestinians.

Continue reading...

Recent actions in Hebron by the right-wing Jewish settlers have brought great disgrace to the nation of Israel and the Jewish people. Simply put, this week showed us the dark side of the union between religion and nationalism. Our religion and our nationalism.

The settlers call it a "price tag":  Every time Israeli authorities act against the interest of the settlers, the latter will respond by exacting revenge on nearby Palestinian residence and their property.  Much like Japanese Macaques monkeys who when attacked by a powerful and high-ranking aggressor exact revenge on one of his less powerful family members, the settlers are displacing their frustrations on the Palestinians with the hopes of deterring the Israeli government from taking future actions against them.

But judging by the Bulworthesque response of Prime Minister Olmert, the settlers monkey-like actions have backfired:   

"As a Jew, I'm ashamed of the sights of Jews firing at Arabs in Hebron. I have no other definition for what we saw but a pogrom. We are the sons of a nation which knows what a pogrom is, and I'm saying this after much thought. I have no other way to put it.”

This is not the first time that Olmert has described the actions of settlers in the territories as pogroms. By using the word ‘pogrom' Olmert joins those who at times see a moral and historical equivalence between violence committed against Jews in the Diaspora, and violence committed by Jews against non-Jews in Israel and the occupied territories. This may seem like a non-issue, but in reality it is an unusual and potent choice of words for a prime minister to use. 

The other interesting disclosure in Olmert’s statement is his admission of shame. Shame is an appropriate response. Shame is an outward directed emotion, it is social and ethical, it means that we feel bad because others see our improper behavior (or those who represent us). But shame needs to be adjoined with another emotion: Guilt. Guilt is internal, it is moral and individualistic, it is our conscience bitchslapping us for actions we know to be wrong. 

We are not guilty and shameful because we pulled the trigger, burned down and smashed people's property, or cursed and spit in their faces.  No, our guilt is the guilt of the enabler. Our shame is the shame of the idle witness. The hill-top youths may be the out of control monster that Dr. Frankenstein of the Yesha counsel created, yet it is we, everyday Israelis, that supported (directly or indirectly) their experiments and operations. 

Of course shame and guilt have their up side. Aristotle understood shame to be a “quasi virtue”, because there is still a great deal of qualitative difference between the person who acts wrongly and feels shame and one who does not. Likewise, an Ethiopian proverb states: “A man without shame is a man without honor.” To the point that he is sincere, the fact that our Prime Minister is expressing shame is a good thing. It shows that he, and to the extent that Olmert speaks for Israel as a collective, we, care about how we behave and how we are perceived.

One can hope that these feelings don’t just function to make us feel superior to the thugs that perpetuated and supported these crimes, but also wake us from our moral complacency regarding the occupation as a whole.

Here is a scenario and question for you: You wake up tomorrow morning and to your utter astonishment your paper's front page reads: "Religion Ceases to Exist in the Middle East." Will this increase or decrease the chance for peace between Arabs and Jews?

A common charge in the discourse over the Arab-Israeli conflict is that religion plays a central role in exacerbating and perpetuating the conflict. This position has been taken up by a number of atheistic best-selling books. The conclusion being that removing religion from the scene will go a long way in solving the century old conflict.

Others disagree, arguing that since at base the conflict is a product of economic, political, and social forces, the question of religion is irrelevant. Religion, this group says, is an epiphenomenon - born and determined by conditions on the ground. End the state of occupation and alienation, bring an end to the violence, give people bread and dignity - and religion will no longer matter.

Still a third group holds that far from being the source of the problem, and far from being a mere epiphenomenon, religion contains within it the solution to the conflict. Properly understood, this group contends, religion calls us to recognize the sacredness of all humanity. Moreover, the moral claims of religion jolt us out of our individual and group ego-centricism and challenges us to act with compassion towards our fellow human beings.

The question of religion and the Arab-Israeli conflict gets the juices flowing. When I posted my hypothetical scenario and question on Facebook - to groups such as "We Support Israel," "I Support Hassan Nassralah," and "Free Palestine"- I got a number of interesting and amusing responses.

Have a read (and voice your opinion):

"Shalom Roi, The scenario you describe would be the perfect setup for a false "peace" that would merely become "the calm before the storm", and then with every one doing "what's right in their OWN eyes" outside of moral guidelines, there truly would be hell on earth such as has not been seen since the days of faithful Noach just before the Flood....."

"If there is no more religion in the Middle East then there definitely wouldn't be any problems between Arabs and Jews .. and that only because Jews will cease to exist .. since Jews refer to people who follow Judaism.. which is a religion and thus doesn't exist.."

"I do think religion plays a major role,I think the Jerusalem and the settlers issues would be easier to accept for both sides, there would be no groups like Hamas and Islamic jihad, hence much less terrorist attacks...."

"This is my view. The whole conflict is based around the concept of religion. Time and time again you see Jewish settlers and Muslim Palestinians over the news. Religion, if one believes init, is supposed to be peaceful, the whole Palestine/Israel conflict seems to contradict that notion....."

"I think if anything it would cause more violence. These people believe in the religion so much, I think if they found out that it wasn't real they would probably lash out against their counterparts whom they already hate...."

"In my opinion, I think religion doesn't play a great role in the conflict. Jews and Muslims lived together under each others rules in Medina with the prophet (pbuh)....."

"The issue here is tolerance, not religion. No matter what you call your creator, if you call it God, Jesus Christ, Allah, Science, Mother Nature, or a host of other names.. the simple fact is that we are all brothers and sisters of the SAME creation. Jews and Arabs weren't created by different forces. We all have the common brotherhood of humanity and should peacefully work toward achieving more tolerant societies. Neither religion preaches intolerance and hatred yet it [hatred] exists. So I think without those guiding forces a similar conflict would still exist.

"I'm a Christian, but I believe God gave Israel to the Jewish people. Although he took it away at times throughout history, he always returned the Jews to their land, because it is rightfully theirs...."

"The conflict has very little to do with religion anymore- yes Judaism always yearned for a return to Zion"and Jerusalem is a Holy City for the Muslims too. But I think the conflict has moved beyond religion. Its about land, power, racial supremacy and pride."

So Jewcers, what do you think: Could the Middle East use a little less religion?