There are a number of aspects to this piece by Clarice Feldman that hit home for me. Obviously the Overland Park incidents do.* As related by Clarice, the Kansas City area highway shooter… is said to be one MOHAMMED Pedro Whitaker. His conversion to Islam and his adopted first name seem not to have registered with the hard hitting investigative reporters at the Kansas City Star AND the local TV news folk.
Only a local conservative radio talk show host has so far made any mention of a possible connection to anything Islamic. He pointed out that the guns and ammo Mr. Mohammed had were recovered by police at a location which is little more than a block or two from a mosque. Clarice has much more to say about antisemitism in this one of her always worthwhile articles at American Spectator.
Inside her article is a reference and excerpt from a unique insightful article by a young author writing in the publication Honest Reporting. We have set forth the entire article with permission. The introduction is from Honest Reporting as well. If nothing else, scroll down to the part we have highlighted in bold. Reflect on the implications for the United States. DLH
An Unconventional Look at European Bias Against Israel
This guest post was written by Timon Dias who is shortly to receive a Master’s Degree in Psychology from Leiden University, the Netherlands, has a special interest in Middle Eastern politics and the Islamic religion. As a Dutch columnist, he has published many articles on the psychological effects of socialism on people and society; the problematic aspects of Muslim integration in Western societies Islam, and Middle Eastern politics and Israel in De Volkskrant and De Dagelijkse Standard as well as for the Gatestone Institute.
The double standard within European politics against Israel has been widely documented. The possible causes of this phenomenon have also been widely discussed. However, certain factors and theories, including ones where the individual psyche takes center stage, are rare, but in my humble opinion, worth elaborating on.
It seems that, especially the European attitude toward Israel is, if anything, extremely racist… against Arab Muslims. Where Israel is scrutinized for even her smallest flaws, blatant oppression and tyranny by Arab Muslim nations is met with indifference and is privately seen as a predictable and acceptable status quo. Does this mean these Europeans (subconsciously) just don’t think Arab Muslims capable of civilized government and society, and therefore don’t see any reason to make a fuzz about it? They would surely never admit to any such line of thought, but the ferocity of their criticism of Israel compared to their apathetic indifference to Muslim Arab wrongdoings, suggests an element of truth.
European disdain or outright hatred of Israel has a unique character to it, that is not seen when actual enemies of Europe are being evaluated: it is highly visceral. Just compare the passions and emotions expressed by the average European politician when they talk about Iran or North Korea, and say, the so-called Israeli occupied territories or the living conditions of Palestinian ‘refugees’. Even against the Russians, who are clearly undermining Europe’s interest, European condemnations appear apathetic, but also ripe with defeatism. It is as if they are saying: “we must condemn you because that’s what we’re paid for, but we know you’ve already won”.
When it comes to Israel however, actual anger and hostile body language can clearly be observed, while when concerning Iran or other threats, there is a calmness with which Europeans so self- righteously like to pride themselves.
In this context, visceral can be described as “having to do with the response of the body as opposed to the intellect, as in the distinction between feeling and thinking.” European critics of Israel, when observed while delivering criticism, indeed seem to feel more and think less.
On a psychological level, a visceral reaction usually occurs when one sees a privileged position in relation to a significant other threatened. These deep and intense emotions are explained by evolutionary psychology: the loss of a privileged position with parents can entail a loss of food and shelter, resulting in death; whereas the loss of a privileged position with a partner may result in the failure to produce offspring – a need deeply embedded in the DNA of any species. Do these specific cases relate to unreasonable European criticism of Israel? Not really, but they are stated to show that seemingly harmless situations, can still trigger visceral reactions when these situations are indirectly and subconsciously associated with mortal or existential threat.
So, might unreasonable European critics of Israel be doing what they do, because they are actually, but subconsciously, fending off a mortal threat? Indirectly, the answer might be yes. Bare with me.
As Freud first rightly so proposed; every man and woman has ‘animalistic’ aggressive and sexual urges, which our consciences and cultures have forced us to express in ways that do not harm ourselves, our families or interests. Let’s stick to the aggressive urges here. Europeans like to see themselves as the epitome of civilized humanity, who have irreversibly transcended the human stages of aggression and lust for power. But, of course, the human genetic blueprint has not been overwritten by a mere 60 years of European ‘high culture’. A European politician, like every human being, has aggressive urges, that he will seek to ventilate.
Of course, it can occur, when someone is feeling aggressive urges at work, he or she will displace those urges to a more secure setting, usually private relations. However, in politics, the projection of power is the core business of the entire profession. It is therefore very likely that when a politician feels aggressive urges when practicing politics, the displacement of those urges will remain within the arena of his profession, but directed toward a safer political target.
In this quest for ventilation, what better target is there to give rein to these aggressive urges than the Jewish state of Israel? There is none, because it’s so damn safe. No matter how intense your aggression against Israel gets: In Europe, it is extremely unlikely it will harm your bodily self, your family or your interests. Is irrational anger at Israel actually the human psyche at work to keep itself safe?
For example: a subject European politicians should actually focus on – subversive elements of the European Muslim community – cannot possibly be ranted against without being branded racist, have a fatwa or two slung your way, and the likelihood of needing armed state protection 24/7.
European politicians, as they are human beings, will have aggressive urges that they will seek to ventilate in a way that is safe. Israel is the safest target. The visceralness of their criticism can be a result of the fact that if they would fail to ventilate against Israel, they would have to take their aggression elsewhere, for example at the subversive Islamist elements in Europe or against the Russians. Doing so would mean exposing oneself to the wrath of Muslim and left-wing anger, and the far reaching arm of Moscow; something that could potentially entail mortal or existential threat.
Jealousy and envy might also contribute to Europe’s unreasonable opprobrium of Israel. I am not even referring to jealousy of Israeli achievements on every relevant scientific level, but to the measure of civility the Jewish people in general apparently poses. During the first half of the twentieth century, countries such as Spain, Italy and Germany descended into internal tyranny, only to drag the entire continent down into the abyss with them in the ensuing years. Then there’s the Jews. A persecuted minority who just endured the slaughter of six million of their people, is given a state for the first time since the biblical era, which from day one was outnumbered and outgunned, faced with Arab wars of extermination. What then happened, or better, didn’t happen next, is something that is rarely seen for its merits and mostly taken for granted: Israel, a state of a traumatized people under absolute existential threat, remained a democracy. It did not regress into a military dictatorship, something that would have been all too imaginable considering the condition the country was in. This showcase of civility is something that rightly so embarrasses European history, and shows that somehow, the Jewish people, under the most heinous circumstances, showed a ‘high culture’ that Europeans can only dream of.
Another modern day factor is that the EU was created for a single purpose: to abolish the European concept of nation states. It foresaw a utopian, somewhat mono-cultural and border-less continent. With this in mind, it is understandable that EU-minded Europeans shiver when they gaze upon Israel; with her nationalism, distinctiveness, deeply rooted cultural and religious practices and the most potent national military force in the region, the Jewish state is the epitome of a nation state. Not only that, but this nation state flourishes despite everything and is therefore a prime argument against the anti-nation state doctrines of European federalists.
But, it is also important to view European culture as a whole. Europeans have become a people that can no longer tell friend from foe, effective culture from ineffective culture, construction from destruction and progress from regression. Europeans are a people that took the exact wrong lessons from World War Two; they view nationalism as the sinful cause of that conflict, while it was collectivism in all its forms that dragged us into darkness. Europeans are a people who developed a fashionable disdain for the men and women who saved them from Italian Fascism, German National-Socialism, the Japanese Empire and the Soviet Union, and still stand as their only guardians – the Americans – and have come to despise the economic construct that blessed them with the largest increase of wealth for all in human history: the free market.
The philosophical foundations of the relativism and yearning for ‘high culture’ that transgresses materialism and pursuit of profit that today prevails in Europe, have always had a problem with the bourgeoisie. The enlightened merchant middle class, that saw hard work and responsibility as their core values, were despised by the philosophers that laid the groundwork for the European culture of today.
What people, in European culture, are most associated with money, trade and the pursuit of profit? It’s not the Sri Lankans, I’ll tell you that much. Of course, that honor goes to the Jews.
As Thomas Friedman once wrote: ”Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.” European anti-Semitism is a centuries old phenomenon. The centuries old theological Catholic version, the race based National Socialist version, and the post modern anti-materialist version are all still leaving their marks on European collective culture.
It is a sad thought, but it has perhaps been naïve to think that, after so many centuries, European anti-Semitism would actually and truly disappear, just because six million Jews were sent to the gas chambers and execution pits. This might just not be how the human psyche works; it is only how we want the human psyche to work, because it feels so damn reasonable.
If one were to hate the Twin Towers for what they symbolize, and just one were to fall, would one then stop hating the remaining one?
Timon Dias is the winner of HonestReporting’s 2013 Blankfeld Award for Media Critique. Details of the 2014 Blankfeld Award will be announced soon.
end article
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A little checking by us produced this link that will tell you a little more about this interesting young author. An excerpt from that link follows:
Dias was asked what led him, a non-Jewish student with no familial ties to Israel, to defend Israel. He replied that his interest in Israel started in Sri Lanka. In 2008 I was on a 5 month internship as an English teacher at a Muslim college. I taught children aged from 6 to 21. It was an amazing and even heartwarming experience, but among a not insignificant number of boys from age 14 and up, I started to notice a rather explicit antipathy or even hatred towards Israel and Jewish people in general. This came as quite a shock, for I thought racism, especially against Jews, was a thing of the past.
* Ed note — Senior Editor DLH lives in the KC Metro area. R Mall
