News Links Round-Up

Headlines from around the world:

Berlin is going the way of Hungary with its new park to "disgraced monuments." That's now at the top of my list of things to do in Germany.

German Holocaust survivors use hip-hop to tell their story.

A new ruling from the European Court on Human Rights forces Bosnia and Hertzagovina to change their laws about who can run for high office.

And more on difficulties facing Muslims in Germany.

Why Won't C-Span Comment?

Here's an interesting mini article (articlette?) by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic about C-Span and its refusal to comment on the high rate of bigoted comments during the call-in show, Washington Journal. I used to watch WJ occasionally when I was in college and noticed that there were a fair number of irrational callers. But I just figured that was par for the course given the open format. But apparently Jeffrey Goldberg feels differently.

What do you think?

What This Means Going Forward

I love that the following two articles came out around the same time:

The first, an op-ed published on Dec. 28, 2009, by Christopher Hitchens informs his readers that we all pay a heavy price for the increased risk of terrorism (no surprise there) and there is nothing we can do about it. No government programs or policies will have any effect on the terrorists' zeal for attacking us or our way of life. Nor does Hitchens seem to have any suggestions of his own.

The second, an analytical essay published in the Nov./Dec. issue of Foreign Affairs by Jessica Stern, directly contradicts Hitchens' claims (unfortunately, you have to be a subscriber to read the whole thing). In her article, she directly contradicts Hitchens' view that no current government programs can or will ever work. Based on results from programs Saudi Arabia (of all places), the radicalization of potential, or current, terrorists is indeed possible as long as the programs are well thought-out. More detailed and analytical than Hitchens' piece (and frankly more helpful), Stern outlines the initiatives already in place and the discussions within the Obama administration to incorporate some of the lessons learned into future foreign policy frameworks.

Unveiling The Veil

Here is an excellent op-ed, for the most part, about the French debate over the veil and the debate over national identity. The author, Raphael Liogier, attempts to deconstruct the French reaction to the veil and to address the debate on a human rather than on a political level. By taking this approach, he confronts his discomfort with the veil while at the same time acknowledging that this discomfort has more to do with him and his preconceptions than it has to do with those who chose to wear the veil.

"Je comprends l'angoisse, la peur de l'autre, et j'ajoute même que je peux parfois moi aussi l'éprouver, et être choqué par ces femmes qui s'obstinent à couvrir totalement leur corps en public, tout simplement parce que ce n'est pas ma culture, pas mon environnement, pas ma vie."

He goes on to express legitimate concern that should a law pass that bans the burqa, France would only be giving into anti-Republican impulses and would only serve those who support a fundamentalist ideology.

The part where he loses me, however, is his contradictory statement half way down the page. All of the sudden --despite his previous assertions that it is he who must confront his prejudices regarding the veil and the women who wear them and that France has no business forcing people to wear (or not wear in this case) in public--he reverts to stereotypes. As long as women don't seek to impose the veil on others, he asserts, or they aren't pressured into wearing it, then he doesn't have a problem with the veil.

First of all, I would be curious to know how many accounts there are of women physically going around trying to force non-Muslims to wear the veil. If he means in a more abstract sense (i.e. wearing the veil at all is a form of evangelizing) then the women are in a no-win situation. If they don't wear it, they will be rejecting an important part of their religious life and if they do wear it, they will be accused of forcing people to be like them. Both of which Liogier says he is opposed to and smacks of anti-democratic behavior.

Secondly, how will the average French citizen decide that women are being forced to wear the veil by their families? Will they go up and ask? Will they wait for the women to report this form of abuse to the police? If one women reports that she is being forced to wear the veil, will this mean reconsidering the ban?

I applaud Liogier's efforts to analyze the situation, as well as his own self-analysis, but hope that he can understand the contradictory nature of his opinions and figure out how to reconcile the two.

Hopefully he'll go for the more tolerant approach.

Too Close to Home?

Ever since the ban on minarets in Switzerland was announced, I've been mulling over the similarities and differences between that and the restrictions on synagogue construction that was prevalent in pre-World War II Europe. I seem to remember, for instance, that synagogues in Germany, until the Neue Syangoge in the mid-1800s, were required to be built behind a plain facade and away from the street. Even after the Neue Synagogue was built, it was met with significant criticism (much of it anti-Semitic in tone) that has echoes in the rhetoric used about the minarets today.

So, I was very pleased to see an article in JTA by Ruth Ellen Gruber, author and journalist, that addressed this very issue. While she doesn't see exact parallels, the recent ban certainly recalls those earlier restrictions and considers it to be a true cause for concern.

"I know it's a very long way from a ban on new minarets to the much more drastic measures that led to this state of affairs. But as my brother Sam put it, "Restricting specific types of religious or cultural expression -- especially when such restrictions are deliberate exceptions to existing building, zoning, health and safety codes -- is discriminatory." It is, he said, "an act of denigration of cultural custom and, by extension, of the people who cherish, or the religion that requires, those very customs."

Don't Rain on My Parade

I am using my executive powers as writer of this blog to post this tangentially Jewish-related video clip. It's from the finale of Glee with Rachel (Jewish female lead) singing Don't Rain on My Parade from Funny Girl (about a Jewish protagonist), not to mention one of Barbra Streisand's (also Jewish) signature vehicles. Have I belabored the point enough? Anyway, ignore me and just watch. Amazing!!

Meow

While perusing the bookshelves at Barnes and Nobel yesterday, I came across a wonderful graphic novel entitled The Rabbi’s Cat by the French artist/author, Joann Sfar, best known in the US for his children’s series, The Little Vampire. The Rabbi’s Cat tells the story of a Rabbi, his daughter Zlabya, and their talking cat who live in Algiers in the 1930s when Algeria was still part of France. Narrated by the cat, who is studying to become Bar Mitzvah, the intricate illustrations and the gentle, yet poignant story line draws readers into a seemingly simple world that soon reveals itself in all its complexities. Perfectly situated on the line between perfect and im, wise and bumbling, sacred and profane, Sfar characters made me nostalgic for a time and place that exists only within his, and now my, imagination. But the themes that he draws upon, of internal religious struggle, of familial bonds, of humanness are universal and very real.

The only drawback of the book is the unwritten epilogue. Although only we know it of course, Sfar’s creations are heading for an abyss that they do not see. I can hope that with the help of ever wise magical cat, they will manage to survive.

Even if the very thought of a graphic novel finds you running towards the nearest exit, resist. This is most definitely a book worth getting to know.