Why Do Some of 'Them' Hate Some of 'Us'?
Iran's president has been spewing hate speech toward Jews, but most Iranians and most Muslims want closer ties to the West.
BY: Mark LeVine
Whatever their opinions on American foreign policy, the truth is that most Iranians, and Muslims generally, prefer a dialogue to a clash of civilizations. And here we should remember that the Defense Department answered President Bush's question, "Why do they hate us?" by explaining that "they don't hate our freedoms; they hate our policies." But dialogue is only possible if it's based on honesty, support for democracy, and economic and cultural freedom. This remains a far cry from American foreign policy today, which behind its democratic rhetoric still supports corrupt and authoritarian regimes across the region.
Nearly four years ago, at a moment that former Iranian President Khatami was deeply engaged in a U.N.-sponsored "dialogue of civilizations," the United States accused Iran of being part of an "axis of evil" and threatened to "end states" that are part of this axis-all because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 (and, indeed, al-Qa'eda despises Shiites almost as much as it hates Americans).. In such an atmosphere, lashing out at Israel becomes an easy way to vent anger at Israel's chief sponsor, the United States, against whom President Ahmadinejad could not dare say the same words. In a religious culture like Iranian Shiism, which in many ways is defined by memories of oppression and injustice, the history described here still resonates with Iranians, particularly the poor and marginalized members of the society that Ahmadinejad claims to represent.
Yet, however disgraceful Ahmadinejad's words, neither they nor their object are unique in modern politics. When The New York Times rightly called President Ahmadinejad a demagogue, the paper's editors were recalling the insights of the American social critic Leo Lowenthal, who in his 1949 "Prophets of Deceit" explained that political demagogues (or as he termed them, "agitators") cannot offer hope for a better future. Rather, they must espouse an aggressive and intolerant grassroots anti-intellectualism in order to suppress their society's political and social divisions (and in so doing, maintain their power). The anger it produces is then directed to an outside group who can be blamed for the very social problems the demagogue is impotent to address.
More specifically, with the terrors of Nazism still fresh in peoples' minds, Lowenthal argued that demagogues strive to define their fellow "Christians" primarily as "non-Jews," who can remain Christian only by isolating themselves from an enemy against whom the grossest violence is justified because of their supposed brutality. Lowenthal's argument reminds us that the Ahmadinejad's remarks are in no way unique. And if we are disgusted by them, it shouldn't be that hard to sympathize with Muslims who find equally abhorrent the fact that the U.S. president--leader of the world's most powerful country--has legalized the torture of Muslims, not to mention his invasion and occupation of Iraq under the guise of sometimes-explicit Christian imagery.
Israel's leaders, too, have engaged in such rhetoric, whether it was the Zionist movement's founders describing Palestine as "a land without a people for a people without a land," or the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir arguing that "there was no such thing as the Palestinian people." Of course, these facts in no way justify the Iranian president's poisonous remarks, which play into Israelis and other Jews' deepest fears of Muslims. At the same time, our anger at them should not blind us to American power and Israeli rhetoric, both of which terrify that the Muslim world, particularly when backed by such enormous military might.
Of course violence begets violence. It creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which neither side of a conflict can imagine peaceful ways to resolve what are envisioned as existential, zero-sum struggles. Rhetoric like President Ahmadinejad's--and sadly, often our own leaders'--suppresses the most positive parts of our common religious heritage. In the process, it makes it much easier for increasing numbers of "them" to hate "us" (and vice versa)--or at least to seem to. With Iran edging ever closer to joining the nuclear club, the world would do well to figure out how to change this dynamic before the logic of violence reaches a terrible conclusion.
Nearly four years ago, at a moment that former Iranian President Khatami was deeply engaged in a U.N.-sponsored "dialogue of civilizations," the United States accused Iran of being part of an "axis of evil" and threatened to "end states" that are part of this axis-all because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 (and, indeed, al-Qa'eda despises Shiites almost as much as it hates Americans).. In such an atmosphere, lashing out at Israel becomes an easy way to vent anger at Israel's chief sponsor, the United States, against whom President Ahmadinejad could not dare say the same words. In a religious culture like Iranian Shiism, which in many ways is defined by memories of oppression and injustice, the history described here still resonates with Iranians, particularly the poor and marginalized members of the society that Ahmadinejad claims to represent.
Yet, however disgraceful Ahmadinejad's words, neither they nor their object are unique in modern politics. When The New York Times rightly called President Ahmadinejad a demagogue, the paper's editors were recalling the insights of the American social critic Leo Lowenthal, who in his 1949 "Prophets of Deceit" explained that political demagogues (or as he termed them, "agitators") cannot offer hope for a better future. Rather, they must espouse an aggressive and intolerant grassroots anti-intellectualism in order to suppress their society's political and social divisions (and in so doing, maintain their power). The anger it produces is then directed to an outside group who can be blamed for the very social problems the demagogue is impotent to address.
More specifically, with the terrors of Nazism still fresh in peoples' minds, Lowenthal argued that demagogues strive to define their fellow "Christians" primarily as "non-Jews," who can remain Christian only by isolating themselves from an enemy against whom the grossest violence is justified because of their supposed brutality. Lowenthal's argument reminds us that the Ahmadinejad's remarks are in no way unique. And if we are disgusted by them, it shouldn't be that hard to sympathize with Muslims who find equally abhorrent the fact that the U.S. president--leader of the world's most powerful country--has legalized the torture of Muslims, not to mention his invasion and occupation of Iraq under the guise of sometimes-explicit Christian imagery.
Israel's leaders, too, have engaged in such rhetoric, whether it was the Zionist movement's founders describing Palestine as "a land without a people for a people without a land," or the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir arguing that "there was no such thing as the Palestinian people." Of course, these facts in no way justify the Iranian president's poisonous remarks, which play into Israelis and other Jews' deepest fears of Muslims. At the same time, our anger at them should not blind us to American power and Israeli rhetoric, both of which terrify that the Muslim world, particularly when backed by such enormous military might.
Of course violence begets violence. It creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which neither side of a conflict can imagine peaceful ways to resolve what are envisioned as existential, zero-sum struggles. Rhetoric like President Ahmadinejad's--and sadly, often our own leaders'--suppresses the most positive parts of our common religious heritage. In the process, it makes it much easier for increasing numbers of "them" to hate "us" (and vice versa)--or at least to seem to. With Iran edging ever closer to joining the nuclear club, the world would do well to figure out how to change this dynamic before the logic of violence reaches a terrible conclusion.
| _Related Features | |
|
|
 |
- « PREVIOUS
- 1
- 2
- NEXT »
Advertisement
Related Features
Top Features
Advertisement
Comments
Add Comment »To comment on this content you must be a registered user:
Sign-Up or Log-In