A thousand eyes for an eye; a thousand teeth for a tooth: a matter of privilege
António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, recently observed that the October 7 Hamas attack on Israelis just north of Gaza did not occur in a vacuum. Immediately the ambassador of Israel demanded that he resign. And why did the ambassador do this? It is because the ambassador did not want anyone to reflect upon what Israel was doing to Palestinians on October 6.
Historically the Hebrew-Jewish relationship toward other Semitic nations has been tense. After their escape from slavery in Egypt the record describes how Hebrew clans crossed the desert and arrived on the east bank of the Jordan river. Their first activity was to prepare for war against the city of Jericho. Afterwards they moved westward slaughtering residents and stealing their possessions.
Seventy-five years ago Israeli zionists forcefully removed almost a million Palestinian residents in the newly declared State of Israel and destroyed their homes and villages. Many of these evicted persons and their descendants are residents of Gaza today. In 2005 Israel imposed a blockade to stifle and undermine the spirit and determination of Gazans. When Hamas gained control of the strip in 2007 Israel intensified the provisions of the blockade.
In 1967 Israel occupied the West Bank as a matter of security. Since then Israel has preceded to encroach into the self determination of Palestinians and break their spirit as demonstrated by routine violations of international law: illegal settlements; Israeli security protection of settlers who harass shop owners, shepherds, and school children; travel restrictions and unexpected checkpoints; water and electricity rationing.
What does this history tell us about the relationship of Israel to other Semitic nations? Clearly it is a matter of assumed privilege.
And why does this matter of privilege exist? The sacred scripture of the Hebrews and Jews known to us as the Old Testament were written by and for persons inside this distinct community. It is obvious that these provisions for structuring and regulating their lives together did not apply to persons outside their circle. When Hebrew clans crossed the Jordan they indiscriminately killed Canaanites and stole their possessions. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and ‘Thou shalt not covet’ are two of the top ten provisions for regulating Hebrew behaviors. And what gave them sufficient cause for this domination? It can be traced to the story of the family of Noah how, after having been seen naked in his tent, Noah cursed not the person who had seen his nakedness but his son Canaan. Noah then pronounced that Canaan’s position would be below his brothers—he was destined to serve their objectives.
Considering again this collection of scriptures we can recognize that these accounts have been fashioned to explain why tensions exist between Semitic people and even to justify the Jewish community’s claim of a privileged position among them.
In the experience of Jacob this construction can be seen with even more clarity. Jacob cheated his brother Esau out of his inheritance then ran away. Years later Jacob decides to return home yet he is afraid of the vengeance that Esau would have accumulated against him. Jacob is described as wrestling with a stranger during the night before his meeting with Esau. The match is presented to explain that Jacob had actually wrestled with God and because Jacob had prevailed against God he would also prevail against men.
The next day Jacob goes to meet Esau doing everything he can to avoid being totally destroyed by his angered brother who was coming to meet him with 400 men. Yet what happens when Jacob actually meets Esau? After sending gifts and dividing his family and flocks and bowing many times before his brother, Jacob is embraced by Esau and welcomed back home. There is no hatred in the heart of Esau because of Jacob’s unjust behavior toward him. Esau chooses reconciliation for the sake of peaceful coexistence. Yet how can there be peaceful coexistence when Jacob has been blessed by God to prevail over others?
The matter of privilege claimed by the Jews is a consequence of the deliberate interpretation and fashioning of historical events and accounts, generating a fabricated record for the purpose of justifying Israel’s privileged positioning among the Semitic nations. When seen in this way the reason for Israel’s privileged behavior toward other Semitic communities can at least be understood even if not conscientiously justified.
The case of George Wallace and the GOP, …the good ole days
An interesting phenomenon now seemingly lost to most in the Republican camp involves George Corley Wallace Jr, a four-term governor of Alabama, serving in that office between 1963 and 1987, and who accomplished several unsuccessful attempts for the US presidency.
Wallace was a segregationist and a populist who pandered to the white majority of Alabama voters. His preoccupation with race was based on his belief that black Americans comprised a separate and inferior race. In a 1963 letter to a social studies teacher, Wallace stated “they were inclined to criminality—especially atrocious acts such as rape, assault and murder—because of a high incidence of venereal disease. Desegregation, he wrote, would lead to intermarriage—and eventually our race will be deteriorated to that of the mongrel complexity.”
Wallace first took his oath of office in January 1963, standing on the gold star marking the spot where nearly 102 years earlier Jefferson Davis was sworn in as provisional president of the Confederate States of America. In his inaugural speech Wallace said “in the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” This sentence had been written for Wallace by his new speechwriter, Ku Klux Klan leader Asa Earl Carter.
In 1964, Wallace contemplated supporting Berry Goldwater in his challenge to President Lyndon Johnson because the senator had voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wallace searched to determine if Goldwater if elected president would advocate to repeal the new law, particularly the public accommodations and equal employment sections. Wallace sacrificed his own presidential bid that year to allow a direct Republican challenge to President Johnson. Later it was disclosed that Wallace proposed to switch parties if he could be named as Goldwater’s running-mate, a designation later given to US Representative William Miller. Goldwater reportedly rejected the overturn of Wallace because he considered Wallace to be a racist.
Rejected because he was considered to be a racist; …hard to imagine that!
Honor Freedom of Conscience 