Hatred or Prejudice, who benefits?

This article was written jointly by Roger Froikin and Bat-Zion Susskind-Sacks

Both hatred, and prejudice have plagued humanity since early days. Unfortunately, they still do.

Since we all have our own different conception of what they mean, we decided, for the sake of this article, its clarity and its endeavor to share our opinion and view on its subject, to provide an objective definition of the two terms.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines Hatred as: “an extremely strong feeling of dislike.” “Prejudice” is defined by it as: “an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling when formed without enough thought or knowledge.” 

The common denominator these two terms share, as we believe the readers will agree with us, is that they both reside in the domain of emotions, not the rational one in us, humans.

 We also believe that almost everyone today acknowledges that these are sentiments that tend to be destructive and should, therefore, be put in the past in favor of fact, objectivity and rationality. Yet they are not. They are with us. It is a shame that, in this day and age, we need to discuss “hatred” or “prejudice.”

Moreover, we both feel that the problems they present are growing, not diminishing.  All one needs to do is look around the world. And while looking, one should try to understand why there is prejudice and why there is hatred, and maybe most of all ask, who benefits from both?

We all have our preferences, some rational, some not. So long as none of these preferences are imposed on others to their disadvantage, we could all live with it and practice the dignity of difference. Prejudice and hatred, as we suggested above, operate on an irrational plane. They motivate through unthinking emotions, no matter how well rationalized by those employing them or the damaging behaviours they produce.

Many studies have shown that prejudice is learned. Others have suggested that prejudice is innate. Whatever its source is, one fact remains clear, however. It is the taking of natural affinities and worries, and turning them into methods humans adopt to defend what we perceive as our interests or feed our egos irrationally where there is really no advantage for us.

Hatred, on the other hand, is something a bit simpler. Hate is the response to loss and to fear. People hate those that take something from them, those that injure them and those that hurt their interests. People hate anyone or anything that causes them to lose something.

Unfortunately, too often people hate what they have been taught to hate. In some cases, hatred is acquired and built upon our innate prejudices which some elements outside of us capitalize upon, stoke and simmer to the full fire of hatred. Those who fall prey to such destructive influences are oblivious to them, and are involuntarily fulfilling some socially demanded rule. By doing so, they become part of something bigger than themselves. Hatred, in these cases, gets the victims of such antics nothing, neither compensation for loss, nor justice, nor any reward.

The big question one should ask them is, WHO IS THE BENEFICIARY? WHO BENEFITS FROM PREJUDICE? WHO BENEFITS FROM HATRED?

Whatever and wherever the trigger for hatred is or rests, whether it’s racial bigotry, Anti-Semitism, Xenophobia, or hate against a political figure, one needs to study the source of the force, outside of oneself, that exploits and utilizes these emotions.

Unfortunately, in many cases, one will eventually find out that they fell victims to one’s twisted agenda. It can be the agenda of a ruling group which refuses to change the comforts of its status quo, or of an interest faction which feels threatened by an outsider, or perhaps even by a biased media that fails to differentiate facts from opinion.

One should never underestimate that interesting question, who stands to benefit from fanning the flames of prejudice and hatred?

The odds are, dear readers, that it is not the average person on the street, you or anyone of us! 

Debunking some more chapters of the Mideast “narrative”

                                                                                

There comes a time in people’s lives when they believe that they have heard it all only to discover some more proof of how far some twisted minds are willing and ready to stretch their half-baked truths, embellished version of historical events coupled with their fertile Levantine imagination in order to advance their own agenda. What is most troublesome though is that many innocent, yet intelligent minds fall prey to it and keep spreading these “narratives,” as I call them, all in the name of what is “right” “fair” and “accurate.”

It was precisely in the name of “fairness” “accuracy” and “factual history” that one of my students told me, one day, last week that the term “anti-Semitism” applied to all semites and not just to Jews. It was during a heated debate following a presentation, part of an English class assignment, by another student on the rock group “Pink Floyd.”  The name Roger Waters, naturally, came up and his anti-semitic/anti-Zionist ploys were discussed

True, Jews are not the only Semites and please believe me, the term “anti-Semitism” is not one I covet when it comes to the hatred that some bear towards Jews. And yes, I have heard others, mainly Arabs composing a carefully manipulative narrative in which they claim joint-ownership and rights for the term. Sorry to confuse you with facts, dear Arabs, my fellow semitic members of the human race. Anti-Semitism refers to the Jews and the Jews only!

Here is why.

When the German agitator, Wilhelm Marr coined the term in 1879, it was for the sole purpose to “designate the anti-Jewish campaign underway in central Europe at that time.” (http://www.britannica.com/topic/anti-Semitism)

The Arab world in itself, however, would not have been able to manufacture any “narratives,” spread them widely and successfully had it not received support and a welcoming audience from a world that feels guilty and is therefore driven by Political correctness.

The recent exaggerated worldwide response to PM Netanyahu’s description of the Jerusalem Mufti’s WWII role of advising Hitler for the best and most effective means to rid the world of Jews is a perfect example of that worldwide support.

Benjamin Netanyahu, himself the son of a very credible historian dared to refute one such “narrative,” the one diminishing the great part Arabs had in the extermination of European Jewry. True, the Jerusalem Mufti and the Arab/Muslim world may not have written “Mein Kampf” and did not actively engage in pouring the Zyklon B into the showerheads of the extermination camps but to exempt the Mufti and those he represented from any responsibility for what my parents’ generation endured is a most outrageous denial of a historical fact. This fact is recorded in the form of the transcript of the conversation between the Mufti and Hitler which Netanyahu clearly related to all and which establishes the strong alliance between Nazism and Arabism beyond any shadow of doubt.

Furthermore, Germany’s rush to claim total responsibility for the Shoah without recognizing the contributions of the Arab world for their complicity merely aids the Arabs/Muslim “narrative” and absolves Arabism from its shared goals with Nazism. What’s next, may I ask, enshrining the Mufti with the honorary title of a “Righteous Gentile?”

Another “narrative” is being woven by the Arab/ Muslim world as we speak. This one relates to the Jewish ownership of the Temple Mount. Yes, it is Jewish! And yes, it belongs to Am Yisrael as is evident by none other than the Wakf’s own admission.

The Official 1925 Supreme Moslem Council (Wakf) Guide Book to the Temple Mount proudly proclaims, on page four, paragraph two  “ the Temple Mount’s inexorable connection to the Holy Temple built by King Solomon on land purchased by King David, complete with reference to II Samuel 24:25.” (https://www.templeinstitute.org/wakf-1925-guidebook.htm)

Unfortunately, in this case, we, Am Yisrael, have immensely contributed to the authorship and the spread of this “narrative.” After the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel recaptured that portion of Jerusalem which was illegally occupied by Jordan since 1948, we proceeded in an ill-judged gesture of goodwill to hand over to those who wish to destroy us the keys to the holiest place of our people. Now, before anyone jumps at me, let me state I do not belong to those who call for the destruction of Al Aqsa so that we can rebuild our Temple. That is the Modus Operandi of the enemies of Israel and world civilization, not Israel’s.

Regrettably, “narratives,” Jewish ones, ones that aid, improve and even perfect the circulation of the ones created by the Arab/Muslim world are also being written by our own Jewish leaders and their blind devotees.

A few months ago, an Arab family was appallingly attacked by some terrorists. The arson attack which took place in the town of Duma in Judea and Samaria resulted in the painful death of a baby, his mother and father. The essayist of this Jewish “narrative” hastened to blame “Jewish terrorism” for the act. They declared it without any shred of solid evidence. Their “narrative,” I suspect, may have partly helped fan the flames of hatred that are currently burning Jewish lives.

As long as any side of the Middle East conflict refuses to adhere to facts only, as long as a “narrative” version of events is what dictates their policies, the chances for a long awaited Peaceful Existence in our troubled region are get slimmer and slimmer.