On August 13th, 2010
Courtesy Of "The Foreign Policy Journal"
These days, when every aspect of Iranian society is under scrutiny, D. M. Murdock’s article in Freethought Examiner entitled “Inside Iran’s Sex Slave Industry” comes as no surprise. Yet, the timing of this paper makes one wonder: Who benefits from this article?
Certainly, religious fundamentalism needs no defense – it is reprehensible in all its different guises. But Islamic fundamentalism is no less oppressive and dangerous than religious fundamentalism in Israel. In his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Wight of Three Thousand Years, Israel Shahak explained the “destructive influence” of Jewish fundamentalism on “Israeli politics, the military and society.” Shahak demonstrated that “all forms of bigotry” are morally reprehensible: “Any form of racism, discrimination and xenophobia becomes more potent and politically influential if it is taken for granted by the society which indulges in it. … The support of democracy and human rights … is meaningless or even harmful and deceitful [for Israeli Jews], when it does not begin with self-critique and with support of human rights when they are violated by one’s own group. Any support of human rights for non-Jews whose rights are being violated by the ‘Jewish State’ is as deceitful as the support of human rights by a Stalinist …”
Shahak’s work, deeply appreciated by Jean Paul Sartre, Gore Vidal, Christopher Hitchens, and Edward Said, was dismissed as anti-Semitic propaganda by others: “The language of current anti-Semitism is deeply indebted to these Jewish voices and in fact needs them to make its case. Their eagerness to denounce Israel in the most virulent terms and to call for its destruction offers a powerful alibi to the anti-Semites. Anti-Semites rely on Jews to confirm their prejudice: If Jews recur to such language and advocate such policies, how can anyone be accused of anti-Semitism for making the same arguments? … The mechanism through which an anti-Semitic accusation becomes respectable once a Jew endorses it is not limited to Israel’s new historians. Norman Finkelstein provides a blanket cover to Holocaust deniers, as does Noam Chomsky. Israel Shahak made the comparison between Israel and Nazism respectable – all the while describing Judaism according to the medieval canons of the blood libel.”
Calling it anti-Semitism or medieval “blood libel” doesn’t diminish the impact of religion-inspired prejudice, hypocrisy and hatred, against Palestinians, Christians and Jews of moderate persuasion. The “Zionist Media” of the West did not publish the story relating to the beating of three teen girls in the town of Beit Shemesh, near Jerusalem by its ultra-Orthodox residents. The haredim claimed that the girls were “immodestly” dressed. “The incident was the last in a series of reported attacks by members of the Haredi Community faction on their religious neighbours, prompted by the latter’s alleged ‘promiscuity’ and negative influence on haredi children.” The girls were viciously kicked “until they fell on the ground.” The attackers – all adults of over 40 – threw eggs at them shouting: “Nazis, get out of here.” The father of one of the victims said: “My daughter was completely hysterical … She came home all beaten up and filthy.” Meanwhile, the members of the Haredi Community presented their side of the story. Moshe, a haredi resident claimed that “young religious boys and girls often pass through the haredi neighbourhood together, and that on occasion yeshiva students have to ‘drive them away by force’… Boys and girls laughing together is forbidden. This shouldn’t happen in a secular neighbourhood, let alone an ultra-Orthodox one.”
Islamic oppression of women makes headlines, while the violence perpetrated by the members of Haredi Community in Beit Shemesh goes unnoticed. Donna M. Hughes’ articles “Sex Slave Jihad” and “Islamic Fundamentalism and the Sex Slave Trade in Iran” – both articles have identical content – inspired D. M. Murdock’s paper in Freethought Examiner “Inside Iran’s Sex Slave Industry.” Ms. Hughes, a Professor and Carlson Endowed Chair of Women’s Studies Program at University of Rhode Island, published both papers without a single reference. Neither her figures – “there has been a 635 percent increase in the number of teenage girls in prostitution” – nor her facts – “thousands of Iranian women and girls have been sold into sexual slavery abroad” – can be verified. An anonymous head of Iran’s Interpol bureau has entrusted Ms. Hughes with the following information: “The sex slave trade is one of the most profitable activities in Iran today. This criminal trade is not conducted outside the knowledge and participation of the ruling fundamentalists. Government officials themselves are involved in buying, selling, and sexually abusing women and girls.”
While alleging that there is a “known slave market in Tehran where Iranian and foreign traders meet,” Hughes then states that upon their return to Iran, these “women are examined to determine if they have engaged in ‘immoral activity’” and accordingly banned from leaving the country again. Unless these returning “sex slaves” possessed Aphrodite’s magic to renew their virginity, the prison system in Iran would suffer a great influx of women needing “punishment and imprisonment” for engaging in the illegal activity of prostitution. As if this unsubstantiated tale is not enough, Hughes states that most of the girls – “some … as young as 8 and 10″ – are sent to“Arab countries” like Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates to work as prostitutes. The reader is expected to accept this information at face value without asking the question: Why should Iran supply prostitutes to other Islamic countries? Unless the birth rate of girls has dramatically increased in Iran in comparison to neighbouring countries, there would be no need to provide them with “sex slaves” – these Muslim countries would have their own home-grown “slave markets.” Claims of girls being sold to France, Britain, Turkey and Persian Gulf countries help support the idea that the runaway girls, who end up as prostitutes, “are rebelling against fundamentalist imposed restriction on their freedom.”
It is interesting to note that tougher restrictions on women’s freedom exist in another Muslim country – Saudi Arabia. The only country in the world that forbids women to drive, doesn’t permit them to vote or hold public office and requires all women to have a male guardian, Saudi Arabia, an ally of the United States and Israel, does not inspire negative rhetoric. Blaming Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush shielded the bin Laden family from investigation. Bush signed a Presidential Directive W199I “making it a crime to investigate or hinder the operations of one Abdullah bin Laden in any way.” Similarly, the investigation into the drug trafficking activities of Saudi Mafia that funded terrorist cells in the U.S. and abroad were hindered by the then Head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Michael Chertoff. All Saudi Arabian ventures – from drug trafficking, money laundering to supporting terrorists and transmitting its dominant form of Islam, the Wahhabism – are condoned and tolerated. The oil money makes these activities palatable.
Hughes directs her diatribes against Iran: “… Exploitation and repression of women are closely associated. Both exist where women, individually or collectively, are denied freedom and rights. … The Islamic fundamentalists in Iran are not simply conservative Muslims. Islamic fundamentalism is a political movement with a political ideology that considers women inherently inferior in intellectual and moral capacity.” A similar fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia, with the most vicious subjugation of women, is not mentioned. Unless the Saudi women are prevented from expressing their anger or “rebelling against fundamentalist imposed restriction on their freedom” – there is no way to imagine that restrictions on their freedoms, including the free speech, make Saudi women happy – the total silence on women’s plight in Saudi Arabia is unexplainable. For a women’s rights advocate like Hughes, the limitations on women’s right to free speech should give rise to a full investigation – a worthwhile project on its own. But Hughes’ decree against Islamic fundamentalism targets Iran, overlooking similar fundamentalism and its consequent oppression of women in Saudi Arabia. There is no reported “thriving sex trade” in Saudi Arabia and the “wealthy and powerful mullahs” are so virtuous that they don’t seek out young women for sex. A ridiculous proposition indeed! – But a proposition that raises questions about Ms. Hughes’ motives for singling out Iran’s theocracy among similar theocracies in the region.
Ben Hartman’s August 10, 2010 article in The Jerusalem Post describes the indictment of the Jewish counterpart of a “wealthy and powerful mullah,” Rabbi Mordechai “Moti” Elon. “The police’s announcement on Sunday that there was enough evidence to pursue sex crimes charges against Rabbi Mordechai “Moti” Elonwas greeted with a measured response by members of a rabbinical forum that fights sexual abuse by religious leaders.” Rabbi David Stav, a member of the rabbinical forum Takana, said that “the police announcement would have no impact on … [Takana’s] recommendations regarding Elon,” since the forum deals with “ethical issues” rather than the law and the penal code. “Ethical issues” or not, earlier, the Takana had posted a statement that accused Elon of “having sexual relations with male students.” As “many in the religious community are not willing to turn to the police,” the Takana sees itself “as a venue in which allegations of wrongdoing that would probably not make their way to the police are addressed.” Despite accusations that included “forceful sexual molestation, and sexual molestation of at least two minors,” the forum was criticized “for going after a revered member of the national-religious community.” Elon’s unique status in the Religious Zionist community – “son of former Supreme Court justice Menachem Elon, and brother of former lawmaker Benny Elon” – contributed to the “earthquake” effect of the scandal. With disciples numbering in the thousands – Elon held senior positions in several educational institutions, “including Yeshivat Horev and the flagship rabbinic school Yeshivat HaKotel … in Jerusalem” – and a weekly television show that added to his popularity, Moti Elon was described as “the only Hasidic leader with followers, the only one who truly had a Hasidic court.” Israel, “a semi-theocracy” headed towards a full-fledged theocracy didn’t want to expose one of its respected religious leaders. The head of Jerusalem’s Ateret Cohanim Yeshiva, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, said: “I am telling everybody – keep silent … the affair must not be allowed to undermine the rabbi’s authority.”
Haaretz’ Gideon Levy certainly is not following Shlomo Aviner’s advice on silencing the truth; he gives a snap-shot of Israeli theocracy: “Life … [in Israel] is more religious, traditional and halakhic” than most Israelis “are prepared to admit.” “Between Stockholm and Tehran, Israel … is much closer to Tehran. From birth to death, from circumcision to funeral, from the establishment of the state to the establishment of the last of the illegal outposts in the West Bank – we are operating in the shadow of the commandments of religion. We should be honest with ourselves and admit it already: The country is too religious. … The religious-nationalist campaign began a long time ago, and it is still going strong. … There are no civil marriages or divorces, and there are almost no secular funerals. The Law of Return and the definition of who is a Jew – the most fundamental and significant of Israeli precepts – are based on halakha. … Let’s admit that we live in a country with many religious and halakhic attributes. Let’s remove the concocted secularist guise with which we have wrapped ourselves. … Israel is not what you thought. It’s definitely not what we try to present to ourselves and the rest of the world.” “… There is no other country in the Western world wherereligion has its holy iron grip on the state as it does in Israel.”
Instead of concentrating on Israeli theocracy and its damaging effects on society at large, the writers of biased opinion articles have focused on Iran’s theocracy and its negative effects on women and children. They would do well to look at the other side of Iran’s society we don’t seem to be familiar with – women and children at play, in a park, at a ski resort, on the street. A quick look at the instrumentalists in one of the images of the video reveals a stunning picture – out of the six cellists, three are women. As for the head-covering Iranian women wear, these are no different than those worn by women belonging to Haredi Community. Neither are the rules on “modest clothing” different. After all, the beating of the three teen girls in the town of Beit Shemesh by its ultra-Orthodox residents was motivated by “immodesty” in clothing. But there is a difference. While there are images of many smiling and laughing women in Tehran, Ultra-Orthodox communities don’t allow “boys and girls laughing together” – this is a sin that “shouldn’t happen in a secular neighbourhood, let alone an ultra-Orthodox one.”
*The title of this paper is borrowed from Gideon Levy’s article: “Let’s Face the Facts, Israel is a Semi-theocracy.”
No comments:
Post a Comment