Opinions

‘When Journalists Don’t Get Religion’ offers superficial analysis

I recently read an interview in the Jerusalem Post with Roberta Green Ahmanson that was breathtaking in its ignorance. Ahmanson is the author of “Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion.” In 2005, Time magazine named her one of America’s 25 most influential Evangelical Christians.

Ahmanson’s thesis is that the Western press pooh-poohs faith as a motivating force in conflict, claiming “… most of the conflict in the world is about what people believe.”

Interviewed during Israel’s December military action in the Gaza Strip, Ahmanson explained that Hamas’ actions should be seen in the context of “reestablishing Islamic control.”

She elaborated, “The events that led to the operation in Gaza illustrate how people are motivated by their religion. An organization like Hamas latches onto certain things that are deep within the history and teachings of Islam, and it uses them in the modern world — by shelling Israel, for example — because it believes that this land once was Muslim land, and it’s its duty to take it back,” adding, “Within the Muslim community, this is going to be part of the issue forever, because its goal, of course, is to have the entire world living under Islam.”

Nowhere does Ahmanson explain what is “deep within the history and teachings of Islam” that compels some Palestinians to violently oppose Israel. There is also no explanation of the connection between Islamic theology and rocket launching. Also absent is any explanation of why some Muslims are violent and others not. This is extremely shallow analysis.

Nor is there anything in Hamas’ charter or other statements about having “the entire world living under Islam.” Hamas’ charter does call for the destruction of Israel, but Israel is not the entire world.

For Ahmanson, the problem is always Islam. Ahmanson doesn’t contemplate the possibility that part of the problem could be Israel. For example, Palestinians have to pass through time-consuming and humiliating security checkpoints that Jews don’t, and they have to carry special identification cards that Jews are not required to have. In the West Bank, Palestinians can’t drive on the same new highways as Jews. If I lived under those conditions I’d be pissed off, too.

Many social scientists have come to strikingly different conclusions than Ahmanson. Columnist Christopher Caldwell points out that since 1967 the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza has grown from 450,000 to 3.3 million, 47 percent of which are under age 15.

Populations with large numbers of young people often end up with rampant unemployment and large numbers of disaffected youth who can be recruited into criminal organizations. Civil violence commonly occurs in countries with such large numbers of poverty stricken young people.

Caldwell explains, “If you follow this argument to its logical end point, then the religion of Islam … is a great red herring … Religion can be a convenient rationalization for violent people who do not want to think of themselves as conventional criminals, but this problem is not unique to Islam.”

Ahmanson’s analysis is ridiculous because it lacks depth. For example, she ignores the possibility that Palestinians get involved in terrorist groups because of the anger that discrimination and rampant unemployment generate, and not because of religious fervor. Membership also gives them status in their communities.

Ahmanson ignores that religious identity provides an ideal way for leaders to intentionally unite people in a common cause — and also to manipulate them.

Christopher Herrin is a graduate Religious Studies major and a columnist for the Daily Forty-Niner.

 

You may also like

2 Comments

  1. I do agree with you that Israel is used as a ‘red-herring’ by Islamic militant leaders. My point is that the security restrictions that Israelis put on Palestinians fuel Islamic militancy as much as it is a response to it. Israel obviously has to protect its citizens, but I think that some of its methods are both counter-productive and morally reprehensible. But it is difficult to contest that the huge amounts of young-people now found in many Muslim countries contributes quite a bit to instability and extremism in those countries. Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan are good examples, besides the Palestinian Territories. In ethnically-charged regions like the Palestinian Territories, the anger of the young-people creates a situation that favors the emergence of extremist leaders, as they are most able to undermine moderates with their rhetoric. In other words, the popular anger creates a vacuum that extremists are better able to fill and exploit than those who favor more peaceful actions. If there is a widespread feeling for violent action, then leaders, especially elected leaders, have to act to hold onto power, even if peaceful means will produce better results. Another thing to consider is that joining groups like Hamas also confers status on young people who are hungry for it, much as we see in American street gangs.

  2. By claiming that Islam is a “red herring” for groups of angry, “disaffected,” youth who seek revenge on Israel, you seem to ignore the fact that Islamic extremist groups exist in places all over the world and are usually funded by wealthy, older men. Exactly what role does “unemployment” or Israel play in wealthy people like Osama Bin Laden funding attacks on America? Maybe the answer is misguided youth, as you claim. But, then, how does Israel come into play when these youths are bombing nightclubs in Indonesia or trains in Spain? I think Israel is the “red herring” for justifying Islamic extremism, not Islam.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in:Opinions