Obama’s Temple Dilemma

I don’t know whether it says more about Obama’s fear of controversy or America’s ignorance that the president may actually skip visiting one of the biggest attractions in India– all because some people might mistakenly think he’s wearing Muslim clothing, and consequently might think he’s Muslim (again).

The place: India’s “Golden Temple” (Harmandir Sahib) in Amritsar.  It’s the holiest site for adherents of Sikhism, one of the largest organized religions in the world with about 20 million followers (and also one of India’s major religions).  The Golden Temple is widely acknowledged to be a masterpiece of architecture and design and is one of the top tourist attractions in India.

The controversy: to enter a Sikh temple (known as a gurdwara), visitors must cover their heads.  Reports say that the White House nixed a visit to Amritsar because of fears that pictures of Obama with his head covered would circulate and give fuel to the minority of Americans (and others) who still think Obama is a Muslim– even though Sikhism is a completely separate religion from Islam and even though the headcovering wouldn’t necessarily have resembled something a Muslim might wear into a mosque, anyway.

So, is Obama scared of appearing to be a Muslim?  No one is saying for certain.  But if the White House holds fast to its decision not to allow Obama to visit the temple, it will be a great opportunity missed.

After 9/11, Sikhs were targets of hate crimes and threats from those who thought they were Muslim or terrorists (or both).  The Sikh Coalition has been working for the last 9 years to educate and inform Americans about the beliefs and traditions of Sikhism.  It would have been a great event for such a prominent leader to visit the Golden Temple and show Sikhism for what it is (a peaceful and generally stable religion for millions of people).

There are always going to be people who think you’re a Muslim, Mr. Obama, no matter what you do.  Stop giving in to them (especially when the visit was going to be AFTER the midterm elections) and seize an opportunity to educate by making a gesture of peace toward a major religion.

Israel’s Problematic Oath

While yet another peace process between Israelis and Palestinians crumbles, the Israeli government seems set on digging in their heels even more.  Last week, the Israeli cabinet approved a bill that would require all new citizens (who are not Jews, since all Jews have an automatic “right of return” to Israel) to take an oath swearing loyalty to the “Jewish and democratic state” of Israel.

Of course, this is an oxymoron of the most obvious degree.  How can a state both be democratic and require an oath to a specific religion?  And even defining what “Jewish” means within Israel is problematic– how can the state expect new citizens to swear an oath to it?  Condemnation of the legislation was swift from around the world.

“It would turn Israel into the very kind of country which historically Jews themselves have rightly cursed for their unequal treatment of non-Christians and non-Muslims,” wrote the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

Thousands of protesters in Israel (both Arab and Jewish) also held a demonstration this weekend.  The social affairs minister, Isaac Herzog, referred to the proposal as a “whiff of fascism.”  So far, the government hasn’t backed down.

There’s no immediate danger that the bill will go into effect: it first has to be approved by the Knesset and then the country’s supreme court can deliberate on whether or not the oath is constitutional.

It also wouldn’t affect that many people: only approximately 20% of Israel’s current population is non-Jewish, and these people are already citizens.  Furthermore, few non-Jews apply for citizenship in Israel.  Some have pointed out that right now, this would only really affect a Palestinian who marries an Israeli Arab, for example, and then wishes to become an Israeli citizen.

But the emotional and political impact of the proposed oath is a dangerous one. It seems designed to sting.  Many Arabs took it as a slap in the face, another way for Israel’s hawkish government to say Arabs are not welcome– or at least, are not on equal footing with the Jewish majority.  And many observers around the world took is as yet another sign that Israel isn’t truly willing to negotiate an end to decades of hostility.

Perhaps more ominously, as an editorial in the Guardian pointed out, such an oath may be preparation for what might happen later: “…there is calculation in this. It seeks to pre-empt negotiation on the third core issue after borders and the division of Jerusalem – the right of return of Palestinian refugees to sovereign Israeli territory.”

If that’s true, that should make us even more wary of the likely failure of the latest round of peace talks.  If the current Israeli government is preparing for ways to control or discriminate against the Arab population even far into the future, how much can we trust them to negotiate a peace settlement now?