Dangerously Divisive! Korach & Pauline Hanson

Arguments are raging about how to respond to the election of the divisive anti-Islam senator elect Pauline Hanson. On one hand we are being urged to “listen [to,] not lampoon” Hanson and her voters. We are told that although ‘Hanson’s policies are misconceived’ we can must empathise with the economic pain of Hanson’s rural supporters and to accept that their “fears are natural, and understandable”. I suggested on twitter that ‘dialogue with fearful, resentful people must sit alongside ensuring that bigotry is not made respectable’.

On the other hand, there are very real fears that giving credence to bigotry will have devastating effects. Jarni Blakkarly wrote after the election of Hanson: “A lot of my friends who are people of colour and particularly Muslims are genuinely afraid at the moment.” Last time Hanson was in Parliament she made offensive comments about Aboriginal people and there was an increase in racist incidents in her state to the extent where Aboriginal people reported being afraid to travel on buses. A similar effect is currently being felt on the streets of the UK, as a result of the toxic Brexit rhetoric. Tim Soutphommasane correctly asserted that “We have plenty of examples about how licensing hate can lead to serious violence and ugliness in our streets and our communities ”.

In the Torah reading this week we have the example of Korach, a Biblical figure who challenged Moses’ leadership and threatened the cohesion of the Israelites. Of Korach it is written that ‘A man took a divisive stance and lost part of himself[i]’. There is something profoundly diminishing in the stance of hateful divisiveness. Yet, the threat dividers pose is seen as massive, and must not be underestimated. Shakira Hussein argues that Hansonism is part of an international trend and that those who are supporting the approach “are not just seeking to recapture the past. They’re looking to the future — and they believe that it belongs to them[ii]”. In the case of Korach, God himself intervened and had the earth swallow Korach alive[iii].  This reflects the power of words to undermine societal norms and cohesion. Ridicule of Hansonism and of her as a public figure representing offensive views is appropriate and a legitimate part of the battle of ideas.

Like Hanson challenging the Elites, Korach denied Moses authority as a messenger of God and falsely accused him of haughtiness: holding himself above the people[iv].  Yet, we know that Moses was a reluctant leader and is described in the Torah as a most humble man. In speaking the unspeakable, Korach shook the foundations of his society and emboldened others who wished to break free from the constraints of what was previously considered “correct” speech. In our time, like then, it is important for people to strongly distance themselves from divisive figures or risk being seen as legitimising their views. This is symbolically alluded to in the story of Korach when the people are instructed to physically distance themselves from Korach[v] because tho stand near Korach could be understood to be standing with him and his agenda[vi].

On the other hand there is value in a dialogue with Hanson’s voters, but in a way that does not to amplify their voices. Moses himself talked to some of the rebels and sought to reason with them. Moses send a messenger to two of the other rebels who had not approach him to invite them to meet him for dialogue[vii]. In many ways, Hanson’s voters are people like you and me. Many of them are suffering and have genuine concerns about the future of our country. They also have unacceptable and harmful views that need to be challenged. But the best way to do that is to engage with them in an appropriate way without causing further harm to our society. 

The nature of Korach’s punishment is illustrative of the nature of in-fighting and divisiveness. The ground opened and swallowed Korach alive[viii]. This is the nature of conflict, it is consuming[ix]!  When the Israelites saw Korach consumed as a consequence of the conflict they ran screaming[x], because they said: “lest we also be swallowed”. There is a struggle for hearts and minds and the direction we will take regarding differences. Let us fight hard, compassionately and wisely.

---

[i] Ohr Hachayim, to Numbers 16:1

[ii] https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/07/06/pauline-hanson-product-of-right-wing-bigotry/?activation=success

[iii] Numbers 16:31-33, If I take the story of Korach literally, it troubles me because of what it implies about dissent and challenging authority but I am looking at it in more thematic or Midrashic terms

[iv] Numbers 16:3

[v] Numbers 16:26, Arama, Rabbi Y., cited in Lebovitz, N. Studies in Bamidbar Numbers, Malbim, Hirsch, S.R.,

[vi] Midrash Hagadol cited in Torah Shlaima

[vii] Numbers 16:5-12

[viii] Numbers 16:31-33

[ix] Chafetz Chayim

[x] Numbers 16:34, “screaming” is my creative interpretation/translation of the words in the verse that states “they ran to/for their voices” which is ambiguous. 

Jews Muslim and Hate Realistic Responses and Korach

Ibrahim Abdo, Donna Jacobs Sife, Mohamed Taha and
Kastel present Jews Muslim and Hate Realistic Responses at
Yom Limmud, Sydney June 2014

Two young Muslims, Mohamed Taha and Ibrahim Abdo, joined Donna Jacobs Sife and me on a panel at Yom Limmud (Jewish learning festival) last Sunday. Our topic: Jews, Muslims and hate - realistic responses.

Ibrahim and I reflected on the way that hatred is often masked; ostensibly it is about one thing but, in reality, it is driven by other factors. This plays out in the story of Korah’s rebellion and animosity  against Moses. Korah talks about equality  but, according to tradition, he was less motivated by an aspiration for anarchy than by personal ambition,  hurt  and a desire for the position of high priest .

While the causes of hate are murky, the impact is unmistakable. Here is a first person account from a teacher  about some of her Muslim students:
…I live in fear that the students will find out that I am Jewish. I do. I am terrified that the students will find out that I am Jewish. I am very ashamed to say this and I have never said this to anybody [teacher almost in tears as s/he relates this incident]. A few years ago, while stopping students etching swastikas onto a desk, one of the students yelled at me, ‘Why Miss, are you a Jew?’ And I said, ‘No, I am not. That is incorrect behaviour’. This is the only time in my life that I have lied about being a Jew, and I am not an observant Jew; I am not a religious Jew; but I have never considered lying or hiding the fact that I am a Jew. But this time, I know, for my survival, that I did not want my tyres slashed... I did not want – what scared me the most, more than offence on my private property, was public graffiti in the school playground stating that I was a Jew... and I was aware that, in that moment,  it was pure fear that I lied and said I was not a Jew.

Then, there is the hatred directed against Muslims. A very strong Muslim woman I know and respect, has recently stopped using public transport in Sydney after increased harassment of Muslim women on trains. This is absolutely unacceptable. My own Jewish community is not immune. There are the familiar moral panic emails about “the Muslims this and the Muslims that”. There are comments made by some, that generalise about “the Muslims”.

The fact that Ibrahim, Mohamed, Donna Jacobs Sife and I presented to a packed room of mostly Jewish people, with Muslims attending as well, speaks volumes. It reflects a thirst for coexistence on the part of the audience and the fact that our aspirations for coexistence are very realistic, as demonstrated by the goodwill of the panellists towards each other. We offered our audience a realistic response - members of different communities can come together with a common purpose, such as, opposing hatred.

Perhaps, what we need is our own version of a serious smoking ceremony. I recently learned from our Aboriginal brothers and sisters how smoke is used to cleanse unwanted energy. I later discovered that, in Judaism, the Hebrew word for smoke,עשן , consists of the first three letters of words that cover the three dimensions of reality - עולם  world or space, שנה year or time, and נפש  soul or spirit. The smoke rising from the incense ritual, elevates and heals all three aspects . Perhaps, this is why, in the aftermath of the Korah controversy, Aaron is instructed to go out among the people carrying incense . At first, he merely restrains the carnage resulting from all the fighting, but then the spiritual force of destruction itself acquiesces and the destruction stops . 

Conclusion: Hate is a powerful, consuming force. I feel it in my stomach when I see it or experience it. Thankfully, I don’t experience it often. More often, I experience the absolute delight of having made a friend, who might have been a potential enemy. This joy and goodwill is reciprocated by my many Muslim friends and by bridge- builders of many backgrounds around the world. Can it continue to be replicated? Yes!




Notes

1. The Torah tells us that Dathan and Aviram reject Moses' invitation to talk. “The eyes of those people will be put out we will still not go up” (16:14); they chose to have their eyes gouged out rather than the ascent Moses might promise them. In this, they revealed the intensity of their hatred towards the righteous Moses and what he represented: this angered Moses greatly (Ohr Hachayim)
2.  Numbers 16:3
3.  Midrash Tanchuma, the appointment of Elitzafan Ben Uziel, the son of Korah’s father’s younger brother, in Numbers 3:30 offends Korah.
4.  See Numbers 16:10, many commentaries
5.  Rutland, S. (2010) Creating effective Holocaust education programmes for government schools with large Muslim populations in Sydney, Prospects (2010) 40:75–91, Springer Press. 
6. Ohr Hatora, Shemot, Vol 3, pp. 103, 106, cited in The Siddur Illuminated by Chassidus, Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch 2013.
7.  Numbers 17:11
8.  There were two stages in Aaron’s stopping the carnage of the plague that G-d had initiated in the aftermath of Korah’s rebellion. First we are told that וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה  “the plague ceased”, when Aaron stands between the dead and the living holding the incense (Numbers 17:13). Two verses later we are told again that the plague ceased וְהַמַּגֵּפָה נֶעֱצָרָה.  The commentary Ohr Hachayim explains that the word “plague” refers to the angel of death administering the plague. The first time the text tells us the plague ceases it means that the angel was merely checked or restrained by Aaron and the power of the incense, but from the angels point of view he was still keen on continuing the plague as this was his mission from God. The second time is different.  Despite the fact that Aaron returned to Moses and that he put away the incense, the plague itself had agreed to cease.