The First Amendment and Freedom of Expression:Free Speech vs. Hate Speech

The anti-Western riots in the Muslim Land inspired by (presumably insulting) depictions of Prophet Mohammad in amateur movie and professional satirical cartoons brought issue of freedom of expression, blasphemy, and hate speech to the front lines of international (and, for many countries, domestic) politics.

I don't see a need for myself to defend so fundamental right as freedom of expression - the first cornerstone of democracy itself. It's done by others over the course of centuries and even millenniums, before even Plato had to defend himself in Athenian court (and I won't do it better then Plato).

But the current events brought up other issue that isn't so systematically addressed and, in many cases, is fails under subjective and conflicting interpretations: when a free speech become a hate speech and if a hate speech should be protected by principal of the free speech.

Any professional soldier knows that to kill another human is a very difficult moral proposition (not talking about psycho killers who can be found in any walks of life). The primary method to easy this task is to show that enemy is not a human - he's just un-animate subject of actions. It can be easier done for combat pilots, UAV operators, gunners who don't see their targets' faces. It's harder for the front-line troops who do see them.

The hate speech is different from any other forms of expression in its incitement of violence on solicitation for murder. It's achieved by de-humanisation of its hatred targets, by striping them from attributes of humanity and making them just un-animated subjects of actions.

Therefor, de-humanisation is a key attribute of the hate speech and its first and only identifiable marker. Any speech must be qualified as a hate speech just and only if it's de-humanising its targets. Insult, mockery, blasphemy, and subversion do not qualify!

Hate speech is not a rare occasion in our history. Hate speech is what makes war and murder possible. From extermination of Native Americans "savages" by European settlers to slaughter of first European settlers by their Native American neighbors (across both Americas). From old-time Jewish pogroms to Holocaust of Nazi's "final solution". From genocide of Hereros and Namaqua in Namibia of 1904 to Armenian genocide of 1914 to Rwandan genocide of 1994. From slaughter of "bourgeoisie social enemies" by Bolshevik revolutionaries in Russian Civil War to slaughter of Israeli POW by Syrian captors. From slaughter of "foreigners" in Chinese Boxer Rebellion to slaughter of Chinese civilians by Japanese Imperial Army in "Rape of Nanking".

Among fundamental human rights only right to life is supersede the free speech. Hate speech is undermining the right to life and, therefor, is not protected by free speech.

But are "Innocents of Muslim" and Mohammad cartoons hate speech or just reckless exercise of the free speech?

Based on the publicly available fragments neither one of them match criteria of de-humanisation. Quite an opposite - Mohammad (and his followers) in all cases shown as a very human (it's probably just add to the perceived "insult" and condemned as blasphemy).

The bigger question is if the modern  mainstream Muslim society can demonstrate maturity and understanding of the democracy? Apparently it's not (except for rare and, unfortunately, marginalised voices like of Ad Husain, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and some other).

Modern Muslim society sees nothing wrong with accepting "Mein Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (which meets all the definition of the hate speech) under the banner of the free speech and became hysteric on little mockery of its own believes.

Production of "Innocents of Muslim" by itself has absolutely no artistic value and would be ignored by any mature culture.

And as Mr. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula initially claimed to be Israeli Jew by name Sam Bacile, this opens completely different subject of centuries old "tradition" of making Jews scapegoats by neighboring population and for his (Mr. Nakoula) intellectual deficiency (especially his claim of exactly "100 Jewish" donors which shows hallmark of traditional blood label accusations), even I can understand his desire to deflect backfire retaliation from his own Egyptian Coptic community.

Israel: America's Beloved Enemy and Feared Friend

American support to the State Of Israel is the most complicated aspect of our foreign policy. Supporters and detractors of the Jewish State giving each-other foil-language labels and blaming each-other in untold vices ranging the full specter of accusations from customary antisemitism to, no less customary, racism and anything in-between.

It's very hard for a mere mortal to get “above the fight”. And this is very true for me as I have very deep emotional connection to the Land Of Israel and to the State Of Israel as the Jewish State – “And let dry my right arm if I will forget you, o Jerusalem”.

Saying all this I could not pretend to absolutely objective, but I'll strive to do this to my very best. Besides, no one, who can take on this contentious subject, can be fully objective anyway and this alone granting me right to add my dime to the discussion.

It's routinely said that Israel enjoys full bi-partisan support on the Capitol Hill and every American President promised that America has “Israel's back”. The popular explanations to Israel's support in Washington ranging from the shared strategic values and morale alliance with “the only democracy on the Middle East” to Evangelical religious fanaticism (in support of dooms-day and “Next Kingdom” prophecies) to the Jewish Money that “have Washington in their pocket”.

Importance of “Israel's card” in electoral politics is so significant that sometimes it overshadow other (at times absolutely critical) domestic issues and political campaign becomes a competition who will profess support for Israel more loudly and in least uncertain terms. No other foreign policy subject ever getting even close in prominence during electoral season as an American Voter may have a problem or two with World geography, but name “Israel” required no clarifications.

Even when President-elect moves into the Oval Office without strong pro-Israel credentials (like President Obama, whose long-time association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and some radical academics, like Bill Ayers, cast reasonable doubts on his stand toward Israel, that were even highlighted by his conciliatory Cairo speech early in his term and by initial ill-treatment of Israeli Prim-minister Benjamin Netanyahu) it resolved into a strong practical unquestionable support of Israel. The question is “why”? Why every American President supports Israel dispute he even may have proven personal animosity toward it (like Jimmy Carter or Bush-older)? What is Israeli magic?

I think that today's short answer is “Arab Oil and Israeli Second Strike Capability”. It wasn't always this way.

When State Of Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, it was done based on UN resolution 181(II), that was accepted due to strong support from Stalin's Soviet Union, and against “friendly” personal advice of President Truman to David Ben-Gurion to post-pond it. America de-facto recognized the new state on the very next day, May 15 – two days before it was recognized de-jure by Soviet Union on May 17. However, when Israel was invaded (on the same day of May 15, as it was recognized by America) by overwhelming force of Arab coalition of Egypt, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, Iraq, and volunteer units from places ranging from Sudan to Pakistan, America took a position of neutrality and for this put embargo on weapon supply to the fighting parties which in effect was only against newly founded State Of Israel as its adversaries were well established states with their own armament resources. Israel won the war (don't tell it in Egypt, Syria, etc. – they still don't believe it) using weapons received through Czechoslovakia (with Soviet backing) and on the black market (like through Meir Lansky, even Israel turn ungrateful to him unlike to his partner in this operation Teddy Kollek, later the most celebrated major of Jerusalem).

From this point Israel proved to become raising military power in the region and, with start of the Cold War, great political and intelligence asset (Israel intelligence credited with getting the first copy of, then top secret, speech of the Soviet leader Khrushchev to 20^th Congress of the Communist Party of USSR in February 1956 – a major turning point in modern Russian history) that worthy of American retention (and associated expenses).

In the next few decades two things happened: (1) Israel's Arab enemies (with exception of Jordan and Lebanon) became major and primary suppliers of raw petroleum that fueled Western (and American specifically) economy and (2) Israel developed full range nuclear technology and “second strike” capabilities (current President of Israel Shimon Peres said to be instrumental to those achievements in his young years as assistant to then Prim-minister Ben-Gurion) – a well known “secret” dispute official “nuclear ambiguity” policy.

Those were hot years of the Cold War. America and Soviet Union were striving to retain “old friends” and to gain “new”. Loosing Israel to the Soviet sphere of influence was unthinkable strategic blow to America that should be prevented at all cost. The cost was unquestionable financial, military, and political support. America was ready to pay it and every American President signed the bill. Israel thrived in this bi-polar, American-Soviet, world (same as many other small players on the World map).

Those were years when American-Israeli alliance was forged and Washington, DC became very mindful of Israeli well-been.

Sure, not everything was always rosy and Jonathan Pollard’s case is a sore reminder, as unprecedented (ether before and after) lifetime sentence can only be explained by Washington’s desire to keep its “feared friend” in check.

With the end of the Cold War and collapse of the “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union both, America and Israel, found themselves in the “brave new” multi-polar world. After “cashing” on some tactical achievements Western victors were not so sure what to do with their victory.

The prominence of Israel in American Geo-political calculations got smaller, but importance of America for Israeli regional and global stance became even bigger, as Israel can't count on its automatic support anymore, and no substitution to this support is available, dispute improving relations between Israel and such World powers as Russia and China. And this how things are today.

French President Charles de Gaulle once said “France has no friends, only interests”. The same can be said about both, America and Israel.

American interest is uninterrupted oil supply from the Middle East.

Israel's interest is survival.

America absolutely dependent to raw oil supply from Saudi Arabia and Golf states. Putting plug on it will spell disaster for World economy that, at the time of this writing, can't be mitigated.

With its “Second Strike Capability” Israel holds hand on this plug.

The one time Israeli Prim-minister Golda Meir was credited with say that if Israel will leave [World stage], it will live with slamming the door. America knows that if Israel will “slam the door” the whole “house” can go down. The same is known to American friends in the Middle East – Saudi Arabia and prosperous Golf states. Those countries (dispute infrequent populist saber rafting rhetoric) made a strategic decision to avoid war with Israel (and any other war for this matter) as their enormous investment in petroleum, tourist, and general business infrastructure will be nullified by the first day Israeli airstrike. It also means that (again, dispute populist statements to contrary) those countries fundamentally agree with defensive nature of Israeli military power.

America needs Middle Eastern oil. America knows that Israel can tolerate some political insult and ready to go a long way to achieve its goal to be a viable Jewish State. America also knows that if Israel will be cornered down it will “slam the door” by using its unverified, but undisputed “Second Strike Capabilities”, which is euphemism for nuclear strike, that will make Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East, and, possibly, Northern Africa and Central Asia uninhabitable for decades to come.

No rational world player wants to see it happened. But America's lost in this catastrophic scenario is greater than loses of Russia and China (the other two great power in today's tri-polar World).

However, not all world players are rational. The wildest card is nowadays Islamic Republic of Iran. Does its leaders really hope to see Imam Mahdi on a Wight Horse in their life-time or it's only their populist rhetoric to keep their subjects in check?

How much of a chance we can take? Are those irrational players really willing and able to push Israel in to a corner to fight for its very survival? Where the true Israeli “last red line”? Gross uncertainty in those questions are the reasons why every American President reiterating “unconditional American support for the security” of the State Of Israel and why the most feared statement (for American administration) by Israeli leaders is that “Israel should be able to defend itself by itself” and that “Israel should be master of its own destiny”.

American policy toward Israel can be summarized as “If I can't control you I have to support you”.

In tough economic times with unfinished wars and growing national debt every dime of foreign assistance looks like unaffordable generosity amid growing shortfalls at home. In case of Israel, prosperous modern country with advanced economy that doing rather surprisingly well amid global financial crises, $3B/year looks like a welfare check going to a high net-worth businessman instead of jobless man next door. Its provoking angry looks.

But $3B/year isn't a very steep price to pay for having say in ones - America's - own destiny that hold by others (besides none of this money indeed leaving US, as it used to pay for advanced military hardware produced in the United States, which resolved into well-paid American jobs, and joined military research projects, which output otherwise needs to be purchased anyway).

In this, 2012, electoral season many important issues are at stake, but security of Israel is not one of them, as it's a vital American interest that has no political color. Any political contender who putting security of Israel into discussion doing it or with pure speculative rhetorical goals, or due to luck of understanding of our, American-Israeli, vital interdependent relations. Which is good, as it means that we, the American Voters, can ignore those empty speeches and concentrate our limited attention on really important and uncertain things: health care, national debt and overhaul of financial cervices, education, immigration reform, “corporate personhood”, etc.