When the Israeli Army last week forbade entry into the West Bank from Jordan by American anti-Israel, hard-left intellectual Noam Chomsky, it gave a gift wrapped present to the detractors of the Jewish state. Now they could add to their false claims of Israel being a fascist, apartheid state that it also rejects free speech. What, they argue, is the use of Israel calling itself a democracy if it cannot even get that right?

Dr. Chomsky was scheduled to teach at Bir Zeit University on the West Bank, which is a hotbed of violent Palestinian Islamic radicalism. After four hours of questioning – a time in which someone higher on the military and likely the political food chain had to be in touch with the situation – he was sent back to Amman, Jordan. The next day, from there via satellite he addressed the West Bank students.

The Israeli government did apologize and say that Dr. Chomsky was welcome to reapply to enter the country the day after his was denied. But Dr. Chomsky and his friends knew a good thing when they saw it. They understood that they could get much more mileage out of his being turned away.

Dr. Chomsky, who is Jewish and grew up with a heavy emphasis on Hebrew fluency, should have been allowed into the West Bank to speak his words. Was Israel worried that he would say things against their government, things that his students wouldn’t hear otherwise? Please.

What democracies should do is insist that such people – and their detractors—behave in a civilized manner that contributes to an intellectual furthering of ideas and discussions. (For me, this differs from Holocaust deniers in Germany being penalized as Israel’s situation is political in nature and not one of promoting genocide. And this, by the way, is an argument worthy of continuing in other postings.)

Dr. Chomsky’s views are highly disagreeable, but he is not violent and has never been associated with violence (unlike his late co-thinker, Columbia University’s Dr. Edward Said – a hardcore American-Palestinian nationalist.)

For certain some of Dr. Chomsky’s words could bolster the views of violent people. Yet, one cannot police how people may react to a noted intellectual’s talks or works. To do so would lead to a banning of all books – such as the Torah (which on the surface arguably teaches genocide of the Amalakites) and the sacred works of other religions with their acts of violence. Besides, it is far better to monitor Dr. Chomsky than to seek to outlaw him. Doing so only further inflames radicals and brings him their adulation.

So just what was worse? Slavery or the Holocaust?

That’s precisely the question educators warn us that we should never ask. But it keeps coming up amongst the general public when blacks and Jews convene publicly to talk about their issues.

I yet again saw the animosity to which this inquiry can give rise when, on Monday night, I and about 100 other people gathered at Baltimore’s Enoch Pratt Central Library to hear Dr. Hubert G. Locke (who happens to be an African American) give a lecture on the responsibility of black churches after the Holocaust.

It was hard to miss the four-foot high promotional posters adorning the library’s large front windows in recent weeks. Thus, the audience was a mix of black and white, young and old, Christians, Jews and a few Muslims (one who literally shouted about the Palestinians and “today’s holocaust). There were community leaders, thanks to an array of co-sponsorships, and folks likely just looking to hear something different.

Dr. Locke—dean of the Evan School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a longtime member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Committee on Church Relations and the Holocaust – warned that his words may be controversial. What an understatement. Indeed, an hour later it’s likely that everyone present was upset about something that had been said (which the hisses, shouts and boos certainly revealed).

The comments of one African American woman stood out for me. “We should put the issue of [slavery] reparation up front and then I can cry about the Jewish Holocaust,” she said.

She was not angry; she sounded sincere. She was simply putting her communal concerns first. We Jews do that all the time and for understandable reasons.

But it begs conversation on how blacks and Jews indeed do compare the Holocaust and slavery. The standard response is “One should not compare suffering.” Clearly for some that does not go far enough. How Shoah shapes the modern psyche of Jews and how slavery molds that of African Americans is deep and profound. Indeed, they form a carefully threaded string that weaves through the complicated, diverse sub-communities within those two far from monolithic groupings.

It also presents a challenge that should be met head on and not brushed aside as a conversation that won’t get us anywhere. After all, if every difficult moment is a teachable one – and I believe it is – rejecting this opportunity will lead to deeper frustration, which paves the road to either indifference or hatred.

(Addendum: There was at least some unity present – the lead co-sponsorship of the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, with the support of the Associated Black Charities, the Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore, the Baltimore Community Foundation, the Enoch Pratt Free Library and the Open Society Institute-Baltimore. One hopes they join forces yet again to help us explore such important topics – regardless of the results.)

As even occasional viewers know, the axiom “almost anything goes” defines the Comedy Central cable network. After all, it is home to Jon Stewart’s mock news report “The Daily Show,” the raunchy cartoon “South Park,” the bizarre situation comedy “The Sarah Silverman Show,” (all of which I’ve been known to watch – for research purposes only, of course), and much more.

Many of those shows occasionally slip in humor poking fun at Jews (often barbs delivered by Jews who actually know what they’re talking about). This week, the network simultaneously took one step forward and one step backwards when answering the legitimate concerns of Jews and others about a new video game on its website.

The game, originally called “I.S.R.A.E.L. Attack,” was renamed “Drawn Together: The Movie: The Game.” Also eliminated from its program is its once incredibly offensive beginning. Until a few days ago, the lead character would declare, “You lied to me, Jew Producer.” Then the Intelligent Smart Robot Animation Eraser Lady (I.S.R.A.E.L.) was sent to murder children along with general mayhem.

Funny?

One is hard pressed to see how any one with any sensitivity would be buckled over in laughter. And why is that only Jews were the target? What, no time to write offensive language about African-Americans, Asian Americans Catholics, Muslims or others?

I’m usually the first to tell fellow Jews to relax and enjoy the joke. But there are limits. And this is one of those times.

Leading the charge against this move by Comedy Central was the media monitoring watchdog Honest Reporting. By week’s start, it had brought more than 2,700 people into its Facebook group called “Comedy Central – I.S.R.A.E.L. Attack game is offensive. Remove it.”

Still, despite the negative publicity, the game still reportedly maintains offensive material relating to Israel killing children. As of Tuesday, I attempted to tap into the game’s new version on the network’s website. That brought up this message: “We’re experiencing some technical difficulties.”

By week’s end one hopes that despite its new title, the game has been expunged from Comedy Central’s archives. If that’s not done, the network’s powers should add mental difficulties to the list of self-inflicted woes.

(To comment on this post, click here http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin/comedy_centrals_joke/ , scroll to the bottom and click “Comments”.)

The Baltimore-based Jews for Judaism, a national operation, has as its raison d’etre fighting Christian missionaries seeking to convert Jews into believing that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. In particular, they focus on the alleged deceptive practices of such groups. Having had some experiences with Christian missionaries both here and in Israel (ironically the one in the Jewish state being the much more deceptive one), I understand the concern.

But in no way should the language Jews for Judaism is using in its new campaign to fight Hebrew Christians – a truly convoluted name for these groups – be acceptable. Jews for Judaism Executive Director Ruth Guggenheim, whom I know as a very solid and respected Jewish professional, went beyond the rhetorical pale with this quote: “There is no difference between a sexual predator on the Internet and a spiritual predator.”

To me that is remarkably insensitive. But to be certain I checked with a Jewish friend who actually is a survivor of sexual abuse from his teenage years. “I’m not in therapy for the rest of my life because of my experience with Jews for Jesus, which I had,” he scoffed. “But I am because of what happened to me sexually.”

I have no problem with Jews for Judaism monitoring the Internet and the remarkable possibilities opened by the phenomenon of electronic social networking. But let’s cool the rhetoric. Their concern is that missionizing groups are “friending” Jewish kids and targeting them for their efforts. Who should be surprised? After all, in the e-world, everybody is everybody’s “friend” and how many of us really take our sudden popularity that seriously? And if we want to engage in religious conversation, so be it.

I also probably have a lot more trust in people’s ability to discern snake oil from cough syrup than Jews for Judaism’s supporters might. I’m fond of noting that if Judaism cannot survive in the free market place of ideas then its problems are much larger than those of Jews for Jesus and similar groups – whose decades of pumping many millions of dollars into creating “complete Jews” has been the worst financial investment of modern religious life.

Besides, I know too many Christians who are good, decent people who believe in their faith with all their heart and all their soul. And they are willing to talk to me and anyone about it when asked. Some of them might even support missionizing amongst the Jews. But I have to be honest: That doesn’t bother me that much. After all, I think Judaism is the greatest, most intellectual, spiritually engaging and challenging religion in the world. And not only do I think everyone should consider it, but I’m not afraid to say that to individual Christians and Christian groups.

But when it comes to comparing evangelizing practices to sexual predators, let’s think a lot longer before we portray ourselves as remarkably less intelligent than I’d like to think is true.

In colloquial western terms, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a wacko. Alas, his heart – in such a different way than that of the famed medieval Jewish poet Yehuda HaLevi – faces east.

As he speaks in New York City today at the United Nations every five-year Nuclear Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, take a glance at past choice statements (courtesy The Israel Project, http://www.theisraelproject.org).

• Sept. 15, 2005: “With respect to the needs of Islamic countries, we are ready to transfer nuclear know-how to these countries.” (In other words, he wants to do for nuclear technology what Starbucks has done for coffee – available anywhere, any time for the right price.)

• Oct 26, 2005: “Israel must be wiped off the map.” (This makes him the only world leader threatening to annihilate another U.N. member’s existence.)

• Sept. 24, 2007: “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.” (That one is so funny and bizarre that it’s always worth rereading.)

• June 3, 2009: “The identity of the liberal democracy has been exposed to the world by its protection of the most criminal regime in the history of humanity, the Zionist regime, by using the big deception of the Holocaust.” (That’s a semi-round about way of saying that the Holocaust was as real as the moon being made of cheese.)

So who could be surprised on Monday when the Intemperate Tyrant of Tehran added this to the list:

“The Zionist regime too consistently threatens Middle Eastern countries with its nuclear arsenal.”

Actually, Mahmee, Israel has long held by its policy of “nuclear ambiguity,” only offering this statement: “Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.” That’s not quite a threat. Nor is Israel threatening to destroy all of Iran. It would, however, like your country to stop arming Hezbollah and Hamas.

So why does Ahmedinejad keep doing it? Quite simply, it’s because his bosses – the mullahs who really run the country – let him do it. In part, that’s because he’s likely a distraction from their tyrannical rule. Indeed, while they claim allowing a multi-party, multi-candidate elections (unlike in Syria, Egypt, etc.), candidates in Iran must be approved – and can be removed if the mullahs disagree. And last June we saw how protestors of the Iranian presidential election were beaten and even killed.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is continuing the revolutionary spirit for his bosses happy while trying to drain attention from common disgruntlement at the rising fuel and food prices caused in part by somewhat porous international sanctions. (At least they have a minor effect.)

He’s even thinking long-term. If Israel or the United States militarily hit what are certainly nuclear weapons research installations, he’s hoping the sympathy aroused by the likely civilian casualties will rally the country toward him.

And if his government is on the verge of being toppled, he and his bosses know they can still count on important military commanders – with all of their loyal soldiers (those paid off as well as faithful believers), not to mention heavy arsenals. That will create serious damage before the flag of democracy ever waves of Tehran (a not-so-likely scenario to start).