...and the symbolic actions we take.
It has been a hell of a week.
We have a "Christian" minister in Florida who has scheduled a Qur'an burning for September 11.
We have Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, who has compared to the Nazis the supporters of an Islamic Center near Ground Zero.
We have a University of Louisville student who in making a public presentation on his recent visit to the Palestinian territories has reportedly used the word Nazi and the term "Ethnic Cleansing" in referring to Israeli leaders.
I'd like to take a moment to try to douse the interfaith conflagration that is sparking right now in the world of inter-religious interaction.
First, the Qur'an burning.
As a lover of books (and an author) I find the idea of book burning unacceptable. I regard the burning of the sacred text of any religion as particularly repugnant. By my understanding, Muslims view the Qur'an as the Incarnate Word of God in a way that is similar to that in which Christians see Jesus Christ. Thus, burning a Qur'an may be viewed by Muslims with the same horror that Christians would see the burning of Jesus Christ himself.
Next, the use of the word Nazi and the term "Ethnic Cleansing".
Before any of us uses that word or that term loosely, let's keep in mind the reality of ALL that the Nazis represented and all that they did to poison and destroy our world. And let's consider what the term ethnic cleansing means in reality.
While I am not a survivor of the Holocaust myself, I know men and women who are. I won't presume to speak for them, but I imagine that they would find the use of "Nazi" and "Ethnic Cleansing" in this context extremely distasteful and very disturbing.
Engaging in thoughtless name-calling only incites our opponents and adds no useful information to any debate.
Let's agree to disagree. Let's engage in deep and sometimes painful discussions. But let's stop the name-calling. And the book burning.
As my friend Joe Phelps says, what we need is more light and less heat.
Terry, thank you for your blog and for strongly encouraging peaceful and proactive actions/language. As glad as I am to see people becoming aware of the human rights violations in Israel/Palestine and trying to educate others for the purpose of ending such atrocities, it is very important to be percise in one's language.
ReplyDeleteI'm grateful for the work that you and the IPP do in our community, building relationships and understanding between peoples of various backgrounds. Relationships and compassion derived from such relationships will help to create the kind of light that we need. Thanks again.
Thank you for your comments, Lori.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have attempted to post my reply here several times to no avail. The last attempt was when I made it into short replies and only one half stayed. Therefore, I had to delete it. It is very unfortunate that I could not post my response in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteIbrahim Imam
I'm not sure what the problem is with the posts. It might be a limitied number of characters per post (web site limitations) but I welcome comments and posts.
ReplyDeleteMr. Taylor:
ReplyDeleteThis letter is a response to your comments regarding a talk I gave last week at the University of Louisville entitled “Witnessing the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” an appropriate title given that during the three weeks I spent in Israel and the West Bank, I witnessed firsthand the mechanisms of ethnic cleansing employed by the Israeli government toward the indigenous Palestinian population. I regret that you did not hear my remarks. It is even more regrettable that you completely missed the point of my presentation and wrongly judged it based on hearsay and misinformation. To wit: I have never attended “an anniversary event of a group called Palestine Civil Society Call for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against Israel,” nor did I call the Israeli government “Nazis”.
I am not surprised that my presentation has, evidently, caused such uproar. The content was indeed inflammatory, not because of my words, rather because of the wide array of abuses committed by the Israeli government and the accurate language that must be used to describe these. I did not use any new language that has not been commonly employed by those who describe the situation of grave injustice in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In fact, I made very clear that words such as “ethnic cleansing” and “apartheid” are words not only applicable by their United Nations definitions, but are used by Palestinians and Israelis alike who are engaged in a daily struggle to bring the occupation to an end. These are the groups I met with during my visit to Israel and the West Bank.
At no time during my presentation did I loosely wave around the word Nazi, as you have claimed, or accuse the Israeli government of Nazism. I mentioned the term “Nazi” within the context of my experience with Israelis in Sheikh Jarrah who are outraged at the abuses of their government, and as they put it, the “ethnic cleansing” of Palestine. I explained that during the meeting in Sheikh Jarrah an Israeli professor from Tel Aviv spoke of his research which documented the similarities in the processes of militarization responsible for the crimes of the Shoah, and the abuses by the Israeli Defense Forces and the Israeli government against the Palestinians. This is not name calling and I was not conflating the two.
Contrary to your remarks, my presentation was not ignorant of the Israeli narrative. I read widely from both Israeli and Palestinian sources before I visited the region. While there, I spent considerable time among Israeli activists who promote peace and recognition of all human rights. Most of my sources cited were Israeli, including B’Tselem and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. I stated quite clearly in my presentation that security is necessary for both Israelis and Palestinians.
I invite you to attend the FOR Third Thursday Lunch next week where I will give this same presentation, so that any further comments from you can be based on fact rather than third party hearsay which only spreads further misinformation about the injustices meted out to Palestinians and those who work toward peace with justice in the Middle East.
Sincerely,
Brett McGrath
Brett,
ReplyDeleteYou say that you never attended an event I mentioned in my posting. The announcement of the third thursday lunch says that you attened that event. You might want to ask FOR to correct that on their web site.
And whether you yourself used the term Nazi and Ethnic Cleansing in your presentation or you were quoting other people, I simply note that those terms were used and that a number of people in the community find such usage offensive. You certainly have First Amendment rights to say whatever you wish.
You "simply note that those terms were used and that a number of people in the community find such usage offensive." Sure, but is the offense they take grounded in reality or in denial?
ReplyDeleteThe sad truth is that Israel has indeed become an "army with a nation" rather than a "nation with an army." The hawks/settlers/fanatics have made a mockery of the faithful religious tradition in whose name Israel was supposedly founded. They seek war and domination. They are addicted to espionage, military technology and the scientific pursuit of manipulative domination. They are hardly the first people to fall prey to this disease. In that sense, it is both logical and constructive to inquire into the similarities and the differences between the systematic genocidal destruction of Palestinians and that of Native Americans, the Irish, Zulus, and yes even Jews. "We must never forget" becomes the empty call of hypocrisy if we engage in rote recitals of history with no analysis. The destruction of the Gaza ghetto has not yet reached all of the depths of the Nazis treatment of the Warsaw ghetto, but it appears to be very far along on that trajectory.
If that very utterance is so offensive as to prevent dialog, then we have lost our ability to reason. I dare to suggest that this is an oversensitivity, falsely hyperventilated into an all encompassing excuse for shutting down serious discussion of the "facts on the ground" and the blood that is being spilled to create those facts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOriginally, I didn’t read this post as being a direct attack on Brett, but rather a call to be careful in one’s language, which I completely agree with. Yet, after hearing more community members discuss this post and seeing Brett’s excellent presentation myself at the FOR luncheon, it seems that this post used needlessly inflammatory language, just as it warned against. The coordinated email that was sent to the Interfaith Paths to Peace’s entire mailing list, condemning Brett’s presentation, did the same thing.
ReplyDeleteBrett simply did not do anything wrong.
If one could simply withdraw two words from entire texts of speeches to delegitimize entire messages, many speeches could be discarded. How else do you talk about bad things without using the “bad words” that we’ve created to define them? Therefore, Brett had to use the phrase “ethnic cleansing.” The word Nazi was used to explain pertinent research, comparing militaries, which was completely reasonable.
Brett’s speech is in no way comparable to the ignorant, absurd ramblings of the Christian minister and former Speaker of the House that were cited in this blog. Brett’s speech was based on facts and his own experiences in Palestine. Brett’s message needs to be heard so that hate can be stopped, and that is the main point. Americans need to know the horrible conditions of the occupation that their tax money supports. Therefore, even if Brett had used needlessly inflammatory language, the leaders in our community that want peace have a responsibility to encourage him and advise him so that his message can be stronger, because the message itself is important and should not be stopped!
Such debate about tactics is not bad, however. True, wise friends criticize one another, sharpening their individual characters and creating a deeper relationship between them. This can be done between nations and community organizations. We cannot quit talking or fear criticism. I suppose we must actually want peace and friendship, just for the sake of it. How can we create peace on a large scale if we do not fight for it on a small one?
Great survey, I'm sure you're getting a great response. dark web sites
ReplyDelete