A little while back, Will Saletan asked about the "ground zero synagogue" -- a synagogue being built in Kiryat Arba, near the site of one of the worst acts of Jewish terrorism against Muslims (Baruch Goldstein's Hebron massacre). It's an analogy I've endorsed. Indeed, for all the unsubstantiated blather about a "victory Mosque", the local settlers really did try to build a shrine to Goldstein. The Kiryat Arba settlers are amongst the most radical and violent of the settler movement -- unlike the Park 51 Mosque founders, they are self-identified sympathizers of Jewish terror. But my endorsement notwithstanding, many of Saletan's readers apparently didn't appreciate the comparison. In general, I thought Saletan did a good job dispatching their arguments.
The one response which at least gave me some pause was the argument to "leave Jews out of the Mosque debate". I made a similar point when Dutch Muslims published a cartoon claiming the Holocaust was exaggerated as protest against allegedly anti-Muslim films produced by Geert Wilders -- despite the fact that the Jewish community was largely uninvolved in the latter dispute. I don't think Saletan's citation of the ADL's spectacularly ill-judged intervention is sufficient to render Jews parties here. Nonetheless, I think the comparison remains valid -- first, because the analogy is considerably more precise, and second, because it's a thought experiment, as opposed to an actualized effort to hurt or restrict the rights of other (if Saletan actually marched over to Hebron and started demanding the removal of Jewish shrines from the area, I'd think differently).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
The analogy brings Jews into the story, and the fact that it is a thought experiment seems to me to be outweighed by the tendency of so many to have made this a Jewish thing. I live in Manhattan, have represented and am intimately familiar with folks in the building trades. I know where the great swath of the opposition, wrongheaded in my view, comes from. The Jewish community doesn't deserve to be the focus of a thought experiment by well-meaning folks. The impact perpetuates filth, even if it's unintentional. Lower Manhattan is not Hebron.
I am maybe willing to believe Saletan went somewhere he shouldn't. Maybe. But he certainly didn't lead the way on such analogies. For example, here's the NYT on Abe Foxman, explaining the ADL's "mosque" position.
“Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” he said. Referring to the loved ones of Sept. 11 victims, he said, “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”
So I would hope anyone who does claim Saletan did something wrong first went after the guy he's responding to.
Joe:
Fair enough, except what does Abe Foxman have to do with Baruch Goldstein?
Sorry, that's doesn't quite capture what my point is. I think, stripped to essence, the focus on Abe Foxman's clumsy an unfortunate effort at compromise invited, unfairly I submit, a focus on the role of Jews in the mosque controversy. And the unnecessarily ugly comparison to Hebron makes things worse. Indeed, why not criticize Foxman for the position the ADL took when there were crosses placed on the grounds of Aushwiecz? I think because that makes for a far more sympathetic thought experiment.
And, ultimately, the salient point is that the Jewish community, organized and otherwise, are not responsible for the mosque dispute. And Saletan's thought experiment or narrow focus on Foxman suggests otherwise.
The Jewish community isn't responsible for the mosque dispute -- there are Jews on the board of park51, as well as many other Jewish supporters of the mosque (either in the strong form that believes that the location is positively good, or in the weak form that believes the location may not be wise but is within the rights of the builders). But there is no single religious community that is responsible for the dispute. There are people of all faiths on both sides, including Muslims who oppose the project (albeit several of those seem to be taking the "Man, don't stir shit up that makes it harder for the rest of us" position). If we say that only those broad categories of persons who are somehow responsible for the mosque dispute should be mentioned in discussing the dispute -- and its larger ramifications for our understanding of religion and the interplay of one party's rights versus another's sensitivities -- then no group should be mentioned, ever, at all.
PG:
If you see no problem, no pattern, no tendency, in situations like this to focus on ADL or some other "representative" of the Jewish community, I respectfully disagree. And the focus on the ADL was hardly limited to Saletan, as you know. See, e.g, Fareed Zakaria, and his unfortunate analogy, his own "food for thought," lauding Hizbollah for refurbishing a synagogue in Beirut despite the fact that there are no Jews to make a minyan there anymore. And how about Steve Clemons, who in response to Zakaria's use of his CNN platform to humiliate Foxman, wrote a column calling on every recipient of an award from the ADL to return them in protest. At a minimum, seems like this constitutes losing a fairly diverse forest through the trees. Of course, I think it reflects something more, and perhaps it is just me--but I find that in some circles it's always easy to focus on the Jews.
While I agree that the ADL's participation in this little fiasco shouldn't be enough to make the debate "about the Jews", I heartily disagree that it also forecloses making it about the ADL.* The ADL took a morally repugnant position regarding the Park 51 Mosque, and it is perfectly valid for Zakaria and others to harshly critique them for it. If there was any evidence that the ADL was being singled out amongst Mosque opponents for special vitriol, that would be something else -- but at least I hold Palin, Gingrich, Geller, and their ilk in even more contempt than I do the ADL.
* Though Saletan's column wasn't about the ADL in any meaningful respect -- the little bit on them was a minor sidepoint to a larger claim regarding religious minority rights. In addition to using the Hebron example, I've also talked about Egypt barring the use of a restored synagogue on the grounds that it would be "inappropriate" given various alleged Israeli perfidies.
I think the ADL's position was wrong. I also think it was nothing like the position taken by the likes of the Palins and the Gellers of the world. But I don't think it was "morally repugnant" just as I didn't think that it it was morally repugnant for the ADL to object to crosses on the site of Nazi crematoria. I think there is a difference between wrong and morally repugnant. And I also think that the focus by certain segments of the left, in and out of the blogosphere, on the ADL in this case can not be looked at in isolation. But David it's your nickel and I think I've spent enough time on this thread.
I do not understand the logic of this discussion. One should go where the facts lead. Building a monument to a butcher - i.e. Baruch Goldstein - is offensive. I see nothing wrong in saying so.
The same, however, goes for building the Cordoba House near the former WTC. It is an act in serious bad taste and is morally offensive. It is not bigoted to oppose the project - although some bigots oppose the project. And, it is not an attempt to take religious freedom away - though, no doubt, some bigots would try to do that as well. The right to criticize is also enshrined in the Constitution and the vast majority of New Yorkers - and across the US - find the proposed project appalling. They have a right to state their opinion and to make their views known.
My view remains that, while the builders of the proposed Cordoba Center have a right to do as they please, opponents have the right to say they find it offensive. And, for that matter, I find it offensive, doubt that its leaders are moderate and believe it likely that there is an ulterior motive.
That said, I hope that I do not pump too much air out of the discussion. My views on this are well known, after all.
Is the analogy here meant to be that N. Friedman believes park51 is a monument to the 9/11 terrorists? Because I think that's going even further than Palin was willing to do.
Also, I think obligations to majorities and minorities are not the same. E.g., I'm much more likely to be concerned about how Hindus are treated in the U.S., where they are a minority, than in India, where they're the majority. Ditto with Jews and Israel. The force of social condemnation on a synagogue in Israel cannot be sensibly compared to the force of such condemnation on a mosque in New York.
PG,
You write: "I think obligations to majorities and minorities are not the same."
That is a racist comment. Majorities are owed the same as minorities, to wit, to be treated equally under the law and to be deemed to have equal dignity as human beings.
That is a racist comment. Majorities are owed the same as minorities, to wit, to be treated equally under the law and to be deemed to have equal dignity as human beings.
This is an amazingly simplistic statement, which only would occur to someone who is entirely ignorant of the work of virtually every philosopher whose taken a hard look at minority rights in the 20th century (see, particularly, Dworkin's "equal treatment" versus "treatment as an equal". Or America's Carolene Products line of cases).
N. Friedman,
I think it is best that we not engage each other's comments in the future, as you routinely ignore what I'm actually saying. For example, why on earth would you take from a comment that says nothing about the law, but does refer to the effects of social condemnation (which, for your future reference, is not the same as legal condemnation), that I was saying minorities and majorities ought to be treated differently under the law? You have no interest in what I'm saying, only in some strawman that says utterly ridiculous things.
This, by the way, is a really fantastic way to dry up debate and discourage people from commenting: what's the use of taking the time to compose a comment when the carefully-chosen words in it will be ignored in favor of some absurdity that then gets pinned on the commenter? I have no problem with people's disagreeing with me -- heck, I married a Republican whose views on park51 are closer to yours than to mine -- but it's extremely rude and disrespectful to claim you're disagreeing with my statement when you're actually disagreeing with something you've made up from whole cloth.
Why is no response allowed to your view? I have said nothing offensive, other than disagreeing with you.
Blogs are like parties. They are at their best when interesting people have fascinating discussions. This is distinct from loud, belligerent drunks who annoy all the people around them. It's a delicate balance of what sorts of conversations are most conducive to having a pleasant party. Fortunately, I'm the host, and it's entirely within my discretion what sort of party I wish to have.
More to the point: when you offend a guest of mine -- particularly a guest who has been here considerably longer and I like considerably more than you -- I reserve the right to remove you from my party. A right which I am currently exercising.
Post a Comment