ADL and NYC Islamic Center: What about the Pentagon?

The debate over the Islamic Center being planned for Lower Manhattan is unfortunately heating up. Islamophobes from neoconservative corners of the web, right wing politicians and Fox News have continued to drive a debate that should have died long ago with the unequivocal support of the local New York City community board (neighborhood council), and Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s assertion that no one would raise objections if it was a church or a synagogue, and that “Muslims have a right to do it, too.”

But I was shocked that an organization dedicated to combating bigotry – Abraham Foxman’s Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – chimed in to ask that the location of the Islamic center, which will house a mosque, be moved. Well, maybe not shocked, but surprised that the ADL – which claims that it fights “all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all” – would lay bare its myopic right-wing focus by publicly taking such a stand.

The ADL even admitted that much of the opposition to the Islamic center is based on bigotry and condemned those views! As Alex Pareene wryly quipped on Salon’s War Room blog: “Hah, I don’t think you guys know what “categorically reject” and “condemn” mean! For future reference: ‘condemn’ does not mean ‘join.'” If you can’t beat ’em, I guess.

I have little to add, as Jim, cribbing Paul Krugman’s argument, already captured nicely the hypocrisy of an organization ostensibly aimed at curbing defamation lending a de facto endorsement of a defamatory view of Muslims – and the implications that this has for other minority groups, like, say, for instance, Jews (the ADL’s original mandate, when it was formed nearly 100 years ago, was exclusively for this demographic). But there are two points I wanted to make.

The first is to do a little thought experiment. The proposed Islamic center is slated to be built two Manhattan blocks from Ground Zero. Now, the Pentagon, which, you’ll remember, was also attacked by radical Muslims on 9/11, is a mere stone’s throw away from Arlington National Cemetery. Say, hypothetically, of course, that family members of the 125 people who perished in the Pentagon that day raised objections to Muslim soldiers from U.S. armed forces being buried at the historic cemetery on Robert E. Lee’s old Arlington plantation. Or it could be the families of the 59 people who were aboard American flight 77 when it hit the Defense Department headquarters. What if it brought those family members pain to see the Islamic symbol – a star and crescent moon – atop the gravestones of these soldiers?

Would Sarah Palin, Rick Lazio, Newt Gingrich and their new friend, Abe Foxman, be asking that these Muslim soldiers not be buried there, or perhaps that their headstones not bear the insignia of their faith because it causes pain that the attackers shared their faith (albeit a twisted and delusional version of it)?

Furthermore, what if the families of Christian, Jewish and atheist soldiers objected that their kids were killed by Muslims in Muslim lands (invaded by the U.S., of course) and were pained by the fact that the next grave over bears Islamic symbols? Would right-wing anti-Islam politicians and figures like Foxman be asking that Muslims be barred from burial in Arlington? Now, after all, we’re talking a matter of feet, not even a stone’s throw, let alone two city blocks.

Oh, and about those city blocks: I fell in love with New York about seven years ago, spending spells of time there and visiting frequently. Last summer, I moved to Manhattan. I’m still exploring the city and would not yet consider myself a New Yorker. But even I understand that building something in New York two blocks away from a particular site is not building on top of said site. Tourists always comment that everything in Manhattan is right on top of everything else. For people living there, I’ve found, two blocks away is two blocks away. Consider, for example, that two blocks north of Columbia University (in Morningside Heights) is Harlem, as is two blocks East.

Conservative blogger Charles Johnson picks up on this distinction, including a nifty map (scroll down to updates) and noting that the center would “[have] no view of the area; there are two very big buildings in between the proposed community center and Ground Zero.”

In his “NYC” column in the New York Times last week, Clyde Haberman also took issue with the language used by opponents of the Islamic center to describe its location:

The center is routinely referred to by some opponents as the “mosque at ground zero.” […] There’s that “at.” For a two-letter word, it packs quite a wallop. It has been tossed around in a manner both cavalier and disingenuous, with an intention by some to inflame passions. Nobody, regardless of political leanings, would tolerate a mosque at ground zero. “Near” is not the same, as anyone who paid attention back in the fourth grade should know.

(The line about prepositions is valid, but I’m not quite sure why “nobody would tolerate a mosque at ground zero.” What if a Muslim developer bought the lot? I’ll just assume that Haberman sees Ground Zero as some sort of national symbol and therefore unfit for any sort of religious site.)

Joshua Holland, at Alternet, takes up the same issue with stronger language (less of a grammar lesson) and points to the absurdity of a New York-based organization like the ADL being unable to grasp this New York fact of life:

Only brain-dead out-of-towners could possibly confuse a building two whole blocks away from Ground Zero as one constructed on the 9/11 site. People who have been to New York understand just how small Manhattan is.

Holland, a native New Yorker raised just north of the former World Trade Towers, notes that he, too, lost friends on 9/11, and that what pains him is “the casual, socially acceptable and utterly despicable racism against Muslims that those attacks unleashed in the United States.”

But these assaults on Islam as a faith are exactly what the ADL is now in the business of peddling. When you condemn bigots, then join them, then they write glowing endorsements of your position (as Jim has Gingrich doing), what does that make you?

Low Expectations for Hard Bigotry in Israel

I just got an e-mail from an Israeli PR firm that proclaimed, in bold, caps-lock, underlined type: “Israelis More Tolerant of Islam Than Swiss.”

The release, datelined Jerusalem, came on behalf of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, a coalition created by New York Rabbi Marc Schneier and media mogul Russell Simmons to form good black-Jewish relations and also reach out to Muslims. Seems like a good enough organization with good enough aims.

But this latest overture seems a bit overblown. The poll, conducted in the wake of a November vote in Switzerland for banning minaret construction, found that a 43 percent plurality of Israelis oppose hypothetical legislation banning minarets in Israel, which 29 percent of respondents supported. Those numbers don’t seem so hot to me. One would expect a tolerant populace could at least muster a slim majority to oppose such a goal. (I wonder what the numbers would look like in more multicultural European countries or the U.S.)

That 57 percent of Swiss voters supported the legislation doesn’t mean that having 43 percent opposition is such a great number. It’s a bit silly to brag about clearing a bar that was set so extremely low by the Swiss.

What struck me is that this is something of the opposite public relations expected by Juan Cole on his Informed Comment blog. At the time of the Swiss vote, Cole wrote that he anticipated a slew of Islamophobes to support banning minarets by making comparisons to the straw-man intolerance of the Muslim world. His point is rather the same as I’m making here: that the comparisons shouldn’t exactly make you proud.

Among the nearly 60 Muslim-majority states in the world, only one, Saudi Arabia, forbids the building of churches. Does Switzerland really want to be like Saudi Arabia?

[…]

The other Wahhabi state besides Saudi Arabia, Qatar, has allowed the building of Christian churches. But they are not allowed to have steeples or bells. This policy is a mirror image to that of the Swiss. So Switzerland, after centuries of striving for civilization and enlightenment, has just about reached the same level of tolerance as that exhibited by a small Gulf Wahhabi country, the people of which were mostly Bedouins only a hundred years ago.

So now I guess we have to ask Israel: Do you really want to be held to the basement-level standard of tolerance set by Switzerland?

The full press release follows:

January 7, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Revealing Opinion Poll Concludes:
ISRAELIS MORE TOLERANT OF ISLAM THAN SWISS

Oppose “Swiss-style” Legislation that Would Ban Construction of Minarets on Mosques in Israel

National Religious and Ultra-Orthodox are Strongest Opponents of Banning Minaret Construction

(Jerusalem) – A survey conducted in recent days by The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding (FFEU) through KEEVOON Research found that 43% of Israelis would oppose legislation banning the construction of minarets on Mosques built in Israel while 28% would support a ban, with 29% undecided. In November 2009, 57.5% of voters in Switzerland approved a referendum banning the construction of minarets on Mosques in their country.

The strongest opposition to banning minarets came from National Religious Israelis. 72% of them opposed possible legislation in Israel of whom 55% defined themselves as “strongly” opposed. Among Ultra-Orthodox (Hareidi) opposition was 53%, compared to 42% of secular Israelis, and 36% of traditional Israelis. Only 16% of the National Religious would support banning minarets compared to 21% of Ultra-Orthodox, 31% of traditional Jews and 29% of secular Jews.

“When it comes to freedom of religion Israelis are apparently much more tolerant that their Swiss counterparts,” said Rabbi Marc Schneier, President of the US-based FFEU, “There is a definite correlation between religious observance and tolerance towards Islam. Israelis seem to put politics aside as opposition to banning minarets actually increases as we move further to the right on the political spectrum. The fact that less than one-third of all Israelis support banning minarets indicates that from the Israeli point of view, there is room for respectful coexistence between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs when it is based on religion and not politics.”

Politically the results were very interesting and corroborated the other demographic information. 92% of National Union (Ichud Leumi) voters oppose banning minaret construction of which 65% defined themselves as “strongly” opposed. Following them were voters from United Torah Judaism (Yahadut HaTorah/Agudah Israel) with 68% opposing legislation, 66% of Meretz voters, 64% of Yisrael Beiteinu voters, 55% of Shas voters, and 54% of Jewish Home (NRP) voters. Voters from the 3 main parties, Labour, Kadima and Likud opposed the measure by 43%, 42%, and 41% respectively, according to KEEVOON director Mitchell Barak.

When looking at support for legislation to ban minarets, voters from the Likud expressed the strongest support with 41% followed by Yisrael Beitenu voters with 36%, Kadima voters with 31%, Labour voters with 27%, UTJ voters with 22%, Jewish Home and Shas voters with 20%, and National Union voters with only 8%.

Gender- and age-based trends were also found. Men expressed support by a margin of 34% versus 22% of women. 38% of people aged 45-54, and 34% of 18-24 year olds, 33% of people aged 55-64 support banning minaret construction compared with only 18% of 35-44 year olds, 21% of 25-34 year olds, and 26% of people 65 and over. The opposition to legislation based on gender and age was very close to the total of 43%.

Respondents were also asked if the Swiss legislation changed their opinion of Switzerland. 37% responded that it didn’t change their view, while 25% said they had a more positive view as a result, and 19% had a more negative view.

The telephone survey was conducted by KEEVOON Research in conjunction with Mutagim. 500 Jewish Israelis were interviewed December 30-31, 2009 and on January 3, 2010. The margin of error is + / – 4.5% .

The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, under the leadership of Rabbi Marc Schneier, President, and Russell Simmons, Chairman, is a national US non-profit organization dedicated to promoting racial harmony and strengthening inter-group relations. The Foundation, established in 1989, is based in New York City.

Visit Lobelog.com for the latest news analysis and commentary from Inter Press News Service.