Phil's post below takes
a shot at Salam al-Marayati, head of the Muslim Public
Affairs Council. As a major and inveterate supporter of Israel
and admirer of Binyamin Netanyahu, and as a major supporter of
the Bush-Cheney war against terrorists, I perhaps am in a
position to provide, in effect, this chance for Mr. al-Marayati a
chance to respond, if something written in advance can be treated
as a response. He did so, in effect, a month ago, with
this column at JTA. Here is what he said to explain what
truly, on its face, was an outrageous statement of his back in
2001: "On 9/11, just hours after the horrific terrorist
attacks, I was interviewed on a local radio show in Los Angeles
right after a guest “expert” stated that Islam was the prime
suspect. In reacting to that awful stereotype, I made a mistake.
I said that if we were going to look for suspects, then we should
also put Israel on the list.
It was wrong and I apologized for it on the same radio show
the very next day, as well as directly to Jewish leaders. It is a
shame that people today continue to exploit that mistake and do
not want to accept my apology."
I continue to cringe when Mr. Marayati insists on describing
Israeli settlements as "occupation." I almost certainly disagree
with him on far more issues related to the Middle East than those
on which we agree (if there are any). And I admit that I have not
done a painstaking job of research on Mr. Marayati's background.
(By the way, is the proper address "Mr. al-Marayati"? I mean no
offense if I do it wrong. So from now on I'll just refer to him
as Salam.) So I am in no position to do a full-throated defense
of Salam.
But I will say this: About 30 months ago, Salam was one of about
eight people who went on a Pentagon-sponsored trip with me to the
prison at Guantanamo Bay. I had plenty of time to talk to him on
the plane. He has made a point of keeping up with me since then.
And from what I've seen, I like him. I think he sincerely wants
peace and sincerely loves the United States and sincerely abhors
extremists and especially killers. I think Salam -- unlike, for
instance, the leaders of CAIR -- is a responsible and essentially
moderate voice, at least overall. I have heard him, in private
settings and public, castigate extremists. And I have always had
a knack for correctly adjudging sincerity -- and I do find Salam
sincere.
What Reagan said about the Soviets should also be said about
those like Salam who have a record of a few incendiary statements
but a longer record of publicly opposing terrorism at every
opportunity: Trust, but verify.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council gave its annual award this week
to Iranian human rights activist Shirin Ebadi. She
is clearly a brave lady, although from American eyes her record
overall is a mixed one. Anyway, I attended the reception at which
the award was presented, as an interested observer. I was going
to write something about the reception, and Salam's group, anyway
this weekend, after some more reflection and research. When Phil
mentioned Salam, though, in his blog post, I thought it would be
appropriate for me to jump in now. Unlike G. W. Bush, even when I
have a high opinion of my ability to discern real sincerity, I do
NOT let my personal impression override the need to do due
diligence on that actual facts. You'll never catch me saying like
Bush said of Putin that I know somebody is good because I think I
can see into his soul. So I merely offer these impressions, NOT
conclusions: 1) Salam seems to be a constructive actor. 2)
Americans need to foster good relations with constructive actors
in the Muslim community. 3) Salam is certainly and
demonstrably far more moderate than CAIR.
I'll save my thoughts on Ms. Ebadi for later. But for now, with
all the misgivings that stem from me being an inveterate
supporter of Israel, and knowing that Salam probably will be
aghast to know of my admiration for Netanyahu, let me just urge
people not to write off Salam or MPAC on the basis of one or two
bad statements. Dialogue is good. And Salam is good company.
Ignoring the details of this particular issue, let me just
comment in general terms. Whether one radically participates [or
simply silently accepts] violence coming from one's group is
irrelevant. Either action or inaction results in that person
being guilty or wrong. Catholics [or any religious or ethnic
group] that failed to condemn the radical actions of a segment of
Catholic perpetrators would be guilty/wrong according. So too
with Muslims. The silence from the Muslim [and also
African-American] community over the horrific violence caused by
their radical/unlawful members is deafening. They have a moral
obligation to speank out and condemn acts of violence caused by
members of their community. To sit silently while such violence
is occurring makes one just as guilty as those that cause such
violence. There are no excuses that are acceptable!!!!!
Steve| 10.17.09 @ 4:11PM
Oldefarte| 10.17.09 @ 11:27AM, You wrote:
"The silence from the Muslim [and also African-American]
community over the horrific violence caused by their
radical/unlawful members is deafening. They have a moral
obligation to speak out and condemn acts of violence caused by
members of their community. To sit silently while such violence
is occurring makes one just as guilty as those that cause such
violence...."
Amen. Could not have said it better myself.
Tarik with a K| 10.19.09 @ 2:51PM
Silence? If you look at our track record, the American Muslim
community has been loudly and clearly speaking out against
violence and terrorism by those who claim to share our faith.
Whether or not our call against extremism is reflected in mass
media is not entirely our fault. After all, peace doesn't sell.
That said, speaking out against all extremism - whether Israeli,
Arab, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, American, et al -
is an obligation of all people, not just the victims.
martin j smith| 10.18.09 @ 7:53AM
"trust but verify" indeed. Recognize that you have what amounts
to a glass half full or half empty. As for the broader issues of
Muslim reactions to terrorism: Here is the deal. In NYC there has
been action taken recently against a group of potential terrorist
suspects. Typically when this happens one group or another
--including the NYACLU calls this profiling. Sorry, but this is
unacceptable behavior of an American citizen.
Finally and related to this the notion that the war on terrorism
is a criminal act versus being an act of war. Here is the nib of
the jist. Those individuals or groups who try to pull the
Criminalization of terrorism stunt are not on the side of
protecting the American people because the attitude,tactics and
legalistic framework is in appropriate and unrealistic and most
important dangerous. This this is why judging individual Muslim
leaders must be judged on their remarks about terrorism on the
totality of their beliefs and remarks.
martin j smith| 10.18.09 @ 7:55AM
Let me also add to this conclusion would hold for ANY US
political or leadership person taking a position on the War on
Terror.
Margie| 10.18.09 @ 10:30PM
Just to add my two cents. To me, any political leader who won't
even vote for a bill to back Israel, just to be in agreement to
allow Israel to defend itself, is automatically is anti-Israel. I
speak of Ron Paul, but to his followers as well. They try to say
they are not anti-Israel but to me:
It's the same thing as trying to say "I back the Troops, but I am
against the war."
arlene| 10.17.09 @ 12:12AM
Pretty good post. I just found your site and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your posts.
zhen de shou
7 day diet
Oldefarte| 10.17.09 @ 11:27AM
Ignoring the details of this particular issue, let me just comment in general terms. Whether one radically participates [or simply silently accepts] violence coming from one's group is irrelevant. Either action or inaction results in that person being guilty or wrong. Catholics [or any religious or ethnic group] that failed to condemn the radical actions of a segment of Catholic perpetrators would be guilty/wrong according. So too with Muslims. The silence from the Muslim [and also African-American] community over the horrific violence caused by their radical/unlawful members is deafening. They have a moral obligation to speank out and condemn acts of violence caused by members of their community. To sit silently while such violence is occurring makes one just as guilty as those that cause such violence. There are no excuses that are acceptable!!!!!
Steve| 10.17.09 @ 4:11PM
Oldefarte| 10.17.09 @ 11:27AM, You wrote:
"The silence from the Muslim [and also African-American] community over the horrific violence caused by their radical/unlawful members is deafening. They have a moral obligation to speak out and condemn acts of violence caused by members of their community. To sit silently while such violence is occurring makes one just as guilty as those that cause such violence...."
Amen. Could not have said it better myself.
Tarik with a K| 10.19.09 @ 2:51PM
Silence? If you look at our track record, the American Muslim community has been loudly and clearly speaking out against violence and terrorism by those who claim to share our faith. Whether or not our call against extremism is reflected in mass media is not entirely our fault. After all, peace doesn't sell.
That said, speaking out against all extremism - whether Israeli, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, American, et al - is an obligation of all people, not just the victims.
martin j smith| 10.18.09 @ 7:53AM
"trust but verify" indeed. Recognize that you have what amounts to a glass half full or half empty. As for the broader issues of Muslim reactions to terrorism: Here is the deal. In NYC there has been action taken recently against a group of potential terrorist suspects. Typically when this happens one group or another --including the NYACLU calls this profiling. Sorry, but this is unacceptable behavior of an American citizen.
Finally and related to this the notion that the war on terrorism is a criminal act versus being an act of war. Here is the nib of the jist. Those individuals or groups who try to pull the Criminalization of terrorism stunt are not on the side of protecting the American people because the attitude,tactics and legalistic framework is in appropriate and unrealistic and most important dangerous. This this is why judging individual Muslim leaders must be judged on their remarks about terrorism on the totality of their beliefs and remarks.
martin j smith| 10.18.09 @ 7:55AM
Let me also add to this conclusion would hold for ANY US political or leadership person taking a position on the War on Terror.
Margie| 10.18.09 @ 10:30PM
Just to add my two cents. To me, any political leader who won't even vote for a bill to back Israel, just to be in agreement to allow Israel to defend itself, is automatically is anti-Israel. I speak of Ron Paul, but to his followers as well. They try to say they are not anti-Israel but to me:
It's the same thing as trying to say "I back the Troops, but I am against the war."