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.
