The Anti-Defamation League argues, “let…
The Anti-Defamation League argues, “let the bigots win” when it comes to the Park51 project in lower Manhattan.
bitterly disappointing, indeed.
The Anti-Defamation League argues, “let the bigots win” when it comes to the Park51 project in lower Manhattan.
bitterly disappointing, indeed.
AA, 
Shams al-Nahar, 
Joshua Trevino 11:32 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
Refuse to explicity denounce Hamas: expect antagonism from major Jewish organizations. Where is the trusted advisor to tell Cordoba these things?
aziz 11:36 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
I actually listened to the original interview of Rauf by WND where he alledgedly refused to denounce Hamas. he was being badgered incessantly by the interviewer, and was getting quite clearly defensive. its quite a revealing audio – if i can find it on the wnd site again ill post the link. but i dont see any real evidence now that Raud genuinely refuses to denounce Hamas. And i am against the idea of demanding he do so right now for appearances’ sake.
hamas kills innocents. rauf has condemned that numerous times and called it unislamic. The case is closed as far as I amconcerned.
Joshua Trevino 11:42 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
It was an interview with Aaron Klein at NYC’s WABC (synopsis is at http://bit.ly/9hMFWu).
The “real evidence now that Rauf genuinely refuses to denounce Hamas” stems from the moment when he genuinely refused to denounce Hamas.
aziz 12:08 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
yes, he did, and he shouldnt have refused. he et the interviewer (who works for WND) get under his skin, and played right into his hands.
Your thesis all along has been that Khan and Rauf are incompetent. I dont disagree.
but as far as a basis to deny civil rights, this is thin gruel. its rare for teh ADL to engage in such blatant tribalism as this,.
Joshua Trevino 2:49 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
It’s not really “blatant tribalism” to take a stand against someone who may be reasonably construed as supporting — or at least not disapproving of — a group that wants you exterminated. That’s a pretty normal response.
Joshua Trevino 2:53 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
On the incompetence theme, let’s put it this way: Rauf, in his arrogance — and in his ignorance — managed to manufacture an issue that gave people who actually do hate Muslims per se a golden opportunity to align themselves with mainstream American sentiment.
He’s almost singlehandedly managed to set back the mainstreaming of Islam in America by years. It’s really quite stupefying to watch.
AA 4:25 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
That’s a good point, though I’m not sure if he has achieved that feat yet, but Muslims in America may well be running towards it, as it seems.
A competent organization would have taken the risk analysis prior to engaging in such initiative.
Matt 8:21 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
I really don’t believe you should ever blame a member of a minority group for setting back relations with the majority like that.
Maybe it’s ok to blame him for not denouncing Hamas — at least that’s blaming him for his own actions. (I don’t think it’s always stupid to blame people for refusing to denounce Hamas, but it seems pretty stupid here.) But if majority members of society respond with Islamophobia, that’s purely the fault of the Islamophobes. There are, what, 6 million Muslims in the US? Of course, over a period of time, they’re going to say a variety of things. Some may even be wrong and require apologies, but are we really going to comb their comments for proof that they’re provoking Christian America, while treating every Christian provocation as nothing but a response? Are non-Muslim Americans that incapable of controlling themselves? Are Christians not rational creatures?
The ADL is wrong here, and I hope they change their position soon. I hope I can say they’ve got a better history of correcting their mistakes than most organizations.
Now, if someone wants to scapegoat American Jews for bigotry against Muslims, then I’ve got a problem with that, too.
Joshua Trevino 9:37 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
Matt, you’re confusing an observation on events with a moral judgment. Whether you like it or not, Rauf and Cordoba committed a great tactical and strategic blunder. Whether their efforts should constitute a blunder in a just world is a different issue entirely.
Since you bring it up: there is no circumstance in which it’s inappropriate to denounce Hamas. That’s a baseline. Allowing someone who can’t do it 100% of the time to helm a project of this sensitivity is astoundingly stupid.
Matt 6:30 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink
I actually have a strong aversion to that kind of “pragmatic” argument. American Muslims shouldn’t need to be more moral than “real Americans” (especially as “real Americans” tend to insist on the right to determine what is considered moral) to deserve to be seen as Americans. From a pragmatic standpoint, it’s far more important to emphasize that.
As for denouncing Hamas, I despise them. I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m more critical of them than others here. I don’t just blame them for killing innocents, but also for the “anti-colonialist” ideology (that I don’t think is any such thing) they fight for. I see them (the leadership structure at least) as genocidal bigots as well as greedy authoritarians. But when someone insists on denunciations/badgers someone as a strategy for controlling the agenda and manipulating discussion, then there’s a problem that’s closer at hand.
Joshua Trevino 12:10 am on August 1, 2010 Permalink
Well, see where eschewing pragmatism has gotten us, eh?
Ikram 12:53 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink
Jesus – Josh Trevino is still around? Is it 2003? It’s like a sad, unsexy version of Hot Tub Time Machine — watch Steven Den Beste and Glen Reynolds do the Macarena! Can’t we get some new people on the internets?
For the record, I denounce all divisive bigots, including Josh Trevino.
Josh, do you refuse to denounce divisive bigots? If you don’t, it is a clear sign you support bigotry.
shams 1:56 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink
lawl!
/giggles behind hand
Lawrence of Arabia 11:41 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
Taken in isolation this is, as you suggest, already a horrible response. But failing to make any connection between what is going on in NYC and the hate-filled protests against the construction of mosques and Islamic centers around the country, which are becoming more and more common, is disappointing.
All ADL does here is provide cover for the voices of Islamophobia in America.
Joshua Trevino 11:43 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
While explicitly denouncing those same voices?
Lawrence of Arabia 11:46 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
no one thinks they are a bigot. all the bigots heard from the ADL here is “they are wrong to build on this site”… which is what the bigots want.
in all the protests, the bigots always provide another rationalization to go along with their bigotry (from parking to property values). the ADL is providing cover and comfort, while failing to acknowledge a pattern of opposition to Islamic construction projects and the root cause of that opposition: hate.
Joshua Trevino 11:58 am on July 30, 2010 Permalink
The ADL statement explicitly acknowledges these things.
Lawrence of Arabia 12:13 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
translation of ADL statement: we denounce bigotry, but Muslims in America should realize that they are a pain and scar on the American psyche that they do not belong anywhere near the site of the American tragedy that defines this generation.
i.e., we accept the bigoted premise on which the bigots argue against the building of the site, even though we of course are not bigots and bigotry is bad.
———
p.s. the ADL does not at any point make a connection between NYC and the spate of Islamophobic protests against new construction across the nation. They try to isolate it, and pretend this is an independent incident.
Joshua Trevino 2:50 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
You’re bringing a lot of arguable interpretation into this.
Shams al-Nahar 2:50 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
i guess you could argue they are snakepokers.
but sometimes there can be justice in snakepoking.
AA 1:38 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
Paul Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/bad-for-the-jews/
Tec15 11:06 pm on July 30, 2010 Permalink
Bigoted organization backs anti mosque bigots shock. At least they are still not condemning the Shahada anymore.
Muffy 3:27 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink
I think Josh hit the nail on the head here.
When I heard about the Cordoba Center Mosque, I thought it was in remarkably poor taste. Rauf and company probably knew that this project was going to be controversial and planned it anyway. The point isn’t that it should be controversial — maybe we’ll be all the better for just chilling out and not worrying about the significance of “sacred” sites like ground zero. But that’s not the point. The point is that starting this project was doomed to being controversial from the start, whether you like it or not. It was deliberately provocative, and its supporters are only making things worse by continuing to push with the project and playing the Islamophobia card on anybody who disagrees. A recent poll shows that most New Yorkers oppose the plan, despite thinking mainstream Islam is a religion of peace. How this is going to improve interfaith relations is beyond me.
Furthermore, even if Rauf is a much better guy than his enemies think, she showed very poor judgement by not denouncing Hamas. He has baggage, and, like Josh said, putting him in charge of the project showed a tremendous lack of foresight and, not surprisingly, is proving itself to be PR disaster.
Bottom line: I want to support improving interfaith relations as much as anybody on this site does, but this this a case study of how NOT to do so.
Matt 6:34 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink
The Islamophobia card is easily trumped by the Islamophobia card card. Just as the antisemitism card is easily trumped by the antisemitism card card, the racism card is easily trumped by the racism card card, and the sexism card is easily trumped by the sexism card card.
shams 9:11 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink
I am not denouncing Hamas either.
Tec15 10:56 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink
So the rampant harping against this by the Murdoch owned media had absolutely nothing to do with it ? Also how exactly is the building a community center with prayer facilities provocative exactly ? How far away from ground zero would have it have to be not be provocative ? Keep in mind that there are already mosques (Yes actual mosques not community centers) that are already much closer to ground zero and which functioned perfectly fine without orchestrated hate campaigns springing up.
Muffy 11:26 pm on July 31, 2010 Permalink
It’s provocative because the leaders of the project know that it’s offending people and causing controversy. If you’re trying to build interfaith dialogue, alienating people who would otherwise be sympathetic is generally not a good strategy.
If there are Mosques near ground zero that have been built before 9/11, I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion.
Joshua Trevino 12:18 am on August 1, 2010 Permalink
“….there are already mosques …. that are already much closer to ground zero and which functioned perfectly fine without orchestrated hate campaigns springing up.”
This wholly supports my point. Cordoba deliberately chose and boasted about the Ground Zero proximity, as demonstrated in multiple press and public statements as late as this past May. (Heck, their website is still seeded with the phrase “ground zero” as a sort of ham-handed SEO tactic.) Their effort is the only one meeting public disapproval because they’re the only organization this fantastically inept and tone deaf.
Had Cordoba done everything exactly the same — same land, same plans, same center — except for bragging about the Ground Zero location, none of this would have happened.
The fact that no one cares about the other mosques you mention is a big huge QED.
muffy 2:37 am on August 1, 2010 Permalink
Great points! If there are already Mosques near by, why is another one necessary? it can hardly be argued that the Cordoba planners are innocently exercising their right to cater to the needs of a neglected religious minority. They were clearly trying to make a statement from the beginning. Furthermore, the Cordoba ppl are the ones that started the whole “ground zero mosque” hype to begin with, so it’s a bit rich for them to complain about their detractors making an issue out of it.
Tec15 8:58 pm on August 1, 2010 Permalink
It is not a Mosque, but a community center with prayer areas and the entire so called “offense” and “controversy” has been manufactured from the start by the Murdoch media and by pols looking for a wedge issue.
Let’s be clear about something no one who would be otherwise sympathetic is being alienated. People against this would not be mollified by anything the builders did. What about the protests and opposition to Mosques in Staten Island, Tennessee, California etc? I supposes that they are also building too close the “sacred ground” of Ground Zero which mustn’t be sullied by Muslims.
Let me make it even clearer, there was no peep about the earlier Mosques established near what turned out to be Ground Zero because there were no organized Hate Muslim campaigns around then. Now that there is one, there is not only opposition to the Cordoba House but also to proposed mosques or Islamic centers in as I mentioned Staten Island, Tennessee, California etc under whtaever pretext that seems handy. It is not the developers fault that the Republicans now see more political advantage in encouraging the Islamophobes.
Furthermore all the necessary local authorities already approved this project before the Republicans made it into another situation of “Dhimmitude” or “creeping Sharia”.
AA 8:02 am on August 1, 2010 Permalink
This is a good point and I’m sure they have heard it too . I think it is akin to “good Muslim/bad Muslim” analogy which divides and ultimately always backfires. Rauf possibly wanted to show to Americans that they are the good Muslims versus the perpetrators of 911 who are the bad Muslims. Well, the common denominator here is the word Muslim hence such type of thinking is always a trap.
However, on the other side of the coin, the opposing Americans – whether they’re local to NY or not – are not willing to accept the Muslims within the confines of 911/Ground Zero. This ultimately means they are willing to ignore the existence of Muslims by giving them some space but not all. It is like “we know you exist so there’s nothing much we can do about it, but we don’t wish to deal with you so we want to ignore you”.
The shadows from all sides have come out in open!
Joshua Trevino 12:12 am on August 1, 2010 Permalink
“It was deliberately provocative, and its supporters are only making things worse by continuing to push with the project and playing the Islamophobia card on anybody who disagrees.”
Bingo.
shams 1:06 pm on August 1, 2010 Permalink
but the opponents are revealed islamophobes.
Islamophobia can be the only logical reason for seeking to deny freedom of religion to fellow americans.
Muslims are second class citizens in the rightwing view……like homosexuals.
i think Muffy is a maftoon, but Trevino is just a flaming hypocrite.
Joshua Trevino 4:50 pm on August 1, 2010 Permalink
“Islamophobia can be the only logical reason for seeking to deny freedom of religion to fellow americans.”
No doubt Cordoba will tell itself this. Probably raise a lot of money off of it, too.
Tec15 9:04 pm on August 1, 2010 Permalink
Slugs like Gingrich are the only ones raising money from this. No doubt being such a principled man he wouldn’t be if only it was being built elsewhere or if the builders denounced Hamas or something.
shams 11:16 pm on August 1, 2010 Permalink
why not? it is truth. The bottom line is people opposing the mosque are saying muslims are not full citizens with freedom of religion.
And you are still a flaming hypocrite.
shams 11:18 pm on August 1, 2010 Permalink
I bet you think those darn confrontational black folk should have just stayed in the back of the buss, Trevino.
/spit
Joshua Trevino 1:29 am on August 2, 2010 Permalink
“I bet you think those darn confrontational black folk should have just stayed in the back of the buss”
Whee. Civil discourse!
No doubt it’s unpleasant, but I’m giving you an accurate read on the general public here. Whether you wish to use it to your profit is your call.
Telling oneself that the only grounds for opposing Park51 (or whatever we’re calling it next) are ipso facto morally illegitimate may be emotionally satisfying. But it doesn’t get you a step closer toward where you want to be.
shams 9:24 am on August 2, 2010 Permalink
No Mr. Whited Sepulchre Trevino, I am just saying that Park51 is showcasing Islamophobia and the Palin/Gringrich christofacists. Like blacks, muslims are citizens too, and it is their call if they want to stand up for their citizen rights, like freedom of religion, which is what this country was presumably founded on.
You don’t get to judge, you have no skin in the game.
Like I said, Muffy is obviously a maftoon….what is your excuse?
40 percenter on IQ?
Joshua Trevino 6:04 pm on August 2, 2010 Permalink
“You don’t get to judge, you have no skin in the game.”
That’s pretty interesting.
shams 7:22 pm on August 2, 2010 Permalink
Well……i wouldn’t have to FUCKIN POINT THIS OUT TO A SMART PERSON.
The grounds for opposing Park51 are ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL.
Someone should explain that to the teabaggers that are always braying about the constitution.
Joshua Trevino 10:03 pm on August 2, 2010 Permalink
“Well……i wouldn’t have to FUCKIN POINT THIS OUT TO A SMART PERSON.”
The cri de coeur of your inner monologue, eh? Cheers, Shams.
shams 8:13 am on August 3, 2010 Permalink
Yup, im on jihaad against teh stupid.
Amazingly, no one is pointing out to Palin and the fucktards whining about Park51 that it is ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL to deny religious freedom to any american religion. Don’t they bray about the constitution 24/7?
Some one like you, Trevino, could point that out to them, instead of coming here and pissing and moaning about how we muslims are hurrting the fee fees of the 911 families.
sod off you fat hypocritical concern troll.
shams 11:16 am on August 1, 2010 Permalink
Well…..it is snakepoking. There can be justice in snakepoking if it reveals the true nature of the snake, and the poker is willing to take a nonfatal bite. I think interfaith dialog is crapology though.
The objective of the snakepokers is (like AA said) to force the opponents to admit that the Cordoba muslims are americans too, with american rights defined by the constitution.
I think I’d take a bite for that.
But they will have to be brave.
Sid 9:29 pm on August 1, 2010 Permalink
Denouncing of Hamas is now the litmus test for any muslim to do anything of public note non-controversially? Ridiculous, since when is denouncement of Israel’s actions a requirement for Jews? This insistence on muslims denouncing various organizations by the right-wing in order to prove their “moderation” is simply McCarthyite and ridiculous. And Rauf “knew” that this project would have been provocative? Find me a person who can predict what right-wingers will go ape-sh*t about and when and I’ll show you my unicorn; I don’t think caving in to their demands is unacceptable, even if their libel gains traction among the wider populace. What Tec15 said; unbelievable that the project is better defended on many other sites of the blogosphere than here of all places.
hakim 4:49 pm on August 2, 2010 Permalink
Abe Foxman has responded to the criticism of the ADL over this matter.
hakim 8:30 pm on August 2, 2010 Permalink
Again from HuffPo, criticism of the ADL’s position from Alan Dershowitz.
AA 8:22 am on August 3, 2010 Permalink
Wow, interesting to see Alan dershowitz support.