The Paradox of Interfaith Work

T

his past week, we were reminded
again of Rev. Martin Luther
King's concept of an "inescap-
able network of mutuality." Protecting
the rights and freedoms of any minority
protects the rights and freedoms of all
minorities.
It's a hallmark of the American Jewish
Committee's work, and leads us to many
diverse relationships throughout our corn-
munity. We are proud of these opportuni-
ties and they often become open dialogues
and friendships, despite tensions and
differences in other parts of the world.
Cooperation, coalition building and col-
laboration all are important for us and
have an impact on our diverse Jewish
community.
AJC maintains strong, formal, ongoing
dialogues with members of the Muslim
and Indian communities, and has col-
laborated on programming with many
religious and ethnic-based organizations,
most recently the Assembly of Turkish-
American Associations and the Detroit
Urban League. But there are often limits
to our conversations and our efforts. The
elephant in the room in our Muslim dia-
logue, and often with our relationship with
the Christian left, remains Israel. We are
unabashed Zionists.

How do we open conversa-
tions and outstretch our hands
to neighbors and potential part-
ners after seeing videos filled
with the chanting of "from the
river to the sea, Palestine will
be free?" After seeing count-
less Israeli flags desecrated
with the Star of David replaced
with a swastika? Certainly, we
hope that our "partners" are
not present or participating in
these "rallies," but they are often
attending the same mosques,
listening to the same imams, reading the
same blogs and newspapers, potentially
absorbing the hate. Some churches are
also inundated with messages about
Israel's oppression of the downtrodden,
sown into arguments and leaps that bring
people who are our neighbors to question
Israel's right to exist.
We want to converse with and build
relationships with those who have influ-
ence — yet doing so will continue to be a
challenge for the simple reason that their
legitimacy in their world is intimately tied
to relationships and affiliations that are
incredibly uncomfortable for us.
How can we openly dialogue with some-
one who may fund an organization that

teaches people to hate? Or with
someone who sits on a board
that may have controversial
ties in another city? If we go on
a witch hunt, we'll find some-
thing wrong with everyone
— but if we don't do our "due
diligence," we'll get burned.
Where does guilt by association
end and friendship begin? At
what point can we take some-
one at his word and not have
the bridge burned?
It is a dark time to be living
here in Metro Detroit — this is not news
to anyone. But unfortunately, I must add
that all of our positive relationships, all of
our work, the friendships, the seminars
and the dialogues can be and, in some
cases are being, overshadowed by some-
thing irreversibly harmful: the suggestion
that Israel does not have the right to exist.
Certainly, it gets tiresome and repeti-
tive to remind all who will listen that
Israel's rebirth was affirmed by the United
Nations (yes, the same U.N. that votes
against and condemns Israel seemingly as
its only function) and operates as the only
democracy in the Middle East.
So what is the solution?
We must remember why dialogue works

in this place and time. Like most of our
participants in our dialogues, our ances-
tors (and often, ourselves) came to this
country seeking a better life — a life of
religious freedom, economic opportunity
and a chance to achieve the American
dream. We have the same wants and
desires, needs and chances. We've had
many successes in dialogues over the
years; from the Muslim leader who now
explains Zionism comfortably to his
sphere of influence, to the Indian engineer
who seeks opportunities to build bridges
between Israel and India. Dialogue opens
the door to coalition building.
We need to keep the lines of communi-
cation open, to speak with those different
from ourselves, and keep working through
the challenges, no matter how many times
we get knocked down. Dialogue can seem
like an endless waste of time, but we've
seen again and again that seeds of under-
standing make a difference to both sides.
If our conversations can open the mind
of just one person at a time, we have suc-
ceeded. We hope to learn and teach many
more, but that's where we must start. E

Kari Alterman is executive director of the

American Jewish Committee's Bloomfield

Township-based Metro Detroit chapter office.

Did Qaddafi Really Write That?

I

t was a surreal experience. The more
I read, the less I believed what I was
reading. The "it" was an Op-Ed col-
umn in the New York Times (Jan. 22) by
none other than Muammar Qaddafi, the
leader of Libya.
He addressed the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and the column's content (not the
solution he proposed), might have come
from any Jewish organization. Indeed,
some Jewish groups would not even agree
with the pro-Israel history outlined by
Qaddafi. Here is some of what he said:
The Jews have been held captive, mas-
sacred, disadvantaged in every possible
fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the
English, the Russians, the Babylonians,
the Canaanites and, most recently, the
Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people
want and deserve their homeland.
No Jewish spokesperson ever made
a stronger statement on the right to a
Jewish state. Nor has any Arab nation,
including so-called moderate states such
as Jordan and "peace partner" Egypt

showed such sensitivity.
But wait, there's more.
Qaddafi wrote: The
Palestinians fled in fear of vio-
lence at the hands of the Jews
after 1948, violence that did not
occur, but rumors of which led
to a mass exodus. It is impor-
tant to note that the Jews did
not forcibly expel Palestinians.
They (the Palestinians) were
never "un-welcomed."
Yep, he wrote that. Muammar
Qaddafi. He basically acknowl-
edged that Israel is not to blame for the
refugee status of Palestinians; indeed,
Israel urged them not to flee, but instead,
the Palestinians followed the advice of
Arab governments, which told them to
leave but assured them they would return
after an Arab victory. Again, there are
Jewish groups who blame Israel for the
Palestinians refugee problem.
If that were not enough, Qaddafi added:
Assimilation is already a fact of life in

Israel. There are more than 1
million Muslim Arabs in Israel;
they possess Israeli nationality
and take part in political life
with the Jews, forming political
parties.
Here is Muammar Qaddafi
acknowledging the democracy
of Israel and how, whatever its
shortcomings, has included
Arabs into its political infra-
structure.
To be sure, Qaddafi also
examines the plight of the
Palestinians and recommends a one-state
solution in the creation of a country he
calls, Isratine. He argued that a two-state
solution is not the answer. It would cre-
ate an unacceptable security threat to
Israel, he wrote, adding, "An armed state,
presumably in the West Bank, would give
Israel less than 10 miles of strategic depth
in its narrowest point:' (Yes, he really
wrote that, too.)
On the Palestinian side, he argues that

any situation that keeps the majority of
Palestinians in refugee camps and does not
offer a solution within the historical border
of Israel/Palestine is not a solution at all.
He concludes, "... I hope sooner rather
than later, that living under one roof is
the only option for a lasting peace."
Of course, the Libyan leader knows that
is a very controversial proposal, one —
given the Arab population growth — may
well mean the demise of Israel. That may
well be his underlying objective. But he
could have made the one-state proposal
without being unbelievably solicitous to
Jewish interests.
So why?
Answer: Who knows? Perhaps, strategi-
cally, he believes the one-state proposal
would be more acceptable if the Arabs
publicly — even if insincerely — recognize
Israel's rights and overall positive traits.
Maybe he believes his idea would sell
better if Arabs show a sympathetic pos-

Did Qaddafi on page A38

January 29 a 2009

A37

