Shir Harel is the Vice President of NYU’s Middle East Sustained Dialogue Group (MESDG). Below are her responses to a recent email interview regarding Muslim-Jewish relations on campus:
Robert Friedman, a volunteer for Obsession, said that the approach taken by NYU toward Muslim-Jewish dialogue was one of “denial” of the claimed danger represented by radical Islam. Do you think NYU’s Muslim-Jewish dialogue has resulted in denial?
I think at NYU we do a good job of confronting many sensitive issues that are important to both sides in a way thats dynamic and bring in many perspectives. I think we’ve shown that we want to put all the arguments on the table.
The view of Mr. Friedman and Obsession is that radicalism in the Middle East is an inherent product of Islam- an idea I very strongly disagree with. From their perspective, Muslims who don’t want to question Islam are “in denial.”
I think many of the students who attended the event made very good points about how to better understand these extremists who are, yes, Muslims, but who more importantly have these particular political agendas as a result of political, economic and social circumstances in their region. I think if you want to really understand extremism you need to look at these factors. It doesnt make you in denial to assert that there are better explanations for extremism.
What do you think of Jewish-Muslim relations at NYU? How and why do you think it may be different from those at other universities and in larger communities?
I think Jewish-Muslim relations at NYU are dynamic. There are many on both sides who will not engage the other, but I feel that MESDG is helping to create a forum and a community of those who genuinely want to. I think the growing turnout of Jews and Muslims at dialogue events are testament that nyu has a strong base of good Jewish-Muslim relations.
What do you think Jews at NYU should be doing about Jewish extremists who produce violence and violent rhetoric?
I disagree with the idea that people of a certain religion need to necessarily “do something about” each other. For example I don’t feel that I can hold one Muslim accountable for something another Muslim does, just as I wouldn’t think to hold one doctor responsible if a different one was being accused of malpractice — or think this necessarily reflects on the medical profession.
I do think, being moderate and progressive, that it’s a shame that sometimes the actions and words of Jewish extremists reflect on me and my Jewish peers, and in these cases I feel the need to clarify my views and my disagreement with them.
The event was a good example of this situation — I felt there was a strong presence of Jewish and pro-Israel groups endorsing Obsession, and felt a responsibility to voice my differences with them. That’s why I made the statement I did, that I was disheartened to see people believing that this propaganda somehow helps Israel and its future, or that demonizing Islam is a Jewish concern.
How has the MESDG at NYU worked towards or chosen not to participate in Muslim-Jewish dialogue?
MESDG has strived to create challenging events and discussions which are inclusive, but are also not evasive of serious issues. I think this is one of our great strengths and I think the reason why so many passionate people come to our dialogues, and why so many people also learn something. One of the things we try to do in creating programming is look at other events happening on campus and think about whats not being said or examined in a multi-dimensional way.
VP of Dialogue Group on Muslim-Jewish Relations
Published by Jill Goldstein February 6th, 2007 in New York University.5 Responses to “VP of Dialogue Group on Muslim-Jewish Relations”
- 1 Trackback on Feb 26th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Ms. Harel blatantly misrepresents both my own views and the view represented in the film Obsession by erroneously claiming “The view of Mr. Friedman and Obsession is that radicalism in the Middle East is an inherent product of Islam.” Both Muslim and Jewish students with whom I spoke after the screening clearly recognized that the from very title of the film “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” and from the numerous explicit mentions and repetitions in the film and during my talk afterwards that the issue is not Islam, but Radical Islam. Extremist Islam. Obsession’s website makes it very clear: (http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/) “A peaceful religion is being hijacked by a dangerous foe, who seeks to destroy the shared values we stand for. The world should be very concerned.”
Harel’s obfuscation, shifts focus away from the hard work - facing the fundamental issue represented by the film, which is the growing danger of Radical Islam and those innocent civilians of all faith groups who suffer from global terror. Perhaps Harel feels that shooting the messenger in the face of such daunting problems that are real and chilling will enhance her dialogue group.
But as a proponent and frequent participant in cross-cultural and inter-religious dialogue, on issues related to the Middle East conflict and social justice issues, I humbly disagree.
Willingness to listen, fairness and honesty are the key ingredients of dialogue, not denial and whitewashing.
All over the non-Muslim world, we hear incessant demands that those who believe in the literal truth of the Koran be granted “respect.” We are supposed to watch what we say about Islam, lest by any chance we be considered “offensive.” A fair number of authors and academics in the West now have to live under police protection or endure prosecution in the courts for not observing this taboo with sufficient care. A stupid term - Islamophobia - has been put into circulation to try and suggest that a foul prejudice lurks behind any misgivings about Islam’s infallible “message.” This idiotic masochism has to be dropped.
Where are the denunciations from centers of Sunni and Shiite authority of the daily murder and torture of Islamic co-religionists? Of the regular desecration of holy sites and holy books? Of the paranoid insults thrown so carelessly and callously by one Muslim group at another This mounting ghastliness is a bit more worthy of condemnation, surely, than a few Danish cartoons. The civilized world - yes I do mean to say that - should find its own voice and state firmly to Muslim leaders and citizens that respect is something to be earned and not demanded with menace. (
It is a sad thing that this political correctness garbage gets in the way of real dialogue about an issue so compelling and necessary. Misinterpretation of what others say specifically about “Radical islam” as applying to “all of Islam” is a perfect example of how such political correctness can operate, at its worst, to distort what otherwise would be very clear messages. More importantly, perhaps, it reinforces the idea that the populace should be afraid to discuss these issues in any meaningful way.
Absolutely. the same anti-Israel (& often anti-semitic) propogandists who claim, often falsely, that they are being censored by being mislabelled “anti-Semites” love to confuse criticism of Islam and Islamism with “Islamophobia”.
Here’s a great article on the general topic:
Is It Racist to Condemn Fanaticism? - by Phyllis Chesler
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1480090.ece
In Afghanistan, married for two years to a Westernized Afghan Muslim whom I met at an American college, I saw how polygamous, arranged marriages and child brides led to chronic female suffering and to rivalry between co-wives and half-brothers; how the subordination and sequestration of women led to a profound estrangement between the sexes; how frustrated, neglected and uneducated women tormented their daughters-in-law and female servants; how women were not allowed to pray in mosques or visit male doctors (their husbands described the symptoms in their absence). I learned not to romanticize Third World countries or to confuse their hideous tyrants with liberators. I also learned that sexual and religious apartheid in Muslim countries is indigenous and not the result of Western crimes.
Nevertheless, Western intellectual-deologues have demonized me as a racist “Islamophobe” for arguing that Islam, not Israel, is the largest practitioner of both sexual and religious apartheid in the world and that if Westerners do not stand up to this apartheid, morally, economically and militarily, we will not only have the blood of innocents on our hands; we will also be overrun by Sharia in the West. I have denounced the epidemic of Muslim-on-Muslim violence for which tiny Israel is routinely, unbelievably scapegoated. The writer is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the City University of New York. (Times-UK)