Editorial, National Catholic Reporter, October 19, 2007
We take the word of Fr. Dennis Dease, president of the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn., that he had good intentions -- sparing the Jewish community unnecessary pain -- when he decided to ban Nobel Peace Prize winner and untiring champion of nonviolence, Episcopal Archbishop Desmond Tutu, from speaking on campus.
But we’re deeply grateful that he found the courage to change his mind after hearing from students, faculty, countless Jews and others throughout the country and around the world that he had made a tragic mistake.
In doing so, he spared the larger Catholic community the embarrassment and shame that would have been justified had one of our institutions been complicit in impugning the reputation and life’s work of a man who has given tirelessly to peacemaking, nonviolence and reconciliation.
Criticism of the state of Israel is understandably a delicate matter. Jews were the targets of one of the most horrendous acts of hatred in modern history. In the Catholic world, it was only 40 years ago that the church acknowledged its part in fueling that hatred over centuries and took the first significant steps toward reconciliation through the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
While the world has taken important steps forward, Jews know too well the residue of hatred that continues to surface in language and in occasional desecration of their synagogues. Extremists still harbor absurd and vile conspiracy theories. On the world stage figures like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for Israel to be wiped out.
So reason exists aplenty for Jews and others to vigilantly guard against expressions of anti-Semitism and against historic expressions of hatred of Jews.
Archbishop Tutu of South Africa is not an anti-Semite. He is not a purveyor of hate speech. He takes care to make the distinction that most moderate and thinking Jews ask non-Jews to make: between criticism of the Jewish people or their religion and criticism of the state and its policies.
Tutu’s troubles apparently stem from a keynote speech given nearly five years ago in which he is strongly critical of the Israeli government, but goes to great pains to separate that criticism from his regard for the Jewish people and Jewish tradition. He speaks with gratitude “for all that I have received as a Christian from the teachings of God’s people, the Jews.”
He also speaks about fear in the United States of criticizing Israel because of the power of the “Jewish lobby.” Granted, that term can be code for hatred of Jews and for loony conspiracy theories. But one would expect that even Jews might want to get beyond the coded language in favor of a certain reality. To pretend that a Jewish lobby does not exist and is not influential and well-organized is absurd. Just as it would be absurd to argue that there is no lobby for trial lawyers, gun owners, physicians or, for that matter, Catholic interests.
Israel is a major player in international politics. It receives inordinate amounts of U.S. military aid. It possesses an impressive army as well as nuclear weapons. It lives amid enemies and suicide bombers. It is involved in a sometimes brutal occupation of Palestinian territories. Its subjugation of another people behind a wall is no small contributing factor to the seemingly endless spiral of anger and frustration that marks life in this tiny corner of the Middle East.
There is a great deal at stake for all involved. Disputes and disagreements no doubt will continue to abound regarding the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.
If the Jewish community at large, however, allows certain elements within it to smear figures like Tutu without corrective comment from more prudent quarters, then the community risks its credibility on larger, more important matters.
We don’t work under the illusion that there is a single view among U.S. or Israeli Jews about what should be done to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Some of the sharpest critics of the occupation can be found among Israel’s Jewish citizenry. We think those views need to be aired, not silenced. And we can think of no better place than the campus of a Catholic university to, in Dease’s words, foster “thoughtful conversation around difficult and highly charged issues” -- and to do so with civility.
Comments