"As Holy Days Mix in Old City, So Do Wary Jews and Muslims," A1, Monday, 9/29/08
By Ethan Bronner
Bronner's article, depicting the uneasy mingling of Jews and Muslims in the Old City of Jerusalem during each religions' holy season, serves as a platform for the failed notion of a moral equivalence between Palestinian-Muslim and Jewish extremism.
At first, it seems the author may have a clear understanding of Palestinian rejectionism of Israeli sovereignty: "Some Muslims defy archaeology and history by saying that Jews have no link to the site and that it is purely Muslim sacred territory." I would only add that it is in not "some" Muslim Palestinians that hold this notion, but most likely the majority.
Of course then, Bronner must create the moral equivalency within the same paragraph: "The same problem exists on the other side as well — some Jews believe that the holiness here is theirs alone." It is not some Muslims and some Jews. It is what is probably a great plurality of Palestinians, in comparison to fringe group of Jews that disbelieve in Muslim holy claims to the Temple Mount.
Furthermore, it is the Palestinian Muslims that are actively resorting to violence on a large-scale against Jews, symbolizing their rejection of Jewish connection to the land. Bronner fails to add some key context to the article as to why Jews might be wary of their Palestinian counterparts - namely being that four Arab residents of East Jerusalem have perpetrated four separate attacks targeting Jews since March. In the most lethal of these attacks, an East Jerusalem Arab entered a Jewish seminary, or yeshiva, spraying gunfire, which killed eight young men between the ages of 15 and 26.
Rather than relate this pertinent context, the author cherry-picks a quote from a fringe Jewish extremist: "The Muslims shouldn't have been there... There should be a temple Jewish there. That's what we believe." This only adds to the aura of moral equivalence, or even tips the scales against Israel, demonstrating how radical some of its citizenry is.
Life would surely be simpler to understand if each time two opposing sides conflicted, it was clear that both sides were both equally morally culpable. It seems that moral equivalence was at first propagated to create a much needed balance against Manichean myths like (good) cowboys versus (bad) Indians. Ultimately, however, it has become its own form of unyielding Manichaeism, creating a clear black-and-white bifurcation of moral responsibility between the conflicting parties. Unfortunately, the truth is much more complicated and needs sufficient education to unearth.
To create a moral equivalence between the great sea of Palestinian rejectionism and the minor strain of Jewish rejectionism demonstrates the lack of education, and corresponding truth, in this weak and over-poeticized article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Great point, and really well written.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I might've added is that not only a great plurality of Palestinians doubt the city's centrality (or any sanctity) in Judaism, but this is what they're taught.
From Husseini to Arafat to Abbas, Palestinian Arab society has consisently declared Jerusalem to be sacred only for Muslims.
While there is no flawless poll to capture all of the views of the area's Jews and Muslims, there is clear documentation about what each side's leaders have taught. In this regard, there is simply no equivalence.