An Anti-war Response to the UPTV Controversy

David Green

In response to Robert Silverman’s call in a News-Gazette commentary on April 27th for more actors in the UPTV drama, including from the local anti-war community, I will share the response that I always have whenever Jewish groups make their highest priority one of censoring so-called hate speech: Are you serious? I thought that the issue of freedom of speech had been settled during the Enlightenment. If you aren’t willing to protect the freedom of speech of those with whom you most disagree, then you don’t support freedom of speech.

I would suggest we compare the consequences of so-called hate speech on UPTV with those, for example, of Colin Powell’s speech before the U.N. in February 2003. If lies contained in propaganda that have such dire consequences are not defined as hate speech, then hate speech isn’t the problem. I would also suggest a problem with the definition of anti-Semitism that becomes apparent when the term is directed at both Timothy A. Brumleve and Jimmy Carter. This is a slippery slope that has been actively promoted by representatives of the Jewish community in order to suppress criticism of Israel.

What is required is political context. In response to his invitation to the local Imam to denounce what has been shown on UPTV, I regret to inform Silverman that the Imam will most likely not be persuaded. He is a native Iraqi. Prior to the invasion, the support of the local rabbi for this endeavor was made clear at a public and interfaith gathering—supported by references to Jewish texts. Can one imagine the response by the Jewish community if the Imam was found to advocate an invasion of Israel? And yes, they are both criminal.

The Imam has most likely lost relations and friends as a result of this invasion, as have other members of the local mosque. I assume that the Islamic community does not view the current episode of Jewish mental anguish as comparable to the destruction of an Arab and Muslim country. While I’m quite sure, based on personal experience, that members of the local mosque by and large do not blame the Iraq War on “the Jews,” it is not lost on them that the most fervent pro-Israel members of the administration at that time were also the most avid promoters of the war, and that Israel was the only country in the world where a majority of citizens supported the invasion.

But let’s not ignore the elephant in the room—Palestine. American Muslims and those in the peace and social justice community who move beyond the mainstream media increasingly understand the history of ethnic cleansing, the reality of occupation, and the institutionalized oppression that confronts Palestinians every day. One rightly dismisses justifications regarding Israeli security in the same manner that everyone should have dismissed the threat that Iraq was claimed to pose to the U.S. or Israel.

Any confusion between perpetrators and victims will inevitably evoke outrage among the victims, whether regarding the Holocaust or the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948. Members of the Jewish community, and especially its leadership, must begin to understand that conscientious citizens no longer privilege Jewish suffering, especially the trivial suffering of privileged people, over that of America’s and Israel’s present victims.

It’s remarkable that Silverman, at this point in history, asserts an image of the Jewish community as innocent and earnest in grappling with hate speech and free speech. My image is that of leaders of local Jewish institutions less innocently distracting our attention from considering the serious consequences of policies they support. The only two daily programs on cable television that deal honestly and fairly with criticism of Israel (and the U.S.) happen to be on UPTV: Democracy Now! and Mosaic. While many in the Jewish community may be unaware of these programs, others may view the suppression of so-called hate speech and the loss of free speech as a win-win situation.