comments_image Comments

More on the ADL's Contrived Outrage Over Muslims Being Somewhere Near Ground Zero

Here's Jeremiah Haber picking up on an interesting point:
...When it comes to the Simon Wiesenthal Center's building the Museum of Tolerance on the oldest and largest Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem, the ADL has no problem backing the legal rights of the Wiesenthal Center and turning a deaf ear to the sensitivities of the Palestinian Muslims. It wasn't always like that. When the Jerusalem Mammilla Cemetery controversy came up, the ADL first proposed suspending the construction of the Museum

The ADL believes that a Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem can be an important institution for educating against bias and for respect and understanding. We trust that the same tenets that undergird [sic] the museum's mission will be applied to finding a resolution to address the concerns of the Muslim community and the families of those whose graves have been discovered…To do less would weaken the foundation upon which a museum of tolerance stands.

This sensitivity was at the time hailed by opponents of the Museum and was criticized, of course, by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Consistent? Not exactly. The ADL later reversed its position. According to its website,

Update: Following discussions in Israel, ADL withdrew its call for halting construction on the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem.

So why is it ok to be sensitive to the feelings of some victims of al-Qaeda Jihadists (not Muslims, and, by the way, Muslims were also killed in 9/11). But it is not ok to be sensitive to the feelings of Palestinian Muslims? Apparently for the ADL, the value of support for Israel trumps the value of religious tolerance. Of course, the cases themselves are not comparable. One consists of building a Jewish museum (let's face it: the story of the Jews will play a big role in the Museum of Tolerance) on the top of one of the last visibly Muslim Palestinian landmarks in West Jerusalem, expropriated from the owners against their will. The other consists of building a mosque near a site that has nothing to do with it.
I agree with everything but the last sentence. It's not a mosque that they're planning on building not at ground zero. No minaret, no calls to prayer. It's a community center with "a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants" and, yes, spaces for prayer -- interfaith prayer. It's two blocks away, with no direct line-of-sight. That's why the the right-wing freakout it's inspired is the Stupidest Contrived Outrage Ever. There's no Ground Zero Mosque -- the ragegasm is about wingnutty out-of-towners losing their shit about Muslims being somewhere near ground zero.