Back in September, I wrote an op-ed that was published in the Portland Press Herald (my home-away-from-home local paper) describing my thoughts on the futility of the impending negotiations between Netanyahu and Abbas.
“These “negotiations” are happening only to appease and pacify the international community, a community that should recognize by now the futility of the endeavor. The world needs to further recognize that these men are essentially powerless when faced with entire societies at ideological odds with themselves and each other. It’s just a big joke.
And yet they persevere. Netanyahu could better spend his time working toward peace by disbanding and ceasing settlements entirely. Abbas could cede power and open elections within the West Bank, maybe even Gaza.
All sides – and believe you me, this issue has more than two sides – could work towards legitimate democracy for all citizens, taking down the wall, de-settling settlements and abandoning the idea of a theocracy once and for all….
Peace begins when all citizens and residents have the opportunities inherent in true freedom and equality, when they aren’t living under occupation, when human rights are something you have without fighting for, when hearing bombs on the nearby Lebanese border isn’t a regular occurrence, and when fighter jets aren’t constantly flying overhead as they are today.”
Almost a month later, the following “response” appeared (scroll down):
“The Maine Voices opinion of Audrey Farber (“Peace for Mideast a complex topic,” Sept. 8 ) was nothing more than a repetition of the same old anti-Israel propaganda that has been spewed for decades by Israel’s enemies.
Ms. Farber seems completely unaware of the amazing 3,000-year-old physical and spiritual connection that the Jewish people have had with the land of Israel and Jerusalem.
To deny the very real legitimacy of the Jewish people to their one and only, tiny homeland in the Land of Israel is to deny the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, all Jews.
Ms. Farber has fallen under the spell of those who spread darkness and lies, when it is light and truth we need. Thank goodness Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan did not consult with her or they would never have signed their peace treaties with the Jewish State of Israel.”
Dismayed (read: offended, hurt) by his use of hateful rhetoric (he obviously has no idea I’m Jewish) and discouraged by the editorial staff’s decision to print this letter, I wrote to the editors expressing my concerns.
“I found his letter to be an attack targeting not my ideas but me as a person. Your choice demonstrated an irresponsible editorial decision, obviously opting for smear campaigns and mudslinging rather than rational debate on controversial topics. … It is clear from Mr. Goldman’s letter that he did not read what I wrote or, if he did, responded to something he did not find within. Mr. Goldman is welcome to his opinion – in fact, I would love to hear his thoughts on the peace talks and possible solutions for reconciliation within Israel and between Israel and Palestine. Neither the Press Herald nor Mr. Goldman provided this.
As the editorial staff, it is your duty to do due diligence in paring through responses to opinion columns, choosing those which engage the topic of discussion rather than incendiary personal attacks. As a member of Maine’s Jewish community, my goal was to bring a different perspective to a touchy issue.”
And the response I received from them was temporarily pacifying (at least, I wrote them off as ignorant), until I finally figured out what was so subtly frustrating about it.
“We’re sorry that you found Mr. Goldman’s letter offensive. We reviewed both your column and his response, and, while we agree with you that he referred to issues that you did not raise in your column, he did so in the context that he believed that they were germane to the topic you both were addressing. His letter used vivid language, but it was within the bounds of taste and legitimate argument, and it represented his opinion on that topic, as your column represented yours.”
Ignoring that his language was neither tasteful nor legitimate, I still don’t know what our common topic of address was.
This letter – the attitude of the editorial staff – was most frustrating. I expect people to disagree with what I say, but I don’t expect libelous letters in retaliation. The editors had a responsibility to referee the debate and choose a letter that reflected a dissenting viewpoint on the topic of discussion, or none at all. His letter did not address the peace talks. His letter addressed doctored religious history and anti-anti-Semitic memes and still somehow he gets to legitimately represent me as baby-Satan. I was – and am – appalled that the editors could even suggest these be part of the same (mature, respectful) discussion.
On the bright side, enlightenment. The two letters have shown me (yet again) the tragedy that is the current discourse here. The fact that the “neutral” third party (the editors) cannot differentiate between sub-topics, even between legitimate commentary and incendiary hate mail, within the entirety of “issues relating to Israel” demonstrates how truly broken this framework is. That opinion editors of a real live print newspaper would even publish something so hateful – even if I had been overtly critical of Israel – is bad enough, but considering such a response relevant to the issues I addressed is downright shameful. By sanctioning this reaction, they perpetuate the polarization of the debate, barring the way for a diversification of knowledge and opinion where it is desperately needed.
Everything that is Israel can not be dichotomized into Am Yisroel Chai vs. Push Israel Into the Sea, but those seem to be the only choices. And because I was critical of a process – not of a country or of a people, but a process involving the US, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel – this rhetorical structure doesn’t know what to do with me so I am shoved into the “anti-” camp.
When realistic criticism of something so discrete is seen as part of the hate-driven anti-Israel dark side and not even journalists can discern this catastrophe, I wish I could just pack up and go home to the woods of Maine where no one will hear me scream.
Audrey Farber did her undergrad at UPenn majoring in Modern Middle East Studies. Her activism has involved resettling Somali, Iraqi, and Burmese refugees in Maine, researching forced migration issues in Amman, and she is currently interning at Mada al-Carmel – Arab Center for Applied Social Research, in Haifa.
