Best to set inflammatory rhetoric aside

I was shocked to see the use of offensive language while reading Klaus Conventz (“Historical facts about Palestine, Israel”) respond to Jake Jacobs (“Gabbard should reverse stance on Israel”) in West Hawaii Today.

Jake Jacobs had recommended for U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard to end unconditional military aid to Israel. This is especially pertinent given that Israeli (and Egyptian) military units are now being scrutinized, as called for by the Leahy Law, for alleged human rights abuses by their armed services.

Barry Blum (“Don’t cut support to lone Mid East democracy”) had already made a response to Jake Jacobs, albeit not as offensive as Klaus Conventz, but still included language that is offensive to Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians; not to mention that both responses were filled with controversial statements, at best, and misinformation with malice, at worst.

For example, Conventz writes that Jacob’s recommendation is “anti-Jewish.” This is nothing more than an attempt to falsely label anybody putting pressure on Israeli government policies as a racist anti-Semite. If I criticized a Christian majority country does that automatically mean I am anti-Christian? I don’t think so. Conventz is conflating criticism of Israel as being against Jewish people, Jewish culture, and/or Jewish religion. Even Israelis don’t call their country “The Jewish State” because that implies a religious state (not to mention it would increase the already marginalized status of the non-Jewish Israeli citizens), whereas most Israelis are secular. If Israelis wanted to be part of “The Jewish State of Israel” (like how Pakistan is technically named The Islamic Republic of Pakistan) they would have voted for it by now. No matter how many times Benjamin Netanyahu calls Israel “The Jewish State,” and no matter how many proposals by the Likud and Jewish Home parties to pass laws establishing “The Jewish State,” the facts are that Israel is not named in this manner, does not represent the richness of Judaism, and does not speak for, or represent, world Jewry.

Besides falsely labeling others as anti-Jewish, Conventz goes on to express both subtle and explicit Islamophobic and anti-Arab sentiment. For example, he writes that “With the rise of Islam … the enslaving and killing of Jews was taken to new heights by the Arabs.” He conveniently forgets to mention that Islam is a direct descendant of the other two Abrahamic religions, and that under the varying Islamic empires the Jewish people tended to thrive as a protected class such as under the Moors in Andalusia (think Maimonades) and the Ottomans. Conventz goes on to describe how “there was no chance that there were (Jewish) terrorists intermingled with those refugees, as is a reality in case of the Muslim refugees.” Again, forgetting that the Irgun Gang (the precursor to the present day Likud Party) was labeled as a terrorist organization while they were collaborating with the Lehi to bomb the King David hotel, massacre the residents in Deir Yassin, and assassinate the Swedish diplomat Folke Bernadotte. Other offensive language included in the writing by Conventz are” “Islamic mob mentality,” “rabid Arabs,” “no separation of religion and government in Islam,” and “delirious Palestinians dancing.”

I am all for freedom of speech, discussions on controversial topics, and hearing differing perspectives. However, including rhetoric that is hateful, dehumanizing, and incites fear of others is a great disservice to those who are new to the topic involved; not to mention that, given our current political climate, can easily lead to violence. This is the exact opposite of what is needed, especially when it comes to having a discussion on anything having to do with a just solution to the problems involved with Israel and Palestine.

Joseph Sarsour is a resident of San Mateo, Calif.