Forum for Arun Gandhi at the University of Rochester

Following Arun Gandhi's poorly received comments about Israel's relationship with it's neighbors on the Washington Post blog, and his subsequent dismissal from his position at the University of Rochester, UofR President Joel Seligman held a panel discussion on the issue of Gandhi (as opposed to Gandhi's issue) called "How People of Differing Faiths and Across Differing Cultures can Discuss Issues with Potential for Misunderstanding and Hurt". Some of us attended to support Gandhi, and his message.

On Thursday, April 24th, a Forum was held at the University of Rochester Interfaith Chapel to discuss Arun Gandhi's inflammatory remarks on the Washington Post blog and his subsequent dismissal from his position as director of the organization he founded here to work for peace and in the world. For those of you who aren't aware of the situation, Gandhi was asked to write a blog piece about Jewish Identity. I am assuming that he was asked to write for the blog because he has a has an international reputation promoting world peace, and, if they were interested in different perspectives, he is an Asian, and might in some small way reflect the perceptions of people from the East.

Gandhi's remarks focused on Israel, a regionally taboo subject, and were inflammatory by US standards, though they might seem quite ordinary, and even compassionate, from the Asian perspective. They might be summarized (without the evocative imagery) as stating that the Zionist agenda draws sustenance from a negative focus of Jewish identity on past experiences, and that it creates a situation antithetical to Jewish security, as well as to world peace. His argument was based on a kind of psycho/social analysis that is familiar territory to most liberals and Jews. I, personally, have heard similar arguments from Israeli Jews(it's like the abused child growing up to abuse his own children), and from the demonized Iranian President Ahmadinejad (the 'Holocaust' occurred before I was born in a part of the world I don't feel identified with - right now I am worried about my neighbors, the Palestinians).

Mr. Gandhi's remarks caused outrage in the Jewish community, and his dismissal was very disturbing to those of us who feel that representatives of the peace movement have a right to analyze and address the issues of world conflict freely without stepping around any of the players. If there is a catch point, it was the fact that Gandhi identified Israel and Zionism with Jewish Identity rather than the other way around. In other words, he addressed the Jewish community in light of Zionism and it's consequences, rather than considering Zionism as an acceptable consequence of recent Jewish experience. This was taken as blaming 'Jews' for the consequences of Zionism rather than forgiving the consequences of Zionism as a natural consequence of the experiences of Jews.

This leads us to consider the difference between the interaction between getting blame and feeling guilt, on the one hand, and taking responsibility for one's actions, on the other. This is a very subtle difference until experienced, at which point the punitive constriction of the former is seen to be the antithesis of the empowerment bestowed by the latter. When I first experienced a transition from the former state to the latter, I finally understood the meaning of of 'repentance, a concept I had been chewing on since Catholic grade school.

The forum was hosted by University of Rochester President Joel Seligman and with the stated purpose of discussion "How People of Differing Faiths and Across Differing Cultures can Discuss Issues with Potential for Misunderstanding and Hurt". When I first saw the title, I thought "Everything I Need to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten". So the topic is, how can we discuss [anything] without stepping on one another's toes. But could we talk about how we can discuss matters of greater importance than our personal issues without being overcome by them? That is the question I carried in with me.

So, the speakers were, Bishop Clark of the Rochester Diocese, Imam Shafiq of the Rochester Islamic Center, Presbyterian Reverend Denise Yarborough, head of the Interfaith Council, Arun Gandhi, and Larry Fine who heads up a number of Jewish Organizations in Rochester. President Seligman started off the event with some conflicting remarks about how, on the one hand, Civil Discourse must be preserved to have a community, and on the other, The University of Rochester is a bastion of free speech and fully supports indenpendent thinkers. He stated that if he had made such a hurtful gaffe, he would have expected to be fired. This is interesting because, of course, given his loyalties, he would have been extremely unlikely to hurt this partictular constituency. However, he would not expect to give his resignation for calling the elected officials of Palestine terrorists, or for stating that the price exacted from the Palestinians for their habitation of the land coveted by the Zionists is acceptable.

Bishop Clark focused his remarks around Pope Benedicts recent visit to the US. He elevated the concepts of tolerance and forgiveness. He talked about how, if a person is faithful to their destiny, or to their life mission, then any incidental errors they make along the way become irrelevant in the eyes of god. And he emphasized that all men make mistakes, even the pope. He said that Benedict apologized for the pain caused by some clergy, and talked about diligent oversight necessary to prevent future abuse of young people by the clergy. He mentioned the inflammatory comments that Benedict made about the Muslim religion, and pointed out that Benedict apologized for offending those who were offended, but stood by his remarks in context. I felt that Clark had mounted a very deliberate, if not very direct, defense of Gandhi's statements.

Imam Shafiq spoke next. He began by telling a story that made the point that his remarks would be in the context of the stated topic, and that he did not have the capacity to solve the underlying problem. He basically rejected that focus as an intrusion. However, I think that by the end of the evening, it was pretty clear the extent to which the dicussion was an evasion of the real problem not a separate high level discourse. Imam Shafiq based his remarks on a book about "Interfaith Dialog" which appears to have some good things to say about getting along in a testy environment, speak softly, be polite, use a language of tolerance, be forgiving. All these are fine if you are in a position of strength, or just want to be accepted. The most useful point he had was "Face areas of Disagreement with Frankness". I repeat "Face areas of Disagreement with Frankness".

Reverend Yarborough spoke a lot about sensitivity. As such, she kind of balanced out Bishop Clark. She talked about an interpretation of the biblical story of Doubting Thomas, which, to be honest, doesn't resonate for me. She said that he needed to touch Jesus' wounds, not t believe he was present, but to feel his pain. She said that this was an esoteric interpretation of intimacy, to know deeply another' s pain. I don't entirely disagree with her definition of intimacy, but I think that if you need to touch the wound to feel it, that is evidence of a lack of intimacy, and if your wound stands between you and every relationship, then that is evidence of an incapacity for intimacy. From there the Reverend went on to talk about guidlines for interfaith dialog and stated that controversy exists, and we must learn to live with change. But I was still pondering the wound issue, and thinking that psychology, philosophy and religion aside, conversations might become very intimate indeed.

Arun Gandhi talked about following his grandfather's teachings, and asserted his committment to non-violence and a world that can live in Peace because "we are all one". It occurs to me that this latter concept is too Eastern for most of his listeners to really grasp. He went on to say that as the world grows smaller and we grow closer and closer, we need to recognize diversity, and to create a dialog with a purpose. The purpose, he said, is not tolerance, but rather love and respect. Tolerance can exist without respect and understanding [I would say, without compassion]. He went on to say that there is only one god, and that is truth. We like to think we can 'posess' the truth, but in fact, we can only pursue it. Truth is the essence of being, not the other way around.

Gandhi apologized for any pain caused by misapprehension of his remarks on the Washington Post Blog, but stood by his message. He said that he wanted to create a dialog as it is fixed opinions and prejudices that are continually destroying our lives. He said that it had been a mistake to attempt to communicate a complex idea in a few incisive words, and that, in retrospect, he saw that his language was harsh, and therefore violent in a way that had not been his intention. He said that, on the one hand he sees the importance of using non-violent language to reject violence and war, but that we are so close that we need to be able to identify a problem and to institute a dialog if we are to address it. We should be able to speak with those we live with and work with as adults, and not break off relationships when there are differences, but rather to create a relationship where we can deal with our differences. The directness of his remarks gave form to the preceding discussion, enlivening them with immediacy and the potential of action.

Larry Fine spoke last. He began by talking about his difficulties growing up in Chicago as a Jew in a working class catholic neighborhood. He talked of the differences in their experience both large and small, but I was struck by the fact that he had still (after all these years) not noticed any of their similarities, nor really understood whatever advantages his background and social mileau might have bestowed on him. He talked about being healed by a Christian/Jewish trip to Israel. I can only imagine the impact of having a place of one's own to share after a lifetime of feeling outside the center of society. He also talked about his feelings on seeing Bishop Clark speak at the Holocaust Museum and take responsibility for the fact that the Holocaust was allowed to occur. Clark was young adult at the time, Fine was not yet born.

I believe that Fine is a seeker. He was intensely moved by a joint Jewish-Muslim interfaith service. Over and over, the gift of acceptance, the gift of acknowledgment, the gift of love and respect. He is a successful member of society and a leader in the community. What if he could give to someone else, the gift that Bishop Clark gave to him? How empowering would that be? It's right there, if only he felt strong enough to proceed. This is the peace I would wish for him. But it is what you feel, not what you accomplish that brings you peace. If you can find the peace in your heart, then you can offer it in your outstretched palm, without fear. In the end, Larry said that he is still carrying some of his baggage. I want to say, "Welcome to the human race, Larry". But in all truth, I'm not sure that he understands that even now. And so, my remark would merely offend his sensibilities.

Fine's remarks rested like a damp fledgling in the feathered nest of the philosophical discussion that went before. I had wondered at first, where he would fit in this "religious" debate. But his experience is at the heart of the dilemma under discussion. This is all the more true because, indeed, he is not alone. Everyone who needs to join this dialog has personal pain and a shifting cloud of hopes and fears to bring to the table.

To give them credit, the organizers did open the floor to audience dialog. The first individual to speak, a prominent activist in the local anti-war community, introduced himself as a Jew, then proceeded to point out that the day of the panel was the anniversary of the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto, a prelude to genocide, and also, of a discussion like one in progress, where the issues were tabled while the etiquette of having a discussion explored. Other speakers followed, expressing support for Mr. Gandhi, of his persistence and courage in opening the dialog on the one hand, and the pain and betrayal that his comments brought to them on the other. This was, in a sense, a more honest dialog than the religious authorities can have.

Towards the end, I stood up, and asked, again, when can we talk about the real issue. What about the suffering of today's victims. I said that I learned about the Holocaust, and the genocide of the Native Americans, after the fact. We have another opportunity right now, to set aside our baggage now, before it is too late, to take responsibility for our actions and change, yes change our directives, and to put an end to the terrible suffering of one at least one group of people. We have it in our power. I was hoping to speak last, but no such luck. The last speaker, unanimously approved by the panel, was a fundamentalist Christian who spoke in religious terms of one god and the power of love (is he a member of the interfaith coalition?), who told a joke like my grandmother's jokes about the priest, the rabbi and the minister. Only in this speaker's cosmology, it was the 'Liberal Christian' who saved the day with an open mind. Grandma would not have approved.

So, that said, I'm going to go back to writing about the woes of the Palestinians and the aggressive nature of the Zionist project. I'm going to report the overwhelming stench of imperialism that is suffocating the birthplace of our race, and the arrogant meanness of powerful men and rulers of nations who callously manipulate human beings like chess pieces on a blood soaked board.