Tutu debate hits Boston
By Lorne Bell
The Jewish Advocate
On the heels of a controversial decision by the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota to call off an appearance by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, debate surrounds a local conference that will feature Tutu among its speakers.
Though the University has since re-extended its invitation to Tutu, some local Jewish leaders and Israel advocacy groups are upset over the Boston conference entitled, “The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel: Issues of Justice and Equality,” which will be hosted by Boston’s Old South Church. The event is being put on by Sabeel, a Palestinian Christian group, later this month.
“Israel is being labeled an apartheid state when it is the only diverse democracy in the region,” said Charles Jacobs, president of the David Project. “It is phony, selective moral outrage that is clearly aimed at the Jews.”
While some plan to protest the event, Jacobs and 30 area rabbis and Christian leaders are voicing their disapproval in a letter to Old South Church’s senior minister, Nancy Taylor.
Taylor has defended the decision to host Tutu, and said she has fielded a range of responses to the Sabeel event, from positive support, to rejection and concern.
“The Reverend Tutu is one of the great moral and spiritual giants of our time,” said Nancy Taylor, senior minister at Old South Church. “While some Jewish leaders would like me to think that all Jewish leaders have one position on Reverend Tutu and Sabeel, that is not the case.”
The Tutu controversy began in Boston in April 2002, when the Nobel laureate spoke at Old South Church as part of another Sabeel conference. The archbishop condemned Palestinian suicide bombings but implied that such events were caused by Israeli policies.
“It is the humiliation and desperation of an occupied and hapless people which are the root causes of the suicide bombing,” said Tutu.
Tutu sharply criticized Israel for its treatment of Palestinian refugees and compared the American “Jewish lobby” to the totalitarian regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pinochet and Apartheid South Africa.
While many have been quick to condemn Tutu, people must be careful in their haste to label public figures anti-Semitic, according to Jonathan Sarna, professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University.
“We certainly don’t want to fall into the trap of lumping every critic of Israel in with the president of Iran,” said Sarna. “It may be that we have to step back and draw a brighter line that will help us understand who is truly a danger, and who are the critics who we may feel are misinformed, but who we nevertheless respect for what they have done in other realms.”
Following the University of St. Thomas’ initial decision to un-invite Tutu, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote a letter to the president of the university.
“While Archbishop Tutu is not a friend of Israel, we do not believe he is an anti-Semite,” Foxman wrote. “We believe that he should have been permitted to speak on your campus.”
May Long, president of Christian and Jews United for Israel, said she is more concerned with Tutu and Old South Church’s partnership with Sabeel – whose founder and leader, Naim Ateek, has repeatedly used images of genocide and infanticide in characterizing Israel – than with Tutu speaking.
In a 2001 Easter message, Ateek wrote, “Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him. The Israeli crucifixion system is operating daily.”
And in 2000, he invoked provocative imagery, calling Israel’s leaders “modern day Herods,” referring to the biblical ruler who, according to the New Testament, ordered the mass murder of all of Bethlehem’s first-born to ensure the death of the baby Jesus.
“When evil words are spread by people who are world leaders, that damages the security of the next generation of Jews and all free people,” said Long.
But the reaction to statements from both Tutu and Ateek are based on misunderstanding, according to Sister Elaine Kelley, administrative officer for Friends of Sabeel North America.
“Naim was using the language of his faith to describe the suffering of his people,” said Kelley.
Intense reactions are an inevitable bi-product of discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to Taylor.
“This area of the world is tender to the touch, and pain is to be had,” said Taylor. “Part of the challenge is to hear positions with which we don’t all agree. People are coming out of genuine places of fear, and there is no one truth here.”
