Column sought to promote dialogue

How thrilling it was for me to open The Daily Princetonian Monday morning and discover a day to assail Taufiq Rahim. What was more exciting was that Jeremy-Gulubcow-Teglasi had decided to ascribe certain ideas and statements to my name, and proceed to attack them. While I admit it's clever, I feel I must point out that the misrepresentation that he made of my writings is completely unacceptable and groundless. Although at this point, members of parts of the campus community have decided to deem me antisemitic without ever having met me, I feel I must protest. I do not have a flowering hatred for Jews, nor Israelis, nor Zionists, nor am I a supporter of the Israeli Defense Force. The purpose of my column on Nov. 5 was to openly point out a growing trend of antisemitism in parts of the Islamic world, deconstruct the phenomenon and perhaps point out ways to overcome it. However, let me say that I apologize to those who took offense to the words I wrote, and took them to mean something that I did not intend.

Nowhere in my column, as Teglasi seems to claim, did I write "don't hate all Jews, they're not all Zionists." Nowhere in my column did I mention Klansmen, Zionists, and terrorists in the same breath. Nowhere did I claim that Zionism is "racism, religious extremism, militarism." I do not simplistically believe that Zionism is "virulent, anti-Palestinian racism." Zionism cannot be, of course, stripped to one definition as it is a complex political and religious ideology. In fact, my column was not intended to be a "defense of Jews." It was not meant to channel hate from Jews to Zionists or to Israelis, or to anyone. It was meant to assess a trend of conspiracy theories in parts of the Islamic world.

Perhaps, it pleasures us to sit with our hands over our ears, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Instead of reading what I wrote, Teglasi has decided to denigrate me, and defend Zionism. Yet, he missed the point. I was not attacking Zionism, but was pointing out that we need to be more open about certain phenomena in order to dismiss conspiracy theories as voiced by the Malaysian Prime Minister recently. Refusing to admit the obvious, that certain special interest groups are at play in Washington D.C., is unfortunate. It is useful and necessary to have a more open atmosphere on this issue, particularly when this discussion is already in play in other parts if the world. Teglasi must also admit that certain "Zionist" organizations can be extremist, and by admitting such and their influence, we are not stating that Jews have a disproportionate, or too much influence (which is not a discussed point in my article). Such discussion should hopefully tend to isolate extremist positions, which develop in environments of secrecy. A more intelligent argument from Teglasi, and what my column was meant to encourage, would be to say, "so what if Richard Perle's background consists of advising Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle's policies were supported by the American people."

Frank Lee, who seeks to discredit my column without even addressing the facts I raise, also constructs a spurious refutation. For instance, he claims I have no source for the claim that Waleed Al Shehri is alive, and that the claims that he was alive were made before his picture was released by the FBI. Unfortunately the two following web sites negate this argument: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm> and <http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/aa11/11.htm>. In fact the school that the FBI said he attended (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach) tracked him down in Morocco. It is, however, precisely this dialogue that is important, especially at a time when an open investigation into Sept. 11 is being thwarted by the Whitehouse.

Let me conclude by saying openness, dialogue and discussion are the only ways forward in our increasingly complex world where misunderstandings are rampant, and hate and contempt the easy way out. Often we are inclined to name-calling, intellectual bullying and obduracy in response to disagreements and discussions we wish not to have. When a British academic refuses to work with an Israeli student at Oxford, there is something wrong. When a Jewish comic (Jackie Mason) refuses to have an Arab comedian open for him, there is something amiss. I hope the ties that bind us, overcome the differences that divide. And for that matter, I am always delighted to hear the voices of disagreement, as that dialogue will help us to improve our understanding of each other.

Taufiq Rahim is a Wilson School major from Vancouver, British Columbia.