Phyllis Chesler: CNN’s Glenn Beck devoted an entire hour to interviews with conference speakers; Bret Stephens covered it for the Wall Street Journal as did Jay Tolson for U.S. News and World Report and Christina Hoff-Sommers for The Weekly Standard -- but the various papers of record in New York, Washington, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles were, to the best of my knowledge, missing in action.

Curiously, both al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya, not previously known for their support of Islamic reform, covered the conference, which aired live and in Arabic. It is an unhappy irony that these noble dissidents should face ostracism and grave danger in Muslim lands and only to be similarly ignored by the Western intelligentsia and media.

Arthur Waskow: First of all, Chesler’s snide remark about Al Jazeera is simply false. It has in fact covered many stories of Muslim and Arab corruption, incompetence, etc,., and alone among Arab media has interviewed Israelis - and not just peaceniks. The reason it has a huge Arab audience is that it covers the real news.

Lorna Saltzman: Chesler did not accuse Al Jazeera of not covering Arab and Muslim issues. She said, quite accurately, that they are not known for their support of islamic reform. Second, when Chesler refers to Arabic/Muslim reform, it is quite clear she doesnt mean corruption and other such issues but religious reform with regard to their anti feminism, anti semitism, anti civil liberties, etc. In any case Al Jazeera covered the conference. One wonders why Waskow himself did not attend this important conference.

Arthur Waskow: Secondly, somehow it did not occur to [Chesler] that the specific Western media that covered the conference had an ax to grind: they hate Islam and support the Iraq war. For them, Muslims attacking Islam were a Godsend; they will help whip up rage against Islam. (Does she think the WSJ or the Standard is a feminist journal? Or opposes torture when done by the US govt.?) Imagine a conference in which Chomsky, Zinn, etc etc were the main speakers, attacking US imperialism. Would it he surprising or “ironic” if the world’s anti-American press showed up and the pro-American press did not?

Lorna Saltzman: This whole paragraph is a non seqitur and has nothing to do with the conference. Or support for the war. The prestigious progressive Center For Inquiry was one of the sponsors, not the American Legion.

Waskow is denigrating the efforts of courageous Muslim women, who are putting their lives at risk when they speak out. Furthermore, the notion that Waskow suggests - that it is out of bounds for Muslims to attack Islam - is exactly one of the reasons the conference was organized. Islam is determined to squelch all dissent and criticism, no matter how well founded. This is one of the major problems with Islam!

if rage is whipped up about Islamic repression and the incitements to violence contained in the Koran, then this is just fine, isn’t it? Should we be calm and apathetic about the violence that is being committed in the name of Islam? And if indeed Islam is as peaceful as some Muslims insist, then why aren’t they speaking out to disprove this? (obviously they have no evidence on their side in any case).

And just why does torture by the US have anything to do with the issue at hand? The conference was addressing apples, not oranges. Yes, we have an axe to grind but we call it a moral cause, and it is a moral tragedy that people like Waskow are not supporting the movement against the atrocities of Muslims . . . Mainly Muslim men of course, inspired by their religious leaders and doctrines. Men of peace don’t avert their eyes from injustice, oppression and murder. But Waskow apparently thinks that Muslims are above criticism just by dint of their religion. This is hogwash.

Arthur Waskow: I am NOT saying the conference was therefore a mistake for progressive Muslims to hold, or was a CIA plot (though thinking abt the CIA’s role in the liberal anti-communist Congress for Cultural Freedom & Natl Student Assn in the ‘60s and in the AFL-CIO, etc., that would not be so unimaginable) or a poison pill for progressive Islam to swallow. I am glad it was held, and sorry mainstream, & progressive press did not cover it. But it is either astoundingly naïve or disingenuous not to realize that it may strengthen progressive Muslims but it ALSO benefits the least progressive elements of the US. And it would be honest journalism to investigate where the money came from to hold it.

Lorna Saltzman: Sorry, but this kind of cynicism does a disservice to those dedicated to political change and to the basic freedoms conferred by secular democracy. It is not naive to want to support and strengthen progressive Muslims, who need all the help they can get if they are to speak out to other Muslims.

As for this benefitting the “Least progressive elements” of the us, this is a truly repulsive attitude to take. And it suggests that the issues raised by the conference are not or should not be of concern to all Americans, left, right or center.

If you take this statement to its logical conclusion, we would have to forbid discussion of any issue which has the potential for involving Repblicans, or Libertarians, or Conservatives, or any other groups that Waskow thinks should be exluded from our political process. Apparently he thinks that the only issues deserving discusson are those which reflect his personal values or those of his colleagues . . . Which do not by any stretch of the imagination constitute the body politic of this country. For shame, Arthur Waskow. You should know better.

Arthur Waskow: This is your logic, not mine. What I actually wrote was: “I am glad it [the conference] was held, and sorry mainstream, & progressive press did not cover it.” I hope you will circulate this rejoinder as well.
May you be blessed with fuller hearing --
Rabbi Arthur Waskow

Arthur Waskow: I hope you will circulate this comment to those who received the Chesler report. Please let me know whether you are doing that.
Thank you & shalom,
Arthur

Lorna Saltzman:: Below is what you wrote. My comment to you was completely justified.

But it is either astoundingly naïve or disingenuous not to realize that it may strengthen progressive Muslims but it ALSO benefits the least progressive elements of the US. And it would be honest journalism to investigate where the money came from to hold it.

You clearly had misgivings out of fear that it might validate the fears of some “least progressive elements”. I find this attitude repugnant. Have you considered that there may be valid issues of importance that need discussion regardless of public reaction? Or do you dismiss out of hand, a priori, all issues that those less progressive than yourself are concerned with?

However I will circulate your response.

[I would say it is legitimate to ask where the money is coming from, and I don't see any downside to the SIS publicizing this. Everyone can decide how relevant it is. I would certainly want to know - for example - if any group I am tracking is getting Saudi money. But Lorna responds well to Arthur’s first statement. - JSW]

Lorna Saltzman: If the conference benefits the “least progressive” elements, isn’t this because the MOST progressive elements have shown no interest in this issue?

Why haven’t they?

Also, is Waskow suggesting that there were no progressives at the conference? In fact, there WERE progressives there, including most notably the co-sponsor, the Center for Inquiry, the speakers themselves, and undoubtedly there were progressives in the audience (since Waskow did not attend, he has no way of knowing the political inclinations of those who did attend).

His final sentence below is in my opinion a smear that reeks of McCarthyism. Does it really matter where the money came from? And if it came from what Waskow would consider “suspicious” sources, does this mean that the issues they discussed are not important? Is he suggesting that the problem of fundamentalist Islam and its oppression of women, anti semitism, anti civil liberties and anti democracy stances are NOT problems? Or that they only BECOME problems when the “progressive elements” deem them important enough to address? Are progressives - uninvolved to date - making a statement that Islamism is NOT a problem? On what do they base this claim?

Waskow’s comments are very revealing of the moral dilemma that leftists and some religious figures have created for themselves. Having decided that it is forbidden to criticize a religion and/or its doctrines, they are then bound to ignore the atrocities committed in its name, including the most extreme human rights violations. The last time we saw this was when the Nazis came to power in the 1930s in Germany. Aside from a few religious leaders who spoke out and were sent to their deaths, most religions (notably Catholicism but nearly all Protestants too) made their deal with the devil in order to protect their own positions. Today we see the same thing happening with regard to Islamism.

Today in this country, we see people like Waskow averting their gaze from the crimes against half of humanity, committed in the name of Islam, by avowed Islamists, who follow their leaders and the prescriptions of the Koran which approve of and encourage not only the enslavement of women but the wholesale murder of all non-Muslims. What happened to that thing called Conscience? Principles? Human rights? Non violence? They have been put away in a dark drawer, in favor of Political Correctness. Cowardice is broadly manifest in the American religious community. History will bear witness to this, and so will their gods.

Phyllis Chesler: I think Lorna has done a very good job in rebutting Arthur. This is really insane. Arthur once thought of me as a great Jewish hero--and I did admire his book “Godwrestling.” That was long ago. The Jewish left is having a heart attack over this Islamic Summit conference since no one was blaming Israel or America for Muslim suffering - Muslims weren’t doing so.

Rabbis for Human Rights should have been there but they were absent in droves.

The Jewish left is so used to blaming America and Israel for every conceivable problem that if the blame is placed on the Muslim tyrants or terrorist leaders—especially by Muslims themselves—the immediate conclusion is that the whole thing is a CIA plot. Oh, this is not true.