Aaron David Miller's op-ed about how the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero shouldn't be built because it was a bad idea for him to have invited Yasser Arafat to the Holocaust Museum back in the 1990s is really bad. The piece is titled, "Ground Zero's wounds are still too deep to build upon."
How I could have believed such an invitation would head any way but south is beyond me. Yes, the museum was a living memorial to combating racism, hatred and genocide. But did I fully grasp that I was using hallowed memory and narrative for purposes that could affront the very people I was trying to persuade? For millions, the museum was a positive and powerful symbol of not forgetting -- just as, for so many, Arafat was a symbol of anti-Semitism, violence and insensitivity. The potential conflict and misunderstanding overwhelmed any opportunity for dialogue and understanding.
Because being an Imam in Manhattan is the same thing as having been the leader of an armed struggle against the existence of the state of Israel. Arafat was an actual person against whom people had specific grievances, a more appropriate analogy would be preventing any non-Jewish individuals of German descent from ever visiting the Holocaust Museum. After all, it's only been a year since white supremacist James W. von Brunn attacked the Museum, killing a security guard. The wounds are still too deep.
See how dumb that sounds? It's not actually any more absurd than arguing that the Park 51 project shouldn't be built because a few extremists attacked the World Trade Center in the name of their cultish vision of Islam.
