An attempt at dialogue breaks down over assumption 

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=8964

01/23/2004

by Gene Lichtenstein

The Jewish Week 

Almost from the start things went wrong.

That might be a fair description of the recent luncheon at the Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel, where several Syrian government officials met informally and unofficially with 10 Jewish leaders from Los Angeles.

The intentions were beyond reproach. Dr. Hazem Chehabi, a Syrian American who has been a U.S. citizen for more than 20 years and who holds the title of honorary consul general in Southern California for the Syrian government, was informed that the acting ambassador to Washington and a Syrian minister would be visiting the area in a few days.

Since they were both educated in the West (in England and the United States), spoke flawless English and were considered moderates, Chehabi thought they might initiate a dialogue with Jewish American leaders in Los Angeles. He called and verified the two visitors were in agreement. It would, at the very least, be a beginning, a step toward peace, Chehabi said.

Chehabi telephoned Stanley Sheinbaum, a friend and a political activist, and Sheinbaum in turn helped pull together nine other Jewish leaders. Given that the luncheon would take place in two days, it was a remarkable group that convened. They included, among others, the centrist and pragmatic West Coast director of the American Jewish Committee; the liberal and youthful head of the Progressive Jewish Alliance, the president of the Los Angeles Jewish Federation; and Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and president of the Wiesenthal Center.

One problem surfaced immediately: No one had thought through an agenda, or even a goal. The Syrians, it became clear, thought the American Jews, who were intelligent and open-minded, shared their assumptions. They therefore understood that “We moderates must support one another.” That, for example, the right-wing Bush administration waging war in Iraq and lending unconditional support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made it difficult for moderate Arabs to gain even a foothold; that the Syrian government had pushed for peace in the Mideast; that Arabs were rightly outraged at the ways in which Israel and the United States had systematically humiliated them. The implication was clear: American Jews had a role to play in setting things right.

But the Jewish contingent had a different set of expectations. It was like finding yourself in a room full of Stalinists, said Daniel Sokatch, the executive director of the Progressive Jewish Alliance, someone who expected to find some common ground for dialogue.

But, as he explained, the six Syrians in the room — Dr. Buthaina Shaaban, minister of Expatriates, Dr. Imad Moustapha, the acting ambassador to Washington; two of their aides, and Dr. Chehabi and his wife, an academician — had only one script and one set of beliefs that seemed final. There appeared to be no room for considering events unfolding in the Mideast in any way other than theirs.

The Jewish group raised its own allegations. Why did the Syrians tolerate “Diaspora,” a series of television programs that described Jews plotting worldwide against civilized nations? Or publish government books that accused Jews of blood libel and that were clearly anti-Semitic? Or censor independent news?

In the pause to the unanswered questions, the Jewish leaders produced their own assumption: If Arab terrorists ceased their activities, Israel would quickly come forward with a peace agreement. But if Israel ceased its militant response to the terrorists, Israel would soon be abolished by the Arab nations. That perception seemed unshakeable.

There was a mutual condemnation of the other sides’ killing of innocent children; of Arabs and Jews lumping together everyone on the other side, stereotyping a large block enemy. Israel was at fault, seemed to be the start of the Syrians’ complaint; Syria and the Arabs were to blame, countered the American Jews. The heart of the problem in the Mideast? Terrorism, said Rabbi Hier; the occupation, exclaimed Shabeen.

Each came away with a different conclusion. Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, the West Coast head of the AJCommittee, suggested that each side was locked in its own assumptions about fault and blame. Until they could get past that point, neither peace nor a future lunch seemed possible.

Chehabi was less pessimistic. “It was difficult,” her told me, “harder than I thought it would be. There was a great deal of misunderstanding on both sides.”

But he saw the meeting of people face to face as a necessary first step if each side was to get to know one another. Chehabi added that even though a member of the Jewish delegation made a personal attack on the Syrian minister, it was a start. After all, while Syrian television might demonize the Jews, the Western films and television demonized Arabs. Why didn’t the American Jews protest to their friends in Hollywood? Moreover, did the Americans not realize that when they rolled their eyes and shook their head in disbelief at the Syrian minister’s words, it was a form of rudeness, a way of humiliating “the other?”

Nevertheless, he was all for convening another meeting.

Listening to Chehabi, I was reminded of several psychiatrist friends of mine. The most important starting point in therapy, they say, is to listen to the individual empathetically. You do not argue with the presentation of self; you accept it. Accepting does not mean agreeing; it just means not challenging a person.

Perhaps that might be the starting point next time around, if there is a next time.