As Jewish and black leaders struggle to determine how to manage the ongoing crisis surrounding Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, the militant black leader has — at least for now — succeeded in determining the course of dialogue between the two communities.
Many Jewish and black leaders say they are dismayed by the amount of attention that Farrakhan and his followers have gotten in recent days, following the minister’s tepid reaction to a top aide’s anti-Semitic remarks.
They insist that they are anxious to move past this issue and return to a substantive dialogue between the two groups.
But many Jewish organizations are warning that they cannot resume a dialogue until questions regarding the black community’s acceptance of Farrakhan’s remarks are resolved.
“It is unfortunate to see Louis Farrakhan setting the agenda of black-Jewish dialogue,” said Michael Kotzin, director of the Jewish Community Relations Council in Chicago, where Farrakhan is based.
Farrakhan, leader of the radical Black Muslim faction, had been under pressure to distance himself from statements made by an aide, Khalid Abdul Muhammad, at a speech at Kean College in New Jersey last November.
In the speech, Muhammad accused Jews of “sucking our blood in the black community” and said that Jews control the White House, the media and the Federal Reserve. He also said that Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves.
At a news conference Feb. 3, Farrakhan failed to repudiate Muhammad’s claims, saying he would stand by the “truths” of Muhammad’s speech and condemning only “the manner in which those truths were represented.”
He said that Muhammad had been dismissed from his position as a national assistant but would remain a member of the Nation of Islam.
Farrakhan went on to accuse the Anti-Defamation League of plotting to destroy the Nation of Islam by disrupting the organization’s relations with other black groups.
The ADL had widely publicized Muhammad’s speech by publishing its contents in a full-page advertisement in The New York Times last month.
OUTRAGE AT FARRAKHAN’S RESPONSE
American Jewish organizations were outraged at Farrakhan’s response to his aide and lashed into his reaffirmation of Muhammad’s “truths.”
But, although black leaders were willing to call on Farrakhan to repudiate the incendiary remarks made by his aide, they did not seem willing to challenge Farrakhan’s response.
Tensions were heightened when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a mainstream black civil rights group, released a statement saying it was “satisfied” with the condemnation and disciplinary action taken by Farrakhan against Muhammad.
“The NAACP is prepared to believe Minister Farrakhan’s statement that he is neither anti-Semitic nor racist,” the statement said. It added that it looked forward “to concrete deeds in the future that would affirm his statements.”
In a statement released Monday, the American Jewish Committee sharply criticized the NAACP’s response to Farrakhan’s comments, calling on “the entire civil rights community” to reject him.
AJCommittee Executive Director David Harris said that by failing to repudiate Farrakhan’s remarks, the NAACP “not only turns a deaf ear to bigotry, but also seeks to rehabilitate the bigot.”
Harris said that considering the long history of cooperation between the AJCommittee and the NAACP, the black group’s acceptance of Farrakhan’s remarks was “hard to believe.”
In an interview, Harris warned the NAACP move could create a “fault line” between black and Jewish groups and among Jewish groups themselves.
While praising black leaders for their willingness to speak out against Muhammad’s Kean College speech, a statement released by the ADL said the group was disappointed by the willingness of the NAACP and others to accept Farrakhan’s renunciation.
‘TIME TO MOVE ON’
But in an interview, ADL National Director Abraham Foxman said he did not want this incident to jeopardize relations between black and Jewish groups.
By distancing themselves from organizations that are aligned with Farrakhan, Jewish organizations may risk jeopardizing long-standing relationships with these groups.
But some Jewish leaders insist that the issue must be resolved to the satisfaction of all involved.
“You can’t just ignore it and hope that it doesn’t happen again,” said Mark Weitzman, national associate director of educational outreach for the Simon Wiesenthal Center. “The lies have to be confronted.”
Others fear that further confrontation may divert attention from more productive aspects of black-Jewish relations.
“We should not allow Farrakhan to define relations between Jews and African Americans,” said Karen Senter, co-director of national concerns for the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council. “It’s time to move on.”
“The notion that every black leader has to frame a response exactly the way Jewish organizations would want it can only lead to an ‘in’ list that dooms coalitional relations,” said Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center in Washington.
“If we keep pushing at this point,” Saperstein said, “our pushing will become the issue.”
Calling the controversy surrounding Farrakhan a “rhetoric war,” the Rev. Jesse Jackson in a Feb. 3 statement urged that discussion turn to questions of the economy and jobs.
Jackson praised Farrakhan’s disciplinary action against his aide but declined to comment specifically on the content of Farrakhan’s speech.
Other black leaders say they are dissatisfied with Farrakhan’s mixed message, and pressed him to repudiate of Muhammad’s remarks.
(Contributing to this report was JTA correspondent Deborah Kalb in Washington.)
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
