The Hate Among Us

  Photo credit: The Los Angeles Times (

Photo credit: The Los Angeles Times (

Last weekend a rabid anti-Semite entered the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and killed eleven Jewish congregants, and injured six others. He targeted the worshippers not just for who they were but because of their support for refugees and immigrants. In the days leading up to the synagogue shooting, a man killed two African-Americans at a grocery store in Kentucky upon failing to enter an all-black church, and law-enforcement arrested a man in Florida for allegedly sending explosive devices to prominent democrats and media outlets. All three perpetrators were hate-filled white supremacists and part of a growing threat in the current socio-political climate.  
As we continue to mourn and honor those we lost, we must do more to collectively dismantle the causes and manifestations of white supremacy in our communities. According to an FBI report published last year, white supremacists had carried out more attacks over the 2000-2016 period than any other domestic extremist group. And yet under the Trump administration, more than 85% of the Countering Violent Extremism budget is focused on Muslims, Black Lives Matter activists, the LGBTQ community, immigrants and refugees – groups that have in fact been targeted by white supremacists. Groups such as Life After Hate that work to deradicalize neo-Nazis were deprived of funding under the current administration. 
At a time when our president has become the Inciter-in-Chief, it is up to us to strengthen our communities against hate in all its forms and shapes. We must call for greater anti-bias trainings that address racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia in our schools, congregations, public institutions and communities. We must call for greater state and local resources to be allocated to anti-hate initiatives and encourage the reporting of bias-related incidents within our respective communities. In addition, we must vote in droves in the upcoming election and drive out hate. We owe nothing less to Daniel Stein, Joyce Feinberg, Richard Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Jerry Rabinowitz, brothers Cecil Rosenthal, and David Rosenthal, husband and wife Bernice Simon and Sylvan Simon, Melvin Wax, Irving Younger, Vicki Jones, and Maurice Stallard. 

Muslim Students and the 9/11 Anniversary

  Source: Washington State University

Source: Washington State University

Mehlaqa Samdani

As I send my children to school today on the 17th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, I, like many other Muslim parents can’t help but wonder how the day will go for them. Every year for the past few years, I have friends who share their children’s experiences of being mortified, embarrassed, and downright ashamed of being Muslim when the horrific events of 9/11 are discussed in their classrooms. 

At a time when the Trump administration is openly hostile towards Muslim communities, and Muslim children are being bullied and dehumanized at increasing levels, it is important for school administrators and educators to be vigilant about how 9/11 is taught in the classroom. Research by social psychologists, Emile Bruneau and Nour Kteily, demonstrates that communities that are dehumanized often dehumanize in turn and ‘this starts a vicious cycle of retribution and hostility'. Given that much of our socialization and worldviews are shaped in schools, the teaching of 9/11 has direct implications for the future of intercommunal relations in our country. 

Currently, there are 20 states (Massachusetts is one of them) that include September 11 as part of their state standards. However, while each state determines the overall approach towards teaching 9/11, it is up to individual schools and teachers on how this will be implemented. 

According to research conducted by Cheryl Duckworth (Author, 9/11 and Collective Memory in US Classrooms), teachers often feel ill-equipped to grapple with the subject in any great depth and are uncomfortable talking about terrorism in ways that might be considered controversial. One middle school social studies teacher I spoke with mentioned that while he and his peers know how to teach subjects such as World War II or race in the classroom, they do not have a clear sense of how to approach 9/11. He mentioned that a training workshop around this subject could make educators much more confident and comfortable about how to teach it in a nuanced manner. 

While it would be ideal to have middle school teachers be able to go over the Treaty of Versailles, western colonization, Muslim fundamentalist movements, U.S. foreign policy and military interventions, governance gaps in some parts of the ‘Muslim world’ etc. while explaining the context of 9/11, it is almost impossible to do so within a 45-minute class period. 

However, there are simpler ways in which educators can be sensitive about how they discuss 9/11 in class: 

Allow parents and students time to prepare: School districts often provide educators with resources such as video clips and documentaries about 9/11 to share with their students. It would make sense for administrators to share these links in advance with parents across the school district. This would allow Muslim parents the opportunity to prepare their children for what will be discussed in class and how to respond to it. Often, Muslim students feel blindsided by what they watch and are unsure of how to react in the moment when questions about Islam or Muslims arise in the context of 9/11. 

Use appropriate terminology: While discussing the September 11th attacks, it would help to avoid terms like ‘Islamic extremists’ and ‘radical Islam’—instead, while mentioning Al-Qaida, it would be more appropriate to refer to it as a terrorist organization. Adding ‘Islamic’ denotes that there is something inherently Islamic about terrorism or extremism. 

It has also become commonplace for journalists, pundits, scholars, analysts (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) to use the term ‘jihadist’ to refer to terrorists. For many Muslim children, this can be deeply confusing and distressing. Jihad is a critical concept in Islam that means striving in the way of God, resisting oppression, promoting social justice, speaking truth to power, etc. and is something that is constantly referred to in Muslim households as something to aspire to. There is, of course, an ‘armed struggle’ component of jihad (see below), but the general consensus in Islamic jurisprudence today is that this is strictly in self-defense and can never include the killing of innocent civilians. By calling terrorists ‘jihadists’, we end up ascribing legitimacy to their hijacking of this word and reinforce the notion that cold-blooded terrorists get to decide how a sacred concept is used in common parlance. It also ends up confusing Muslim children who are taught that this is a central tenet of their faith.

Describe the many faces of terrorism: When explaining terrorism, educators would also do well to include examples such as the Oklahoma City Bombing and the killing of black worshippers in Charleston by Dylan Roof, both of which involved the murder of innocent civilians to further a political agenda. This would underscore the point that perpetrators of terrorism are not confined to any one race or religion. 

The responsibility to educate our children about 9/11 does not exclusively lie with our schools and educators. It is essential for Muslim parents and community leaders to be pro-active and have age-appropriate conversations about 9/11 in their homes and places of worship—we must emphasize to our children that while the perpetrators were indeed Muslim, they were also terrorists who distorted their religion to advance political agendas.  This makes neither them nor their faith culpable for the terrible events of September 11. Finally, we must elicit the help of organizations such as Islamic Networks Group who convene workshops that empower children with religious literacy skills so they are able to respond to difficult questions around jihad, shariah, hijab, etc.

9/11 was a national tragedy of catastrophic proportions, which left death and devastation in its wake--turning its anniversary in to a teachable moment that fosters community, resilience, and strength is an apt way to avenge it. 

Additional resources for educators, parents and community leaders:

Unity Productions Foundation

‘UPF produces films that tell compelling stories for television, online viewing, and theatrical release. These films are part of long-term educational campaigns aimed at increasing religious and cultural pluralism, especially among Muslims and other faiths’

Islamic Networks

‘Supplementing cultural diversity programming, ING provides training seminars to help law enforcement agencies, businesses, healthcare facilities, and school district offices and school staff relate appropriately and effectively to Muslim communities, employees, clients, students, and parents’ ING also provides religious literacy programming for American-Muslim youth. 


‘From film kits and lesson plans to the building blocks of a customized Learning Plan—texts, student tasks and teaching strategies—our resources will help you bring relevance, rigor and social emotional learning into your classroom—all for FREE. Not sure where to begin? Get to know our Social Justice Standards, anchor standards and age-appropriate learning outcomes divided into four domains—Identity, Diversity, Justice and Action. The Standards provide a common language and a road map for anti-bias education at every grade level.’

Jihad - The Concept of Armed Struggle in Islam

A Conversation with Dr. Sohail Hashmi, Mount Holyoke College

SCOTUS Travel Ban Ruling

The Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Trump administration’s travel ban is distressing at many levels—for approximately 130 million people from Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Venezuela, and North Korea, it means traveling to the U.S. on immigrant and non-immigrant visas is no longer possible. For legal permanent residents (green card holders) hailing from these countries, it means their future in the U.S. is no longer certain. For the 3.4 million American Muslims, it means that as they continue to be the targets of this administration’s bigoted policies, they can no longer expect the Supreme Court to afford them protections. 

While the Trump administration insists people from the above-mentioned countries can apply for waivers when attempting to visit close relatives in the United States or for medical reasons, in reality it has accepted very few applications over the past six months—last week, two immigration rights groups filed a lawsuit in an attempt to pressure the Trump administration to explain their ‘comprehensive’ waiver process. 
In the midst of all this uncertainty and despondency, the continued solidarity of civil society groups across the U.S. has been unrelenting and inspiring.  Emblematic of this support is the letter sent to Muslim communities from rabbis across western MA in response to the SCOTUS ruling--these incredible allies truly make America great.
At a time when this administration is pursuing draconian and inhumane immigration policies, undermining the rights of women, people of color, and the LGBTQ community, we at Critical Connections remain committed to convening events that we hope will inform the activism and engagement of communities across western MA and beyond. 

We thank you for your support and hope you will join us this fall for continued dialogue and analysis. 

Warm regards,
Mehlaqa Samdani

Letter of Support from Jewish Community Leaders


In wake of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Trump Administration's travel ban, several rabbis from across western MA wrote this moving letter of support to the Muslim community

Dear Friends,

Salaam Aleikum!

As a Jewish community, we wanted to convey our deep dismay over the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the travel ban affecting people from predominantly Muslim countries, while at the same time affirming the solidarity and deeply meaningful relationships we have built between our communities.  As Jews, many of our ancestors came to this country as refugees, and even several generations later, we carry this historical memory that informs our sense of justice in this current moment.  And beyond our particular set of experiences, we deplore the discrimination now given legal legitimacy as people who believe in fundamental dignity and the assurances of the US Constitution.

Ultimately, though, we believe in the power of relationships to create change in our society and to add untold richness to people’s lives.  In this vein, we are grateful for and proud of the opportunities for connection we have sought out in recent years.  The opportunities for dialogue through presentations and classes, shared celebrations, solidarity rallies, and the ongoing Shalom-Salaam sisterhood have created an enduring bond between our communities.  The recent interfaith Iftar and the Islamic Society and the celebration in the Fall hosted by the Hampshire Mosqueboth felt like family gatherings, and we were immensely honored to be invited and participate.

While dispiriting, perhaps this decision can be another opportunity to draw closer so as to set an example of mutual understanding and respect.  We are proud of the relationships we have built, and look forward to the ways in which we will work, learn, and celebrate together in the year ahead, standing with you in friendship and solidarity.

In a spirit of peace and love we send our warmest wishes for the health and well being of your entire communities.

B’shalom, In Peace and Friendship,

Rabbi Justin David, Congregation B’nai Israel , Northampton

Rabbi Riqi Kosovske, Beit Ahavah, Florence

Rabbi Benjamin Weiner, Jewish Community of Amherst

Rabbi Devorah Jacobson, Jewish Geriatric Services

Rabbi Amy Katz, Temple Beth El of Springfield 

Rabbi Andrea Cohen-Kiener, Temple Israel of Greenfield

Rabbi Howard Kosovske, Interim Rabbi at Sinai Temple in Springfield

Rabbi Jeremy Master, Sinai Temple in Springfield


More and More Civilians Are Being Killed In Our Name: Where Is The Outrage? - HuffPost Op-ed

This article was originally published in the Huffington Post on February 15, 2018

By Mehlaqa Samdani

Earlier this month, two U.S.-led airstrikes, including one that targeted a makeshift hospital in Al-Bahra village in Syria, reportedly killed dozens of innocent civilians including women and children. These bombings were the latest in over 10,000 coalition airstrikes in Syria and Iraq over the past year, where civilian casualties have increased by 215 percent. In Somalia, there has been a similar, dramatic increase in aerial bombings in America’s counterterrorism campaign that have resulted in numerous civilian deaths.

President Donald Trump’s racist remarks about people from “shithole countries” outraged Americans across the country. And yet, when innocent civilians are killed by U.S. drone strikes and aerial bombing campaigns in far-flung countries, nobody seems to notice. We as a nation, it seems, are more offended by racist rhetoric than we are by racist policies.

Read more here




January 19, 2017

 From L to R: Reverend Corey J. Sanderson, Rabbi Justin David, Ms. Tahirah Amatul Wadud

From L to R: Reverend Corey J. Sanderson, Rabbi Justin David, Ms. Tahirah Amatul Wadud


Summary and Key Takeaways

On December 8, 2017, Critical Connections and Karuna Center for Peacebuilding organized the ‘Building Inclusive Communities: The Role of Faith Leaders’ symposium at Holyoke Community College in Holyoke, MA. The symposium explored the critical role of faith leaders in building inclusion both within their respective faith constituencies and in the broader community. It was the first in a series of conferences our two organizations shall convene in the coming months to explore the role various public sectors officials and civil society groups can play to promote diversity, pluralism and resilience.

Part I: Striving For Inclusion – Looking Inward

The Challenge: Most communities of faith strive to be welcoming places. But there are many who feel excluded from their faith communities due to experiences with or fears of encountering racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, differences in political ideology, or other forms of alienation.

Guiding Question:

How do we overcome barriers to building inclusion and diversity within faith communities?


Rabbi Amy Katz - Temple Beth El, Springfield/Longmeadow

Imam Rasul Seifullah - Al-Baqi Mosque, Springfield

Father Warren Savage - Diocese of Springfield


Rev. Marisa Brown Ludwig


The overarching themes that emerged in Part 1 were importance for faith leaders to model welcoming behaviors, actively reach out to newcomers and members of marginalized groups, and use their roles as educators to help others create welcoming spaces. Clergy have a very significant role in setting the tone for their communities: as Imam Seifullah pointed out, communities take on the character of the pastor, imam, or rabbi. So if the leader is not all-embracing, others will not be, either. When someone shows up, be welcoming. Smile, introduce yourselves, be engaging. Faith leaders need to condition their followers to do this. They can start by emphasizing how much we all have in common, while also pointing out that the diversity in the world that we do see is created by God – we are not meant to all be the same, and we all have something of value to give to the benefit of humanity. Father Savage concurred, adding that inclusivity begins with saying good morning to everyone you pass, whether or not they respond. He reiterated the need to “model a lifestyle that is compassionate, welcoming, nonjudgmental, and affirming of others.” He also emphasized the need to encourage people to firmly believe in their hearts that everyone has intrinsic dignity.

Rabbi Katz noted that most members of her congregation would say that they are an inclusive community and would say that they of course they want all people to feel comfortable in the synagogue, but she pointed out that there is sometimes a discrepancy between theory and practice. She recalled an incident in which a gay couple felt uncomfortable in a class she taught even though it did not seem like anyone was being outwardly rude. But members of marginalized communities may need more than just the absence of hostility in order to feel truly included, she stressed. This is where education can come in. As all three panelists suggested, it is important to take concrete steps to make sure that people feel welcome. The leaders cannot do it all themselves; they must educate others in their communities and convince them to join these efforts.

In small group discussions, the term “radical hospitality” was brought up to describe what must happen to make people feel included[1]. Another group brought up how much joy there can be in finding that you are an “insider” when you step into a new faith community. Making this happen, as several other groups discussed, requires strong leadership and a lot of work, as well as explicit conversations. We need to ask questions to challenge our usual ways of thinking and working.

Part 1: Key questions that emerged from small group discussions/Q & A session:

●      Who is being given the “microphone?” I.e., whose voices do we hear? Do we let marginalized people in our communities speak for themselves, or do the more privileged try to speak for them?

●      When a community is resistant to being inclusive, what is the nature of that resistance?

●      How can we help people to feel part of a tradition if they are not literate in that tradition? It is important for people to have a solid core sense of who they are. How do we educate people about their own faiths as well as others?

●      How do we balance the needs of a few against the needs of many? For example, if there is a congregant whose needs are taking up a lot of time, how do we make that person feel welcome while also establishing healthy boundaries?

●      How can we embrace a diversity of political beliefs?

●      How can we embrace neurodiversity[2]? Is that a different type of inclusivity? What about ableism? (tip: always use a microphone to include people with hearing difficulties).

●      Where are the opportunities to break out of a “one size fits all” approach to religious practices? For example, can Bar Mitzvah rituals be adjusted to meet specific needs of individuals or their families? Or can a more liberal and inclusive Muslim space be created outside the mosque to embrace LGBTQ Muslims without coming into conflict with religious laws?

Part II: Striving For Inclusion – Looking Outward

The Challenge: Prejudice due to racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia is pervasive and exists within faith communities and also in the broader community.

Guiding Question

What is the responsibility of faith leaders in reducing intolerance and bigotry, whether that means addressing hateful views held by members of your own faith community or responding to bias-related incidents and troubling trends in the broader community?


Rabbi Justin David - Congregation B’nai Israel, Northampton

Rev. Corey Sanderson - Second Congregational Church, Greenfield

Tahirah Amatul Wadud - Muslim activist and attorney *and now also a candidate for Congress!

Moderator: Rev. Melissa Carver Zeimer


In both the panel and small group discussions, everyone agreed that faith leaders – and ordinary citizens – have a responsibility to respond to intolerance and bigotry. The question, then, is how to do it successfully in an increasingly divided environment.

Rev. Sanderson began the panel discussion by acknowledging the importance of this topic. He noted that we all must be critical in thinking about what we have been taught. In the absence of meaningful interactions with people from different traditions, media and Facebook memes fill the gaps between us with ignorance, stereotypes, and fear. We need to pull together, interact with each other. We should not minimize differences – as noted in the first part of the day, differences are not necessarily bad. We need to increase religious literacy and familiarity with different traditions. He recalled a story about MLK Jr, who went to hear a speech about “Christian love” that turned out to be about Gandhi. Understanding that a non-Christian such as Gandhi could nevertheless be an  example of Christian love popped him out of his Baptist bubble. We need to do the same.

Rabbi David echoed the importance of not minimizing differences. He recalled seeing a commercial as a child, in which a grandfather teaches his grandson that he was prejudiced for referring to a child as his “Jewish friend” rather than just his “friend.” The predominant liberal world view at the time was to ignore differences. But that has changed (for the better). He shared some of his personal stories on the path toward understanding his own place in the power structure as a privileged white male. In his first year as a rabbi, he gave a carefully worded sermon about peace in the Middle East and was complimented on being “deft.” But by now he feels that it is important to be passionate and principled, not just deft. He can use religion and his role as a leader and educator to look outward and make the world a better place.

Ms. Amatul-Wadud brought a different perspective to the conversation, because she does not have a congregation, but she, too, repeated the call to address issues head-on rather than ignoring or minimizing differences. For her, social justice and interfaith work was born out of necessity, in response to anti-Muslim sentiment and issues regarding racism within Muslim community. She did not grow up with conversations about race, or any other uncomfortable topics, but she believes that it is very important to have those conversations. With her own children, she decided to start early and often. She and her daughter developed a way to speak with Muslim communities about the universality of the African American Muslim Community. This includes teaching all Muslims about the story of Bilal (a friend of Mohammed and a great muezzin, who was born into slavery and experienced racism), and including in American history classes the fact that 20% of people brought from Africa into slavery were Muslim, so that Muslim Americans know they have a legacy here.

With regard to accountability and risk taking, the general consensus emerged that faith leaders have an obligation to the texts and traditions of their faith–and also to social justice. Rev. Sanderson spoke of the triangular covenant between individual, God, and community. We are at a place where it is good to have values, faith, and spirituality, but we also have to do real work to live out those values. He noted that religious communities often have a mindset of needing to be cared for by leaders, so they may be hesitant to have clergy speaking on issues of justice in the larger community. But he believes that it is important to speak out anyway (and if you are fired, it probably meant that it was not a good fit anyway). The others agreed that there may sometimes be risks (including, as Ms. Amatul-Wadud pointed out, emotional vulnerability), but if you believe in justice, there should not be anything holding you back. Rabbi David claimed that the greatest risk is inaction. Faith leaders can tap into people’s spiritual curiosity and use their roles as educators to encourage greater action.

In terms of how to reconcile theological beliefs and secular laws, people often assume that theological beliefs will be more conservative than secular laws. But this is not always the case. As Rev. Sanderson pointed out, liberal Protestants (as well as other faith communities) have long had an open stance toward LGBTQ people; in this case, their religious belief in same-sex marriage was held back by secular laws for a while. Often religious ideals rise above secular laws, and in these cases we can try to influence local policies to be more rooted in compassion and forgiveness. As a positive example, there is a noteworthy restorative justice program in Greenfield that is grounded in the values of forgiveness and reconciliation, rather than just punishment.

Below are some of the questions, thoughts, and suggestions that came out in the small group and plenary discussion [note–several of these points were brought up in the first part of the symposium (looking inward) but thematically fit with the second (looking outward) and are therefore added here]:

Part 2: Key questions that emerged from small group discussions/Q and A session

●      Religions often get weaponized–how can this be prevented?

○      We need more religious literacy – not only of what our own traditions say, but also others. For example, even within the Evangelical world, there is a progressive movement – not all are fundamentalists like Westboro Baptists. Although the “old guard” is still present, one of the most exciting things happening in American religion now is a rising awareness that texts are not supposed to be used as weapons.

○      In addition: organizing and standing up and showing up are great counterpoints to how religious beliefs are exploited.

●      Many people spoke about the importance of forming interfaith relationships. But how can we welcome people of other faiths – especially religious minorities such as Hindus – without making them feel that we are trying to convert them? Several suggestions included:

○      We need to stick by people we invite to our communities, to shepherd them and introduce them around and defend them if necessary.

○      We must be welcoming while not neglecting differences. When visitors come into our communities, we also need to ask them about theirs.

○      College campuses can expand multi-faith components of their programming. For example, Mt. Holyoke has a Hindu prayer room. They also have frequent interfaith luncheons and other opportunities for students to learn about other faiths in non-threatening ways.

○      Faith leaders need to make sure that they are teaching children in their congregations to have a solid core identity, especially if they are in a religious minority. If they grow up knowing who they are, and have a strong connection to their own faith, being surrounded by more “mainstream” religious practices or symbols will not feel as threatening.

○      When we invite people into our communities for interfaith events, the focus can be on the common experience, eating food together, sharing traditions, feeling loved.

●      With interfaith relationship building: how do we dig deep, beyond one action or one event? What opens us up?

○      One suggestion was to work together on something ongoing and meaningful. For example, in Northampton the Beit Ahava Synagogue and the Florence Congregational Church are now collecting water filters for Puerto Rico (they have raised $47,000 so far). The two share a building, but in the past they did very little together. Now the minister and rabbi are working together with a new level of engagement. Relationship building has shifted, and feels deeper because it is based in caring and worrying about others. In a sense it is political work, not just religious work, because it is filling a gap left by government. That might be scary to some faith communities, but it is important.

○      Rev. Sanderson pointed out that especially with the younger generation, we are seeing a shift from beliefs to values. We can build upon shared values, across religious differences, for long-term engagement.

Key Takeaways from the Symposium:

●      It is our responsibility, both as members of faith communities and ordinary citizens, to step up in whatever way we can in the face of injustice, prejudice, and bigotry. Where can we leverage the organizing power of faith communities to rally around advocacy? In the past, some religious communities have been docile, but this past year has been a wake up call to become more engaged.

●      Remember that choosing to act or not act is a sign of privilege. Some do not have that choice: they could literally be killed or deported if they act. A related note that is important to address within communities is that we might still be gaining privilege from an injustice even when we act against that injustice.

●      To do this work effectively, we must examine and actively respond to internalized biases in our communities. There is a balance between looking inward and looking outward, different layers of work that we have to do together. Education is key, but so is action. We cannot let guilt lead to paralysis.

●      When we reach out to others: who are we leaving out, and why? The answer might vary for different communities, but we can all try to expand our reach as we embrace inclusivity. For example, anti-Semitism is often ignored or quickly dismissed. And some people who loudly protested the travel bans – defending the rights of non-Americans – have ignored the injustices to their fellow black Americans. Even at this symposium, there was almost no inclusion people of faith with a queer or trans identity. No one should feel invisible. How can we do better?

●      Radical love has to come into our theology. Reach out, form unlikely relationships, do not get caught up in a good/bad duality.

●      We must commit to interfaith relationship building for the long haul, and go deeper than scattered, disconnected events.

●      Never underestimate the importance of community. Many people believe that evil grows out of organized religion, but in general, community building makes us stronger. We need to build communities beyond Abrahamic faith and have more programming that creates opportunities for community.

●      We must learn about and learn from history – and our complicities – and apply those learnings to the present. For example, Central American immigrants working in our area are being deported by ICE. Our own government is doing divisive things to our society now that have parallels in the past. We must remember what happens when we do not speak up. At the same time, we also need to plan for what happens “after the revolution.” As people of faith, and as humans, we need to make sure the oppressed do not become oppressors. Remember that it has happened before.

●      We must connect the safety of ourselves and our own groups to the safety of others.

●      It is important to structure conversations in ways that do not provoke defensiveness. How do you move people with more privilege to a place of being allies, rather than backing them into a position of being the oppressor?

●      In dialogues with others, always ask “is there more?” Instead of sealing off knowledge bases, we need to extend our understanding that we are all in a web. We need to embrace the next level of conversation. Our hearts must be ready to hear.

●      We might not always agree on how to move forward. But even though violence is bad, conflict is not necessarily bad. There is a lot of work to do, both within our faith communities and across wider divides. The time to start is now.

This report was prepared by Rachel Mason. She is the Program Manager at Karuna Center for Peacebuilding. 



[1] “Radical hospitality” has been defined differently by different faith leaders and congregations, but generally implies going beyond just greeting newcomers. Many sources are available online with suggestions and examples.

[2] “Neurodiversity” refers to the idea that neurological differences expressed as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, etc, should be recognized and respected as much as other forms of diversity. “Ableism” refers to discrimination in favor of able-bodied people. It is often due to lack of awareness of the needs of others.

The Future of the Iran Nuclear Deal - A Backgrounder

January 11, 2017


1. What could happen to the Iran nuclear deal on Friday?

The Iran nuclear Deal remains in peril as it is unclear how President Trump will respond to two key questions that have looming deadlines this week. Will the U.S. waive sanctions against Iran? And will the U.S. certify the agreement? Also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed between Iran, the U.S. and five other countries (UK, France, Germany, China, Russia), the Iran nuclear deal requires sanctions relief in exchange for Iran limiting its nuclear program. U.S. sanctions against Iran have remained in place since 1979—however, since the agreement was signed in 2015, successive U.S. presidents have waived sanctions every 120 days to keep the deal alive. If President Trump decides at the end of the week not to waive sanctions against Iran, he will violate America’s end of the agreement and trigger the unraveling of the Iran nuclear deal. The second question regards the deal’s certification, which is congressionally mandated and not part of the agreement itself. When the U.S. signed off on the JCPOA in 2015, Congress required that the U.S. president certify every 90 days that Iran met its obligations under the deal. The International Atomic Agency (IAEA) and the U.S. government have consistently certified Iran’s compliance over the past two years. However, in October 2017, the president decertified the deal saying it was not in American’s national security interest.  He left it to Congress to either ‘fix’ the agreement (by making restrictions on Iran’s nuclear capacity permanent) or re-impose sanctions on Iran. The deadline for Congress to re-impose sanctions on Iran lapsed in December and the ball is back in President Trump’s court.

2. What efforts are underway to preserve the Iran nuclear deal?

While nothing is for certain until an announcement is made on Friday, the AP is reporting that efforts by Secretary of State Tillerson, Defense Secretary Mattis, and National Security Advisor McMaster to keep the U.S. in the deal might bear fruit. They have for months tried to convince the president to keep the core agreement in place, while they work to ‘fix’ the nuclear agreement. Secretary Tillerson has engaged with congressional leaders to formulate legislation that would “punish Iran’s ballistic missile testing, alleged terrorism support and human rights violations.” According to the AP, as the Friday deadline approaches, Tillerson has tried to convince President Trump that there is enough activity in Congress to amend the agreement, and that if he keeps the deal alive for the next three months by signing the sanctions waiver on Friday, Congress could strengthen the deal by May. Meanwhile, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Corker (D-MD) and Senator Cardin (R-TN) have tried to come up with legislation that would make the review process associated with the Iran deal more palatable to the president—for instance, by adding a provision that prevents the need for presidential certification every 90 days. They recognize this is a constant irritant to the president, who has maintained that this is the “worst deal ever” and does not want to be the one to certify Iran’s compliance.

3. How might European signatories to the nuclear deal react if America reneges?

Since Trump’s decertification of the Iran nuclear deal last October, European governments have been less concerned with lobbying the U.S. and have instead reaffirmed their commitment to the deal directly to Iran. They have further indicated that if the U.S. decides to scrap the deal, they will rely on a European Union statute from the 1990’s that would allow European companies to continue to trade with Iran despite the potential re-imposition of sanctions by the United States.

For some, there is an even larger issue at stake—as one Iranian analyst put it:

“But this time around, the survival of the nuclear deal is no longer just about Iran’s centrifuges and sunset clauses. It’s about whether the EU will see the U.S. as a pillar of the liberal international order or as a fifth column seeking its demise. The nuclear deal has become the latest, and perhaps most consequential, international agreement or norm that the EU seeks to uphold and Trump seeks to tear down: from the Paris agreement, to the future of NATO, to the unity of the EU, to the funding of the United Nations, to the status of Jerusalem”.

The Ongoing Refugee Resettlement Effort in Western MA - An Interview with Kathryn Buckley-Brawner

 Kathryn Buckley-Brawner, center right, greets Jasimiyah Hussein and her sons Yousuf and Ayoob Al-Dulaimi, 26 and 20, all Iraqi refugees. GAZETTE STAFF/SARAH CROSBY PHOTOS)   

Kathryn Buckley-Brawner, center right, greets Jasimiyah Hussein and her sons Yousuf and Ayoob Al-Dulaimi, 26 and 20, all Iraqi refugees. GAZETTE STAFF/SARAH CROSBY PHOTOS)


By Leif Maynard

While it no longer occupies the front pages of the news, the refugee crisis in Syria—and refugee issues globally—still continue with force. The counts of both internally displaced Syrians and refugees abroad increased in early 2017 to a combined 11.4 million displaced people, according to recent UNHCR estimates. The ongoing nature of the crisis, so heavily reported on in 2015, cannot be understated. The war in Syria still grinds on, displacement camps in European and Middle Eastern host nations are only becoming more crowded, and violent hostility still haunts refugees at every step of their journey. 

Of course, the Middle East is not the only region stricken by war, forcing families to flee violence. North Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and now the Rohingya peoples of Myanmar are all part of the global refugee problem—the worst humanitarian crisis the world faces today. Given the current geography of the crisis, statelessness and displacement disproportionately affect Muslims, and hostile responses to accepting refugees in the U.S. and Europe has brought the prevalence of islamophobia and dire need for cross-cultural dialogue to the forefront.

In Western Massachusetts, the plight of refugees may feel impossibly remote and hopelessly enormous, that is until you meet a newly resettled refugee at your local grocery store. Through the work of a handful of refugee resettlement organizations in the area, our community has welcomed dozens of refugees since 2015—not a significant number in an international context, but life altering for every one of the families who can now reclaim their humanity in a safe and supportive community. 

To more deeply understand the continuing Western Mass refugee aid effort, we reached out to Kathryn Buckley-Brawner, executive director of Catholic Charities, the leading resettlement agency in the area. She explained the recent work of her organization, setbacks and successes in the Trump era, and how her faith guides her to help all human beings achieve the elemental human rights of basic dignity and freedom from violence. 

Critical Connections:  Please give an overview of your organization's work with refugees. Where are they predominantly from? What is Catholic Charities doing right now to aid refugees?

Kathryn Buckley-Brawner: 

Catholic Charities is a Refugee Reception & Placement Agency subcontracted through the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, one of the nine national voluntary agencies that are contracted by the State Department to resettle refugees. 

Our mission is to provide assurance so that refugees can travel to this country to build a new home of hope.  We meet and welcome them, assist them with finding a place to live, helping them acquire documentation and social benefits.  We provide ESL, employment services, cultural orientation.  Our Circles of Care, made up of residents of Northampton, help our caseworkers provide ongoing assistance, friendship and integration. 

Due to the unexpected halt in refugee entry to the US, we were able to settle 18 refugees in FY 2017.  We are serving Bhutanese, Iraqi, and Democratic Republic of the Congo families.

What has been one major recent triumph in your work with refugees? 

We just were successful in getting the head of household (single mom) of one of our families a job in less than 90 days, and managing to find ways for her to take care of her two children.  The Circle of Care, the school system, and the caseworkers worked diligently to put this all together in a way that would allow her to start to make her own way and build financial capacity and independence. 

What has been one major setback in your work and how are you overcoming the challenge? 

The halt of refugees being allowed to enter the country, particularly from Arabic speaking countries, has been our biggest challenge.  We were able to “stay alive” even though it is our first year in resettlement, by some fortuitous forethought.  All our caseworkers are cross-trained to serve in our other social service programs.  This means that we didn’t have to curtail staff.  Our concern, however, is for the 20 refugees that are still in our “assurance pipeline”.  There is not much that we can do from this end.  So we watch and wait and keep preparing.  We already have Circles of Care ready and anxiously awaiting the refugees’ arrival. 

Please share a story from your work with refugees that touched you personally.  

We are working with an Iraqi refugee family, a mom and two children, that has US ties (relative in the country). When we called the US tie to see whether they would accept the responsibility of assisting the family upon their arrival, we could hear screams in the background as the man who answered said the mom’s name. Softly in the background we could hear “my babies… my babies”. We came to discover that the one we were speaking to was the woman’s husband.  He and his parents (who the ones doing the screaming for joy) have been here since 2012.  With some luck the family could be reunited by the end of the year. 

How does your faith guide Catholic Charities’ mission of aiding refugees of all ethnic and religious backgrounds?  

Simply put we believe in the life, dignity, value, and worth of all God’s children.  We believe that all have the right to access those things needed for a decent life.  Among those rights are the freedom from fear, and the right to live.  We believe that we do not have the right to pass judgement on others based on race, color, creed, ethnicity, gender, etc…  Together these beliefs allow us to freely and gratefully serve those in need.  

In conclusion—How can members of the community best support and aid refugees?

Community members can: 

  • Help us educate and enlighten other communities and their members.
  • Speak out against policies that foment prejudice and close our borders to some of the most vulnerable people in our world.
  • Locally, encourage donations to Catholic Charities of gift cards to stores like:  Target, J.C. Penney, Sears, Wal-Mart, or Big Y and Stop & Shop. 
  • Locally, encourage donations to offset the first year’s cost of living for the refugee families, especially their rent by making a donation to Welcoming Refugees Resettlement Project.
  • Participate in a Circle of Care or volunteer to provide transportation for the families.





Who are the Rohingya?

The Rohingya are an ethnic Muslim minority residing in Myanmar, one of the 135 ethnic groups of the South Asian country. The majority of the estimated one million Rohingya are concentrated in the Rakhine State on Myanmar’s western border with Bangladesh, where they make up one third of the state’s population. The Rohingya have called the region home since the 15th century with the establishment of the Muslim Arakan Kingdom, and many more migrated to the region in the 19th century(1). “Rohingya” only came to use in the 1950s as a self-identifying term to promote political unity. Rohang is generally accepted to have originated from the word Arakan, and gya means “from” in the Rohingya language. In their very name, the Rohingya people assert their deep ties to the land that was once the Arakan Kingdom, land they are now being forced to flee.

For centuries, Myanmar’s dominant Buddhist groups and central government have persecuted the Rohingya minority, refusing to recognize their name and historical presence in the region. The roots of Burmese hostility towards the Rohingya can be traced to the era of British colonial control in Myanmar from 1885 to 1948. British policies in Myanmar favored ethnic minorities such as the Rohingya over the Burmese majority, and British forces imported large numbers of foreign laborers from India. Many Burmese regarded these policies as a deliberate effort by the colonial power to dilute their place in society after a long history of domination (2).Burmese Buddhist nationalism developed out of this environment of fear, and the Rohingya became the primary target.

How have they historically been treated in Myanmar?

In 1962, the nationalist military seized control of the newly independent Myanmar, institutionalizing ethnic hostility towards the Rohingya. Claiming the Rohingya as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, the government has denied them citizenship and documentation, effectively rendering the entire ethnic group stateless. A brief attempt to franchise the Rohingya in the 1990s collapsed under pressure from influential Buddhist nationalist groups (3). Since then, the Rohingya have lived under apartheid conditions enforced by the state. Rohingya must gain government approval to travel, marry, and have children, and face heavy restrictions on religious freedom, education, and employment. Rakhine’s status as Myanmar’s least developed region compounds the suffering faced by the Rohingya. 

These conditions, coupled with bitter religious tension between the Muslim minority and Buddhist nationalists, have lead to episodes of mass violence against the Rohingya. In 2012, after accusing two Rohingya men of raping a Buddhist woman, militant forces killed 280 Rohingya and displaced tens of thousands, many fleeing to Bangladesh(4). In 2016, after alleged attacks by Rohingya militants, the government increased its oppressive military presence in the Rakhine, inhibiting international humanitarian aid and advancing an agenda of “textbook ethnic cleansing,” according to UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein(5). Yet it has been the past few weeks that have consumed the Rohingya in the worst violence they have faced, and it continues today.

What led to the most recent conflagration? 

The underlying tensions between the Muslim Rohingya minority and Buddhist nationalists, as well as the squalid conditions of Rohingya refugee camps on the border of Myanmar, set the stage for the current outbreak of violence in the Rakhine State. In recent months, displacement camps have suffered severe water and food shortages coupled with “mass atrocities” inflicted by Burmese military security forces, according to the Burmese Rohingya Organization UK. On August 25th, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), a militant Rohingya organization, launched an attack, killing more than 100 officers at military posts in the Rakhine. Rather than targeting the extremist group, the government has made no distinction between militant and civilian, torching villages and opening fire on civilian refugees(6).

The conflict has resulted in the greatest migratory and humanitarian crisis the embattled Rohingya have faced at any time in their history. According to an Al Jazeera article published on September 8th, more than 1,000 people have been killed since August 25th. The UN estimates more than 400,000 Rohingya—mostly women and children—have fled to Bangladesh to avoid the systematic military raids(7). Myanmar’s neighbors are struggling to provide basic services to the Rohingya already within their borders. Before the most recent event, Bangladesh hosted 400,000 refugees. Now, as tens of thousands of vulnerable Rohingya cross the officially closed border, the crisis threatens to further destabilize the region.

Is the Rohingya crisis primarily religious in nature or are there other factors driving the conflict?

While it is easy to characterize the conflict as soley rooted in religious intolerance, the importance of economic and socio-political factors in the crisis cannot be understated. Through the Rakhine’s history of severe economic underdevelopment, all populations within the region have felt economically exploited and neglected by the central government, leading the ethnically Burmese majority to regard the Rohingya as unrightful competitors for scarce resources, employment, and political authority. Instead of promoting unity and cultural reconciliation in the region, the military has backed the strong Buddhist fundamentalist faction to secure its own national interests in the resource-rich state, rather than the economic and political interests of the local population as a whole(8). Of course, the issue has religious undertones, but mostly in the context of the economic hardship of the Burmese majority resulting in the persecution of the more vulnerable ethnic minority, and the corresponding rise of Buddhist nationalism fueled by fear of political dilution by the Muslim Rohingya.

Where does Myanmar’s civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi stand?

Long heralded as a global icon of moral democracy, the Nobel Peace laureate and civilian leader of Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi, has faced broad criticism for her lack of action and uncharacteristic denial of systematic human rights abuses against the Rohingya by the military. In 2015, with Suu Kyi’s victory in the first contested election for a civilian head of state in 25 years, many Rohingya were hopeful for change. These hopes have proved to be unfounded. The new government has neither offered any support to the Rohingya or tried to curb the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the military and militant Buddhist groups giving rise to the current crisis(9).In recent comments to the media, Suu Kyi acknowledged the need to address the conflict in the region, and said that those who committed human rights abuses would face the full force of the law. Yet Suu Kyi, who practices Buddhism, has not condemned the military outright, and claims the international community has exaggerated the crisis, adding to ethnic tensions. 

To truly understand the Nobel laureate’s inaction, it is crucial to recognize the complex political predicamentSuu Kyi currently faces in her country, where the military still holds formidable power. As the first civilian premier of Myanmar in a generation, Suu Kyi must strike a precarious balance between military, public, and international interests to preserve Myanmar’s fledgling democracy. Those who defend Suu Kyi argue that any support for the Rohingya or condemnation of military actions against the minority could provoke a complete military takeover of the government, possibly resulting in full blown genocide in the Rakhine(10). Still, Suu Kyi’s denial of the factually reported severity of the conflict is alarming, and her decision announced Wednesday, September 13th, to skip the UN General Assembly meeting the following week prompted uproar from authoritative voices around the globe.

What is being done by the UN and the international community?

For years, the UN has monitored the events in the Rakhine and produced reports characterizing the Rohingya as the most persecuted peoples in the world, with crimes against humanity perpetrated against them. However, the current crisis has resulted in unprecedented attention and criticism of the Myanmar government by the international body. Per the request of England and Sweden, two emergency Security Council meetings have been convened on the crisis in the past weeks; the second meeting on Wednesday, September 13th, resulted in a formal condemnation of the situation(11). Notably, Myanmar has completely denied UNICEF, Amnesty International, and all other major humanitarian organizations access to the Rakhine region, an action that prompted particularly furious criticism from UN officials. While the UN cannot reach the Rakhine directly, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance is currently implementing a $7 billion plan that will provide food, water, shelter, and healthcare to refugees in Bangladesh through December(12). The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, has called the “dramatic tragedy” of ethnically motivated violence and exodus of Rohingya “completely unacceptable” and has urged the Security Council to do all in its power to prevent further escalation in the Rakhine and to aid the Rohingya(13).

While the U.S. State Department has voiced concern over the crisis in Myanmar, top officials have neither criticized Suu Kyi outright, nor acknowledged Burmese government involvement in the human rights violations taking place. They have also refrained from proposing sanctions for fear of destabilizing Myanmar’s fledgling democracy. Rather, the U.S. has mostly advocated for humanitarian aid. Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, has called on the Myanmar government to lift the blockade against aid organizations  in the Rakhine(14). Ultimately, the international community as a whole has been slow to act on rebuking Myanmar’s military leadership.

How has the Muslim world responded to the Rohingya crisis?

Over the past three weeks, popular protests have erupted in Muslim regions through Asia and the Middle East, most notably in Jakarta, Indonesia, where a small bomb was thrown at the Embassy of Myanmar. A handful of prominent Muslim leaders have expressed solidarity with the Rohingya people. Malala Yousafzai said her “heart breaks” over the terror faced by the Rohingya, calling for her fellow Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to acknowledge and denounce military actions in the Rakhine. Pakistan and Malaysia, both Muslim majority countries, have urged Myanmar to hold those responsible accountable and intervene to resolve the conflict. Of all Muslim majority countries, Turkey and Indonesia have taken the most proactive stances condemning the crisis. Prime Minister Erdoğan of Turkey accused the Myanmar government of genocide, pledging Bangladesh financial support for humanitarian aid to refugees seeking safety in the country. Indonesia’s foreign minister traveled to Myanmar to speak with Suu Kyi and leading military general, Min Aung Hlaing earlier this month, beseeching them to work with the international community to secure the immediate safety of the Rohingya.Indonesia has promised to take in 150,000 Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh(15).

Another important angle of the Muslim response is that of extremist groups who have rallied to wage ‘jihad’ on behalf of the Rohingya. It was, in fact, the militant Rohingya ARSA who provoked the military, leading to the current crisis. There is evidence that this group is funded by independent Saudi donors(16). Already, Al Qaeda’s offshoot in Yemen has called for attacks on Myanmar. The possibility of an international extremist response was a critical factor in the strong responses of Indonesia and Turkey as a preemptive measure to curb radicalism among Rohingya. The Muslim response to the crisis in Rakhine highlights its intrinsically global nature and dire importance, not only in terms of the gross violation of human rights, but also the state of religiously implicated tensions worldwide.

What are possible steps forward?

Due to the decades-long oppression of the Rohingya, a plethora of reports issued by regional and international human rights agencies have been published with expert recommendations to the Myanmar government. Perhaps the most notable was the final report published in August 2017 by the independent Advisory Commission on the Rakhine State. The commission, chaired by former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, was convened last year under the auspices of Aung San Suu Kyi’s office and the Kofi Annan Foundation, and consisted of six local and three international experts. They were designated with the task of making recommendations to the Myanmar government regarding the deplorable conditions of all communities living in the Rakhine state. In its final report, the commission identified the long-standing structural issues that have contributed to the crisis and “which affect the Muslim population disproportionately”(17)–these include severe economic underdevelopment in the Rakhine, lack of transparency and commitment to ensuring a legal path to citizenship for minorities, and a history of violence in the region amplified by ineffective security operations and segregation. In addition, the commission recommended concrete steps to alleviate the suffering of various communities in the Rakhine, such as lifting the ban on media and humanitarian aid, providing a transparent path to citizenship and the associated rights to all peoples residing in the Rakhine, enacting the UN plan on socioeconomic development in the region, training security forces in human rights, and ensuring education and employment opportunities and inter-communal dialogue are provided without ethnic distinction(18). The commission also called on the Myanmar government to establish a national body to implement its recommendations. 

Such recommendations are realistic, if only the Myanmar government would commit to them. The depth of the religious, political, and economic divide in the country coupled with the military’s power have stymied any thought of real progress without tremendous outside pressure from the international community. Right now, when a short term solution is favorable to no solution at all, international pressure and rare unilateral action by the Security Council may be all that can curtail the suffering of the Rohingya, a people who can’t go home. 


How Do We Heal?

 Photo credit: VOA News

Photo credit: VOA News

By Leif Maynard

There is a certain kind of shock that follows an act of violence by an extremist group. In the case of Charlottesville, this shock stems from the realization of the widespread prevalence of these extremists. Through the attacks in Barcelona, we see how effective radicalization has become, and how it has a global impact. While these events are very different, both act as wake up calls to the division we face. In America, Charlottesville jolted those of us with the privilege of not encountering the hate and bigotry felt by marginalized groups especially.

How do we heal? What can we do to mend the ideological divides and racial discrimination so deeply woven into American society? It took immense pressure for Donald Trump to send out his 140 character call to “heel”. However, the differences between Trump’s message and the real healing that must occur go far beyond a spelling error. Healing does not mean what Trump seems to suggest: forcing together cracks in the American facade with duct tape to preserve the status quo. Healing means progress, and progress starts with acknowledging the problem, engaging in educated dialogue, and then taking action.

Dialogue matters–forming diverse human connections in the process of grappling with challenges is the foundation of society. In order to heal, we must educate each other, support those we find common ground with, and listen to those we don’t. Understanding is not agreement. You can detest the man chanting ‘white lives matter’, but it is important to hear him, understand why he feels disenfranchised and has resorted to hate, and exemplify the compassion you want in return.

Nuanced and widespread dialogue in communities will lay the foundation for sustained healing if we continue to expand such initiatives. And we must do so, for those who are directly affected by bigotry every day, and for the general health of the society that holds us all accountable to each other.

Leif Maynard is program associate at Critical Connections. He is a rising junior at Amherst High School, where he co-leads a group advocating for Syrian refugees. He is particularly interested in foreign policy and cross-cultural understanding, and is excited to work on promoting nuanced dialogue in the community.