The Syrian Refugee Debate Takes to Social Media: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

In the era of Facebook, controversial topics play out in various ways on the social networking site and it's often not pretty. Such has been the case with the ongoing debate over whether the United States should accept Syrian refugees in the wake of the tragic terrorism acts in Paris.

While Syrian refugees have been seeking safe harbor in several countries over the past few years, the debate here in America has escalated in recent weeks and turned into divisive political arguments. A majority of U.S. governors have publicly voiced their opposition to providing asylum to the Syrian migrants even though immigration remains a federal issue. The debate has also become a litmus test for the presidential candidates and their views on domestic security.


FITS OF FURY ON FACEBOOK

Facebook, with its free accounts and ability to weigh in on anything in a public forum, has provided bully pulpits to anyone with an internet connection at home, at the office or on their smartphone. Now, as soon as someone offers their opinion in the form of a Facebook post as to whether the U.S. should welcome Syrian refugees, that post quickly becomes an explosive back-and-forth among commentators from every demographic and political affiliation.

After Michigan's governor, Rick Snyder, reversed his earlier position in support of Michigan welcoming Syrian refugees, debates on the social network started by local residents turned into tempestuous back-and-forth arguments with each side posting links to articles in support of their opinion on the matter. Analogies to the U.S. closing its doors to Jewish refugees in the 1930's were quickly rebuffed by those arguing that allowing the Syrian migrants into our country would lead to domestic terrorism. Others cited statistics showing the majority of terrorist attacks were caused by those affiliated with Islam. These posts garnered hundreds of comments with both sides vehemently concerned about the issues they prioritize, whether the security of our country and the refugee screening process or the ethical considerations of turning away hopeless women and young children in need of shelter.

The Jewish community, with its strong values, remains divided on these issues as evidenced by the outpouring of strongly held viewpoints on Facebook. Some descendents of those who were turned back to Europe in the 1930s took the position that the U.S. must use its moral compass and not transgress as it did before the Holocaust. Others called such a comparison preposterous as the Jewish immigrants from Europe eighty years ago posed no threat to American citizens. On such a contentious issue, strong disagreements are bound to occur online. Several such Facebook debates over the Syrian refugee topic led to Facebook users blocking each other, even those who are friends in real life.

In many instances, the Facebook discussion space has proven to be detrimental to open and honest dialogue with regard to the Syrian refugee crisis, but surely there are some positive outcomes from Facebook in this matter.

The Iran Nuclear Deal Divided Our Jewish Community: A Tochecha for our Discourse

The following is the sermon I delivered on the first day of Rosh Hashanah 2015/5776 at Congregation B'nai Israel in Toledo, Ohio.

A new rabbi comes to a well-established congregation. Each week on Shabbat, a fight erupts during the service. When it comes time to recite the Shema, half the congregation stands and the other half sits. The half that stands say, "Of course we stand for the Shema. It’s the credo of Judaism.

Throughout history, thousands of Jews have died with the words of the Shema on their lips." The half that remains seated say, "No. According to the Shulchan Aruch, the code of Jewish law, if you are seated when you get to the Shema you remain seated."

The people who are standing yell at the people who are sitting, "Stand up!" while the people who are sitting yell at the people who are standing, "Sit down!" It’s destroying the whole decorum of the service and it’s driving the new rabbi crazy. Finally, it’s brought to the rabbi’s attention that at a nearby home for the aged is a 98-year-old man who was a founding member of the congregation. So, in accordance with Talmudic tradition, the rabbi appoints a delegation of three, one who stands for the Shema, one who sits, and the rabbi himself, to go interview the man. They enter his room, and the man who stands for the Shema rushes over to the old man and says, "Wasn’t it the tradition in our synagogue to stand for the Shema?"

"No," the old man answers in a weak voice. "That wasn’t the tradition."

The other man jumps in excitedly. "Wasn’t it the tradition in our synagogue to sit for the Shema?"
"No," the old man says. "That wasn’t the tradition."

At this point, the rabbi cannot control himself. He cuts in angrily. "I don’t care what the tradition was! Just tell them one or the other. Do you know what goes on in services every week — the people who are standing yell at the people who are sitting, the people who are sitting yell at the people who are standing."

"That was the tradition," the old man says.

This is a joke, of course, but, these days, I can commiserate with the rabbi. In 2015, it's sadly become the tradition that half of the Jewish community is arguing with the other half; they’re talking past each other, and this heated debate has got me as frustrated as the rabbi in the story.

This past summer, the discourse in the American Jewish community over the Iran Nuclear deal has been horribly gut-wrenching. I have found myself cringing at the battles that have been waged -- Jew vs. Jew. The rhetoric has been cruel, venomous and downright dangerous to the future vitality of our Jewish community.

The NY Times reported that the attacks on Representative Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat of New York, since he announced his support for the nuclear accord with Iran have been so vicious that the National Jewish Democratic Council and the Anti-Defamation League both felt compelled this week to publicly condemn Jewish voices of hate.

On the other side, three Jewish Democrats in the House who oppose the deal released a joint statement denouncing “ad hominem attacks and threats” against not only supporters like Mr. Nadler but also Jewish opponents, who have been accused of “dual loyalties” and treason.

Greg Rosenbaum, the chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said, “We are on the verge of fratricide in the Jewish community, and it has to stop. He noted that there are Jews avoiding organizational meetings, and even religious services, simply to avoid discussing Iran.