Requests were made that I respond to Omid Safi’s Gaza post on Progressive Revival. Frankly, I hesitate to do so. I have no doubt about either his integrity or the pain that moves him to write. But, engaging people filled with so much sacred rage and moral certainty is pretty pointless – unless one enjoys the sound of their own rhetorical flourishes, which clearly Mr. Safi does.

Ultimately and most ironically, Omid’s approach strikes me as the opposite of progressive – demanding that all wisdom and decency are on one side and that no alternative view is worthy of consideration.
What if Obama were to speak out as Safi desires, but did so in favor of the Israeli’s? Would that mean that Obama was wrong? Or, could it mean that Mr. Safi’s conclusions should be revisited in light of the unanticipated views held by someone both he and I respect? That would be progressive.
I wrote earlier posts about my own moral and strategic questions about this war, opening up the possibility that even for those of us who think it was initially justified, it may no longer so and may never have been wise. I have written about the importance of those who care most about events in Gaza engaging each other based not only on their answers but also based on the questions they have for those they most support.
Where is that spirit to be found in Safi’s work? Without that, it’s just one more round of verbal violence that makes us feel we are “doing our share” to support those doing the actual fighting on either side of this tragic war. It the opposite of whatever we might mean by either spiritual or progressive.