If there is one lesson to be learned from the controversy over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, it is that messing with memory, particularly traumatic memory of the first order, is akin to messing with Mother Nature: It rarely ends well, no matter how good the intention.

I learned this the hard way 12 years ago, when my idea of inviting Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat to visit the Holocaust museum in Washington proved to be a disaster. There is great danger in misappropriating memory and attempting to link it to another agenda or to a tragic historical experience seared in the minds of millions. However the controversy over the proposed mosque and Islamic center in Lower Manhattan plays out, the outcome is bound, for many in this country and elsewhere, to keep raw and open the wounds of Sept. 11, 2001. And the benefits do not appear to be worth the risk.

The decision to invite Arafat to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum was conceived with the best intentions. In 1998, the Arab-Israeli peace process was in constant crisis. There was zero trust between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (then in his first term in that office). Both were looking for ways to demonize the other. Israelis and Palestinians -- officials to ordinary citizens -- traded accusations in the media over settlements, textbooks and portrayals in the media. To many Israelis, among the worst of the Palestinian transgressions was Holocaust denial. As a senior U.S. adviser on Arab-Israeli negotiations, I was charged with identifying steps and gestures that might build confidence on both sides, in this case among Israelis. I proposed inviting Arafat to the museum during one of his many official visits to Washington, thinking: What better way to counter Holocaust denial than by having the alleged denier in chief visit the museum?

Inviting Arafat to the museum, one of the dumbest ideas in the annals of U.S foreign policy, created a perfect storm. After I had gotten a yes in principle from the Palestinians and the chairman of the museum's executive committee, the idea leaked to the media. The museum's board was blindsided; its director was fundamentally opposed. Israelis and many American Jews were outraged by what they saw as a political hijacking of the genocide. Some Holocaust survivors supported the idea but many were opposed. The official invitation eventually was retracted.

How I could have believed such an invitation would head any way but south is beyond me. Yes, the museum was a living memorial to combating racism, hatred and genocide. But did I fully grasp that I was using hallowed memory and narrative for purposes that could affront the very people I was trying to persuade? For millions, the museum was a positive and powerful symbol of not forgetting -- just as, for so many, Arafat was a symbol of anti-Semitism, violence and insensitivity. The potential conflict and misunderstanding overwhelmed any opportunity for dialogue and understanding.

And even if the visit had taken place, what would Arafat have said afterward? That he better understood the Israeli and Jewish sensibility but that they would have to understood Palestinian dispossession and suffering, too? That Israelis were perpetuating a genocide against Palestinians and demand equal time and space? The possibilities for disaster were too numerous to identify...[More]