Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The AUT Boycott: Freedom vs. “Academic Freedom”
Omar Barghouti and Lisa Taraki, The Electronic Intifada, 31 May 2005
On May 26, the Association of University Teachers (AUT) in Britain reversed its previous decision -- taken on April 22 -- to boycott Israeli universities. Intimidation and bullying aside, no tool was as persistently used, abused and bandied about as much as the claim that academic boycott infringes on academic freedom. Freedom to produce and exchange knowledge and idea was deemed sacrosanct regardless of the prevailing conditions. There are two key faults in this argument. It is inherently biased because it only regards as worthy the academic freedom of Israelis. The fact that Palestinians are denied basic rights as well as academic freedom due to Israel’s military occupation is lost on those parroting it. And its privileging of academic freedom as a super-value above all other freedoms is in principle antithetical to the very foundation of human rights. The right to live, and freedom from subjugation and colonial rule, to name a few, must be of more import than academic freedom. If the latter contributes in any way to suppression of the former, more fundamental rights, it must give way. By the same token, if the struggle to attain the former necessitates a level of restraint on the latter, then be it. It will be well worth it.
But is there a compulsory trade-off? Is academic freedom mutually exclusive with basic human rights? In most cases, no; but, in specific situations of persistent oppression and enduring breach of international law supported -- explicitly or implicitly -- by academic institutions, the answer is a resounding yes. Towards the end of the apartheid era, when the world boycotted South African academics -- as part of the overall regime of sanctions and boycotts endorsed by the United Nations at the time -- a degree of violation of academic freedom was indeed entailed. That was accepted by the international community, though, as a reasonable price to pay in return for contributing to the defeat of apartheid and the attainment of more basic freedoms denied black South Africans for generations. From an ethical perspective, freedom from racism and colonial subjugation was correctly perceived as more profound than the “unwanted side-effects” caused to academic and other freedoms of individual academics opposed to apartheid. The march to freedom had to temporarily restrict a subset of freedom, enjoyed by only a portion of the population.
And, upholding the principle of moral consistency, one cannot but view Israel in a similar light. As the South African Council of Churches, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, ANC leader and current government minister Ronnie Kasrils and hundreds of leading academics, trade unionists and human rights activists in South Africa have publicly recognized, Israel’s system of racial discrimination and colonial oppression is sufficiently similar to the defunct apartheid regime as to warrant Palestinian calls for sanctions similar to those declared against South Africa in the past. The same trade-off accepted in the South African case will be encountered in the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and peace.
However, it should be noted that in the Israeli context, what is being so valiantly defended by the opponents of the boycott is not only the unfettered access of Israeli academics to the global community of scholars and participation in the “free exchange of ideas,” but also the material and symbolic privileges of academic life. In this sense, rejecting academic boycotts in order to preserve Israeli academics’ freedoms and privileges, while ignoring the more vital rights and freedoms of Palestinians -- whether academics or not -- is a blatant case of double standards.
It is also worth mentioning that the concept of academic freedom has been abused by opponents of the boycott and misunderstood by many others in this particular case. In democratic societies, the academy takes a grave view of scholars whose writings and activities can be interpreted as inciting to racial hatred. For example, academics in the United States and Europe who have denied that the holocaust occurred, or who have otherwise challenged accepted facts about it have faced harsh disciplinary measures from their universities and censure from colleagues and professional associations. In Israel, however, where racism against Palestinians and Arabs is a normal feature of everyday discourse and practice in the mainstream of society, the concept of academic freedom is so elastic as to include the freedom to propound racist theories and incite to hatred, ethnic cleansing, and worse.
Boycotts and sanctions are not exact sciences -- if any science is. They affect real institutions providing jobs and services to real people, many of whom may not be directly implicated in the injustice that motivated those punitive measures in the first place. Any boycott, intended to redress injustice, will in the process harm some innocent people. That goes without saying. One must therefore resort to clear, morally consistent criteria of judgment to arbitrate whether the causes of the called for boycott and its intended outcome adequately justify that unintended harm. In the case of Israeli universities, the weight of the causes cannot be more morally imperative or politically pressing.
srael Boycott
For decades, Israeli academic institutions have been complicit in Israel’s colonial and racist policies. Funded by the government, they have consistently and organically contributed to the military-security establishment, and, therefore, to perpetuating its crimes, its abuse of Palestinian human rights and its distinct system of apartheid.
Contrary to the false image -- created and skillfully marketed by Israel and its apologists, academics included -- of the Israeli academy as a “bastion of enlightenment” and a solid base for opposition to the occupation, this academy is in fact part of “the official Israeli propaganda,” according to Ilan Pappe, one of the leading Israeli “New Historians” who exposed the systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Nakba. [1]
Not only do most Israeli academics defend or justify their state’s colonial narrative, they play a more active role in the process of oppression. Almost all of them obediently serve in the occupation army’s reserve forces every year, thereby participating in, or at least witnessing in silence, crimes committed with impunity against Palestinian civilians. In the last 38 years of Israel’s illegal occupation, very few of them have conscientiously objected to military service in the occupied territories. Those who have politically opposed the colonization of Palestinian land in any public form have also remained in a depressingly tiny minority. [2]
Even the revered academic freedom on Israeli campuses that Israeli propaganda tries to project in the media is grossly exaggerated. It is well constrained within limits set by the Zionist establishment; dissenters who dare challenge those boundaries are fiercely ostracized and demonized. This is why another purpose of the proposed academic boycott is to “provide a means to transcend the publicly-sanctioned limits of debate,” in the words of Oren Ben-Dor, [3] a British academic of Israeli origin. “Such freedom is precisely what is absent in Israel,” he adds. From this angle, the boycott is seen as indeed “generating” true academic freedom. “The Zionist ideology which stipulates that Israel must retain its Jewish majority is a non-debatable given in the country -- and the bedrock of opposition to allowing the return of Palestinian refugees. The very few intellectuals who dare to question this sacred cow are labeled ‘extremists’.” Ben-Dor attacks those in the Israeli “left” who opposed the boycott as “sophisticated accomplices to the smothering of debate ….”
Irrespective of individual accountability of Israeli academics, a judicious and methodical scrutiny of the culpability of Israeli academic institutions in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people will reveal an abundance of incriminating evidence. Even Baruch Kimmerling, a renowned Israeli academic who is opposed to the academic boycott, writes: “I will be the first to admit that Israeli academic institutions are part and parcel of the oppressive Israeli state that has … committed grave crimes against the Palestinian people.” [4] The facts presented below are only a small part of the evidence underlining this institutional culpability. They are particularly pertinent in light of the misinformation propagated by some academics in the Israeli left who experienced nothing less than a moral collapse when they joined the establishment choir in spreading half-truths -- or worse -- to shield their academic institutions from international reproach.
Haifa University – Institutional Racism
Haifa University not only condones racist utterances and pronouncements by its faculty, but also provides institutional sponsorship and thus legitimacy to the activities of academics engaged in scholarship that has been widely characterized as racist or inciting to racism and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians of the occupied territories and the Palestinian citizens of Israel itself. This legitimacy is conferred by the university through its sponsorship of academic departments and research centers under whose aegis racist work is carried out.
Despite its substantial Arab-Palestinian student population, Haifa University harbors, or at least tolerates, a culture of racism -- against Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular -- which manifests itself in the fact that members of its faculty espouse racist “theories,” publish bigoted research papers, and advocate ethnic cleansing with impunity. The university has consistently and systematically failed to censure such academics or to properly investigate accusations of racism raised against them.
It provides institutional support to racist academics and their research activities. The most notorious of these academics is Arnon Sofer, chair of geo-strategy at Haifa University and vice-chair of its Center for National Security Studies. He is also known in Israel as the prophet of the “Arab demographic threat.” He takes credit for the route of the Israeli apartheid wall -- declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in the Hague, on July 9, 2004 -- saying, “This is exactly my map.” [5]
Prof. Sofer, who views the high birth rate of the Bedouin Palestinian citizens of Israel as a “tragedy,” and has no patience for “democracy and pretty words,” [6] has for many years openly advocated “voluntary transfer” -- or soft ethnic cleansing -- of Palestinians in the occupied territories as well as Palestinian citizens of Israel, in order to guarantee “a Zionist-Jewish state with an overwhelming majority of Jews.” In one particularly telling prediction, Sofer says, “When 2.5 million [Palestinians] live in a closed-off Gaza, … those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. … So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day. If we don't kill, we will cease to exist. The only thing that concerns me is how to ensure that the [Jewish] boys and men who are going to have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families and be normal human beings.” [7]
Haifa University’s promotion of the principles behind the infamous “Mitzpim Project,” [8] which aimed at “Judaizing” the Galilee in the 1970’s and 80’s, is another dark spot in its record of complicity in projects that espouse racial discrimination against Palestinian-Arabs. It recently published a pamphlet examining the success of the project in reaching its goal, namely changing the demographic balance in that area in favor of Israeli Jews. The University is distributing the pamphlet in high schools and academic institutions, thus “inculcating in future generations unacceptable norms that raise serious questions,” according to Ha’aretz. Sofer himself takes pride in having “an effect on where the Jewish hilltop communities [mitzpim, in Hebrew] were later established.” [9]
These mitzpim were designed, in the words of one of Sofer’s colleagues, Avraham Dor, to increase the Jewish population in the Galilee and “to drive wedges between the blocs of Arab settlements, in order to block their ability to create a territorial continuity.” Another goal was to make possible “a maximum distribution of [Jewish] settlement sites and the ‘conquest’ of the territory by means of access roads to them and by means of the permanent Jewish presence in the area.” Ha’aretz comments on the project saying, “Without mincing words, the study reveals that underlying the project were principles of ethnic discrimination, demographic phobia, and the concept that the country's Arab citizens are not equals but constitute a threat to its existence,” and that “discrimination and inequality [against Arabs] are not a systemic failure but a deliberate intention.” [10]
The most recent evidence of Haifa University’s culpability in the advocacy of ethnic cleansing is the convening of a conference on May 17, 2005 entitled “The Demographic Problem and Demographic Policy in Israel.” Blessed by the Rector of the university, this pseudo-academic forum for the purveyance of “demographic racism” -- not innocently timed to coincide with the 57th anniversary of the Nakba -- included almost all of the academic and political luminaries of ethnic cleansing, such as Arnon Sofer, Yoav Gelber, Yitzhak Ravid, Brigadier-General Herzl Getz, General Uzi Dayan, and Yuval Steinetz. Ravid, a researcher at Rafael, the Israeli manufacturer of arms, has been an advocate of inhibiting the natural growth of the Palestinian population in Israel, claiming that “the delivery rooms in Soroka Hospital in Be’er Sheva have turned into a factory for the production of a backward population.” [11]
Haifa University’s rector has also recently “exonerated” Dr. David Bukay, [12] who teaches in the Department of Political Science, of any wrongdoing despite the fact that Israel’s attorney general had ordered an investigation against him on suspicion of “racist incitement,” upon receiving an official complaint filed by Mossawa-The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel (copy of the original in Hebrew is available). Bukay made “unprecedented” racist remarks against Arabs and Muslims during his lectures, according to Mossawa. His publications, in which he defended his racist theories of “The Arab character,” include titles such as “Mohammad’s Monsters” and “The First Cultural Flaw in Thinking: The Arab Personality.” [13]
In a letter dated March 13, 2005, (copy of the original Hebrew is available) responding to Mossawa’s complaint, the deputy attorney general, Shai Nizan, writes: “After studying the matter, I’ve decided to issue an order to the police to open an investigation of Dr. Bukay on the charge of racist incitement ….”
In a typical demonstration of institutional cover up, Haifa University’s rector, Prof. Yossi Ben Artzi, conducted his own “investigation” only to conclude that the remarks attributed to Bukay in the media “were not made in the way they were quoted and parts of sentences that were uttered in different contexts were yoked together by manipulation.” [14]
The Mossawa lawyer wrote (copy of the original letter in Hebrew is available):
“Dr. Bukay’s statements listed above contain expressions of degradation, humiliation, hostility and violent incitement against a part of the population based on its national affiliation; and this, in our opinion, violates [the relevant Israeli law against incitement] of 1977 which prohibits racist incitement. In addition, the listed declarations, which contain admiration, sympathy, cheering and actual support for violence and terror, also constitute an infringement of [the law] of 1977.”
Mossawa argued that there is no room for “tolerating racist and inciting discourse” like Bukay’s, which “hides behind the walls of ‘academic freedom.’”
Ironically, Ken Jacobson, associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League, was also “shocked” after reading Dr. Bukay's article on the “Arab personality.” Concurring with Mossawa’s last point, he puts the blame on Haifa University’s president for not censuring Bukay:
“Naturally we respect academic freedom and understand that this is the only way academe can operate, but we believe that university presidents should condemn such things. It is not enough for a university president to say that his institution practices academic freedom. He must also say that such statements are obnoxious.” [15]
The Ha’aretz reporter who covered the story and interviewed all parties involved wrote:
“Something strange is happening at the University of Haifa. On the one hand, the Anti-Defamation League is ‘very disturbed’ by Bukay's article because of its ‘destructive prejudices’ and the attorney general has initiated an investigation against Bukay on suspicion of racist incitement. On the other hand, the university is conducting a disciplinary process against the student who accused Bukay of racism.” [16]
Hebrew University – Colonial Land Grab
An indictment presented to the AUT executive by the Palestinian Federation of Unions of Universities’ Professors and Employees against the Hebrew University, for example, exposes the following well-documented facts:
In 1968, more than one year after Israel’s military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank (which includes East Jerusalem, according to UN Security Council resolutions), the Israeli occupation authorities confiscated 3345 dunums of Palestinian land, basing their decision on article 5 and article 7 of the Land (Acquisition for Public Purpose) Ordinance 1943. The decision was published in the official Israeli Gazette -- the Hebrew edition -- number 1425. It was therefore “legalized” by Israel. Most of that land was (still is) privately owned by Palestinians living in that area.
A large part of the confiscated land was then given to the Hebrew University to expand its campus. The Palestinian landowners refused to leave their properties, arguing that the confiscation order of 1968 was illegal. In 1973, the Israeli court expectedly ruled in favor of the University and the state. The court decided that the Palestinian families must evacuate their homes and be offered alternative housing.
According to authoritative legal experts, the basis for the illegality of the Hebrew University land confiscation deal is that this land is part of East Jerusalem, which is an occupied territory according to international law (numerous UN resolutions recognize East Jerusalem as an inseparable part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories).
Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, as well as expropriation of Palestinian land and efforts at forced eviction of its Palestinian owners in this area, are illegal under the terms of International Humanitarian Law. [17]
The annexation of occupied East Jerusalem into the State of Israel and the application of Israeli domestic law to this area have been repeatedly denounced as null and void by the international community, including by the UN Security Council. [18]
By moving Israelis (staff and students) to work and live on occupied Palestinian land, the Hebrew University, like all Israeli settlements illegally established on occupied territories, is gravely violating article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which states that: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
Based on the above, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem cannot invoke Israel's domestic law in order to justify the oppressive and illegal measures it has been taking in order to evict the Palestinian families who remain the legal owners of the land in question under international law.
Given the multi-faceted complicity of their institutions in oppressing Palestinians, Israeli academics should either mobilize to oppose what is done in their names, with their direct and indirect help, or stop complaining when conscientious academics around the world decide to take them to task.
Dr. Lisa Taraki teaches sociology at Birzeit University. Omar Barghouti is an independent researcher. Both are founding members of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)
Footnotes
1. Meron Rappaport, "Alone on the Barricades," Ha’aretz, May 6, 2005.
2. Ilan Pappe states: “The boycott reached academia because academia in Israel chose to be official, national. Prof. Yehuda Shenhav checked into it and found that out of 9,000 members of academia in Israel, only 30-40 are actively engaged in reading significant criticism, and a smaller number, just three or four, are teaching their students in a critical manner about Zionism and so on.” Ibid.
3. Oren Ben-Dor, "The Boycott Should Continue," The Independent, May 30, 2005.
4. Baruch Kimmerling, "The Meaning of Academic Boycott", ZNet, April 26, 2005.
5. Meron Rappaport, "A Wall in their Heart", Yedioth Ahronoth, May 23, 2003, cited in: http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/wall_yediot_eng.html
6. Ha’aretz, February 25, 2003.
7. Jerusalem Post weekend supplement Up Front, May 21, 2004.
8. Ha’aretz, September 26, 2004.
9. Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2004.
10. Ha’aretz, September 26, 2004.
11. Arjan El Fassed, Racism thrives at Israel's Herzliya conference, The Palestinian Return Centre, January 2004: http://www.prc.org.uk/data/aspx/d2/332.aspx
12. Ha’aretz, April 28, 2005.
13. The following examples (all from the above cited Ha’aretz article) of Dr. Bukay’s writings and utterances in class give a representative sample:
# “Among Arabs, you will not find the phenomenon so typical of Judeo-Christian culture: doubts, a sense of guilt, the self-tormenting approach. … There is no condemnation, no regret, no problem of conscience among Arabs and Muslims, anywhere, in any social stratum, of any social position.”
# “[Palestinian] Terrorists should be shot in the head in front of their families [as a deterrent]. … a whole house should be demolished with the occupants inside.”
# “Arabs are nothing but alcohol and sex.”
- “The Arabs are stupid and have contributed nothing to humanity.”
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. In particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949), Part III, Section III, Article 47, states that:
“Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
18. UN Security Council Resolution 252 (21 May 1968) considers that:
“[A]ll legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status … [and] Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem.”
Also UNSC Resolution 478 (20 August 1980) determines that:
“[A]ll legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent 'basic law' on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith.”
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3895.shtml
But is there a compulsory trade-off? Is academic freedom mutually exclusive with basic human rights? In most cases, no; but, in specific situations of persistent oppression and enduring breach of international law supported -- explicitly or implicitly -- by academic institutions, the answer is a resounding yes. Towards the end of the apartheid era, when the world boycotted South African academics -- as part of the overall regime of sanctions and boycotts endorsed by the United Nations at the time -- a degree of violation of academic freedom was indeed entailed. That was accepted by the international community, though, as a reasonable price to pay in return for contributing to the defeat of apartheid and the attainment of more basic freedoms denied black South Africans for generations. From an ethical perspective, freedom from racism and colonial subjugation was correctly perceived as more profound than the “unwanted side-effects” caused to academic and other freedoms of individual academics opposed to apartheid. The march to freedom had to temporarily restrict a subset of freedom, enjoyed by only a portion of the population.
And, upholding the principle of moral consistency, one cannot but view Israel in a similar light. As the South African Council of Churches, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, ANC leader and current government minister Ronnie Kasrils and hundreds of leading academics, trade unionists and human rights activists in South Africa have publicly recognized, Israel’s system of racial discrimination and colonial oppression is sufficiently similar to the defunct apartheid regime as to warrant Palestinian calls for sanctions similar to those declared against South Africa in the past. The same trade-off accepted in the South African case will be encountered in the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and peace.
However, it should be noted that in the Israeli context, what is being so valiantly defended by the opponents of the boycott is not only the unfettered access of Israeli academics to the global community of scholars and participation in the “free exchange of ideas,” but also the material and symbolic privileges of academic life. In this sense, rejecting academic boycotts in order to preserve Israeli academics’ freedoms and privileges, while ignoring the more vital rights and freedoms of Palestinians -- whether academics or not -- is a blatant case of double standards.
It is also worth mentioning that the concept of academic freedom has been abused by opponents of the boycott and misunderstood by many others in this particular case. In democratic societies, the academy takes a grave view of scholars whose writings and activities can be interpreted as inciting to racial hatred. For example, academics in the United States and Europe who have denied that the holocaust occurred, or who have otherwise challenged accepted facts about it have faced harsh disciplinary measures from their universities and censure from colleagues and professional associations. In Israel, however, where racism against Palestinians and Arabs is a normal feature of everyday discourse and practice in the mainstream of society, the concept of academic freedom is so elastic as to include the freedom to propound racist theories and incite to hatred, ethnic cleansing, and worse.
Boycotts and sanctions are not exact sciences -- if any science is. They affect real institutions providing jobs and services to real people, many of whom may not be directly implicated in the injustice that motivated those punitive measures in the first place. Any boycott, intended to redress injustice, will in the process harm some innocent people. That goes without saying. One must therefore resort to clear, morally consistent criteria of judgment to arbitrate whether the causes of the called for boycott and its intended outcome adequately justify that unintended harm. In the case of Israeli universities, the weight of the causes cannot be more morally imperative or politically pressing.
srael Boycott
For decades, Israeli academic institutions have been complicit in Israel’s colonial and racist policies. Funded by the government, they have consistently and organically contributed to the military-security establishment, and, therefore, to perpetuating its crimes, its abuse of Palestinian human rights and its distinct system of apartheid.
Contrary to the false image -- created and skillfully marketed by Israel and its apologists, academics included -- of the Israeli academy as a “bastion of enlightenment” and a solid base for opposition to the occupation, this academy is in fact part of “the official Israeli propaganda,” according to Ilan Pappe, one of the leading Israeli “New Historians” who exposed the systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Nakba. [1]
Not only do most Israeli academics defend or justify their state’s colonial narrative, they play a more active role in the process of oppression. Almost all of them obediently serve in the occupation army’s reserve forces every year, thereby participating in, or at least witnessing in silence, crimes committed with impunity against Palestinian civilians. In the last 38 years of Israel’s illegal occupation, very few of them have conscientiously objected to military service in the occupied territories. Those who have politically opposed the colonization of Palestinian land in any public form have also remained in a depressingly tiny minority. [2]
Even the revered academic freedom on Israeli campuses that Israeli propaganda tries to project in the media is grossly exaggerated. It is well constrained within limits set by the Zionist establishment; dissenters who dare challenge those boundaries are fiercely ostracized and demonized. This is why another purpose of the proposed academic boycott is to “provide a means to transcend the publicly-sanctioned limits of debate,” in the words of Oren Ben-Dor, [3] a British academic of Israeli origin. “Such freedom is precisely what is absent in Israel,” he adds. From this angle, the boycott is seen as indeed “generating” true academic freedom. “The Zionist ideology which stipulates that Israel must retain its Jewish majority is a non-debatable given in the country -- and the bedrock of opposition to allowing the return of Palestinian refugees. The very few intellectuals who dare to question this sacred cow are labeled ‘extremists’.” Ben-Dor attacks those in the Israeli “left” who opposed the boycott as “sophisticated accomplices to the smothering of debate ….”
Irrespective of individual accountability of Israeli academics, a judicious and methodical scrutiny of the culpability of Israeli academic institutions in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinian people will reveal an abundance of incriminating evidence. Even Baruch Kimmerling, a renowned Israeli academic who is opposed to the academic boycott, writes: “I will be the first to admit that Israeli academic institutions are part and parcel of the oppressive Israeli state that has … committed grave crimes against the Palestinian people.” [4] The facts presented below are only a small part of the evidence underlining this institutional culpability. They are particularly pertinent in light of the misinformation propagated by some academics in the Israeli left who experienced nothing less than a moral collapse when they joined the establishment choir in spreading half-truths -- or worse -- to shield their academic institutions from international reproach.
Haifa University – Institutional Racism
Haifa University not only condones racist utterances and pronouncements by its faculty, but also provides institutional sponsorship and thus legitimacy to the activities of academics engaged in scholarship that has been widely characterized as racist or inciting to racism and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians of the occupied territories and the Palestinian citizens of Israel itself. This legitimacy is conferred by the university through its sponsorship of academic departments and research centers under whose aegis racist work is carried out.
Despite its substantial Arab-Palestinian student population, Haifa University harbors, or at least tolerates, a culture of racism -- against Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular -- which manifests itself in the fact that members of its faculty espouse racist “theories,” publish bigoted research papers, and advocate ethnic cleansing with impunity. The university has consistently and systematically failed to censure such academics or to properly investigate accusations of racism raised against them.
It provides institutional support to racist academics and their research activities. The most notorious of these academics is Arnon Sofer, chair of geo-strategy at Haifa University and vice-chair of its Center for National Security Studies. He is also known in Israel as the prophet of the “Arab demographic threat.” He takes credit for the route of the Israeli apartheid wall -- declared illegal by the International Court of Justice in the Hague, on July 9, 2004 -- saying, “This is exactly my map.” [5]
Prof. Sofer, who views the high birth rate of the Bedouin Palestinian citizens of Israel as a “tragedy,” and has no patience for “democracy and pretty words,” [6] has for many years openly advocated “voluntary transfer” -- or soft ethnic cleansing -- of Palestinians in the occupied territories as well as Palestinian citizens of Israel, in order to guarantee “a Zionist-Jewish state with an overwhelming majority of Jews.” In one particularly telling prediction, Sofer says, “When 2.5 million [Palestinians] live in a closed-off Gaza, … those people will become even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. … So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day. If we don't kill, we will cease to exist. The only thing that concerns me is how to ensure that the [Jewish] boys and men who are going to have to do the killing will be able to return home to their families and be normal human beings.” [7]
Haifa University’s promotion of the principles behind the infamous “Mitzpim Project,” [8] which aimed at “Judaizing” the Galilee in the 1970’s and 80’s, is another dark spot in its record of complicity in projects that espouse racial discrimination against Palestinian-Arabs. It recently published a pamphlet examining the success of the project in reaching its goal, namely changing the demographic balance in that area in favor of Israeli Jews. The University is distributing the pamphlet in high schools and academic institutions, thus “inculcating in future generations unacceptable norms that raise serious questions,” according to Ha’aretz. Sofer himself takes pride in having “an effect on where the Jewish hilltop communities [mitzpim, in Hebrew] were later established.” [9]
These mitzpim were designed, in the words of one of Sofer’s colleagues, Avraham Dor, to increase the Jewish population in the Galilee and “to drive wedges between the blocs of Arab settlements, in order to block their ability to create a territorial continuity.” Another goal was to make possible “a maximum distribution of [Jewish] settlement sites and the ‘conquest’ of the territory by means of access roads to them and by means of the permanent Jewish presence in the area.” Ha’aretz comments on the project saying, “Without mincing words, the study reveals that underlying the project were principles of ethnic discrimination, demographic phobia, and the concept that the country's Arab citizens are not equals but constitute a threat to its existence,” and that “discrimination and inequality [against Arabs] are not a systemic failure but a deliberate intention.” [10]
The most recent evidence of Haifa University’s culpability in the advocacy of ethnic cleansing is the convening of a conference on May 17, 2005 entitled “The Demographic Problem and Demographic Policy in Israel.” Blessed by the Rector of the university, this pseudo-academic forum for the purveyance of “demographic racism” -- not innocently timed to coincide with the 57th anniversary of the Nakba -- included almost all of the academic and political luminaries of ethnic cleansing, such as Arnon Sofer, Yoav Gelber, Yitzhak Ravid, Brigadier-General Herzl Getz, General Uzi Dayan, and Yuval Steinetz. Ravid, a researcher at Rafael, the Israeli manufacturer of arms, has been an advocate of inhibiting the natural growth of the Palestinian population in Israel, claiming that “the delivery rooms in Soroka Hospital in Be’er Sheva have turned into a factory for the production of a backward population.” [11]
Haifa University’s rector has also recently “exonerated” Dr. David Bukay, [12] who teaches in the Department of Political Science, of any wrongdoing despite the fact that Israel’s attorney general had ordered an investigation against him on suspicion of “racist incitement,” upon receiving an official complaint filed by Mossawa-The Advocacy Center for Arab Citizens of Israel (copy of the original in Hebrew is available). Bukay made “unprecedented” racist remarks against Arabs and Muslims during his lectures, according to Mossawa. His publications, in which he defended his racist theories of “The Arab character,” include titles such as “Mohammad’s Monsters” and “The First Cultural Flaw in Thinking: The Arab Personality.” [13]
In a letter dated March 13, 2005, (copy of the original Hebrew is available) responding to Mossawa’s complaint, the deputy attorney general, Shai Nizan, writes: “After studying the matter, I’ve decided to issue an order to the police to open an investigation of Dr. Bukay on the charge of racist incitement ….”
In a typical demonstration of institutional cover up, Haifa University’s rector, Prof. Yossi Ben Artzi, conducted his own “investigation” only to conclude that the remarks attributed to Bukay in the media “were not made in the way they were quoted and parts of sentences that were uttered in different contexts were yoked together by manipulation.” [14]
The Mossawa lawyer wrote (copy of the original letter in Hebrew is available):
“Dr. Bukay’s statements listed above contain expressions of degradation, humiliation, hostility and violent incitement against a part of the population based on its national affiliation; and this, in our opinion, violates [the relevant Israeli law against incitement] of 1977 which prohibits racist incitement. In addition, the listed declarations, which contain admiration, sympathy, cheering and actual support for violence and terror, also constitute an infringement of [the law] of 1977.”
Mossawa argued that there is no room for “tolerating racist and inciting discourse” like Bukay’s, which “hides behind the walls of ‘academic freedom.’”
Ironically, Ken Jacobson, associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League, was also “shocked” after reading Dr. Bukay's article on the “Arab personality.” Concurring with Mossawa’s last point, he puts the blame on Haifa University’s president for not censuring Bukay:
“Naturally we respect academic freedom and understand that this is the only way academe can operate, but we believe that university presidents should condemn such things. It is not enough for a university president to say that his institution practices academic freedom. He must also say that such statements are obnoxious.” [15]
The Ha’aretz reporter who covered the story and interviewed all parties involved wrote:
“Something strange is happening at the University of Haifa. On the one hand, the Anti-Defamation League is ‘very disturbed’ by Bukay's article because of its ‘destructive prejudices’ and the attorney general has initiated an investigation against Bukay on suspicion of racist incitement. On the other hand, the university is conducting a disciplinary process against the student who accused Bukay of racism.” [16]
Hebrew University – Colonial Land Grab
An indictment presented to the AUT executive by the Palestinian Federation of Unions of Universities’ Professors and Employees against the Hebrew University, for example, exposes the following well-documented facts:
In 1968, more than one year after Israel’s military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank (which includes East Jerusalem, according to UN Security Council resolutions), the Israeli occupation authorities confiscated 3345 dunums of Palestinian land, basing their decision on article 5 and article 7 of the Land (Acquisition for Public Purpose) Ordinance 1943. The decision was published in the official Israeli Gazette -- the Hebrew edition -- number 1425. It was therefore “legalized” by Israel. Most of that land was (still is) privately owned by Palestinians living in that area.
A large part of the confiscated land was then given to the Hebrew University to expand its campus. The Palestinian landowners refused to leave their properties, arguing that the confiscation order of 1968 was illegal. In 1973, the Israeli court expectedly ruled in favor of the University and the state. The court decided that the Palestinian families must evacuate their homes and be offered alternative housing.
According to authoritative legal experts, the basis for the illegality of the Hebrew University land confiscation deal is that this land is part of East Jerusalem, which is an occupied territory according to international law (numerous UN resolutions recognize East Jerusalem as an inseparable part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories).
Israel's unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, as well as expropriation of Palestinian land and efforts at forced eviction of its Palestinian owners in this area, are illegal under the terms of International Humanitarian Law. [17]
The annexation of occupied East Jerusalem into the State of Israel and the application of Israeli domestic law to this area have been repeatedly denounced as null and void by the international community, including by the UN Security Council. [18]
By moving Israelis (staff and students) to work and live on occupied Palestinian land, the Hebrew University, like all Israeli settlements illegally established on occupied territories, is gravely violating article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which states that: “The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
Based on the above, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem cannot invoke Israel's domestic law in order to justify the oppressive and illegal measures it has been taking in order to evict the Palestinian families who remain the legal owners of the land in question under international law.
Given the multi-faceted complicity of their institutions in oppressing Palestinians, Israeli academics should either mobilize to oppose what is done in their names, with their direct and indirect help, or stop complaining when conscientious academics around the world decide to take them to task.
Dr. Lisa Taraki teaches sociology at Birzeit University. Omar Barghouti is an independent researcher. Both are founding members of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)
Footnotes
1. Meron Rappaport, "Alone on the Barricades," Ha’aretz, May 6, 2005.
2. Ilan Pappe states: “The boycott reached academia because academia in Israel chose to be official, national. Prof. Yehuda Shenhav checked into it and found that out of 9,000 members of academia in Israel, only 30-40 are actively engaged in reading significant criticism, and a smaller number, just three or four, are teaching their students in a critical manner about Zionism and so on.” Ibid.
3. Oren Ben-Dor, "The Boycott Should Continue," The Independent, May 30, 2005.
4. Baruch Kimmerling, "The Meaning of Academic Boycott", ZNet, April 26, 2005.
5. Meron Rappaport, "A Wall in their Heart", Yedioth Ahronoth, May 23, 2003, cited in: http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/wall_yediot_eng.html
6. Ha’aretz, February 25, 2003.
7. Jerusalem Post weekend supplement Up Front, May 21, 2004.
8. Ha’aretz, September 26, 2004.
9. Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2004.
10. Ha’aretz, September 26, 2004.
11. Arjan El Fassed, Racism thrives at Israel's Herzliya conference, The Palestinian Return Centre, January 2004: http://www.prc.org.uk/data/aspx/d2/332.aspx
12. Ha’aretz, April 28, 2005.
13. The following examples (all from the above cited Ha’aretz article) of Dr. Bukay’s writings and utterances in class give a representative sample:
# “Among Arabs, you will not find the phenomenon so typical of Judeo-Christian culture: doubts, a sense of guilt, the self-tormenting approach. … There is no condemnation, no regret, no problem of conscience among Arabs and Muslims, anywhere, in any social stratum, of any social position.”
# “[Palestinian] Terrorists should be shot in the head in front of their families [as a deterrent]. … a whole house should be demolished with the occupants inside.”
# “Arabs are nothing but alcohol and sex.”
- “The Arabs are stupid and have contributed nothing to humanity.”
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. In particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949), Part III, Section III, Article 47, states that:
“Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”
18. UN Security Council Resolution 252 (21 May 1968) considers that:
“[A]ll legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change that status … [and] Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures already taken and to desist forthwith from taking any further action which tends to change the status of Jerusalem.”
Also UNSC Resolution 478 (20 August 1980) determines that:
“[A]ll legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent 'basic law' on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith.”
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3895.shtml
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The AUT heard your arguments in full, heard the other side in full, and rejected yours overwhelmingly. But rather than recognize this for what it was -- the rank and file of a union rising up instantly against their own leadership's idiocies -- you must instead turn this into Another Victory of the Great Big Bad Zionist Machine "intimidating" and "bullying."
So sorry that you think so little of your fellow co-unionists. But that's also par for the course, isn't it -- Sue Blackwell openly derided those who hadn't taken an interest in the issue until they heard the distinctive sound of their union shooting itself in the foot in April. She apparently thinks they shouldn't have a voice in the union because they weren't there at the shooting.
It wasn't "the Zionists" who ended the AUT boycott before it could even begin -- it was your own peers, the members of the AUT.
As long as you fail to understand that, you will continue to press for something the AUT will never grant you and has consistently rejected, the full boycott of Israel.
@%<
So sorry that you think so little of your fellow co-unionists. But that's also par for the course, isn't it -- Sue Blackwell openly derided those who hadn't taken an interest in the issue until they heard the distinctive sound of their union shooting itself in the foot in April. She apparently thinks they shouldn't have a voice in the union because they weren't there at the shooting.
It wasn't "the Zionists" who ended the AUT boycott before it could even begin -- it was your own peers, the members of the AUT.
As long as you fail to understand that, you will continue to press for something the AUT will never grant you and has consistently rejected, the full boycott of Israel.
@%<
Gehrig is correct, the AUT voted 3-1 to overturn the boycott measure. Plus, it was passed in the first place under pretty dubious circumstances i.e. on the Jewish Sabbath and the beginning of the Passover holiday. The boycott supporters knew that most (religious) Jewish members would be absent for the vote. I'm glad this resolution was struck down and no, it isn't about some grand "Zionist conspiracy" its called union democracy.
A boycott of Isreal isnt possible at this time since for all the horrible things Israel does to the Palestinians the ballance of European guilt for antiSemitism tips the scales preventing anything from being done. It would be easier in the US since the US doesnt have the historic guilt (and probably easier in countries that are actuallyantiSemitic like Russia)
But things are changing. Every time European guilt is played on to justify inaction with regards to Israel's actions, the guilt is reduced a little. Israels very existance and war victories against neighboring countries were in some ways gifts from the outside world that made up for some of the guilt (sicne the Israeli victories would not have been possible without imported weapons and economic aid). You can only go around victimizing others for so long and still play the victim card.
Im not just talking about theoretical views of morality (that has little to do with thsi since its not moral to allow one wrong because of another), its a matter of public opinion. World public opinion has truend against Israel and with evrey heavy handed use of the antiSemitism card to quiet dissent public opinion turns against Israel a little more and the antiSemitism card becomes that much weaker. In the US where support for Israel is still strong this isnt as obvious as in countries like France where jewish leaders haverecently had to speak out against Jeiwsh leaders ikn other countries attacking France since by doing so they were adding to AntiSemitism in France and making things worse (see http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/18267/edition_id/365/format/html/displaystory.html and there was a recent similar story on Haaretz a few weeks ago but cant find the link) The psychology of the whole thing is pretty obvious; if rightiwing American Jewish groups decide to beat up on France in a hyperbolic fashion to gain points at home in their fight to push Jewish Americans to the right, the French public will start to see American Jewish leaders as being antiFrench rather than merely worried about antiSemitism. If activists grousp in Britian see a huge amount of pressure comming from Jewish groups in the US to prevent a boycott of Israel there is a clear message gievn that the groups are equating support for Israel with not being antiSemitic and at some point those at the other end of the stick will give up and just stop carring about being attacked as antiSemitic (especially when many organizers are Jewish and know theyarent antiSemitic since opposition to the Occupation has nothing to do with being Jeiwsh or not being Jewish)
But things are changing. Every time European guilt is played on to justify inaction with regards to Israel's actions, the guilt is reduced a little. Israels very existance and war victories against neighboring countries were in some ways gifts from the outside world that made up for some of the guilt (sicne the Israeli victories would not have been possible without imported weapons and economic aid). You can only go around victimizing others for so long and still play the victim card.
Im not just talking about theoretical views of morality (that has little to do with thsi since its not moral to allow one wrong because of another), its a matter of public opinion. World public opinion has truend against Israel and with evrey heavy handed use of the antiSemitism card to quiet dissent public opinion turns against Israel a little more and the antiSemitism card becomes that much weaker. In the US where support for Israel is still strong this isnt as obvious as in countries like France where jewish leaders haverecently had to speak out against Jeiwsh leaders ikn other countries attacking France since by doing so they were adding to AntiSemitism in France and making things worse (see http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/18267/edition_id/365/format/html/displaystory.html and there was a recent similar story on Haaretz a few weeks ago but cant find the link) The psychology of the whole thing is pretty obvious; if rightiwing American Jewish groups decide to beat up on France in a hyperbolic fashion to gain points at home in their fight to push Jewish Americans to the right, the French public will start to see American Jewish leaders as being antiFrench rather than merely worried about antiSemitism. If activists grousp in Britian see a huge amount of pressure comming from Jewish groups in the US to prevent a boycott of Israel there is a clear message gievn that the groups are equating support for Israel with not being antiSemitic and at some point those at the other end of the stick will give up and just stop carring about being attacked as antiSemitic (especially when many organizers are Jewish and know theyarent antiSemitic since opposition to the Occupation has nothing to do with being Jeiwsh or not being Jewish)
"the ballance of European guilt for antiSemitism tips the scales preventing anything from being done..."
You must be living on another planet from the rest of us. Anti-Semitism in Europe is at the highest levels in decades. Yes, anti-Semitism, not anti-Zionism. If it were really all about anti-Zionism, visible symbols of the Jewish state would be targetted like embassies and consulates. Instead, symbols of the Jewish religion like yeshivas and synagogues are vandalized and torched. We can see it, even if you can't or choose not to.
You must be living on another planet from the rest of us. Anti-Semitism in Europe is at the highest levels in decades. Yes, anti-Semitism, not anti-Zionism. If it were really all about anti-Zionism, visible symbols of the Jewish state would be targetted like embassies and consulates. Instead, symbols of the Jewish religion like yeshivas and synagogues are vandalized and torched. We can see it, even if you can't or choose not to.
"If activists grousp in Britian see a huge amount of pressure comming from Jewish groups in the US to prevent a boycott of Israel"
... then they have misunderstood the fundamental fact that the overturn of the AUT boycott was fueled from _within_ the AUT, not some horrifying bogeyman outside the AUT. And the will indulge once again in the fantasy that every time they don't get their way they've been thwarted by The Big All-Powerful Zionist Conspiracy rather than, in this case, what was obviously their own inept overreaching.
If anything, the folks -- every one of them an AUT member -- at the main organization leading the charge to have the boycott overturned have complained that The Big Bad Jewish Organizations like the Board of Deputies were far too slow to get involved.
But some people are just addicted to the Big Bad Zionist Machine narrative, and will use it to explain their every defeat, sneeze, and toothache.
@%<
... then they have misunderstood the fundamental fact that the overturn of the AUT boycott was fueled from _within_ the AUT, not some horrifying bogeyman outside the AUT. And the will indulge once again in the fantasy that every time they don't get their way they've been thwarted by The Big All-Powerful Zionist Conspiracy rather than, in this case, what was obviously their own inept overreaching.
If anything, the folks -- every one of them an AUT member -- at the main organization leading the charge to have the boycott overturned have complained that The Big Bad Jewish Organizations like the Board of Deputies were far too slow to get involved.
But some people are just addicted to the Big Bad Zionist Machine narrative, and will use it to explain their every defeat, sneeze, and toothache.
@%<
" You must be living on another planet from the rest of us. Anti-Semitism in Europe is at the highest levels in decades."
Could this perhaps be a result of Israeli actions mixed with right-wing Jewish groups trying to equate any opposition to Israel with antiSemitism. Just because the root cause of the antiSemitism may be the actions of Israel, AIPAC and even the ADL that doesnt mean it should be dealt with but the causes do seem pretty clear. The people fighting the British boycott may not be morally responsible for increasing antiSemitism but unfortunately the world works in strange ways and in a very real sense they add to antiSemitism. Pointing this out is not that dissimilar to saying that antiMuslim sentiment in the US increased after 9/11 and the celebrations shown on TV of Palestinians rejoicing added to antiArab sentiments. Just because something is a result doesnt mean its justified but it is often useful to look at the result of actions rather than just the inherent morality (if people cant see how the threat of lawyers comming after you if you speak out against Israel doesnt add to antiSemitism hasnt really looked at antiSemitic stereotypes lately; whats next the Italian American Anti defamation league threatening to wack anyone who doesnt support Berlusconi because any attack on him is antiItalian)
On a side note, in the Russian case the oligarchs are a big cause of antiSemitism in Russian but its harder to deal with that since the antiSemitism is based of really awful stereotypes from the Middle Ages but pointing that out doesnt help convince Russians to not jump to bigotted conclusions after noticing that most of the Oligarchs are Jewish. Many neocons in the US are also Jewish and this has added to conspiracy theories and antiSemitism around the world too. How do you deal with this? Well its good for people to realize that most Jewish Americans and Russian Jews are not corrupt, not politically manipulative and not right-wing (in fact a large percentage of US proPalestinian orgnaizers are Jewish as well as a large percentage of the antiwar movement). People feel a moral problem with responding to bigotry with arguments rather than just saying its evil (and assuming it comes from nowhere rather than being an illogical response to real events) but just complaining about something and calling people evil usually doesnt help sway public opinion. Russian public opinion wont be swayed away from antiSemitism just by yelling at Russians that its antiSemitic to point out that most of the Oligarchs under Yeltsin were Jewish. AntiSemitism is increased when the reaction is defensive and when the right-wing starts trying to dismiss the fact that a most Jews are not right-wing, not proWar and not even that proIsrael, just as it would add to antiSenitism in Russia if Russian Jewish leaders all defended the Oligarchs and tried to equate opposition to corruption with antiSemitism.
For most of those comming onto left wing sites accusing antiwar protesters of being antiSemitic and complaining about European antiSemitism, you should think for a second about where bigotry comes from and then start looking at your own actions and how they have added to hatred rather than reduced it. Anti-war leaders and the Left should speak out stronger against real antiSemitism but the way the world is now the right-wing constant accusations of antiSemitism are adding to antiSemitism rather than helping reduce it.
Could this perhaps be a result of Israeli actions mixed with right-wing Jewish groups trying to equate any opposition to Israel with antiSemitism. Just because the root cause of the antiSemitism may be the actions of Israel, AIPAC and even the ADL that doesnt mean it should be dealt with but the causes do seem pretty clear. The people fighting the British boycott may not be morally responsible for increasing antiSemitism but unfortunately the world works in strange ways and in a very real sense they add to antiSemitism. Pointing this out is not that dissimilar to saying that antiMuslim sentiment in the US increased after 9/11 and the celebrations shown on TV of Palestinians rejoicing added to antiArab sentiments. Just because something is a result doesnt mean its justified but it is often useful to look at the result of actions rather than just the inherent morality (if people cant see how the threat of lawyers comming after you if you speak out against Israel doesnt add to antiSemitism hasnt really looked at antiSemitic stereotypes lately; whats next the Italian American Anti defamation league threatening to wack anyone who doesnt support Berlusconi because any attack on him is antiItalian)
On a side note, in the Russian case the oligarchs are a big cause of antiSemitism in Russian but its harder to deal with that since the antiSemitism is based of really awful stereotypes from the Middle Ages but pointing that out doesnt help convince Russians to not jump to bigotted conclusions after noticing that most of the Oligarchs are Jewish. Many neocons in the US are also Jewish and this has added to conspiracy theories and antiSemitism around the world too. How do you deal with this? Well its good for people to realize that most Jewish Americans and Russian Jews are not corrupt, not politically manipulative and not right-wing (in fact a large percentage of US proPalestinian orgnaizers are Jewish as well as a large percentage of the antiwar movement). People feel a moral problem with responding to bigotry with arguments rather than just saying its evil (and assuming it comes from nowhere rather than being an illogical response to real events) but just complaining about something and calling people evil usually doesnt help sway public opinion. Russian public opinion wont be swayed away from antiSemitism just by yelling at Russians that its antiSemitic to point out that most of the Oligarchs under Yeltsin were Jewish. AntiSemitism is increased when the reaction is defensive and when the right-wing starts trying to dismiss the fact that a most Jews are not right-wing, not proWar and not even that proIsrael, just as it would add to antiSenitism in Russia if Russian Jewish leaders all defended the Oligarchs and tried to equate opposition to corruption with antiSemitism.
For most of those comming onto left wing sites accusing antiwar protesters of being antiSemitic and complaining about European antiSemitism, you should think for a second about where bigotry comes from and then start looking at your own actions and how they have added to hatred rather than reduced it. Anti-war leaders and the Left should speak out stronger against real antiSemitism but the way the world is now the right-wing constant accusations of antiSemitism are adding to antiSemitism rather than helping reduce it.
"Could this perhaps be a result of Israeli actions mixed with right-wing Jewish groups trying to equate any opposition to Israel with antiSemitism."
The cause of antisemitism is antisemites. The excuses vary.
@%<
The cause of antisemitism is antisemites. The excuses vary.
@%<
" The cause of antisemitism is antisemites. The excuses vary. "
Thats the kind of attitude that adds to bigotry but it is also the usualy reaction of most of the left to racism and other such problems. People dont just wake up one day and become a racist or antiSemite. The causes are a mixture of racist and antiSemitic education and false conclusions and stereotypes resulting from the media. Racism in the US is partly a result of the way crime is covered on the nightly news (Michael Moore dealt with this a bit in Bowling For Colombine). Using race as a defense in a case where one is clearly guilty (for example OJ SImpson) is comparible to what many people are doing who equate antiSemitism and antisrael sentiments. Racism and AntiSemitism are evil but you dont change people's opinions by just yelling at them and calling them evil (hat usually just makes things worse). Many ARA kids who want to fight racism see NeoNaxis as an evil that must be stamped out by fighting them without looking at the root causes for neoNazis in the US (Which has a lot more to do with class and a collapsed social welfare system than with race or racism). That doesnt mean you dont fight to defend peopel attacked by neoNazis but you have to also deal with the underlying causes or there will never be change. ARA probably doesnt make anything worse by fighting with neoNazis but the ADL and many right-wing Jeiwsh groups that claim to be fighting antiSemitism ARE making things worse since they fight the sympton while adding to the underlying cause (the equation of Israeli's actions with athe politics of people who are Jewish). When rightwing Jewish groups do something like they did around the AUT boycott how do you diseducated those who are swayed into buying into antiSemitic views of an international Zionist conspiracy (fighting conspiracy theories are made more difficult when organizing international groups to fight them can often just reinforce the conspiracy theories)
Thats the kind of attitude that adds to bigotry but it is also the usualy reaction of most of the left to racism and other such problems. People dont just wake up one day and become a racist or antiSemite. The causes are a mixture of racist and antiSemitic education and false conclusions and stereotypes resulting from the media. Racism in the US is partly a result of the way crime is covered on the nightly news (Michael Moore dealt with this a bit in Bowling For Colombine). Using race as a defense in a case where one is clearly guilty (for example OJ SImpson) is comparible to what many people are doing who equate antiSemitism and antisrael sentiments. Racism and AntiSemitism are evil but you dont change people's opinions by just yelling at them and calling them evil (hat usually just makes things worse). Many ARA kids who want to fight racism see NeoNaxis as an evil that must be stamped out by fighting them without looking at the root causes for neoNazis in the US (Which has a lot more to do with class and a collapsed social welfare system than with race or racism). That doesnt mean you dont fight to defend peopel attacked by neoNazis but you have to also deal with the underlying causes or there will never be change. ARA probably doesnt make anything worse by fighting with neoNazis but the ADL and many right-wing Jeiwsh groups that claim to be fighting antiSemitism ARE making things worse since they fight the sympton while adding to the underlying cause (the equation of Israeli's actions with athe politics of people who are Jewish). When rightwing Jewish groups do something like they did around the AUT boycott how do you diseducated those who are swayed into buying into antiSemitic views of an international Zionist conspiracy (fighting conspiracy theories are made more difficult when organizing international groups to fight them can often just reinforce the conspiracy theories)
The moment you start to formulate things in terms of "Antisemitism exists because Jews do X," whatever that X is, then you have taken the first step in a very ugly direction.
@%<
@%<
"The moment you start to formulate things in terms"
I understand what you are saying and know that this is also how racism and even religious fundamentalism are always delth with by the left, but its ineffective and comparible to Bush's statement about how you noboy should ask why "they hate us". For all the US left ties to demonize religious fundamentalist they gain in power. Why? Because most Leftists think in terms of what moral and fighting the good fight rather than actuakly trying to influence public opinion. Fighting antiSemitism mainly by denouncing it and organizing others to denounce it is fighting the good fight and when its not used to defend Israel its a very moral cause. But that doesnt mean it works.
Anti-Semitism in Europe and Russia is increasing but most people think its inapproprate to look more deeply about causes and better ways to fight it and just respond with an increase in the same ineffective tactics that often make things worse.
I understand what you are saying and know that this is also how racism and even religious fundamentalism are always delth with by the left, but its ineffective and comparible to Bush's statement about how you noboy should ask why "they hate us". For all the US left ties to demonize religious fundamentalist they gain in power. Why? Because most Leftists think in terms of what moral and fighting the good fight rather than actuakly trying to influence public opinion. Fighting antiSemitism mainly by denouncing it and organizing others to denounce it is fighting the good fight and when its not used to defend Israel its a very moral cause. But that doesnt mean it works.
Anti-Semitism in Europe and Russia is increasing but most people think its inapproprate to look more deeply about causes and better ways to fight it and just respond with an increase in the same ineffective tactics that often make things worse.
Do progressives claim women are responsible, even marginally, for sexism, and the onus is on women to change their behavior if sexism is to be defeated?
Do progressives claim African-Americans are responsible, even marginally, for racism, and that the onus is on them to change their behavior if racism is to be defeated?
If not, what double standard makes it okay for progressives to claim that Jews are responsible in any way for antisemitism, and to say that Jews must change their behavior for antisemitism to be defeated?
@%<
Do progressives claim African-Americans are responsible, even marginally, for racism, and that the onus is on them to change their behavior if racism is to be defeated?
If not, what double standard makes it okay for progressives to claim that Jews are responsible in any way for antisemitism, and to say that Jews must change their behavior for antisemitism to be defeated?
@%<
To just simplify my point a little . Gehrig, you sepnd a lot of time online doing what you consider to be fighting antiSemitism. From a quick search on google I can tell that you havnt just argued with Palestinian supporters but also cofnront neoNazis and Hollocaust deniers. While this makes you feel like you are helping to reduce antiSemitism has it really decerased it? Have you ever really casued someone who was antiSemitic to stop being antiSemitic? Have you ever taken someone who wasnt very antiSemiic (or perhaps was but didnt focus on it much) and throug your constant online flamewars turned them into someone focused on Jeiwsh conspiracy theories, Zionism or the like?
Lets say I really supported the Iraqi resistance and opposed descrimination against Arabs and was an Arab American (which IM not). What would be the result if I got on a right-wing website and started arguing with military poeple about how they are racist while at the same time defending suicide attacks on US troops while also pointing out I was Arab American. Would the increase in racism resulting from such actions be justified? Of course not. Racism in never justified but at the same time it would be hard to argue that doing such a thing didnt add to antiArab hatred in the US. Somhow when proIsrael types get on proPalestinians discussion boards and defend Israel while thinking they are attacking antiSemitism they dont realize the obvious result of such actions. The fight against the AUT is a little different since it effectively ended a propsoed boycott but that doesnt mean that it was a victory against antiSemitism; the end effect could have been to add to antiSemitism if the reasons the boycott was rejected resulted from intimidtation.
Lets say I really supported the Iraqi resistance and opposed descrimination against Arabs and was an Arab American (which IM not). What would be the result if I got on a right-wing website and started arguing with military poeple about how they are racist while at the same time defending suicide attacks on US troops while also pointing out I was Arab American. Would the increase in racism resulting from such actions be justified? Of course not. Racism in never justified but at the same time it would be hard to argue that doing such a thing didnt add to antiArab hatred in the US. Somhow when proIsrael types get on proPalestinians discussion boards and defend Israel while thinking they are attacking antiSemitism they dont realize the obvious result of such actions. The fight against the AUT is a little different since it effectively ended a propsoed boycott but that doesnt mean that it was a victory against antiSemitism; the end effect could have been to add to antiSemitism if the reasons the boycott was rejected resulted from intimidtation.
I am sorry for my dumb statements---I don't, in my heart, really support Israeli terrorism. I just get upset sometimes.
Please forgive my ignorant words.
Please forgive my ignorant words.
"To just simplify my point a little"
Your point is already quite simple. There is something magical about antisemitism, unique among all bigotries, something somehow different, in that pointing out that antisemitism is bigotry is somehow different -- somehow wrong -- in a way that pointing out that sexism or racism is bigotry isn't.
What Jews have learned in two thousand years of exile is that "Don't do X or you'll encourage antisemitism" is a trap. Antisemites hate Jews because that's what antisemites do. If Jews all jumped into the ocean and drowned in an attempt to please those who hate them, antisemites would complain that the Jews gurgled too loud on the way down.
@%<
Your point is already quite simple. There is something magical about antisemitism, unique among all bigotries, something somehow different, in that pointing out that antisemitism is bigotry is somehow different -- somehow wrong -- in a way that pointing out that sexism or racism is bigotry isn't.
What Jews have learned in two thousand years of exile is that "Don't do X or you'll encourage antisemitism" is a trap. Antisemites hate Jews because that's what antisemites do. If Jews all jumped into the ocean and drowned in an attempt to please those who hate them, antisemites would complain that the Jews gurgled too loud on the way down.
@%<
"Do progressives claim women are responsible, even marginally, for sexism, and the onus is on women to change their behavior if sexism is to be defeated?"
No because the left bases its actions around doing the right thing rather than doing what is effective for real change. There has been a big slide towards sexism in the US over the past ten years and we are all to blame (as we are always all to blame for societal change). On a pragmatic level women and men are equally responsible for this even though from a moral standpoint one puts the blame on the sexist men. It feels good to hold everyone morally responsibkle for their personal actions and never take a steop back and notice that people's response to things are pretty predictable.
The point about antiSemitism isnt that those fighting antiSemitism are morally to blame for antiSemitism (although I do think those who equate antiSemitism and opposition to Israel do bear some moral balme), the point is that societal change isnt as simple as saying the cause of something is due to those who are morally to blame. I think most people would agree that Hitler was partly a result of the Treaty of Versaille but that doesnt mean one cant say he was 100% responsible morally for his actions. If one could go back in time and wanted to prevent Hitler's rise to power, organizing activists to fight antiSemitism might have been effective but helping preventGermany's economic collapse probably would be a better tactic. If you could prevent things form getting worse by thinking about the results of your actions more than its morality wouldnt that also be in some ways the more moral thing to do?
If you look at homophobia today, protests and Gay Pride parades have been somewhat effective but shows like Will and Grace are probably more effective especially since they air in areas where there are no organized queer activist groups. Unfortunately nothing is clear cut and you could blame the new stereotypes about gay men being upper middle class professionals on some of the new homophobia you see in minority communities (despite the fact that gay afluence is a myth). In most Queer studies classes at Unversities people actually look into things like this without your gut response that its not acceptable to look into the societal causes of bigotry.
No because the left bases its actions around doing the right thing rather than doing what is effective for real change. There has been a big slide towards sexism in the US over the past ten years and we are all to blame (as we are always all to blame for societal change). On a pragmatic level women and men are equally responsible for this even though from a moral standpoint one puts the blame on the sexist men. It feels good to hold everyone morally responsibkle for their personal actions and never take a steop back and notice that people's response to things are pretty predictable.
The point about antiSemitism isnt that those fighting antiSemitism are morally to blame for antiSemitism (although I do think those who equate antiSemitism and opposition to Israel do bear some moral balme), the point is that societal change isnt as simple as saying the cause of something is due to those who are morally to blame. I think most people would agree that Hitler was partly a result of the Treaty of Versaille but that doesnt mean one cant say he was 100% responsible morally for his actions. If one could go back in time and wanted to prevent Hitler's rise to power, organizing activists to fight antiSemitism might have been effective but helping preventGermany's economic collapse probably would be a better tactic. If you could prevent things form getting worse by thinking about the results of your actions more than its morality wouldnt that also be in some ways the more moral thing to do?
If you look at homophobia today, protests and Gay Pride parades have been somewhat effective but shows like Will and Grace are probably more effective especially since they air in areas where there are no organized queer activist groups. Unfortunately nothing is clear cut and you could blame the new stereotypes about gay men being upper middle class professionals on some of the new homophobia you see in minority communities (despite the fact that gay afluence is a myth). In most Queer studies classes at Unversities people actually look into things like this without your gut response that its not acceptable to look into the societal causes of bigotry.
"Your point is already quite simple. There is something magical about antisemitism, unique among all bigotries, something somehow different, in that pointing out that antisemitism is bigotry is somehow different -- somehow wrong -- in a way that pointing out that sexism or racism is bigotry isn't.
"
If JA engaged in his stype of race baiting on right-wing bulletin boards I would definitely blame him for helping to increase racism. There isnt anything magical anbout antiSemitism. Human bigotries are all pretty similar and people often feel like they are fighting those bigotries when they are effectively making them worse. You arent as bad as CT in terms of adding to the hatred (or Beckys argument that the temple mount should be torn down) but it is hard to tell if your overall actions on all the different Indymedia sites you post to makes things better or worse. Just becauee you feel good about what you do and think you are making things better doesnt mean you arent actually making things worse (just like a lot of protests which hurt rather than hellping the causes behind them).
"
If JA engaged in his stype of race baiting on right-wing bulletin boards I would definitely blame him for helping to increase racism. There isnt anything magical anbout antiSemitism. Human bigotries are all pretty similar and people often feel like they are fighting those bigotries when they are effectively making them worse. You arent as bad as CT in terms of adding to the hatred (or Beckys argument that the temple mount should be torn down) but it is hard to tell if your overall actions on all the different Indymedia sites you post to makes things better or worse. Just becauee you feel good about what you do and think you are making things better doesnt mean you arent actually making things worse (just like a lot of protests which hurt rather than hellping the causes behind them).
"Could this perhaps be a result of Israeli actions mixed with right-wing Jewish groups trying to equate any opposition to Israel with antiSemitism."
First, I need to state it again, I don't think I was clear enough for you. If this was due to Israeli actions, I'd expect symbols and institutions of the Israeli state to be targeted, not symbols and institutions of Judaism.
Second, nobody is trying to equate any opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism, including the ADL or AIPAC. Most Jews agree with Secretary of State Colin Powell’s recent statement, “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel. But the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures.” Even Abe Foxman has stated time and time again that Israel is fair game for criticism.
Anti-Zionism is another matter. Anti-Zionists, by definition refuse to accept the existence of Israel. For right-wing Jewish groups, and many Jewish liberals for that matter, this amounts to anti-Semitism because it denies Jews a right to self-determination.
Lastly, your comments are striking similar to the arguments used by white racists to justify their violent actions against blacks. You know, "they came here and took our jobs" and therefore we are justified in beating them up, destroying their property, etc. In other words, they blame the victim. Again, I know this is quite difficult to wrap your head around but is perfectly clear to Jews. We've been dealing with it for thousands of years.
First, I need to state it again, I don't think I was clear enough for you. If this was due to Israeli actions, I'd expect symbols and institutions of the Israeli state to be targeted, not symbols and institutions of Judaism.
Second, nobody is trying to equate any opposition to Israel with anti-Semitism, including the ADL or AIPAC. Most Jews agree with Secretary of State Colin Powell’s recent statement, “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel. But the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures.” Even Abe Foxman has stated time and time again that Israel is fair game for criticism.
Anti-Zionism is another matter. Anti-Zionists, by definition refuse to accept the existence of Israel. For right-wing Jewish groups, and many Jewish liberals for that matter, this amounts to anti-Semitism because it denies Jews a right to self-determination.
Lastly, your comments are striking similar to the arguments used by white racists to justify their violent actions against blacks. You know, "they came here and took our jobs" and therefore we are justified in beating them up, destroying their property, etc. In other words, they blame the victim. Again, I know this is quite difficult to wrap your head around but is perfectly clear to Jews. We've been dealing with it for thousands of years.
One of the editors told gehrig:
>>>"Human bigotries are all pretty similar and people often feel like they are fighting those bigotries when they are effectively making them worse. You arent as bad as CT in terms of adding to the hatred but it is hard to tell if your overall actions on all the different Indymedia sites you post to makes things better or worse. "<<<
Frankly, I don't know what this editor was getting at. More importantly, I don't care squat what such a person thinks about my struggle against antisemites on this site, given that he's unable or unwilling, or maybe even unable as in a defense mechanism to conceal his refusal to concede that the supposed anti-Zionist hostility that has reached an all-time high in Europe is really antisemitic. He'd do well to do some introspection to examine his own problems that hinder his ability to acknowledge the pervasiveness of antisemitism before even complaining about anybody who fights this form of racism online.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I'd like to thank all the other individuals like gehrig, Joe, Sefarad, "Idiots for Palestine" and any others who have struggled against double standards and unfair criticism against Israel, Israelis, Zionists, Judaism and Jews.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Editor, I know you'll hide this post ooner or later (probably sooner) but that's not what's gonna kill me.
>>>"Human bigotries are all pretty similar and people often feel like they are fighting those bigotries when they are effectively making them worse. You arent as bad as CT in terms of adding to the hatred but it is hard to tell if your overall actions on all the different Indymedia sites you post to makes things better or worse. "<<<
Frankly, I don't know what this editor was getting at. More importantly, I don't care squat what such a person thinks about my struggle against antisemites on this site, given that he's unable or unwilling, or maybe even unable as in a defense mechanism to conceal his refusal to concede that the supposed anti-Zionist hostility that has reached an all-time high in Europe is really antisemitic. He'd do well to do some introspection to examine his own problems that hinder his ability to acknowledge the pervasiveness of antisemitism before even complaining about anybody who fights this form of racism online.
_________________________________________________________________________________
I'd like to thank all the other individuals like gehrig, Joe, Sefarad, "Idiots for Palestine" and any others who have struggled against double standards and unfair criticism against Israel, Israelis, Zionists, Judaism and Jews.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Editor, I know you'll hide this post ooner or later (probably sooner) but that's not what's gonna kill me.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network