The NATFHE boycott is the latest attempt in academia to demonize and isolate Israel. As with similar campaigns of the past few years, its advocates and victims are at the university level. Whatever we think of the critical faculties of college students, they are assumed to be less vulnerable to pressure and suggestion than high-school students, who are more constrained in their academic choices and freedom of movement. Likewise, the divestment campaign of the Presbyterian church establishment is a movement by adults and aimed at adults.
But now deliberate bias against Israel has seeped down to the high-school level. I am not talking about presenting both sides, I am talking about deliberately stacking the deck.
. . . . the school administrators had given Judt and Khalidi veto power over who could share the stage with them. . . . the professors were concerned, he said, that a third speaker “might hinder their ability to have a productive discussion.”That's rich. Yes, Weiss is a "lightning rod," but Khalidi and Judt aren't?Rabbi Avi Weiss, spiritual leader of the Orthodox Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, himself was nominated to be on the panel by Swartwout and others but was rejected by the planning committee for being “too much of a lightning rod,” wrote the Fieldston News. The rabbi was then part of a side panel on religion but he withdrew last Friday, telling The Jewish Week he felt “violated” and “duped” by the school.
Meanwhile, in Andover, Massachusetts, Andover High School physics teacher Ron Harris has recuited students to canvas for the Somerville Divestment Project. SDP is dominated by extremists who defend Amadinejad's intention to destroy Israel, and its website defends Hamas and links to all the usual suspects. Harris has belligerently advocated these views, screaming "Long live the Intifada!" at rallies and turning his back on the American flag at City Council meetings.
School officials claim that Harris doesn't expound his political views in class, but they (and residents of Andover) are increasingly uneasy over his encouraging students to participate in his pet causes, such as organizing members of the "unofficial after-school club called Students for Middle East Justice" to go 20 miles from Andover to Somerville to ring doorbells in support of the SDP.
There would be a hue and cry if Harris' cause was, for example, white supremacy or murdering abortionists - especially as his manner doesn't set an example of respectful advocacy - and even those who defended his right to free speech and his right to share his politics with students would be concerned that students buying into his extreme views were vulnerable to suggestion.
The word "justice" is becoming as corrupt as "moral" or "victim" in terms of application to daily life. Middle East Justice? Sounds as well thought out as a Chuck Norris flick.
Any educators want to comment on the breach of ethics being played out here regarding the relationship of student and teacher?
Its pretty shocking that the Palestinian side of the argument is allowed to be championed by speakers who push for the destruction of Israel. The idea of a rabid Zionist endorsing the removal of Palestinian Arabs from all of greater Israel being allowed to speak to a highschool is ludicrous, but apparently the opposite is not true.
I have taken a number of ME studies courses when I was in college, and for the most part the pro-Palestinian viewpoint was almost always over-represented. There appeared to me to be a very real anti-Israel bias by academics who teach about the Middle East. Most speakers who came to class were solidly pro-Palestinian. Mind you this was around the time of the Al-Aksa tunnel riots, so Israel was of course getting a bad rap in the press.
Oddly enough, my best classes on the Middle East were at my local community college where we routinley had Irv Rubin in to speak to us, much to the dismay of the many Arabs in my class. I was always impressed with his speaking ability and it was really a shame that his life ended up the way it did.
Israelis have lost the support of the European Left and probably are loosing it from the Democratic Party at the other side of the pond as well.
How tragic it is, being Ben Gurion a former trade-unionist and having Social*ism so much influence there (and reciprocally, Jew and Sionist influence in Social*ism)
Now that the Left has made the War on Terror a central issue, Israel's right to exist seems an obstacle in the Left's strategy of handing over before Muslim extremism. On the contrary, Republican and European Right Wing policy of preventive action and defense founded on clear principles is much closer to Israeli interests. Moreover, it is seen a corner of Democracy and development in the Middle East, and the first line of defense.
Israel cant lose support they never had in the first place. Europeans from left or right never have and never will have anything more than a thin veneer of tolerance for the state formed by their discarded Jews.
The American left is another story. Israel is castigated for its ties to, and its striking resemblence to the country they despise the most - their own.
You could have built Israel in the middle of the ocean and it would still be a "problem" for these folks.
Actually, there seems to be a major fault line on the issue of Israel between mainstream Democrats and the various factions (MoveOn, George Soros, the online "reality based" communities at Daily Kos, Atrios, Democracy Underground, etc.) that are attempting to hijack the party and drag it to the far left. People like Al Gore, Diane Feinstein, John Kerry, Barney Frank, and, of course, Joe Lieberman (the hard left's whipping boy, to their shame) have demonstrated unswerving commitment to Israel. In fact, I remember some radical academic colleagues of mine breaking out into apopleptic fits because Kerry's record was even more "Zionist" than Bush's. The problem seems to be that certain well-funded entities inside and on the fringes of the Democratic party are starting to make anti-Israel inroads on the center-left. They've clearly been assisted by the terribly biased US newsmedia which never passes up an opportunity to chastise Israel or glorify its American critics--who are referred to as "peace activists," "humanitarians," or "social justice workers." Those of us still committed to the Democratic party--for all of its many faults--have a lot of work ahead of us in terms of keeping its policies towards Israel in the proper shape.
#2 Mark
Agreed. It seems that the anti-Israel lock is formulated by those people who seem to have no recollection, or knowledge of, Israeli history. But Palestinian history is portrayed as slavery. It's always the "occupied territories" that are descriptive in the news media. The only "History" information used to reference news in that part of the world is recent history. It assumes that the Palestinian situation has always been one of struggle, regardless of the fact that part of their land now lies in Jordan also. It's ironic that most of the current military personnel fighting in the mideast weren't even born before the 1967 war. History for the left is what happened last year. Stretching it a bit might go back two years.
Jonathan
Good observation. I have thought the same thing about some of the Democratic Party positions and it does look confusing. Your comments are appreciated for clearing up my confusion.
spindok (#5)
Israel cant lose support they never had in the first place. Europeans from left or right never have and never will have anything more than a thin veneer of tolerance for the state formed by their discarded Jews.
I disagree. The creation and development of the State of Israel was regarded by some European leftists as a confirmation that a better society can be built from nothing. I even dare to say that it was followed by the Spanish regional Nationalists as a model of developing a National conscience, reviving and old and somehow forgotten language and gaining independence.
In addition, IDF have fought some battles without American support (and 2), leaving aside the issue of identifiying the debatable source of equipment and knowledge applied at Dimona.
Moreover, any shallow geopolitical analysis shows that Israel is a key element in the defense of Europe. Without this State, we'd feel the pressure of the Arab world and specially the Arab Extremism in the Mediterranean and Turkey. Probably we'd be now fighting there to keep the Bosphorous open.
It is not a matter of liking this or that people, it is simply a question of necessity.
Moreover, any shallow geopolitical analysis shows that Israel is a key element in the defense of Europe.
But hasn't the shallow geopolitical analysis been that Europe's interest in the Mediteranean basin requires Arab accomodation and this can be bought cheaply with anti-Israel speach. I think I can certainly find French expressions of this view. Prior to 9/11 Chirac could often be quoted as saying the cause of Islamic terrorism was Israel.
My opinion on your comment, PD Shaw:
True, but that is economic interest, not security. Europe has been living in a bubble created and supported by the US regarding defense issues, so our governments can avoid getting involved in those problems (or so they think). That is, if America already take care of Israelis, why should we bother?
But the truth is that Israel, especially after the cold war and when a new Jihadist movement has begun, is some kind of Har Megido for us (and the rest of the world, but especially for us), some kind of West Berlin, surrounded by the enemy where our resolution will be challenged. Europe would not be able to afford its fall.
People in or from Northern European countries do not remember that before Colonialism controlled these movements in their places of origin, our continent suffered one muslim invasion each century: Almoravids (ca. 1100), Almohads (ca. 1200), Marinids (ca. 1300), Turks I (1453), Turks II (1529), Turks III (1571), Turks IV (1683).
Why no one ever considers that is Israel gets the rap it's because it deserves it? Why Americans disregard the facts so blatantly? Not only Ahmadineyad thinks Israel should not exist, plenty of Rabbi's have the same viewpoint, altough they arre not so prominently displayed in the American media. Israel is not the land of the jews, it is the expression of a racist ideology Zionism, founded by a group who congratuled its "brother" Nazi party on its winning of the 1932 election because they were both concerned with racial purity and signed a non-agression treaty with them a year later, as Hanna Arendt rminded us. It is a colonial problem, one of the leftovers of the cold war, a bunch of Europeans stealing a territory from its original population. There is no doubt over who's the occupant and who's the victim. People tend to forget that 800.000 people were forced to wuit their home in 1948. Resolution 181 did not authorize ethnic cleansing. It is impossible to view the conflict as two groups with equal rights or develop an unbiased judgment over ot when the good and bad side is so clearly defined.
jc, are you going to get high school extra credit from Ron Francis for that comment?
When Israel is dissolved based on your analysis, will the Jews displaced from Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and Syria get to reclaim their property?
Just wondering....
Who is Ron Francis?
Sorry folks, but I was just referring a few facts.
Don't think that the major problem is where the zionist will go once Israel is dismembered. South Africa wasn't dismembered, but black and white South Africans had to learn to live together. That's pretty much the case here, IMO quite simply a racist state with segregation rules based on religion is not acceptable or viable, and is creating a lot of pain.
If you want to discuss how "jews" were forced to quit Morocco, Syria, Lebanon etc, there are a few books written by anti zionists jews on the subject, that includes all the provocations etc organised by the WZO and fellow terrorist groups.
Anyway, in 25 years jews will be a minority even in Israel, and unless the go "ethnic cleansing" again or transform the country in an even worse police state, they'll have to surrender to reality.
Yehudit, if you present both sides fairly, quoting the facts, you will automatically generate an anti Israel bias.