Here is an interesting tidbit about the rigidity of groupthink at Harvard. Even President Larry Summers has denounced anyone with the temerity to suggest that any criticism of Israel can be without basic anti-semitism in its effect. The ever-predictable Alan Dershowitz has chimed in with ‘‘The only reason they feel so strongly about Israel is because it is the Jewish nation.’’
So, is there any disagreement that Summers and Dershowitz are full of crap? Is there any institution or any government about which criticism should be avoided?
Sometimes, anti-Israel criticism is a front for hating Jews; sometimes it isn’t–it all depends on context. Israel is certainly not above being criticised, as in its refusal to end the occupation of the West Bank.
People of Jewish background are often accused of being anti-Arabic for criticising the Palestinian terrorist actions which attack civilian soft targets. People of Arabic descent are often called anti-semitic for disapproving of the draconian military measures used by the Israelis to control said terrorism. People who are neither get yelled at just for opening their mouths. This is a war which is centuries old, people. There is no right or wrong anymore, just one big grudge match. I, for one, try to disapprove of both sides equally so that I can’t be accused of taking sides… although I sincerely think that blowing up a busload of civilians isn’t a form of resistance that is ever acceptable, even if you die with them. It is neither anti-semitic nor anti-arabic to disapprove of the actions of the participants in that conflict… it just depends on which newspaper articles you’ve been reading and which radicals have somehow won a tiny bit of your respect.
::sigh:: C’mon, Monty, you know better than that. What do the actions of the PLO and other terrorists have to do with whether criticism of Israel is valid or not? Your statement is a non sequitur.
Or as your mammy taught yas, two wrongs don’t make a right.
The OP is disingenuous. Summers wasn’t talking about mere criticism of Israel. He was talking about statements and actions making Israel out to be one of the most evil countries on earth. In particular, the petition that Harvard not invest in Israel.
Sadly, that position is fairly widely held at Harvard and in some other universitites. AFAIK Harvard has no petition against, e.g., Zimbabwe, which is intentionally starving its own citizens. Nor the Sudan, which permits slavery. Nor Iraq, nor North Korea, nor the PRC, nor Libya, nor Iran. The implication of the petition is that Israel is more immoral than all of those countries. That position is so ridiculous that it’s not unreasonable to associate it with antisemitism.
So is your response unless you have evidence that Harvard has invested in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iraq, North Korea, PRC, Libya, or Iran.
This does not make the OP entirely correct, however, there is no indication that the group favors the actions of any of your list of “bad” countries. If Harvard has no investment in them, then a divestment movement would be hollow posturing. This is one specific movement to seek one particular action. Trying to link every other possible action to it is simply a red herring.
(Dershowitz’s comments are particularly egregious. Summer’s comments at least had the integrity to point out that he saw the action as counter-productive without trying to hang “Anti-semite” placards around the necks of the protestors (although he was rather wishy-washy in his disclaimer).)
Hardly “centuries old”, at best nearing a century if one includes early Zionist settlers in conflict with the locals, 60 or so if one starts with the 1940s, which is far more logical.
Incorrect, Sua. First off, Israel isn’t just going around occupying a place. Actually, they’re trying to get the purported folks in charge to assist in, get this, making it a free and democratic place. Next, Israel is not going around targeting civilians–they’re razing the center of terror, er “leadership.”
I see divestment as just one aspect of an anti-Israel policy – almost a shunning. Some Euopean professors were IIRC declining to invite Israelis professors to certain meetings or to publish their work. (I’m a bit foggy on which it was.) Concordia College in Montreal allowed demonstrators to provent Netanyahu from speaking. Colorado College invited Hanan Ashrawi to give a keynote speech on 9/11/02. Ms. Ashrawi is an apologist for Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians.
It’s not a question of the professors’ not favoring these other countries. They took pains to show that they strongly disapprove of Israel.
Divestment itself is quite unusual. South Africa under apartheit is the only example I can think of. Furthermore, it’s not the faculty’s job to determine investment policy. They went out of their way to signal their disgust of Israel. If they wanted to signal disapproval of other countries, there are means other than divestment available. But, AFAIK, Israel is the one country that the professors have targeted in their cross hairs.
Of course criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic. In theory, even anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
However, anti-Zionism has become the mouthpiece for those who believe in the not-so-socially-acceptable anti-Semitism. Additionally, there have been cases where protests that were “anti-Israel” or “criticizing Israel” were intermingled with openly anti-Semitic events. For instance, most on this board are familiar with the recent events at Concordia College, where a riotous mob attacked Benjamin Netanyahu and his audience, then proceeded to yell anti-Semitic taunts and throw pennies, insinuating that Jews are cheap.
It is not that all who criticize Israel are anti-Semitic. Indeed, there are numerous important criticisms to be made. But when people criticize Israel constantly, and find any excuse to do so, their motives are bound to be suspect. So are the motives of those who criticize Israel, the Jewish state, are not at least equally critical (or equally vocal in their criticism) of, e.g., Russian
atrocities in Chechnya, or the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
Finally, it is particularly offensive to liken the Likud to Nazis, Sharon to Hitler, the Occupation to the Holocaust, and Jenin to Dachau. You may disagree with Israeli policy, and think it is oppressive and wrong, but it is anti-Semitic to compare its creators and enforcers to the perpetrators of the greatest evil of the 20th century, especially when the creators and enforcers of that policy are largely the descendants of the victims of that evil.
Fortunately, anti-Semitic criticism of Israel in general does not happen on these boards; that seems to be more than one can say for the rest of the world.
Although I cannot support my comments with a cite, my Jewish friends have always referred to this particular conflict as part of a much longer back-and-forth between Arabs and Jews over territory and holy places…
However, you’re right, this particular issue is only a few decades old. I’m just taking is as a part of a bigger picture… one which has always been a bit fuzzy to me because I’ve never been strong on world history. I’ll concede the point if you insist, but I stand by my perception of current events: this has turned into a war which could be solved if people stopped saying “but he… but they…” long enough to negotiate, and neither side has any ethical high ground to speak from.
Oh, and by the way December, Concordia has long been embarassed by its overly political and self-righteous pro-palestinian student union. It is not representative of the college, its staff, or its students; merely a few activists-for-activism’s sake who feel that as 22 year old arts majors they have the right to pronounce judgement on all of humanity. Two members were recently arrested for vandalising a university wall with anti-semitic graffiti which, of all things, equated Jews with Nazis. This, IMHO, is surely not reflective of the student body as a whole.
. “So are the motives of those who criticize Israel, the Jewish state, are not at least equally critical (or equally vocal in their criticism) of, e.g., Russian
atrocities in Chechnya, or the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.”
OK so let’s apply that standard to critics of Palestinian and Muslim terrorism shall we? Dershowitz, for instance, seems to spend far more time criticizing Palestinian terrorism compared to say Tamil terrorism in Sri Lanka; does that make him anti-Muslim or anti-Arab? I think it’s rather silly to say that critics of Israel are bigoted unless they grant equal time to every other human-rights abuser on the planet. Certainly no other group of critics are put under this standard.
“Finally, it is particularly offensive to liken the Likud to Nazis, Sharon to Hitler, the Occupation to the Holocaust, and Jenin to Dachau”
OK but the same applies to comparisons between Palestinian terrorists and the Nazis which are actually more common in mainstream American political commentary especially in the right wing. (see the columns of George Will for instance). If you are consistent you should be equally willing to condemn them as bigoted.
Incidentally comparsions between Jewish right-wing elements and the Nazis have a long history in Israeli political discourse. For instance Ben-Gurion was fond of referring to Begin as “Hitler”. Not that this makes the comparison correct but unless you are willing to call Gurion a self-hating bigot you should be more careful about throwing round charges of bigotry.
The bottom line is that certain criticisms of Israel may indeed be incorrect or exaggerated but that doesn’t make them bigoted. People should be a lot more careful before throwing around labels like “anti-Semetic”.
Finally (and not referring to you) I always find it fascinating how pro-Israel conservatives are always so quick to play the ethnic card on behalf of Israel when they otherwise pretend to disdain such tactics.
Thanks for the information about Concordia, loupdebois. I agree that the riot is not reflective of the student body as a whole.
However, Concordia’s history makes the administration look even worse. Given the pro-Palestinian activities you describe, they had every reason to expect trouble at Netanyahu’s speech. Nevertheless, they failed to prepare adequately so as to deal with it.
Note that we haven’t ever seen the opposite – that is, riots against controversial pro-Palestinian speaker.
Note also that the pro-Palestinian (and, I presume anti-Israel) activities at Concordia help justfy my POV: The divestment petition is just one aspect of a broader anti-Israel campaign, which is going on in many colleges.