Archive for the ‘Academia’ Category

Dr. James Petras, yet another antisemitic professor

Sunday, November 6th, 2011
Yet another academic antisemite, Dr. James Petras

Yet another academic antisemite, Dr. James Petras

Ever since this article by Jeffrey Goldberg, a controversy has raged about John Mearsheimer’s jacket blurb for the viciously antisemitic book “The Wandering Who?” by the vicious antisemite Gilad Atzmon.

Clearly, I am taking sides in the ridiculous debate, which, unfortunately, serves to promote the works of Atzmon and Mearsheimer. If you think that perhaps there is a way to defend Mearsheimer (Atzmon is far beyond defense), Alan Dershowitz cleans his clock here. Even Mearsheimer’s fans have trouble swallowing this.

I’m not going to repeat quotations from Atzmon’s book or attack Mearsheimer; the articles linked above do it more than adequately. I want to talk about one of Atzmon’s other supporters. Dershowitz mentions him in passing:

James Petras, Bartle Professor of Sociology Emeritus at Binghamton University, called The Wandering Who? “a series of brilliant illuminations” and praised Atzmon’s “courage.”

Petras is a Marxist anti-Zionist who holds the most extreme anti-Israel positions. He also is a “Jewish (or Zionist) conspiracy” theorist of the highest order. His anti-Zionist extremism crosses the line into antisemitism, and his writing explicitly evokes traditional antisemitic themes, such as Jewish control of the US government and media and the disloyalty of Jewish Americans, as well as the distortion of Jewish religious concepts like ‘the chosen people’ and matrilinial descent for antisemitic purposes.

Petras is very prolific and I can only scratch the surface in a blog post. I’m sure a diligent search (which would need to be followed by a good hot shower) would expose even more ugliness.

Petras does not deny the Holocaust like Atzmon — he just thinks that it has been cynically exploited for financial and political purposes. In a 2006 article (“Modernity and Twentieth Century Holocausts: Empire-Building and Mass Murder“), Petras argues that

The claims by mainly, but not exclusively, Jewish scholars of the ‘uniqueness’ of the Jewish-Nazi victims flies in the face of vast historical data and in fact serves as a justification for continued large-scale monetary compensation (1) and for the exercise of colonial expansion in Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East, using the same techniques as were practiced by their Nazi oppressors (practices of collective guilt, racially based legislation, legalized mass torture, and ethnic cleansing).

His argument appears to claim that writers about the Holocaust do not take into account other genocides and racially-based mass murders, and he provides a list of such. Of course whether or not the Holocaust was ‘unique’ in some sense is irrelevant to the question of whether its survivors deserve compensation. And the Holocaust is not used as a justification for the creation of the state of Israel, which anyway was not a case of ‘colonial expansion’ and does not use Nazi techniques. I am not sure why the fact that some scholars of the Holocaust have been Jewish needs to be mentioned here, either.

He continues, mixing vicious ahistorical slanders against Israel with traditional antisemitic interpretations of Judaic concepts, in order to support his view that Israel is a Nazi-like state:

The Israeli-Palestinian Holocaust (IPH) has all the substantive features of previously mentioned holocausts: long-term, large-scale use of state terror; dispossession of over 4 million Palestinians; forcing over 3 millions Palestinians in ghettos; racial ethnic segregation and separation in all spheres of justice, property ownership, transportation and geographical movement; citizen rights based on ‘blood ties’ (maternal lineage); legalized and quasi-legalized torture and systematic use of collective punishment; a highly militarized society given to perpetual military assaults on neighboring Palestinian communities and other Arab states; unilateral extra-territorial, extra-judicial assassinations; chronic and systematic rejection of international law; an ideology of permanent warfare and international paranoia (‘anti-Semitism’ is everywhere) and an ideology of ethnic superiority (the Chosen People’) .

Petras thinks that ‘Zionists’ in the US constitute a disloyal fifth column which is responsible for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our economic crisis. In a 2010 article called “War with China?“, Petras wrote:

…In contrast to the disloyal role of ZPC [Zionist Power Configuration; viz. this article] which serves as a political-military instrument of Israel, the Chinese Diaspora serves as an economic ally of he Chinese state.  Overseas Chinese facilitate market opportunities for mainland business groups, engage in joint ventures inside and outside of China, but do not shape the foreign policy of the state in which they reside.  The Chinese Diaspora do not act as a “fifth column” against the national interest of their countries of residence, unlike American Zionists whose mass organization put all of their efforts into the singular goal of subordinating US policy to maximize Israel’s colonial policies.

…by the beginning of the new millennium all the political, military and ideological pieces were in place for the launching of a series of imperial-zionist driven wars, which would further sap the US economy, profoundly deepen its budget and trade deficits and open the way for the rise of new dynamic economic-market driven empires…

Under the direction of a highly militarized elite, including influential Zionist policymakers, Washington has moved inextricably into multi—trillion dollar wars of colonial occupation in the Middle East and South Asia, under the mistaken assumption that “shows of strength” will intimidate nationalist and independent states and buttress the US economic presence.  On the contrary, the wars have decreased US influence, increased local nationalist and pan-Moslem rejection especially in light of Zionized Washington’s unconditional backing of Israeli colonialism.  More than any other move to bolster the empire, the prolonged colonial wars have massively mis-directed economic resources which, theoretically, could have revitalized the US global economic presence and increased its competitive position via China, into non-productive military expenditures…

The US unconditional embrace of the racist colonial militarist state of Israel as its principal ally in buttering [sic] colonial wars in the Middle East, has in fact had the opposite effect:  alienating 1.5 billion Islamic peoples, eroding support among former allies (Turkey and Lebanon) and strengthening Zionists policy influentials advocating a ‘third military front’ – a war with Iran, with its two million person armed forces…

Over the long run, something will have to break; militarism and Zionist power will so bleed and isolate the United States that necessity will induce a forceful response

This last threat could be straight from a speech by Herr Hitler, couldn’t it?

In case any more evidence is needed that Petras is a Jewish-conspiracy theorist, here is a quotation from a 2002 article (“Israel and the U.S.: A unique relationship“):

…it is the lesser regional power which exacts a tribute from the Empire, a seeming unique or paradoxical outcome. The explanation for this paradox is found in the powerful and influential role of pro-Israeli Jews in strategic sectors of the U.S. economy, political parties, Congress and Executive Branch. The closest equivalent to past empires is that of influential white settlers in the colonies, who through their overseas linkages were able to secure subsidies and special trading relations.

The Israeli “colons” in the U.S. have invested and donated billions of dollars to Israel, in some cases diverting funds from union dues of low paid workers to purchase Israel bonds used to finance new colonial settlements in the occupied territories. In other cases Jewish fugitives from the U.S. justice system have been protected by the Israeli state, especially super rich financial swindlers like Mark [sic] Rich and even gangsters and murderers. Occasional official demands of extradition from the U.S. Justice Department have been pointedly ignored.

The colonized Empire has gone out of its way to cover up its subservience to its supposed ally, but in fact hegemonic power.

What makes all this possible? Why, the Jewish control of the media, of course. In a 2008 interview, he says,

…it’s one of the great tragedies that we have a minority that represents less than 2% of North American’s population but has such power in the communications media

…it’s not just economic [power], they’re organized, they’re present in all the communications media, they’re well situated in Congress, they have officials in the presidency, in the Executive branch; it’s not simply a matter of Jewish millionaires but that it’s all configured in important posts in the media, in the Congress, in the Executive branch, in all local governments, towns, dentists, doctors, lawyers, professionals, academics, all united in a crusade, all for Israel. When Israel says “we’re going to attack Iran,” these activists, respectable Jews, are the first to support it. Not all, because there are plenty of Jews who aren’t interested in Israel nor the politics of the communal organizations, but those who are active and present have definitely taken the most bellicose positions. They support a government that tortures and imprisons thousands of Palestinians.

I’m reminded when the Jews speak of the complicity of the Germans, what are they themselves if not complicit with the great and savage crimes of the State of Israel? What difference is there between German complicity and that of the professors and doctors?

Whew. Even a Zionist conspirator like me wasn’t aware of the power of Jewish dentists (possibly because most of the dentists in Fresno are Armenian).

There’s one thing that one should ask and that is why the North American public doesn’t react against the manipulations of this minority. It’s because the Jews control the communications media and present Obama’s speeches in favor of Jerusalem and Israel as though they were something normal, just another speech. And there’s no commentary when Israel says that it’s going to hurl bombs at Iran. No editorial whatsoever criticizing Israel.

No editorial criticizing Israel? Does he read the NY Times, TIME Magazine, or any of the editorials masquerading  as news stories written by the AP? Does he listen to NPR or watch CNN? He certainly must listen to the Pacifica network (after all, he got his doctorate at Berkeley)! How did he miss all this?

You may wonder why I care about one more Israel-hating and antisemitic professor. Here’s why: I am an alumnus of Harpur College, which later grew into ‘Binghamton University’ (slogan: “Bold. Brilliant. Binghamton.” — I didn’t make this up), which granted Petras its Bartle chair in Sociology. I even met Dr. Glenn G. Bartle, after whom it’s named, when I went there in 1960.

I have no idea of what Dr. Bartle, a nice man who died in 1977, would have thought about James Petras. I like to imagine that he would turn over in his grave at the way the university that his little college became besmirched his name.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

 

Is ‘Academic freedom’ freedom to hate?

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011
Ismail Khaldi speaks at Kent State

Ismail Khaldi speaks at Kent State

A Kent State History professor, Julio Pino, recently stirred the academic teapot by shouting “Death to Israel” as he stamped out of a talk by former Israeli Deputy Consul General in San Francisco, Ismail Khaldi.

Julio Pino

Julio Pino

I have heard Khaldi speak, and his tone is not confrontational. But he infuriates Muslim critics of Israel because Khaldi is himself an Arab Muslim. His message that it is possible for someone like him to identify with the State of Israel, and to succeed in the framework of a Jewish state gives the lie to their complaint that the Jewishness of Israel necessarily makes it a racist state.

Here is how the incident was described on a student website:

After the speech at Bowman Hall ended, Khaldi opened the floor to a Q-and-A session. The first person to ask a question was history professor Julio Pino.

Standing at the back of the auditorium, Pino asked Khaldi how he and his government could justify providing aid to countries like Turkey with blood money that came from the deaths of Palestinian children and babies.

The crowd fell into an awkward silence as the two continued to exchange words from across the auditorium.

“It is not respectful to me here,” Khaldi said.

Pino responded by saying “your government killed people” and claimed Khaldi was not being respectful to him.

“I do respect you, but you are wrong,” Khaldi said. “It’s a lie.”

The exchange ended as Pino stormed out of the auditorium shouting “Death to Israel!”

CAMERA notes that Pino, a tenured professor, apparently violated the University’s employment policy which requires all employees to

• “maintain a professional demeanor”;
• “exhibit a high degree of maturity and self-respect and foster an appreciation for other cultures, one’s own cultural background, as well as the cultural matrix from which Kent state university exists”;
• “demonstrate respect for all campus and external community members”;
• “respect the differences in people, ideas, and opinions”;
• not “threaten, accost, demean” or use “abusive language”;

Looks like an open and shut case for serious disciplinary action to me, especially since Pino, born in Cuba and a convert to Islam, has a long history of inappropriate behavior:

In 2002, Pino published a eulogy in the campus paper praising Palestinian terrorist Ayat al-Akras, who murdered two Israelis, Rachel Levy and Chaim Smadar.

Pino has been accused of having ties to terrorists and had his home raided in 2009 by the U.S. Secret Service. — CAMERA

We don’t know what Kent State will do, if anything. Its president took an unambiguous stand:

Lester A. Lefton, president of Kent State, issued a statement in which he said that the way Pino had treated Khaldi was “reprehensible, and an embarrassment to our university.” Lefton said that while it “may have been” Pino’s right to speak out, “it is my obligation, as the president of this university, to say that I find his words deplorable, and his behavior deeply troubling.”

Lefton added, “We value critical thinking at this university, and encourage students to engage with ideas that they find difficult or make them uncomfortable. We hope that our faculty will always model how best to combine passion for one’s position with respect for those with whom we disagree. Calling for the destruction of the state from which our guest comes (as do some of our students, faculty and community members) is a grotesque failure to model these values.” — Inside Higher Ed

AAUP's Cary Nelson

AAUP's Cary Nelson

But now we come to the most bizarre part of the story, even more so than the behavior of Pino, who is best described as an extremist nutjob.

Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, criticized the president’s statement, and said that professors can shout out statements as a form of expressing their views.

“Calling out a political slogan during a question period falls well within the speech rights of any member of a university community,” he said. “Expressive outbursts do not substitute for rational analysis, but they have long played a role in our national political life. More surprising, to be sure, is President Lefton’s invention of an absurd form of hospitality: you must not question the moral legitimacy or the right to exist of a guest’s home country. Awareness of history would suggest such challenges are routine elements of international life.”

The fact that Khaldi or some Kent State students or faculty were Israelis did not make Pino’s outburst any more objectionable from a moral point of view. Would it have been less obscene to call for mass murder of Israelis in front of an audience made up entirely of, say, Canadians? But Lefton was not “invent[ing] an absurd form of hospitality” — he was drawing attention to one of Pino’s violations of University policy.

The first amendment protects even hate speech. It does not guarantee a job to someone who violates his conditions of employment.

The real issue is that calling for the destruction of a nation — and given the context in which the phrase is usually used — the murder of its inhabitants, is hardly simply a ‘political slogan’, as if Pino had shouted “four more years!” Pino’s documented support for terrorism against Israelis gives even more weight to my opinion that what Pino did was vicious hate speech. In the right circumstances it could even be considered incitement to murder. In any circumstances, it cannot contribute to the proper education of our youth to become citizens of a moral democracy.

The AAUP, represented by Cary Nelson, has made a fetish of academic freedom, arguing that anything an instructor says in an academic environment short of “here is a gun, shoot him” cannot reflect on his job performance. Deliberately teaching lies, spreading racial or ethnic hatred or using the classroom for political propagandizing — regardless of the connection to a teacher’s field of competence — is defended as the exercise of ‘academic freedom’, a concept  originally intended to permit free inquiry in controversial areas (read the AAUP’s own 1940 statement about academic freedom).

Nelson is also a major player in the controversy about whether Jewish students and faculty can make use of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect Jewish students against the hostile environment created by ideologues like Pino (see my posts here and also here). In an article written with with Kenneth Stern on the AAUP website, Nelson suggests that such Title VI complaints are prompted by a desire to “censor what a professor, student, or speaker can say.” This ignores the documentation of academic, social and sometimes physical harassment experienced by Jewish students on some campuses.

Like any labor union, the AAUP sees it as its job to guarantee its members’ security. But it can go too far in this direction, and by protecting incompetence or malfeasance (Pino’s actions clearly count as this), can demean and eventually disgrace the profession.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

JCPA adopts craven resolution on Title VI

Wednesday, October 26th, 2011
Anti-Israel demonstration at UC Santa Cruz

Anti-Israel demonstration at UC Santa Cruz

Last week I wrote about a resolution of the Jewish Federation-funded Jewish Council on Public Affairs (JCPA) regarding the use of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect pro-Israel Jewish students from campus harassment.

The draft resolution reportedly included the following:

Lawsuits and threats of legal action should not be used to censor anti-Israel events, statements, and speakers in order to ‘protect’ Jewish students … but rather for cases which evidence a systematic climate of fear and intimidation coupled with a failure of the university administration to respond with reasonable corrective measures.

At this moment, the US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) is investigating three such complaints, including one filed by Dr. Tammi Rossman-Benjamin which argues that precisely such a ‘systematic climate’ does exist at the University of California Santa Cruz campus. The complaint documents the harassment experienced by the students in and out of the classroom, and the non-response of the faculty and administration.

Objections to Rossman-Benjamin’s complaint are couched in terms of free speech and academic freedom, so the suggestion — coming as it does from a group that styles itself “the representative voice of the organized American Jewish community” — that such complaints may be filed in order to ‘censor’ free speech is especially damaging.

Attorney Susan Tuchman of the Zionist Organization of America wrote,

If the JCPA adopts the draft resolution, it would send an alarming and demoralizing message to Jewish students: that they, unlike other victims of harassment and intimidation, should hesitate before seeking to enforce their legal right to a school environment that is physically and emotionally safe and conducive to learning, or else risk criticism and a lack of support from their own Jewish communal leaders. And it would send a dangerous and destructive message to OCR: that the agency made the wrong decision in issuing the Title VI policy protecting Jewish students, because even the Jewish community is not united behind it. At the least, the Resolution could encourage government officials to take Title VI complaints by Jewish students less seriously, because Jewish communal leaders themselves are so wary of this legal remedy.

On Monday, the JCPA board adopted a modified form of the resolution, which includes this:

It is not in the Jewish community’s best interest to invoke Title VI to promote a “politically correct” environment in which legitimate debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is squelched and academic freedom is undermined, because use of the remedy in such circumstances could undermine its long-term effectiveness.  It may also be in conflict with basic values of tolerance and ideological moderation important to many contemporary college students, thereby potentially alienating both Jewish and non-Jewish students from the rest of the Jewish community and significantly harming the Jewish student community on campus. [my emphasis]

If anything, the mention of ‘political correctness’ and ‘squelching’ debate is more damaging than the originally reported evocation of ‘censorship’.

But worse, the argument reeks of cowardice: “don’t make too much noise, because it will only increase antisemitism.” Isn’t this the same argument that was used against those who tried to get  Roosevelt to take action to rescue Jews during WWII? Should American Jews give up their rights as Americans in order not to ‘alienate’ the majority?

To add insult to injury, the JCPA then issued a misleading press release which calls for “campus leaders to do more to combat anti-Jewish and anti-Israel activity” and deemphasizes the highly negative slant toward Title VI taken by their ‘statement’ (they’ve stopped calling it a ‘resolution’).

JCPA President Rabbi Steve Gutow said  “We are taught that there is a time to break down and a time to build up.  And there is a time to foster dialogue just as there is a time to go to court.” Certainly in the case of the University of California, Santa Cruz, fostering dialogue hasn’t worked.

So why is Gutow’s JCPA is doing its best to reduce the probability of prevailing in court as well?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

JCPA sticks its nose into harassment controversy

Sunday, October 16th, 2011
Tammi Rossman-Benjamin

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin

The Jewish Daily Forward reports that

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs [JCPA], American Jewry’s primary umbrella group for addressing domestic issues, will vote at its upcoming board meeting on a resolution that, in its current draft, cautions Jewish groups to guard against suppressing free speech and to invoke civil rights laws only after exhausting other measures.

“Lawsuits and threats of legal action should not be used to censor anti-Israel events, statements, and speakers in order to ‘protect’ Jewish students,” the draft resolution warns, “but rather for cases which evidence a systematic climate of fear and intimidation coupled with a failure of the university administration to respond with reasonable corrective measures.”

The draft’s nuanced construction reflects serious concern over the possibility that some Jewish groups and individuals may be inappropriately exploiting recent changes in the government’s interpretation of federal civil rights laws, according to communal officials involved in the issue. They cite in particular Title VI of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects individuals from discrimination based on race, color or national origin in education programs and activities that receive federal funding. [my emphasis]

I am wondering why we need this resolution. The proposition boldfaced above is self-evident. Of course it is critical to distinguish between protected speech and antisemitic harassment. In order to prevail in such a lawsuit, a complaint would have to meet the requirements of Title VI.

For example, a complaint filed by Prof. Tammi Rossman-Benjamin in 2009, now being investigated by US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights [OCR], claims that

Professors, academic departments and residential colleges at [The University of California, Santa Cruz] promote and encourage anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish views and behavior, much of which is based on either misleading information or outright falsehoods. In addition, rhetoric heard in UCSC classrooms and at numerous events sponsored and funded by academic and administrative units on campus goes beyond legitimate criticism of Israel.  The rhetoric – which demonizes Israel, compares contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, calls  for the dismantling of the Jewish State, and holds Israel to an impossible double standard – crosses the line into anti-Semitism according to the standards employed by our own government. …

The impact of the academic and university-sponsored Israel-bashing on students has been enormous.  There are students who have felt emotionally and intellectually harassed and intimidated, to the point that they are reluctant or afraid to express a view that is not anti-Israel.  …

Since at least 2001, faculty members and students have brought these and similar problems to the attention of numerous UCSC administrators and faculty.  To date, the administration and faculty have largely ignored the problems.  In some cases, administrators and faculty have publicly denied that there are problems and even repudiated those who have had the courage to raise them. [my emphasis]

The complaint documents in detail Rossman-Benjamin’s contention that 1) a pervasive atmosphere hostile to Jewish students exists, 2) it is harmful to the students, and 3) the university has not taken appropriate action. This is exactly what is required by Title VI as it is now interpreted.

According to the Forward article, the resolution was prompted by a dispute over whether Rossman-Benjamin’s complaint was legitimate (see AAUP letter here and Rossman-Benjamin’s response here). It’s clear that the arguments against it will focus on the issue of limitation of free speech vs. the ‘pervasive atmosphere,’ etc. that is created not only by the preponderance of anti-Israel speech, but the behavior of the speakers, faculty, other students and administration.

Note that accusations of ‘censorship’ and limitations on speech were also the arguments used by the Muslim students who were recently convicted of disrupting a speech by Israel’s Ambassador Michael Oren at the University of California, Irvine. And in Oakland, California, protests against an exhibition, at a private museum, of drawings supposedly made by Gaza children depicting abuse by Israeli soldiers were attacked as ‘censorship’.

I can only understand the JCPA resolution as an attempt to sandbag Rossman-Benjamin’s complaint. I can imagine that if hearings are held, it will be used as evidence that “even the Jewish community” doesn’t support it.

If Rossman-Benjamin’s complaint is shot down, it will be a green light for continued harassment of Jewish students on all UC campuses. If JCPA approves this resolution at its board meeting on October 24, it will be handing ammunition to those who want to kill it.

Incidentally, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin will be speaking in Fresno on October 23.

***

What is the JCPA and who decided that it is “American Jewry’s primary umbrella group for addressing domestic issues?” (The following is adapted from my two previous posts on the subject in January and March of this year):

The Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA, not to be confused with the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs) calls itself “the representative voice of the organized American Jewish community.” It is affiliated with the JFNA, formerly the UJC and before that the UJA, the umbrella organization of the Jewish Federations in the US and Canada.

Confused yet? What’s important to know is that the Jewish Federations raise large sums of money. Some of it is spent for charitable purposes in local communities (despite what Helen Thomas thinks, there are poor Jews) and some of it goes to support the Jewish Agency in Israel and the Joint Distribution Committee, which helps Jews in difficult situations around the world.

These agencies in part paid for the rescue of Jews in Europe after WWII, Jews from Arab countries, Soviet Jews, Ethiopian Jews, etc.

Today I’m afraid that there is beginning to be a loss of focus: JFNA has some highly paid corporate officers, and the agencies that it supports are also less than efficient (the Jewish Agency is famous as a home for tired Israeli politicians).

What about the JCPA, which gets most of its funds from JFNA?

The CEO (since 2005) and President (since 2009) of JCPA is Rabbi Steve Gutow. A Reconstructionist Rabbi, Gutow is also “founding Executive Director” (although he does not hold the position now) of the National Jewish Democratic Council, whose mission is frankly partisan.

I’ve been a member of the board of our local Jewish Federation for some time, have served as its treasurer for the last four years, and I had heard very little about the JCPA until recently, when I received several press releases (for example, this one). I didn’t find them particularly helpful, and I asked myself who appointed JCPA to speak for the Jewish community — and why we were paying them to do so. Certainly my organization wasn’t consulted!

Here’s an example of why this may not be a good idea. JCPA has created an “Israel Action Network” intended to combat attacks on the legitimacy of the Jewish state, which has been allocated $6 million for three years from the Jewish Federations. Its director, Martin Raffel, has become embroiled in a controversy about which “Zionists of the Left” belong in the “big tent” and should be considered “allies.”

What about those ‘Zionists’ of the Left called J Street? Raffel wants to include them, because — while they do support boycotting some parts of Israel, they are opposed to boycotting all of it:

But what to think about Zionists on the political left who have demonstrated consistent concern for Israel’s security, support Israel’s inalienable right to exist as a Jewish democratic state, and consider Israel to be the eternal home of the Jewish people — but have decided to express their opposition to specific policies of the Israeli government by refraining from participating in events taking place in the West Bank or purchasing goods produced there? I vigorously would argue that such actions are counter-productive in advancing the cause of peace based on two states that they espouse, a goal that we share. But this is not sufficient cause to place them outside the tent.

– Statement of Martin Raffel in JCPA press release

Of course I strongly disagree. An attack on Jewish presence beyond the Green Line is an attack on the legitimacy of Israel as expressed by the League of Nations Mandate. It is a rejection of UNSC resolution 242, which calls for “secure and recognized boundaries,” which are clearly not the 1949 armistice lines. It is an attempt to punish law-abiding Israeli citizens and to support the racist Arab position about who may live where. It is more than just counter-productive, it’s anti-Zionist.

Not only did Raffel accept J Street into his tent, he decided that a right-leaning Zionist group called “Z Street” belonged outside with the camels, probably because it is unabashedly opposed to withdrawing from the territories.

Here in the US we don’t have a Chief Rabbinate, and there are Jews of all political persuasions. It requires a certain amount of arrogance to call yourself “the representative voice of the organized Jewish community” or “American Jewry’s primary umbrella group for addressing domestic issues” as the Forward’s reporter was told.

Unfortunately, the outside world might believe that you really do speak for American Jews and act accordingly.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

CSUF dean is an anti-Israel activist

Thursday, April 21st, 2011

By Vic Rosenthal

Vida Samiian demonstrates against the presence of Israeli academic Ronen Cohen at a conference of the International Society for Iran Studies in Santa Monica last year.

Vida Samiian demonstrates against the presence of Israeli academic Ronen Cohen at a conference of the International Society for Iran Studies in Santa Monica last year.

Our own Dr. Vida Samiian, Dean of the College of Arts and Humanities at California State University, Fresno (CSUF), testified at a meeting of the California Public Employees Retirement System’s Investment Committee in February.

Samiian and others are asking the pension fund to divest from companies that sell military and other equipment to Israel.

Almost every sentence of her testimony is false or misleading. Here is some of it:

I’m here today because I’ve traveled to Israel-Palestine as part of Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace on a number of occasions, and have observed firsthand the death, destruction, and numerous violations of human rights and international law that are systematically inflicted by Israel on Palestinians in the occupied territories.

During my visits, I observed firsthand the demolition of Palestinian homes by bulldozers; I saw the separation wall which blocks access of Palestinians to their land; I saw the expansion of settlers-only roads roadblocks and checkpoints limiting movement of Palestinians in their own towns and villages; I saw the growth of illegal settlements in the heart of the occupied territories; and witnessed the practice of numerous laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel and deny human rights to Palestinians on their occupation …

The U.S. and Israel represent societies whose goals and practices are sharply antitypical [sic]. The idea pursued by American society is essentially inclusive. Israel on the other hand has a publicly stated goal that is inherently exclusive. This inherent exclusivity has lead to 60 years of systemic segregation within Israel proper and over 30 years of ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, a blatant violation of international law …

Israel has contrived to make Gaza an open-air prison, purposefully keeping Gaza’s inhabitants at a subsistence level of existence as a form of collective punishment, also a criminal act under international law. This is not a situation that CalPERS should subsidize through investment in companies that help maintain these violations and criminal behavior. Knowingly doing so makes us all complicit in the crimes Israel and its government is committing every day against Palestinians on their occupation.

Note that her accusations are entirely context-free. Listening to her statement and those of the others that testified that day, one would not guess that Israel is a country that has been under constant attack since its founding by the Palestinian Arabs and their cousins and supporters in neighboring countries. The word ‘terrorism’ does not appear. It isn’t mentioned that the hated ‘checkpoints’ have stopped numerous terrorists, weapons and explosives from entering Israel. There is nothing about the rockets that daily land on Israeli towns.

Samiian targets her educated American audience (see my post yesterday entitled “Secrets of Palestinian Arab Propaganda”) with her comments about segregation, human rights, ethnic cleansing and violations of international law. But none of these concepts actually apply.

♦ There are no “settlers-only roads.” This particular lie has been refuted over and over. There are places in the territories where access roads between certain Arab villages and main highways have been closed after numerous murderous drive-by shootings occurred.

♦ Settlements are not “illegal.” This is a long story, which I told in more detail previously (“A classic big lie“).

♦ There is no “systematic segregation within Israel proper.” Israeli Arabs are not required to sit in the back of buses, denied the vote, excluded from serving in the military (although, unlike Jews, they are not required to do so), forced to live in ghettos, forbidden to work in certain occupations, forbidden entry to universities etc.

♦ Yes, Israel defines itself as a Jewish state. So what? There are 22 other nations in the Middle East that define themselves as Arab states, and the proposed constitution for ‘Palestine’ declares it to be an Arab state whose official religion is Islam, and the main source of whose legislation is shari’a.

♦ Have there been “30 years of ethnic cleansing” in the territories? Not exactly — the total Arab population of Judea, Samaria, eastern Jerusalem and Gaza went from 1.04 million in 1970 to 3.76 million in 2005. Compare this to the fact that the Jewish population of those areas went to zero in 1948. Now that’s ethnic cleansing!

♦ The “open-air prison” where the inhabitants live at “subsistence level”? The International Red Cross has stated that “there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” The only items that Israel limits today are strategic materials. Yes, there isn’t enough concrete for infrastructure repairs, but Hamas has prioritized its use for bunkers and tunnels in preparation for war. Gaza Arabs say that they cannot lead a “dignified life” under these conditions, but Hamas has only to stop making war in order to get remaining restrictions lifted.

Speaking of international law, the constant rocket fire against Israeli civilian targets, the frequent attempts at incursions over the border and the continued detention of Gilad Shalit — since June 2006 — without permitting him contact with the Red Cross or communication with his family, all constitute violations of International law by Hamas.

At the end of the ‘public comment’ period, during which Samiian and 5 others made similar statements, the committee chairman, Dr. George Diehr, told the group “Thank you very much for your comments. Good job.”

In November 2003, Dr. Samiian organized ‘Palestine Day’ at CSUF. Speakers included the renegade Israeli academic Ilan Pappé on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Dr. Saleh Abdul Jawad on “The End of the Two State Solution: Apartheid, Bi-national State, or the Final Stage of Socioside” [sic], the film “Jenin, Jenin” which falsely depicted a ‘massacre’ that never occurred, the film “Gaza strip”, and more. Jewish students who attended said that the atmosphere was not only anti-Israel, but also antisemitic.

Samiian is also director of CSUF’s Middle East Studies Program, which held a conference in 2008 from which I quickly exited in advance of being ejected. A look at the MESP website shows programs in Farsi and Arabic, an opportunity to study in Cairo, and numerous courses related to Islam and Islamic civilization. None of the faculty listed — except one,  a specialist in Islam who has an interest in the relationship between the three monotheistic faiths — appear to have any background in Hebrew, ancient Israel, Judaism, etc. The “Middle East” at CSUF doesn’t include the Jews.

Last year (see photo above), Samiian participated in an attempt to prevent an Israeli academic from Ariel University from speaking at a convention of the International Society for Iran Studies (ISIS) in Santa Monica. Despite her appeal to the principle of academic freedom and ‘balance’ to justify the slanted ‘Palestine Day’ event and Middle East Studies conference, her commitment to it apparently stops at the Green Line.

Dr. Samiian may be a competent scholar in her field, but she is also a dedicated political activist, one whose position gives her a unique opportunity to promote the Palestinian Cause.

Which, if you remove the wrapping designed to obscure its true nature and make it palatable to Western tastes, is the destruction of the Jewish state and the death or dispersal of its inhabitants. It really is that simple.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,