Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘anti semitism’

Kenneth Marcus Strikes Out: Department of Education Dismisses Anti-Semitism Charge Against Columbia University

Saturday, January 14th, 2012
prof rachel mcdermott

Prof. Rachel McDermott, target of Kenneth Marcus anti-Israel claim, vindicated by Dept of Education

Kenneth Marcus of the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, suffered a new defeat in his campaign to enforce politically correct pro-Israel discourse on U.S. college campuses.  After persuading an Orthodox Jewish Barnard College student to file a formal complaint against a professor accusing her of steering the student away from an Israel studies course and introducing a climate of hostility toward Jewish students on campus, the U.S. Department of Education dismissed the complaint.  Among the claims offered was that Professor Rachel McDermott made an assumption based on the student’s “Orthodox dress” that she would feel uncomfortable with the anti-Israel environment in the classroom.

The student and her academic advisor had a discussion about whether she should take a course offered by Palestinian-American professor Joseph Massad, who is the bete noir of the pro-Israel lobby.  Though he played no role in the complaint, it’s no accident that he played some part in inspiring the action.  In fact, Marcus attempted to argue that having an uninvolved professor steer a Jewish student away from a Massad course indicated that his department was instilling a hostile environment for Jews on campus.  How do you spell P-R-E-P-O-S-T-E-R-O-U-S?

Marcus is an officer in the far-right Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.  One of the key campus professors who helped organize the Columbia complain was Prof. Judith Jacobson who circulated a third hand version of the complaint which led to Marcus’ action.

A similar federal lawsuit was also dismissed against UC Berkeley.  The judge said  students and faculty may express views critical of Israel on campus and this was protected speech.  Not to mention the concept of academic freedom, which not only allows but encourages a diversity of views in the classroom.

Marcus has also been trolling at Evergreen College in Olympia seeking to target Prof. Steve Niva, a popular Middle East studies faculty member who is the target of attacks by StandWithUs and the Israeli Pacific NW consul general.  Marcus inspired complaints are still active against UC Santa Cruz and ZOA has filed a similar action against Rutgers.  The pro-Israel advocate, who formerly was an official in the U.S. Office of Civil Rights spuriously attempted to liken a professor steering a student to or away from a course to a real estate agent steering a minority couple to and from a real estate transaction with a racial motive.

It is simply preposterous to claim that sending a Jewish student toward or away from a particular course can be anti-Semitic.  I’ve never heard of such academic-legal claptrap in my life.  Marcus is simply making up concepts, throwing them against the wall like spaghetti, and seeing which ones stick.  When he sees a strand on the wall he exclaims: “Aha, you see, anti-Semitism.  I told you so.”

To be clear, I believe there is anti-Semitism in the world and that when it is found it should be exposed and uprooted.  I believe in protecting Jews and anyone suffering from ethnic prejudice.  But there is no such thing as anti-Israelism and those who suggest there is are academic charlatans.  Kenneth Marcus is a fraud.  StandWithUs is a fraud.  Akiva Tor is a fraud as far as charges like this are concerned.  I’m glad that a federal court and the U.S. Department of Education have confirmed this.  It doesn’t mean Marcus will stop trying.  That’s what these pro-Israel trolls do.

Electronic Intifada has a full account of these events along with pertinent documents from the case.

To War, To War, Aipac Goes to War

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Josh Block, United Jewish Community's Bill Daroff and Haaretz's Natasha Mozgovaya

I don’t know how many of you caught the echo of the Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup (“To war, to war, Fredonia goes to war!”) in my post title.  But apparently, as Aipac joins in eager anticipation with the Israeli political élite for an attack on Iran, the progressive policy wonks at Media Matters and Center for American Progress have taken aim at this war fever.  And Aipac doesn’t like it one bit.  M.J. Rosenberg, Eli Clifton and Matt Duss have used their blogs to poke holes in the arguments behind the Israeli-neocon march to war.  They’ve been tweeting and posting furiously, doing what they can to make the case for diplomacy, pragmatism and moderation.  All of these qualities are anathema to Aipac and Israeli interests.

The first public shot across the bow came from Politico’s Ben Smith who attempts to stir up a hornet’s nest within the Democratic Party by claiming that CAP and Media Matters are little more than fronts for the Party:

Two of the Democratic Party’s core institutions are challenging a bipartisan consensus on Israel and Palestine that has dominated American foreign policy for more than a decade.

The Center for American Progress, the party’s key hub of ideas and strategy, and Media Matters, a central messaging organization, have emerged as vocal critics of their party’s staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership and have been at odds, at times, with Barack Obama’s White House…

If Smith had said this about J Street he would be dead-on accurate, as that group is a liberal mouthpiece for the Party in the Jewish community.  But I’ve never heard this said, and it strikes me as ludicrous to make the claim about Media Matters.  Claiming that they or CAP are a “core institution” for the Party implies there is no way to be progressive unless you’re affiliated with the Dems.  In fact, I’d argue that if you’re too affiliated with Dems you can’t be progressive.  Anyone who takes one look at Obama’s foreign or national security policy can see that.

Having read the posts and social network messaging of many of the individuals under scrutiny, it’s false to say that their attack is on a Party.  Rather it’s on the views of individuals whether Republican or Democratic.  To say that they’re taking special aim at Democrats or that they have an underhanded plan to turn the Democrats against Israel is beyond ludicrous.  Does being against a disastrous war being cooked up by Bibi, Barak and Aipac mean you’re anti-Israel?  In which universe is that reasonable?

I think Smith’s stirring up a tempest in a teapot.  He may argue that the analysts above are critiquing the Party’s positions (though they’re tweaking a pro-war position shared by many in both parties), but they aren’t doing that from within its ranks.  Rather they are independent observers, and that’s as it should be.

Aipac though has set loose its attack dogs, including some who, like greyhounds, we’d thought were retired from the races.  Josh Block until a year or so was Aipac’s chief flack.  He’s the brain who decided The Guardian’s Chris McGreal should be rendered persona non grata at the Aipac conference two years ago, and be provided a security escort and frog marched out of the conference hotel.  Josh has now moved over to the Progressive Policy Institute (the Party’s hawkish rear guard).  Smith laughingly calls PPI “center-left.”  Which tells you a lot more about the reporter’s political views than it does about PPI.  Returning to Block and his former Aipac affiliation: his heart is still with daddy and his old buddies.

Justin Elliot reports in Salon that Block took advantage of a neocon journalist listserv, moderated by TNR’s Jamie Kirchick, to promulgate talking points to advance a media blitz against the groups and individuals I mentioned.  He reminds me a bit of the Manchurian Candidate, as whenever Aipac needs him, he can be activated by flashing a blue and white Star of David card in front of his face.  His master’s voice has told him to try to organize a widespread right-wing barrage.

Frankly, I don’t see how it can succeed.  First, the material he’s offered for this expose is just plain retarded.  For example, OMG, Matt Duss tweeted that Jennifer Rubin was a “douchebag.”  That’s Block’s idea of “evidence.”  Of what?  Of the fact that Duss uses Twitter as almost every other one of its members does?  Tweeting vigorously, even aggressively at times?  This is improper?  Gimme a break.

Oh and in case you didn’t know it already, Eric Alterman is an anti-Semite.  Alterman, the mildly liberal-Zionist columnist (who calls himself a “proud pro-Zionist Jew”) whose views on Israel are faintly to the left of Ethan Bronner and certainly in synch with Gershom Gorenberg.  THAT anti-Semite?

Poor Josh doesn’t much like M.J. calling his old friends “Israel Firsters.”  That’s because Aipac sees Israel’s interests as the same as America’s.  So they can’t possibly be disloyal to U.S. interests.  That’s why Block calls such views “anti-Semitic.”  But they’re not.  They are a reasonable political attack on views which have political, and not religious repercussions.  The important purpose of this attack on Aipac is to deny them the claim that America’s interests are the same as Israel’s.  This is a deluded notion that must be rebutted forcefully.  Saying America’s interests diverge from Israel’s is not anti-Semitic.  It’s realistic, pragmatic.  It’s the Aipac-ers who are extreme on this point.  And I should point out that I am not arguing that Israel’s interests aren’t legitimate (from their point of view).  They are.  But they are Israel’s interests, not ours.

What’s Aipac pissed about?  Not that they favor war with Iran, because they do.  Apparently what they’re pissed about is that their support for war is qualitatively different from that of others.  And they’re also allergic to the Walt-Mearsheimer-like claim that the Israel lobby is lobbying for war (which they are).  It strikes them as anti-Semitic to claim that Jews are leading the nation to war when lots of other people are too:

 …The suggestion that AIPAC is leading an Iraq-style drive for war with Iran also angered leading Jewish Democrats, many of whom are close to AIPAC.

…“There’s a great difference between the widespread concern for Iran within the Democratic and Jewish communities versus the far right. Some extreme right-wingers may be beating the drums for war, but the vast mainstream — certainly including AIPAC — is most definitely not, said David Harris, the CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council, when asked about the AIPAC’s statements.

The real truth of the matter is that just as Bibi and Barak want to go to war against Iran, Aipac does too.  Claiming otherwise is simply a smokescreen.  Sure, you can say we’re for sanctions, we’re for this, we’re for that.  But at the end of the day any sensible person, whether left or right, knows that sanctions can’t work.  And what will you be left with?  Since no U.S. president can apparently do the sensible thing and offer negotiations and compromise to engage Iran, the only choices you are left with is war or no war.  Everyone knows where Aipac comes down regarding this choice.  War.

It doesn’t matter to me whether you’re for war reluctantly or enthusiastically.  In the end, you’re for calling out the bombers, dropping the bunker busters, and sending the Iranian nuclear facilities back to the Stone Age, if not earlier.  And as a supporter of war, you share responsibility for the aftermath, which will be round after round of bloodshed as Iran exacts its own form of revenge.

Kristallnacht=Price Tag

Thursday, October 6th, 2011
price tag like kristallnacht

Gilad Meltzer's original Hebrew statement comparing price tag to Kristallnacht

Gilad Meltzer offers a comparison between the latter-day tactics of Muslim-hating settler fanatics and an earlier historical tragedy:

“In 1930s Germany when they burned synagogues they called it ‘Kristallnacht.’ Here [in Israel] we’ve moved to the language of capitalism: ‘price tag.’”

A bit of historical context: when Kristallnacht happened in 1938, no one except Adolph Hitler and perhaps his intimates knew what he had in store for European Jews.  The Shoah hadn’t yet been devised or implemented except possibly in Hitler’s mind.

Similarly, the jury is out on which direction modern Israel will go.  Will it turn to extremist violence, forced expulsion of Palestinian citizens, annexation of the West Bank, and a form of Jewish totalitarianism (or what these Judean madmen call the “Jewish kingdom”)?  Or will it turn away from its appointment with “national suicide,” as Nicholas Kristof called it in yesterday’s NY Times, and embrace real democracy for ALL Israeli citizens, including its non-Jewish citizens?

Contrary to many Jews who love and support Israel (perhaps to a fault), I have no crystal ball nor certainty that things will come out right in the end.  There is entirely too much complacency around these issues both in Israel and in the Jewish Diaspora.  There is evil within our midst and we’re not doing enough to denounce it and uproot it.  Those who truly love Israel and wish it well in the long term would do well to act accordingly.

Pro-Israel Civil Rights Complaint Filed Against Columbia University

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011
kenneth marcus

Kenneth Marcus, scourge of 'anti-Israel' academe

Kenneth Marcus, the pro-Israel scourge of U.S. academia, has just filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights against Columbia University.  Electronic Intifada reports on the story.  Though I haven’t read the complaint yet, I have read EI’s portrayal of it and I have to say it’s been a long time since I’ve seen such nonsense on a university campus.

judith jacobson

Prof. Judith Jacobson circulated third hand complaint of anti-Israel bias which became basis of civil rights complaint against Columbia

The gist of it is that a student, presumably Jewish, sought academic counseling from the chair of the Asian and Middle Eastern Cultures Department at Barnard College.  Happens every day, right?  They were talking about what courses he might take and discussed taking a class with Prof. Joseph Massad, the controversial (in pro-Israel circles) Middle East scholar.  I don’t know what happened during the session.  But after hearing about it third-hand, a Columbia faculty member of the School of Public Health, Judith Jacobson who, like Marcus, is an officer with the right-wing Israel advocacy group, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, consulted with Marcus.  He in turn filed the complaint alleging that the department chair “steered” the student away from taking a course with Massad.  Jacobson, it should also be noted, was one of the Columbia faculty who campaigned against tenure for Nadia Abu El-Haj.  Further, her academic specialty is cancer and asthma prevention, a far cry from the Middle East.

It’s hard to speculate about what might’ve happened during that Barnard academic counseling session, but speaking as someone who spent twelve years doing undergraduate and graduate studies and who often consulted with faculty about which courses I should or should not take, I imagine the chair asked the student what he wished to study, perhaps even discussed the student’s political views.  The faculty member may have suggested to him that he might wish to take a course with a different professor.  That’s not “steering” that’s advising.  Professors do it all the time.  Marcus really wants professors to stop doing their jobs.  He wants to punish them for helping students find the most fulfilling academic programs they can.  He wants campuses to become beacons of pro-Israel correctness.

Interesting to note that Marcus is attempting to snare Prof. Massad in his net even though the latter had nothing whatsoever to do with the complaint.  Massad didn’t know about the incident until he heard a complaint was being filed.  This is Marcus pimping a ride from all the negative publicity Massad earned over the years from the David Project and other pro-Israel advocacy groups that attacked him.

Frankly, there is no such academic term as “steering,” as EI notes.  It derives from housing discrimination law, which Marcus is also familiar with as a former staff member of the U.S. human rights commission.  What he’s trying to do is to graft a totally alien term onto a new sphere of law so that he may wage pro-Israel lawfare against American campuses.  Make no mistake, this is a campaign against academic freedom and deeply hostile to the process of open inquiry and pursuit of knowledge that is the hallmark of great universities.

What Marcus aims for is restraining speech and action concerning Israel on campus.  He wants to outlaw certain speech, courses and professors who cross imagined red lines by being overly critical of Israeli policy in their teaching.

What beats me is how an academic press can publish a book by Marcus, as Cambridge University Press is doing.  To me, it’s the ultimate chutzpah for a pro-Israel shill to use such an academic publisher to advance a program so inimical to the academy.

Marcus, as I’ve noted here, previously filed a similar complaint against UC Santa Cruz which the OCR has accepted formally for investigation.  I hope to God OCR doesn’t find the Columbia complaint credible.  Otherwise, there will soon be a flood of such complaints, which will prevent OCR from actually investigating any real civil rights complaints on American campuses.

Marcus has also been sniffing around Evergreen College trying to gin up a case against that school.  Among his targets is Prof. Steve Niva, who he’s sidled up to via phone calls and e-mails attempting to elicit Niva’s personal views about Israel.  Unfortunately for Marcus, Niva has had better things to do with his time than furnish fuel for a future civil rights battle.

Interestingly, Marcus is teaming up with Stand With Us and Israel’s NW consul general, Akiva Tor in pursuing the Evergreen complaint, as SWU’s website attests.  Since we now know, thanks to Israel’s Channel 10 news, that the Israeli foreign ministry has officially sponsored a lawsuit against the Olympia food coop (Evergreen College’s hometown), it seems entirely reasonable to presume that the foreign ministry, at the very least, looks favorably upon this attack on American universities.  At the most, it may even be supporting them in far more direct ways.

Marcus is also exploiting Scholars for Peace in the Middle East as another venue for relaying intelligence about campuses which are ripe for attack.  I hope professors and administrators become aware of these points of attack which people like Marcus will exploit.

I’m deeply chagrined that Marcus’ work is being financed in large part by a $5 million life insurance policy paid off after the death of Prof. Gary Tobin, one of the Jewish community’s most distinguished demographers, who died in 2009.  The Institute for Jewish and Community Research, which he founded to be his academic home, turned to Marcus and his pro-Israel drivel after Tobin’s death.  The Institute was undoubtedly seeking a new raison d’être since it could no longer pursue the ground-breaking polling research that was Gary’s specialty.  It is a great tragedy that his widow, Diane, bought into Marcus’ vision of turning “anti-Israelism” into a kosher academic field.  One in which it was made equivalent to anti-Semitism, and which involved the demonization of anyone on college campuses who transgressed the pro-Israel line.

Sheik Salah, Israel’s Islamic Movement Leader: British Arrest Ruled Illegal

Friday, September 30th, 2011
sheikh raed salah

Sheikh Raed Salah, leader of Islamic Movement of Israel (Sebastian Schreiner/AP)

In a ruling that is certain to render the Telegraph’s anti-Muslim blogger Michael Weiss apoplectic, the British High Court has ruled that the arrest and planned deportation of Israel’s Islami Movement leader, Sheikh Raed Salah by British authorities was illegal:

A British High Court determined Friday evening that the arrest of Raed Salah, the leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel’s Northern Branch, upon landing in the United Kingdom two months ago, was illegal, and as such, Salah is eligible to receive compensation from the state.

As soon as Salah landed in Britain, Weiss went on the warpath in the pages of his newspaper warning of the danger to the kingdom from the presence of such a raging Muslim anti-Semite.  The British Home secretary was driven to act by the combined imprecations of England’s pro-Israel Jews, and the Sheikh was banned.  Only problem was, the Home Secretary and Weiss couldn’t seem to produce any evidence supporting their claims Salah was banned before he arrived in the country and somehow slipped past immigration authorities due to deception on the Muslim leader’s part.  Nothing of the sort happened.  I believe it was the British who decided to rid themselves of him after the fact.  And this is why the court ruled he was entitled to remain in England.

Not only this, but due to his illegal detention and incarceration he’s entitle to compensation from the government.  It would be delicious justice if the government could compel Weiss to contribute to the compensation since he’s one of the reasons it made such a cock-eyed decision to begin with.  Curiously, Weiss hasn’t blogged about this decision.  I can’t wait to read his fulminations about the shoddy English legal system which allows such villains as Salah to slip through the cracks of justice, etc, etc.

This Guardian story claims there was a prior legal order banning him from entering Britain which a Heathrow immigration officer neglected to see.  Salah wasn’t informed of the supposed order either, before he entered Britain.  I find this dubious and have seen no evidence that there was indeed such an order.  The reporter doesn’t offer any proof himself either.

Of course, this may be a Phyrric victory as it’s probable the Home Office will, once the Sheik leaves, declare him persona non grata as far as future visits.  Those, I imagine, he won’t be able to appeal.

 

Ken Marcus’ Campus Jihad Against Anti-Israelism

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

Gary Tobin, the late and renowned Jewish demographer, founded an academic institute before his untimely death in 2009 called the Institute for Jewish and Community Research.  I knew Prof. Tobin and studied his surveys of American Jewry with great interest when I was a fundraiser for Brandeis University, where he taught.

But I’m sorry to say that since his untimely death in 2009, the Institute, under the leadership of his wife, Diane Tobin, has taken an u-turn away from Gary’s core academic interests.  Ms. Tobin, it should be noted, has no academic background in Jewish studies, demography or any similar field.  Now, IJCR has largely been turned over to the concocted academic field of “anti-Israelism.”  Academics and wannabes use the term as almost synonymous with anti-Semitism and hope that they can raise consciousness in the U.S., to the extent that so-called anti-Israeli attitudes on American campuses and elsewhere will gain the same stigma that anti-Semitism has.

Last June, the anti-Israelism field was dealt a hard blow when Yale University closed its academic program for the study of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism because it had become too politicized (i.e. anti-Muslim and pro-Israel) and because few faculty members would collaborate with it or take it seriously.  At a major conference organized by the program and its director, Charles Small, the main theme seemed to be bashing Muslims and warning of the threat Islam poses to Jews and the world.

kenneth marcus

Ken Marcus, Jewish Torquemada crusading against campus 'anti-Israeilsm'

A senior IJCR staff member, Ken Marcus, leapt to the Yale program’s defense and called its closure an example of political correctness run amok.  He all but claimed that the act by the University was due to pressure from Muslim pressure groups.

It’s not surprising then, to find that Marcus is one of the key intellectual authors of a new campaign to exploit newly written federal civil rights statutes (Title VI) which forbid campuses from creating a hostile environment for various ethnic and religious groups, including Jews.  Marcus and his friends at Stand With Us are uniting to explore campuses where they can apply their new theory.  To do so, they must find campuses where they can recruit sufficient Jewish students to complain that they are afraid to be Jews on campus because  of the environment of fear and intimidation created by pro-Palestinian groups.

All this will require a Department of Education that is sufficiently malleable to take all this seriously.  Given Pres. Obama’s need for the Jewish vote in the coming presidential election and his wish to be seen as uber-supportive of Israel, it isn’t at all clear that Education officials will throw this nonsense where it belongs–in the garbage can.  They’ve advanced farthest at UC Santa Cruz, where they’ve filed a formal complaint against the University.  They recruited a junior lecturer (I wonder why they couldn’t find a senior faculty member to take up the cause?), Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, to act as their sponsor on campus and filed the complaint in her name.  Said lecturer actually wrote an article for the far-right American Thinker asking whether Jewish students were safe on campus.  In it, she hails the groundbreaking research of “investigative journalist,” Lee Kaplan, one of the stranger crackpots (along with Debbie Schlussel and Pam Geller) on the right-wing pro-Israel scene.  I wonder if Rossman-Benjamin thinks publishing at American Thinker will add to the luster of her academic CV?  The Department’s Office of Civil Rights has agreed to open a formal investigation of her complaint against UCSC.

Marcus has repeatedly contacted an Evergreen College faculty member who is known for his sympathy to anti-Occupation groups on campus.  The former asked repeatedly by phone and in writing to interview the faculty member, seeking to know “his personal political views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”  He mentioned as well, that he’d already interviewed noted Jewish critics of Israeli policy, Noam Chomsky and Judith Butler, as if this might give the faculty member (who isn’t Jewish) cover.  Marcus clearly intended to build a dossier which might be used to bolster any complaint brought against Evergreen.  In short, this, for Marcus, is becoming a productive new venture.  A Jewish campus jihad.  We can expect a raft of such complaints against various campuses which allow protest against Israeli Occupation to be too vociferous for Marcus’ taste and those of his wealthy pro-Israel benefactors.

Marcus and the academic pro-Israelists (two can play at this game, you know) also must recruit students who’ve been “damaged” or traumatized by their treatment on campus.  So they seek out students who’ve transferred out because they felt there was a hostile climate for Jews.  Students who’ve appeared in Stand With Us videos attacking Evergreen have spoken about anti-Occupation protests on campus as if they were personal attacks on their Jewish identity.  They speak of trauma like a Jew might speak of trauma induced by anti-Semitism or Jewish suffering from the Holocaust.  As I wrote above, this is all part of a master plan by charlatans like Marcus to build both an academic field and legal theory that equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Like Daniel Pipes before him, Marcus is an ideologue clothed in academic robes.  He has some academic pretensions, but his heart is pledged to Israel and not academe.

Israeli’s Pacific NW consul general, Akiva Tor, is also intimately involved in the project as the StandWithUs website documents meetings he attended with Rob Jacobs and others at which the projected civil rights complaint against Evergreen was planned.  Given last night’s post I wrote which documents a proud boast by deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon that this is precisely the sort of tactic that the Israeli government is embracing, it seems clear the Israeli government is deeply engaged in this campaign of harrassment against American institutions of higher learning.

For anyone whom this development doesn’t trouble, let’s compare this to say, the U.S. government helping organize an Israeli campaign to direct debate on Israeli campuses about U.S. policy including the use of civil rights complaints filed with the Israeli government to force schools to police offending speech.  If this doesn’t seem outrageously intrusive in the domestic academic and political life of a country, I don’t know what is.

This attack on academic freedom corresponds with the efforts of Im Tirzu to compile and publicize lists of supposedly “anti-Zionist” Israeli campuses, departments and faculty.  There is a concerted effort to regulate speech so that certain subjects and views either can’t be discussed or their discussion will involve paying a price in public opprobrium.

Returning to Ken Marcus, why does he persist when universities like Yale are dismissing them and their colleagues as lacking academic rigor?  Because there’s gold in them thar hills.  Over $4-million worth (which excludes a $5-million endowment from Prof. Tobin’s life insurance policy) according to IJCR’s 2010 IRS 990 report.  There are scores of generously endowed Jewish foundations like the Schusterman Foundation and many others which lap this stuff up.  That’s why Schusterman, for one, funds campus efforts of Aipac.  Their idea of building strong young Jews is by training them to espouse pro-Israel views.  Secondarily, strong young Jews also learn that a major part of their identity involves detesting campus criticism of Israel.

The Marcuses of academia must not be allowed to succeed.  If they do, then any of us, including and perhaps especially the Jews, will be consigned to the hellish Inferno of self-haters and Israel-haters.  Anti-Israelism is a hoax theory perpetrated on academia and American campuses by a hoax theorist like Ken Marcus.  He wants to stigmatize what is protected speech on campus.  Not only should there be academic freedom on campus to express political views, there must be freedom of speech, an even more basic American right enshrined in our constitution.  Students must be allowed to protest.  It is part of a hallowed campus tradition.  If pro-Israel students dislike the protest let them mount their own–and they do.  But to take speech critical of Israel and seek to punish an entire university for allowing it is simply treif and un-American.

Ken Marcus may be a lawyer with experience dealing with civil rights and constitutional issues, but his interest doesn’t extend much beyond his own nose and his own co-religionists’ (and even a narrow band of those, at that).

Oh, and I almost forgot to tell you why Marcus may think he’s got a special “in” with the Department of Education in its review of these current and future civil rights complaints.  He’s a former litigator who also helped write, you guessed it, those new Title VI regulations which incorporated Jews as a protected group on campus.  He did that when he worked for…the Department of Education during the Bush administration.

Consumer activists and peace activists are rightfully indignant about the revolving door between government and industry which permits a federal official to write a regulation that will impact a business and then go out and take a job company for whom he wrote the regulation.  It encourages these officials to collude with potential future employers to write rules that will meet industry’s needs, rather than those of the consumer.  This is almost precisely what Ken Marcus did.  He helped write a rule and now he’s trying to exploit it for the imagined good of Israel and his poor, suffering pro-Israel students.

Marcus also boasts on his curriculum vitae that he is an official of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, an inaptly named group which engages in heavy pro-Israel advocacy.  He was staff director of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission under George Bush.  You can tell whose civil rights he championed when he was there and whose he likely ignored.

On a separate note, Electronic Intifada reports that the president of the Evergreen campus Hillel is a StandWithUs Northwest Emerson Fellow.  I have spent many, many hours of great Jewish enjoyment in campus Hillels at Columbia, UCLA and UC Berkeley.  When I was there, these were houses that welcomed all Jews.  There was a Hillel rabbi who took no sides in the Israel debate, but rather attempted to provoke discussion and learning, rather than exclusion.  Until recently, this was true of Evergreen Hillel as well.  It had been a place open to students with diverse views of Israel.  But increasingly, Hillel is becoming a place where only certain Jews are welcome.  Those who oppose the Occupation or support the campus divestment initiative no longer feel so.  That’s because StandWithUs, as Israel’s Channel 10 news noted in its interview with Danny Ayalon, is an arm of the Israeli government, in effect a lobbying agent for a foreign power.  Accordingly, Hillel is being turned into a cheering section for the Israeli government.  This is an infinitely sad development for those of us who’ve known and appreciated the wonderful Hillels at campuses where we’ve studied.

The Hillel president, Joshua Levine illustrates the confusion SWU and pro-Israelists encourage between Jewish identity and support for Israel.  He said this:

“There are days I feel uncomfortable walking across campus alone because I wear a yarmulke [Jewish skull cap] on my head,” Levine alleges.

There are many Jews wearing yarmulkes who don’t support StandWithUs.  Some who don’t support the Occupation either.  So the issue isn’t wearing a yarmulke.  That’s an expression of Jewish identity.  When you confuse Israel with Judaism you get into a terribly sticky wicket.  It is Levine’s extreme views that cause him conflict with those on campus criticial of Israeli policy.  It isn’t his yarmulke or his Jewishness.  After all, many of the campus leaders of the anti-Occupation protests are Jewish themselves.  And Joshua Levine has no monopoly on Jewishness.  There are many ways to be Jewish.  In fact, as many ways as there are to approach the issue of Israel.  Instead of suppressing this debate on campus, we should encourage it along with values of tolerance and civility.

Israel: Nation for All Its Citizens

Sunday, August 28th, 2011

NOTE: This essay was first published at Israel Reconsidered.  It was a response to a post written by Larry Derfner defending Israel as a Jewish state.  Since a number of readers have recently sharply criticized my views concerning Zionism, I thought it might be helpful to republish this here.

I do not favor a Jewish state as defined by classical Zionism, in which Jews have superior rights to other citizens of Israel.  I am in favor of a state in which Judaism and Jews have all the rights guaranteed to citizens of other religions and ethnicities.  In other words, Israel should be a state that respects the traditions and history of its Jewish citizens.  A state which is a homeland for Jews, but also a homeland for its Palestinian citizens.  It should be a state with a constitution that guarantees rights to both majority and minority groups, whether they be Jewish or Muslim.  This would most emphatically not be a state which erases its Jewish character.  However, it is a state which would equally celebrate its Muslim or Christian character and protect them respectively.

If Israel is exclusively a Jewish state then it cannot be a democracy.  It can be an ethnocracy in which the Jewish minority has rights that trump the minority.  But this is only a partial, or truncated democracy.  Not a democracy as you or I know it.

There are a number of states in the world that qualify as democratic and which negotiate (some more successfully than others) complicated relationships among various ethnic groups: Canada, Switzerland, Ireland, Spain, the U.S.  So it can be done.  And Israel should be examining these models to secure its own future as a truly democratic state.

But there are countries which are not democratic, which have failed miserably at resolving these problems: Rwanda, Serbia, Russia, China, Syria.  Does Israel want to end up like them?  A basket case among multi-ethnic nations in which discrimination is rampant, in which racism and the original sin of expulsion (Nakba) are in the nation’s DNA?

In the Israel I envision, every group would have guaranteed rights so there would be no reason for Palestinian citizens to avoid military service.  Why would there be the problem that Larry Derfner foresees of Israeli Palestinians being asked to shoot and kill Arab citizens of frontline states with which Israel has hostile relations?  In fact, if Israel became the sort of state I envision it would go a long way to tempering hostility from all of these frontline states.  It would make a large contribution toward resolving the overall conflict among Israel and its neighbors.

In fact, Jewish and Muslim citizens would have an equal stake in the nation and its welfare.  What would result from all of this is a state that was not primarily Jewish (or Muslim or Christian) but Israeli.  What Israel needs to highlight is not the religious character of the majority group, but an overall national character, one that can be embraced by Jews, Muslims and Christians.  Personally, I think Derfner is dead wrong in claiming Israeli Palestinians can never become “truly Israeli.”  In fact the very statement troubles me a great deal.  In fact, every opinion poll of Israeli Palestinian opinion shows their deep loyalty to the state and their sense of investment in it.  I think he is selling his fellow citizens short.  Way short.

In fact, I think Derfner postulates a vague, unpersuasive, mystical sense of Arab solidarity that most Israeli Palestinians do not share.  Unfortunately, it is all too common for non-Arabs to wax eloquent about the nature of this Arab brotherhood and why it renders Israel’s non-Jewish citizens forever alien from Israeliness.  He postulates Israelis who believe more strongly in a vague sense of Arabness, than in the reality of their own Israeli nationality.  I don’t know many people who prefer the ephemeral when they’re given a chance to grasp something real that they live with every day.  Sorry Larry, I don’t buy it.

Besides, this view that Israeli Palestinians are more loyal to their Arabness than their Israeliness closely tracks the dual loyalty canard that American Jews have suffered.  If we Jews can be loyal to our nation AND our religion, then there is no reason why Israeli Palestinians cannot do the same.

There are a few provisions of the current Israel that will need to be amended for it to resolve the current contradictions between being a Jewish state and a democracy.  The Law of Return, granting any Jew anywhere in the world the right to instantaneously become a citizen of Israel must be changed so that Jews have a right to emigrate that is regulated as immigration is regulated by other nations.  If Israel wishes to give Jews preferential treatment in offering citizenship it should do so as long as it offers similar preference to the refugees of 1948 and their immediate offspring.

Doing this will allow Israel to embrace the spirit of the Law of Return and the Right of Return, but in amended form.  It would force Israeli Jews and Arabs to recognize some of their rights, while partially constraining them as well for the sake of greater good of the nation.

Anti-Semitism is a historical reality that is part of our Jewish DNA.  But it is not a reason to disenfranchise 1-million Israeli citizens and deny them equal rights.  Besides, Jewish suffering, should it occur again, can be relieved even by a modified Law of Return.  Jews who need an emergency haven should be given it.  But direct descendants of Israeli Palestinian refugees who face similar jeopardy should also receive favored treatment.

Larry, for me it just doesn’t cut it morally or, frankly Jewishly to say that the “inconvenience” suffered by the Israeli minority from Zionism is less than the suffering of Jews from European anti-Semitism.  That’s a zero sum game.  Israel as a country needs to be measured not by how it compares to the experience of European Jewry.  It needs to be compared to how it treats all its citizens and how close it comes to realizing truly democratic values.  It can never truly do that in the system you advocate.

Further, I want to take this discussion in a direction Larry didn’t. As a Diaspora Jew, I have thought long and hard about the proper relation between Israel and Diaspora.  In classical Zionism, Israel is all and Diaspora nothing.  The latter is little more than the source of Jews who will populate and fund the Jewish state.  In the long run, Diaspora will, like the bourgeoisie in Marxist doctrine, wither and die.  This is a notion I reject.  Israel should play a major role in world Jewish identity.  But Diaspora cannot be denied either.  Zionism does this at its peril for I believe that an Israel without Diaspora is doomed, just as a Diaspora without Israel is, if not doomed, then deeply impoverished.  Yes to Zionism (as I’ve reimagined it), but yes to Diasporism as well.

If Israel becomes the kind of state I propose, then it will take its rightful place as an address, but not the address, in the Jewish world.  An Israel in which Jews play an important role, but a primary role, will allow world Jewry to understand that they are full partners in the Jewish experiment, and not an after thought or something to be ridiculed or denied (zilzul ha-Galut).

Sarah Palin’s Latest ‘Blood Libel’ Travesty

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011
mendel beilis blood libel

Mendel Beilis, victim of a real blood libel

How does Sarah Palin demean Jewish suffering?  Let me count the ways.  Today, she comes forth with the absolutely disgusting, outrageous claim that those who accuse her of creating an environment of hate that fed Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting commit a “blood libel” against her:

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” Ms. Palin said in a seven-and-a-half minute video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

I swear, my jaw dropped when I heard that.  Her statement is so noxious, so self-serving, so self-pitying, I simply don’t know where to begin.

First, let’s explain that the term “blood libel” derives from the anti-Semitic charge by Chrisitian Jew-haters that Jews stole Christian children and used their blood (hence that term) to make matza for Passover.  Many Jews were persecuted, even arrested and imprisoned under such claims, most notoriously Mendel Beilis in 1913.  This was one of the first times that Jews worldwide fought back against the charge and campaigned vigorously to defend the victim.  In short, Jews died over the charges of blood libel.  That’s why we take the phrase seriously and refuse to allow a cheap politician like Palin to demean it.

That being said, the subtext of what Palin is charging is that her detractors have fomented hatred and violence against HER (and not the other way around).  When you think about it, this is an absolutely heinous and brilliant manuever to turn the tables on her attackers.  Instead of being the perpetrators, she becomes the victim.  How can you attack someone who claims she’s become the victim or persecution?

Not to mention that Palin has also introduced an element of religious devotion and imagery into the debate as another subtext of this monstrosity is that she’s calling on her followers to rally around her to defend her from this attack.  As a devout radical evangelical, the imagery of Jewish persecution invoked by blood libel would resonate deeply with her given similarly imagery regarding Jesus’s suffering and those of later Christian martyrs.

We must not allow Sarah Palin to appropriate the blood libel or any other Jewish symbolism or suffering to which she is not entitled.  This is simply an outrage.  She cannot do this.  She must pay a price for smearing the memory of Mendel Bailis and all those who suffered for their religious beliefs.  Again, if anyone is guilty of political blood libel here it is Palin and her followers.  They are the ones who use violent political rhetoric.  They are the ones who express their rage all too easily on their enemies.  They are the perpetrators, not the victims.

I am outraged. This is a hillul ha-Shem (“desecration of the Divine Name”).

Abe Foxman issued a tepid slap on the wrist in which he said he “wished” she hadn’t used the term.  C’mon Abe.  Do you only wield the big guns against liberals and Democrats like Ted Turner when they misuse Jewish suffering?

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE