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 ‘neve-gordon’

Rightist Ben Gurion Professor Derails Faculty Candidacy of Peace Activist

Monday, July 5th, 2010

Assaf Oron is a research statistician at the University of Washington.  He is also an Israeli peace and human rights activist who blogs at Daily Kos, the Villages Group, and was an IDF sarban, refusing to serve in the Occupied Territories.  Before he was named to his current academic post, he applied for a tenure track position as a statistician in Ben Gurion University’s department of industrial engineering.  He was told a year ago he was the department’s top candidate.  What he did not reckon was that his candidacy would generate a firestorm of controversy due to the machinations of a far-right member of the department nominations committee.

Prof. Israel david

Prof. Israel David publicized internal departmental deliberations to smear BGU job candidate

Prof. Israel David is an industrial engineer who teaches operations research at BGU.  He was a major in the IDF before he retired after 11 years of service, and lives in an Orthodox suburb of Tel Aviv.  He has worked for the Israeli defense industry and a significant portion of his research is funded by either the IDF or military contractors.  Prof. David’s political screeds are published regularly by  Daniel Pipes-Campus Watch-type groups in Israel called Israel Academia Monitor and Isracampus.  They take upon themselves the weighty responsibility of ridding Israeli campuses of Arab-loving, Israel-hating faculty like Dr. Oron.  David’s views are also congenial to another far-right Israeli gang which targets Israeli academics with progressive political views, Im Tirzu.

Once David caught wind of Oron’s candidacy he went into high gear.  Sitting on the department appointments committee, he lobbied his colleagues hard to deny the former the position.  In meetings, he noted Oron’s political engagements and cited them as grounds for not hiring him.  It rapidly became clear to the department chair, Dr. Gadi Rabinowitz that David was biased against the candidate and would not restrict his consideration to academic-professional criteria alone.

So Rabinowitz disbanded the appointment committee, created a new one and left David out of it.  This infuriated the latter.  He went to the media.  He placed a story in Globes, the Israeli Wall Street Journal, in September 2009 for which he was an anonymous source.  The article called Oron “a second Neve Gordon.”

This was shortly after Prof. Gordon wrote a controversial op-ed in the Los Angeles Times supporting the global BDS movement.  After the latter published his article, the University’s president publicly invited Gordon to quit his position, which he uncooperatively refused to do.   Prof. Rivka Carmi explicitly stated that academic freedom did not give a professor the right to support such an enterprise which posed a danger to the State of Israel.

Undoubtedly, Prof. David was emboldened by Carmi’s attacks on Gordon and saw an opportunity to continue the controversy by opening a second front against Oron.

But that first Globes story did not drum up the brouhaha that the engineering professor expected so he wrote his own story under his own name at the News1 site.  In it, he quoted from confidential internal committee deliberations about Dr. Oron’s record, including his political views.  Here is just a nugget:

The department chair summarized the proceedings by saying that Dr. Oron matched the position’s professional requirements but that he suffers from other “personality problems” [so reads the transcript of the meeting].  The committee asked one of the senior members of the department to take advantage of his summer sabbatical in the U.S. by speaking with Oron and asking whether he’d be willing to restrain his political activism in order to better assimilate into the department.

In most universities (though apparently not BGU), this is among the most sensitive functions that faculty members and a department can perform.  Such transcripts are treated with sensitivity and guarded jealously.  In most universities where I have studied or worked, publishing such material publicly would be grounds for disciplinary action.  Not so Ben Gurion.  Apparently there, faculty can skewer job candidates, smear their reputation, dredge up personal matters and political involvement, and use them as ground for denying someone a job.

In his article David levels a full frontal assault on the notion of confidentiality and claims that the concept violates court rulings.  I have never heard of any such ruling either here in the U.S. or Israel and I’m reasonably certain that no court has ever ruled that enforcing confidentiality in such circumstances is a violation of law.  Further, he argues that non-academic and even political considerations are rightfully within the purview of such committee discussions.   In fact, I believe that David is here daring the University to either discipline him or take legal action against him.  Which of course it would never do.  A University dean confirmed to me that no disciplinary action is contemplated against David.

I also find it astonishing that an academic department would ask a job candidate to restrain his private political statements.  What business is that of anyone either in academia or outside?  Does this department and Ben Gurion as a whole not cringe in embarrassment at the thought that such a discussion occurred during deliberations concerning the hiring of a faculty member?

The University’s response to David’s onslaught against Dr. Oron was to claim that it “does not compromise the privacy of candidates.”  Which of course ignores the fact that a duly appointed member of a University committee did just that.  At no time during any of this madness did the University or department make any attempt to reach out to Oron, explain to him what was happening, or seek to mollify his concerns about the attack on his reputation.  It never defended him personally or encouraged him in any way.

In addition, David accused the University of Washington lecturer of “disseminating hate against Israel” and comparing the IDF and its officers with Nazis.  In truth, it was IDF officers themselves who made the comparison in a 2002 Haaretz article in anticipation of Operation Defensive Shield.  They admonished the army to learn from all previous military sieges in history including, specifically the Nazi assault on the Warsaw ghetto.  Oron merely called attention to this fact in his essay.  Here is the salient passage from the Haaretz article:

…One of the Israeli officers in the territories said… it’s justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander’s obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles – even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin.

Frankly, I’ve been writing on this subject for a very long time and this article was new to me until I read the essay in which Oron quoted the article.  The idea that the army of the State of Israel should learn lessons from one of the most desperate and vicious assaults against Polish Jewry during the Holocaust era is not simply tin-earned or offensive, it is really a hillul ha-Shem, a desecration of God’s name.  Does the IDF really want to be compared to Hitler’s killing machine at the height of its vicious assault against the brave Jews of the Warsaw ghetto?

Returning to David’s accusations in his column, much like abortion and other socially conservative ideas have been exploited as wedge issues against Democrats, Israeli rightists manipulate the Holocaust as a wedge issue in an Israeli political context.  Like abortion for American conservatives, the Holocaust elicits a visceral response from Israelis.  Whenever you can tar your opponent with terms like those David exploits, you’re almost guaranteed to put him on the defensive.

Finally in his article, David excoriates Oron for supporting the military refuser movement and notes longingly that there are countries in the world (North Korea and Iran undoubtedly) where refusal to serve is punishable by death.

Then Prof. David upped the ante, suing Rabinowitz for libel for 100,000 shekels and claiming that in removing him from the appointment committee the chair had slandered his good name.  The rightist professor retained as counsel a leading far-right attorney who is also representing Im Tirzu in its libel lawsuit against an Israeli activist who created a Facebook group calling the group “fascist.”  David’s brief, all the while claiming his own reputation was damaged, slanders Oron savagely.

As part of his legal campaign, yesterday Haaretz published an op-ed by David which called BGU “Bir Gurion University,” as if the campus’ left-wing faculty wished to turn it into an Arab university.  The article was briefly available on the website’s main page, but now it’s been relegated to an inaccessible back page.  A slightly different version has also been published by Yediot Achronot.  Among the other smears David offers in Haaretz is to call a campus protest against the Gaza flotilla attack a “Nazi march.”  Finally, he accused, again without proof, the campus peace activists of calling a faculty member’s son who died a “hero’s death” in Operation Cast Lead, a “Nazi criminal.”  Even more shockingly, he calls the entire affair of Oron’s job candidacy and his own elimination from the appointment committee a “Nazi circus.”

In the year since he heard that he was the department’s top candidate, no one from the University had any contact with Oron, and certainly no one breathed a word of apology to him.  In April, no doubt goaded by Prof. David, the student body president quoted the school’s president as saying that his candidacy was dead.  Last week, on an Israeli Social Sciences listeserv, David waved this as evidence of the president’s support for his campaign.

After a year of absorbing these body blows to his reputation and not responding, Oron finally confronted his BGU nemesis on the listserv last week.  He simultaneously wrote Pres. Rivka Carmi expressing concern with the smearing of his reputation and her supposed connivance with David to undermine him.  Prof Rivka Carmi replied that she couldn’t possibly interfere with any candidate’s consideration by a department even if she wanted to do so.  She also added the rather mysterious statement that Oron’s candidacy was “no longer relevant.”

Curiously Dr. Rabinowitz, the department chair, wrote to Oron yesterday claiming that when Pres. Carmi inquired about the status of Oron’s candidacy Rabinowitz told her that he was still very much an active candidate.  The chair blames Oron’s supposed lack of communication with the department for his not getting the job, without realizing that after a candidate has been smeared it might be the responsibility of the department to contact him rather than the other way around.  I’d say the truth is that after David went on the warpath neither the University nor the department wanted to hire him and they can find many reasons in retrospect to blame the victim for not getting the job.

What is also troubling is that after all of this madness, the chair expresses disappointment that Dr. Oron addressed David’s charges against him in the Social Sciences listserv where the latter had attacked him.  It appears he would’ve preferred Oron to have remained silent and waited patiently for the school’s rejection letter.

A few days ago, Prof. David wrote triumphantly to Oron that the department had hired someone else for the job.  Which means that David has won, that academic bullying has won; that anyone at Ben Gurion who has a political vendetta against a young aspiring academic can vent their rage and frustration in the most public of settings.  They can sling mud at them, potentially harm their careers and no price will be paid.

In fact, after the University of Washington statistician defended himself on the Israeli listserv, an Israeli graduate student wrote to him that he had been denied a graduate fellowship by a Diaspora academic fund because his name appeared on the Israel Academia Monitor site.  Though I do not know for certain which group participated in the witch hunt, one of the best funded such academic programs is the American-Israeli Cooperative Exchange, whose director is former Aipac flack, Mitchell Bard.  Given Bard’s pro-Israel advocacy and ideological partisanship it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he used Isracampus, Israel Academia Monitor or NGO Monitor as arbiters of who should be denied funding for academic research.

Returning to Dr. Oron, luckily he has a good position at the University of Washington.  Despite Prof. Israel David’s best efforts, one hopes he will fail in harming Oron’s career.  But imagine the next young scholar applying for a job at BGU who has ‘questionable’ affiliations in his or her background.  If such a person has several job interviews with Israeli academic institutions, why would they want to include BGU given the treatment afforded Oron?

Ben Gurion’s president honors academic freedom in the breach when it doesn’t cost her anything.  When the chips are down, she folds like a house of cards.  For example, when BGU Prof. David Newman was attacked by a British trustee of the University, who suggested he’d be happy if Newman died because the faculty member had aired views critical of Israeli policy in a TV documentary, Carmi remained mum.  140 of Newman’s colleagues demanded that she make a statement in support of Newman.  In the face of alienating a wealthy donor, she shut up.  Perhaps as a direct result of her pusillanimousness, Newman was recently named dean of the faculty of humanities and social sciences in a vote by his peers.

Instead of leadership and conviction, Pres. Carmi tests the political winds to see which way they are blowing and follows suit.  Currently in Israel there is a savage campaign against human rights and peace NGOs.  The legal political activism of activists is under assault as never before.  Astute individuals like David and Carmi understand this.  The first exploits it and the second acquiesces to it.  Neither response does either Israeli academia or Ben Gurion proud.

On a related note, yesterday the founder of Im Tirzu published a Haaretz column, The Fight for Academic Freedom, in which he contended, much like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes in the U.S. context, that anti-Zionists have taken over Israeli campuses and that soon political correctness will prevent anyone not sharing such views from speaking their minds.  Assaf Oron’s case proves the absolute falseness of this claim.  If anything, it is the Im Tirzus and Israel Davids who are in the ascendancy on Israeli campuses, not the other way around.

Finally, what is one of the most obvious and elementary violations of both the candidate’s privacy rights  and academic due process is that the job he was applying for had absolutely no political component.  He was applying to be a statistician, not a political science or sociology professor.  As such, his personal political involvement had nothing to do with the job and should’ve been ruled treif as grounds for review or consideration.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ben Gurion University President Defends Neve Gordon After Death Threat

Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010
neve gordon death threat

Neve Gordon death threat: 'Gordon: You are a traitor. I will reach Ben Gurion to kill you. Signed--Im Tirtzu'

In a moment of supreme irony, Ben Gurion University President Rivka Carmi, who only a few months ago was facing a revolt among donors and Israelis aghast at Prof. Neve Gordon‘s support of the global BDS movement, has now released a strong statement of support for him in the face of a death threat.  She did the right thing compared to the cowardly response she had to Gordon’s articles on BDS.  Then she advanced the specious argument that Gordon himself had somehow crossed a red line of permissible speech in advocating a political position that harmed the state.

Here are major excerpts from her statement:

…The death threat Professor Gordon received is a crossing of a red line for one and all [here at Ben Gurion] without regard to any difference [we may have] of religion, political affiliation, ethnic origin.

The political debate in Israel is hard, polarizing, and even extreme.  We walk a very thin line between our democratic obligations and values such as freedom of speech, and our obligations to the security, strength and future of our nation.

The dispute is piercing and painful and each person is convinced that truth is on his side.  We have already seen that we are not suited for balanced discussion–not even in academia.

But no matter how much we oppose and disdain the view of another–the shedding of blood is a crime plain and simple.  Something terrible has befallen us and it is imperative that we be on guard.

Ben Gurion University will not tolerate the fomenting of hatred of any kind, whether physical or verbal violence, and will act vigorously to eradicate it.

Another irony is that Prof. David Newman, a colleague of Gordon’s  and a newly named Ben Gurion dean, found that a British trustee of the University wished for Newman’s demise because of a disagreement with the latter’s liberal politics.  I wonder if Pres. Carmi let this trustee know in no uncertain terms that his speech crossed a line?  Perhaps a trustee can get away with breaking the rules more readily than an unknown person who mails a death threat.

One hopes of course that this incident would sensitize the president to the necessity of protecting her faculty’s right to free expression.  Though she does not say it explicitly, the passage in italics seems to imply that if only Gordon hadn’t violated his end of the bargain he wouldn’t find himself under threat.  Personally, I don’t buy the distinction she attempts to make.  I do not believe it is the obligation of an academic to pull punches during a policy debate because one’s views might endanger the state.  This is total narischkeit.  And certainly in the case of Gordon.  Advocating BDS in no way endangers Israel.  What it does threaten is a conception of Israel as a state with superior rights for Jews and inferior rights for non-Jewish citizens.  And it threatens a state based on Occupation, which is a state many citizens–Jewish and Palestinian–don’t want either.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sabeel Seattle Conference: Media Panel on Covering Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Saturday, February 13th, 2010

Friends of Sabeel will host a conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here in Seattle February 19-20th at St. Mark’s Cathedral.  Among the speakers will be Neve Gordon, professor at Ben Gurion University, whose Los Angeles Times op ed supporting the BDS movement was hailed and derided around the world, leading to denunciation by his own university president and an attempt to sack him.

I’ve organized the following media panel on Saturday, February 20th at 3:15 PM:

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the Media

Richard Silverstein, author of Tikun Olam, Israeli-Palestinian peace blog
Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times editorial writer
Larry Johnson former foreign editor, Seattle Post Intelligencer and author, Looking for Trouble, foreign affairs blog

The panel will examine the nature and quality of reporting on the conflict in both the U.S.:

  1. Getting more & better coverage into the media
  2. Making coverage more accessible to the average American
  3. the collapse of print media: how does it alter the landscape for coverage
  4. Where do people get their coverage of the conflict?
  5. Critique of media coverage of I-P conflict: why is so much, so bad?
  6. Political issues that should be covered and aren’t?
  7. Improving communications between Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. media and peace activists
  8. Role of digital media, social networking in expanding access to news about the conflict

If you live in or near Seattle, I hope you can make it.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

IDC Herzliya President Reichman Accuses Gordon of Supporting ‘Military Force’ Against Israel

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009
Prof. Uriel Reichman educator, politician, paranoiac

Prof. Uriel Reichman educator, politician, raving paranoiac

The nutcases at Israel Academic Monitor are disseminating a hysterical rant by Uriel Reichman, president of the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, Israel’s largest private university.  It accuses the BDS movement of being a slippery slope that will lead to international military attack against Israel.  Now, you might wonder who this fellow is and whether this means anything.  Unfortunately it does.  Reichman is a leading Israeli secularist who supports the writing of an Israeli constitution.  He was a founder of the Shinui party, served in the Knesset, and eventually left politics in a snit when he was not named minister of education.

One of the reasons he has gone apoplectic is that his school depends for many of its students on the Diaspora (you can see their ads in Haaretz regularly).  If BDS is successful, IDC will be severely damaged financially.  Here are some of his ravings:

The plan to terminate the Jewish state is no longer based on winning one major all-out war. The planned strategy is based on two long-term operations. One is continuous, low intensity, violent campaign. Such terror acts directed at civilians are aimed to break the citizens’ will-power and to cause internal debates and chaos.

The other part of the strategy is taking place abroad. Activities aimed at spreading hatred against Israel and arguing that the Jewish state has no right to exist are taking place daily. Such as, for example, the claims that Israel is an apartheid state, a colonial state, a racist entity, a society that faked its history to claim rights to a land that does not belong to it, and so on. By doing so, public opinion is built [sic] to demand boycotts against Israel, to start criminal proceedings against I.D.F. commanders, to move governments and several nations to impose sanctions on Israel and finally, perhaps, to call international military activity against us.

Paranoia strikes deep, into this Israeli’s heart is will creep.  It starts when you’re always afraid.  Enough Buffalo Springfield.  The fact that this otherwise distinguished university educator has practically taken leave of his senses over BDS is quite interesting.

But the real whopper comes in this passage when Reichman actually accuses Prof. Neve Gordon of supporting not only BDS, as he did in his L.A. Times op-ed, but “military action” against Israel.  Do I even need to tell you how insane this comment is?

The most extreme allegations against Israel are often made by a small anti-Zionist group of Israeli university professors. Their ideas are widely circulated and are especially effective because they are made by Israelis. Recently, in an article published in the Los Angeles Times, an Israeli professor called his audience to boycott Israel on all levels, to “save that apartheid state from itself”…The professor who wrote the L.A. article would probably support the use of international military forces, in case the sanctions fail…

Daniel Levy has begun calling such attacks part of the pro-Israel smear industry.  He is indeed correct and I’m sorry to say that Prof. Reichman has joined the fold.  Not an ounce of truth in this statement.  Pure utter garbage.  And to think this fellow is actually the president of an Israeli institution of higher learning.  It simply boggles the mind.  He and Alan Dershowitz were made for each other.

To hear more on the BDS movement, watch this panel including Neve Gordon.  Go to about 3:00 into the video for the beginning of the story.

Jewish Forward on Goldstone Gaza Report, BDS

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

The Forward publishes several magnificent articles in its current issue. The first is an important interview with Richard Goldstone, who directed the UN Human Rights Council report on the Gaza war, which recommended that war crimes charges against both Israel and Hamas be referred to the International Criminal Court. The story is a perfect antidote to the poison being spread about both Goldstone and the report by the Israeli foreign ministry and right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere. In it, the South African jurist talks about his deep personal and family commitment to Israel.

The article fairly notes that while Goldstone took on a mandate to investigate the crimes of both sides in the Gaza war, it remains to be seen how a UN Council, known in the past for pro-Palestinian partisanship will deal with his report. One hopes that the Council will refer the entire report to the Security Council for deliberation. Anything less may harm the credibility of the document.

Gal Beckerman also wrote a masterful account of the growing impact of the BDS movement on the debate around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is an article that was crying out to be written given the increasing level of success of this human rights effort.  It’s critically important it was publised in a Jewish media source like The Forward.

The reporter nicely summarizes the recent string of BDS victories and also notes the concerns even some progressives have about the amorphousness of the political agenda of the international effort:

The BDS movement is highly decentralized, with each group in the coalition allowed to choose its own targets as it sees fit. It has no articulated political vision. such as a one- or two-state solution to the conflict. The principles that guide the movement — as set out in a call for boycott, divestment and sanctions issued in June 2005 by a wide group of Palestinian civil society organizations — demand instead that Israel adhere to international and human rights law. The amorphous structure and broad goals appear to be responsible for many of the group’s appeal.

In a debate here with Alex Stein, who claimed BDS was anti-Zionist, I noted the studied unwillingness of the group’s mission statement to take a firm position on the issue.  I think this is one of the strengths of Jewish Voice for Peace as well.  The refusal to lay out a political solution to the overall conflict doesn’t mean, as enemies would claim, that these groups are obfuscating their more radical principles.  Rather, it means they are trying to bring as many activists together around basic core principles.

Omar Barghouti, leader of BDS movement

Omar Barghouti, leader of BDS movement

Here, Omar Barghouti, one of the Palestinian leaders of BDS, expands upon the strategy:

…The BDS movement “does not adopt a particular political solution to the colonial conflict.” The main strategy, he wrote, “is based on the principle that human rights and international law must be upheld and respected no matter what the political solution may be. This was key to securing a near consensus in Palestinian civil society and a wide network of support around the world, including the Western mainstream.”

The exclusive focus on rights rather than on a political prescription for the conflict brings together both those who want to target Israel’s existence as a whole and those—mostly American activists—who stick to the more narrow issue of the occupation and settlement activity.

As far as Barghouti is concerned, BDS is a “comprehensive boycott of Israel, including all its products, academic and cultural institutions, etc.” But he understands “the tactical needs of our partners to carry out a selective boycott of settlement products, say, or military suppliers of the Israeli occupation army as the easiest way to rally support around as a black-and-white violation of international law and basic human rights.”

I was slightly concerned about the middle paragraph since it seems to imply there are those in the movement who wish, to use that tired pro-Israel locution, to “destroy Israel.”  But I’m very leery, on such sensitive subjects, to trust a reporter who paraphrases the views of a subject.  I’d prefer to see this in Barghouti’s own words before I’d trust that Beckerman got it right.

Barghouti, by the way, is a grad student at Tel Aviv University.  He recently wrote his Masters thesis on BDS and there was a huge uproar on campus.  To his credit, the University president refused to cave in to pressure and ensured that Barghouti was not ejected from his program.  Unfortunately, Neve Gordon did not receive the same support from his University’s president when he published his piece endorsing BDS.

J Street Gets It Dead Wrong on Toronto Film Festival

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

tiff tel aviv city to cityI’ve been an admirer of J Street with a few exceptions since it began, and written often about its work here. But an Israeli friend has sent me a message of protest sent to J Street by a fellow Israeli peace activist. He was criticizing the Jewish peace group’s attack on Israeli filmmaker Udi Aloni and others, who asked fellow Israeli filmmakers to withdraw their films from the Toronto Film Festival because the Israeli government turned Tel Aviv’s 100th anniversary celebration into the centerpiece of this year’s artistic event. Thus the Film Festival was transformed into a venue for pro-Israel hasbara.

To give some background, after Israeli and international artists like Udi Aloni, Jane Fonda, Ken Loach, John Greyson, Danny Glover, Eve Ensler, Harry Belafonte, Julie Christie, Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Klein, John Pilger, Wallace Shawn, Alice Walker, and David Byrne discovered that the Film Festival was collaborating with the Israeli government, they criticized the Festival (read the Toronto Declaration) and urged other Israeli artists to withdraw.

To make several points clear, this was not an attempt to boycott the Festival as a whole, as it is being erroneously characterized by the pro-Israel smear industry (to use Daniel Levy’s useful term).  It is not an attempt to boycott the Israeli film industry.  It is an attempt to point out that world film festivals should not accept funding from the government of Israel to distract world opinion from its ugly Occupation and thus promote its political agenda.  This is precisely the type of targeted protest by selective artists of a specific event which I feel is warranted in pointing out the harmful ways in which Israel exploits cultural ties for political gain.

Given the above, I was stunned to read J Street’s celebratory message of support for the Festival and its vicious attack on the Israeli and other artists who protested the government’s involvement in the event:

J Street applauds the Toronto International Film Festival for choosing Tel Aviv for its inaugural City-to-City spotlight.

Israel’s growing and internationally recognized film industry, centered in Tel Aviv, is rightly a source of pride for many Israelis and Americans. Through their art, Israeli filmmakers are presenting the world with a rich picture of Israel’s complex and layered society that goes deeper than simplistic headlines.

We find protests and criticism of the Toronto International Film Festival’s decision to showcase Tel Aviv’s film industry shameful and shortsighted…

Some critics say their objection is to the Israeli government’s role in promoting the films and not the films themselves. Israel, like many other European governments, supports its film industry financially

The cause of peace will not be served by demonizing Israeli film and filmmakers as being part of the “Israeli propaganda campaign.”

We were also dismayed by the Toronto International Film Festival’s co-director’s statement that Tel Aviv is “contested ground.”

We urge those protesting Tel Aviv’s selection to reconsider their actions. We also call upon the Toronto International Film Festival to hold strong with their selection and not be drawn into a political fight.

There are two dynamics at work here. J Street is beginning to come into its own as a formidable political force in the American Jewish community. It’s first national conference will take place at the end of October and it’s being viewed as a “coming out party” for the American Jewish peace movement.  As such, it is under intense scrutiny from said smear industry and its least stumble will be examined and placed under the magnifying glass. That is why J Street has taken centrist positions of late that bring it into conflict with more progressive elements of the American Jewish community. While I am sensitive to the predicament in which J Street finds itself, I remind them that when you constantly compromise your values in order to prove your centrist bona fides to the Jewish doubters, you may not convince them and you may alienate those who’ve been with you from the beginning.

The second dynamic is that opposition to Israeli Occupation and policy since the Lebanon and Gaza wars has intensified and in a sense radicalized. Before readers start trembling in their boots, by “radicalized” I don’t mean that the peace movement has become anti-Israel or adopted positions that endorse hatred against Israel. I mean that as Israel has shifted the ground out from under us through its brutish militarism, we have been forced to examine new ideas we might hitherto not have considered as seriously as we do now.

The Global BDS movement is a case in point.  Neve Gordon’s endorsement of BDS in the L.A. Times marked the kind of sea change in the anti-Occupation movement that the Walt-Mearsheimer book did in popularizing the term, the Israeli lobby.  Along with Naomi Klein’s embrace, it forced many of us to re-consider whether this was a legitimate form of resistance to Israeli Occupation.

Also, many of us have become more sensitized to the contradiction between Israel’s joy at its independence and Palestine’s sorrow at the accompanying Nakba.  J Street’s indignation at the notion that Tel Aviv is “contested ground” is part of a refusal by Israel’s liberal supporters to acknowledge the phenomenon.  They are slow to realize that there are two legitimate narratives here and that you cannot affirm one while at the same time denying the other.  That is precisely what J Street has tried to do.

In that sense, J Street is fighting a rear guard action in defense of the indefensible.  The Israeli government must be confronted wherever in the world it attempts to advance its political agenda.  And yes, J Street, Israeli funding of a film festival IS a political act.  Israel, in the aftermath of its brutish campaigns against Lebanon and Gaza, wants nothing more than to let the world know that it is a nice, normal nation like Canada, for example.  To refuse to understand that the government’s funding of the Canadian arts event is a form of hasbara means J Street is burying its head in the sand.  And I say this not as an opponent of the group, but as a supporter who is saddened by an instance in which it has gone off the rails.  As the peace train leaves the station, the Jewish peace group runs the risk of being left behind if it refuses to recognize new realities as they develop.

An Israeli peace activist wrote this letter to J Street criticizing its statement of support:

It is legitimate to oppose cultural boycotts, but your failure to address the human tights violations associated with the history of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (mainly the ethnic cleansing of its non Jewish inhabitants, and the ongoing discrimination against the small minority who has managed to remain in the city) does not grant credibility to your initiative.

There is no need for using harsh words such as “shameful” to describe the supporters of the petition against the Tel-Aviv events at the Toronto Film Festival.  This amounts to a smear campaign.

It would have been far better for J Street to have remained silent on this issue than to have made an ill-considered public statement that does neither the Israeli artists who boycotted nor the anti-Occupation movement as a whole, justice.

MESA Rallies to Gordon’s Defense

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

The Middle East Studies Association (MESA), the most distinguished professional group representing faculty who teach in the field of Middle East Studies, has written to Ben Gurion University president Rivka Carmi to protest against her attacks on Prof. Neve Gordon (pdf) for publishing an L.A. Times op-ed endorsing the Global BDS movement.  If you’ve been following this blog, the latest development is an orchestrated campaign to drive Gordon from his chairmanship of the political science department.

MESA Pres. Virginia Aksan wrote to Pres. Carmi:

On behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF) of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) I write to express our grave concern over your recent comments approving Ben-Gurion University’s search for legal means to dismiss Senior Lecturer and Chair of the Government and Politics Department, Neve Gordon…The threat of dismissal against a tenured faculty member because of opinions he expresses on a subject of regular debate in his country flies in the face of academic freedom, a freedom that Ben-Gurion University has committed itself to uphold. We therefore urge you to publicly rescind this threat and to fulfill your primary duty as university president to affirm and protect the rights of all members of the university community to express their opinions without fear of censure or punishment.

In truth, Carmi hasn’t directly threatened Gordon with dismissal since Israeli law forbids it (he has tenure).  But she has clearly stated that she WOULD dismiss him if she could and the University rector expressed a wish that he “draw the proper conclusion” (an Israeli euphemism for resignation which I’ve begun to detest) and resign his chairmanship.  Earlier, Carmi had suggested that Gordon was “free” to leave the University and Israel itself if he didn’t like it there.

What the University CAN do (and IS doing) is pressure Gordon’s department to unseat him as chair.  But even this is difficult since Gordon wisely told his department in advance of his planned op-ed and offered to resign his position if the department members requested it.  They unanimously voted to retain him. So for the University or department now to backtrack would look especially spineless.

Not that they won’t try.  In fact, one of Gordon’s department colleagues who voted to refuse his resignation has now miraculously discovered a reason why the chairman should resign:

Lazin wrote a letter to the other members of his department saying that Gordon’s op-ed refers readers to a Web site that calls for a boycott of all Israeli academic institutions.”Thus Neve is actively supporting a boycott of our university, our department, our faculty and our students,” Lazin wrote. “In my view, Neve’s support of the academic boycott … undercuts his legitimacy to continue as chair of the department.”

MESA takes issue with Carmi’s contention that Gordon has violated the principles of academic freedom:

…It is precisely in moments of political crisis that the principles of academic freedom are tested.

Further the group admonishes BGU’s presdient for her role in escalating the incendiary rhetoric against her faculty member:

In your public statements since August 22, you have added to the popular campaign of vilification mounted against Professor Gordon in the media by repeating, without contesting, the extremely damaging charge that his article amounts to treason against the state. Similarly, your reference to his views as “destructive” and an “abuse of the freedom of speech prevailing in Israel and at Ben-Gurion University,” and your suggestion that academics with such views should “consider another professional and personal home” cast an alarming chill on the free exchange of ideas that is foundational to the academic enterprise and to democratic governance…

Even more importantly, MESA’s president notes that the attacks on Gordon violate even BGU’s academic principles:

Article 2 of BGU’s own Academic Code affirms that the university “will not discriminate in its activities against any person for reasons of race, religion, nationality, gender, or political views [and] will act to protect academic freedom.” Article 4c of your university’s Code of Ethics further clarifies “in addition to their academic freedoms, researchers of the university enjoy all civic freedoms enjoyed by every citizen of the state, including freedoms of expression and organization… Researchers are authorized to express their political or religious opinions without incitement and are authorized to act to implement them using legal means.”

…We hope you will realize the importance of doing everything in your power to end the intimidation against Dr. Gordon by reaffirming his academic right to free expression as guaranteed by the by-laws of your university.

Interestingly, a few months ago a tempest was stirred by an Palestinian Arab graduate student at Tel Aviv University who wrote a paper about Global BDS.  Unlike Ben Gurion, Tel Aviv’s president, while opposing the student’s views, strongly supported his right to express them.  The statement of TAU’s president is worth quoting:

Pluralism is a central tenet of Tel Aviv University, a doctrine forming the basis of its very existence and its societal role.  Hence, the diversity of racial and ethnic or cultural groups is accepted, and it is on academic criteria, not on political viewpoint, that a student’s standing is determined.

This is how it ought to be done, Pres. Carmi.

The Pope Crushed Galileo, Now Ben Gurion Seeks to Crush Gordon

Saturday, August 29th, 2009
Why does Rivka Carmi call this man a traitor? (National Catholic Reporter)

Neve Gordon and family: Why does Rivka Carmi call this man a "traitor?" (National Catholic Reporter)

Ben Gurion University has intensified the witch hunt against Prof. Neve Gordon, who published an op-ed column in The Guardian and L.A. Times endorsing the Global BDS movement’s program against the Israeli Occupation.  The column provoked a firestorm of controversy here in the U.S. and in Israel.  The worst vitriol has come from the University’s president herself, Rivka Carmi.  She has approvingly noted that many are calling Gordon a “traitor.”  She has called for him to resign and leave Israel (Gordon is a decorated paratroop officer who was severely wounded during the first Lebanon war).  She has alleged that Gordon seeks to destroy Israel.  She has also called her University a “Zionist institution” that cannot have any truck with nation-threatening notions such as BDS.

But now, things have gotten worse.  The school cannot fire Gordon because he has tenure.  But they can exert enormous pressure on the department to can him as chairman.  That’s what’s happening now. The University rector met with faculty supporting Gordon and told them:

…Gordon is not able to properly promote his department’s international programs while addressing the same people regarding a boycott, and the contradiction on this point poses a conflict of interests.

Since when is it a conflict of interest for a political scientist to publish an article on a major issue within his discipline?  When the distaste of donors conflicts with the pursuit of knowledge, must the latter lose at BGU?  If so, what kind of University is this?

In addition, the American support group for Ben Gurion has introduced particularly hateful rhetoric into the controversy.  In Jewish Week, the American affiliate’s PR flack weighed in:

Gordon has been a “thorn in our side for many years” and that there has been a campaign by a number of people in the U.S. to have him fired from the university.  Strongin said Gordon’s op-ed has reactivated the group…

She further calls Gordon’s column the “reprehensible remarks of one rogue faculty member.”  When a faculty member called Strongin’s comments against Gordon “irresponsible” she had the temerity to reply:

How dare you call me irresponsible…My comments only reflect that of BGU’s administration, so don’t you dare stand on your high horse and accuse me of wrong doing.

In further communication, Doron Krakow, executive vice president of American Associates of Ben Gurion University (Strongin’s boss) lays down the law and fires up the big rhetorical guns against Gordon:

Gordon’s editorial is merely the latest example of his exploiting his position with the University to call attention to himself through the use of extreme, anti-Zionist and anti-Israel rhetoric not inconsistent with that which we hear from Israel’s worst enemies.  Though this is hardly news, you and your colleagues nonetheless saw fit to elect him as department chair.

Personally, I find it extraordinarily offensive that the non-academic American affiliate of an Israeli university would lecture a faculty member about the mistake of appointing another faculty member as department chair.  Since when did anyone arrogate to Doron Krakow the right to lobby for or against candidates for academic positions?  Is Ben Gurion to appoint its leaders solely on the basis of which donors they will or won’t offend?  Will it vet candidates for academic positions based on the controversial nature of their writings or publications?  Where does this end?

Furthermore, since when does someone who is essentially a fundraiser get to make politically freighted judgments on faculty members comparing their views to those of “Israel’s worst enemies?”

The truth is that the academic discourse at Ben Gurion is among the most diverse among all Israeli universities.  Debate about the Occupation among various disciplines on campus is vigorous and challenging.  That is why a smart president would tell the world that this is a mark of what universities do best and would praise such diversity.  Donors may not like certain points of view, but they can be made to understand that to be a great institution all ideas from the popular to the unpopular must be debated and studied.

If someone doesn’t calm Rivka Carmi and her associates down, her University will end up the laughingstock of Israeli institutions.  Their thinking represent the tyranny of small minds.  If they win, BGU will proudly bear the banner of a “Zionist” educational institution which wears its ideology on its sleeve; and where inquiry, academic freedom, and the pursuit of knowledge take a back seat to Zionist political correctness.  The only faculty who will want to teach there and the only students who will want to study there are settlers and supporters of the Likud and Israel’s nationalist parties.  What kind of University will that be?

If there are academics reading this I would like to start a campaign on Gordon’s behalf that might involve a letter published in the N.Y. Review of Books and any other activity that might enlist support here in the U.S. and in Israel.  Carmi and the American branch of Ben Gurion are clearly bullies who care nothing about concepts like academic freedom.  But if they know there are other distinguished academic figures who are watching what they are doing they will back down.  But Gordon needs our help now.

And for anyone who doubts Neve Gordon’s commitment to his country (which he proved by the severe injury he suffered at Rosh Ha-Nikra in the first Lebanon war), please read Why I Live in Israel.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE