66 thoughts on “Technion Professor Responds to Islamophobia Charges, Claims It Was All Joke – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. “I sent a query to the president and dean of the Technion asking if they were aware of the public nature of his objectionable views and the impact they might have on both the reputation of the institution and the feelings of Israeli Palestinian students there.”

    Richard.
    How are you any different than the people who complained to universities about Steven Salaita and Norman Finkelstein?

    1. “How are you any different than the people who complained to universities about Steven Salaita and Norman Finkelstein?”
      Funny, I was thinking about the Steven Salaita-case too, but not in the same way as you.
      Richard is different from those people because there is a difference between defending the occupied, the colonized, the exiled, the expelled (and in Salaita’s case: tweeting during the Israeli agression on Gaza) and supporting the colonizers, the occupiers, and the continuing ethnic cleansing.
      It’s like saying: denouncing a child-abuser and someone who hid Jews during the Vichy-regime in France to the police is the same thing ….

      1. The mere fact that this guy erased the offending comments is damning enough. He has misplaced his anxiety here by blaming RS for responding as he wished to these remarks. He is himself to blame, this seems obvious from the tone and defensiveness of his subsequent comments. I think Technion needs to know that he deleted this comments and draw some conclusions about his character. Is he a good man, a good teacher and a good Israeli or is he morally reprehensible and perhaps a bad representative for the school? The officials did not respond to RS, which says plenty right there.

    2. Because Norman Finkelstein doesn’t support ethnic cleansing. And Salaita has never expressed anti-Semitism, while Merhav is Islamophobic & favors ethnic cleansing. ALso, I’ve not called for Merhav’s firing as detractors of Salaita and Finkelstein did. IN fact, they succeeded in both cases. Merhav can say whatever he likes. In fact, if he stuck to his teaching & didn’t delve into his racist rants, that’d be just fine. I believe everyone at Technion should know the racist in their midst.

  2. Richard,
    The proper official to report Merhav’s racist “jokes” to is the President or Chair of the Trustees of Cornell University. Maybe they wii treat his remarks with the seriousness they deserve.
    Contrast Technicon’s handling of Merhav’s incitement to genocide with the treatment by Yale of Bruce Shipman’s comparatively innocuous observation that perhaps Israel’s bombardment of the unarmed, occupied population of Gaza might be a cause of increased anti-semitism in Europe.
    I always say “Go right to the Top”.

    1. I agree. RS should copy the Cornell administration as well. (I assume RS has a screen copy of the offending remarks.)

  3. VITA has a point, almost. However, Finkelstein and Salaita were expressing human-rights-consistent things which were opposed by people with political axes to grind. Here, RS opposes this technion prof precisely because his views are anti-himan rights. OTOH, in each case, profs are being pillaried for what they say outside the classroom.

    Is Technion racist? This particular “one swallow” does not make a summer, perhaps, (that is, this prof’s apparent racism does not make Technion racist), but I recommend that the BDS folks consider whether academic boycotts of Israeli universities should extend to boycotts of other (including American) universities which make close ties with Israeli universities, especially with Technion — because it has war-research-for-Israel written all over it.

    It would be complicated for American academics to boycott Cornell, but surely something should be done about that opprobrious partnership.

    1. AURDIP (the French Association of Academics for the Respect of International Law in Palestine) – whose vice-president is professor of sociology Sonia Herzbrun-Dayan, a friend of late Edward Said – has been very active in protesting the partnership between Ecole Polytechnique and Technion. More than 600 mostly French academics have signed their petition to stop the partnership. A professor at Technion endorsing further ethnic cleansing of Palestinian citizens in Israel is good publicity for the petition.
      http://www.aurdip.fr/academics-say-no-to-the.html

    2. While three Jewish ‘settler’ youth were still missing, Professor Salaita tweeted, “I wish all the fucking West Bank settlers would go missing.” This, to my ear, sounds a lot worse than what this Technion professor said.

      1. @ Vita: This is off-topic. Do not go off topic again or your comment will be deleted.

        Salaita made that comment about settlers going missing after a 16 yr old Palestinian boy was burned alive, 10,000 IDF soldiers invaded the W Bank, 7 Palestinians were killed by the IDF & thousands of homes were ransacked.

        If you think Salaita is more of a racist than Merhav it only proves how much of one you are.

        1. Additionally, Vita, the comment made by Professor Salaita was not an attack on a racial group but on a group of people that is actively involved in the violation of international law by choosing to reside in an illegal settlement. To express a desire that illegal settlers were not there is not in league with Mr. Merhav’s statement recommending the removal of people who have broken no law based solely on their race or religion. Can you discern the difference?

    3. Here’s a Finkelstein quote, from the prologue of one of his books:

      “I have no more compunction as a Jew about Israeli soldiers (and settlers) suffering setbacks in the Occupied Territories than I have as an American about G.I.s suffering setbacks in Iraq. I celebrate every victory over foreign occupiers. Just as I rejoice in the blows partisans inflicted on the Nazi occupiers in Europe, so I rejoice in the blows Hezbollah inflicted on the Israeli occupiers in Lebanon, Palestinians inflict on the Israeli occupiers, and Iraqis inflict on the American occupiers.”

      –http://web.archive.org/web/20070315095243/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=8

      Insensitive and simplistic quotes like this one were used against Finkelstein by his detractors during his tenure battle at DePaul University.
      I still don’t see the difference between what Richard has done to this Technion professor and what Salaita’s opponents did.

      1. “I still don’t see (….)”
        Because you’re blind ! The rest of us see that while Finkelstein and Salaita are talking about settlers and occupiers, Merhav is talking about indigenous Palestinians that he wants to leave their land.
        Maybe you should go see an ophthalmologist.

        1. @Deir

          I remember Lebanese Shi’a rejoicing when Israel invaded South Lebanon and liberated the Shi’a from their (non-indigenous) Palestinian overlords. I remember Iraqi Shi’a rejoicing when American ‘occupiers’ invaded Iraq and liberated the Shi’a from their indigenous Sunni overlords.

          This simplistic ‘occupier=bad’, ‘indigenous=good’ formula doesn’t do it for me, though I concede, it serves you well.

          1. @ Vita: It doesn’t matter what a people do when they’re first “liberated.” What matters is what they feel a year or later. Do you think anyone in Lebanon or Iraq who rejoiced when Israel & the U.S. invaded are begging them to return now? Of course not.

            I wonder at people like you who think you can pass off half the historical truth as the whole truth. Either you’re ignorant or you think we’re fools. THe former may be true. The latter certainly not.

          2. Vita. Correct me if I am wrong, but were there not cases ot people who actually celebrated when the Nazis overran their lands?…but soon found that the occupiers were far worse than their erstwhile masters.
            Your memory of the “Rejoicing Shia” seems to have lost the fact that Israel’s occupation created Hizbollah, a Shia organization dedicated to getting rid of Israeli occupation of The Lebanon.

        2. This “settlers and occupiers” vs ” indigenous Palestinians” canard is tiresome. Jews didn’t just showed up in Palestine in the 20th century.

          1. A lot of Jews did actually only show up in Palestine in the 20th century. From Europe and many other places. Others Jews did have older roots (who knows how old) in Palestine, but they are a small minority.

            But descent is not what this is about: One ethnic group gets preferentail treatment in innumerable ways, and gets to settle land owned by the other group by use of force. That is the problem.

            Worldwide, Israel is losing its legitimacy over this. If you treat this a a canard you are out of touch.

          2. The Jews showed up with the intention of taking the land away from the people who had been living there for many hundreds of years. This makes the distinction between occupier/indigenous cogent and relevant, that is, not a canard at all.

            As for Vita: She discerns a structured similarity in the two cases and it is this that is the “same,” i.e. someone complaining to a public institution (Technion is public?) about public postings of professionals engaged by that institution. Vita overlooks the content of the postings entirely. AT work here is the specious “logic” that results in moral relativism, the absence of human sympathy and human values.

          3. @ djf: That’s botched history. The vast majority of Jews DID show up in Palestine in the 20th century. There were always a few thousand Jews living in palestine before then. But a few thousand is not millions as there are now.

          4. @ djf
            The two quotes by Salaita and Finkelstein that Vita posted – and to which my comment is a response – are specifically talking about settlers and soldiers in the West Bank. Are you telling us that their presence there is legitimate ?

          5. You are correct, djf. Prior to the growth of the Zionist movement, Palestinians of various religions inhabited Palestine together. The opportunity to expand that coexistence in a controlled manner by allowing for the immigration of Jews to Palestine to become Palestinian citizens was offered in the Mandate for Palestine. Yet the Zionists needed to highlight the differences between the immigrants and the indigenous people and obtain sovereign control of the Palestinians’ land. The Zionists’ divisive desire for control and supremacy destroyed the possibility for peace for the hopeful immigrant Jews and delayed the promise of self-determination for the Palestinian population recently released from the control of the Ottoman Empire.

      2. @ Vita: Finkelstein may be “insensitive” and perhaps uses too much hyperbole at times. But he is generally right on the money on almost every issue (except BDS & 2 states). When he excoriates Israel or the U.S. he has every reason to do so. This is not racist as Merhav is. Unlike in Israel, Americans are allowed to criticize their country’s policies. So he’s not anti-American either.

        When Merhav tells Israeli Palestinians to get out of “his” country, calls Obama a Muslim, etc. he’s siding with Islamophobes. There is a difference between the two.

        1. Richard.

          This Professor is a jerk. And I don’t have a quarrel with you publishing his moronic comments.
          Still, ratting him out to his employer goes to far, IMHO.

          1. @ Vita: “Ratting him out?” Howso? I’m merely transmitting public comments one of their employees published in one of the most popular social media platforms in the world. Would it be permissible for a professor to advocate rape in his FB account? Or murdering someone? Of course, Merhav hasn’t done anything that heinous. But for much of the world advocating ethnic cleansing & hatred for one of the world’s major religions is a very serious offense. If I were an employer I’d want to know about it no matter what response I had to it.

          2. @Richard
            ” I’m merely transmitting public comments one of their employees published in one of the most popular social media platforms in the world”

            If I made a racial slur at a party, does my employer need to hear about it? No.

            This professor should have been called out for his bigotry on his Facebook page, where he made his comment, and no more. If you had done this, he might have recognized that Richard Silverstein has a ‘bully pulpit’, and he might have backed off and removed his obnoxious comments, without Technion getting involved.

          3. @ Vita: Merhav didn’t make a “racial slur at a party.” He owns a Facebook account on the most popular social media platform in the world. He’s a professor at one of Israel’s most distinguished universities. There are 1,000 Palestinian students at his university who he insulted. And he publishes repeated racist trash on this account (not one off hand remark at a party).

            And NO ONE called him out for his racism on his FB pg. Do you know that there are hundreds of thousands of such racist FB pages maintained by Israeli Jews and hardly anyone criticizes the vile bile published in them. On the contrary, other commenters praise the hate there.

            I certainly do respond to such racism at times when I see it on FB or Twitter. But when an individual is as public and conspicuous as Merhav, they should live at a higher standard than others & should be judged accordingly when they don’t.

  4. Surprise surprise. This the STANDARD ISRAELI reply when caught. For Israelis “everything that does not touch them” is a joke. Whether getting caught by inadvertently saying the truth or by denigrating as general popular ethos. Sad

  5. Well, how dares he to claim that he lives in a democratic country and has total freedom of expression on his personal facebook page, after Murad – the arab student who posted a racist joke as well on his personal page – got severe punishments and even threats from lots of other students for his post!

    1. And dozens of Israeli citizens (Palestinians) were sacked from their jobs (private and public) for posting comments in solidarity with the population in Gaza on their FB during the Israeli agression. One Israeli woman who wrote that pro-peace ‘smolanim” should be sent to the gas chambers received support from her employer and kept her job (cf. documentary/The Real News by Lia Taraschansky and others).

  6. Even Merlin Monroe has pimples if you looked close enough. Congrats Richard on finding them.
    The rest of us enjoy watching the beauty at macro level.

      1. Richard, for your progressing age, you got a rare gift for taking comments out of context or maybe you don’t understand 🙁
        Dr. Merhav (whose post you blew out of any normal proportion) might be the zit. The state of Israel is the beauty.

        1. @ Ariel: Prof. Merhav is the cream of the crop of Israeli academia. Teaches at one of the nation’s most distinguished institutions. Sit on international bodies in his field. If he is a zit, he sits on the face of a nation that honors him.

  7. You too have made one of the first mistakes in the handbook. While it may not be the only one (if you include Turkey) Israel is a democracy, even if you believe it is a flawed one. Citizens of IL elect their representatives, have all of the basic freedoms and rights, etc. You are most welcome to read more about the Israeli regime system, because unfortunately, you’re not familiar with it.
    To your other examples – I’ll also note that while Iran has a somewhat democratic elections, the Ayatollah there is the main source of power – he can veto any rule, or officer, and has a direct effect on the life in Iran. Thus it isn’t really a democratic regime. As for Lebanon, it may be more democratic than most, but I still think it’s a very flawed democracy since the main parts of the government is restricted to specific religious or ethnic groups there.

    1. @ Y: Why is it only Israeli Jews claim Israel is a democracy? You don’t hear many Israeli Palestinians asserting such a claim. SO that would mean Israel is a democracy for its Jewish citizens. Some Israeli citizens do NOT have “all of the basic freedoms and rights.” But not all Jewish citizens. Some Jews are more equal than others. Orthodox Jews, settlers, security forces: they’re entitled to extra democracy. Dissident Israelis, no so much.

      I’m “not familiar with the Israeli regime system?” Whatever on you “on” about? I know as much about Israel’s political system as you do. As for the term “regime,” it’s appropriate for Israel, though if you knew the pejorative meaning of the term in English, you wouldn’t have chosen it.

      As for Iran, settlers in Israel have as much power as the Ayatollah does in Iran. They can veto any rule they view as being in their interests, almost any officer, & they certainly have a “direct effect on the life” of Israel. So Israel is no more democratic than Iran.

      I’d maintain that while Lebanon has a flawed democracy, almost every flaw in Lebanon’s democracy is present in Israel’s. There’s the same dysfuntion, same religious fundamentalism, sectarianism, etc.

      1. English is only a second language to me. Let’s stay to the point.

        I’m not saying that things are perfect here in Israel, but I feel that you aren’t looking at the big picture of Israeli system. Democracy isn’t a code word for perfect, but Israeli Arabs get the same legal and civilian rights as do Jewish citizens. True, they are a minority, and I’m not trying to say that there are no racist people against them, but you can probably say the same thing about the African Americans in the US. There is a problem of discrimination there too, but it still is a democracy.

        As for the settlers being like the Ayatollah – the settlers don’t have the same kind of power. They are a strong lobby, and they have a lot of support in the government, but (unfortunately) that support is also translated to support in the Israeli public opinion. Once they will have less people who elect their representatives, they will have less power (unlike the Iranian who don’t get the non-religious option, or the Lebanese who people from the wrong ethnic-group). For example, in 2005, they didn’t have the power to stop Sharon’s political decision to evacuate Gaza.

        Being a democracy doesn’t make your country suddenly some perfect mistake-free entity. If that’s your definition to democracy, then we might as well stop here.

        1. Y, who are you trying to kid with your “big picture”? A state that makes it its business to harass, maltreat and expropriate millions of human beings under its sway has no right to call itself a democracy. But even if one looks at Israel proper it has many features that make it differ from the West European democracies. A plutocratic ethnocracy seems to be a far more realistic characterisation for this robber state on the Mediterranean:

          “Firstly, foundational to Israel’s legal framework as a Jewish state is legislation passed in the first few years, specifically the Law of Return, the Absentee Property Law, and the Citizenship Law. These laws shaped an institutionalised regime of ethno-religious discrimination by extending Israel’s ‘frontiers’ to include every Jew in the world (as a potential citizen), at the same time as explicitly excluding expelled Palestinians.

          Secondly, there is a distinction in Israel between ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’, a difference missed by English speakers, who tend to use the terms interchangeably. Professor David Kretzmer, law scholar at Hebrew University and member of the International Commission of Jurists, has written how this concept of ‘nation’ “strengthens the dichotomy between the state as the political framework for all its citizens and the state as the particularistic nation-state of the Jewish people”.
          In the 1970s, Israel’s Supreme Court rejected a petition by a Jewish Israeli who sought to change his nationality status from ‘Jewish’ to ‘Israeli’. The ruling stated that “there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish nation…composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry”. Then-president of the Court Shimon Agranat said that a uniform Israeli nationality “would negate the very foundation upon which the State of Israel was formed”.

          Thirdly, Israel continues to be in an official ‘state of emergency’, which the Knesset has annually renewed since 1948. There are still 11 laws and 58 ordinances that depend on the state of emergency, covering a wide range of matters.

          Fourthly, Israeli law provides for the banning of electoral candidates who deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people”. Related to that, proposed bills can be rejected on the grounds that they undermine “Israel’s existence as the state of the Jewish people”. This is particularly instructive, given the emphasis placed by those trying to defend Israel’s ‘democracy’ on the fact that Palestinian citizens can vote and be elected as MKs.’

          Fifthly, there is the legislated role of the Zionist institutions, the Jewish Agency/World Zionist Organisation and Jewish National Fund. As I write in my new book, bodies intended to privilege Jews, by being granted responsibilities normally performed by the state, are thus “placed in positions of authority where they have the ability to prejudice the interests of non-Jewish citizens”.”

          More:

          http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/02/jewish-state-citizens-israel

          1. 1. the Law of return is about people who aren’t citizens. Israel is a country that was was founded for the Jewish people. Just like you’d say that someone French should have a French citizenship and a German shouldn’t even if they both currently live abroad. That said, once you are a citizen, you should have the same rights as the next one. The Absentee Law is a law from the early 50’s, and doesn’t affect Israel’s current state. Today, Israeli citizens, including Arabic ones, are equal.

            2. As for the nation – it is also irrelevant today, because since 2002, the nationality isn’t documented in a persons ID.

            3. The “emergency” term is abused in the Knesset, I agree. but it’s just a term. These laws could have been passed regularly just the same (for example, a lot of rules about overtime in Israel, are allowed only because the emergency state. If it was to be cancelled, all these rules would have to be mended). The fact that we are in a so-called emergency isn’t actually felt in Israel, and not many people even know that it is today.

            4. A lot of countries have similar rules.The Germans for instance, have a law that bans Nazi’ parties. In practice, Israel didn’t ban any political party with this law in the last decades. maybe except Kahana, who was a racist Jewish right extremist.

            5. The ability to prejudice, is not the same as actual prejudice.

            Anyway, the fact is that the main principles of democracy are well in the Israeli system. The Knesset – Israeli parliament is elected once every 4 years, and almost anyone may be elected (including Arabic-Israeli citizens). Also, every Israeli citizen has basic human and civilian rights, that cannot be taken from him by law (such as freedom of speech). Again, we can say a lot about what’s happening in Israel, but if you look at the definition of “democracy” you’ll see that Israel meets those standards.

          2. The Supreme Court has ruled that running on a platform calling for Israel to become “a state of all its citizens” does not violate the ideology of Israel as the State of the Jewish people. How many parties were barred from running as a result of the amendment to the Elections Law? One. Kach headed by Meir Kahane and espousing a racist anti-Arab platform. No Arab parties have ever been successfully barred from running. You ought to provide the full context.

          3. @ pea: This is so ridiculous. The Shabak very explicitly informed all of Israel, especially Israeli Palestinians that any movement or individual who advocated a fully democratic state in which Palestinian rights equaled those of Jews would be seen as an enemy of the state. The Shabak doesn’t give a crap what the courts say, even the Supreme Court. Shabak makes rules having to do with security. And it views this issue as one of national security because its job is to preserve the prerogatives of the Israeli Jewish state.

            As for Palestinian parties “successfully” barred from running: it wasn’t for a lack of trying. Most of them were actually banned at one time or another & only the Supreme Court’s intervention overturned the Knesset decision. You didn’t provide the full context & should have. If these parties ever became large enough to overturn a rightist government or threatened Jewish privilege they’d not only be banned, their leaders would be tried for treason (or some similar suitable crime) & imprisoned.

          4. Y, you didn’t react to my first and most important point. Here it is again:

            “A state that makes it its business to harass, maltreat and expropriate millions of human beings under its sway has no right to call itself a democracy.”

            You referred, in another one of your awkward and inappropriate comparisons, to American action in Vietnam. Deplorable as it was that action was not meant to keep millions of other people in subjection, to expropriate their land and harass them on a daily basis in the hope that they would, somehow, disappear. Your obtuse disregard of these obvious differences should actually disqualify you for any further disputation.

            Nevertheless now for the rest. You said:

            “The Law of return is about people who aren’t citizens. Israel is a country that was founded for the Jewish people. Just like you’d say that someone French should have a French citizenship and a German shouldn’t even if they both currently live abroad.”

            Well, I take it that you were trying to say something here but I can’t for the life of me figure out what it is. What I do know is this: anyone with a basic sense of fairness would find it ridiculous that, for instance, an American Jew who has never set foot in Israel is immediately accepted as a fellow citizen after arrival while Palestinians who might have lived there themselves and whose ancestors lived there for generations are barred from the place.

            About the matter of IDs (quite comparable to erstwhile South African pass laws):

            You said: “ As for the nation – it is also irrelevant today, because since 2002, the nationality isn’t documented in a persons ID.”

            This was not about nationality but about ethnicity. As for it not being indicated any more on ID’s there are ways around that:

            “The bearer’s ethnic identity can nevertheless be inferred by other data – the Hebrew calendar’s date of birth is often used for Jews, and also, each community has its typical first and last names. The state’s registration which serves as the basis for the data in the Identity Cards still indicates the ethnicity of each person, and this information is available upon request in certain circumstances determined by the registration law.” (Wikipedia)

            You said:

            “The “emergency” term is abused in the Knesset, I agree. but it’s just a term. … The fact that we are in a so-called emergency isn’t actually felt in Israel, and not many people even know that it is today.”

            The Daily Beast wrote:

            “through the continued renewal of the Emergency Laws, Israeli security practices exist in fundamental tension with the principle of upholding civil liberties, an essential condition of a free society.

            when it comes to ethnic democracies looking through a security-drenched lens, everyone knows who is the first to be targeted when states elevate security to a religion: the ethno-national minorities”

            Exactly. It is obvious that you don’t belong to such a minority and are therefore so complacent about it all

            About Israel banning electoral candidates who deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people”. you argued that;

            “A lot of countries have similar rules.The Germans for instance, have a law that bans Nazi’ parties.” Another awkward comparison.

            Why would a nazi party be banned in Germany? Among other things because it would uphold a principle like “Germany only for the “Arier””.That principle would put it beyond the pale of civilised transactions. But the principle that Israel is only for Jews is, by contrast, in your place a REQUISITE for political acceptance, rather than a ground for rejection. I hope you see the difference.

            You said about those institutionalised Israeli agencies that have the power to prejudice the rights of minorities:

            “The ability to prejudice, is not the same as actual prejudice.”

            Well in this case it well and truly is. Haaretz wrote last year under the headline:

            “Discrimination against Israeli Arabs still rampant, 10 years on”

            inter alia:

            “In order to demonstrate the depth of discrimination we can point out that since the foundation of the state until this day, the two groups – Arabs and Jews – have grown at similar rates (eight to tenfold), but that the state has established 700 (!) new communities for Jews (including new cities) – and not a single one for Arabs, with the exception of permanent towns for Bedouin citizens who were removed from their homes. The result is a very severe housing shortage in the Arab communities and many thousands of house demolition orders in these communities. In addition, tens of thousands of Bedouin Arab citizens in the Negev continue to live in disgraceful conditions in unrecognised communities and they lack the most basic living conditions.”

            And this is only about the most obvious tangible matters. There are quite a few other things.

            You pretend that the periodical ritual of stuffing voting papers into ballot boxes makes a democracy. But people who don’t feel the need to keep up appearances acknowledge that democracy is about quite a bit more than that: about respect for human rights, about justice, about fairness. No society is perfect on that score. But Israel is so obviously deficient in these matters that that old slogan “ the only democracy in the Middle East” can only evoke hollow laughter.

            If you want to react to this with equally specious arguments I won’t bother replying

    2. @Y “Citizens of IL elect their representatives….”

      But if any of these “democratically” elected (non-Jewish) representatives offend their Jewish colleagues by, for instance, sympathizing with Palestinian victims of Israel’s recent massacres in Gaza, they are sentenced to a six month “suspension” from the Knesset.

      1. We’ll that’s just false. There has been a lot of non-Jewish representatives who sympathized with Palestinian victims of Israel’s war in Gaza (Yes – a war, not massacres).
        The reason that Zuabi was suspended from participating, was more due to the fact she broke the law by being violent in her protest. Also, the meaning of “suspension” is not that she can’t vote to and against laws in the Knesset. It means that she can’t sit in Knesset committees. there is a person from her political party who is replacing her.
        If you ask me, I think the punishment was too harsh, but it’s not cause she was innocently sympathetic to Palestinians.

        1. Y, you didn’t react to my first and most important point. Here it is again:

          “A state that makes it its business to harass, maltreat and expropriate millions of human beings under its sway has no right to call itself a democracy.”

          And now for the rest. You said:
          “The Law of return is about people who aren’t citizens. Israel is a country that was was founded for the Jewish people. Just like you’d say that someone French should have a French citizenship and a German shouldn’t even if they both currently live abroad.”

          Well, I take it that you were trying to say something here but I can’t for the life of me figure out what it is. What I do know is this: anyone with a basic sense of fairness would find it ridiculous that, for instance, an American Jew who has never set foot in Israel is immediately accepted as a fellow citizen after arrival while Palestinians who might have lived there themselves and whose ancestors li
          Well, I take it that you were trying to say something here but I can’t for the life of me figure out what it is. What I do know is this: anyone with a basic sense of fairness would find it ridiculous that, for instance, an American Jew who has never set foot in Israel is immediately accepted as a fellow citizen after arrival while Palestinians who might have lived there themselves and whose ancestors lived there for generations are barred from the place.

          You said: “ As for the nation – it is also irrelevant today, because since 2002, the nationality isn’t documented in a persons ID.”

          This was not about nationality but about ethnicity. As for it not being indicated any more on ID’s there are ways around that:

          “The bearer’s ethnic identity can nevertheless be inferred by other data – the Hebrew calendar’s date of birth is often used for Jews, and also, each community has its typical first and last names. The state’s registration which serves as the basis for the data in the Identity Cards still indicates the ethnicity of each person, and this information is available upon request in certain circumstances determined by the registration law.” (Wikipedia)

          You said:

          “The “emergency” term is abused in the Knesset, I agree. but it’s just a term. … The fact that we are in a so-called emergency isn’t actually felt in Israel, and not many people even know that it is today.”

          The Daily Beast wrote:

          “through the continued renewal of the Emergency Laws, Israeli security practices exist in fundamental tension with the principle of upholding civil liberties, an essential condition of a free society.
          ved there for generations are barred from the place.vant today, because since 2002, the nationality isn’t documented in a persons ID.”

          This was not about nationality but about ethnicity. As for it not being indicated any more on ID’s there are ways around that:

          “The bearer’s ethnic identity can nevertheless be inferred by other data – the Hebrew calendar’s date of birth is often used for Jews, and also, each community has its typical first and last names. The state’s registration which serves as the basis for the data in the Identity Cards still indicates the ethnicity of each person, and this information is available upon request in certain circumstances determined by the registration law.” (Wikipedia)

          You said:

          “The “emergency” term is abused in the Knesset, I agree. but it’s just a term. … The fact that we are in a so-called emergency isn’t actually felt in Israel, and not many people even know that it is today.”

          The Daily Beast wrote:

          “through the continued renewal of the Emergency Laws, Israeli security practices exist in fundamental tension with the principle of upholding civil liberties, an essential condition of a free society.

          when it comes to ethnic democracies looking through a security-drenched lens, everyone knows who is the first to be targeted when states elevate security to a religion: the ethno-national minorities”

          Exactly.

          About Israel banning electoral candidates who deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people”. you argued that;

          “A lot of countries have similar rules.The Germans for instance, have a law that bans Nazi’ parties.”

          Why would a nazi party be banned there? Among other things because it would uphold a principle like “Germany only for Arier”. But the principle that Israel is only for Jews is, by contrast, in your place a requisite for political acceptance, rather than for rejection. I hope you see the difference.

          You said about those institutionalised Israeli agencies having the power to prejudice the rights of minorities:

          “The ability to prejudice, is not the same as actual prejudice.”

          Well in this case it well and truly is. Haaretz wrote last year under the headline:

          “Discrimination against Israeli Arabs still rampant, 10 years on”

          among quite a few other things:

          “In order to demonstrate the depth of discrimination we can point out that since the foundation of the state until this day, the two groups – Arabs and Jews – have grown at similar rates (eight to tenfold), but that the state has established 700 (!) new communities for Jews (including new cities) – and not a single one for Arabs, with the exception of permanent towns for Bedouin citizens who were removed from their homes. The result is a very severe housing shortage in the Arab communities and many thousands of house demolition orders in these communities. In addition, tens of thousands of Bedouin Arab citizens in the Negev continue to live in disgraceful conditions in unrecognized communities and they lack the most basic living conditions.”

          The article mentions other aspects of

          This was not about nationality but about ethnicity. As for it not being indicated any more on ID’s there are ways around that:

          “The bearer’s ethnic identity can nevertheless be inferred by other data – the Hebrew calendar’s date of birth is often used for Jews, and also, each community has its typical first and last names. The state’s registration which serves as the basis for the data in the Identity Cards still indicates the ethnicity of each person, and this information is available upon request in certain circumstances determined by the registration law.” (Wikipedia)

          You said:

          “The “emergency” term is abused in the Knesset, I agree. but it’s just a term. … The fact that we are in a so-called emergency isn’t actually felt in Israel, and not many people even know that it is today.”

          The Daily Beast wrote:

          “through the continued renewal of the Emergency Laws, Israeli security practices exist in fundamental tension with the principle of upholding civil liberties, an essential condition of a free society.

          when it comes to ethnic democracies looking through a security-drenched lens, everyone knows who is the first to be targeted when states elevate security to a religion: the ethno-national minorities”

          Exactly.

          About Israel banning electoral candidates who deny “the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people”. you argued that;

          “A lot of countries have similar rules.The Germans for instance, have a law that bans Nazi’ parties.”

          Why would a nazi party be banned there? Among other things because it would uphold a principle like “Germany only for Arier”. But the principle that Israel is only for Jews is, by contrast, in your place a requisite for political acceptance, rather than for rejection. I hope you see the difference.

          You said about those institutionalised Israeli agencies having the power to prejudice the rights of minorities:

          “The ability to prejudice, is not the same as actual prejudice.”

          Well in this case it well and truly is. Haaretz wrote last year under the headline:

          “Discrimination against Israeli Arabs still rampant, 10 years on”

          among quite a few other things:

          “In order to demonstrate the depth of discrimination we can point out that since the foundation of the state until this day, the two groups – Arabs and Jews – have grown at similar rates (eight to tenfold), but that the state has established 700 (!) new communities for Jews (including new cities) – and not a single one for Arabs, with the exception of permanent towns for Bedouin citizens who were removed from their homes. The result is a very severe housing shortage in the Arab communities and many thousands of house demolition orders in these communities. In addition, tens of thousands of Bedouin Arab citizens in the Negev continue to live in disgraceful conditions in unrecognized communities and they lack the most basic living conditions.”

          The article mentions other aspects of discrimination.

          Democracy is not just about stuffing voting papers in ballot boxes every once in a while, as you pretend it is. It is first and foremost about respect for human rights, for fairness and justice. We outsiders looking in see that there is a woeful deficiency of all of these things in Israel. And your glib formulations can’t dispel that impression.

          discrimination.

          Democracy is not just about stuffing voting papers in ballot boxes every once in a while, as you pretend it is. It is first and foremost about respect for human rights, for fairness and justice. We outsiders looking in see that there is a woeful deficiency of all of these things in Israel. And your glib formulations can’t dispel that impression.

          1. I hope the text of my letter can still be seen through all of these copying mishaps. It is a pity that Richard doesn’t have a change function on this blog.

          2. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to read a comment in that length. I there’s a copy-paste mishap, could you please repost the comment?
            To the first point though – which I didn’t respond to – it’s only because I didn’t fully understand what you meant by “harass, maltreat and expropriate”. I don’t think Israel makes it it’s business to do so.
            Even if so, that’s hardly a measurable way to check if a country is democratic or not. For example, no one ever said the US or France weren’t democratic, even when they invaded Vietnam, and caused millions of casualties just for selfish colonial reasons.

            Again, you’d have to be more specific for that being any kind of criteria.

  8. Who are you Richard Silverstein? Well, just by googling on your name, I found many interesting, not-quite-complimenting links, but this one is especially interesting, given that you blame me that I am a racist. I don’t think that you really know what a racist is, but I can best explain to you by giving you an example of someone you probably know very well – yourself:
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/anti-israel-blogger-praised-by-media-goes-on-crazy-racist-rant-over-pro-israel-black-woman/

    1. @ Neri Merhav: By your sources so shall you be known. Anyone who treats Frontpagemagazine as a credible source is both a Zio-extremist and a friend of lies. That about sums up your political views. You might want to explain to us why, if you assert your freedom to state your racist views freely, you took down every FB post to which I linked. THere’s a bit of a disconnect in your principles, no?

      You should meet Chloe Valdary, though. You’d be birds of a feather. She calls a Jewish professor (just like you), a Nazi. That’s essentially what your other pals in Im Tirzu believe about Israel-hating Israeli professors. Do you think Prof. Judith Butler is a Jewish Nazi too like batshit crazy Chloe Valdary?

    2. Neri Merhav,

      I applaud your support of the right of free speech in a democratic society. From your clear pride in Israel’s democratic nature, I feel certain that you condemn the actions of the Israeli police in July 2014 related to the arrest of Rafat Awaysha for a post he made on Facebook regarding an upcoming peaceful protest against Israel’s attack on Gaza. Maybe you could use the power of Facebook to start a grassroots campaign in support of Mr. Awaysha’s right to free speech?

      You can find more detail on this violation of Mr. Awaysha’s right to free speech in the September 6, 2014 article in The Times of Israel entitled “After Gaza, Arab Israelis fear rising discrimination”. Here is a link to the page: http://www.timesofisrael.com/after-gaza-arab-israelis-fear-rising-discrimination/

      I am sure you will be as incensed by the treatment Mr. Awaysha received at the hands of Israeli police as I was.

  9. One is surprised, though actually one shouldn’t be, that in the article referred to by Professor Merhav, one still can find a statement like this more than ten years after it was found that we are dealing here with a hoax:

    “Perhaps proud black man, Richard Silverstein would consider Martin Luther King who said, “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism” “

    “Antiracism writer Tim Wise checked the citation, which claimed that it originated from a “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” in an August, 1967 edition of Saturday Review. In an article on January, 2003, essay he declared that he found no letters from Dr. King in any of the four August, 1967 editions. The authors of this essay verified Wise’s discovery. The letter was commonly cited to also have been published in a book by Dr. King entitled, “This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” No such book was listed in the bibliography provided by the King Center in Atlanta, nor in the catalogs of several large public and university libraries.

    Soon afterwards, CAMERA, a rabidly pro-Israeli organization, published a statement declaring that the letter was “apparently” a hoax. CAMERA explained how it gained so much currency. The “letter” came from a “reputable” book, Shared Dreams, by Rabbi Marc Shneier. Martin Luther King III authored the preface for the book, giving the impression of familial approval. Also, the Anti-Defamation League’s Michael Salberg used the same quotes in his July 31st, 2001 testimony before the U.S. House of Representative’s International Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.”

    When it became established that the letter by King didn’t exist Seymour Martin Lipset, a pro Israel sociologist, came up with the claim that he had heard King saying it:

    “Congressman Lewis claims Dr. King made this comment “shortly before his death” during “an appearance at Harvard.” Lipset states it was “shortly before he was assassinated” at a “dinner given for him in Cambridge.” This quotation seems on its face much more credible. Yet, SPME presents snippets from the fake letter while apparently citing this statement (a 1968 “speech” at Harvard).
    There are still, however, a few reasons for casting doubt on the authenticity of this statement. According to the Harvard Crimson, “The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago–April 23, 1967” (“While You Were Away” 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Lipset stated he was in the area for a “fund-raising mission,” which would seem to imply a high profile visit. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by Stanford University’s Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge or Boston.”

    More:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/01/17/the-use-and-abuse-of-martin-luther-king-jr-by-israel-s-apologists/

      1. Vita,

        Kramer condescendingly refers to the authors of the article I linked to as “Palestinian-Americans”. Well, when it comes to that Kramer is a Jewish American and not exactly known for being backward in coming forward when the defence of Israel is concerned.

        More to the point: Kramer carefully avoids the crux of the article by those two “Palestinian Americans.” They related how the claim that King came up with this statement in a letter in the Saturday Review, that was subsequently republished in a selection of his writings was an egregious lie. Even CAMERA had to acknowledge this though it preferred to call it a hoax, you know something of a joke. Well it wasn’t.

        It was and is also no joke that the pretence that we were dealing here with an authentic letter by King was, even after this acknowledgement by CAMERA, kept up for years by various pro-Israel publicists.

        So Kramer avoided this most important part of their article altogether. Instead he asked the question whether Seymour Martin Lipset could or could not have heard King SAYING these words rather than having put them in a (forged) letter. He partly relies in his argument on Lipset’s general reputation as a sociologist. Yes that was considerable but I don’t quite see what that has to do with his reliability as a fervent apologist for Israel.

        Anyway here Kramer’s argument on this point is kept to the light:

        http://thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com/2013/03/camera-in-need-of-more-correction-or.html

        But there is something more to be said here and it is a point our two “Palestinian Americans” don’t ignore though for all intents and purposes Kramer does: if King ever came up with this it was before the horrible reality of Israel’s occupation practices had unfolded and become more and more widely known.

        Quite a few leftist people could then have said the words ascribed to King. To quote his alleged remark of well nigh fifty years ago to defend Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians today is an example of the intellectual dishonesty that obviously doesn’t remain limited to forging letters.

        1. @Arie

          Lipset said it was at a dinner, the documentation confirms there was such a dinner, and a witness (Peretz) recalls hearing the quote. But the Peretz recollection is not the crux of it. The question is whether Lipset, not long after the event, would have lied in print in a prominent journal, about something MLK said in the presence not just of him but of others (including Andrew Young). That beggars belief.

          You’ve provided us a link that proves nothing, but which relies heavily on innuendo, such as
          that the African American Congressman lies of for Jewish donations.
          Your ‘two Palestinian-Americans’ distraction is off point.
          Your ‘King wouldn’g like the ‘Israel of today’ canard is pure projection.

          Arie. You are guy who doesn’t admit defeat easily.

          1. Vita

            Not only Kramer but you too steadfastly ignore the main point of the article by the two “Palestinian Americans” which is about the forged letter. A forgery committed by a genuine (?) Rabbi I believe and the use that was made of this, even after the acknowledgement by CAMERA, in various pro-Israel publications.

            Now it is all about the accuracy of Lipset’s memory, about what was said at a dinner with an unspecified date at the home of Marty Peretz. Lipset is dead. That Peretz, “who screams “Israel basher” every time someone cuts him off in traffic”, as Matthew Duss memorably said, would corroborate Kramer’s version of events was all to be expected.

            The stubborn attempt to posthumously get King’s seal of approval on the right wing Zionist enterprise, that only showed itself in its true colours after his death (its early history was then still clouded in myth) is pathetic beyond belief. King never went to Israel in spite of Israeli efforts to get him there.

            Kramer himself quotes his main reason for that:

            “I just think that if I go, the Arab world, and of course Africa and Asia for that matter, would interpret this as endorsing everything that Israel has done, and I do have questions of doubt.”

            Don’t you think that doubt would have increased after 1967?

            I wonder whether you were living outside Israel in 1967 Vita – and in fact that you were then alive at all. You sound like a rather young person to me. If you had been in almost any part of the Western world at that time you would know that the admiration and support for Israel then was almost universal. in my own country, Holland, for instance, it bordered on the hysterical. It won’t have been very different in the US. That King then already spoke of doubt was rather exceptional, I dare say. So the
            idea that, were he alive today, that doubt would only have increased is quite reasonable. Millions of people have changed their mind on that pesky little country. You speaking of a “canard” in this context as far as King is concerned suggests to me that you don’t quite know the meaning of that word. The “canard” , Vita, was the forged letter – remember that.

      2. @ Vita: You’re using Martin Kramer as an authoritative source? Really? The guy who said the excessive Palestinian birthrate leads to terrorism? And that Israel needs to forcibly reduce the birth rate? This guy? The guy who detests Palestinians and is one of the leading Islamophobes in academia??

          1. @ Vita: The messenger is part of the message. If you can’t trust the messenger you can’t trust the message. I trust Marty Peretz even less than Kramer, though that’s a tough one since they’re both sleazeballs of the highest order.

            As for analyzing this whole episode, you expect me to read Frontpagemagazine? I’d rather jump in a sewer drain after a hurricane. Why would I do such a thing. If there is a single fact published there I’d collapse in disbelief & shock. Sorry, I don’t dwell in or on the right wing sewer demimonde. Nor do I care or read what it says about me.

            BTW, bringing in this little red herring about MLK is way off-topic. If you haven’t read my comment rules read them and get to know them by heart. From the looks of it you’re going to need to know them well since you’ve already violated several. Stay on the topic of the post. No digression, diversions or other Zio-flotsam/jetsam.

  10. I think the most interesting paradox in Mr. Merhav’s response to you is that he never disputes that his political views are those you stated, but instead, expresses a whinging outrage that his carelessly proffered hate-filled racist xenophobia has been discovered and exposed to the general public and not just to those who share his bigoted mindset.

    Another interesting dichotomy is that he boast that his right to post such virulent drivel in a vapid public venue is protected by law in Israel but that your considered, well-written post is irresponsible and unfair. Would this bastion of free speech as a right of Israelis silence those that disagree with him?

    I suppose that Mr. Merhav would not boast of Israel’s support of free speech if he were aware of the horrific treatment that Israeli citizen Rafat Awaysha suffered in July 2014 at the hands of the Israeli police for a Facebook post about a future protest. An arrest, followed by twelve hours of interrogation handcuffed to a chair, followed by another arrest and a release to house arrest pending trial was the method Israeli police used to express Israel’s position on free speech to Mr. Awaysha. It seems reasonable to suspect that if Mr. Merhav is aware of the horrid mistreatment Mr. Awaysha suffered for his interest in non-violent political protest, that Mr. Merhav would fully support the inequity.

    The fact that Mr. Merhav scrubbed his Facebook page indicates a few possible truths: (1) Mr. Merhav is ashamed of his bigotry, as well he should be; (2) Mr. Merhav is a cowardly bully void of the integrity to stand proudly for his beliefs in the face of pressure; or, (3) Mr. Merhav misrepresented the position of the Technion administration and that the administration instructed him to remove the offensive material.

    Maybe his removal of the offensive material was predicated on all three.

    If any of those possible truths are accurate, Mr. Merhav should not be in a position to infect young minds with the hatred that threatens the very fabric of society.

  11. Merhav probably hangs out with that epitome of mediocrity, Stevie Plaut. What happened to the “Red Haifa” that I used to know?

    1. @ Shoded Yam: University of Haifa seems a bastion of right-wingism. Plaut even uses university communications (e mail, phone, etc) to fulminate online & stalk his leftie victims. I know because I’ve tracked it & complained to university officials. They don’t care.

  12. This is quite common among engineering professors who, unlike people in science, math or social sciences, lack complete empathy about the world they are living in and are, very often, quite ignorant in things not related to their specific field. A big exception is, of course, Oded Goldereich who is a great guy, but he is more of a mathematician than an engineer. There are lots of others like Merhav in Technion, another typical example is Pini Gurfil in the aerospace department who is much less vocal than Merhav on the internet scene but probably sharing the same opinions with Merhav, there are probably many others. However there are also lots of people who are very democratically minded, but I doubt if Technion, as an establishment, is really “clean” about the stuff, given their dark dealings with the defense and intel establishments. Well, nothing is perfect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *