16 thoughts on “Donor Demands Return of $5-Million Gift and Cancellation of University of Washington Endowed Chair After Professor Protests Gaza Attack – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. What is your source for stating that it’s universally accepted that Palestine exists and deserves a state? Thank you.

    1. TF Under: If you are a Palestine denier this is not a place for you. Read the comment rules. Palestine denial is unacceptable here.

      A 2020 Pew poll says that 61% of American Jews support a 2-state solution. That’s not “universal,” but it’s certainly a “consensus,” which was the other word I used for describing American Jewish views on Palestine.

  2. The old lady just asked for her money back. The rest are consequences.
    if the department is that important to the university, it could find other funds to support it.

    1. @ Dan Lev: When you sign a legally binding endowment agreement, you can’t just “ask for your money back.” You have a legal obligation to fulfill the contract you signed. In fact, the UW had every right to sue her and should have.

      I don’t know how familiar you are with universities, but $5-million doesn’t just grow on trees. You don’t replace such a gift by snapping your fingers.

  3. “Last May, as Israel attacked Gaza and killed 250 civilians with massive air attacks..”

    Dear Boy,

    Last May, Hamas began rocketing Jerusalem and prompting a response from Israel.
    Hamas than began rocketing civilian targets throughout Israel.

    Facts, my dear, are stubborn things.

    “Come here, Young Will!”

    1. Second in importance, only to Israel’s domination of the US Congress, is Israel’s control of US media. 

      April 13, 2021, the first day of Ramadan Israeli police conducted a violent invasion of Al-Aqsa Mosque and silenced the 8 PM calls to prayer.

      On April 14, 2021, the TIMES of ISRAEL reported the invasion. 

      Almost no other news source did. Arab News did. The Religious New Service did. 

      But virtually NO US MEDIA REPORTED THIS VIOLENT, CRIMINAL TREATY VIOLATION BY ISRAEL.

      The TIMES of ISRAEL quoted Sheikh Omar al-Kiswani, administrator of the al-Aqsa mosque, who stated that Israeli police “forcibly stormed the minarets of Al-Aqsa Mosque after cutting the door locks. . . Then they cut the wires of the main minarets in the mosque” which silenced the calls to prayer on the first day of Ramadan. 

      Sheikh Omar administers the Jordan backed Waqf (endowment) which oversees the Temple Mount. The Waqf, which employees 900 people, has been empowered since Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty in 1994. 

      Article 9 of the treaty states: “Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem.

      Israel, flouting its treaty obligations by a violent and provocative trespass of Al-Aqsa, can conduct such criminal invasions because ISRAEL KNOWS the New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, the LA Times, NO ONE WILL TELL CITIZENS OF THE US WHAT ISRAEL DOES IN PALESTINE.

      No one. erusalem is basically hometown for major Western new services. The notion that they would not have heard about the mosque invasion and could not have covered the event is absurd.

      After Hamas waited a month before responding to the Al-Aqsa invasion, Hamas did respond to the provocation and said so, but Western readers will not see Hamas as responding to a provocation. That’s not the story that Israel will permit to be reported. Instead. Hamas is seen as conducting a naked, unwarranted assault, because the prior invasion of the mosque is not reported.

      We no longer have a free press. 

      Our freedom of speech and the integrity of our universities means nothing to the racists and ethnic supremacists that cover for Israel here in the US and wink at Israel’s murderous insistence that Palestinians have no right to exist. 

      For American Zionists, intimidating a university president with funding withdrawals unless a university professor is humiliated is nothing other than the latest price our society pays to advance the brutal landgrab of a racist, occupying power on the other side of the world.

      We are in more trouble than we know and we were warned.

      In 1920, speaking to a gathering of nonzionist Jews, Chaim Weizmann lost his temper:

      “We will establish ourselves in Palestine whether you like it or not…better for you to help us so as to avoid our constructive powers being turned into a destructive power which will overthrow the world.” (Chaim Weizmann, in “Judische Rundschau,” No. 4, 1920)

    2. @ Fear Smith: While facts may be stubborn, when you only offer part of the facts, you’re lying about reality, which is what you’ve done. Go back and read the posts and comment threads I published during the pogroms and attack on Gaza last May. While I hate repeating what I’ve already written, you apparently need a refresher:

      First, Israel restricted Muslim worshippers at Al Aqsa by closing down a popular portion of East Jerusalem where they congregated. That in turn commenced protests by Muslims against the restrictions. Then, Judeo-fascist vigilantes up and down the country began pogroms in Palestinian villages and cities with mixed populations. Hundreds of Palestinian were beaten to a pulp. The thugs rampaged through Palestinian neighborhoods, even storming peoples’ homes. At that point, in defense of their Palestinian brethren, Hamas began firing rockets at Israel.

      That in turn led to the Israeli attack. And that is the full story, most of which you conveniently omitted. A hint to you: you can’t get away with peddling b* here. If you want to recount history, tell it all and not just the part that is most convenient to your biases.

  4. If BDS is legitimate so is StandWithUs. You approve violence and discrimination on one side, be prepared to get a response, Basic Newton’s 3rd law. And no, you do not have monopoly on moral and justice

    1. @ Old Nag: The post was not about BDS. Stay on topic if you comment again here.

      That being said, BDS is legitimate. It analyzes Israel-Palestine as it is and does so in a non-violent way. SWU, on the other hand, is based on a pack of lies. It misrepresents Israeli history, Palestinian views and refuses to acknowledge Israeli apartheid. It is the propaganda mouthpiece of Brand isreal. Not legitimate in any way, shape or form.

      1. The post does not mention BDS but the parallel is inevitable. You are outraged when people use their money and power to get their political will, if this will does not align with yours, but accept and encourage same behavior when it is aligned with your views. You are of course entitled to any view including a biased one, but I am surprised that you are surprised that vengeance is a double-edged sword.

        1. @ Old Nag: The “parallel” is NOT “inevitable.” In fact, BDS, as I wrote in the post, has nothing to do with the issue. Halperin doesn’t support BDS and none of the criticism claimed she did.

          Don’t publish again in this thread.

          Once again you fundamentally misunderstand the issues. Benaroya has every right to express her pro-Israel views anywhere she wishes. She could have insisted on pro-Israel language in her endowment agreement, which the UW would have rejected. But since she didn’t and she signed a legally binding contract, she has no right to complain after the fact or demand return of her funding. She singed a legally binding contract. That has nothing to do with politics or free speech on the donor’s part.

  5. Assuming all that stated here is the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth, than the WU president should be removed as she betrayed her academic responsibilities.
    As for the donor, Jewish org. and other factors, they enjoy, like all of us, the freedom of speech and thinking, even if some of us might think that their view is not the correct one

    1. @ Solomon: Free speech for donors is a red herring argument. A legal, binding agreement trumps free speech. The donor has free speech up to signing the endowment agreement. She can negotiate to ensure her views are represented in the final agreement. The University can respond and say what it is, or isn’t willing to do. After that, she can talk all she wants and complain all she wants. But she’s contractually obligated herself to honor the agreement she signed. You can’t welch on a contract.

      1. The donor expressed her thinking and wishes, after signing the contract and the “” Academic letter” about Israel “behavior”. She did not use any force or illegal practices against WU. The WU decided out of free will and following their own assessment, to return the donation. they are entitled to do so, even though it is a betrayal of their academic responsibilities

        1. @ Solomon: You’re basically rehashing your earlier comment. Don’t do that in future. And no more comments in this thread. You’ve had your say.

          The donor did violate her endowment agreement. So it doesn’t matter whether she used “force.” And illegality has nothing to do with it. But violating a contract as the donor did is illegal in the sense that the UW could have sued and won a case against Benaroya. No one did anything here “out of their free will.” Benaroya and SWU bullied the UW and Halperin trying to force her to toe the line and she refused. The Univ. Pres. decided to cut & run. With an $8.25-billion budget it, unfortunately, has bigger fish to fry than a $5-million gift.

  6. A sad day for academic freedom and the hope that universities will defend it.

    UW president Cauce could have fought the donor and insisted that a contract was a contract. From your report, she fought until it seemed her calculus said to return the donation and move on.
    UW’s FY-23 budget is almost $9 billion. Even removing the Med School, the budget is still over $4 billion. The $5 million returned money is about 0.1% of the non-medical budget. Prof. Halperin and Naar keep their jobs and can continue to stand for truth.

    Another example of how the Israel lobby political influence undermines democracy in the US.

Leave a Reply

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

Share via
Copy link