The Israel lobby, 300 US colleges and Lee Bollinger
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/864/op1.htm
Al Ahram Weekly
27 September - 3 October 2007
Issue No. 864
Academic shock and awe
The Israeli lobby has enlisted US university presidents to its cause with no debate on US university campuses, writes Sharif Elmusa*
--------------------------------
The Israeli emperor now wears only the clothes of apartheid. Many people are noticing and are speaking up. Some have taken steps to boycott this, perhaps the last, apartheid state. The wave includes a wide range of participants, from academic and labour unions to writers, artists, church and student groups and others. Together they speak of boycott, divestment and sanctions. Some of those in the forefront of the campaign are Jewish, including the art critic Peter Berger, Steven Rose at the Open University, and Israeli historian Ilan Pappe. Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who labelled the Israeli system as worse than his country's former apartheid regime, endorsed divestment. What drew the ire of Israel and the Israel lobby the most, however, is a resolution by the British University and College Union (UCU) at its congress 30 May. The UCU resolution encourages its members to "consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links with Israel academic institutions," and to forge closer relations with Palestinian universities.
The Israel lobby has reacted to the UCU's move in Britain with an academic "shock and awe" operation. What I am referring to is the one-page advertisement in The New York Times 8 August, paid for by the American Jewish Committee (AJC). The AJC assembled for the ad the signatures of more than 300 American college and university presidents endorsing a statement by Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, that pronounces an identity of interests between US and Israeli universities: "for we do not intend to draw distinctions between our mission and that of the universities you [the UCU] are seeking to punish." It then menacingly takes the logical step: "Add Columbia to the boycott list." This way the battle is shifted to the enemy's turf: if you boycott Israeli universities, we will boycott you -- a British eye (and a Palestinian one as collateral damage) for an Israeli eye.
The ad places Bollinger's statement inside a frame at the centre of the page, flanked by presidential names on all sides. The design, together with the first person form Bollinger uses in the statement, intensify the power of the message and give it a sense of urgency. The text is short, terse and declarative. It does not indicate the reasons that led the UCU to pass the resolution after a long and open exchange, making those who backed it sound like extremist airheads. Contestation is the lifeblood of democracy and intellectual advancement, but the big guns do not seem to feel they owe anyone a rational counter-argument. Worse, they do not mention the Palestinians at all; unlike the UCU that frames its resolution in the light of "Israel's 40-year occupation [which] has seriously damaged the fabric of Palestinian society," the "denial of educational rights for Palestinians," and "the complicity of Israeli academia in the occupation." So while the ad is visually framed, it deliberately and callously lacks context. And while it evokes high-minded principles, it takes, behind the reader's back, the side of the powerful against the wronged. Who then deserves to be called "shoddy intellectually and politically biased," the UCU, as Bollinger alleges, or he and his colleagues?
The UCU debated the motion over a period of two years. Its resolution in fact was a call for further debate on the boycott, a key point omitted by Bollinger. The union tackled questions like: Why single out Israel when there are so many other bad states in the world? What is the role of Israeli academics in their state's practices? Does a boycott impinge on the human rights of those subject to the boycott? In contrast, the 300 academic CEOs, like autocratic rulers, have circumvented discussion of the issue on their campuses. That the Israel lobby felt it must respond with such force and without deliberation, in fact, belies moral weakness instead of strength. Like any totalitarian system, the lobby fears that any cracks engendered by free conversation would lead to the crumbling of the edifice of falsehoods it has constructed about Israel and the Palestinians. Rigid structures collapse suddenly.
At stake for the academy is not just the question of the boycott; it is also matter of who has "voice". Organised British educators are saying that they, too, not just the heads of their institutions, can take initiative in shaping relations with others. They, not the heads, after all are the teachers, trainers, researchers and collaborators. Will members of faculty and students at American universities -- even those opposed to the boycott -- demand that the issue be tabled for deliberation and that all concerned get a chance to freely express their opinion? Or will they accept the decree of their presidents in silence?
British academics that objected to the resolution felt at least obligated to express, in a message to the UCU, their sympathy with the Palestinian plight and the chronic stranglehold Israel has over their educational development. It is doubtful that many of the signatories of the US ad are even aware of this dark side of Israel's conduct. How much does, for example, Susan Hockfield, president of MIT, my alma mater, and a neuroscientist, know about the issue? Shouldn't she have consulted, before signing such an important policy position, members of her own faculty, among them Noam Chomsky? Had she talked to him or other region scholars she would have learned a great deal about Israel's systematic dispossession of the Palestinians; about the numerous and extended closures of Palestinian universities; about the thousands of students who were imprisoned and banished into exile; about the ban in the last couple of years against academics with dual nationalities from entering into the West Bank and Gaza to resume teaching. She could have been informed of this, and much more. Fortunately, it is not too late for Hockfield to educate herself. She can venture into the West Bank and Gaza and discover the truth first hand. If pressed for time, she can visit websites such as those of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel ( www.pacbi.org ) and the UCU ( www.ucu.org.uk ).
Still, lack of knowledge alone does not sufficiently explain the mobilisation of 300 academic presidents. Bollinger himself must understand something about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He handled several fabricated charges by pro-Israeli media and activists against Palestinian and other Arab professors at Columbia, including the late Edward Said, Joseph Massad and George Saliba. We can only conclude, especially since the cost of the ad was defrayed by the AJC, that Bollinger and at least some of his colleagues fell under the influence of the Israeli lobby. In The London Review of Books, Spring 2007, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt -- who have written a book on the lobby due for release this month -- cite the testimony of several highly knowledgeable Washingtonians on the lobby's reach. One of them, former Senator Ernest Hollings, said on leaving office that "you can't have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC (the American Israel Political Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby group in Washington) gives you around here." Could the 300 presidents forge no other policy on the UCU's resolution other than what American Jewish lobbyists dictate to them?
Their stance carries a moral burden. By siding with power, and by trying to abort the boycott effort, they abet in depriving the Palestinians of the only viable non- violent course of resistance to the Israeli occupation of their land. The international boycott of white South Africa's apartheid system eventually led to the collapse of that system. Equally salient, but often forgotten, is that the boycott strengthened the hand of Nelson Mandela and others in the African National Congress who advocated peaceful means for achieving majority rule. Otherwise, there would have been much more bloodshed, and perhaps no reconciliation between blacks and whites. The US government was one of the very last to join the boycott against South Africa, after a prolonged pursuit of hypocritical "constructive engagement". (Israel never joined and maintained its strong historic links with apartheid South Africa.) When the boycott took hold, however, American academics and others were rightly proud to take part and to engage in civil disobedience in front of South Africa's diplomatic missions and offices. What is the difference between South Africa and Israel? The Israel lobby? Perhaps. But in the end, Bollinger and his peers must accept responsibility for their unilateral, politically biased attempt to pre-empt debate. The start of the new academic year is a good time for concerned faculty and students to demand a voice.
* The writer is an associate professor of political science at the American University in Cairo.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
"[Lee] Bollinger, a Jew himself [. . .]"--Ed Koch
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
http://www.jewishracism.com
Ed Koch wrote, inter alia, in his blog,
"Bollinger, a Jew himself, gave Ahmadinejad ammunition to be used among Islamic supporters that the battle at Columbia was primarily a battle between Islam and the Jews, and Ahmadinejad had bravely stood up to the mocking of the Jewish Bollinger. [***] All in all, it was a fiasco for America and a blunder by Bollinger, as well as a coup for Ahmadinejad."—Ed Koch, Koch's Comments: The Columbia lion
This week the President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger issued a prolonged ad hominem attack on his invited guest, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in what should have been a cordial and academic discussion. Bollinger's personal attack followed an advisory to the students to be polite and respectful to their invited guest. The leaders of the university ought to have followed their own advice to their audience.
Koch noted that Bollinger designed his campaign of vilification around issues of more concern to Jews and Israelis, than to Americans in general. This made it all too obvious that it is primarily Jewry who want to attack Iran, and those who are not stupid will draw that obvious conclusion.
In the past, Jews were often excluded from European universities, in part because they had a reputation for being insulting, childish, uncivilized, intolerant, dogmatic, uninsightful, boorish, pushy, aggressive, clannish, corrupt, disloyal to the host nation, and meanspirited.
regarding your last point... I do find myself thinking nowadays that there must be a reason the history of Jews keeps repeating itself. They most often do not assimilate in a county as 100% nationals of this country. When Israel was artificially created Jews of all sorts of nationalities just turned their back on their countries for an enemy entity. Does nationality come before religion or does religion come before nationality?? Look at the Israel lobby in the US.. What the hell is it?? Are its members Israelis or Americans? Is Chertoff working to establish the safety of the US or of Israel?
"In the past, Jews were often excluded from European universities, in part because they had a reputation for being insulting, .....etc."
Do you have any links which explain that? I don't doubt you. It makes sense, given the Jewish penchant for scatological humor and other perversions, but this is the first time I've heard that they were excluded from universities.
Today they control most universities.
"Look at the Israel lobby in the US. What the hell is it?? Are its members Israelis or Americans? Is Chertoff working to establish the safety of the US or of Israel?"
Chertoff is working to establish Jewish supremacy wherever Jews are found. This is the essence of zionism. Israel is a mere rallying point; an excuse.
Chertoff is succeeding, because most people assume that zionism is all about Israel. It is not.
zionism is about Jewish supremacy.
mmm... You say that "Zionism is about Jewish supremacy" and not just about Israel...
I can't quite use the same words you do though I do agree that Zionism is greatly about Jewish supremacy. What is Israel for the Jews (most Jews)? Isn't it the ultimate manifestation of Jewish "supremacy"? Are corporations and/or banks bigger manifestations than Israel in Jewish "supremacy" in the eyes of most Jews?
What the US sees in Israel today or 50 years ago, is not necessarily what Israel sees in the US.
Even among the Jews, only a small number of those Jews enjoy the "supremacy" you mention.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but I cannot be as decisive as you are on this question:)
Clarification:
Here in the USA I have often noted that Jewish zionists do not always agree with the views of israel. For example, they didn’t agree with the pullout from Gaza in 2005 until they finally understood that this was a trick to imprison Palestinians inside Gaza. This tells me that for zionist Jews in the USA, israel is merely a rallying point. Meanwhile israelis criticize zionists in the USA, saying, “Why don’t you come live here, instead of championing israel from a safe distance?”
Khazar-Ashkenazis have no ancestral connection with Palestine. What do they care about Palestine? Are they motivated by religion? No, they tend to be atheists. They ignored Palestine until Herzl and the zionists showed up. Syrian Jews tend to be genuinely religious. Hence they are not fervently zionist. The most radical zionist Jews are Khazar-Ashkenazis, who have no historical connection with Palestine.
To me, zionst Jews are like zionist “Christians” in the USA. Both groups use israel as a rallying point. Both use israel to get power over other people.
Indeed, I regard the entire support-for-israel thing as camouflage. It masks Jewish supremacy, which is the desire to have power over non-Jews, regardless of the nation we discuss.
israel is merely an excuse. A cover story.
We can definitely agree that many people use “Israel” for their various objectives be they religious, ethnic, financial, political or strategic. Fervent Zionists are definitely not at all religious. Ashkenazi Jews indeed have no link to Palestine whatsoever. This Israel thing is such a big hoax and cover-up for so many interests in the region…
How do you explain the Christian Zionist movement and their blind support for Israel? They too have objectives in mind regarding the Jews. The issue of Israel seems to be going beyond the issue of Jewish supremacy.. There is also the arms lobby and the Church. I think that Israel is a deep problem that every possible party (except the Palestinians) has and still is using and abusing… You make interesting points.
How do you explain the Christian Zionist movement and their blind support for Israel? The issue of Israel seems to be going beyond the issue of Jewish supremacy. There is also the arms lobby and the Church.
“Christian” zionists are poorly educated, and do not read books. Most of them live in backward areas of the American South. They are cowardly and confused. They know that zionist Jews own the USA, and they figure it’s better to be at the devil’s right hand than to be in his path. What motivates their zionism is cowardice and anxiety. They know their country is dying. They hope the “world will end” so they can be “raptured” to a resort hotel in the sky with cable TV and room service. Their leaders, such as John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and so forth, have made a fortune by exploiting these people’s neuroses.
Sometimes when an alcoholic person or a drug addict reaches rock bottom in the USA, the person will open an “escape hatch” and become a fanatical “Christian.” He remains mentally ill, but his illness becomes socially acceptable. He “finds Jesus.” This is common in high-stress environments, such as prison, and it describes “Christian” zionists as a whole. They are members of a perverse cult. They live in a dream world, cut off from reality.. zionist Jews regard them as useful idiots.
For “Christian” zionists, israel is merely a convenient item to focus their cult on. They have nothing else to live for. They are lonely and adrift. Their lives are empty and meaningless. By supporting mass murder, they get the government on their side, which they regard as “proof” that their twisted beliefs are correct.
If you do not live in the USA, then all you need to know about “Christian” zionists is that they are members of a sick cult. They are wretched, selfish, and arrogant. Most Amerians ignore them.
To a certain extent, zionist Jews in the USA are the same way. They have nothing to live for, except harming non-Jews and promoting israel. The only thing that holds them together is israel, plus their hatred for anyone who is not a Khazar-Ashkenazi zionist. They hate Sephardic Jews and other kinds of Jews. (Remember the ringworm children.) They don’t allow Ethoipian Jews to use the same swimming pools as Ashkenazi Jews, and they will not accept blood transfusions from Ethiopian Jews.
If an Ashekanzi Jew is born in the USA, and lives all his life in the USA, what connection does he have with Palestine? NONE. He has never been there. He doesn’t want to go there. Religion is irrelevant, since he is probably an atheist, or doesn’t care about religion. Yet he supports israel, because this promotes solidarity with his clan, his tribe, his people, and his race (I refer to Ashkenazis).
This is what I meant when I said that for Jews in the Diaspora, israel is just a convenient rallying point. They don’t really care about israel. They care about Ashkenazi supremacism.
Even israelis say this. I’ve read accounts by israelis – blogs and so forth – where israelis complain that Jews in the Diaspora don’t really care about israel. israelis call Jews in the Diaspora “fake zionists.”
Of course, if you talk to a zionist Jew in the Diaspora, he will angrily deny all this.
1. There are however 70 million banana Zionist Christians... and they are politically active unlike most Americans.. and very dangerous to everybody..
2. About the Jews.. Ashkenazi vs. Shephardi etc.., I agree. It is very clear even inside Israel.. in the way non-Ashkenazi Jews are treated. In this light, don't you find the prisoner exchange that took place 2 days ago between Israel and Hezbollah interesting? Hezbollah gave Israel the body of an Ethiopian Falasha Jew who was still waiting for his Israeli nationality and who died 3 years ago (drowned) and was carried by the water to Lebanon... Israel on the other hand gave Hezbollah the body of 2 Hezbollah fighters who died during this last 2006 war + one POW (alive) which the Israelis had kidnapped (and he was not a fighter, he was a normal civilian.. and sick).
What do you think of this????
:)
Wasn't Israel supposed to free their 2 shlomos in a week maximum in the summer of 2006?? Now they trade in the body of a Falashasha Ethipian immigrant for 2 Hezbollah warriors and a POW? Things have changed in the Middle East. Notice also that the 'unconstitutional' Lebanese government had no idea that the exchange was to take place:) Hezbollah, Germany, Israel, Sweden and the UNIFIL & Red Cross worked together without even informing the US puppet government...
lol