semitism.net

The marker of a vital idea is disagreement. The marker of a dying ideology is the suppression of dissent.

In the first section of his seminal work The Jewish State, Theodore Herzl wrote “whoever finds his doubts dispelled should give allegiance to the cause.” Herzl saw the genuine, vitriolic anti-Semitism that emerged throughout Europe in the wake of the Dreyfuss trial and concluded that the Jewish people could never, and should never, fully assimilate into another culture. Out of this emerged the quixotic idea of re-founding a Jewish state. Herzl was a noble soul, a visionary, an indefatigable campaigner. He gained international acceptance of the idea of Zionism by sheer force of persuasion. To the best of my knowledge, he never sued or intimidated anyone for disagreeing with him.

Herzl would turn over in his grave if he knew what his success had wrought. It’s as if Zionism was kidnapped and held hostage by the Stern Gang.

I said earlier that U.S. support has been Israel’s greatest asset in its efforts to hold onto Jerusalem and the West Bank settlement and avoid negotiations with the Palestinians. By the same token, information that might weaken or qualify that support poses a threat - not, I think, to Israel, but to the Likud Party, whose policies we are backing. A network of organizations has now emerged in the U.S. to monitor the media and promote a right-wing Israeli perspective. Engaging in public dialogue is fine - but some of these organizations have resorted to unwarranted accusations of anti-Semitism, lawsuits and other coercive tactics to try to silence criticism of Israel’s actions.

One example is the Middle East Media Research Institute. It was founded by Yigal Carmon, a retired Israeli military intelligence officer. When The Guardian reported on MEMRI a couple of years ago, they found that three of the six staff had also worked for Israeli intelligence. Registered as a U.S. nonprofit, MEMRI’s stated purpose is to provide timely English translations of items in the Arab press and “to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East”. However, they seem to select almost exclusively articles that are overtly anti-Jewish, support terrorism, and otherwise reflect the most extreme positions on the Arab political spectrum. Sheldon Rampton, the editor of the progressive magazine PR Watch, reviewed their output and concluded that

MEMRI’s depiction of the Arab world is one-sided and dwells almost exclusively on the worst aspects of Arab societies…MEMRI seems narrowly determined to stir up outrage against Arabs, on the assumption that this will lead to more public support for Israel.

Their translations are quickly picked up and disseminated by right-wing outlets such as World Net Daily and Human Events, and sometimes make their way into the mainstream media. This happened when MEMRI released an analysis of the most recent Osama bin Laden tape suggesting that his aim was to undermine Bush’s re-election campaign.

Now, Juan Cole is a history professor at the University of Michigan who runs an excellent blog called Informed Comment. Also fluent in Arabic, he took issue with MEMRI’s analysis. Here’s the link to his comments. After an explication of bin Laden’s use of an archaic form of the word “state”, he offers a brief profile of MEMRI, which included the following:

MEMRI is enormously popular with strong Jewish nationalists in the United States, who often subscribe to it by email, and are being given an unbalanced view of the region as a result. In some instances the translations are not very good, but the main objection is the selectiveness of the material. MEMRI is one of a number of public relations campaigns essentially on behalf of the far rightwing Likud Party in Israel that tries to shape American perceptions of Muslims and the Middle East in a negative direction.

That is not what I would call slander. But it wasn’t long before Dr. Cole received a letter from Colonel Carmon threatening legal action against him and his university unless he retracted his statements. Dr. Cole pointed out in a post last week that such lawsuits have become a standard way for manufacturing industries to harrass environmentalists who threaten their interests. It now appears that such Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation have become a weapon in the public relations war being waged against those who question hard-right Israeli policies.

Dr. Cole is among those who have been targeted by Campus Watch, an outgrowth of the conservative Middle East Forum. Middle East Forum is directed by Daniel Pipes, and staffed by other prolific neoconservatives like Daniel Kramer. Campus Watch maintains an online list of professors who have taken stands that it lables anti-Israel or pro-terrorism. The principal offense committed by the academics on the Campus Watch list seems to be that they disagree with Pipes’ viewpoint on the Middle East. Many of them are Arabists in the tradition of Palestinian scholar Edward Said, and reject what they consider the biased “Orientalist” perspective of Western scholarship on the Arab world (Michael Hirsch offers a good summary of the differing schools of thought in this month’s Washington Monthly).

Said himself was a professor at Columbia University. The Middle East and Asian Languages and Culture department (MEALAC) he helped build has been a stalking horse for Pipes and his adherents because of the openly critical stands some faculty members have taken on Israel. Now a Boston-based group called The David Project has made a documentary film that alleges intimidation and harassment of students by professors in this department. Columbia has responded to the film and the accompanying publicity by launching an investigation. One professor, Joseph Massad, has decided not to teach his course on Palestinian and Israeli politics next semester because of the controversy. But, as reported in Jewish Week last month, many Jewish students have come out in support of Dr. Massad and MEALAC.

…[I]n interviews with four of the seven students who appear in the film, and more than two dozen others mostly Israeli or American Jewish students who attended MEALAC classes over the last five years a much different picture emerges than the one seemingly portrayed on screen. The students most familiar with the MEALAC department, while noting that some professors are highly critical of Israel and its policies, defended the teachers as well within the bounds of academic give-and-take. Most of the complaints on campus appear to be from pro-Israel activist students not in the MEALAC program… “The class was an incredible experience”, said Lia Mayer-Sommer, 24, referring to Massad’s class titled Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies. Mayer-Sommer, an Israeli native, added that “it wasn’t fun to be the only Israeli in class, but I never felt intimidated. Passionate, emotional, but not intimidated.” Shaina Greiff agreed. “I studied at MEALAC”, said the 22-year-old Texas native. “I am a Jewish student, and I never felt intimidated or bullied or otherwise.”

The film clearly did not arise from concern over the treatment of Columbia students by professors. Rather, it is another example of right-wing interest groups attempting to silence debate by intimidating critics of Israel. We can expect more of the same. AIPAC and other conservative Jewish groups are backing a new group called The Israel on Campus Coalition, to “organize the Jewish community to work together - and focus on - a pro-active, pro-Israel agenda on campus.” Their first major report - Tenured or Tenuous - The Role of Faculty in Supporting Israel on Campus - recommends targeting faculty who hold “anti-Israel” views. Their advice to students encountering professors who teach “absurd concepts relating to Israel” includes the following:

• Document everything. Take notes on what a professor says and, if possible, tape lectures.
• Bring your concerns to the professor. It is possible that making a professor aware of
  inaccuracies or insensitivities may be enough to bring about change.
• If the professor does not respond, it may be desirable to discuss concerns with the
  department chair and/or school dean.
• Contact the Israel on Campus Coalition Faculty Task Force for guidance
  (info@israeloncampuscoalition.org).
• Inform the director of Hillel and/or other Jewish agency professionals and let them
  pursue the matter through the appropriate university channels.
• Publicize the problem. No university wants bad publicity and embarrassment in the
  press, and articles criticizing the behavior of a university can sometimes either
  encourage the university to take action on its own or provoke members of the
  community and alumni to pressure the administration to address the issue.

The anti-Jewish sentiment that Herzl encountered was just that: hatred and denigration of the Jews, for being Jews. The stubborn persistence of this racism in Europe provided a rational basis for Zionism, and it was Herzl’s eminently rational case that garnered so many converts to his idea. But Zionism itself is neither a race, nor a religion. It is subject to criticism like any other political philosophy. Neither opposition to Zionism, nor opposition to Israel or its policies, are in themselves anti-Jewish. There is nothing wrong with airing such challenges on campuses and in the media. If Zionism is still a reasonable idea - which I believe it is- then it should be easy to defend. It would be much easier, of course, if Israel would commit itself to existing within internationally recognized boundaries, pursue justice for the Palestinians, and act as a constructive rather than a divisive force in the Middle East.

In my opinion, the groups I have cited above are not so much pro-Israel as pro-Likud. I am not saying they are directly affiliated with that party, but their work supports its goals. Likud has made a mess of Zionism. Israel is in terrible shape economically. The occupation has placed tremendous strain on the youth who serve in the military, and on the Israeli population as a whole. Israel has largely forfeited the international respect it earned in its first three decades. Our treatment of the Palestinians betrays the humanistic vision of Israel’s founders. A great deal of this results from the vision of a Greater Israel, and the project of expanding settlements, that Israel’s fanatical right wing has pursued.

This is not the picture that Likud wants Americans to take away when they look at Israel. God forbid that American Jews should see what they’re up to, and start to exert pressure for change. So the picture we get instead is of a Bastion of Democracy, surrounded by an ever-menacing army of hostile Arabs bent on destroying the Jews and willing to use any means, especially terrorism, to accomplish their ends. Groups like those I’ve described above, which disseminate inflammatory, one-sided information and bully opponents, play a key role in maintaining this image. It’s as if the Israeli right is so morally and intellectualy bankrupt that they fear any honest critique, like a stone thrown at a fragile edifice, could cause it to crumble.

Israel, really, is stronger than that. But we won’t find this strength until we open our ears to our critics and our eyes to the reality of what we are doing.