Dear Steve,

I had missed your earlier post on the BDS movement. I found each one of your objections uncharacteristically weak. You write:

I might add that I dont support the "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement" myself. This is partly because I'm uncomfortable with even mild forms of collective punishment

But it isn't. The BDS movement, especially the Academic boycott component, is highly discriminating. It is a boycott only of individuals who do not explicitly reject Israel's occupation of Palesitnian land. Also, you appear to have forgotten that the boycott was actually announced precisely to protect dissent in the Israeli academia. Its spur was the witchhunt against Ilan Pappe back in 2005.

and partly because, like Gordon himself, I do worry about the double-standard issue (i.e., if you think it's ok to boycott Israel, why not China or Burma or any number of other countries?)

That object is also bunk. First of all, its based on a logical fallacy. It implies that I have double standards for helping the homeless person who sells the Big Issue magazine near my home because there is always someone in Malawi who needs that money more. Taking a position against China or Burma has no more than symbolic value, since neither of those states is reliant on US largesse to the degree Israel is, and neither is protected from censure by the US veto.

And I'm especially leery of efforts to interfere with academic exchanges, because I don't like anything that interferes with free speech or obstructs the free flow of ideas.

Your argument presupposes such exchanges. For the better part of most years, Palestinians don't even have access to their own Universities. And as regards exchanges inside the academia, the cases of Teddy Katz, Ilan Pappe and Neve Gordon are themselves illustrative of how much tolerance there is for contrary opinions. Let me state again: the British AUT boycott position was adopted IN DEFENCE of Ilan Pappe's academic freedom.

Sad since Neve Gordon was spot-on of course.

And you don't have to take my word for it.

Here is the view of Shulamit Aloni, who is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

This Road is for Jews Only
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel

By SHULAMIT ALONI

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds.

Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish Establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order--this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"

Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved 'for Jews only', on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal".

Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.

Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.

Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don't the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel's character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?

In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?

Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.

We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".

Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow". There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. It's an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".

[Translated by Sol Salbe]
Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

Ref:

http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html

My first teaching job was at CalStateLA where I and a few of my Jewish buddies in the early 1960s were strongly for the Marketplace of Ideas. I had, so to speak, become "Jewish" through four of my profs in graduate school.... as I was struggling to counter-convert from Catholicism.

Then and more so in my father's time, the Catholic Church was the Great Ogre of Orthodoxy and the Great Punisher of Dissent. But now the Jesuits are, one hears, mostly gay (God bless them) and there was even a rather loud Zionist, Robert Drinan, SJ.

What a role reversal. There are almost no Jews left and Zionism is the Jewish Catholicism of the reverse converts. It appears that immediately with the capture of Jerusalem in 1967, there was an amazing "Counter-Conversion of the Jews", from Town Meeting liberals to "Shut Up, Or Else! Zealots."

But what has happened since 2001 is worse yet. There is immense jump from shutting down the Marketplace of Ideas to opening up the Killing Fields of Gaza.

So let’s try a little thought experiment.

Let’s say some famous faculty member at Al-Quds University, made a comment that was as inflammatory in Palestinian society as the remark made by Neve Gordon was in Israeli society.

Let’s say that the hypothetical faculty member made a comment to the effect that Israel was correct to continue occupying Palestinian lands until Hamas was defeated and all Palestinians renounced terrorism. Or if you prefer, let’s imagine our hypothetical Al-Quds faculty member suggested that the Palestinian national identity was of recent vintage making Palestinians less entitled to a nation of their own than the Israelis are. Who knows, perhaps some Al-Quds professor might suggest someday that instead of seeking their own nation, Palestinians should consider living under Jordanian sovereignty.

Does Dr. Walt really think that under those circumstances Sari Nusseibeh would react all that differently from Rifka Carmi? Does he think the outrage in Palestinian society would be less than the outrage in Israeli society over Professor Gordon’s remarks? Does he think that a Professor at Al-Quds who made comments like the one’s I’ve mentioned would have his academic freedom respected? Would his job be safe? Would his life be safe?

The great Israeli author, Amos Oz, is a faculty member at Ben Gurion University, the same University that employs Neve Gordon. Oz has been highly critical of Israeli policy in general and the “occupation” in particular. If Dr, Walt is curious about how intellectuals with an independent streak are treated in the Arab World, he should consider the case of the great Egyptian author, Najib Mahfouz. Mahfouz won a Nobel Prize for his extraordinary “Cairo Trilogy;” perhaps Dr. Walt has read one or more of the three books.

Mahfouz was an outspoken and enthusiastic advocate of Sadat’s Camp David Accords, he advocated reconciliation with Israel and he was an outspoken critic of the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie.

In 1994 Islamic extremists almost succeeded in assassinating the 82-year-old novelist by stabbing him in the neck outside his Cairo home. He survived, permanently affected by damage to nerves in his right hand. After the incident Mahfouz was unable to write for more than a few minutes a day. Mahfouz was silenced by Islamic extremists who run rampant in Arab nations. Does Dr. Walt or anyone else think that Neve Gordon has to live with the same type of fear?

But Dr. Walt pretends to think the problem is academic freedom in Israel not the medieval outlook of Palestinian or other Arab religious extremists.

As Dr. Walt knows, Dr. Carmi never threatened to fire Neve Gordon. Dismissing a tenured faculty member in Israel is at least as difficult as dismissing tenured faculty in the United States. If anything, faculty trade unions in Israel are more powerful than faculty trade unions in the United States; Dr. Gordon will not be losing his job and Dr. Walt knows it.

I look forward to hearing Dr. Walt’s views on academic freedom in the Arab World.

Somehow I have a feeling it will be a long wait.

The hypocracy of the academic left is a wonder to withhold. Whether Walt is a member of that tribe or only a fellow traveler is unclear but like so many of his colleagues he’s very selective about his support for academic freedom and he’s positively schizophrenic about what donors are and are not entitled to.

While he decries the audacity of the President of Ben Gurion University speaking her mind about Gordon, he was notably silent when the faculty of Harvard formed itself into a lynch mob to demand that the Trustees oust Larry Summers from the Presidency of Harvard. Like Gordon, Summers made some provocative and controversial comments. Summers questioned whether there are biological factors which might play a role in explaining the dearth of women faculty in math and science. Although Summers’ comments were undiplomatic and probably stupid it’s clear that his detractors at Harvard deliberately took his comments out of context.

Summers’ academic freedom was blatantly violated with nary a peep from Walt. Or maybe Walt just thinks that lowly junior faculty are entitled to academic freedom but not university presidents.

Given his own history at Harvard one would think that Walt would try to be more consistent in his views about academic freedom. And you would think he would be more consistent about what donors are and are not entitled to. His own case is instructive. First the Development Department at Harvard and Walt deceived the Belfer/Rubin/Saltz family into donating the endowed funds for his Chair by hiding Walt’s views about Israel from this ardently Zionist family. Second, Walt and Harvard deceived the public by remaining mum about whether the donation was paid for in appreciated Enron stock. Finally Walt and Harvard obfuscate the circumstance surrounding Walt’s loss of his chairmanship.

You almost need a program to keep it all straight but in a nutshell it’s this:

According to Walt, deceiving donors is okay, listening to them too intently is bad. Questioning Neve Gordon’s remarks or Stephen Walt’s remarks is bad; questioning Larry Summers remarks is good.

Perhaps the good doctor should think about healing himself first before deigning to pontificate about others.

Academic freedom is red herring and has nothing to do with the issue. The person in question is the head of a department.

He is tasked with PROMOTING THE UNIVERSITY and also that department, not least of all overseas. That is a very big part of his job. He can't advocate a boycott of his colleagues endeavours and the University and simultaneously promote the University and it's work. He should be fired without apology and the job given to someone who will perform the Job as required.

There are plenty of Universities flush with PetroDollars who have whole departments that do nothing more than vilify Israel, routinely publish antisemitic tracts, e.g. Jews control the media or Jews control the US government. I have no doubt he will find plenty of offerings for him to continue his vile screeds where it can continue to be passed off as 'accademic' works.

And for the record the person in question is in no way a peace activist. He neither advocates or supports a peace agreement that would allow self determination for the 2 peoples. He is an Arab activist if one is to put it in charitable terms.

Always when honest men and women hear this sentence, they immediately think of all the ills that David Grün ('Ben Gurion' to you) in his dream-like naivity has caused for the people of the Middle East. Not only was he activily endorsing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians -- and Beduins in and around Beersheba -- but with his hopeless and naive attempt 'to make the desert bloom', he caries chief responsibility that one of natures wonders -- and a heritage site for all mankind -- the Dead Sea, is quickly evaporating away. The Dead Sea gets all its water from the Jordan River (which in turn gets most of its water from the Sea of Galilee), and is today only a creek, in which John the Baptist would have difficulty doing his main job, if it was today he was conducting this business. That is because "The National Water Carrier of Israel" sends up to 1.7 million cubic meters a day south, towards the coastal cities and Negev, where Mr. Grün himself lived and is buried.
In all probability he descended from Kazars or others in that neigbourhood, and had no blood connection whatsoever to the twelve tribes of Israel. He and his activities has become a symbol of Israel. The University that bears his name, was founded in 1969 and specilises mainly in desert-studies, and you cannot expect neither exceptionally high academic nor particularly developed moral standards from such a young (mainly technical) university, situated in these surroundings, getting its water from the far-away Sea of Galilei, and therefore co-responsible for the depletion of that lake and its only run-off, the Jordan River, and subsequently the only place where (the remainder) of its content flows, The Dead Sea. The Dead Sea, if left untouched by the Israelis (ie. if som many of them had not come to this desolate place), could have produced its own occasional mist and clouds, but alas, due to the depletion of its contrabuaries, this wonder of the Earth is now contracting, leaving a smaller surface, from where water can evaporate and make clouds.

The depletion of these natural wonders all started with the establishment of Israel, and they stand as a symbol of the huge mistake it was to create this artificial country from scratch, an exercise which was unprecedented, and never is going to happen again. Therefore let us join and devise a solution, whereby all the Palestinians and their descendants comes back and votes as to how they think this their ancestral land should be governed [And as a matter of course the Jews should be able to join in this vote]. Please bear in mind, that the Palestinians are 'more ancestral' than the Jews, whose blood-connection to this land in many cases are non-existent. A cautious estimate of the outcome of such a vote would be that Israel would then cease to exist. An that would be very beneficial for the world, securitywise and economywise.

There must be sanctions and boycotts against Israel, just as there were against South Africa.

Even the Education Minister of Israel says there is Apartheid in Israel:

http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html

Who else would you like to say that there is Apartheid in Israel, such that we can get on with BDS? Bibi?

Divest from Israel! NOW!

What I truely love about this blog is that Walt has no qualms about showing his hated for Israel, proving that he is not a Zionist as he claims, and proving his critics right.

He is also a decorated IDF veteran, an accomplished scholar, and a long-time peace advocate. (See here for my earlier discussion of Gordon's op-ed, including my own disagreements with it).

Let’s look at Professor Walt’s description of of Gordon. His “decorated IDF veteran” comment is pure plagiarism from Richard Silverstein (an anti-Zionist Walt often sites) who recently wrote “Gordon is a decorated paratroop officer” http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/tag/witch-hunt-against-neve-gordon/. How was Gordon decorated Professor Walt? Do you really know anything about his millitary career? Of course he was in the IDF like every other Jew in Israe,l and he was injured like thousands of Israeli soldiers. This does not confer him any special moral standing. Benedict Arnold was also a decorated officer.
Walt also calls him an “accomplished scholar”. I wonder if Walt has even read anything he has written. Gordon is considered a joke of a scholar as he only writes mass consumption books based on secondary sources about how awful Israel is. Walt’s claim to fame is also a mass consumption book based on secondary sources about how awful Israel is so I a m not surprised.

Next Walt calls him a “long-time peace advocate.” Walt refers to himself as a Zionist in favor of a two state solution, but he shows his true colors by calling Gordon, someone committed to Israel’s destruction and an anti-Zionist a “peace advocate.” He acted as a human shield for Yasser Arafat and lambasted anyone who called him a terrorist despite Arafat’s long career of killing civilians, high jacking planes, and ordering the death of Israeli athletes in Munch. Gordon is as much a peace advocate as those who advocate peace by moving all the Palestinians to Jordan.

Here's the key passage from Carmi's op-ed:
Academic freedom exists to ensure that there is an unfettered and free discussion of ideas relating to research and teaching and to provide a forum for the debate of complicated ideas that may challenge accepted norms. Gordon, however, used his pulpit as a university faculty member to advocate a personal opinion, which is really demagoguery cloaked in academic theory. In other words, if your research and expertise leads you to express a "personal opinion" on important and controversial issues, and if that opinion isn't acceptable to your University's president, look out.

Here Walt is a complete hypocrite as he shows his complete lack of understanding of free speech.
Walt also doesn't seem to know that Gordon himself sues other scholars who criticise him. Not exactly the poster boy for free speech. The President is expressing her opinion about what Gordon said. She did not fire him. Yet Walt does not believe she is entitled to her opinion.

Carmi then reveals her real concern…but it's clear from the full text that her real concern is fund-raising. Specifically, she's worried that donors will punish BGU because of the views of one faculty member, and that's why she has to go after him in public.

Here Walt is living in fantasy land. Where is fund-raising mentioned? She is concerned that a boycott of Israel will stop scientists from around the world from collaborating with Israeli scientists based on the boycott as Gordon calls for. Walt is just making this up.

She goes on to charge that:
Gordon has forfeited his ability to work effectively within the academic setting...Carmi presents no evidence that Gordon "cannot work effectively" with his colleagues, and her claim is contradicted by the fact that nearly 200 Israeli academics and students (including colleagues at BGU) have already signed a petition defending him (without necessarily endorsing his views, of course)...But presidents, deans, and other responsible administrators are supposed to hold those diverse communities of thought together, not try to drive out anyone with whom they disagree. Yet President Carmi has said that demands that Gordon resign his post as department chair are "legitimate," and that she hopes he will "reach the right conclusions."

She never called for him to resign. She said that if he hates Israel so much and wants it destroyed, why is he here?--he is welcome to leave. "Academics who entertain such resentment toward their country are welcome to consider another professional and personal home." She did not ask him to resign...she simply was asking why he was here if he hates Israel so much.

Cami is entitled to her opinion as vehement as they may be. Walt again shows that HE has no conception of free speech.

almost no space to actually refuting either his claim that Israel has become an apartheid state or his claim that an international boycott is the only way to save Israel from itself. These are controversial assertions, to be sure, and a number of thoughtful people -- including prominent leftists like Uri Avnery -- have offered sharply-worded critiques of his position. But instead of explaining why she thinks he's wrong -- as a true scholar would -- her focus is on the damage he allegedly has done to BGU and his unfitness for continued service there. She admits she can't fire him, but leaves little doubt that she would if she could. Now that's an attitude that is likely to encourage free thought!

The problem is that Gordon does not make any arguments at all. He just asserts Israel is an Apartheid state based on no argument whatsoever. Next Walt is going to say that all Israel did was condemn the Swedish organ harvesting story and not give facts proving it did not harvest organs. By asking Cami to refute such outlandish accusations, he is in essence agreeing that Israel is an apartheid state. Walt keeps proving his critics right that his book the Israel Lobby was not about foreign influence on the US, but about his hatred for Israel itself. Second no where does Cami state she would fire him. She has strong opinions about his ability to work with others after advocating the end of their country, but that does not mean she would fire him especially since he has been saying those same things for years without being fired. Most of his mas consumptions books are on how horrible Israel is.
Second, like Phil Weiss, I suspect the LA Times printed her piece because they took a lot of heat for running Gordon's original op-ed. But instead of giving the space to someone who would challenge the substance of Gordon's claims and recommendations, they gave the space to his boss, so that she could explain why his remarks were bad for the university she runs. This is unfortunate, but not unusual when dealing with the always-sensitive subject of Israel in the United States.

Again Gordon makes no substantive arguments. He just makes assertions. If someone asserted that Walt had done any real scholarship with no arguments, would professor Walt be forced to counter those assertions? Of course not. I also find it peculiar that Walt always seeks out obscure anti-Zionist Jewish bloggers like Phillip Weiss and Richard Silverstein to prove his point with the subtle argument that Jews agree with me too.

Third, this issue is important because universities are among the last bastions of free thought and debate in many democratic societies. But universities are supposed to be different.

Again Gordon was not muzzled. No one denied him free speech. He has been saying the same thing for YEARS and has not been fired. Walt doesn’t know this because he has very little knowledge of Israel.
They are also sensitive to what donors think, of course, which is why the principle of academic freedom has to be defended vigorously. Contrary to what many people think, donors don't get to pick the faculty and don't get to determine what they say (although some of them might like to!).

Again Walt brings up the donors canard without any evidence that this has anything to do with donors. He infers such motives where it supports his thesis about Cami, but provides no evidence that it is true--much like Neve Gordon’s assertions. No wonder Walt thinks Gordon makes good arguments.

If President Carmi understood her job correctly, she would make it clear that she disagrees vehemently with Professor Gordon's views, while making it equally clear that she defends his right to hold and express them, and that she is proud that Ben Gurion University is an institution in which especially unpopular views can be expressed and debated. Sadly, that is not going to happen.

Cami is entitled to her views. Obviously Walt doesn’t think she is and that she has to follow what Walt thinks she should do. I wonder how a University President in the US would respond to a professor saying the US has to be destroyed or merged with 300 million militant Islamists?

Finally, the Middle East Studies Association has sent a letter to President Carmi on Gordon's behalf, see here. I'm not suggesting that the two situations are identical, but it reminds us that once people start enforcing orthodoxy in academic settings, it can be hard to know where to stop.
Of course that is exactly what you are trying to do. Such statements are always ridiculously transparent. No one was fired, it was an isolated case and all of a sudden Israel is heading towards Iranian like censorship.
Citing a statement from MESA, the most anti Israel organization in the US, as proof of your argument is simply ridiculous.

Let's get beyond the academic pissing match, shall we?

On to the crux of the issue that Gordon raises: if there was BDS against South Africa, then why not Israel, if even the Education Minister of Israel says there is Apartheid in Israel?

http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html

Dave123 paints Gordon as anti-Israeli: he is not. He is anti-Israeli policies -- especially that of Apartheid.