|
Feedback From Communitarian Update
Number 49
We asked:
There has been much controversy recently over a movement on many campuses calling on
universities to divest from Israel. Critics believe this movement, and the statements made in
support of it, are anti-Semitic. Those in favor of divestment believe such accusations
amount to academic McCarthyism and stifle debate on the issue, while the critics of
divestment say they are only exercising their own speech rights. What is your opinion of the
divestment issue, and of the nature of the debate surrounding it?
Here are the responses we received.
*****
I think the President of Harvard and others confuse an undoubted rise in anti-semitism with
legitimate opposition to the Palestinian policy of the state of Israel, especially the policies and
actions of its present government. Many of us believe that Sharon's policies provoke anti-semitism and that too many defenders of these policies invoke the Holocaust against any
criticism, thereby defaming and devaluing the memory of Holocaust. A political and not a
military solution has to be found, and the United States has a heavy moral and political
responsibility for tolerating, sometimes inciting, Israel's actions simply because it holds the purse
strings.
I have many friends in Israel -- of the older generation who fought to defend themselves but then
sought for peace and, if not reconciliation, at least tolerable, mutually acceptable compromise.
In such situations those with the greater power have to make the first moves.
Sir Bernard Crick
Emeritus Professor
Birkbeck College, University of London.
Demands for "divestment" from Israel are at best ultra-partisan nonsense. Do they demand
divestment on account of China`s Occupation of TIBET Or from Syria over Lebanon, etc., etc.?
On what basis is Israel singled out?
H. Clor
Kenyon College
The equation of criticism of Israel (including divestment campaigns) with anti-Semitism is an
effort to exempt Israel from the normal criticism that any state should be subject to. It is often
paired with the claim that any criticism of American policy is "anti-American." These are clearly
efforts to close down debate and are more typical of totalitarian countries than of democracies.
One might also urge divestiture from the Palestinian Authority, if there were any investment to
divest from.
Robert N. Bellah
Professor of Sociology, Emeritus
University of California, Berkeley
Given the vicious atmosphere that has been created by this new right-wing political correctness
campaign, anyone would be a fool to say anything public with any complexity or nuance about
Israel/Palestinian-related matters.
I hated it when leftists used charges of "racism" to bludgeon into silence those who criticized
affirmative action etc, and I hate this new political correctness drive to use charges of anti-Semitism to silence open debate just as much! I feel this way even though I refused to sign or
support the Israel divestment petition. I was much more willing to argue AGAINST it before its
signers were wrongly accused of being anti-Semites. Now I want to say nothing. When debates
cannot be free and open, they tend not to happen, and wrong views spread or exist in silence.
Theda Skocpol, Harvard University
At present, the State of Israel gives more civil, political and economic rights to Palestinians than
any Arab country gives to Palestinians. Palestinians can own property in Israel (not allowed in
Lebanon, for example, and elsewhere), they can vote and they can serve in the parliament if they
are citizens of Israel, they have the protection of the courts, and so-on. Even if one cared only for
Palestinians and cared not a wit for the survivors of the Jewish residents of Israel, it would be
ignorant at best, and certainly illogical, and probably worse, to divest from Israeli investments in
favor of investment in countries that give Palestinians fewer rights.
Ross M. Stolzenberg
Professor of Sociology
The University of Chicago
Charges of anti-semitism or racism are grave in any setting, because anti-semitism and racism are
grave moral failings; but such charges are especially grave in the setting of a university, because
they tend to place their target beyond the reach of reasoned discourse. An anti-semite or racist is
someone whose arguments are not to be listened to or dignified with a response. Since listening
and responding to one another are essential activities of an academic community, anyone who is
successfully branded as an anti-semite or racist is thereby excluded from community life.
Of course, the harm that can be done by these terms is no reason for trying to ban or regulate
their use: "anti-semite" and "racist" are entitled to the same protections as any other epithets. But
their power to harm is a reason for holding the user of these terms responsible to our shared
standards of evidence and proof. When someone claims that a position advocated on campus is
anti-semitic or racist, he should be asked to substantiate the charge with specifics that can be
evaluated by all. Without substantiation, the use of these terms is just name-calling.
President Summers should tell us why in particular he thinks that the position taken by some of
his colleagues and students is anti-semitic. Is it anti-semitic because it criticizes Israeli policy?
because it offends some number of Jews? In answering such questions, President Summers
would stimulate discussion rather than silence it, as unsubstantiated charges of anti-semitism
tend to do.
The difficulty for President Summers will be to substantiate his charge in a way that does not
backfire on him, by tending to legitimize anti-semitism. Criticism of a government, such as
Israel's, or of a nationalist movement, such as Zionism, is a perfectly legitimate form of political
discourse; and protest against oppression, such as that of the Palestinian people, cannot become
illegitimate simply because it happens to offend those who sympathize with the oppressors. If
such positions are anti-semitism, then anti-semitism is not the moral failing that we previously
thought it was, and President Summers's charges can be safely dismissed.
J. David Velleman
Professor of Philosophy
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
The call to divest from Israel is based on the accusation that Israel is an "apartheid state," i.e.,
that all places in the former Palestine Mandate on which Jews are living are "occupied Arab
lands" taken unjustly from their rightful owners. This accusation is, in turn, based on the central
lie in the Arab propaganda war against Israel: namely, that Jews are colonial interlopers in
Palestine who have no business living there, and whose very presence is an injustice. The
emptiness of this claim can no longer be doubted by honest and sincere observers of the Middle
East crisis. To accept it is to accept the anti-Semitic campaign of which the lie is the centerpiece,
and to join the Arab war whose explicit aim is the destruction of the State of Israel. Criticism of
Israel is of course allowed in any free discussion of the complex issues involved in this conflict.
But this particular criticism, based as it is on a claim that is not only untrue but of dishonorable
origin, is not respectable, and those who make it deserve to be exposed and censured, if not
censored.
Dennis Hale
Department of Political Science
Boston College
I am a professor at the University of Buenos Aires city, a national institution( Universidad de
Buenos Aires). My subject is Theory of Conflict and Conflict management. I had published, just
few months ago, my book Teoría de Conflictos (Spanish edition, Barcelona, Spain, 2002).
To be brief, I have to say that I agree, almost fully, with the position shown in the speech or the
President of Harvard University.
Remo F. Entelman
Professor, Universidad de Buenos Aires
I have spoken to many people about this controversy, and imagine it to be something like being a
black person trying to bring unconsciously accepted racism to the attention of a white person who
had never experienced it!
Professor Summers was quite correct in saying that the divestment campaign was "anti-Semitic
in effect if not intent." If the people circulating this petition had issued a call for divestment from
all countries violating the human rights of others, that would not be anti-Semitic.
This point was dramatically illustrated some weeks later, when a petition, sponsored by a Jewish
organization, was circulated, calling for academic institutions to protect pro-Israel and pro-Zionist demonstrations and forums from physical attack and intimidation (some ugly incidents
had occurred on several campuses, effectively shutting down free speech). The petition called for
an end to such acts against Jewish groups and other groups. While many university presidents
signed the petition, several refused. The reason for refusing? The statement was deemed to be
"too asymmetric," in that it named only Jewish groups.
I hope it's clear now how the slightest overemphasis on protecting Jewish concerns, and not
emphasizing that the protection should apply to all people, immediately prompts expressions of
unfairness, while objecting to the singling out of Israel is viewed as stifling free speech. This to
me clearly illustrates the anti-Semitic effect of the divestment petition.
Incidentally, this was made even more obvious to me during a debate between Prof. Boyle of the
Univ. of Illinois, the divestment petition's sponsor, and Prof. Dershowitz of Harvard Law School.
When Boyle asserted the Palestinian Arabs' right of return to Israel, Dershowitz asked whether
Boyle also supported the Jews' right of return to Hebron in the West Bank. Boyle responded by
saying that he was speaking about the Palestinians! He was unable or unwilling to see that he was
promoting a biased pro-Arab stance.
Charles Freifeld
AlphaMetrics Capital Management, LLC
Boston, MA
The accusation that those involved in campus movements demanding divestment from Israel are
anti-Semitic are simply absurd. It is the McCarthyite tactic of smearing your opponents rather
than addressing their arguments. It is also a departure from the American political tradition of
respectful debate on issues.
There are compelling arguments for divestment from Israel. This nation has repeatedly defied
United Nations resolutions and international law with its 35 year old occupation of the West
Bank and Gaza Strip as well as its continued development of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.
In many ways the situation in Israel today mirrors that of South Africa in the 1980's. Back then
some accused divestment proponents as dupes of communists. Today the accusation is anti-Semitism and tacit support of terrorism.
Pope John Paul II has long been critical of the Israeli policy of creating new settlements rather
than negotiate creation of a Palestinian state. Palestinian aspirations for statehood and
independence are just as valid as the security concerns of Israeli citizens.
Communitarians must stand up for free speech, civil discourse, and the common good on
difficult situations like the Middle East. If they do not, the communitarian movement has
forfeited its reason to exist.
Michael Stone
Associate Director
Office of Justice & Peace
Catholic Diocese of Richmond
Richmond, VA
There were pacifists in thy 1930s, who helped the U.S. and much of Western Europe vade
confronting the use of force by Italy and Germany to expand. The price was terrible.
I was among the lucky . I survived almost four years of active military service . The Israel haters
show the same naivete, attacking the victims of fanatic aggressors to avoid confronting the reality
that Islamic Extremists are the only expansionist social movement ready to destroy their own
people in order to conduct a crusade. They were a primary source of the Palestinian Refugee
catastrophe in 1948-49 and 1967. They have kept these refugees from being absorbed, as were all
the refugees of World War II in Europe.
Israel stood up against this danger almost alone, long before September 11 motivated the U.S.
and Great Britain to face it strategically and tactically.
Israel deserves the support of all liberals and people concerned with the survival of democracy.
No modern army, not the U.S., British, French or Russia, have conducted their anti-terror
campaign with so few civilian casualties against fanatics that use civilians, their own family
included, as human shields.
Where were these "Boycott Enthusiasts" when Pakistan mass murder the intellectual elite of
Bangladesh or when Iraq used poison gas on Kurdish villages? Why are they silent about the
support of terror by Saudi persons, the dehumanization of woman in that nation and the cruelties
of Shariah "law"? The anti-Israel boycotters do fill their gas tanks with Saudi oil without seeing
any inconsistency in this self-indulgence.
The successors of Hitler and Mussolini and of Japanese imperialists would be ruling us, if the
pacifist scenario of blaming victims for defending themselves had triumphed.
Joseph W. Eaton
University of Pittsburgh
It must be remembered that Israel is not the same as Judaism. One is a state and the other is a
religion. Just as one can criticize the U.S. without in any way criticizing Christianity, or can
criticize Saudi Arabia without criticizing Islam, likewise one can criticize Israel without making
a statement that in any way reflects on Judaism or Jews as a people.
The state of Israel is undoubtedly an oppressive state, and its treatment of the Palestinians is
simply indefensible. Practicality and justice both argue against the massively unbalanced
"defense" policy of the state of Israel which has resulted in suffering, anger, and frustration, that
in turn simply perpetuate the conflict. The occasional objections of the U.S. government to Israeli
policies are obviously ineffective. What is needed is to drastically reduce the funding provided by
the U.S. government, U.S. organizations, and American individuals, so that Israel is forced to
establish relations with its neighbors that are based on mutual respect rather than force.
Paul Adams
Professor of Geography
Austin, TX
I think I got my view of these issues fairly clear in my mind way back when there was discussion
of investments in South Africa at LSE back in the 1960s. Not being a fundamentalist believer in
democracy, I believe that communities -- ranging from territorial communities to quasi-communities
(communities of choice rather than of fate) -- can be, and should be, egalitarian democracies on
some issues, and have hierarchical decision structures for others. The criteria for constituting the
power hierarchy of universities should be not only the obvious one of presumed competence in
the universities' main function of teaching and research, but also the additional one of expected
length of membership -- presumed commitment, Tenured professors and assistant professors
hoping for tenure, should therefore, in some things that effect the university's long-term future,
(like who is going to be given tenure) have decision-making powers from which short-term
members such as students are excluded. It seems to me that a decision on the basic principle: are
our investments to be guided by the sole purpose of maximizing the university community's
income, or do we add ethical criteria to our investment choices? is one which the long-term
members alone should take. If they choose to do ethical investments, then the particular second-level decisions which reflect the community's collective ethical stance on issues of current
political concern are something that all current members of the community have a stake in. In an
ethically investing university, whether to withdraw investments from bad country X or Y, should
be decided by referenda including students and clerical staff.
Personally, I would vote for an ethical policy and for withdrawal of investments from Israel, but
not for the exclusion of individual Israelis from editorial boards as some people seem to be doing.
I find it disturbing that, given the appalling mess that the world is in, Larry Summers is more
moved, more deeply concerned about, the rise of antipathetic feelings towards the ethnic group
with which he identifies, than with the desperate situation in the Middle East itself.
It seems to me entirely reasonable there should be strongly hostile feelings towards Israel and
that the world should consider Israel's policies more important than the rise of anti-semitism. The
one overwhelmingly militarily powerful and uniquely nuclear-armed state in the region, instead
of seeking peace with its neighbours and the people whom it conquered in 1967, instead is
following policies (condemned by the present president's father) that are not only manifestly
unjust, but seem to be the major factor inflaming the sentiments which are making serious
terrorism world-endemic.
Among sentiments of ethnic hostility, anti-semitism carries a special load of horror because of
history -- the Holocaust. That sense of horror is kept alive, partly because of the enormity and
recency of that event, but also because members of the Jewish ethnic group are represented in positions
of power and influence in politics, the media and academia in America in far greater ratios that
their proportion in the population. Chinese-Americans are well aware of anti-Chinese sentiment
whose depth was revealed by the recent Rand spy case. But I don't know any of them who think
discussing anti-Chinese sentiment is more important than talking about China's or Taiwan's
policies. Why should Summers think antisemitism a more important topic for morning prayers
than the Middle East politics to which anti-semitism's rise is directly related?
Ronald Dore
Cavanazza, Veggio
To ask students and campuses to divest from Israel (Jews) is, in fact, anti-Semitic and immoral.
Israel is a democratic country that does indeed respect freedom of expression. The movement to
destroy Israel upon many fronts and, I fear, many colleges and universities are part of that
league.
S. Roset
Saskatoon, SK.
Canada
Are the demands that institutions divest from Israel anti-Semitic? One cannot give a meaningful
answer to the question without defining anti-Semitism. I take it to mean prejudice and
discrimination toward Jews just because they are Jews. While we cannot know the motives of the
advocates of divestment, I submit that such demands are NOT necessarily anti-Semitic, and in
the vast majority of instances probably are not. Instead, they should be seen simply for what they
are: protests against the policies and actions of the Israeli government. As such, they are no more
anti-Semitic than the actions of the "refuseniks"--the more than 400 members of the Israeli army
who refuse to obey orders to carry out operations against Palestinians.
These current calls for divestment should be considered in the light of similar demands and
actions for divestment from South Africa during the 1980s. In some ways, Israel has been even
more repressive of Palestinians than white South Africans were of blacks. The massive
retaliations that Israel has always unleashed against acts of violence--bombing, shelling, razing of
homes and businesses, not to mention restriction of movement with its consequent economic
losses--could not realistically be expected to yield anything other further escalation of violence.
This is not to say that any Palestinian violence is justified, only that it can be expected. When one
adds to retaliation the provocation of the West Bank settlements, I believe that one must
conclude that Israeli policies must be changed. If divestment can be instrumental in bringing
about such change, then it is to the good. There can be no peace until both sides change.
We should also remember that U.S. support of Israel continues to fuel acts of terror against the
United States. We can and should support Israel's right to exist without approving everything the
Israeli government does.
Kenneth L. Burres
Professor of Religion
Chair, Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
Central Methodist College
Fayette, MO
To say the divestment movement is anti-Semitic entangles us in irrelevant disputation over
semantics and in unresolvable speculation about motives. It also treats a diverse assemblage of
individuals as though they were of one mind. It is more to the point to say that the divestment
movement takes little account of Israel's precarious existential situation, discounts the many
elements of decency in Israel's conduct towards its own Arab population and towards the
Palestinians in the territories, exaggerates Israel's unfortunate follies and her all-too-real lapses
from decency, seeks to inflict punishment highly disproportionate to Israel's offenses, demands a
degree of purity not asked of other nation-states, ignores the far more heinous conduct of many
other countries, and overlooks the pervasive anti-Semitism directed at Israel by her Arab and
Muslim neighbors. Leave the "anti-Semitism" of the divestment movement, such as it may be,
aside. It is enough to say that the divestment movement represents a spectacular perversion of the
universal standards of decency and fairness which it professes to uphold.
Eugene Bardach
Professor of Public Policy
Goldman School of Public Policy
University of California, Berkeley
I view such a response to the oppression of the current government in Israel akin to the former
governments in South Africa, and, in that case, boycott assisted in reversing the racial policies in
South Africa. If violating UN resolutions and possessing weapons of mass destruction are policy
criteria, we should seek regime change in Israel.
James D. Prendergast
Vice President and Senior Counsel
UCC Insurance Division
The First American Corporation
The effort on campuses to divest Israel is based on a total lack of knowledge by some academics
and students as well as pressure from radical left wing ideologues. To equate Israel with South
Africa is to fall into the anti-Semitic trap that seems to be resurfacing in Europe. With dozens of
dictatorial regimes, oppressive states throughout the world, to single out Israel, is in my opinion
rooted in conscious and unconscious anti-Semitism. The students who are involved are still
living in the shadow of Viet Nam and have found a way to express their sentiments against war
and aggression. Indeed, Israel is an imperfect democracy, but compared to it's neighbors and
most of the UN nations it is a free and open society. As an antiwar activist and critic of some
Israeli policies, I am deeply disturbed by this irrational behavior on some campuses.
Marvin Rosenberg
Associate Professor
Case Western Reserve University
I would just like to stress the fact that criticism of Israel's politics in the occupied territories is not
eo ipso expression of anti-semitism. In Israel there are many internal opponents to Mr. Sharon's
politics: are they examples of "anti-semitic Jews" or just Israeli citizens who disagree with the
brutal and systematical military repression which takes place in those territories killing many
innocent civilians?
Mr. Summers is right in noting that there are political groups trying to exploit this criticism and
to revive anti-semitic prejudices, but it is very misleading to conclude that all critics of Mr.
Sharon's politics are anti-semitic. This black-and-white way of seeing things, which equates critic
against Israel with anti-semitic attitudes, makes almost impossible to discuss on the issue in an
objective way. I share Mr. Summer's worries about a renewed anti-semitism (particularly in
Europe), but this will not make me deaf to criticism towards Mr. Sharon's politics.
Alessandro Pinzani
Italy (at the moment in New York)
I stand precisely where Summers stands.
Ellen Frank, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Most of the campus debates and demonstrations that I have seen have been orderly and not much
noticed by major media, sometimes to the chagrin of the organizers. So when desperate to attract
attention, the organizers try something more flamboyant, sometimes going over the lines of
civility and legality. When in a minority position, maintaining discipline in demonstrations is no
small feat. The old civil rights demonstrations of the 1960 were generally well done in this
regard. The strategy is to shame the opposition, not to stir hate among its followers, which is counterproductive.
The Israeli-Palestinian issue is similar to civil rights because neither side wants to enter a
discussion about its own excesses. Israeli defenders in particular are thin-skinned to criticism,
regarding any admission of most policy errors as the slippery slope to another holocaust. As long
as they feel obligated to defend any Israeli policy in public, no matter what they may think in
private, and their opponents do the same, all that can result is endless tribal warfare dominated by
ultra-zealots.
The only way this can resolve is by people accepting each other as human beings, trying to
comprehend the consequences of their own behavior, not just the "other side's," and dealing with
it, however imperfectly. If they could do no more than find a way for the "ultras" to accept each
others right to exist, that would be breakthrough.
Nothing will happen as long as the opponents actually think that by "winning" or "holding firm"
they have gained something. For a little while, during the civil rights era, discussions on campus
managed to work their way past the usual repetitions of tribal and class hatreds that characterize
insoluble social problems. Firebrands don't want a solution; they want vengeance and victory.
This mess is much older and more deep seated than the history of slavery in the United States. It
won't go away without university administrations taking leadership and coaching their
constituencies in how to hold real exchanges, released from the intransigence that has historically
paralyzed resolution of any tribal conflict anywhere. Advocates may learn to open people's eyes
using the tactics of Gandhi and MLK, as well as the voice of reason (supposedly a strong point in
universities), but the challenge is deeper. Otherwise our bastions of open debate could fall to the
same closures of mind and conscience that underlie tribal enmities everywhere.
Robert W. Hall
Professor Emeritus
Indiana University
I think that its hypocrisy at best and anti-Semitism at worst. As Thomas Friedman has pointed out with
the Arab nations being some of the worst human
rights violators including their violation of women's rights, to single out
Israel is unconscionable. For example where were these people when Egypt
jailed a professor for speaking out for democracy?
Stan Newman
National Board Member
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation.
The current outcries about divestment from Israel on the one hand, and anti-semitism on the
other, both reflect simplistic, knee-jerk reactions to major long-standing problems which Israel
and the Palestinian Authority and PLO have not been able to resolve.
It is legitimate to criticize the Israeli government for its policies and long-term occupation of the
"Occupied Territories". It is not legitimate to equate such criticism with anti-semitism unless the
criticism itself is couched in the language used by anti-semites. North Americans, in general,
know very little about Palestinian lives beyond the violence covered in press and broadcast
media. Occasionally there are hints in newspapers, to the effect that about 20% of Israeli citizens
are Palestinian/Arab/Muslim; there are a few marriages among Palestinians and Jews but the
couples have a difficult time of it and tend to emigrate out of the Middle-East if they can. Hanan
Ashrawi's very poetically and humanely written This Side of Peace gives hints of the difficulties
and absence of humanity and human dignity in Israeli occupation of the "Territories" and how
this affects the lives of ordinary, non-violent Palestinians (both Muslim and Christian).
Now that Human Rights Watch has rightfully called suicide bombing a crime against humanity,
maybe there is opportunity on university campuses to organize symposia, lectures and
discussions which explore the lives of ordinary Palestinians, the diversity of outlook of the
population within Israel, and the nature of the Israeli government policies and actions since the
signing of the Oslo peace accords, which are now essentially dead. One matter that requires a
thorough examination, buttressed by maps and facts, is the continuing settlement of the West
Bank which creates "facts on the ground" in Ashrawi's words that will make it more and more
difficult to arrive at a two-state solution.
In this case, academic freedom needs to go way beyond slogans and name-calling, and should be
used in the interests of true learning. There is right and wrong on all sides--enough to go around,
but not enough solid knowledge about the total situation. Such solid knowledge might help
concerned university students seek a more viable approach. What worked in South Africa to help
get rid of apartheid may not be appropriate in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
To introduce myself, my family left Austria when in 1938, when I was a toddler, because we
were Jewish. One distant cousin arrived in Palestine. Her family lives in the Tel Aviv area, would
like to see peace, and has no use for the likes of Sharon. They were very saddened and upset
when Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Israeli.
Ruth L. Love, Ph.D.
Portland, Oregon
While I believe that free speech is critical and proponents have the right to express their opinions,
I believe that attaching political views to investment decisions leads down a slippery slope. Why
not extend the ban on any country whose policies one disagrees with. There are many nations in
violation of human rights and other's whose policies are anti US. There is a real distinction with
South Africa under Apartheid. The Israeli's have every right to protect themselves from groups
trying to destroy the state. While I don't agree with all the Israeli policies, it was Arafat that
rejected the agreement not Israel. It is the Palestinians who are the suicide bombers and attack
Israeli civilians.
Ruth Hanft
[I am a retired Professor (GWU) living in the Charlottesville, VA area.]
Unless it is impossible to distinguish between the Jewish people and the current government of
the state of Israel, a divestment effort designed to influence policies adopted in Tel-Aviv need
not be an expression of anti-Semitism. Reasonable people may differ on the question whether
those policies are racist and on the separate question whether, if they are, divestment is a
desirable way to encourage the Israeli government to alter them. But opponents of those policies
can reasonably maintain that if they do, indeed, violate basic human rights in important ways, a
divestment campaign is an appropriate non-violent strategy in support of positive change.
Divestment proponents could reasonably regard themselves as in solidarity not only with
Palestinians but also with Jewish objectors to the current direction of Israeli policy. If they do so,
we need not see them as motivated by any sort of animus against Jews or their stance as
presupposing anti-Semitism of any sort.
Gary Chartier, PhD, JD
Assistant Professor of Business Ethics and Law
Special Assistant to the Dean
School of Business and Management
La Sierra University
I think that there is nothing anti-Semitic in the call for divestment, neither in effect nor in intent.
The putative reason for invoking anti-Semitism is that Israel has somehow been "singled out",
that Israel is not the only country that violates basic human rights and that, nevertheless, it is the
only country that the divestment petitions are concerned with. This argument fails for various
reasons. One trivial reason is that political activity always singles out a specific cause. But
perhaps a more important reason is that the petition did not single out Israel, but merely
addressed a situation in which Israel has already been singled out. US policy makers have been
singling Israel out for decades by making it the largest recipient of foreign aid, aid which is
necessary for carrying out atrocities that we should all be concerned with. We fund the tanks that
are surrounding Palestinian cities and we make the helicopters that are used for targeted
assassinations as well as the bulldozers necessary for indiscriminate house demolitions. We are
all directly responsible for what Israel does and with this responsibility comes a moral obligation
for political action. Israel has been singled out by US foreign policy, not by any petition. The
modest goal of the petitions is to direct people's attention to the responsibility that is entailed by
the foreign policy of their government.
Danny Fox
Assistant professor of linguistics
MIT
Israel is, and forever will be, America's most important ally in the Middle East. It is the area's
only functioning democracy and a foothold for Western liberalism in an otherwise oppressive,
corrupt region. Israel is the spiritual and ancestral home of the Jews. As a Judeo-Christian nation,
America must make clear that the United States will never allow Israel to be destroyed nor will it
descend into poverty.
Jews have built a prosperous, thriving nation in a land with little natural resources and
threatening regimes on all sides. Israel was built by the hands of those rejected by other nations;
the wretched refuse of their teeming shores. Those who survived the slaughter of Hitler and
Stalin and Nebuchadnezzar followed the light of freedom to a land of their own. Israel embodies
the ideals with which Americans identify.
As actors in a capitalist system, universities have a right to invest or to divest on any grounds
they deem justified. However, in doing so they bear moral responsibility for their actions.
Declaring a university's investments to be "Judenrein" plumbs the depths of human hatred. It is
morally indefensible at any level. Some argue that "Israel Free" is not "Jew Free". It is a
distinction without a difference. Divestiture is simply "Kristallnacht" 2002.
Joe Graziano
Stafford, Virginia
It is a gross overstatement to call efforts to restrain Israeli atrocities "anti-Semitic." The behavior
of Israeli military forces -- dropping large bombs on residential neighborhoods to kill a particular
Palestinian terrorist leader living in them, killing family members along with such terrorists by
blasting their automobiles -- is on the same moral level as the Palestinian terrorists themselves.
America provides the weapons and the economic support for the right-wing crazies who run
Israel today. As Americans many of us are frustrated beyond belief by our inability to restrain the
Israeli government, even to get it to stop expanding its stealing of land from Palestinians for
"settlements" of Israeli right-wing expansionists, or trashing the Bir Zeit University out of spite. I
heard William Safire speak at the University of North Carolina justifying the expansion of Israel
into the pitiful scrap of territory left to the Palestinian Arabs and boasting of his friendship with
Sharon - without any organized protest from those who want peace with justice between Israel
and Palestine.
I don't think anyone believes that the "investment boycott" program will be able to achieve
results, but it is a way of protesting American complicity in the worst features of the current
policies of the Israeli government - which hopefully will not remain in power once elections are
called. A similar call for an investment boycott on Saudi Arabia would be an equivalent moral
statement against Saudi complicity in support of Islamic extremism and real anti-Semitism. To
be fair, the "boycott Israel" movement should combine that with a demand to "Boycott Saudi
Arabia." and all other states which support terrorism in Israel. I don't think either is a sensible
practical policy, but we need some way to express condemnation of vicious policies by our allies.
Allen Barton
Chapel Hill, NC
I believe that those people who are calling for divestiture of investment in Israel are very ill-informed. They only see the Palestinians as occupied and oppressed people whose land was
stolen from them. Look at the facts. Those Palestinians are there because life was so much better
for them under Israeli influence and no other Arab country wanted them. They had jobs, they
made money and they had 7 universities opened up for them under Israel. They had the highest
standard of living in the Arab world. They were offered a Palestinian state at Camp David with
95% of the West Bank. They said NO and did not even negotiate but started killing and then sent
suicide bombers adding to the TERROR. It is clear that their leadership is corrupt and weak.
Bush has refused to deal with Arafat and has called for new leadership.
Their own leadership agrees but will be murdered if they speak out. It is clear that what they want
is the total destruction of Israel and nothing less.
It is a puzzlement how those academics who pride themselves on knowledge and judgment can
call for this kind of action which will weaken the only democratic state in the area. They should
use their energies to teach the Arabs what is in their best interests by living with, learning from,
and prospering along with Israel.
Leo Rain, MD
Los Angeles, CA
To me it is something of a sociological miracle that these charges can still be taken seriously. If
divestment campaigns are anti-semitism, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that
antisemitism is in some cases a moral obligation.
I wholeheartedly support the divestment campaigns, but as a Jew whose family was decimated by
the Nazis, I don't tend to consider such support anti-semitic. I agree that the critics of divestment
are only exercising their own free speech rights, but this hardly recommends the content of
their assertions.
Michael Neumann
I find the movement proposing divestment from Israel morally misguided whether voiced by
Academics or not. My position is fundamentally rooted in two factors. First, while legitimate
concerns can be raised about some aspects of Israeli policies with respect to Palestinians, I feel
that 50 years after the Holocaust it is morally irresponsible to single out Israel as the culprit for a
very difficult and tragic situation, especially since such actions are bound to provide de facto
support for those whose goal is to eliminate Israel, and the Jewish people from the Middle East. Second,
given the chronic anti-semitism that has been sadly expressed in the Arab world over the
decades, and the increasingly indiscriminate violence and extremism displayed by anti-semitic
forces in the Middle East it is incomprehensible for me how one could credibly resort to this kind
of action
against Israel while totally ignoring the terrible goals and means of the forces railing against
Israel and the Jewish people. Given these factors, the proposed divestiture from Israel can not be
equated in any way with the struggle against apartheid, a clearly reprehensible policy, in South Africa.
I find the thoughts expressed by Larry Summers to be totally agreeable, moving, and tolerant. He
expressed very clearly that he is not questioning academic freedom in any way. I see no reason to
restrict freedom of speech by anybody, be a University president, other person of official
authority or anybody else when the individual perceives the issues of such moral weight as Mr.
Summers does. From this point of view the fact that I happen to agree with the concerns
expressed by him is irrelevant. Each one of us has the moral right and responsibility to address
issues we perceive to be of paramount moral and humanitarian weight.
Kalman Rupp
North Potomac, MD
I have no knowledge as to the extent of anti-Semitism among the campus divestment-from-Israel
movement. In speaking for myself, however, I consider that the government of Israel deserves
severe criticism for its attitude and actions toward the Palestinians and that the people of Israel
who support their government's policies likewise deserve severe criticism. But some Israelites
don't approve of their government's use of military force to take over Palestinian lands with no
regard for social justice (takeovers and destructions of homes and olive groves, etc). I don't feel I
am anti-Semitic in criticising one faction in Israel that has control of the government while
applauding another faction. If condemning Israel's governmental wrong policies means I am
condemning the Jewish people and their prevailing religion, then it seems to me that it is Israel's
government and those among Israel's people who support its wrong policies that are invoking a
fictional connection between themselves and all Jewish people and thus invoking a fictional anti-Semitism. I agree that there should be campus movements critical of what Israel is doing, but I
don't think divestment is what is called for at this time. The emphasis should be on maintaining
rational discussion of the issues and on influencing our own government concerning what would
be just relations with Israel and Palestine.
It should only be after there is no hope that our government will do right, that divestment should
be turned to, and then only with extremely careful choices for divestment, choosing only entities
wholly supportive of Israel's misuse of its military might.
David Triantos
Washington, D. C./St. Mary's County, Maryland
I strongly believe that Israel is fighting for its life, and that under the duress of terrorism, Israel's
efforts to establish a Palestinian state are stifled not by Israel, but by the Islamacist fanatics. One
has to keep in mind that the Islamacist radicals do not just want a State of their own; they want
the annihilation of a Jewish State in their midst. Given these circumstances, the U.S. must
support the Jewish State in its efforts to survive in a very hostile and bellicose environment
D. Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
It has grown quite tiresome to hear how all those who criticize or even mildly question the
policies of the Israeli government are evil, crazed anti-Semites bent on the destruction of the
Jewish state. I voted against Bush and actively criticize his Iraq policy, does that make me
anti-Christian? No. Why? This is because the US is not a THEOCRACY, unlike states like Iran,
Taliban era-Afghanistan and Israel. [And lets be clear here because I can already hear the
whetting of the long knives - I am opposed to all theocracies around the world. I am talking about
Israel now because that was the subject of the question I was asked to respond to. If you want a rant on
the Taliban, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and/or the religious extremists in the US, ask me to respond to a
question about them.] When the state allows religious parties to participate in (if not control)
governance and major policies decisions are made following religious doctrine and messianic
prophecy, we are talking about a theocracy (it's not called the "Jewish state" for nothing). Given
this setup any rebuke against an Israeli government policy decision is automatically framed as an
anti-Semitic slur. This is really quite ingenious. Not only does it silence Gentiles who fear that
open dissent with the Israeli state party line will be interpreted as somehow condoning the
Holocaust or as an ode to Hitler or something, it works to keep Jews around the world in line as
well as they will fear being ostracized and charges of being "self-hating" (if not actual threats of
violence) if they speak out in any way. And this is where we find the president of Harvard,
unable or unwilling to make any distinction between blatant and contemptible anti-Semitic
activity (which history has shown has never needed a Jewish state in order to flourish) and
legitimate disagreement with and protest over Israeli state policies vis a vis the Palestinians. The
text of Summers' speech seems to indicate that this "attack" on Israel is unprecedented and that it
is being "singled out." Huh? The Zimbabwe government's treatment under Mugabe of the white
minority has been roundly criticized from all corners of the globe - was his criticism simply
anti-black or anti-African demagoguery? Of course it wasn't, but in an interesting parallel many
African leaders (outside of the beleaguered and oppressed Zimbabwe opposition movement)
continue to remain silent on the issue - they are unwilling to appear to be taking the side of
whites against an African leader regardless of anything that leader says or does. Summers
describes the politics of the Middle East as enormously complex but then immediately resorts to
simplistic, monolithic imagery - a rising tide of anti-Semitism complete with synagogue burnings
is the sole face of protest against Israel while the implied countenance of Israel is singularly
noble and unblemished with only words of love and brotherhood to proffer. Only a fool would
willing accept such a black and white interpretation of reality. For every Palestinian hopped up
on some mullah's promise of glory Gush Emunim has a wild-eyed recruit eager to shoot an Arab
or even the Israeli prime minister if circumstances demand it. It is the height of irony for
Summers to be speaking out about anti-Semitism when Israelis themselves cannot agree on what
it means to be Jewish. Ultimately there will be a show down in Israel between the secular
republicans and the die-hard theocrats but until then Israel will be the "Jewish state", a de facto
theocracy. But even if Israel cannot or will not separate state from religion, I can and I feel very
comfortable criticizing specific Israeli policies while feeling just as ambivalent about Judaism as
I do about every organized religion.
Johnny Holloway
Ph.D. student & agnostic
American University
Washington DC
I agree with Larry Summers remarks completely. I am sure that those in favor of divestment are a
diverse group and advocate such a policy for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, included in this
group are those who are anti-Jew, along with others who are naive, misguided, and unjust. By
advocating divestment they are espousing a principle that institutions and organizations should
have nothing to do with nations whose policies are cruel and inhumane. If such advocates applied
this principle consistently and with a sense of proportion their motives would be less suspect.
Howard Kaye
Wayne, PA
Calls to "single out Israel among all nations as the lone country where it is inappropriate for any
part of the university's endowment to be invested," as Harvard President Lawrence Summers
expressed in the speech you cited, may be draconian and over reactive. It can also be argued,
however, that Sharon-era security policies have been even more draconian and over reactive.
Israel's policy of supporting settlement in Palestinian territories has certainly, and
understandably, been provocative of Palestinian desperation. And, hard-line, brutal responses to Palestinian
violence have not made Israel a safer place.
Summers' speech includes the divestment movement, which is clearly a response to Israel's use of
what some consider to be dangerously excessive force, among indicators of a growing anti-Semitism. Yet it seems unrealistic to include attempts to influence actions of the Israeli
government with accounts of swastika-painting and denial of the facts and effects of the Nazi
holocaust. Criticism, even activist criticism, of Israeli policy does not constitute anti-Semitism.
We cannot make a safer world by insisting on a "with us or against us" mentality. We must be
able, in the public discourse, to separate people from the actions of people. To his credit,
Summers acknowledges this separation in saying that "there is much to be debated about the Middle
East and much in Israel's foreign and defense policy that can be and should be vigorously
challenged." Yet he seems to acknowledge this need to challenge Israeli policy with only a hasty
nod. Even more disturbing is a passage where Summers seems to see his assembly of anecdotes
as potential evidence that the world consensus in favor of the continued existence of Israel is in doubt.
Criticism of Israeli hard-line defense and security policy, even when that criticism extends to
suggestions of practical economic pressure on Israel, does not mean that the critics are anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli, any more than criticism of Bush administration policies means that those
critics are anti-American.
To live together in an increasingly crowded world, we will have to set aside our tendencies to
automatically circle the wagons in the face of ideological disagreement. The tribalism which, in
earlier stages of our species' development might have been adaptive, is growing more and more
maladaptive, and in some cases, malignant. The Middle East is a place where the tribalistic mind
set is vividly and tragically destructive. Discussion must not be closed off to protect the
sensibilities of the tribes.
Paul W. Cook, Jr.
Bartlett, Tennessee
1. What are universities doing with extra cash to invest, why don't they reduce tuition or make it
easier for poor students to attend? Are not Universities supposed to be non profit?
2. Gun control. What does gun control really mean? The Wall Street journal is incorrect in that a
private seller of a firearm only has to check the buyers firearm license. I know of only 2 states
that require a license to have a handgun. The gun control groups want a complete ban on firearms
ownership, and confiscation of all private ownership of firearms. Also, the so called gun safety or
gun control organizations such as Brady make money and a living on promoting gun control.
Sarah Brady had no interest in gun control before Jim Brady was shot. Sarah Brady is now a
multi millionaire promoting so called sensible gun control. Extreme liberals such as Sarah Brady
and other extreme liberal politicians want complete elimination of the 2nd amendment AND an
elimination of the Republican party. A dis armed one party political system. Make no mistake
liberal Democrats will LOVE a one party system (THEIRS)!!!!!!! This same thing happened in
Europe not lone ago, and I LOST MOST OF MY FATHERS RELATIVES AND THEIR
PROPERTY. Lets ban guns and ban the Republican party and see what happens?
PS: More kids die and are severely injured each year by DOG BITES than guns, lets ban dogs,
more children die drowning each year, lets ban swimming pools, rivers, lakes, and oceans!!!!!!!
You will no doubt call the response extreme, insane. But if you really are not stupid or
brainwashed KNOW the implications of outlawing private ownership of firearms and a one party
political system. What would happen in Israel if firearms are outlawed and a one party political
system?
Don Yaacov
My support Israel is waning.
With the new cabinet, Sharon will be the moderate. Imagine.
Arafat is the weakest he's ever been. The only thing keeping him in office is the failure of Israel
to make a genuine, and dramatic, move for peace - a move comparable to that of Sadat's initiative
twenty plus years ago.
The West bank. Get out of there. There has never been a safe buffer between warring factions. It
would be contested if it was extended to the sea. If Israel can't manage the settlers, and its own
right wing, how does it expect Arafat to discipline his?
It would make far better sense for the U.N. to support American troops on that border, than to
give George Bush support on Iraq. It would cost fewer innocent lives, and it'd give Bush a
mission worth the taking.
Bill Shaw
Austin, TX
A nation that does not support Israel and God's special people will suffer God's wrath. Example,
Hitler's Germany, 1944-1945. IN GOD WE TRUST
Jack Dearth
Eugene, OR
|
