Alan Dershowitz Wants You!

By A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/09/2014 - 2:25pm |

Alan Dershowitz tells the Jerusalem Post that he’s thinking of becoming an Israeli citizen. He wants to send a message to supporters of BDS that “if you’re boycotting Israel, you’re boycotting me.”

URL:

http://coreyrobin.com/2014/01/09/alan-dershowitz-wants-you/

Add new comment
4112 reads

Comments

Dershowitz quote cracks me up. The BDS movement is getting a lot of attention within segments of American academia and one group, the ASA has endorsed it causing a heated and interesting debate. It is getting a lot of attention in Israeli media, though little that I have seen here in the States so far. Corey Robin has a number of articles about it.

by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 01/09/2014 - 2:26pm

Dersh sure has an elevated estimate of the residual good will he might have with the left. He lost this Trotskyite years ago....sad, but true. Odd how tribalism can fog the faculties. He sounds like he really thinks we will be overcome by nostalgia for the young Alan, ch.ampion of constitutional protections, blah blah blah

by jollyroger on Thu, 01/09/2014 - 2:59pm

Odd how tribalism can fog the faculties.

Interesting comment. Always strikes me about him that, unlike most talking heads who try to be inflammatory on purpose, basically trolling, he doesn't ever seem to see when he's being inflammatory and it doesn't appear to be his intent to do so.

And if he could see it, it's like he wouldn't care, because the people that matter to him will agree with what he's saying...totally convinced in his ability to see the truth and the right and the common sense, and the rest of ya are all just nuts...

by artappraiser on Thu, 01/09/2014 - 8:54pm

Without having read Dershowitz' full statement, I do rather enjoy the metacommunication of his pronunciamento--"you might not mind boycotting Israel, but, think! Stay your hand! You are boycotting ME, your ol' pal Dersh!"

by jollyroger on Thu, 01/09/2014 - 9:18pm

I read it more as throwing down the gauntlet.

IOW: "From now on, when you fuck with Israel, you'll have to answer to me."

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 6:11pm

I have never really understood the vitriol directed at Dershowitz, although I guess I knew him more as a brilliant criminal defense lawyer. Has anyone here other than me done the dumb thing of reading both of Dershowitz's books, The Case for Israel and The Case for Peace? Doesn't seem like it, because Alan Dershowitz, so "tribal" (now such a naughty naughty word) argues for a peaceful two-state solution on the basis of proportional land swaps and a contiguous bridge between Gaza and the West Bank.

So now he is disgusted with the BDS movement, as am I, totally disgusted. Every fiber in my body tells me that the boycott Israel movement is yet another use of the boycott against Jews, and not others. Been there done that. Ta ta ta trrrrrrrrrribalism, I guess. So be it.

I understand that Dersh is disgusted with the American Studies Association, a group of supposedly distinguished professors who teach, who then decide to boycott other academic institutions that allegedly violate academic freedom--but only those in the Jewish State of course. The boycott is ugly and on that I agree with Dershowitz on that for sure. But what's even uglier is the boycott of the classroom, where ideas are exchanged. Ick.

Now unlike Dersh, I'm more of the view that the ASA pulled a real boner on this one and has lost all credibility--at least with anyone who pays attention to this stuff. It's embarrassing really. I understand how Dersh feels, because I guess we tribal Jews sometimes think alike--it just doesn't cause me to think about emigrating--I am, however, always aware that the pitch-forked masses could come again and that's why on the graves of my dead ancestors I will always support the right of return for Jews throughout the world to live in their own country. Friggin' tribal zionist I guess. .

Finally, if anyone in the NYC area is genuinely interested in BDS beyond the character jibes directed at the loud-mouthed Dershies of the world, email me and I will pay for your attendance at the presentation I will be giving to my fellow tribal Jews on the subject of BDS at Congregation Habonim on West 66th Street. Unfortunately for some perhaps, Dersh won't be on the agenda.

Forgive the interjection.

by Bruce Levine on Fri, 01/10/2014 - 2:12pm

The only book I have read by Dershowitz is one he wrote about being on the O.J. Simpson defense team. I don't doubt your assessment of him as a defense lawyer.

Wish I could make the trip for your presentation. Seriously.

A Challenge to Critics of BDS By Corey Robin

10 Jan

For the last month I’ve been responding to critiques and challenges of BDS. Now I have a question for its opponents and critics. What do you propose as an alternative strategy? The Palestinians have tried four decades of armed revolt, three decades of peace negotiations, two intifadas, and seven decades of waiting. They have taken up BDS as a non-violent tactic, precisely the sort of thing that liberal-minded critics have been calling upon them to do for years (where is the Palestinian Gandhi and all that). So now you say BDS is bad too. Fine. What would you have the Palestinians—and their international supporters—do instead?

http://coreyrobin.com/2014/01/10/a-challenge-to-critics-of-bds/

In the previous posts he has made on this subject the ones most interesting to me, including the responses, dealt with whether or not the ASA action interfered with academic freedom.

by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 01/10/2014 - 2:45pm

I am no advocate of Dershowitz but I did find both of his books that I cite to have obliterated IMO this notion that he is for something other than peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Lulu, I also do not question the right of anyone to engage in boycotts. I have worked under the yoke of governmental restrictions on so called secondary boycotts by labor unions for decades and I find the to be anti democratic and anti worker.

Look, on Robins' point that the boycott, this academic boycott, is all that's left to do because only Israel stands in. The way of peace then hey rock the boat. But I don't accept his premise ands I used to spend quite a bit of time trying to debunk the givens about the Middle East that are embraced by the so-called left and those in that curious realm where hard left merges with hard right.

Neither do I think that it's prudent strategy to boycott Jews and no others. I understand you and others don't see this as another boycott started by the offspring of the same folks who got real good at othering Jews with boycotts, and that was when the dream of coming home was nothing more.

And to do it based on having no other options doesn't make it viable. On the academic freedom point please in your own words could you even tell me how it is possible that an academic boycott is not a blatant and unambiguous definitional attack on academic freedom?

Finally, yesterday I wrote that I'm waiting for the pitch forked masses. That was a metaphor I do hope you understand. I feel safe., thank heavens my family here seems safe but at some point it becomes offensive to keep reading about tribalism every time a Jewish dude speaks and it is something deviant from the script sanctioned by the really really smart people and the and the various chattering sets.

As an American who is proud of his heritage, I am growing increasingly alienated and by those who are beginning to like the sound of the tribal meme. Offensive? You bet.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 9:20am

Bruce, boycotting Israel is not boycotting Jews...

by jollyroger on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 9:24am

I know. But it still is.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 9:28am

Tribalist meme? Bruce, we invented the tribalist meme. We take pride in helping Jews all over the world. We read books about Jewish sports heroes (all eight of them). We even call ourselves the Tribe. Dershowitz is up there pounding on his chest saying, in essence, "I am Israel! Boycott this you motherf--"

PS Stay safe. Angry pitchforkers have been seen roaming the streets of Brooklyn.

by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:25am

Yes we have called ourselves a tribe, twelve tribes. But in 2014 in my country when it comes to matters political we Zionists who support a Jewish homeland based on historical claims and subsequent persecution for 2000 years don't think of it as tribalism. And in this case this Zionist was taken back to the point where he determined to challenge the derision of a loud mouth like Dershowitz as "tribal" for objecting to this unfortunate decision by academics. I too find it heinous as useless as it is. But please don't call this Jewish American tribal for feeling that way.

Pardon me If my comments are seen by the masthead as yet another demand for "special" treatment. I demur, respectfully, and I do so again.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:47am

And just for context, let's bring it back to Brooklyn Michael, where I was last night at the new Oyster Bar place on 5th Avenue in Park Slope (which a NYer cannot even recognize anymore). Anyway, it was a retirement party for the spouse's boss, and I joined her and it was a blast.

So far no tribalism, but. . .then, wait, we're at the OYSTER BAR, and Bruce doesn't eat traife (inter alia for those not in the know, I don't eat shellfish or pork) because of tribalism, and for no other reason. But unless you're a lobbyist from pork.org, I do not think that you should have any problems with the political implications of a member of the Jew tribe who eats pork not.

So just so you don't worry that I didn't eat, I ate, I ate salad, and I answered the usual questions, took the usual light-hearted abuse--particularly from my oyster-loving spouse--and I had no problem with the tribal-centric nature of making fun of the dude who was eating arugula at the oyster bar. I liked it, I'm used to it, and it is anything but offensive.

And I went to Brooklyn with no fear of pitchforks.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:12am

Of course it's tribalism. Would you care so much about Israel if were not a Jewish state filled with Jewish people? You identify with your people, with our people. Even if you had no relatives there, you would identify with Israel, as would I.

And that's tribalism. It's not a bad thing in itself. Indeed, I'd argue that tribalism is an essential element of human nature. But tribalism taken to extreme often facilitates bad things: bigotry, discrimination, war, genocide...and pitchforks.

Is Dershowitz's chest-pounding representative of American Jews? Not most Jews, I'm sure. But I have known plenty who I'm sure are clapping their hands and cheering him on.

by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:30pm

Of course it's tribalism. Would you care so much about Israel if were not a Jewish state filled with Jewish people? You identify with your people, with our people. Even if you had no relatives there, you would identify with Israel, as would I.

A couple of things on this Michael, and I'm beyond spent, but I am somewhat taken back by this comment of yours. First, I have never, ever, ever come even close to suggesting that I am not the product of my background, including my Jewish heritage, but hardly at the extent of excluding the influence I had growing up as an American kid way out in eastern Long Island (which was, and is, hardly Jewish). Second, if all you are saying is that the lobbing of "tribalism" at anyone, including any Jew with respect to his or her views on anything, including Israel (e.g. you, me, JR and any of the others around these parts--contrary to popular mythology I don't keep tabs on that stuff) then I have no disagreement with you.

Please understand, respectfully, that I would reserve the right to object to anyone on here who would see it proper to dismiss anything I might say about Israel as the product of my "tribalism".

Please also understand that I am hardly suggesting that this has anything to do with Terms of Service or whatever.

Thanks for responding. Hope all is well and good luck on your book.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 1:54pm

Just for anti-parochial clarity, I don't limit my condemnation of tribalism to those actually claiiming consanguinity. "Patriotism is tribalism and tribalism sucks"

by jollyroger on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 6:04pm

OT but on your topic, see this, especially the tweeted photo (ah two-state "solutions.")

by artappraiser on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 6:49pm

No need to reserve the right to object. Objection is free.

That said, no one dismissed your opinion as tribalism. JR dismissed Alan Dershowitz's opinion as tribalism. You objected. I objected to your objection. You are of course free to object to my objection, just as I am free to object to your objection of my objection--not as a moderator, mind you, but as a participant here who has an opinion.

by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 8:00pm

The charge that the ASA's decision is one that stifles academic freedom is one of the major arguments being levied against their decision, so Robin, who disagrees, chose to explore that idea. Good points were well stated on both sides and respectfully and intelligently acknowledged by both sides even though I see no evidence that anyone changed their mind.

On the academic freedom point please in your own words could you even tell me how it is possible that an academic boycott is not a blatant and unambiguous definitional attack on academic freedom?

I wouldn't feel obligated to do so since I haven't yet voiced an opinion one way or another, but I will now, sorta.

Before the ASA's recent decision I had never given a moment of thought to whether a boycott of any kind could affect academic freedom. My opinion [which is still somewhat in flux as I see some merit in some of the assertions that the boycott could stifle AF theoretically but I see a much stronger case being made on the other side of the issue which in this case is the narrow question of 'Does an academic boycott stifle AF'] has formed very recently and so anything I say about it would be parroting the recent words of others who are addressing the issue and have done so in a way that was more convincing to me.

So no, I guess I couldn't answer that question in my own words but I would be happy to pick out one of several statements in Corey's debate that rejects the idea that an academic boycott is a blatant and unambiguous definitional attack on academic freedom, one which seems correct to me, and then look forward to your rebuttal.
The debate about the affects on academic freedom carried out on Robin's site at his request and within the parameters that he set and among tenured professors [I think] whose freedom of expression will not be threatened by any stand they take and will not threaten their career, like it might that of a person on tenure track, but who are in a position to have given much thought to the nuances and affects of an academic boycott is a sub-category of the larger debate about the BDS movement. The larger debate includes questions of fairness, utility, etc. The larger debate is addressed at the same site but separately. You might have noticed that one of the participants said he was vehemently opposed to the boycott but rejected the charge that it threatened academic freedom.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 2:57pm

This article very much relates to academic freedom, IMO. and the following are all teaser quotes from it. Any emphasis is mine.

Title: I’m Now Another Jew Who Has Been Barred from Speaking in a Jewish Building (in America)

Last week, I wrote about how, due to my writing on the issue of boycotts and Israel, I was asked by a prominent Jewish organization (Hillel) to publish a favorable political statement before being allowed into its building to speak about my book, What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?

I wished to speak with Rabbi Goodman, to reach out and discuss personally this issue of a Jewish educator and progressive Zionist, such as myself, being barred from speaking at Hillel. Unfortunately, the two of us were never able to have a direct conversation. Though it was relayed to me that Rabbi Goodman had a request:

Publish a favorable political statement clarifying your position on the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel, and we will allow you to speak at UCSB Hillel.

Hillel International is an enormous Jewish institution – the umbrella organization for Hillel centers on college campuses across North America (and beyond). And while it advertises itself as being a pluralistic home for diverse political views on Israel, it has created guidelines which exclude anyone who supports BDS or who might “delegitimize, demonize, or apply a double standard to Israel.”

Meaning: anyone who harshly critiques Israel’s geo-political policies – or does so without similarly critiquing all other nations worthy of rebuke – can be forbidden from speaking.

This means some prominent progressive Zionists – those, like myself, who share Hillel’s vision of Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state with secure and recognized borders” – have been blacklisted. Peter Beinart comes to mind. So too does Breaking the Silence, a group of Israeli army veterans who speak about the military’s abuses and their effect on Israeli society.

I Wish This Were Satire. The historian Gershom Gorenberg said it best when, with regard to this current dynamic within the American Jewish community, he quipped:

"The American fight about what you can’t say about Israel, and where you can’t say it, will always sound to an Israeli as if Lewis Carroll scripted it."

If we are going to solve some of our most pressing and difficult issues as a people, we must continue to debate them, openly, honestly and respectfully.

There have been times, when the stakes were no less high, in which Jews throughout history have been willing to fully debate issues of immense importance. So much so that the art of debating, of making distinctions and recognizing nuance, have became a foundational part of our collective intellectual, cultural and religious identities. It is a part of who we are, as a people.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 4:11pm

Hillel?

That was the religious fraternity down the street from where I lived at Cornell and never stepped foot in during the four years of my college stint. That is the fraternity/sorority that I bet none of my three kids who graduated college ever went to either--I would have to check that. My wife, the same. My ex-wife the same. My sister and her husband--the same. I mean it's not a bad place but it's generally focused on kids of college age who feel more comfortable living and experiencint college in a more religious milieu. It is privately funded, and with all due respect, it is an American non-profit organization and, so far as now, fully compliant with all laws, as well as with all requirements of the various universities where they may serve students.

And so I can't see the real point of discussing Hillel, because, candidly where you're going with it--in the context of you and me and the folks at Hillel as Americans and all--is none of our fucking business man. It's private dude, and this is America. In any event, I'm not even sure what the policy of Hillel is and who, if anyone is or would be excluded, or whether it's different than any of the policy or practices of any other religious or ethnic or race based group on America's campuses. I mean are we talking Nazis here or anyone who disagrees with Bibi or anyone in between?

I do, however, wish to salve your obvious concern about the three adult Jewish children who were raised by me, along with their their like-minded show-room dummy impressionable Jewish peers who are being inoculated with tribal folklore in order to perpetuate the ignorance underlying support for the Jewish State. Lulu, I live in the hood with Jewish folk. I can assure you without reservation that my kids and my sister's kids and stepkids, and all their similarly-situated Jewish college kids and recent grads, were fully exposed to the views and then some you seem to believe were stifled by Hillel, or some kid from some chapter at Hillel, or whatever the alleged story is here.

I mean do you really believe that Jewish American kids are as insulated and ignorant as they say they are in the parlour game that gets played on the internets? And, seriously, have you been to an American campus and seen the extent of so-called "pro-Palestinian" activism there is now and was also there certainly when I was a student in the late 70s and early-80s -- in both Ithaca and then in Madison, Wisconsin.

Jeepers. You want to analogize that to the keystone cop resolution of the ASA, which I'm sorry I even brought up in droves, gey gezuntahait!

Finally, and this isn't directed just at you lulu. I read the article in the Jerusalem Post about Dershowitz. I didn't see any "threats" to emigrate to Israel. I didn't. And I also didn't read anything he said that could be fairly considered to be offensive and to earn him a badge of derision for saying things he did not say on the basis of stereotyped presumptive shmaltz.

I mean I think that's what happened with this guy you cite to. He saw Dersh as the tribal caricature and ran with it--made fun of him, and until I came on this thread it was like yuk yuk, the asshole. Well he may be an asshole because of his views on torture, although I read Aaron's example in this thread and it didn't seem like the dude is all-out torture or whatever. Aaron's thing is from 2003--maybe he's said something new, but the answer he gave back then did not seem beyond the pale. Perhaps his views have changed; I'm thoroughly confused.

Based on that article, if Dersh is a tribalist then so am I.

Disappointed in the colloquy and I apologize for my contribution. But thanks for trying Lulu,

by Bruce Levine on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 2:47pm

Until you edited this a few minutes ago Hillel was a religious organization that you described as "loopy" and with further disdain and with the claim that they had little relevance. My response which I was slowly composing while watching football and which I might post later includes my reaction to that.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 3:51pm

I am not going to get into a debate with you about Hillel. If you think I meant to criticize Hillel by calling it loopy then so be it. I was meaning to say that it was just a student organization that didn't seem to warrant the attention of the likes of you. I took out loopy because it didn't fit.

The only thing interesting about the Hillel story at this point, and as far as I'm concerned, is that you continue to consider the Hillel story to be something to write about--which to me is really, really weird.

But that's just me.

by Bruce Levine on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 4:53pm

Above I mistakenly referred to Open Hillel as Free Hillel.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you sound a bit angry. You characterization of Hillel is dismissive of them almost to the point of contempt. They are so insignificant to you personally that they might have not even existed and you and your family would be exactly the same people. Great. I am happy for you that your kids are doing well and are the kinds of people who make you proud. I am glad that my not haven given them a single thought during this exchange, much less a worried thought, was not a mistake.
Nobody is asking you to take either Hillel seriously but I think, based on what I have read, that their dedicated members think of themselves as quite important, quite affective, and that they take themselves quite seriously. Here is what they are serious about. From the Hillel websight FAQs with some emphasis added by me:

What is Hillel?

As the largest Jewish student organization in the world, Hillel builds connections with emerging adults at more than 550 colleges and universities, and inspires them to direct their own path. During their formative college years, students are challenged to explore, experience, and create vibrant Jewish lives.

What does Hillel offer students?

Hillel encourages students of all backgrounds to form deep, personal connections to Jewish life, learning and Israel, through Jewish exploration, leadership, and a sense of belonging. Hillel professionals provide opportunities for students to have meaningful Jewish experiences, which can range from participating in peer-facilitated Jewish learning initiatives or immersive travel experience such as alternative breaks and Taglit-Birthright Israel, to developing relationships with Jewish mentors and educators, among others. Hillel also supports and facilitates student celebrations of Shabbat and holidays on and off-campus. We provide opportunities for students to build lifelong connections – to their Jewish life, to each other and to Jewish communities worldwide.

What role does Israel play in Hillel’s work? Will Hillel partner with my Israel organization?

Israel is at the heart of Hillel’s work. Our goal is to inspire every Jewish college student to develop a meaningful and enduring relationship to Israel and to Israelis. We know that engaged and educated students can become committed Jewish adults who are passionate supporters of Israel.

Hillel welcomes, partners with, and aids the efforts of organizations, groups, and speakers from diverse perspectives in support of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Learn more about Hillel’s Center for Israel Engagement, and click here to read our full Guidelines on Israel.

Q. What role does Israel play in Hillel’s work? Will Hillel partner with my Israel organization?

A. Israel is at the heart of Hillel’s work. Our goal is to inspire every Jewish college student to develop a meaningful and enduring relationship to Israel and to Israelis. We know that engaged and educated students can become committed Jewish adults who are passionate supporters of Israel.
End of FAQs quotes.
The site also has pages and pages of inspiring "Hillel Stories".

And here a few words from Eric Fingerhut, their President.

I’m incredibly honored by the decision of Hillel's leadership to appoint me as president, and I will strive to follow the teachings of our namesake.

I believe we have an opportunity – and a solemn obligation – to build the Jewish future by welcoming, engaging, inspiring and supporting Jewish students of all backgrounds.

Our approach is defined by the laws and teachings of our faith, by the mission of this great organization, by our love of Israel, and by what connects us as a people. And that’s what Hillel does: we connect with thousands of Jewish students every day, at more than 550 locations around the world.

We know that Hillel is not just for the campus. It’s for the Jewish community. It’s for all of us – the entire Jewish people. And Hillel has to represent who we are as a people, where we’ve been, where we’re going, what we believe, and what matters to us. I look forward to representing Hillel as we continue to do this important work, and to enrich the lives of Jewish students so they may enrich the Jewish people and the world.

Sincerely,
Eric D. Fingerhut
President, Hillel

But some Hillel members concluded that Hillel is actually acting against the spirit of its namesake. They did not accept that they should only be allowed, within sponsored Hillel presentations, to hear voices approved by Hillel on the basis of whether or not they say anything critical about Israel. These Hillel members, who I give benefit of any doubt and assume are bright and intellectually as honest as they know how to be, quit Hillel and became Open Hillel. They have decided by unanimous vote that they can survive hearing other sides of stories, even of voices that are critical of Israeli policies.
I am sure that no one will suffer because you dismiss Hillel and Open Hillel as being just a bunch of loopy Fraternity kids whose doorstep you never graced.
Here is a thing though, I don't accept your suggestion that Hillel or Open Hillel is another addition to your ever growing list of topics I should just STFU about because it is, you say, private.

--is none of your fucking business man. It's private dude, and this is America.

Well, it is America. Hillel is operating on over 550 American campuses with the open, publicly declared agenda of shaping the thinking and building the connections of the young Jews who they expect to be the Jewish leaders of tomorrow.
Where the particular subject of ideas and their free discussion is happening on American campuses both these groups are in the news. They are also in the news at Mondoweiss. Yeah, yeah, I know, Mondowiess. But Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz wouldn't be allowed to speak at a Hillel event anyway, would they? And that is part of the point. But maybe at Open Hillel they could and that is a part of the reason Open Hillel is in the news. They would not, apparently, feel the need, in principle and as policy, to protect innocent young ears from any critical analysis of anything Israel ever did. They, Open Hillel, proclaim their willingness to hear all voices.

I subscribe to Harratz and this is news by their lights too . Harratz says that it is big news to some in Israel.

You want to analogize that to the keystone cop resolution of the ASA, which I'm sorry I even brought up in droves, gey gezuntahait!

Actually, I brought it up. Who cares if you dismiss ASA, which you quite obviously are concerned with, or Hillel? I sure don't. And, who cares if I pay attention to them. Well, you seem pretty concerned that I do and that I bring them to the attention of anyone else. But, you do not get to decide I should STFU about them or anything else on your ever growing list of untouchable topics. [Before your edit your comment said that what Hillel did was none of my fucking business] They aint so private that they should be immune from any critical public opinion. They claim to be the largest Jewish student organization in the world with chapters on more than 550 campuses in America. They claim to be doing wonderful, affective, successful work with the Jewish students whom they expect to be tomorrow's Jewish leaders. They have a publicly announced agenda which includes the following from their FAQs posting:

Hillel's new President, Eric Fingerhunt, says, "Hillel welcomes, partners with, and aids the efforts of organizations, groups, and speakers from diverse perspectives in support of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
Our approach is defined by the laws and teachings of our faith, by the mission of this great organization, by our love of Israel, and by what connects us as a people. And that’s what Hillel does: we connect with thousands of Jewish students every day, at more than 550 locations around the world.

We know that Hillel is not just for the campus. It’s for the Jewish community. It’s for all of us – the entire Jewish people. And Hillel has to represent who we are as a people, where we’ve been, where we’re going, what we believe, and what matters to us. I look forward to representing Hillel as we continue to do this important work, and to enrich the lives of Jewish students so they may enrich the Jewish people and the world."

But they will not allow dissenting voices in their Hillel presence. Open Hillel chose to take the chance that they could hear dissent and learn from it and that doing so was in the true spirit of their namesake. They acted on that belief, they defected. They rejected being spoon fed one side of a complex story told with only one approved attitude or point of view. That is both why it is in the news and why their defection is so scary to some.

Results at Haaretz for 'open hillel' Many links available there.

Swarthmore College
Hillel warns Swarthmore chapter over rejection of Israel guidelines

'All are welcome ... under our roof, be they Zionist, anti-Zionist, post-Zionist, or non-Zionist,' says Swarthmore student organization.
By JTA   00:25 11.12.13 | 14 comments
More On This Topic

    UC Berkeley student senate calls for divestment from firms with dealings in West Bank

    One of Canada’s largest student association endorses BDS against Israel

    The Brooklyn College BDS debacle highlights the perils of pro-Israeli overkill

    Banning anti-Israel voices contradicts Hillel’s own mission

    No home for BDS in Hillel

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/search-results

by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 4:34pm

I get the impression that you are almost in taunting mode now, with all of these cites and not an original thought to got with them. I'm sorry if I upset you lulu because you think that I should take Hillel more seriously. I don't, and I've known the organization since I was a freshman in college. I would be lying to you if I didn't think that the attention that you are paying to Hillel is weird.

But I don't understand the taunting, or at least what I perceive as taunting.

If I wrote something to you that made you feel like this is how you needed to respond, my bad.

You wrote up there that I have untouchable topics. I haven't posted here in months.

Post whatever you'd like lulu. I promise not to make this mistake again.

My apologies to all of you for my part in this.

by Bruce Levine on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 9:26pm

First off, I am not upset so you needn't be sorry. I brought up Hillel in a way that was legitimate to the conversation and you quickly concluded that Hillel is none of my fucking business. Editing that out does not change the fact that you said it. Then, among other innuendo scattered through your comments you include this sentence.

I was meaning to say that it was just a student organization that didn't seem to warrant the attention of the likes of you.

Now I am accused by you of taunting and included as evidence is that I responded with cites but no original thoughts. [A bit ironic considering recent history here that you were not involved in but might have noticed] I put plenty of my own words in there too while keeping them civil but I don't feel any obligation to ignore what you say or let mischaracterizations of what I have said stand just so your feelings won't get hurt. Whether they are honest mistakes or not.

You first unedited comment said you were aware of Hillel many years ago but never had any contact at all with what you called a loopy religious fringe fraternity. Likewise, you emphasized that none of your family or acquaintances did either. But now you are you so concerned with me talking about the organization they are today, which you claim to still know nothing about even though there is plenty of information available [all you have to do is look] that shows what they are today and shows them to be relevant, or at least that is their own claim about themselves. The many recent articles about Hillel in every Israeli paper I looked at indicate that they are considered to be important to them in one way or another.

You might consider availing yourself to an original thought, bslev?

by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 10:59pm

I haven't read The Case for Peace, I did read The Case For Israel; I thought it was terrible. Much of the vitriol directed against Dershowitz has to do with his support for torture.

I don't support BDS.

by Aaron Carine on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 9:55am

Did you think it was terrible because you didn't agree with all of his viewss? On that we agree. But I am unfamiliar with his views not torture.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:45am

I didn't agree with his views, and I thought a lot of his data was false or distorted.

Here is some of what he has to say about torture.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

by Aaron Carine on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 10:53am

Coming from JollyRoger, when he said tribal, I was thinking he was talking about the Trotskyite and Neo-Con tribes. People who live in intellectual bubbles where they don't often talk to "real people" but talk to each other. It wouldn't occur to me that JollyRoger would refer to Jewishness as tribal, as I know him to do things like talk derogatorily about "Yahwehists" using yiddishisms.

As far as Dershowitz being inflammatory, I was thinking about him talking on TV about things like ticking time bombs and torture. I readily admit I haven't read any of his books. I see him in context of his growing celebrity over decades since Claus von Bulow and how he has used it, as opposed to a "just a plain old college professor and good legal mind" persona.

Of course I think saying he's thinking about becoming an Israeli citizen is something bound to be inflammatory in the general public discourse. But that's just me. As I said in my original point, he comes off as not caring what people think when he says something like that, not aware that it would be inflammatory, just very self-involved. Like this: it wouldn't bother anyone at the Cato Institute if I said to them that I was thinking about becoming an Israeli citizen, why should anyone else take offense?

by artappraiser on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:07am

Of course I think saying he's thinking about becoming an Israeli citizen is something bound to be inflammatory in the general public discourse.

I guess I just don't follow your point above, unless your focus is merely on the manner in which Dershowitz chose to threaten emigration to Israel.

My daughter Amy has been with a Catholic guy from New Zealand for over two years now. But he took dual citizenship in Ireland, because unlike anyone else in the world whose ancestors aren't from Ireland, he was automatically entitled to citizenship there--even though he had never stepped foot in Ireland until he went to meet family in Belfast for the first time with my daughter this past summer. Now, given his relationship with my daughter, he contemplates American citizenship. Shall we question that? Does it make him disloyal to New Zealand? To the Emerald Isle does he remain true? Do we here in America want some guy who juggles passports like that?

Of course, I would suspect, that most folks--even those who are troubled by those Jews who have dual citizenship with Israel--would not think twice about the potential loyalty of my probable future son-in-law. To react otherwise would be kind of stone age-like in that context to me, i.e. when you begin to react to the notion of dual citizenship so viscerally. Seems to contradict the whole anti-tribalism thing that, to me, appears to be resonating, and more often than not when it comes to Jewish Americans. And, I'm sorry, I cannot and will not blame Dershowitz because he's a blowhard.

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:34am

Bruce, I'm sorry that you even saw the discussion between Jolly and me. I wish it had been private or let it alone. I know he is of Jewish heritage, and far from self-loathing, and I really really didn't even think of his use of the word in that context.

he's a blowhard.

That's really all I was saying, except to add that he doesn't appear to be a very self-aware one. Does he make public pronouncements wanting to convince somebody of something, or just irritate and alienate? I can't believe you haven't heard of all his torture brouhahas, that's really when he went over the top, mho, with cluelessness about communicating with the general public. If that's the way he tries to convince a jury, I would think twice about hiring him to represent me.

All that said, I don't really care much about Alan Dershowitz at all. Like Jolly, I think he is a celebrity past his shelf life, and I don't see anyone under 40 even knowing who the hell he is. It was just the chatting of two old folks who had followed this guy as a once celebrity.

As far as your daughter's friend, is he a sorta has been political celebrity announcing his decision to the world in a political context?

by artappraiser on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 11:50am

To the contrary, Paul is a gentleman with a kind heart, a fundamentally progressive disposition, and hardly a political bone in his body.

I can't believe you haven't heard of all his torture brouhahas, that's really when he went over the top.

I assume you don't mean that in the sense that you have to assume that I am not telling the truth. I do believe that I am fairly up on the goings-on in the debate over torture, and I am not familiar with Dershowitz's take. It would not change my views about calling him tribal.

Edited by Choice

by Bruce Levine on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 12:54pm

Does it make him disloyal to New Zealand?

Excellent point.

However, your SIL isn't a celebrity, so NONE of his actions are likely to attract much public attention.

And unlike Israel, which rightly or wrongly, is inevitably in the news, no one much cares what goes on in NZ or between it an Ireland, except the folks in those countries.

But on the merits, there's no difference between holding dual American and Israeli citizenship and your SIL holding dual Irish and NZ citizenship.

As regards BDS, I haven't thought about it much lately. As far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to have had much impact on the situation.

(An old friend who now lives in New Orleans created something called Plan B which he claims both Israel and the Palestinians are looking at seriously, though I've never heard it mentioned by anyone other than him.)

I believe there was a similar boycott of South Africa, so the claim that boycotts have only been directed at Israel needs some qualification. In fact, the BDS against South Africa was a much bigger effort and clearly had a bigger impact, which says something about its efficacy if not its merits.

Hope you're well.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 5:05pm

When leading US presidential candidates go to Ireland to consult with their president about critical world events and we start providing $3.1 billion a year in military aid to Dublin and when Congress starts issuing numerous lock-step fatwahs in support of this or that Irish action, maybe it's worth worrying about whether dual US-Irish citizenship is equivalent. I think there was similar feelings when Peter King supported Irish terrorists and the eternal pandering of Irish politicians to the homeland. But overall it didn't affect our foreign policy much, no wars to fight.

I agree with the irony that it used to be the protests, even the Turkish flotilla, were "violent", and now that folks try non-violent boycotts, it's still beyond the pale.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 5:21pm

True, but where it gets tricky is that there is a loooong tradition of prosecuting Jews for some form of "dual loyalty"--or rather, a traitorous loyalty to the "Jewish people" at the expense of the country in which they were living as full citizens or before they were allowed to become full citizens. As you know, this predates Israel by quite a lot.

There may be valid questions, perhaps, when government officials or even "important people" are involved--but not when we're talking about ordinary people. Not IMO.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 8:14pm

Well, Kennedy had to "prove" he didn't have unnatural loyalty to the Pope, and Turkish Kurds can't use the 'w' or otherwise show separateness, and Kosovo Albanians had to fit in with the slavic Yugoslavia, and Indians had to show their obeisance to the Raj, and there's a lot of Moghuls in India and Mongols in China where the conquered had to show good subservience. All Gods and rulers are jealous; everyone's suspicious of dual loyalty from time immemorial.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 8:33pm

Well that says it all.

Stunned.

by Bruce Levine on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 9:03pm

Sarcasm is overwhelming; sorry I don't support exceptionalism so much (for anyone). If you're in for a little bloodletting, I recommend Queen Margot for how it used to be between Catholics & Huguenots. (wonder how it was when the English held Aquitaine far far away). Meanwhile I've got my Killing Fields & Hotel Rwanda to watch.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 01/13/2014 - 2:08am

Yes, but I don't think this contradicts my point.

It sort of supports it in a collateral way: Minorities DO have a hard time among majorities and have to go to extra lengths to show they're not disloyal.

Again, we have to separate out the current geo-political issues (those you point out) from ancient, irrational suspicions of Jews as untrustworthy.

I guess "the conquered" have one advantage over the Jews, however: They had their own land TO be conquered. The wandering Jew did not.

You may be thinking that I'm making an argument for the Jews being THE most persecuted people in the world. One could make that argument, but I am not.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/13/2014 - 10:27am

The Jews more or less had that land until 150AD and potentially as late as 360AD had the 3rd temple been built. I also imagine with a population of a few million around the Empire, probably some settlement lands outside Palestinian were considered home. Probably Christianity & the rise of Islam ended much of that. I'm not sure which "irrational" suspicions we're referring to - probably those in Prague and medieval Spain and the Shakespeare shylock bit, but early on, if the Jews revolted as much as it looks like in the first few centuries, one would think these suspicions as "rational". Anyway, gypsies/Roma wander the earth with no land, Kurds continually struggle to get self-determination between 3 major governments, much of Ireland was uprooted in the 19th century, native Americans have spent the last few hundred years homeless, much of Central Asia was simply migrant lifestyle, and Africa's problems are legion. Perhaps Trainspotting sums it up best:

It's SHITE being Scottish! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, are colonized by wankers. Can't even find a decent culture to be colonized by. We're ruled by effete assholes. It's a SHITE state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and all the fresh air in the world won't make any fucking difference!

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Mon, 01/13/2014 - 12:00pm

Yes, they had THAT land and, presumably, that's why they went back there. But all of that predates Christianity and the birth of anti-Semitism as we know it.

The connection between the Jews' rational rebellion against folks who invaded their land and, some centuries later, suspicions about their loyalty and desire and ability to somehow rule the world--as if Hitler and the Kossacks were a natural response to the Maccabees is a little odd. You'd have to game that out for me.

The Roma do roam the land, but how does that contradict what I'm saying? The Kurds have their own land, so how is that apposite? So do the Irish and the Scots, many African tribes, and the American Indians once upon a time--though how that connects to this discussion I'm not sure.

Again, you seem to think I'm making the argument that the Jews are the most oppressed people in the world--I am not.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/13/2014 - 10:30pm

Would love to have you post here, Bruce.

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 4:43pm

You might consider that maybe so few have shown interest in all the ASA and Hillel stuff because it's a little too much like when the Santa Monica CA city council holds a vote on the Iraq war.

Why the ASA boycott is both disingenuous and futile
by Cary Nelson, Al Jazeera America, December 23, 2013

Prof. Nelson makes perfect sense to me on the ASA thing. Except that I think he underplays the disingenous point a bit too much.

As for the Hillel thing, that's different. No way should what's going on there even be addressed as being about academic freedom. They are a private campus club, not part of the system where one can scream about "academic freedom." Not part of the classroom. Actually just the opposite. I attended UW Madison right after the bombing of Sterling Hill. We had both SDS and pro-war organizations and everything inbetween make love not war organizations. Nobody from SDS tried to say the pro-war organizations had to start supporting SDS or invite SDS speakers. They'd protest against one another.

Hillel national decided early in the 21st century to be a pro-Israel organization. Some Hillel chapters don't like this. Big whoop de do, those folks should start another club that's anti-Hillel, see if they can compete and take away Hillel's members. Campus clubs are like lobbying groups for activism, not academic freedom centers. You can have a Catholic campus club that is mainly for anti-abortion work and another Catholic campus group that doesn't like that one as representing Catholicism, but rather works to help homeless in the campus area.

by artappraiser on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 5:49pm

Anti-Hillel group?

That would be Shammai.

Could be a cool idea and a bit "inside baseball."

Only problem might be, Hillel was generally more forgiving in his opinions, while Shammai was a bit more on the strict constructionist side.

Hillel tended the win the argument, however.

Shammai took an active part in the political and religious complications of his native land. Of an irascible temperament, he seemed to lack some of the tireless patience which is said to have distinguished Hillel^{[citation needed]}. Once, when a gentile came to him and asked to be converted to Judaism (or Noahide monotheism as H. Falk argues) upon conditions which Shammai held to be impossible, he drove the applicant away; whereas Hillel succeeded in converting him (Shabbat, 31a).

by Peter Schwartz on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 6:23pm

Workin' by memory now that is my preemptive excuse for any mistakes..
I haven't expressed any wonder as to why there is little interest shown in the ASA and Hillel stuff, I said I hadn't seen much interest in our press based on their coverage. That is a completely different idea. Expressing why that might be confuses the issue by prompting so many assumptions that derail, or at least divert the direction of the discussion. I contrasted this small coverage with the attention being shown widely in Israeli press but mainly only in academic circles here, circles where there is strong reactions which indicates to me that some folks are taking it very seriously. So yes, how many Americans follow debates going on in academic circles? I know that I normally don't, cant 't think of but maybe one right off of the top of my head. Lately I have been seeing what the different academic takes are on the Second Amendment. But, movements don't come onto the scene like a flashbulb going off, they start small and build. The arc of BDS is still heading up. Those in agreement with BDS are happy it is growing, those against it are scared that it must be stopped, quick, before it spreads. Word is, someone in Santa Monica agreed with the ASA.

Prof. Nelson makes perfect sense to me on the ASA thing.

I feel like taking off on that claim but I realize that I wouldn't have been surprised or critical and that you would have been completely rebut-proof if you had only not said he makes "perfect" sense.

About the Hillel thing, I'm not surprised we disagree but the idea behind your disagreement really surprises me. Free speech on campus has nothing to do with what is going on in Hillel? You really think that? I think the fact of the Free Hillel, and why it became 'Free' Hillel, demonstrates very clearly that to them it was a free speech and academic freedom issue. I do not see a claim that Hillel, as an organization, did not have a right to only entertain speakers who's views fell within their parameters but I do see that an individual campus Hillel group decided that those parameters restricted the free flow of ideas which are the true spirit of Hillel, as they see it, and so they revolted, you might say, and said that they would reject Hillel's rules and listen to whoever we want to, and then decide for ourselves. Typical juveniles!

Big whoop de do, those folks should start another club.

Good advice, and it seems to be exactly what they did.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 01/11/2014 - 7:43pm

Typical Jewveniles, I think you mean.

A small, sub-sect of the Jewish people who made their living trading on the banks of that great Egyptian river during the time of the last pharoah, known as Pharoah Sanders to his friends and mailman because of his love of the desert. Now extinct.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 2:38pm

Maybe I'm tired, but...

I wish I knew what this thread was about or supposed to be about.

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 2:34pm

Tribalism, jazz greats, deNile and a Hillel of beans.

by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 5:26pm

Now that the various pieces of this thread have filtered through my brain, it seems to me to be hard to:

1) Accuse Hillel of censorship and destroying the free exchange of ideas that is supposed to be the hallmark of academia AND 2) boycott Israeli academics, dis-invite them to campuses, and otherwise shun them until they conform to some political view or, if they aren't very political people, address political questions.

I know that Palestinian scholars have received poor treatment at some American universities after some Jews, including powerful ones, have boycotted them, demanded the university dis-invite them and refuse them teaching positions and even speaking engagements.

Is this really what anyone wants to replicate?

by Peter Schwartz on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 8:25pm

[1] Nobody here or anywhere that I have seen has claimed that Hillel has succeeded or even tried to destroy the free exchange of ideas on American campuses. What has been claimed and verified by Hillel's own statements is that within their own group, as a stated and defended policy and matter of principle, as they see it, Hillel will not allow a completely open exchange of ideas. They very obviously do censor within their own area of claimed authority and they are glad to justify it. I provided several links.

The discussion about Hillel began when they were referenced in a discussion about academic freedom and whether the BDS movement and ASA's endorsement of the movement limited academic freedom. It became a topic of its own. A link to an intelligent debate about whether ASA;s position actually does limit academic freedom was included at the very beginning. By intelligent debate I mean that both sides were presented by seemingly knowledgeable people. Your description of what would result from the academic boycott is disputed there. The worst results that could be expected according to those who think AF would be harmed pale against the things you say have happened to Palestinian scholars.

by A Guy Called LULU on Sun, 01/12/2014 - 9:18pm

LULU, I find it almost impossible to disentangle this. Maybe it's because the ORIGINAL post was based on a poster made from a single comment by Dersh.

Anyway, I thought you brought up Hillel because it WAS an example of a group, a campus group, that is trying to stifle debate on issue X within the academic domain, i.e., on campus. Hillel won't "allow" a diversity of opinions on issue X within its domain on campus.

On this, your evidence is strong. Of course, Hillel doesn't have the power to destroy ALL academic freedom even on one campus. That would be absurd, and not what I said or, at least, what I meant.

"Accuse Hillel of censorship and destroying the free exchange of ideas that is supposed to be the hallmark of academia..." Yes, censorship and destruction of a free exchange within Hillel's domain...but certainly touching on academic freedom because Hillel is a campus group. One would ordinarily think that a campus group would be dedicated to the ideals of academia. Apparently not.

On your second point, if you boycott, dis-invite and otherwise shun--things that Hillel is ALSO doing--then how can that NOT impinge on academic freedom in some sense? I suppose other people could fill in for the shunned and take up their arguments--so there IS that difference--Hillel won't allow ANYONE to make certain arguments--but the jury is out on this. As you indicate. How would you assess its impact something as nebulous as "academic freedom," anyway?

But I'm not sure academics are fungible in that way. Can a person really be separated from his thoughts and work? It might even be worse to shun the flesh and blood of the person while allowing his views to be presented by others who happen not to come from Israel. "We don't care about what the guy says; we only care about where he, his body that is, comes from."

And what if the guy is a Dickens scholar? In that case, he probably doesn't have a political ax to grind, and his purpose and content aren't political. Do we want someone else to read his paper and try to answer questions about his work? Questions go to what this particular person thinks about XYZ? I'm not sure another person can fill in in this role.

Here's what I'm NOT saying: I'm not making a claim about the probable "results" of an academic boycott; no one knows what they will be. We do, however, know something of the results of the Hillel boycott of scholars voicing disapproved ideas. Not good, IOO.

So I think it's a bit weird to condemn one tactic and commend the other tactic. It feels a bit contradictory to me.

If the goal were a true airing of ALL points of view on this and every other topic, then virtually ALL recognized scholars and speakers of good will, knowledge and understanding would be INVITED to come to campus to speak. No one would be disallowed or boycotted.

(As to the Palestinian scholar issue, I agree: The results aren't equal at all, but a boycott moves in that direction. I guess the boycotted Israeli scholar has the freedom to speak out in certain ways or try to get his government to change in certain ways to get un-boycotted, something the Palestinian doesn't.)

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/13/2014 - 10:22am

Here is a sort of flow chart of the back and forth and how Hillel came into the discussion, as I see it. Below is the very first comment in the entire thread and it was by me with added emphasis on where I diverged from talking about Dershowitz.

Dershowitz quote cracks me up. The BDS movement is getting a lot of attention within segments of American academia and one group, the ASA has endorsed it causing a heated and interesting debate. It is getting a lot of attention in Israeli media, though little that I have seen here in the States so far. Corey Robin has a number of articles about it.
by A Guy Called LULU 1/9/2014 - 12:26 pm

The Dershowitz quote I posted which started the whole thing did and still does crack me up. The second part or that comment above was were I really wanted to go when I made the original entry. I am interested in the BDS movement and the various controversies, debates, positions, etc and how their prevalence is growing as support for BDS grows so I mentioned that the same site had a number of articles about it.

I think the next thing was where bslev responded with how strongly opposed to BDS he is, and that he was going to give a presentation about it to which we were all invited. I then said that at Robin's site he was issuing a challenge to critics of BDS, He asks them what are their alternative strategies? I actually thought bslev might be interested in their debate, possibly to get ideas for his own presentation or to see rebuttals on the other side he hadn't considered which he might want to preemptively address. I mentioned somewhere that of all the issues related to BDS that had been discussed there that the debate about whether or not the ASA's joining the boycott would limit the academic freedom of Israeli academics was the one which most interested me and somewhere I brought in Hillel and Open Hillel which had become a related topic which I had seen addressed there and a few other places.

http://coreyrobin.com/2013/12/23/does-the-asa-boycott-violate-academic-f...

I said my own opinion, about ASA's affect on academic freedom was somewhat in flux because there were good arguments on both sides but I thought the ones which argued that ASA's action would not harm academic freedom were the strongest.
AA commented, presenting a post against BDS by a professor who made perfect sense to her then added, "As for the Hillel thing, that's different. No way should what's going on there even be addressed as being about academic freedom." I strongly disagreed and said why. Then it turned to Hillel bla bla bla and apparent anger that I even mentioned them.

So I think it's a bit weird to condemn one tactic and commend the other tactic. It feels a bit contradictory to me.

I will reiterate the positions I have taken. I lean towards the position that ASA's actions do not destroy academic freedom of Israeli scholars. I have taken no position on BDS before now but I am for it as a peaceful tactic towards a good end until I see a reason to be against it. Hillel in America is a thriving organization and has no justifiable reason that I can see to censor or otherwise restrict open debate anywhere on any campus although I fully recognize that they have the right to do so within their own organization. I have not advocated any action against them. I admire Open Hillel for not accepting the restrictions on free speech which Hillel tried to impose. I admire them for having the courage to break away from the parent group for what I see as good reason, one which should be instantly recognized as a good reason in any college environment. They wanted open debate with all sides being able to present their case.

Lotta words to say that I do not see a contradiction.

by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/13/2014 - 2:01pm

I'm going to take another stab at actually answering your question. If the ASA's joining the boycott does,in fact, damage academic freedom then that is a strong argument you might make against them doing so even if you would otherwise support BDS. That is how the argument is being used against them. They could be considered, especially in the academic community where academic freedom would always be a vital issue, to be in a special-case situation, any conclusion they make must be tempered by the possibility of restricting AF, a thing that most would agree they do not have the right to do. Similarly, I might support a machinist strike and not support a strike by doctors.

The thing is, there are good arguments that that is not the case. Arguments that say ASA's action will not cause an infringement on academic freedom. I say good arguments while also saying that I cannot make them myself. The question has never been in my realm, you might say. This is a subject I have never given any considered thought to until recently. But I find it interesting. And also, I do find what I just said counter-intuitive, I might change my mind. Like you said, how could a boycott not be restrictive? Anyway, people who can make that arguments did so at Robin's site.

So, supporting ASA, depending on where you ultimately come down on the AF question, does not result in supporting an infringement on AF. That takes ASA out of the SPECIAL category and defeats that one argument against them joining BDS. Hillel IS in a special situation, although not special in relationship to other college organizations. They can operate at a college under an 'allowed-speech' philosophy that if held by the college itself would be considered completely indefensible, wouldn't it? If I am against infringement on AF then there is no contradiction to say that I am against Hillel's policies even if I recognize their 'right' to do as they please.

by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 01/13/2014 - 7:23pm

Okay, I think the argument and thread are too garbled for me to sift through.

Not pointing any fingers here, but in reading what you say, I feel myself going down a rabbit hole of sorts.

Okay, maybe this is where we're getting off track...

I'm not arguing that YOU are caught in a contradiction per se because you haven't really stated YOUR position, as you say.

But I do think it's a bit contradictory to condemn Hillel for its censorship and applaud a boycott of scholars whose only sin is their country of origin.

If campus A doesn't invite scholar B, then that is, almost per force, a reduction in academic freedom whose freest expression would be to invite everyone of good will to one's campus to speak and/or teach.

If these Israeli scholars held positions invidious to peace or the Palestinians, then a boycott might make more sense. But I don't think that's what's happening here.

Maybe I'm wrong.

by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 01/13/2014 - 10:38pm

I did not call anyone anti-semitic, I did not challenge anyone's right to boycott, or to write about boycotts. I entered this discussion because I was bothered by the use of the word "tribalism" by people whom I respect with respect to the politics of a loud-mouth Jew. His crime, he opposes BDS, and thinks it's typical ugly double standard treatment against Jewish people. So do I.

Then comes the seemingly ever-present "semantic" quibble. Yessirree, the Jews themselves call themselves a tribe.

Well Jews have been accused of "tribalism" before in the context of tests on their loyalty to country. I did the cheap internet thing of doing a quick Google Search, as distinguished from the way I continue to believe issues of materiality should be researched and studied. Here's a description about how the Jews of San Francisco kept things quiet about what they were hearing about the Holocaust:

If there was a downside to the general optimism and comfortable status of San Francisco Jews, it was that these advantages could lead to self-satisfaction and complacency. Many Jewish leaders in the Bay Area were outright anti-Zionists. Some of them asserted that San Francisco was all the Jerusalem they needed. San Francisco Jews lagged behind their east coast co-religionists in taking a stand during the early stages of the Holocaust. A Holocaust public advocacy committee was finally formed in the city, but it was largely made up of German Jews, concerned about their and their parents' native land. Rather than emphasizing the need to rescue European Jews, San Francisco Jews stressed Jewish-American patriotism, hanging American flags and displaying the U.S. Constitution with great ceremony in local Jewish centers. They fell into the trap, Rosenbaum says, of "downplaying genocide reports to avoid the 'tribalism' charge."

Ah yes, the charge of tribalism. But it's not about a list of words--it's about an infinite number of ways to say the same thing. Tribalism in the context in which it was first used in this thread was a charge levied to deride Dershowitz for his political views. In short, it is presumed in really smart-like derision, that but for his Jewish heritage this man who has defended the scum of the earth, including Nazis and their right to march in a town filled with Jews, would not be offended by the academic boycott of the Jewish State.

I am sorry I raised this objection, because I believe that the discussion devolved into areas that are both silly and sad.

But I will leave with this--it is impossible for a person who considers himself to be pro-zionist and/or is genuinely concerned about anti-semitism on the left to communicate at Dagblog without undue interference and with respect. That is not the fault of the masthead. Lord knows I know how to have an intelligent and respectful discussion. And I don't buy the notion that you have to have thick skin to write on the internet. That's just nonsense, and a cop-out if it is used as an excuse for the lack of genuine debate.

I mean I have a guy who is reiterating every edit I make to my comments. I thought the edit button was there to make edits. That's just weird and unsettling, and the attention is unwelcome.

I accept my share of the blame, because I know I can be sensitive about the issue, particularly when I feel, as I always have here, that I am talking to a brick wall to most. But I object and strenuously so to the notion that I, perhaps the only person on this websites who is openly pro-zionist, is causing issues not to be addressed. I consider that to be another veiled charge with ugly historical connotations, e.g. blame the Jew for stifling debate.

Continue debating Hillel to your heart's content, although one might want to start by looking at the organization's guidelines relative to similarly-situated college groups. I will not participate now that I know my views are tainted as tribal. Disgusted, disheartened and done.

P.S. Just so lulu doesn't tell you, this comment has been edited. That's the way I write. Sometimes I write things, put them away, and then rewrite them because I think I should for any number of reasons. I also like to play chess without a timer. Imagine that.

by Bruce Levine on Mon, 01/13/2014 - 12:11pm

Ah yes, the charge of tribalism. But it's not about a list of words--it's about an infinite number of ways to say the same thing. Tribalism in the context in which it was first used in this thread was a charge levied to deride Dershowitz for his political views.

This is a key point. The glory of words is that they change their meaning, almost entirely, when used in different contexts, for different purposes, and, in person, when spoken with different inflections and emphases.

If this weren't so, there would be no literature and no propaganda. Certainly no poetry. Also, no vastly misleading titles to congressional bills.

Bruce, IMO, the problem with this thread is that LULU started off obliquely, really with a quip of some unknown import. Dersh's position, whatever it is, was reduced to a poster line. Too little meat to argue about what he meant there.

For example, Jolly thought he was trying to curry favor with his old liberal allies. I thought he was playing tough and throwing down the gauntlet. But who knows?

The thing splintered from there, and it became a game of shadow boxing.

I'm avoiding the issue of "Zionism" here because it's too big a topic, and I don't have the energy. One big problem with discussions about Zionism in general is that the point at issue often shifts between whether Jews have ANY right to a homeland of any size, there especially but maybe anywhere, or do have a right, but one limited to a certain area, ideally perhaps in the Rhineland, but given historical realities, Israel pre-1967 borders. The point at stake flips back and forth.

And sometimes, it seems, it is argued that Jews have the right only to a homeland limited to certain borders BECAUSE, after all, they REALLY don't have a right to any of it. They simply stole it all and, by rights, should give it all back if they could or live as a minority in a bi-national state. They should be more than content with those limitations because, in fact, if there really were a God, they wouldn't have any homeland but would be required to live as they did before...here, there, and everywhere, but without any homeland as Jews.

by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 01/14/2014 - 10:32am

In the News

Russia plays weak hand in Palestine
Russia plays weak hand in Palestine

submitted by PeraclesPlease 9 months ago

The intra-Palestinian meeting in Moscow has precedent

Russia's hosted such meetings in the past, most recently Feb 2019

Russia has long lamented the US' "monopolization" of the peace process & tried to carve out a niche for itself: mediating among the disunited Palestinians/2
— Hanna Notte (@HannaNotte) February 29, 2024

Read the article at https://twitter.com/HannaNotte/status/1763116222256701787

Add new comment
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters
Mother Jones is Reaching out to Alternative Party Voters

submitted by HSG 10 months ago

Here's what I told them: https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

Read the article at https://halginsberg.com/vote-for-jill-stein-again/

2 comments

Add new comment
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes...
Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force

submitted by artappraiser 11 months ago

Controversial Brazil law curbing Indigenous rights comes into force https://t.co/pCoDg05irX
— Gareth Harris (@garethharr) December 28, 2023

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/28/brazil-law-indigenous-land-rights-claim-time-marker?CMP=share_btn_tw

1 comment

Add new comment
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (...
Security Alert: U.S. Embassy Port-au-Prince, Haiti (December 25, 2023)

submitted by artappraiser 12 months ago

Location: U.S. Embassy and residential compounds

Events: Heavy gunfire is occuring around the area of the U.S. Embassy and residential compounds adjacent to the Trutier area of Tabarre. All Embassy personnel have been instructed to remain indoors and shelter-in-place until further notice. All others should avoid the area.

Actions to take:

Avoid the area;

Avoid demonstrations and any large gatherings of people;

Do not attempt to drive through roadblocks; and

If you encounter a roadblock, turn around and get to a safe area.

Read the article at https://ht.usembassy.gov/security-alert-u-s-embassy-port-au-prince-haiti-december-25-2023/

3 comments

Add new comment
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis
Pakistan Is Creating the World’s Next Refugee Crisis

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By The Editorial Board @ Bloomberg.com, December 8, 2023

A mass expulsion of Afghan migrants could destabilize the region and fuel radicalization. The West should pressure Islamabad to change course.

Read the article at https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-08/pakistan-s-expulsion-of-afghan-refugees-risks-another-crisis

6 comments

Add new comment
Internet shut down in Chad
Internet shut down in Chad

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

All eyes on #Chad right now
Chad has two internet trunks coming into the country: One from the Red Sea via Sudan; the other from Cameroon. Not possible for the totality of the country's internet network to be shut unless done centrally. A lot of rumors swirling; few facts. https://t.co/N6bDJZ2ixO

Read the article at https://x.com/_hudsonc/status/1732891968709992511?s=20

2 comments

Add new comment
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short
[Economy] where Joe's success falls short

submitted by PeraclesPlease 1 year ago

Read the article at

3 comments

Add new comment
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across...
[CRIME News] 3 loss-prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

BREAKING: Three loss prevention employees in Macy’s across the street from Philadelphia City Hall stabbed, one of them has died from stab wounds, @PhillyPolice sources tell me. Police converged on the store as the three workers were rushed to Jefferson Hospital. pic.twitter.com/4U1eKycL4W

Read the article at https://x.com/KeeleyFox29/status/1731713272942940365?s=20

38 comments

Add new comment
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As...
Former U.S. Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Former US Ambassador Arrested, Charged With Working As Secret Agent For Cuba https://t.co/LDwo4ZJI1K
— HuffPost (@HuffPost) December 4, 2023

Read the article at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/manuel-rocha-ambassador-arrested-cuba_n_656d1e2ae4b028b0f3d07478

Add new comment
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny
[War in Israel, Chapter II] UNRWA under scrutiny

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

[Chapter I news is HERE, Oct. 7 til today]

You don’t get it.
It’s not about an UNRWA teacher who held an Israeli kid hostage in his house.
It’s all about how for 75 years you have destroyed the future of generations of Palestinians, including my family.
My cousins in Arab countries are still not citizens - not even the… https://t.co/nv6anubGhc
— George Deek (@GeorgeDeek) December 2, 2023

Note 'Community Notes' attached to UNWRA's statement.

Read the article at https://x.com/GeorgeDeek/status/1731020551328579863?s=20

58 comments

Add new comment
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From...
Maduro, Under Pressure, Holds Vote to Annex Territory From a Neighbor

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

Imperialism for me but not for thee?

It's wild that Venezuela is now holding a vote on whether 2/3 of Guyana actually belongs to them! Analysts suggest that Modoru may want military action to pump up his sinking popularity.

Could we have a war in South America?!?

"The people who live in Essequibo are largely… pic.twitter.com/QvMEjkkgwy

Read the article at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/03/world/americas/maduro-vote-essequibo-guyana.html

6 comments

Add new comment
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House...
[Where is the GOP headed?] Divisions leave Florida’s House Republicans powerless

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

The lack of a cohesive delegation has allowed attention-seeking lawmakers to act on their own.

McCarthy: “You have [Rep. Matt] Gaetz, who belongs in jail…”

Gaetz: “Tough words from a guy who sucker punches people in the back. The only assault I committed was against Kevin’s fragile ego.”https://t.co/LctPuz6Pcf

Read the article at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/29/divisions-leave-floridas-house-republicans-powerless-00129200

10 comments

Add new comment
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-...
‘She got so mad at me’: book on the ‘Squad’ details AOC-Pelosi clashes

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

By Martinn Pengelly in Washington DC for TheGuardian.com, Nov. 30

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells Ryan Grim life in Congress ‘completely transformed’ after Democratic leader stepped down

Read the article at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/nov/30/squad-book-aoc-nancy-pelosi?CMP=share_btn_tw

15 comments

Add new comment
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source
US health insurers Humana, Cigna in talks to merge -source

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

@ Reuters, Nov. 29

Read the article at https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-health-insurers-humana-cigna-talks-merge-wsj-2023-11-29/

3 comments

Add new comment
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-...
Central Africa’s dinosaur regimes and the art of coup-proofing

submitted by artappraiser 1 year ago

"Both the AU and the intl community place more weight on whether elections are held than whether they are free and fair. Sanctions/expulsions occur when there is a coup but not necessarily when elections are rigged or if an “institutional coup” occurs." https://t.co/m9dNimJP0D
— Cameron Hudson (@_hudsonc) November 28, 2023

Read the article at https://africanarguments.org/2023/11/central-africas-dinosaur-regimes-and-the-art-of-coup-proofing/

Add new comment

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day

Alan Dershowitz Wants You!

Comments

A Challenge to Critics of BDS By Corey Robin

In the News

From the Readers

Creative corner

From the Dagbloggers

Hits of the Day

Alan Dershowitz Wants You!

Comments

A Challenge to Critics of BDS By Corey Robin

Search form

In the News