dagblog - Comments for "Alan Dershowitz Wants You!"

Ah yes, the charge of

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:32:48 +0000

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.

Okay, I think the argument

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:38:21 +0000

In reply to Here is a sort of flow chart

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.

Yes, they had THAT land and,

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:30:12 +0000

In reply to The Jews more or less had

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.

I'm going to take another

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:23:35 +0000

In reply to Here is a sort of flow chart

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.

Here is a sort of flow chart

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:01:59 +0000

In reply to LULU, I find it almost

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.

I did not call anyone

Bruce Levine — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:11:35 +0000

In reply to Alan Dershowitz Wants You!

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.

The Jews more or less had

Anonymous PP — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 17:00:29 +0000

In reply to Yes, but I don't think this

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!

Yes, but I don't think this

Peter Schwartz — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:27:11 +0000

In reply to Well, Kennedy had to "prove"

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.

LULU, I find it almost

Peter Schwartz — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:22:45 +0000

In reply to [1] Nobody here or anywhere

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.)

Sarcasm is overwhelming;

Anonymous PP — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:08:03 +0000

In reply to Well that says it all.

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.