Witch Hunt at Columbia

[bemildred]

Prof. Massad speaks for himself.

Targeting the university is the latest mission of right-wing forces who have hijacked not only political power and political discourse in the United States but also the very vocabulary that can be used against them. The campaign of the last three years or so to attack US universities as the last bastion where a measure of freedom of thought is still protected is engineered to cancel out such freedom and ensure that scholars will not subvert the received political wisdom of the day.

---

What makes these anti-scholarship attacks possible and popular is the existence of a major discrepancy, even a radical disconnect, between popular knowledge and media coverage about the Palestine/Israel conundrum and established scholarly knowledge about the topic. It is this disconnect that the witch hunters mobilise against scholarship as proof that it is not media and popular knowledge, which defends Israeli policy and Zionism's axioms, that is ideological, but rather academic scholarship which has largely uncovered unsavory facts about both. Thus when young American students who come from ideologically charged homes, schools, and environments, attend university classes about the subject, they mistake established scholarship as pro- Palestinian propaganda, a conclusion that is propped up by the likes of Campus Watch, the David Project, and the Anti- Defamation League, all three organisations who make it part or all their business to attack scholarly criticisms of Israeli policy.

Let me provide a few examples of what I mean. All respected scholars in the field agree that most or all Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 were expelled directly or indirectly by Israel. The debate that exists is about whether all Palestinian refugees were physically expelled by the Israeli army or that the Israeli army expelled the majority while a minority of refugees fled, not as a direct result of physical force but as an indirect consequence of actions taken by the Israeli army and government which might, or might not, have been deliberately intended to expel them. In contrast, media and popular ideological knowledge in the US still insists that the Palestinians fled on their own, or worse, were called upon to do so by Arab leaders (despite Israeli false claims that Arab leaders called on Palestinians to flee, research has shown that they called upon them to remain steadfast in their homeland) while the Zionists begged them to stay!

Established scholarship enumerates all the racist laws and institutional racist practices in operation in Israel which discriminate between Jews and non-Jews, granting Jews differential rights and privileges over non-Jews, and rendering Israel a racist state by law. Popular and media knowledge, in contrast, depict Israel as a democratic liberal state that treats all its citizens equally. It is also established in scholarship that Israel discriminates against non-European Jews (the majority of the country's Jewish population) and also against recent Russian Jewish immigrants, and has engaged and continues to engage in a racist discourse about them and in unofficial institutional discrimination against them (witness the most recent case of discrimination against Ethiopian Jews in admissions to Israeli universities). In contrast, popular and media knowledge depicts Israel as a place where all Jews are equal. Scholarly knowledge addresses the question of Israel as a quasi-theological state, where religious law governs major aspects of Jewish life and that only Orthodox Judaism is allowed to have religious authority over Jewish citizens to the exclusion of Reform and Conservative Judaism, let alone other Jewish denominations. In contrast, media and popular knowledge depict Israel as a secular state. These are only a few examples of how scholarly knowledge is drastically different from and contradicts media and popular knowledge about key issues regarding Israeli society and history.

CounterPunch

[Jim Sagle]

1. CounterPunch SUXXX and so does the profascist prof.

[number6]

2. CounterPunch.. Raaawwwwwwks

;) :smoke:

[number6]

3. somes it up for me ...

"Targeting the university is the latest mission of right-wing forces who have hijacked not only political power and political discourse in the United States but also the very vocabulary that can be used against them."

right-wing forces of evil ......

[Lithos]

4. He is right and he is wrong

Let me provide a few examples of what I mean. All respected scholars in the field agree that most or all Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 were expelled directly or indirectly by Israel. The debate that exists is about whether all Palestinian refugees were physically expelled by the Israeli army or that the Israeli army expelled the majority while a minority of refugees fled, not as a direct result of physical force but as an indirect consequence of actions taken by the Israeli army and government which might, or might not, have been deliberately intended to expel them. In contrast, media and popular ideological knowledge in the US still insists that the Palestinians fled on their own, or worse, were called upon to do so by Arab leaders (despite Israeli false claims that Arab leaders called on Palestinians to flee, research has shown that they called upon them to remain steadfast in their homeland) while the Zionists begged them to stay!

Which time period - before Independence, before Deir Yassin, or after - and which area, Haifa, Acre, Jeppo, Jerusalem, Safed, or Negev? The reasons for the refugee departure was not uniform by any stretch. No respectable scholar would make a blanket statement.

He also later omits the significant role the Israeli Supreme Court has in over-ruling the Orthodox authorities and providing justice in many civil cases. Because of this over-riding control and because of the very significant number of non-practicing (secular) and marginally religious Jews (partially observant) in Israel (isn't it about 60%?), I would say Israeli is indeed secular.

[pelsar]

5. its written as a propaganda piece.....

it really has very little "professorship" in the article:

It is also established in scholarship that Israel discriminates against non-European Jews (the majority of the country's Jewish population) and also against recent Russian Jewish immigrants, and has engaged and continues to engage in a racist discourse about them and in unofficial institutional discrimination against them

the way that is written its as if israel should be unlike other countries that have managed to reach the nirvana of total non discrimination-one more way of saying israel has no right to exist because.....of course there is discrimination against "the other" and of course he left out the myrad of groups that are attempting to correct it,or the "non europeans" who are now deeply entrenched in the powers of govt and within the army.....

and to claim that this place is not secular...... I question if he has ever been here, and if not, how can he be teaching about israel?

and if he has, that means he is blind or that other thing.....if this is typical of what he teaches then yes there should be a witch hunt against him....teaching blantent "untruths" is reason for dismissal

[TomClash]

6. Read it again - in context

Massad is not saying the reasons were uniform. He's saying most of the Arab population was expelled in some way because of the Israeli government's actions, whether intentional or not. And he's defending his livelihood and job against a witch hunt by a despicable group of right-wing American jews - he's not producing a work of scholarship.

[pelsar]

7. tom....

wrong section...i wasnt commenting on that part......as far as defending his job goes...the little bit i read here about his knowledge, puts that very well into context

[TomClash]

12. Pelsar . . .

I wasn't replying to your post. I was replying to Lithos.

[bemildred]

8. I t seems clear he is an advocate here, not a dispassionate observer.

But I would expect from his position and situation that he is
well prepared to defend his "facts" and interpretations. I did
think he reached a bit in places, but that is hardly a new thing
in this discussion, and I think he supports his claim of a
"radical disconnect" between academic and public dialog fairly
well. Most of what we see in public discussion - from whatever
point of view - looks like propaganda to me, people just don't see
it as such when it suits their predilections.

Consider the recent piece I put up about Mr. Morris and his work,
and the discussion on that.

[pelsar]

9. but hes a professor...

to me that means he can be as passionet as he wants, but when it comes to teaching...he has to stick to the facts as much as possible. Granted, intepertations will vary but calling israeli a non secular state is "beyond reaching"....its simply not true. Whereas there are definitly religious overtones to many aspects of life here, be it jewish/muslim/christian...and the fight is constant against the more religious....its still remains far more than "reaching." i have no problem with different view or inteperations of scenarios here my favorite being after the Hebron agreement it rained:

arabs in hebron said it showed god is blessing it with living giving rain.
jews in hebron said god is crying out of sadness

but thats a very very very long way from what he wrote....

[bemildred]

10. That is not true at all.

Teaching students to think is much more important that teaching
"facts", especially at college level. A professor's role is to
teach current and past thinking on his subject and to stimulate
debate and discussion, not to feed dogma to his students. This is
particularly the case when one gets away from the hard sciences.

[pelsar]

11. you missunderstood me...

when teaching students to think the idea is to teach using facts and not ones interpertation of them...its very easy to manipulate students.....

I know a professor of middle east studies in Nebrasaka whom at the end of every semester his students ask him what his own views are of the conflict....and he never tells them....Thats the way is supposed to be taught!

[bemildred]

13. No, I did not, you are wrong.

One uses all sorts of things. One presents a "false" argument precisely
to examine what is wrong with it, and to teach how to recognize that
it is wrong. Teaching critical thought is not simply the presentation
of the current political or social dogmas, and that is all they are,
political and social dogmas, ephemeral fancies, propaganda, most of
them.

One presents conflicting ideas precisely to study the flaws and merits
of each, and to learn how to weigh such conflicts and reach one's own
conclusions.

There is nothing whatever wrong with the idea of examining the arguments
presented by the various parties to the I/P conflict, all of
them, and subjecting them to critical debate. That is what we do
here. And it is all the more appropriate in an academic setting
where such subjects are under study.

The notion that there are "facts" and that they are determinate is in
itself wrong. Even in the hard sciences the "facts" change over time.
In social and historical studies one has only opinion and convention,
well or ill supported, and such written, physical, and oral records
as may be available. The available sources are "facts", all else
is interpretation, deduction, and plausible extrapolation.

To say that the academy should forbid questioning of the current
dogmas is to forbid intellectual and social progress, which is very
much what "free speech" is about; one has the right to discuss and
argue as one pleases, so long as one does it in a serious manner.

[Colorado Blue]

14. self delete

[bemildred]

15. It is not that I disagree that professors have responsibilities.

It is that it is not so simple a matter as doling out facts or
received opinion. I am, for instance, willing to see this or
any other professor chastized for mistreating his students out
of bias or malice, for being unfair for similar reasons, for
doing a bad job. But these are not simple matters or matters of
fact, they are matters of opinion and feeling, to be decided on
the fullest understanding of the circumstances and events.

[Colorado Blue]

16. I completely agree with you. I am not in favor of stifling free

speech or free expression, or of teaching only mainstream or "politically correct" ideas. For example, I thought Churchill really got stomped on for his "Eichmann" quote. I really don't think it deserved such tsuris. He had a point he was trying to make, and he make a tasteless comment, and factually an inaccurate comment, and people's feelings were hurt, 9/11 victims even - but he has something to offer also. Part of what professors do is shock their students into paying attention. So it's a matter of keeping things in perspective.

On the other hand, obviously a professor shouldn't be intimidating his students, if in fact that occurs.

But, responsibilities - yes. And a major responsibility, as you say, lies with the tenure or discipline committee, etc, to make sure of all the facts, ideas, so forth, are clearly and accurately presented.

Philosophically, I'd like to offer a few ideas and also questions.

First, if the professor is expressing a radical opinion - as Massad seems to be, judging from what I've read of his work - perhaps the school itself has the responsibility to balance the department?

This is one of the issues at Columbia, I believe. I've read that it isn't simply Massad - it's that some feel the whole department is a bit unbalanced. Perhaps in that case, a professor could be hired, who teaches from a different point of view. Degree-seeking candidates might be required to listen to BOTH. It surely would increase the range of knowledge and ideas offered.

In a serious art school, for instance, one is required to learn both classical life drawing and Bauhaus-type design theory. Middle Eastern history is so complex and multi-faceted, it can't possibly be seen accurately from only one perspective.

If, however, the issue is one of granting tenure, and if the person's SCHOLARSHIP isn't up to snuff, as Pelsar points out, then he shouldn't get tenure, IMO.

And, if the professor is teaching a philosophy which actually victimizes or attempts to delegitimize the history of a group of people - ANY group - that would be cause for grave concern.

There's another complicating factor that could arise: active, political involvement in a confrontational and potentially violent situation.

Objectivity in that case would surely seem to be limited? Wouldn't a student then be paying to learn from a politician, or worse - a partisan? Doesn't that bring up the issue, mentioned previously, of propaganda or ideology being offered, as opposed to history or political science?

[bemildred]

17. These are things one might consider.

I am suspicious of designating ideas "radical", and of the notion that
"radical" ideas are a bad thing for one's mind to be exposed to.

Balance is nice, but it can drive you nuts if you make it a
controlling factor. You really cannot satisfy everyone.

If the department as a whole has a bias one dislikes, one should go
elsewhere. Attending a school that annoys you is a bad idea.

If he is incompetent or a fool, one can remove him for that reason.
One assumes with a tenured professor that is not or at least was not
once the case. I do consider some of the reported incidents about
Massad problematical if true, but that is for the faculty committee
to evaluate.

With the other issues, it's difficult, I don't think political
activism as such is a bad thing. I suppose the distinction in this
particular case would be between advocating for the Palestinians and
against Israeli state policy, which I consider OK to do, and attacking
"the Jews" or advocating violence and terrorism against random
Israelis, or viewing mistreatment of random Israelis as some sort of
solution for mistreatment of random Palestinians (or vice-versa).

But the notion that we all have to get on board and be in favor of
the continuance of the Israeli state as it exists now or be considered
bigots you won't convince me of. I don't see that it makes you a
bigot if you do feel that way either. It's a political difference,
such things happen.

[Colorado Blue]

19. Thanks for the replies. I want to talk about it some more but

I need to digest and think.

Later.

[Colorado Blue]

27. OK, I want to talk about two of the issues you've raised.

First, your comment:

If the department as a whole has a bias one dislikes, one should go
elsewhere. Attending a school that annoys you is a bad idea.

OK, now with THIS, I disagree. Columbia is a first tier school. Bias SHOULD NOT EXIST in a history department - period. If you want bias, go to Bob Jones University.

State schools - no bias. Internationally reputable, highly regarded schools, the kind that set the standard for classical education - NO BIAS. Bias means, you aren't getting an education, you're getting propoganda. And, if you're 18 years old - how the hell are you supposed to know if your school is biased or not? That is ABSOLUTELY the school's responsibility - to ensure that it is NOT BIASED.

Visiting lecturers, fine - anybody can speak. But the university per se is supposed to be a sanctuary, free of bigotry. Especially not in a HISTORY department. History defines us, we really can't be reinventing it every five minutes to suit a political agenda. And Massad actually is trying to do exactly that. He's written papers in which he's played word games with the meaning of antisemitism, trying to flip it around - in other words, trying to rob us of history, of what has REALLY TRULY HONESTLY HAPPENED. That's inexcusable.

***

Your comment:

But the notion that we all have to get on board and be in favor of
the continuance of the Israeli state as it exists now or be considered bigots you won't convince me of. I don't see that it makes you a bigot if you do feel that way either. It's a political difference, such things happen.

Sorry - again, I totally disagree.

To put that into a different perspective - there would be no stability in the world whatsoever if it were acceptable for professors in Germany to advocate "changing" France.

It would be completely unbearable for the citizens of France to be hearing that and it would, in fact, be dead WRONG for outside citizens, citizens of Germany, to be telling French citizens what to do with their country. And it is not as though there haven't been wars, territorial disputes and mutual grievances between these two peoples over the centuries either, so the idea that Israel is somehow unique is also wrong.

Therefore, singling Israel out for endless attempts to delegitimize her or destablize or harm her, attempts to harm or "change" her citizens or her constitution, actually are extremely bigoted.

And in any case - that's not the job of a PROFESSOR, charged with TEACHING impressionable young minds. If he wants to preach, he can get a job as a preacher or a politician or a propogandist.

In my opinion:)

[bemildred]

29. You cannot escape bias, "objectivity" is a fiction.

Unfounded bias, prejudice, bigotry, is not to be supported. On
the other hand one is allowed to discriminate as long as one avoids
bigotry based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc.; and in fact one of
the things we look to intellectuals for is precisely the fineness of
their discriminatory capabilites and their abilities to analyze
differences, to have firm opinions (with a preference for ones we
agree with I suppose), and to express them well.

---

In the other matter you are wrong, it is perfectly OK for German
professors to advocate changing France. The French may well ignore
them, but I can assure you this sort of thing goes on all the time
with only a rather modest fuss. This forum is in fact constantly
filled, for instance, with Israelis pontificating on what the Palestinians
must do. I don't have a problem with that when it is well thought
out, although it smacks of orientalism a good deal.

The US goverment and it's intellectual supporters also have a
long-standing fondness for telling other countries what sort of
government they need and what sort of policies they ought to
pursue, and so on, and I can assure you the French are not above
commenting on the Germans either.

To be sure advocating violent change can get you in hot water, and
rightly so.

[Colorado Blue]

31. Bias can never be totally avoided - hence the idea of

balance, as I suggested.

But Massad really is over the line, into outright bigotry. I'll post quotes from his papers soon, I'm too tired right now. He has some ideas about gays also, that are upsetting people. I haven't studied his thoughts about women.

And, there is the question of carrying historical revisionism too far, to the point where the facts are utterly obscured. That is not right. That is also what this man does in his papers. I don't know how much of his WRITTEN work is reflected in the classroom. But surely there must be crossover.

As far as GOVERNMENTS constantly telling each other what to do - yes, unfortunately, that is a sad fact of life. It leads to war and aggravation and tragedy. That was my POINT.

And for UNIVERSITIES to sponsor of allow propoganda or even the HINT of intimidation of students, who are young and don't know better by definition, and professional propoganda machines to constantly single out a particular nation - that's not right. Because the fact of the matter is, you don't have a problem with university professors attacking France or Germany. I don't see a bunch of academic boycotts against, for example, Saudi Arabia or Sudan. I don't see academic departments lecturing ferociously against Presbyterians or trying to delegitimize the history of Islam or trying to demonize Colombia.

Yet, ALL of the above are involved in SOMETHING, surely, that is wrong or pisses somebody off. In fact I know damn well they are - some of them extremely serious, extremely harmful. But we don't see scholarly attempts to delegitimize or demonize them or their people, or force them off the map.

When attempting to harm one PARTICULAR nation or its citizens, among all the imperfect nations of this planet, becomes a sort of international pasttime and academic cause celebre, it certainly should give people pause.

[bemildred]

18. Churchill went looking for trouble and he found it.

That's his business. The school should welcome the
publicity, make sure he does his job, and ignore the rest as
best it can. It definitely should defend it's own interests,
but one of it's interests is academic autonomy and telling the
political attack dogs to bugger off.

[pelsar]

20. never said that....

"To say that the academy should forbid questioning of the current
dogmas is to forbid intellectual and social progress, which is very
much what "free speech" is about; one has the right to discuss and
argue as one pleases, so long as one does it in a serious manner."

I have absolutly no problem with questioning current dogmas, nor should any professor....my "beef" if you will, returning to the original statements above, is that he has stated in an article something which simply isnt true.

he has stated as a fact that " Israel as a quasi-theological state"

his discussion of whether the arabs left of their own accord, or because of the IDF etc is fine with me....whether i agreee with him or not is immaterial as there is much room for both discussion and disagreement.

but i repeat....statements in an ARTICLE, which are presented as factual when in fact do not represent life here have no place, should not be written, and his motives and teaching methods should be examined.

[bemildred]

21. Those ARE opinions, not facts.

All affirmative statements in English are made that way,
it does not mean he claims they are facts. They are assertions,
questionable to be sure, supported by some "facts" about
Israeli law. One can state as fact what Israeli law says; the
conclusion that "Israel as a quasi-theological state" is not
a fact or an assertion of fact. Coming from a Muslim, or perhaps
a "person of Muslim descent", you must admit that claim has a
certain irony. Nevertheless there are some bizarre provisions of
Israeli law. The statement that "Israel as a quasi-theological
state" is no more a fact than that "Only Muslims are suicide bombers".

[pelsar]

23. and both are wrong.....

The statement that "Israel as a quasi-theological
state" is no more a fact than that "Only Muslims are suicide bombers".

precisely....both claims are simply wrong....and he as a professor who teaches young students should not be making assurtions that are simply wrong, based on what is obviously lack of knowledge, since anyone who has ever visited here would have a hard time finding this place :"quasi theological"...he is being simply irresponsable...or he has some other motive

[bemildred]

24. Right, so neither one of you should be fired. nt

[pelsar]

25. no......only the prof

we all know that there have been all kinds of suicide bombers in the past....however my contention in the present day is that most have some link to islam....and i'm (and you) are having a hard time in finding sucide bombers in the 21st century that are not muslim.

That is not to say that only suicide bombers are muslim.....but today, militant islam seems to have a certain chararcteristic that lends itself to that "factory"

That is not to say in the future there shall be non muslim suicide bombers...but I am just having a problem in finding some in the present.....in the aprox 41 ongoing conflicts.

but I do have an open mind and unlike the prof, more than willing to be shown that I am wrong...I just cant find any........

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/
i used this as a databas for info.....

[bemildred]

26. LTTE has not ceased to use suicide attacks:

http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=14440

Tracing the background of domestic terrorism in Sri Lanka, the British statement says: “In the course of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka since 1983, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have carried out a number of terrorist attacks. In February 2002, the Sri Lankan Government and LTTE signed a formal ceasefire agreement. In July 2004 a suicide bomber detonated herself after being taken to a police station in Colombo for questioning, killing herself and four police officers. This was the first such attack for over two years. A Government Minister was believed to have been the intended target. On 29 November 2004 a grenade was thrown in a bus in Trincomalee killing one and seriously injuring two others. It is not clear who was responsible for the attack. On 11 December, a grenade was thrown at an outdoor concert in Colombo killing two and injuring 11 others. It is not yet known who was responsible.”

Another "timeline":

http://www.spur.asn.au/chronology_of_suicide_bomb_attacks_by_Tamil_Tigers_in_sri_Lanka.htm

There has been a "peace process" in effect in Sri Lanka these last
few years, but there is every reason to think that suicide attacks
will resume if/when it fails. In Sri Lanka it is somewhat the case
that the Muslims are being protected by the gov't from the Tamils,
and there do seem to be islamic groups emerging there now too.

It is worth noting that the Sikh in India have also resorted to
suicide attacks a couple times:

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/punjab/terrorist_outfits/BKI.htm

June 1999: Delhi police arrest a suspected suicide bomber, Richhpal Singh, on a mission to kill former Punjab police chief KPS Gill.

August 31, 1995: Human bomb Dilawar Singh assassinates Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh at the civil secretariat in Chandigarh. He allegedly owed allegiance to the BKI.

[pelsar]

28. point taken... (poor research on my part- I thought they were done

we have a few groups that use sucide bombings as a means....seems they share a similar cultural trait.....and it is expanding beyond the islamic realm.....

the transferring of successful cultural traits. Sucide bombers if deemed successful will be emulated by others....as we see with the few hindus who are trying it....

btw i dont put the islamic sucide bombers as "fundemenatalists".... quite the contrary. I see them simply as "fodder" for the sucide factory. Those that manufacture them (and here we will cross all religious/cultural lines) find the suitiable candidate due to his or her particular psychological situation and "start the process".....i believe that given arab/islam today, however you want to define it, there is a larger mass of potential "raw material."

[bemildred]

30. At least three religious/ethnic groups, so far (the Sikh).

For the suicide bomb attacks. The Sikh have pulled some spectacular
terror attacks in the non-suicide mode too.

There are many more "islamic" groups, (having used suiciders) so far,
but the "islamic" ones vary widely in fact, many are not fundamentalist
or religious in their political goals; quite a few are, of course; but
I would disagree with conflating them all. Of course I don't expect to
get far with that in the current political climate.

I would say the "islamic" groups, taken together, are somewhat
ahead of the the LTTE, and they have certainly been more "productive"
of late. On the other hand, there are more of them as noted above.

---

Personally I think the distinction between military operations and
deliberate attacks on civilian populations is more meaningful and
useful than a focus on the use of suiciders, but that opens up an
entire other can of worms which has been discussed endlessly here.

[Igel]

22. It's a good thing he doesn't study countries other than Israel.

"granting Jews differential rights and privileges over non-Jews, and rendering Israel a racist state by law"

I'm sure that includes things like voting, ability to buy property, go to mosques, and the like.

Oh, to be a Jew in Damascus! Or in Lebanon! The rights rain down upon them, the privileges are expansive and extreme. Even the Copts in Egypt must be envious.

That kind of distinction must apply ... what ... primarily to European countries?