Posted on 10/05/2002 7:55:55 AM PDT by chance33_98
University Faculty Deny Allegations Of Anti-Semitism Group Issues Rejection Of Harvard President’s Claims
By AMELIA HEAGERTY Contributing Writer Friday, October 4, 2002
Twenty-one UC Berkeley faculty members signed a statement this week rejecting allegations that they support an anti-Semitic policy.
The statement responded to remarks by Harvard University President Lawrence Summers, who implied that divestment proponents, who call for an end to university and national investments in Israel, are anti-Semitic.
In an address to a Massachusetts church two weeks ago, Summers said "profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities," adding that "serious and thoughtful people" are advocating anti-Semitism.
But UC Berkeley faculty members who support divestment denied their positions were motivated out of anti-Semitism.
"We reject the allegation that our opposition to state violence by the state of Israel in any way constitutes anti-Semitism, which, like all forms of racism, we unequivocally reject," according to the statement.
Summers was unable for comment.
The statement was co-written by several Jewish faculty members, who said in the statement, "they feel an added responsibility to speak out against Mr. Summers' brand of slander." They pointed to their Jewish culture as evidence that their position is not anti-Semitic.
"I grew up in Israel, and I know the truth," said Rutie Adler, a UC Berkeley lecturer. "The idiocy of calling people like me anti-Semitic doesn't even merit an answer. It's ridiculous. This has nothing to do with Judaism. It has to do with politics."
Other faculty members said labeling divestment policies anti-Semitic hinders discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"It was an attempt to stifle debate," said Near Eastern studies professor Daniel Boyarin, who is also Jewish. "I personally felt (the faculty statement) was necessary because I think it's a dangerous situation when such a topic of racism against Jews is used in an improper way."
But some Israel Action Committee officials said the presence of Jewish faculty members on the statement does not rule out anti-Semitism from the divestment campaign.
"They say, 'We can't be anti-Semitic—we have Jews in our cause,'" said committee co-chair David Singer. "But they make anti-Semitic remarks and actions. There have been lots of Jews throughout history who have been anti-Semitic."
UC Divestment, an organization petitioning for UC to divest from Israel, has collected 196 UC faculty signatures and 1,229 signatures overall since June.
An organization opposing divestment from Israel, UC Justice, has gathered 539 UC faculty signatures and 4,272 overall since July.
It's like one Israeli said, "We're having to fight our 1948 war for independence all over again".
A full return to 1967 borders with a Pallie state that can arm itself to the hilt means death for Israel. These academos don't know or care about Jihad. That Muhammad was the first Muslim terrorist
Their demands:
http://www.ucdivest.org/ucindex.php
1. Israel is in compliance with United Nations Resolution 242 which notes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, and which calls for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from occupied territories.
2. Israel is in compliance with the United Nations Committee Against Torture 2001 Report which recommends that Israel's use of legal torture be ended.
3. In compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention ("The occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies"; Article 49, paragraph 6), Israel ceases building new settlements, and vacates existing settlements, in the Occupied Territories.
4. Israel acknowledges in principle the applicability of United Nations Resolution 194 with respect to the rights of refugees, and accepts that refugees should either be allowed to return to their former lands or else be compensated for their losses, as agreed by the Palestinians and Israelis in bilateral negotiations.
Win one for the Gipper! God Bless You Reagan, We Will Never Forget Your Great Service and Leadership - We here on FR will carry on your great work with diligence. Thanks for the Memories and Inspiration!
He shouldn't engage in self-contradictory assertions.
So what, if not anti-semitism, is motivating their double standard advocacy? I can understand them being anti-war and anti-violence, but I cannot understand their position against Israel. Israel made the most generous offer ever made to the Palestinians, who in turn rejected it out of hand, walked away from negotiations, and began an unprecedented terror spree against civilians. Since Oslo, more than 1000 Israeli civilians have been murdered by Palestinians. Over the last 2 years, more than 600 - mostly in horrendous human bomb attacks that kill and maim people by the score. And yet, these people call for further weakening of the Israeli government and for unilateral action without any reciprocity, responsiblity or self control on the part of the Palestinian people and government.
I cannot understand how they could call for Israel to give in to terrorism, unless it is some form of antisemitism... that is, they think they can bully the Jewish state, or that the Jewish state should be forced to do what no other states would ever contemplate, etc. Again, why the double standard advocacy, and why the focus on Israel. Why not call for divestiture of China, or Russia, or India or other states that are involved in violence, such as the USA, Britain or France?
Mr. Summers is correct in my view. It may not be motivated by overt antisemitism, but in my opinion their call is a defacto form of antisemitism due to the circumstances Israel is in, the lack of uniformity in their recommendation, and the obvious inability of the Palestinians to reciprocate to peaceful overtures.
Early Reform Judaism was decidedly anti-zionist in favor of strengthening Judaism worldwide rather than being "Middle East centered". In recent history even reform Judaism has accepted the significance of a Jewish homeland. Unfortunately, many of the "traditional" Reform Jews cling to their anti-zionist heritage, which in effect makes them appear to be the "voice of reason" in discussions of Israeli politics (after all they're Jewish how can they be saying anything that isn't in the best interest of Jews).
In fact, their agenda is not for the benefit of all Jews and Judaism but rather their "brand" of Judaism which has little if any regard for the value of Israel: Who needs Israel? If it is to exist why should others not be entitled to share its bounty (how's that for ultra-liberalism). If it is destroyed in the process, so what; in "our" opinion it wasn't necessary to have a Jewish homeland anyway.
Indeed these "professional" Jewish commentators do not give credibility to the anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian argument, but rather expose themselves to be just the current form of the "Ghetto trustee" that has existed in every Jewish conflict throughout history, hoping to endear themselves to an intellectual elite by scapegoating their own people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.