Panel discusses Holocaust's role in Middle East conflict

Front Page

By Alison Channon, Editor

Brandeis hosted a panel Thursday called “The Public Framing of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: How the Holocaust Underlines Realities of Fear, Intimidation, and Denial. The panel, moderated by Professor Gordon Fellman (Soc), featured Dr. Sara Roy, Senior Research Scholar of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University, Dr. Alice Rothchild, physician and cofounder of Jewish Voice for Peace-Boston, and Dr. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, author of Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel.

Instead of drawing a large student turnout, the event drew an audience almost exclusively of older adults. Fellman began the discussion with a comment about Jimmy Carter’s visit to Brandeis. Carter’s visit, Fellman said, “helped us to open the real debate [on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] at Brandeis…it helped to crack open the taboo.” He added that in the discussion of the conflict, the “elephant in the middle of the room is the Holocaust.” He continued, “the left doesn’t have a good way of dealing with feelings.”

Roy was the first to speak. She explained an essay she wrote entitled “A Jewish Plea” that appeared on counterpunch.org. Roy characterized the essay as “an ethical response” to Israel’s policies regarding last summer’s war with Lebanon and the Palestinians. She then conducted into her discussion of the Holocaust. “The Holocaust is part of who we are as a people,” she said, “what have we as a people made of our suffering?”

Roy, whose parents are Holocaust survivors, said her parents “stood as a moral challenge among us.” But, she said, “Zionism has denigrated” the memory of the Holocaust. Roy, arguing that the Holocaust should be used to promote morality and justice, relayed her mother’s story of liberation from the concentration camps. According to Roy, after her mother and sister were liberated by the Russians, the prisoners were given free range to exact revenge upon the prison guards. However, Roy’s mother resisted the temptation to “ravage the guards.” Instead, Roy’s mother said, “we cannot do this. We must seek justice, not revenge.”

Roy also addressed the issue of intimidation and accusations of anti-Semitism. “Why is it anti-Semitic to argue against the misuse of the Holocaust? Why is it anti-Semitic…to defend the dignity and rights of all human beings? Why is it anti-Semitic to envision a future…that allows both peoples to live with dignity, equality, and peace.”

Rothchild followed Roy’s speech. “We’re all searching for meaning in the tragedy of the Holocaust,” she said. “How do [victims of the Holocaust] get to a place where they can do this to another people?” Rothchild asked. Moreover, “the Holocaust undermines and distorts the realities in the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

Rothchild then discussed issues of determination. She explained that “evoking the Holocaust” is a tool often used by what she deemed “right-wing” groups. As examples she pointed to the David Project Center for Jewish Leadership. According to Rothchild, the David Project has equated the threat of a nuclear Iran with Hitler’s Final Solution and the current times with the 1930s.

Rothchild then referenced the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which she accused of employing similar rhetoric. Then, in particular reference to Brandeis, Rothchild cited the alleged loss of five million dollars in donations from Brandeis alumni as a result of Carter’s visit to campus. These acts of intimidation, Rothchild asserted, “muzzles the academic community” and the Jewish community in general.

Last to speak was Beit-Hallahmi, who discussed at length the culture around victimization. “We all want to be victims,” he explained, “because it gives us the moral high ground.” In actuality he argued, “suffering does not ennoble anyone.” Moreover, he said, “being a victim is an objectionable reality. Victims should not be idealized or romanticized.” “We have to recognize that there are many victims,” Beit-Hallahmi argued that “victims should be given their rights without idealization or romanticization.”

Beit-Hallahmi commented that Jews have little reason to feel like victims in current times in light of the prominent positions to which Jews have risen. “There is a psychological gap between reality and a tradition of insecurity.” He then addressed the concept that Zionism came out of the Holocaust. This is the not case, he said, as “Zionism…was around long before the Holocaust.” He also discussed the need for changes in thinking. “Changes in consciousness come slowly…but they’re coming [in Israel]. Changes come about because of many, many small struggles.”

The discussion was then opened to questions. The first came from a man who said “even paranoids have enemies.” He then asked how Israel ought to deal with “avowed enemies of the state.” All three panelists agreed that “the occupation” is responsible for violence. Beit-Hallahmi said “the rules of the game create oppression…it’s not surprising that you have resistance.” Roy commented, “we are occupying another people. We have engaged in a process of oppression that is quite severe…there is a humanitarian denial of a people. If you take away all possibility…what do you expect…giving unabated oppression?” She added, “allow people to live as we live…then the violence will stop.”

Another audience member asked, “how do we break through the Holocaust inflected barrier?” Rothchild explained, we must “constantly challenge stereotypes and reframe issues. We must get people to ask different questions.” Moreover, “we must humanize the other…we must try to reproduce the situation for students…give it a context that is denied. De-educate, re-educate.”

Beit-Hallahmi said, “you can see a lot of movement [in opinion in Israel] even if the government is not.” There is a recognition that the “present situation is too costly.”

When asked about the implications of this discussion for Brandeis in light of the loss of funding resulting from Carter’s visit, Fellman said that the five million dollar figure “is a very casual figure.” He explained that some donors have stopped donating while others have donated for the first time. Moreover, “it’s up to the President to explain to donors what a university is.” Roy commented, this discussion “shouldn’t be perceived as a threat.”

Friday April 20, 2007

Brandeis Caves to Pipes, Donor Pressure

February 23, 2007 at 12:08 am

Columbia (Joseph Massad), Yale (Juan Cole) and Princeton (Rashid Kahlidi) have had the honor of their Mideast studies faculty (and faculty candidates) being subjected to a pro-Israel smear campaign. Now, it appears Brandeis is suffering the same fate. But instead of the David Project (behind the Columbia smear), Daniel Pipes is single-handedly taking on Brandeis with the help of some of its pro-Israel donors who've threatened a financial boycott.

It all started with Jimmy Carter (doesn't it always), who spoke on campus several weeks ago. The Pipes-Dershowitz crowd was in high moral dudgeon because Carter refused a one on one debate with Dershowitz. (Last I checked, Dershowitz hadn't invited Carter to debate him when the Big D's last book was published either.) University president Jehudah Reinharz was tarred and feathered. Jewish Week reported as much as $5 million in donations was being withdrawn.

The president was even quoted in the student newspaper as being opposed to either Pipes or Norman Finkelstein speaking on campus because of the "inflammatory nature" of their views, saying they were "weapons of mass destruction."

In its second report on the controversy, Jewish Week indicates that Reinharz has softened his views on at least one of the two speakers. I bet you can't guess which one…yes, it's Pipes. Instead of being described as the vapid ideologue he really is, Reinharz now lauds him as serious scholar. He even offers him the hospitality and imprimatur of the president's office:

You have been a guest on this campus on more than one occasion and, I believe, have always been treated with the utmost respect. I trust that the student groups who organize these events will manage your return visit in the spring with dispatch, and you will be recognized by Brandeis as the scholar you are. I, and my Executive Assistant, Dr. John Hose hope to attend your talk. If time allows, perhaps we can continue our conversation in my office.

Anything to cool down pro-Israel donors and demagogues on the warpath.

Reinharz offers the prestige of his office to someone who levels the most despicable calumnies (which unfortunately describes most of what he writes) against two members of his own faculty:

What, precisely, are those scholarly resources available at Brandeis? Might [University administrator John] Hose be referring to the University's leading specialist on "contemporary Islamic thought and practice"… Prof. Natana DeLong-Bas (NEJS), an apologist for Al-Qaeda whose depraved thinking was exposed in several recent articles (including "Natana DeLong-Bas: American Professor, Wahhabi Apologist" and "Sympathy for the Devil at Brandeis," from frontpagemag.com)? Or is he referring to Khalil Shikaki, a Crown Center fellow who has been credibly accused of terrorist links and has a second-to-none record in getting it wrong in his chosen field of Palestinian public opinion?

There are links in this passage to various Campus Watch and Frontpagemagazine articles which I don't have the heart to link to here. But you can find those links at Pipes' site.

This is what Oxford University Press has to say about Prof. Delong-Bas in its profile accompanying her book, Wahabi Islam:

Natana J. DeLong-Bas is senior research assistant at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. She is the author of Notable Muslims: A Biographical Dictionary (2004) and co-author of Women in Muslim Family Law revised edition, with John L. Esposito (2001). She has served as editor for and contributor to The Oxford Dictionary of Islam (OUP, 2003), and contributor to The Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an (2004), and The Encyclopedia of the Islamic World (OUP, 2004). She is a frequent public speaker on Islam, Wahhabism, and Saudi Arabia.

In protesting the banning of her book on Wahabi Islam by Egyptian religious authorities (that's right, the book was banned by Islamists), the provost of the American University in Cairo said this:

"The book essentially argues that Wahhabism has been hijacked by the jihadists…"

Based on what I have read of her work, I wouldn't say I'd agree with all of her views on Wahabi Islam. But to call her an Al Qaeda symp is ridiculous. And talk about 'depraved,' what kind of depraved human being could call a fellow academic "depraved" based on the above biographical profile?

As for the Shikaki attack, it's beyond laughable. Shikaki is Palestine's leading demographer and pollster who holds a Columbia University PhD. He founded the Palestinian Center for Policy Survey Research. He regularly collaborates with Israeli pollsters to track Israeli and Palestinian attitudes toward the peace process. His research is avidly followed by researchers, journalists and political leaders in Israel and throughout the world. I regularly report on his polls here when Haaretz reports them. To accuse this man of "terrorist links" is far beyond the pale and only testifies to the desperation of Pipes' witch hunt against those he views as dangers to Israel.

Let's also keep in mind that Herr Pipes was the figure largely responsible for Tariq Ramadan being declared persona non grata by the Dept. of Homeland Security. Pipes accused Ramadan of supporting Islamic terror with equally flimsy evidence to that presented against the above Brandeis figures.

Returning to Reinharz' change of heart about Pipes. The latter had been scheduled to speak on campus this spring. Reinharz' first remarks on Pipes and Finkelstein seemed to indicate that the University would permit neither to speak though there has been a change of heart outlined above. As for Finkelstein, he doesn't seem to have the proper papers for a Brandeis engagement. He'll be sailing the waters outside of campus on the good ship St. Louis till Reinharz decides whether his kind may be permitted entry to Brandeis.

I should state here that I don't share Norman Finkelstein's views of Zionism. But if a creep like Daniel Pipes should deserve the honor of a Brandeis podium, Finkelstein deserves one no less. I'm with Prof. Gordon Fellman on this:

Fellman advocated following up Carter’s appearance by opening the school to a new range of speakers on the Middle East.

“We also need to hear Avigdor Lieberman” — an Israeli Knesset member who advocates stripping Israeli Arab citizens of their citizenship — said Fellman. “We also need to hear a right-wing Orthodox settler convinced that God commands Jews to live in the West Bank. We need to hear more from Israelis who reject the occupation and reject the violence. … We need to hear Palestinians who have lived under occupation tell their sides of the story. … We need to hear from the rejectionists on both sides, and we need to hear from the accommodationists on both sides.”

In contrast, I find this counter-view expressed by Brandeis American Jewish historian Jonathan Sarna to be profoundly infantilizing:

“We don’t want to be in the position that every crackpot can be given a forum,” he said.

“I think the faculty increasingly understands that just as we exercise a lot of quality control over faculty appointments, so, too, do we have an obligation to exercise quality control for speakers on campus,” explained Sarna. “Part of our job is to help students figure out what bad books are, and what good books are; what is a bad scholar, and what is a good scholar. … How we exercise that responsibility without in any way limiting free discourse is what this committee will tackle.”

Sarna strongly endorsed Pipes’ scholarly credentials and his qualifications to speak on campus but said he did not want to “prejudge” the case of Finkelstein.

It appears that Pipes is one of the "good scholars" and Finkelstein in all likelihood one of the "bad."

The types of speakers Fellman lists above represent legitimate loci of opinion within Israeli society. What is wrong with a serious academic institution hearing from all sides of the debate? You're not appointing these people to the faculty or offering honorary degrees. You're merely asking them to come and address students for an hour or two. What is Sarna afraid of here? I fear that what he's done is import to campus the mainstream Jewish community's absolute fear of real debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He seems to be saying we can only have a debate that is carefully managed. You've got to strain it like baby food for an infant. Take out the bad bits and leave in the good.

Sarna continues:

“There are members of the Brandeis community who truly want everyone to be able to speak, like Hyde Park. I think a university with limited funds, limited resources, limited rooms, and with extremists who require security each time, must use its funds in a responsible way.”

Cop out…big time. This from a supposedly distinguished academic historian? What lameness. Who does he think he's kidding?

Filed under Mideast Peace, Politics & Society, Jews & Judaism

daniel pipes speaks at brandeis norman finkelstein pipes encourage brandeis donor boycott reinharz invites pipes to campus stifling free speech

Permalink | TrackBack

Q & A: Norman Finkelstein

Related

Norman G. Finkelstein

Sapere Aude! (Dare to think for yourself): Brandeis Student Paper

(Sapere Aude! (Dare to think for yourself):Brandeis Student Paper)

---
Q & A: Norman Finkelstein

DePaul University professor

Matthew Chavez

Posted: 2/16/07

by Matthew Chavez

Daily Lobo columnist

In June, 40 years will have passed since Israel began the brutal colonial occupation of the Palestinian territory. Among the longest-running conflicts in the modern era, it has come to define the region itself and U.S. regional policy, which has been a critical factor. To shed some light on the U.S. role in the conflict, I sat down with DePaul University professor Norman Finkelstein, a scholar known for refuting the most pernicious apologetics of U.S.-Israeli war crimes. The Jewish son of Holocaust survivors, Finkelstein is also known for his thesis that elites have industrialized the practice of exploiting the Holocaust for financial and political purposes. We spoke before his sold-out lecture delivered Saturday at Albuquerque's First Unitarian Church.

Daily Lobo: By far the largest recipient of U.S. aid, Israel recieves about $3 billion annually from the U.S., more than $90 billion total since the end of World War II, according to conservative estimates by the Congressional Research Service. More than half of all U.S. vetoes in the U.N. Security Council since its founding were to block resolutions condemning Israeli war crimes. What is the ultimate outcome of this unique support?

Norman Finkelstein: Broadly speaking, there is a common regional interest between the U.S. and Israel: keeping the Arab states in line. For the U.S., it's fundamentally about the oil; for Israel, because it wants to be the dominant power in the region. But they both have a common interest in keeping the Arab states in line, which fundamentally means repressing any tendencies in the Arab world toward independence and real self-determination. So, there's an overlapping of regional interests. I happen to think, on local interests, there's no overlap. The U.S. has no real stake in the (Israeli) occupation. The U.S. has no real reason to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state. So on local issues, I think there is a conflict of interest, and the U.S. supports Israel on those local issues, in my opinion, primarily due to the Israel lobby. When it comes to Iraq or Iran, there's a basic common

interest.

DL: One of the Bush administration's primary requirements for Israel-Palestine negotiations to resume is for Hamas to "recognize Israel." Why has Hamas declined to recognize Israel?

NF: The issue is reciprocity. Israel has never recognized the right of Palestinians to a state on the June 1967 borders. And until Israel makes its reciprocal recognition of the Palestinian right to a state in the internationally recognized borders, the Palestinians have no moral obligation to be first. If you want to gain recognition then you have to give recognition. So the condition of Hamas was that it has to be mutual, and I think that's right.

DL: Media outlets refer to the Oslo negotiations that took place between 1993 and 2001 as a "peace process." But during this period, Israeli colonization of the Palestinian territory doubled. According to the Israeli Interior Ministry, the Israeli population occupying Palestinian land grew 6 percent in 2006 - a four-fold increase over 2005. What role has the Bush administration played in this creeping conquest?

NF: The Bush administration has been a disaster. After Sept. 11, 2001, they simply appropriated the Israeli point of view that in order to fight ... Hamas and fight the Palestinians, you have to show them no soft side. It's a very aggressive, belligerent, truculent Israeli mind-set that has seized control of the administration. That's how they think you fight them - the way Israel fights terrorism - by constantly bashing them. So, they've supported all of Israel's expansionist policies in the

occupied territories.

DL: It is now a journalistic convention to define President Bush for his rhetorical advocacy for democratization in the Middle East. But when the Palestinian movement Hamas defeated the dominant Fatah party in democratic elections last year, Washington immediately initiated a more than $60 million campaign to crush Hamas by arming and training its opponents, and by leading an effort to sever Palestinian tax revenues and humanitarian aid. It would seem these actions controvert Bush's presumed "freedom agenda," but his administration describes them as ordinary U.S. support for a "moderate" ally threatened by a terrorist organization.

NF: Right. It supports moderate allies, and it supports the repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. It supports regimes that support its interests, and the regimes can create a fake election - like in Egypt or in Jordan - where they win 99.9 percent of the vote so they'll have a facade. The notion of U.S. interest in democracy is nothing. Let's take the case of Iraq. They've done surveys and asked the Iraqi people, "Do you believe the U.S. entered Iraq in order to bring democracy?" The last survey showed 2 percent of the Iraqi people believe that. That tells you something. Of course, all the media believe it, but nobody in the real world does.


Matthew Chavez is a political science major with a focus on international relations and a minor in Middle Eastern studies.

---

© Copyright 2007 Daily Lobo