Target of a witch-hunt for opposing Israel

May 4, 2007 | Page 5

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN is the target of a witch-hunt that could cost him his job teaching at DePaul University in Chicago.

An outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights as well as a renowned scholar with a reputation for exceptional teaching, Finkelstein is being considered for tenure at DePaul. He won strong support from the political science department and the personnel committee of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, but DePaul’s dean refused to back his application for tenure.

Finkelstein’s longtime adversary, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, has publicly campaigned against Finkelstein getting tenure at DePaul. DePaul’s provost will make his decision before June, and the university president has until June 15, the last day of the quarter at DePaul, to issue his final word.

Students and faculty have come to Finkelstein’s defense. Hundreds signed a petition of support, and pickets and meetings were organized to draw attention to the case. Students began wearing armbands this week to show their solidarity, and plans are in the works for a week of support events starting May 21, culminating in a demonstration and town hall meeting on May 24.

Here, Finkelstein talks to Socialist Worker’s KATHRYN WEBER, a student at DePaul who has helped to organize the support campaign, about how and why he is still fighting for tenure, nearly 20 years into his academic career.

What you can do Sign a letter of support and find out more information on this case at the Norman Finkelstein Solidarity Campaign Web site. E-mail finkelgate@gmail.com for more on what you can do to help. Finkelstein’s Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict is a careful documenting of the history of the conflict and Israel’s apartheid system. His recent Ariel Sharon is a biography of Israel’s former prime minister and leading warrior against the Palestinians.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

HOW DIFFICULT has it been for you to make a space for yourself in teaching in the current political environment?

I GOT my doctorate in 1988. Until 2000, I taught as what is called an adjunct, where you get paid per course. I lived in New York and taught at various universities and colleges. I was paid about an average of $3,000 per course and taught five to six courses a year, so I lived in New York for about 12 years on a salary ranging from $15,000 to $18,000 a year.

Eventually, I got a ”visiting professorship,” which is a yearly position. I was paid substantially more, but those were exceptional years--I think three years out of the 12. My entire teaching career, I have only once been interviewed for a job.

My dissertation was on the theory of Zionism. I don’t want to bore people with the details--just let’s say it was very difficult for me to get a job, because it’s considered a prerequisite that one of the letters of recommendation required for work, if not two, are from your thesis advisors--and none of my thesis advisors would support my candidacy.

HOW DID you recover from that?

WELL, I never got a job! I was working as an adjunct and non-PhDs get adjuncting jobs. It’s the equivalent of substitute teaching.

WHAT HAS been happening at DePaul?

I THINK that had the tenure process been allowed to go along according to basic protocols and procedure, I would have sailed through tenure, but external pressures were applied to the university, which have corrupted the process and derailed my tenure application.

There are two factors, really. One is vindictiveness and revenge--to “get” me for my public opposition to Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories. The other is to transmit the message that if you step out of line on this question, you’re going to face the same penalties as Finkelstein faced. It’s a way of silencing others for coming up behind me.

Finally, the hope is that if I’m denied tenure, it will de-legitimize me. The claim will be made that this Finkelstein guy, because he couldn’t get tenure at what these people consider a “ninth-rate Catholic university,” doesn’t know what he’s saying. That’s not me speaking about DePaul--that’s what they say.

CAN YOU describe the development of this fight with Dershowitz?

I FIRST met Professor Dershowitz on a program called Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman’s nationally broadcast program. I had read his book The Case for Israel as soon as it came out, and it was plain to me that large parts of it had been plagiarized, and also large parts of it were sheer fabrication and falsification of the documentary record.

When I was on the program I effectively told him as much. He was furious when he left the interview. Amy actually told me to watch out.

I felt obliged, having leveled incendiary allegations, to document it all, because otherwise, it would seem as if I was speaking in an irresponsible manner. I went on to document the allegations and produce a manuscript.

When Professor Dershowitz got wind of the manuscript, he embarked on a huge campaign to suppress publication of the book. He wasn’t successful, and now he’s embarked on a new campaign to deny me tenure.

Basically, I think there’s elements of vindictiveness, but also a desire to discredit me--and hopefully, in his mind, to repair some of the damage done by my book and my public allegations.

TO WHAT extent do you think he’s been successful in framing the debate over your tenure?

I DON’T think he’s been very successful. I think he’s looking very foolish. Even mainstream publications like the New York Times, which are very much in his corner and very much not in my corner, didn’t give him a write-up that he can be particularly proud of. He’s not been very successful. He’s behaving at this point in a very self-destructive manner.

WHAT DO you think the state of academic freedom in the U.S. today?

I’M NOT as hysterical about these issues as other people. Mine is kind of an unusual case, because I don’t confine my activity to academia. I speak before large numbers of audiences and I’m a known quantity outside the ivory tower, and so I pose many more problems to the powers that be than most academics.

I could be wrong on this subject, but I don’t think that academic freedom is being threatened. There are some cases, but my case is simply unusual because I’m a political activist outside the ivory tower of academia.

DO YOU think that professors have an obligation to engage in political activity?

THEY DON’T have an obligation as professors; they have an obligation as citizens. They have the luxury of devoting their working life to trying to ferret out the facts and the truth about what’s going on.

For most other working people, their working lives are devoted to jobs which have minimal levels of personal gratification and have very little to do with mental activity of the sort that creates informed citizens. So since you have the luxury of sitting around and reading books, you do have an obligation as a citizen to pursue and expose the truth.

It's True -- Rosie Will Leave "View!!"

It's True -- Rosie Will Leave "View!!"

Posted Apr 25th 2007 9:18AM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: TV, The View, Rosie O'Donnell

TMZ has now confirmed the buzz that we exclusively reported last night: Rosie O'Donnell will announce on today's show that she is leaving "The View." And TMZ has confirmed that "View" honchos are already searching for her replacement.

Stay tuned!

UPDATE: LOG ON TO TMZ AT 11:15 AM EASTERN TIME AND WE'LL HAVE A CLIP OF ROSIE'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Comments [240]

Robert Fisk: Fear and loathing on an American campus

Robert Fisk

I have a desire to take Norm, Chuck and Al and bang their bloody heads together

Published: 14 April 2007

On the night of 11 September 2001, Al Dershowitz of Harvard law school exploded in anger. Robert Fisk, he roared over Irish radio, was a dangerous man. I was "pro-terrorist". I was "anti-American" and that, Dershowitz announced to the people of County Mayo, "is the same as anti-Semitic".

Of course I had dared to ask the "Why" question; Why had 19 Arabs flown aircraft into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania? Take any crime on the streets of London and the first thing Scotland Yard does is look for a motive. But when we had international crimes against humanity on the scale of New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, the first thing we were not allowed to do was look for a motive. How very odd. The 19 murderers came from a place called the Middle East. Was there a problem out there?

But Al would have none of this. And I got the message. To ask the "Why" question made me a Nazi. Which is why I subsequently received a flood of mail, much of it from Denver - what has Denver got against me? - telling me that my mother was Adolf Eichmann's daughter. Thanks, Al. I'm sure you didn't dream of the hate mail your silly diatribe will inspire. I guess Irish radio host Eamon Dunphy did. He pulled the plug on Al.

I'm recalling all this nonsense because Al has been back at work attacking his old nemesis, Norm Finkelstein, who has just applied for tenure at DePaul University in the US where he is an assistant professor of politics. Norm's department has supported him but Al has bombarded faculty members with a blistering attack on Norm and all his works.

So let me just explain what these works are. Finkelstein, who is Jewish and the son of Holocaust survivors, has published a number of works highly critical of Israel's occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and the use Israeli supporters make of the Holocaust of six million Jews to suppress criticism of Israel's policies. He has accused Dershowitz of plagiarising portions of his 2003 book The Case for Israel. Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, earned Dershowitz's continued fury.

Now, I've known Norm for years and he is a tough, no-holds-barred polemicist, angry against all the traditional supporters of Israel, especially those who turn a blind eye to torture. Personally, I find Norm's arguments sometimes a little overwrought. In radio discussions, his voice will take on a slightly whingeing tone that must infuriate his antagonists.

But Al is clearly trying to destroy Norm's career, adding that the "dossier" he sent to DePaul academics - we remember that word "dossier" rather too well in Britain and, I should add, Al has absolutely no connection to DePaul University - contains details of "Norman Finkelstein's ... outright lies, misquotations and distortion".

It will be a disgrace, says Al, for DePaul to give tenure to Norm. "His scholarship is no more than ad hominem attacks on his ideological enemies." As if this is not enough, Al - who is also Jewish - takes a crack at philosopher and linguistic academic Noam Chomsky who has supported Norm and whom Al refers to as "the high priest of the radical anti-Israeli left".

Enough, I hear readers shout. I agree. But Norm's politics department give him top marks for scholarship and says he "offers a detailed argument that suggests that Dershowitz plagiarised or inappropriately appropriated large sections of others work in The Case for Israel". Norm has a "substantial and serious record of scholarly production and achievement" and has lectured at the University of Chicago, Harvard, Georgetown and Northwestern Universities.

So far so good. But now up pops "Chuck" Suchar, the dean of DePaul's College of Liberal (sic) Arts and Sciences, with an extraordinary recommendation that Norm should not be granted tenure. While acknowledging that "he is a skilled teacher" with "consistently high course evaluations," Chuck has decided "that a considerable amount of [his work] is inconsistent with DePaul's Vincentian values, most particularly our institutional commitment to respect the dignity of the individual and to respect the rights of others to hold an express different intellectual positions". Norm's books, according to Chuck, "border on character assassination and ... embody a strategy clearly aimed at destroying the reputation of many who oppose his views".

Now I have to say that scholars who read this column will be interested to know of Chuck's own work. I gather it has absolutely nothing to do with the Middle East, though I'm sure his study of Gentrification and Urban Change: Research in Urban Society (1992) had American readers queuing round the block of their major bookstores in search of first editions. All I do ask is how a college dean could involve himself in the same kind of ad hominem attacks against one of his own colleagues that he has accused that same colleague of being guilty of.

I loved too, that bit about "Vincentian values". That really does warrant a chortle or two. St Vincent de Paul - the real de Paul who lived from 1581 to 1660, not the de Paul of Chuck's soft imagination - was a no nonsense theologian who was captured by Muslim Turkish pirates and taken to Tunis as a slave. Here, however, he argued his religious values so well that he converted his owner to Christianity and earned his freedom. His charitable organisations - he also created a home for foundlings in Paris - became a legend which Chuck Suchar simply dishonours.

All over the United States, however, Norm's academic chums have been condemning Suchar's tomfoolery; even in Beirut, where Norm has lectured, academics of the American University have insisted that he be granted tenure in his department, Arabs supporting a Jewish professor and son of Holocaust survivors.

Of course, I grant that all this is a little heavy for the real world and I do have a secret desire to take Norm, Chuck and Al and bang their bloody heads together. But what is happening at DePaul University is a very serious matter in the anodyne, frightened academic world that now exists in the US. Norm's moment of truth comes up in May. As they say watch this space.

Related
Zionism vs. Anti-Zionism: Dershowitz Tries To Get Finklestein Fired

IN DEFENSE OF BENJAMIN HEINE

Related
No Freedom of Expression at Daily Kos
---
By Steve Amsel

Friday, April 06, 2007

Image of Ben by David Baldinger
I along with a few others including Benjamin Heine were recently asked to crosspost on a site called Daily Kos. It seemed an honour at the time, a chance to be read by more people on a daily basis. My first post there was not accepted graciously by the readers there, my second post was literally attacked by the zionist elements there. It is not my intention here, on my own blog, nor there to engage in debate with these people. Fine to disagree with what I have to say, but at least read it.

Benjamin posted there yesterday for the first time. He was literally 'tarred and feathered' for what he posted. The images below were presented in his post, one reader had the gall to comment "How could you put a nazi face on a Jew?" To that I answer.... HOW CAN A JEW ACT LIKE A nAZI??




The text that went with his post was censored after receiving over 400 nasty comments.

The text appears HERE. If censorship is the game the zionists wish to play, fine... it's their site, their rules. But to lie about the reasons is another question... to claim it was censored because of copyright violation is absurd. The author's name and source were clearly printed in the introduction. It is obvious that the guilty zionists felt targeted and reacted.

The conclusion I reach is that Daily Kos is not the progressive site I thought it was. It is top heavy with zionists and obviously just another organ of the lobby.

They cannot and will not stop the message of truth. Benjamin's personal message appears in the images he creates. They can be seen HERE on his blogsite. His defense is his honesty and integrity. Daily Kos cannot take that away from him.

Ben's Daily Kos entry can be seen HERE.

Civil engineering: Howls of protest as web gurus attempt to banish bad behaviour from blogosphere

If you check the backgrounds of these gurus and many of those who support this movement you find censors. (I see the twats at TPM are right in there gatekeeping. It is the "civilised' gatekeepers who limit debate).

Howls of protest as web gurus attempt to banish bad behaviour from blogosphere
Opinion divided over code of conduct meant to rid postings of offensive and abusive comments.

Ed Pilkington in New York
Tuesday April 10, 2007
The Guardian

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty

Perhaps it was inevitable. When two leading internet pioneers came together this week to propose a set of guidelines that would filter out offensive and abusive comments from blogs, they were met by a torrent of offensive and abusive comments.

Images of excrement were abundant amid the reaction yesterday to the proposed "bloggers' code of conduct". The anonymous blogger bynkii (motto: because misanthropy is fun) likened the idea to "troll faeces, specifically designed to create a special group of self-satisfied, smug, condescending dingalings looking down their noses". The new media site 910am described it as "weapons of mass stupidity" and carried the health warning "do not read on a full stomach".

---

---

The text that has got the collective bowels moving of these and many other bloggers is a draft set of rules on introducing the concept of civility to the blogosphere. It is the combined work of Tim O'Reilly, inventor of the phrase Web 2.0 to describe the next generation of interactive communications, and Jimmy Wales, founder of the communal encyclopaedia Wikipedia.

They have posted a seven-point programme that would attempt, they say, to address the plethora of abusive comments on the web, while preserving the free spirit of the medium. Point one of the code is that anyone signing up to it would commit themselves to a "civility enforced" standard to remove unacceptable comments from their blog.

Unacceptable is defined as content that is used to abuse, harass, stalk or threaten others; is libellous or misrepresentative; or infringes copyright, confidentiality or privacy rights. Anonymous postings are also to be removed, with every comment requiring a recognised email address, even if posts are made under pseudonyms.

Point six encourages bloggers to ignore "trolls" making nasty comments that fall short of abuse or libel. "Never wrestle with a pig," is the advice. "You both get dirty, but the pig likes it."

To back up the code, they propose a "civility enforced" badge marking sites which subscribe to the guidelines, and an "anything goes" badge to denote those that do not. The proposed guidelines can be interactively amended by web users, until a final version is agreed.

Mr O'Reilly writes on his website radar.oreilly: "Setting standards for acceptable behaviour in a forum you control is conducive to free speech, not damaging to it. There's no reason why we should tolerate conversations online that we wouldn't tolerate in our living room."

Many sites, including the Guardian's Comment is free blog, already deploy several of the points. But this is the first attempt to apply a common framework to the rapidly growing population of blogs which already stands at 71m.

The move formalises concern among many bloggers and web publishers about abusive language. Last month a woman blogger went public with the attacks she had suffered on her site. In her account of the harassment she endured, Kathy Sierra refers to photographs being posted of her head beside a noose, and comments such as: "fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob".

"The guy who wrote this is anonymous," she said. "I have no way of knowing just how disturbed he might be."

The draft guidelines have prompted wide debate with varying responses. Dan Gillmor of the Centre for Citizen Media, a group devoted to grassroots media attached to Berkeley's graduate school of journalism, rejects the need for a code of conduct. He says bloggers require only one simple rule: be civil. To define unacceptable behaviour is to create a monster, he says, as "Who'd be the judge of it? The government? Libel lawyers? Uh, oh."

901am says the idea is the preserve of rabid feminists and professional victims. "Civility is subjective, and controlling what people say and do on blogs can only be a recipe for the decline of the medium and the introduction of totalitarianism online."

Death threat's close news website

From Al-Jazeerah.info Editor to Readers

Dear Readers,

Al-Jazeerah.info has been a US independent forum promoting peace between the US and the Arab and Muslim worlds and between Israelis and Palestinians, for the last five years.

Some people apparently neither like peace nor tolerate the First Amendment to the US Constitution. They have not stopped attacks on Al-Jazeerah, its editor, its contributors, and authors.

What's new this time is that those who oppose Al-Jazeerah.info have been orchestrating a campaign* against its Editor, personally.

A letter-writing campaign has been going on since March 22, 2007 targeting officials of the institution he works with, in addition to a continuous smearing internet and media campaign against him, personally.

I have concluded that it's not safe for me any more to continue editing Al-Jazeerah.info in this atmosphere of intimidation, which abridges freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I believed that, as an American citizen, I have these sacred rights as a given. I acknowledge now that I was wrong.

Until I'm assured of these Constitutional freedoms and rights, I'll stop editing news reports and opinion editorials about US wars and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, hoping that the campaign against my employer stops.

Readers and contributors, however, are welcome to continue submitting other topics. Let's be creative and try to find other subjects that promote peace in the world and serve humanity.

I promise to resume publication as soon as conditions change to a more peaceful and tolerant discourse.

I'm proud that Al-Jazeerah forum has enabled thousands of Americans to express themselves, warning against wars and promoting peace in their country and the world.

There's every reason for the US and Israel to adopt peaceful resolutions to international conflicts. Wars and excessive military spending have caused the US to sink into an unprecedented national debt of $9 trillion, which will eat up the economic achievements of the American people if it is not addressed as soon as possible.

The Israelis have been living in a continuous state of war for about 60 years, for denying Palestinians their human rights, including their right for self determination and having a state of their own. Military force does not solve problems. Occupation of Arab territories does not give security. Peace does. And this has been the message of Al-Jazeerah.info from Day One.

Peace!

Hassan El-Najjar

Al-Jazeerah Editor

April 7, 2007

Another Enemy of the People? : Prof who criticised Bush put on Terror Watch List

Related
Walter F. Murphy
---
Sunday, April 08, 2007

Another Enemy of the People?

Mark Graber

I am posting the below with the permission of Professor Walter F. Murphy, emeritus of Princeton University. For those who do not know, Professor Murphy is easily the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science. His works on both constitutional theory and judicial behavior are classics in the field. Bluntly, legal scholarship that does not engage many themes in his book, briefly noted below, Constitutional Democracy, may be legal, but cannot be said to be scholarship. As interesting, for present purposes, readers of the book will discover that Murphy is hardly a conventional political or legal liberal. While he holds some opinions, most notably on welfare, similar to opinions held on the political left, he is a sharp critic of ROE V. WADE, and supported the Alito nomination. Apparently these credentials and others noted below are no longer sufficient to prevent one from becoming an enemy of the people.

"On 1 March 07, I was scheduled to fly on American Airlines to Newark, NJ, to attend an academic conference at Princeton University, designed to focus on my latest scholarly book, Constitutional Democracy, published by Johns Hopkins University Press this past Thanksgiving."

"When I tried to use the curb-side check in at the Sunport, I was denied a boarding pass because I was on the Terrorist Watch list. I was instructed to go inside and talk to a clerk. At this point, I should note that I am not only the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence (emeritus) but also a retired Marine colonel. I fought in the Korean War as a young lieutenant, was wounded, and decorated for heroism. I remained a professional soldier for more than five years and then accepted a commission as a reserve office, serving for an additional 19 years."

"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "

"After carefully examining my credentials, the clerk asked if he could take them to TSA officials. I agreed. He returned about ten minutes later and said I could have a boarding pass, but added: "I must warn you, they=re going to ransack your luggage." On my return flight, I had no problem with obtaining a boarding pass, but my luggage was "lost." Airlines do lose a lot of luggage and this "loss" could have been a mere coincidence. In light of previous events, however, I'm a tad skeptical."

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican. That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government. This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could. Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous. Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

"I have a personal stake here, but so do all Americans who take their political system seriously. Thus I hope you and your colleagues will take some positive action to bring the Administration's conduct to the attention of a far larger, and more influential, audience than I could hope to reach. "
Posted 11:17 AM by Mark Graber [link]

FINKELSTEIN DENIED TENURE AT DEPAUL: FINKELSTEIN CONFIRMS

SPME LEARNS FINKELSTEIN DENIED TENURE AT DEPAUL: FINKELSTEIN CONFIRMS

By Allyson Taylor and John Wilson

Published in: www.collegefreedom.org

April 1, 2007

( Allyson Taylor, formerly of American Jewish Congress and StandWithUs.com has sent SPME a copy of an email from Norman Finkelstein to her that this article by John Wilson "is correct." SPME is waiting for official confirmation.)

I've heard reports that DePaul assistant professor Norman Finkelstein has been recommended for denial of tenure by the dean of liberal arts and sciences. The Political Science department voted 9 to 3 in favor of granting tenure, with three members making a minority report. The five-person College Personnel Committee was unanimous in favour of granting tenure. It appears that the primary reason given for Finkelstein's denial of tenure was his meanness to his critics in the tone of his scholarship, which is a particularly disturbing attack on academic freedom. But the real reason for denying Finkelstein tenure is likely to be the campaign by conservatives, led by Alan Dershowitz. I have previously written about the Finkelstein/Dershowitz dispute .

It will be interesting to compare this case with that of Thomas Klocek, the adjunct professor at DePaul who was suspended after getting in an argument with Palestinian students. Will the conservatives who rightly defended Klocek make a similar argument against denying Finkelstein tenure for the crime of being rude? Of course, as a tenure-track professor, Finkelstein has far greater protections, so perhaps he will prevail against the conservative forces who want to get rid of him. But the principle that politeness should not be imposed on campuses is at stake here.

Related
Zionism Vs Anti-Zionism: Dershowitz Tries To Get Finklestein Fired ...

The true story of free speech in America: Systematic censorship of Middle East reality continues

Robert Fisk

This systematic censorship of Middle East reality continues even in schools

Published: 07 April 2007

Laila al-Arian was wearing her headscarf at her desk at Nation Books, one of my New York publishers. No, she told me, it would be difficult to telephone her father. At the medical facility of his North Carolina prison, he can only make a few calls - monitored, of course - and he was growing steadily weaker.

Sami al-Arian is 49 but he stayed on hunger strike for 60 days to protest the government outrage committed against him, a burlesque of justice which has, of course, largely failed to rouse the sleeping dogs of American journalism in New York, Washington and Los Angeles.

All praise, then, to the journalist John Sugg from Tampa, Florida, who has been cataloguing al-Arian's little Golgotha for months, along with Alexander Cockburn of Counter Punch.

The story so far: Sami al-Arian, a Kuwaiti-born Palestinian, was a respected computer professor at the University of South Florida who tried, however vainly, to communicate the real tragedy of Palestinian Arabs to the US government. But according to Sugg, Israel's lobbyists were enraged by his lessons - al-Arian's family was driven from Palestine in 1948 - and in 2003, at the instigation of Attorney General Ashcroft, he was arrested and charged with conspiring "to murder and maim" outside the United States and with raising money for Islamic Jihad in "Palestine". He was held for two and a half years in solitary confinement, hobbling half a mile, his hands and feet shackled, merely to talk to his lawyers.

Al-Arian's $50m (£25m) Tampa trial lasted six months; the government called 80 witnesses (21 from Israel) and used 400 intercepted phone calls along with evidence of a conversation that a co-defendant had with al-Arian in - wait for it - a dream. The local judge, a certain James Moody, vetoed any remarks about Israeli military occupation or about UN Security Council Resolution 242, on the grounds that they would endanger the impartiality of the jurors.

In December, 2005, al-Arian was acquitted on the most serious charges and on those remaining; the jurors voted 10 to two for acquittal. Because the FBI wanted to make further charges, al-Arian's lawyers told him to make a plea that would end any further prosecution. Arriving for his sentence, however, al-Arian - who assumed time served would be his punishment, followed by deportation - found Moody talking about "blood" on the defendant's hands and ensured he would have to spend another 11 months in jail. Then prosecutor Gordon Kromberg insisted that the Palestinian prisoner should testify against an Islamic think tank. Al-Arian believed his plea bargain had been dishonoured and refused to testify. He was held in contempt. And continues to languish in prison.

Not so, of course, most of America's torturers in Iraq. One of them turns out to rejoice in the name of Ric Fair, a "contract interrogator", who has bared his soul in the Washington Post - all praise, here, by the way to the Post - about his escapades in the Fallujah interrogation "facility" of the 82nd Airborne Division. Fair has been having nightmares about an Iraqi whom he deprived of sleep during questioning "by forcing him to stand in a corner and stripping him of his clothes". Now it is Fair who is deprived of sleep. "A man with no face stares at me ... pleads for help, but I'm afraid to move. He begins to cry. It s a pitiful sound, and it sickens me. He screams, but as I awaken, I realise the screams are mine."

Thank God, Fair didn't write a play about his experiences and offer it to Channel 4 whose executives got cold feet about The Mark of Cain, the drama about British army abuse in Basra. They quickly bought into the line that transmission of Tony Marchant's play might affect the now happy outcome of the far less riveting Iranian prison production of the Famous 15 "Servicepersons" - by angering the Muslim world with tales of how our boys in Basra beat up on the local Iraqis. As the reporter who first revealed the death of hotel worker Baha Mousa in British custody in Basra - I suppose we must always refer to his demise as "death" now that the soldiers present at his savage beating have been acquitted of murder - I can attest that Arab Muslims know all too well how gentle and refined our boys are during interrogation. It is we, the British at home, who are not supposed to believe in torture. The Iraqis know all about it - and who knew all about Mousa's fate long before I reported it for The Independent on Sunday.

Because it's really all about shutting the reality of the Middle East off from us. It's to prevent the British and American people from questioning the immoral and cruel and internationally illegal occupation of Muslim lands. And in the Land of the Free, this systematic censorship of Middle East reality continues even in the country's schools. Now the principal of a Connecticut high school has banned a play by pupils, based on the letters and words of US soldiers serving in Iraq. Entitled Voices in Conflict, Natalie Kropf, Seth Koproski, James Presson and their fellow pupils at Wilton High School compiled the reflections of soldiers and others - including a 19-year-old Wilton High graduate killed in Iraq - to create their own play. To no avail. The drama might hurt those "who had lost loved ones or who had individuals serving as we speak", proclaimed Timothy Canty, Wilton High's principal. And - my favourite line - Canty believed there was not enough rehearsal time to ensure the play would provide "a legitimate instructional experience for our students".

And of course, I can quite see Mr Canty's point. Students who have produced Arthur Miller's The Crucible were told by Mr Canty - whose own war experiences, if any, have gone unrecorded - that it wasn't their place to tell audiences what soldiers were thinking. The pupils of Wilton High are now being inundated with offers to perform at other venues. Personally, I think Mr Canty may have a point. He would do much better to encourage his students to perform Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, a drama of massive violence, torture, rape, mutilation and honour killing. It would make Iraq perfectly explicable to the good people of Connecticut. A "legitimate instructional experience" if ever there was one.

Professor Whose Works on Israel Stirred Controversy Is in Tenure Fight With DePaul U.

April 2, 2007

Reports are circulating that Norman G. Finkelstein, the author of controversial works on Israel, anti-Semitism, and what he has called “the Holocaust industry,” will be denied tenure at DePaul University despite strong departmental support. Mr. Finkelstein, an assistant professor of political science, told The Chronicle in an e-mail message that he had been the target of “external intrusion in the tenure process — including a relentless campaign of character assassination directed at the faculty and administration” by his critics.

He said that his department had voted 9-to-3 in his favor and that the College Personnel Committee had unanimously recommended tenure, but that the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences had overridden those recommendations. The dean, Charles S. Suchar, declined to comment on Mr. Finkelstein’s allegations. “The promotion and tenure review process is still under way and final decisions are not expected until mid- to late May,” he wrote in an e-mail message.

Michael L. Budde, chairman of the political-science department at DePaul, confirmed that Mr. Finkelstein’s colleagues had voted in favor of tenure. According to Mr. Budde, the case now will go to a universitywide promotion board, which will recommend a course of action to the provost and the president. That board is scheduled to meet on April 13. The university’s final decision is expected in mid-May.

Mr. Finkelstein has long been a controversial figure in academe. His most recent book, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (University of California Press, 2005), stirred up pre-publication threats of legal action by one of its subjects, the Harvard Law School professor Alan M. Dershowitz. —Jennifer Howard

Posted on Monday April 2, 2007 | Permalink |

County official forced to resign for criticizing Israel

This is outrageous . . . As a government official, you can say whatever vile thing your decrepit heart desires - if it's about Muslims. But, if you criticize the criminal 'state' of israel, you're forced out of office.

A Cherokee County official has resigned from her position after criticism over comments she made on her Web site about Israel.

Mary Catarineau, who is on the Cherokee County Planning Commission, wrote about dismantling Israel as a way to achieve peace in the Middle East in March 22 entry on her Web site, "My Diary With God."

And in a March 24 entry, Catarineau wrote that Israel "was artificially created to provide a place for Jews to avoid persecution after the Holocaust. The Holocaust is not going to recur, and Israel has caused nothing but problems. Jews can remain or leave, but give the land back to the Muslims."

Cherokee County is a fast-growing county north of Atlanta.

Catarineau said she wanted the Internet posts to encourage people to think about different ways to end the violence in that part of the world.

"If anything I wrote on the blog was offensive, I sincerely apologize," she said. "That was not my intent."

To avoid escalating the controversy, Catarineau said she was stepping down from her position on the planning commission and from her position on the county's Comprehensive Plan Steering Council.

The posts have been removed from the Web site. But in an entry on the site dated Tuesday, Catarineau wrote that she has also said critical things about Muslims but that "people focus on only what they wish to see."

County Commissioner Harry Johnston, who appointed Catarineau to both positions, said growth and development are already controversial subjects without other issues coming into play.

"She's stepping aside to eliminate a controversy that may be unnecessarily impeding progress on the primary issues at hand," Johnston said.

What's happening is she's being FORCED out to ELIMINATE OPPOSITION to continued US support for the criminal 'state' of israel.

This woman is a local official, responsible for local politics, her opinions on foreign policy have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on her tasks as a county official and therefore should be a NON-ISSUE. That is, IF the people in power at the local level cared more about the welfare of the local residents than they do about the welfare of israelis.

But, they don't. As usual, israel comes first.

At this rate, NO ONE will be left in our local and state governments to put American interests FIRST.

This kind of strong-arming in our governments MUST END.

Pass this on to as many people you can - especially in Atlanta.

Rachel Corrie Play Censored in Florida

Apr 3, 2007

Though comments publicly solicited for and against "were running 85 percent for doing the play, 15 percent against", Plantation's Mosaic Theatre in South Florida has cancelled a planned run of the play My Name is Rachel Corrie. South Florida now joins New York and Toronto as locals that have had theaters cave to pressure not to permit audiences to see an unflattering portrayal of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

"I've been astonished at the attacks on me as a Jew'', said Mosaic's artistic director Richard Jay Simon.

More after the fold.

Actress Mindy Woodhead, who was to have portrayed Corrie at Mosaic, is grieving both the loss of a powerful role and the opportunity for connection with audiences.

''It was very shocking; it feels like the death of a creative child . . . It makes me sad that fear of the unknown is such a motivating factor,'' said Woodhead who, like Corrie, is trying to make a difference in the world via two years of Peace Corps service in Morocco starting in September. ``It demonstrated to me how little I knew about the political implications of a production in southeast Florida.''

Rachel Corrie was an American peace activist allegedly murdered according to the sworn affidavits of multiple eyewitnesses by the operator of an IDF bulldozer demolishing homes in Rafah in 2003. To this date, contrary to standard procedure, no United States investigation of the alleged murder has ever been conducted, despite the ongoing pleas of her family. Media stories and cultural events in North America that might portray Israel in an unflattering light vis-a-vis its ongoing occupation of Palestine remain a controversial and largely verboten aspect of American life.

The play, written by Katherine Viner and Alan Rickman, a hit in London and damned with faint praise in New York when it was finally shown, has recently met with success in Seattle where it has had its run extended.

Rachel Corrie interviewed before her death:

By Near Vanna

CLIMATE AND OCEAN SCIENTISTS PUT UNDER NEW SPEECH RESTRAINTS

Related

Supreme Court backs EPA pollution controls
---

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility News Release (www.peer.org)

For Immediate Release: April 3, 2007
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337

CLIMATE AND OCEAN SCIENTISTS PUT UNDER NEW SPEECH RESTRAINTS — Any Scientific Statements “of Official Interest” Must be Pre-Approved

Washington, DC — Federal climate, weather and marine scientists will be subject to new restrictions as to what they can say to the media or in public, according to agency documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under rules posted last week, these federal scientists must obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific topic deemed “of official interest.”

On March 29, 2007, the Commerce Department posted a new administrative order governing “Public Communications.” This new order covers the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which includes the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Commerce’s new order will become effective in 45 days and would repeal a more liberal “open science” policy adopted by NOAA on February 14, 2006.

Although couched in rhetoric about the need for “broad and open dissemination of research results [and] open exchange of scientific ideas,” the new order forbids agency scientists from communicating any relevant information, even if prepared and delivered on their own time as private citizens, which has not been approved by the official chain-of-command:

• Any “fundamental research communication” must “before the communication occurs” be submitted to and approved by the designated “head of the operating unit.” While the directive states that approval may not be withheld “based on policy, budget, or management implications of the research,” it does not define these terms and limits any appeal to within Commerce;
• National Weather Service employees are allowed only “as part of their routine responsibilities to communicate information about the weather to the public”; and
• Scientists must give the Commerce Department at least two weeks “advance notice” of any written, oral or audiovisual presentation prepared on their own time if it “is a matter of official interest to the Department because it relates to Department programs, policies or operations.”

“This ridiculous gag order ignores the First Amendment and disrespects the world-renowned professionals who work within Commerce agencies,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “Under this policy, National Weather Service scientists can only give out name, rank, serial number and the temperature.”

The agency rejected a more open policy adopted last year by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The new policy also was rushed to print despite an ongoing Commerce Office of Inspector General review of communication policies that was undertaken at congressional request.

While claiming to provide clarity, the new Commerce order gives conflicting directives, on one hand telling scientists that if unsure whether a conclusion has been officially approved “then the researcher must make clear that he or she is representing his or her individual conclusion.” Yet, another part of the order states non-official communications “may not take place or be prepared during working hours.” This conflict means that every scientist who answers an unexpected question at a conference puts his or her career at risk by giving an honest answer.

###

See the new Commerce Public Communications Policy

Look at the agency justification (in the form of Frequently Asked Questions)

Read some of the objections from the National Weather Service Employees Organization

Contrast with the soon-to-be-rescinded NOAA “open science” policy

Compare the NASA policy

I'm gagged too, says Terry Hicks

By Verity Edwards
April 03, 2007 01:00am


DFAT gagged me, claims Mr Hicks
'This is Big Brother'
Mr Hicks's claims have been denied

THE father of admitted terrorist David Hicks claimed yesterday he had been gagged from revealing facts about his son's five-year incarceration in the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Terry Hicks said the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade had written to him outlining the 12-month gag order issued to his son as part of his plea bargain to serve only nine more months in jail, mostly in Australia.

Mr Hicks said the letter - outlining how his son could not be interviewed, write a book or make a film about his time as an enemy combatant - detailed the restrictions on what the Hicks family could reveal about their conversations with David.

"This is Big Brother and because the Americans and the Australian Government coalesce on David's charges, at this point in time we're ruled by them," Mr Hicks said from his Adelaide workplace yesterday.

"If David tells us something, we can't pass it on.

"But I could still talk about the signing of his charges, things like he hasn't been abused."

A DFAT spokesman "adamantly and vehemently" denied Mr Hicks's claims. "We have not written to Terry Hicks since the verdict," the spokesman said.

"We communicated via email to his sister and provided two publicly available documents."

It is understood DFAT emailed Mr Hicks's daughter Stephanie, providing a statement of facts and a copy of Hicks's pre-trial agreement.

Mr Hicks said his son's legal team was examining the contents of the letter.

Hicks's Adelaide-based lawyer, David McLeod, did not return calls.

Mr Hicks said he would continue to speak to the media but did not want to jeopardise the Australian jail term imposed on his son. He rejected suggestions that his son could pose a threat to national security when released in late December.

"David wouldn't hurt a bloody fly at the moment," he said. "David never did any harm to anyone when he was over there anyway. He wasn't armed, he hadn't fired a shot at any coalition forces.

"The only danger David is to anyone is to come back to Australia and probably have to go on the dole because he might find it hard to get a job."

The 31-year-old Australian pleaded guilty in a plea bargain with US authorities last Monday to providing material support to terrorists.

The federal Attorney-General's Department has notified the South Australian Correctional Services department that Hicks has applied to be transferred to Adelaide.

Under the International Transfer of Prisoners Act, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock must ask for supporting documents from US authorities before seeking approval from state Correctional Services Minister Carmel Zollo.

Mr Hicks is yet to hear whether the federal Government will apply for a control order to govern his son's release.

An Australian Federal Police spokesman said it would be inappropriate to comment "on someone who may or may not be subject to control orders".

The South Australian Liberal Party released plans yesterday to introduce a private member's bill to prevent convicted terrorists from profiting from their stories.

"David Hicks, who has admitted his guilt, has a right to tell his story and the media have every right to ask for it," Liberal frontbencher Martin Hamilton-Smith said.

"But if money is involved, the victims of terrorism should be the recipients, not Mr Hicks."

A spokesman for state Attorney-General Michael Atkinson said it was an issue for the federal Government to consider, not the state.

Jerusalem Post readers support arsonists in NY synagogue fire

Related
Suspicious fire guts US anti-Zionist synagogue
---

12. Reap what you sow The Doc - Israel (04/02/2007 15:07)

11. karta synagogue Jacob - (04/02/2007 14:48)

10. KOL HAKAVODE TO THOSE WHO SET THE FIRE abe - usa (04/02/2007 14:48)

9. Ultra insane Jacob - (04/02/2007 14:32)

8. burning chametz-n.karta rabbis eduardo - espana (04/02/2007 14:29)

7. Neturei Karta Synagogue Burned Roxy - Israel (04/02/2007 14:19)

6. monsey tobi - usa (04/02/2007 14:19)

5. Fear of sin should come before wisdom Arthur Rosen - Canada (04/02/2007 13:52)

4. Ultra Orthodox? Jonathan - USA (04/02/2007 13:29)

3. They want to go to their own deaths let them Pete Kusnick - USA (04/02/2007 13:20)

2. karta synagogoue vicky - Israel (04/02/2007 11:04)

1. Health and safety rules often ignored Ben Azai - England (04/02/2007 10:39) URL

US anti-Zionist synagogue gutted

A synagogue of an anti-Zionist Jewish group has been destroyed in a fire.

The blaze tore through a synagogue of Neturei Karta near New York and the residence of a senior rabbi.

Police have established a crime scene and are investigating the cause of the fire. The ultra-orthodox group has recently been the target of threats.

In December, five members of the community attended a conference for Holocaust deniers in Iran and met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Arson claims

Rabbi Moshe Beck, who lives in the building in the town of Monsey - about 30 miles (48km) from New York - was in London when the fire broke out, said Neturei Karta member Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss.

Mr Weiss said the group believes it was targeted by arsonists because it had previously received threats.

"There's no question that the issue is to stifle the opposition to Zionism," he said to AP news agency.

Police would not confirm whether they were treating the fire as suspicious.

Neturei Karta opposes the existence of the state of Israel on religious grounds.

Members of the group - whose name means "Guardians of the City" - believe Jews should live under Arab Muslim rule until the Messiah comes.

Two international groups worth watching

By David Hardy

Posted: 4/2/07

Last week saw much dialogue responding to Salil Puri's March 28 column urging us to question the patriotism of the far-left.

However, I would like to point out two groups who explicitly represent foreign interests and who have caused far more damage than any of the groups Puri mentions. They are the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee and the Iraqi National Congress.

AIPAC purports to represent the mutual interests of America and Israel, but in fact pushes support of Israel at the expense of American reputation, dollars and lives. They are consistently listed among one of the three most powerful lobbying groups in the country and, in 2005, was ranked the second-most powerful by The National Journal - ahead of the AFL-CIO and National Rifle Association.

They have made criticism of Israel the death knell for any member of Congress. Their biggest lobbying coup arguably came in 1967, when they successfully occulted outrage over Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty.

Today, one of their top priorities is a presidential pardon for Jonathon Pollard, convicted in 1986 of spying for Israel. Last year, two of their lobbyists were convicted of passing American defense secrets to Israel. John Mearshimer and Stephen Walt of the University of Chicago and Harvard University respectively recently detailed the group's extraordinary influence and detrimental effects in their essay "The Israel Lobby."

The result of their stranglehold on Congress is Middle East policy that has ruined our reputation in the region. Far from being seen as an honest broker, we are viewed as an agent of Israel, supplying them with weapons and money ad infinitum.

When necessary, the United States has provided a reliable veto in the United Nations, as witnessed in last summer's war in Lebanon. Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton admitted on March 23 what everyone knew: The United States was stalling for time, holding back the U.N. to give Israel a free hand in Lebanon. Following a far right-wing Israeli policy, AIPAC was one of the strongest proponents of invading Iraq and pushes a similarly hawkish line on Iran.

Worse than AIPAC is the Iraqi National Congress, the source of some of the most damning (and flawed) evidence for an existing Iraqi WMD program. Because Saddam Hussein was simply assumed to have these programs, intelligence was fit to this conclusion and intelligence or experts that questioned this conclusion were ignored.

The CIA struggled to find satisfactory evidence, but when their professionalism got in the way, the war's architects turned to the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella group of Iraqi dissidents and ex-patriots. The INC claimed to have contacts with defectors willing to tell Washington what they wanted to hear - for a small fee of around $500,000 a month. They told stories of mobile weapons labs and gallons of anthrax, some of which ended up in Colin Powell's 2003 address to the United Nations.

We know now that nearly all of it was fabricated by agents with a specific political agenda, including one aptly code-named "Curveball." The Washington Post revealed last year that Curveball was actually a taxi-driving con-artist with a lot to gain from a U.S. invasion. This shouldn't come as a surprise, as the INC was led by convicted-fraudster Ahmad Chalabi, who saw himself as Iraq's post-Saddam leader despite having never set foot in the country for 25 years.

The INC has been thoroughly discredited, in no small part because their intelligence collapsed like the house of cards it was. The man appointed as the Deputy Prime Minister during the occupation won just 0.5 percent of the vote in Iraq's 2005 elections. Chalabi's offices have been raided by American forces suspecting him of ties to Iran.

AIPAC, however, has avoided most of the fall-out that has hit proponents of the Iraq War, and continues to push Middle East policies of which only the Israeli far-right would approve

The United States must be vigilant that a similar nexus does not come together to attack Iran: a militaristic administration, a group of dissidents with "the missing link" information claiming to speak for a whole nation and AIPAC, one of the most powerful interest groups in the country.

Hardy is a government, geography and history junior.

BBC fights to suppress internal report into allegations of bias against Israel

Strange. The Beeb covers Israelis 5 times more than Palestinians and is generally heavily biased toward Israel. I'm reminded of the American right crying about the "left-wing" media.
We may see censorship at the BBC as it gives way to the Israelis.
---
28 March 2007 06:18

By Andy McSmith

Published: 28 March 2007

The BBC was in court yesterday fighting over the public's right to know. But the Corporation was not battling to bring information into the open. Instead it has paid an estimated £200,000 in legal fees to keep the report secret.

The Corporation is trying to persuade the High Court to overrule a decision by the Information Tribunal that an internal report into the BBC's Middle East coverage should be made public.

It puts the Corporation in the awkward position of arguing that the Freedom of Information Act should not apply in this case, although their journalists have previously made free use of the Act to prise information from the Government.

The dispute is over a 20,000-page report commissioned four years ago, at a time when the Israeli government had announced that it was withdrawing all co-operation with the BBC staff stationed in the Middle East, including all the help BBC journalists could normally expect with issues such as passports and visas.

The Israelis were angered by a BBC documentary about Mordecai Vananu, who spent many years in solitary confinement for revealing to The Sunday Times that Israel was developing a nuclear weapon. It's government called the programme "Nazi propaganda". Danny Seaman, the director of the government's press office, claimed: "The innuendoes, the insinuation on the programme were to depict Israel as a police state."

The ban lasted for about three months. They were mollified when the BBC announced that it was bringing in an outside consultant, Malcolm Balen, to watch over their Middle East coverage. Mr Balen, an experienced television executive known to BBC staff as the "Middle East policeman", worked from an office 10 minutes walk away from the BBC's White City headquarters.

He ruled on tricky questions such as the word BBC correspondents should use to describe the long chain of fences and walls that the Israelis were erecting along the West Bank, to keep out suicide bombers. Palestinians call it the "apartheid wall". To the Israelis it is simply a " fence ". On Mr Balen's advice, the BBC settled on the word " barrier " .

In October 2004, as his one-year contract drew to a close, Mr Balen presented the BBC with a 20,000-page report. Those who accuse the BBC of anti-Israeli bias suspect that it supported their case but no one outside the BBC has been allowed to see it.

Mr Balen has gone on the record to say that he does not believe there is anti-Semitism in the BBC, but did imply that the Corporation had made " mistakes", which should not be seen as evidence of malice.

Steven Sugar, a commercial solicitor from Putney, west London, put in a request to the BBC to see the whole report, citing the Freedom of Information Act.

"A very large proportion of the Jewish community felt rightly or wrongly that the BBC's reporting of the second Palestinian intifada or uprising that broke out in 2000 was seriously distorted," he said. " I myself, as a member of the Jewish community, felt that and was very distressed by it.Now I don't know whether it is important to see this report or not. Instinct says that if they don't want to give it to me it may be important."

The BBC's website invites members of the public to send in requests for information, but there is also a warning that they are not necessarily going to tell you everything you might want to know. They claim that the Act does not apply to "information held for the purposes of creating the BBC's output, or information that supports and is closely associated with these activities".

The BBC argues that if its journalists are collecting information, they should not have to give it out to people who put in Freedom of Information requests until they are ready to broadcast. The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, hadruled in favour of the BBC. He was overruled by the Information Tribunal.

Orla Guerin, the BBC's Middle East correspondent, was the next correspondent to draw the anger of the Israeli government, in March 2004, for her coverage of the arrest of Hussam Abdu, 16, a Palestinian caught with explosives strapped to his chest.

Guerin, in the eyes of the government, already had form because it had given her a document it said was found on the bomber praising the September 11 attacks. She had questioned whether it was genuine. She accused the Israelis of using the teenager for propaganda purposes, of parading the child in front of the international media" and then denying journalists the chance to ask questions. Natan Sharansky, minister for diaspora affairs, a man highly respected in Israel and the West for enduring years of persecution in communist Russia, claimed that her report showed "such a gross double standard" that "it is difficult to see Ms Guerin's report anything but anti-semitic".

Barbara Plett also drew hundreds of complaints after her report of the terminally ill Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat leaving the West Bank in October 2004. She said in From Our Own Correspondent on Radio 4, that until then it had been a "real grind" reporting on his long illness. " Yet when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound... I started to cry... without warning." In November the BBC's governors ruled that the reference to crying "unintentionally gave the impression of over-identifying with Yasser Arafat and his cause".

A BBC spokeswoman said yesterday that the Corporation was fighting the case because it needed clarity over how the Freedom of Information Act applied to it, not because of the content of the Balen report. The report was always meant to be "an internal review of programme content, to inform future output" and never intended for publication, she added. The case continues today.

So, is the BBC fair in its reports on Israel?

Lord Janner of Braunstone Former president of Board of Deputies of British Jews

"The BBC's reporting of Israel is sometimes fair and sometimes biased. On the whole, the BBC could never be accused of being pro-Israel."

Rod Liddle former editor, Today

"There is bias at the BBC... against the powerful and in favour of the powerless. In the Middle East context, this is naively characterised as Israelis vs Palestinians being the powerful against the powerless. That is why the BBC seems to be sympathetic towards the Palestinians but that the Israeli settlers, for instance, do not get a fair hearing."

George Galloway Respect MP

"To accuse the BBC of anti-Israel bias is akin to accusing Jeremy Clarkson of being a health and safety obsessive. The word incongruous does not begin to capture this."

Lorna Fitzsimons Head of Britain Israel Centre

"Over 81 per cent of the public trusts the BBC. It is imperative the BBC gets it right. Historically, there has been huge concern as to coverage but the BBC is now adhering to its policy of impartiality."

Louise Ellman Labour MP

"There has been a bias and lack of context with the BBC reporting of Israel. Problems are related to citing individual acts of Israeli aggression by failing to put them into context or explaining the reasons. It makes them look like unprovoked acts, when in fact they were reaction to a terrorist act. I would certainly like to see what's in the report."

Greg Philo Glasgow Media Group. Author of Bad News from Israel

"In March 2002, when the BBC noted Palestinians had suffered the highest number of casualties in a week since the start of the intifada, there was more coverage of Israeli deaths."

Lunch with the FT: Tony Judt - Israel critic

By Graham Bowley

Published: March 16 2007 16:30 | Last updated: March 16 2007 16:30

Wistfully, Tony Judt admits he misses Europe. That seems to be one reason why he chose Cafe de Bruxelles in New York's Greenwich Village for our lunch. It is on a street of British shops where nostalgic expats can munch on fish and chips, or sip cups of tea. The cafe itself is a long, low, slightly grubby sun-washed place, where a sign outside lists mussels specialities. Inside, pictures on the walls evoke the Palace of Justice and various other Brussels sights.

At just after midday, Judt, who is 59, walks through the door and shuts the police sirens of Greenwich Avenue behind him. As professor of European studies at New York University, he is one of the most prominent liberal academics in the US. Yet he appears an unassuming, bookish man, wrapped up against the Manhattan cold in a lumpy, unstylish coat and cap. He has a beard of greying stubble, a broad balding head, an intelligent pale face, a precise handshake and smile - an intellectual. Not at all, I think, the incendiary figure who has recently drawn the ire of some Jewish groups in New York City by arguing that an “Israel lobby” influences US policy towards the Middle East and shuts down proper debate about it.

Judt wanted an early lunch because he has to meet some of his students in the afternoon, just around the corner on Washington Square - where he works and also lives with his second wife and two sons, aged 12 and nine. At this hour, we have Cafe de Bruxelles to ourselves. The polite waiter points to a table set in the middle of the room and warns us that a party of 10 will arrive soon. With a nod, Judt picks his way to a small table tucked away in the furthest, quietest corner.

“In the worst moments I have had death threats, and much worse, threats against my family,” says Judt, after he sits down opposite me and begins to describe the reactions to his writing and his talks. “These people would call up my office and they would say, 'Tell Tony Judt he had better not let his kids out on the street,' or 'Tell Tony Judt this is Hitler calling and he says, Congratulations.'” He winces and shakes his head. “I didn't think I knew until then just how deep and how uniquely American this obsession with blocking any criticism of Israel is. It is uniquely American.” Not European, not Israeli.

He adds: “People accuse me of wanting to see the abolition of Israel, which is nonsense. Israel exists. The question is what kind of state is it going to be in future years, what kind of laws is it going to have for first- and second-class citizens?”

Judt, who is Jewish, grew up in a stoutly middle-class family in London. In an impressive academic career, he went to King's College, Cambridge, Paris's Ecole Normale Superieure, Berkeley and Oxford. He moved to New York in 1987 to teach European history and French studies, when, he says ruefully, “the study of France was still a fashionable and desirable activity and not something you had to hide your head in shame about.”

His last book, Postwar, is a fluid history of Europe since 1945. It tells of the continent's rise from the ashes and the emergence of the European Union, which he is rather bullish about. The book was nominated for a Pulitzer prize, and was one of The New York Times top 10 books of 2005. Part of his job in New York, he says, is to explain Europe to Americans - people accuse him of forever trying to “sell” Europe to Americans, he says - as well as to explain America to Europeans. It is a tough job, Judt says, when, in their worldviews, the two are growing further apart.

Judt seems to be concerned with divisions. As well as the “vertical” separation between Europe and the US, he says, there are widening “horizontal” chasms within countries - between wealthy jet-travelling elites and the rest of the population.

“We probably face a world that is divided much more horizontally than vertically. We have a class of world travellers - as the medievals might have called them, 'clerks' - who speak Latin, or English, and feel at home in Tokyo, New York or Singapore. Underneath are the 'villains', the serfs, who don't speak English, who don't travel - beyond the occasional cheap vacation flight abroad - and who are still very much in a national, local cultural world. They are as much separated from their own airport people as from serfs of other countries.”

It is the gaps between cultures that concern Judt most, and especially the division between America and Europe.

One aspect of that rift is their attitude to Israel. On October 3, Judt was due to give a talk to an independent think- tank, called Network 20/20 about the “Israel lobby” in the US. The event was being held at the Polish Consulate in New York. Hours before he was scheduled to stand up, the consulate cancelled the talk, under pressure, Judt alleged, from influential Jewish groups in New York such as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee.

The cancellation brought outraged support from a roster of Judt's fellow academics and intellectuals. They said there had been an attempt to intimidate and shut down free debate - seeming to prove the point that Judt had wanted to make. A 114-signature letter was written to Abraham Foxman, the prominent national director of the Anti-Defamation League, and published in The New York Review of Books. But it is still not clear who telephoned whom, when, and to apply what sort of pressure during the incident, which The New York Observer called “l'affaire Judt”.

The ADL and AJC said they did not force the consulate to call off the talk. Still, they openly welcomed the outcome. For his critics, Judt is part of a worrying and dangerous trend, one of a number of liberal intellectuals, many of them Jewish, whose outspoken criticism of Israel, and whose support for Palestinians, they argue, provides ammunition for far more dangerous opponents. This, they believe, comes at a time when Israel's existence is probably as precarious as it ever has been.

Sitting at our table, Judt throws up his hands and says the debate at times must seem like “a weird inter-Jewish dispute about Israel”. But it has had personal consequences. He has lost two close friends, including Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, a magazine for which Judt used to write.

“Apparently, the line you take on Israel trumps everything else in life,” Judt says, quite sadly.

It has made his domestic life more difficult, too, because his wife, Jenny, a former ballerina, is The New Republic's dance critic. “The editor calls up and says, 'Jenny, we would like a piece and give my regards to Tony,' and she feels kind of squidged.”

In Cafe de Bruxelles, the party of 10 arrives. Around us the room fills with laughter and loud voices. Judt comes to the restaurant quite regularly. But this lunchtime one of his favourite dishes, carbonade de boeuf, is not on the menu. He looks disappointed. The waiter says he will consult the kitchen anyway. We order two Belgian blonde beers. Sipping them, we wait in suspense until the carbonade, heavy in gravy and cabbage, is laid on the tablecloth.

“I shall enjoy this as you can't imagine,” Judt says with a laugh. His critics “think I am some sort of weird far-out, provocative figure”, he says. “But this is down the line, mainstream, winter Belgian food.”

I wait for my chicken crepe. As we pick at a shared cup of frites in the middle of the table, Judt tells me more about his past.

His mother was a hairdresser. His father came from Antwerp. Members of his father's family had been killed in the Holocaust. His father, he says, “was talented at many things but making money was not one of them. Eventually he discovered a talent for bookselling - just at the point that Barnes & Noble and the like were sweeping away smaller booksellers.”

As a teenager, Judt became involved in leftwing Zionism. In 1967, he travelled to Israel as a volunteer during the Six Day War. He worked as a translator of French and Hebrew, and drove captured Syrian trucks. “Up on the Golan Heights, I met and heard officers talking, and for the first time I was seeing a side of Israel I had managed to turn a blind eye to,” he tells me. “Until then, the dominant rhetoric in Israel had still been that you didn't disparage the Arabs, you believed in socialism and equality. Now it was straightforward anti-Arab sentiment. What began in 1967, and accelerated in a great tumble through the mid-1970s, was the rise of a different Israel: hard-line, rightwing, very often religious, believing they had a real-estate pact with God. It was very ugly, at least I found it very ugly.”

In those years, he says, America didn't care so much for Israel. France was the great friend of Israel, he says, providing jets for the Israeli air force. But that changed, he says, due in part to the rise of identity politics in the US. This, he argues, eventually had an effect on American foreign policy.

“America at that time had a very low collective public consciousness of the Holocaust,” he says, eating the carbonade carefully. “People were not reading Primo Levi. They were not even reading Anne Frank. It became possible, fashionable and in the end almost necessary to identify yourself - Irish-American, Italian- American, Native American, Asian-American. Part of it was because of the rise of the culture of the victim but also because it was a way of being part of the new multicultural space.”

You couldn't just be Jewish-American, however, he says. To create an identity, he says, Jewish people instead tied themselves to the Holocaust and to Israel. “So it became very much a threat to American-Jewish identity to unravel one of these.”

The party of 10 has gone. The restaurant is quiet again. There is only a single diner next to us, reading The New York Times.

Judt says he doesn't lie awake at night worrying about his critics. But, still, he seems to me to carry a sense of anger and despondency about him. He admits that although he likes many Americans, he does not altogether like America. “Tom Friedman is talking through his hat. The world is not flat at all. The world is shaped still in many ways as it was in my generation by culture, by the place you grew up, by the assumptions you make about the place of religion in public life, about the relative importance of the state and the individual.”

Judt says he really has to make his student meetings. His next work projects, he tells me, include a book about 20th-century thought, and a theme likely to keep him clearer of controversy - a history of railways. When he was growing up in London, he loved riding the train into the countryside.

We drink our espressos and march out east across the traffic- clogged avenues towards Washington Square.

As the breach with Europe widens - “Now we are passing through a period of America's simultaneous withdrawal and resentment at the world,” he says - he knows for sure which side he wants to be on.

“I am tempted at least twice a day to go back to Europe,” he says.