Israeli Peace Activist Boycotted on American Campus by, um, Jews

Please don't reprint the text of e-mails as original comments. (See our comments policy for more information.) --The editors

Did you make aliyah to Israel or Palestine?

Hello Michael!

The last sentence in your article is quite correct.  Well put.

 However, if you characterize Peace Now as "left-of-center", you should then characterize Kach as right-of-center.  Peace Now is an extreme left-wing movement that, like its extreme right-wing counterpart, lives in an ideological fantasyland of its own devising, totally detached from reality.   That they have no qualms about going up & down Judea and Samaria shouting Juden Raus! because they think that all of our problems will be solved thereby, marks them as no less racist than the folks in Kach who want to expel the Arabs because they think that all of our problems will be solved thereby.

 L'chaim!

Oxartes 

"But leave the Wise to wrangle,
and with me The Quarrel of the Universe let be:     
And, in some corner of the Hubbub coucht,     
Make Game of that which makes as much of Thee."
Omar Khayyam, "The Rubaiyat

My comment was original. I am disappointed that you chose to delete it, likely because you support Obama no matter what he stands for. You choose this at your own peril. You should learn from my experience. I hope you will restore my comment

"...they have no qualms about going up & down Judea and Samaria shouting Juden Raus! because they think that all of our problems will be solved thereby..."

Well, no. Nice rhetorical touch, that "Juden raus" bit, if you're going for the Goebbels Prize in Political Fibbing. I'm not aware that Peace Now believes evacuating the settlers from the West Bank will solve all of Israel's problems; I believe they work towards that end because ending the illegal settlement project will bring Israel back into the fold of law-abiding nations and will bring a halt to a decades-long ethical nightmare. This can be nothing but good for Israel, not to mention for the Palestinians.   

As for Ms. Ziman, I went to the site linked to in her original post. There I learned that her take on Lee's remarks was corroborated by her friend and two of her employees-so far, not a probative smackdown. I also learned that LA's AJC spokesman had nothing but nice things to say about Lee's organization (although he wasn't at the meeting in question). Lee, of course, categorically denies making the statements Ziman attributed to him. I must say, for Lee, who by all accounts enjoyed good relations with the Jewish community, to take the occasion of honoring a well-known Jewish philanthropist to spew out a torrent of anti-Semitic invective would be a...curious choice. Could have happened, I wasn't there, but if I had to bet....

Finally, as her last post here indicates, Ziman's main interest in this whole affair seems to be using it to knock Obama, whose connection to these events is less than peripheral.

Smells fishy to me. 

Tres fishy..I actually received such statements in an email newsletter yesterday, and it clearly was another attempt at an anti-Obama smear. Credit enough to the people who received it and complained heartily, the newsletter sent out a retraction within an hour.

As an aside, Haaretz the last few days has some interesting commentary about the lasting effects of Peace Now. Difficult to measure in one sense (the group has started to become fleeting) though in a way a measure of their own level of success, as the perspectives that they put forth in the late 70s have now (largely) become accepted canon by most Israelis within the realm of the normal political spectrum (two states, return to '67 borders, etc...)

But I keep hearing that there aren't any law abiding nations.  The US is practicing genocide in Iraq, the Nordic nations are guilty of insulting Islam, England is killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Chinese are oppressing and slaughtering the Tibeteans, the Canadians have too much free speech, the French are ghettoizing the 'youth', the Germans are doing the same.  The Aussies are helping the US...and everyone is ruining the environment.

But you know, all those rockets and murders that Hamas and Fatah are, have been, committing since before I was born--just to get the Jews to act right.  Thanks, Ish, for clearing that up.  

But what about Al Andalusia? 

"PeaceNow" should change their name to "Plo now" because they are anti-peace, and anti-Israel.  The only solution is for the violent and bigoted Arab settlers to go back to their homeland of Arabia.  The terms Palestine and Palestinians were co-opted by the Arabs to steal Jewish history.  Jews were the original Palestinians.   These "Pali" Arabs are Fakestinians.  It's all a myth.

The only illegal settlements are of the ones built by the occupying Arabs.  Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, end of story!

Palestineisamyth is a blockhead whose endlessly repeated boilerplate bit of historical inanity is beneath serious comment.

Naftali isn't quite there yet, but he's getting warmer. For the umpteenth time, the hoary Zionist trope that, in a world of bad actors, criticism of Israel is at best unfair and at worst anti-Semitic is the height of sophistry. Does Naftali make any political criticism more than another, or is each of his convictions equipotential in mobilizing his outrage? If the former, he is like all humans and is acting inconsistently with his silly ad hoc dictum. If the latter, he has discovered a powerful ethical calculus which allows him to identify with absolute certainty the single worst actor on the planet. In this case, he should contact the the Journal of Moral Philosophy at once. When they stop laughing hysterically, he may call his local rest home and schedule a long and calming downtime, that his overheated and malfunctioning brain might recompose itself.  

After "certainty" in the above should read "the equivalence of all bad acts."

OK, so maybe I stumbled. But I'll be OK after a cup of coffee, while Naftali will still require more extensive rehabilitation.

Israeli Peace Activist Boycotted on American Campus by, um, Jews

"An alternative location at the University was eventually found after Texas Hillel pulled out"

What was the reason given for the Hillel's pull out?

I emailed them yesterday and received an answer that said:

"Peace Now was not banned from Texas Hillel, and would not be.  We are here to serve a diverse group of students with many opinions about how to keep Israel strong and safe.  Had Texans for Israel (TFI - Texas Hillel’s Israel advocacy and education group) and the Progressive Jewish Alliance (PJA – not yet part of Texas Hillel) started planning this together earlier there is no question that it would not only have been held here, but it would have been co-sponsored by TFI.  Texas Hillel wants PJA to be part of the Texans for Israel umbrella, and thus fully part of Texas Hillel.  But that hasn’t happened yet and we did not have time to make that happen between the announcement of the event and the actual program"

I'm not sure how to read this information but it does not support the claim that the event was "banned' or boycotted, or silenced due to political differences. The writer seems to support the idea of diversity of opinion.

BTW, I have read  about Hagit Ofran's project and share your appreciation of her way of engagement. She never demonizes the settlers which is a rare thing with people who oppose Jewish settlements in the OT. And her feeling for them seems genuinely compassionate, which is even rarer. I wish her luck with her mission.

You keep thinking I'm generalizing.  I'm not.  It's about you.  It's about your leaky sieves--I mean arguments.  I never said anyone or any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.  I said that your criticisms are--since they have this curious disconnection from reality.  I'm still waiting for you to answer questions I've asked you months ago--which require a minimal amount of work. 

So if you criticize me for using techniques rather than substance--you are the king of that.  

I know that Israel has problems--but I think they are fixable, you think those having the problems deserve to die.  Big difference.  Gloss over that, oh king of floorwax. 

Roger Simon reports that Rev. Lee apologized to Daphne Ziman.  So, no fish.  Just truth.

"...you think those having the problems deserve to die."

Cite one comment of mine that could be construed by even such a simpleton as yourself as saying this. Of course you can't, since I never speak about anyone "deserving to die".

I am sorry that your desperation has driven you from mere stupidity to outright deceit, a far graver shortcoming.

"Roger Simon reports that Rev. Lee apologized to Daphne Ziman.  So, no fish.  Just truth."

Unclear. In his apology, Lee said nothing that would suggest he made the comments Ziman attributed to him. He regretted any distress she may have felt and reasserted his commitment to denouncing anti-Semitism and promoting fellowship between blacks and Jews.

Quite a road-to-Damascus turnaround, wouldn't you say? One day, a vicious bigot, openly speaking Jew-hatred in a public forum whose guest of honor was a prominent Jewish philanthropist. Within 48 hours, a garden-variety endorser of civics-class pieties.

As I said, I wasn't there and Lee may have said just what Ziman claimed he did. I'm suspicious at her quick Obama segue, which seemed the point of her entire accusation, and I'm suspicious that this particular ball is being carried most prominently by Pajamas Media, as scurrilous an outfit as one could imagine.

All this is speculation, of course, but we are at least left with one certainty, unhappy though it is; you have revealed yourself to be titan of mendacity. 

I don't think I can quite forget your overlooking the 8500 missiles shot into Israel, or the time your turned the Yeshiva, as in the massacre at the Yeshiva, into a military target. You justify it, you endorse it. No, technically, you haven't used the exact wording of 'deserving to die', but in English, that's the meaning. You haven't yet definied terrorism, but you use the word only to describe the actions of Israel. And of course you cited the book blaming the breakdown of Clinton's Camp David meeting on Barack, which puts the breakdown on the back of Barack as truth while you ignore Dennis Ross' account as mere propoganda. What followed, as we all know is the second Intifada, where many--here it Ish, here's your chance--innocent Israelis were murdered on their way to school, shopping in the markets, eating pizza, having a seder. Call it murder Ish. Not murder? Justified? That's a death penalty dude.

It is amazing how you characterize any fact that contradicts what you wish to believe as propoganda. Look at the broad brush you used on Pajamas Media. And then you rationalize, the 'untruth' of the report by saying Lee didn't actually apologize. All anyone has to do is read the article and make up their own mind. I suspect that her posting of his personal email to her was taken down--but it's there. Sounds like an apology to me. It's his own words--and yet with the facts staring you right in the face, you are skeptical. The sentence beginning with 'It is with deep regret and my sincerest apologies' must have thrown you.

Here's another little piece of work you don't want to do, regarding the Swisher book-- I just googled the title. First listing a week ago was an impartial article stating that there is no way to accurately determine the population of the region before 1920. Today the first listing refutes the Swisher's findings. These don't seem to make it into your vast encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the region.

Still waiting on your explanation of how Jordan lost claims to the West Bank. Waiting on your comments when two Israelis were killed within a short time of taking down some checkpoints--which are there, evidently, to protect Israeli citizens, as opposed to oppress the West Bankers.

Like I said, you don't actually argue but rather you employ rhetorical tricks to cloud the issue.

Here's naftali:

"...the time your turned the Yeshiva, as in the massacre at the Yeshiva, into a military target. You justify it, you endorse it."

Here's me (aka reality): 

"To make this very clear to the short bus riders (and there seem to be an awful lot of them among this site's commenters), none of this is to be construed as as an exculpation of the assassins who perpetrated yesterday's crime. This ability to include context into the understanding of an historical event without excusing the bad actors seems to be an insurmountable cognitive achievement for many of you. As with US slackjaws who explain racial differences in crime rates by appealing to the naturally baser moral constitutions of black people (and I suspect there is considerable overlap between them and my more feral critics here on that score) and who have no patience with the idea that one can locate these observations within an historical context without giving a pass to the perpetrators, so too with my critics here. " 

As I said, naf, you're a titan of duplicity and a sad, desperate little ethical dwarf who can't manage his frustration at my not saying what his stunted and deformed perspective would require that I say and so pitches little hissy fits. Reality one, Naftali zero. Again.  

Oh, by the way, regarding "..you cited the book blaming the breakdown of Clinton's Camp David meeting on Barack ", I may have differences with Obama, but I hold him blameless for the failures of Camp David.

Your reality began with a statement that the Yeshiva was founded by Rav Kook, who had opinions which you don't like, which therefore made the Yeshiva a military target. That is the reality of your statement. Now here's where you do your little game, that I can't remember the quote exactly. Wow. But I do remember the highlights of your diatribe.

Game number two, comparing arguments in the Middle East to past racial problems in the US. It's just false. Pulling an analogy right out of your...why don't you compare it to a football game, that's just as arbitrary. There is simply no comparison, and I was born in one of the most racially divided cities in the US--at the time.

You citing history? Can things get any funnier? You hate history, won't read history, will try to change history. You want to put these murderers in context, historically. Fine. There was a time when all soldiers wore uniforms, when wars were fought on battlefields, when regular folks would pack a picnic basket and go out and watch the battle because there was no chance of them getting hurt. Only soldiers killed other soldiers. That was war. Now, soldiers don't wear uniforms, they hide within civilians, and they target civilians--this is the context, this is terrorism, this is murder.

So if you don't want to expulcate the murders, then simply call them murderers. Just say it. They are murderers. See how easy it is? Instead of doing such a simple ethical act of writing a simple sentence telling the truth--you give us cleverness, shortbus riders (which Arafat had no trouble blowing up--schoolchildren), or an Olympic team he had no trouble assassinating. Instead, we get called slackjawed, as opposed to your apparent lockjaw when it comes to telling the truth.

If, historically, I cite Mark Twain's eyewitness accounts of his trip to the Holy Land, this is a fabrication, whereas some methodologically challenged academic gets your free pass. That's some more context.

Instead of actually arguing facts, you call names. I noticed that you didn't mention Rev. Lee's apology--which evidently, and by evidently I mean from the objective evidence, actually took place. Instead you call me an ethical dwarf, you who can't simply make the statement, 'oh, sorry, I was wrong'. You still have your broad brush filled with tar waiting for me or Pajamas Media--didn't clean that up, did you, Mr. Ethics?

You know very well who is the duplicitous one here, I mean hear--in case you want to make the brilliant point of challenging my spelling again. Ehud Barak. Sorry. My mistake. I'll say those words again, just so they can drift between your ears for a fleeting moment. My mistake. I've never read any words from you that even approach that simple sentence--such as My Mistake, Rev. Lee did apologize. Nope. Such language will never leave your fingertips.

And is this a tennis match? Are we trying to win or elaborate the truth? I'm trying to tell the truth, the reality, the history, which must put a terrible strain on your neck, with your coke bottle glasses and all.

Still waiting on you to tell me how Jordan lost its sovereign claim to the West Bank. But I'm not holding my breath.

"...Rav Kook, who had opinions which you don't like, which therefore made the Yeshiva a military target."

Why do you attribute this utter fabrication to me? Are you mendacious or inattentive? 

"Now here's where you do your little game, that I can't remember the quote exactly."

I see. You have neither the mental acuity to recall what I actually said, nor even the primitive computer skills to search for it, but this is somehow my fault-I'm playing games. This tactic-refusing to take responsibility and blaming your adversary for your wrongs to boot- reminds me of the notorious remark of Golda Meir, the hideous beast who wept crocodile tears over the wicked Palestinians forcing her to kill their children. Does this chicanery come packaged in the Zionist playbook, along with "there are no Palestinians" lie, the non-existent calls from their leaders for Palestinians to depart from their homes, et al?  

"...comparing arguments in the Middle East to past racial problems in the US. It's just false." 

Actually, the analogy was perfectly apt. Since you are too dim to have seen this, I will repeat using shorter sentences. Feel free to move your lips as you follow along:

Some of us understand the higher incidence of violent crimes among African-Americans within an historical context-a history of slavery, racism, poverty etc. We do not suggest that crimes committed by African-Americans are not crimes, though (I know, this is the tricky part-take a milk and cookies break if you need to), just that there are interesting features added to our understanding by locating these crimes within a context-that they are not random, for example, or that they are not due to essential moral turpitude.

Similarly, by pointing out that the attacker who killed those students knew that they were part of a political movement dedicated to removal of his people from their land doesn't exculpate him. It enhances our understanding, which is to say that it reveals the world more fully. Rather than attributing his motives to "Islamofascism" (explanatorily thin) or an undifferentiated hatred of Jews qua Jews, locating his (criminal) act within a particular historical moment with particular political meanings gives us a fuller picture of what happened. Did I say that this in no way renders the man's act anything but murder? Did you hear it? Really, move your lips. This may reinforce my comment so you no longer insist on telling me, against the evidence you're too lazy to retrieve, what I actually said.

Put another way, a Palestinian man killing a group of students at the philosophical home of the most right-wing settler movement is different from that man killing a random group of people. Not less wrong. Not forgivable. Different.

Let me try one more time. Something tells me that you find yourself in agreement with Alan Dershowitz more often than not (I'm guessing here, and I'm happy to be corrected-unlike you, I don't insist on telling you what you believe). As you know, Dershowitz has constructed a scale of guilt, such that villagers who tolerate resistance fighters in their midst are justifiable targets of assassination. Just passively tolerating, not lifting a gun.

You see where I'm going. If you do support Dershowitz's model (one which I find loathesome, by the way-unlike that piggish attorney, I do not excuse killing someoneon the grounds of his bad ideology, as much as this disappoints you), you've given up the right to argue anyone who might make the same claim from the other side. If not, well, I guess you're not all bad.

I'm done with this conversation, having expended more time and patience than your ridiculous mutterings are worth. You may have the last word. 

"But I'm not holding my breath."

Oh, do. Please do.

@Ismail: "I'm not aware that Peace Now believes evacuating the settlers from the West Bank will solve all of Israel's problems; I believe they work towards that end because ending the illegal settlement project will bring Israel back into the fold of law-abiding nations and will bring a
halt to a decades-long ethical nightmare. This can be nothing but good for Israel, not to mention for the Palestinians." - And then some.

@palestineisamyth: "Jews were the original Palestinians. These "Pali" Arabs are Fakestinians. It's all a myth." - Great. Thanks. Glad the whole thing's settled now in one snappy soundbyte.

@anonymous: "Did you make aliyah to Israel or Palestine?" - Strange question. Is it possible to make aliya to Palestine? I live in Israel, within walking distance from, but to the west of, the Green Line.

@noga: "What was the reason given for the Hillel's pull out?" - In correspondence forwarded to me a few hours ago from Texas Hillel, they say: "The entire program was scheduled "at the last minute," within only a few weeks of the event. A room was booked at Texas Hillel but not as part of our Israel group. Peace Now was not banned from Texas Hillel, and would not be." The reason they originally gave, I don't know. In any case, sounds like the future is bright(er).

Have you noticed that the less you pay attention to actual facts the more you result to insults, as if this has some kind of meaning? Now, what I say means little because I don't have the computer skills. Well isn't that logical? Now truth or ethics or accuracy rests on computer skills. But I don't think this translates into your great admiration for the work of Charles Johnson. Tell you what o King Geek--you find it. You look up your own quote, although this, I know is an empty request, since you don't like to do any other work, like research in history.

So I'll look forward to your very own quote justifying the murder of those students.

You still can't write the simple sentence, those students were murdered. Those who killed them were murderers. Of course, if you cover this lack of ethics in enough insults, even you may not notice this hole in your ethics.

Simply insisting your are right doesn't make you right. Starting this assertion with an insult doesn't make it more brilliant. African Americans have never organized a separate government, they do not have their own courts, they do not have their own army, they receive no funding from the EU or have their own agency devoted to their cause sponsored by the UN and most importantly, they have never orchestrated a campaign to kill as many whites as they possibly could. Rather, they have challenged Jim Crow legally, they have used civil disobedience, they have gone to school, gone to the best American schools, started their own businesses, started their own industries, and some have risen to the most admirable positions this society has. The analogy does not hold.

Still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about Rev. Lee's apology, still waiting for you to explain how Jordan lost its sovereignty claims on the West Bank.

Instead of addressing your obvious mistakes, your obvious inability to make an unqualified statement of the wrongs and evils of the organized groups of murder and genocide, all of a sudden you want me to deal with Alan Dershowitz. What kind of silliness is this? Guess what, Dershowitz can defend himself. I've never read his books. I've read a few articles. I'm more of an expert on baseball.

I notice that you once again ignore the history of the region, the history of language, and the facts at hand. Your ability to tout your own intelligence however, seems to be a bottomless well. An empty well, but bottomless.

Michael: If  you don't know the reason they originally gave, how did you come to the conclusion that the Israeli Peace Activist was Boycotted? Did Hagit tell you about it in the conversation you were talking about?

Texas Hillel is pretty progressive when it comes to the Israeli-Arab conflicts. There's even art hanging on the walls from Arabic children.

@noga: "If  you don't know the reason they originally gave, how did you come to
the conclusion that the Israeli Peace Activist was Boycotted?"

From the US-organisers of the tour.

I saw the debate between Pappe and Uri Avnery of peace now. Shlaim said that Israel had to be abolished because it was a colonial war crime that caused ethic cleansing of Palestine. Avnery claimed that a one state solution advocated by Pappe would not work in Palestine, because it is barely working in Belgium, much less Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakai. In this weeks Peace Now website, Avnery claims that the entire Passover story is a myth, as are the kingdoms of David and Solomon. If this is true, and that Jews are not Semites but descendeants of the Chazir kingdom (Chazerim), then they should just move out of Palestine back to Chazeria. For Peace Now to support anything less makes it indistinguishable from the hard right settlers of Hebron, who are at least honest about their desire to steal Palestinian land

You left out important points about this group, Shalom Achshav or Peace Now and the Hillel policy. You should study the subject first before reporting and chriticising.

Hillel is associated with the Hasbara - Israeli promotion of international relations. Hillel Foundation has a program that sponsors Hasbara interns at University, who supply students with information. The goal of Hillel is NOT to chriticize Israel, but to support it. Therefore, it cannot sponsor a Peace Now speaker, who will emphasize all the negative points of Israel's relationship with the Palestinians and Israel's position in the Middle East and downplay all the positive points and WON'T mention very important facts. This reminds me the Arab speakers that the Arab students bring to counterbalance Hillel on campuses. Hillel is meant to use its resources to publicize facts, and it wouldn't be in Hillel's interest to mislead the students into coming to such a lecture. I am not saying this lecture may not take place, it very well may in the framework of the Arab discourse against Israel. They would readily open their arms to this speaker. Why didn't she ask them? It would simply look bad.

No one boycotted her. They simply did not want to invite a speaker. And they had the right to do so. Please learn about responsible journalism.

Yael Tamar

Anyone wanting additional info, email at ladymyyuli@yahoo.com

@ Shlaim Blackwell etc: Uri Avnery is the head of Gush Shalom (The Peace Bloc) which is not connected to Shalom Achshav (Peace Now). Unlike the latter, Gush Shalom falls outside the Zionist peace movement.

@ yael tamar: Here are the facts: Texas Hillel originally agreed to host the Peace Now speaker but they subsequently changed their mind.

"Hillel is associated with the Hasbara - Israeli promotion of international relations... Hillel is meant to use its resources to publicize facts..." Please make your mind up. Propaganda, or 'facts'? One thing that Peace Now point out are the very facts omitted from the paranoid right-wing Zionism that often passes for 'hasbara'.

"The goal of Hillel is NOT to chriticize Israel, but to support it." And it's surely outside the realms of possibility that criticism of certain Israeli policies is a legitimate way of supporting the country. Texas Hillel said this in a statement: "We are here to serve a diverse group of students with many opinions about how to keep Israel strong and safe."