The new McCarthyism - By Juan Cole

[Quetzal]

The new McCarthyism

April 22, 2005 | A member of the U.S. Congress calls for an assistant professor at a major university to be summarily fired. The right-wing tabloid press runs a series of vicious attacks on him, often misquoting him and perpetuating previous misquotes. Opinion pieces attacking "tenured radicals" and questioning professors' patriotism use him as their centerpiece. All of these attacks are spurred by a propaganda film made by an advocacy group, in which anonymous accusations are made and the professor is not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

It is not 1953, the Congress member is not Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and the professor is not being accused of being a communist. No, it is 2005, the Congress member is Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and the professor is being accused of being anti-Israel.

The lesson for academics, and American society as a whole: McCarthyism is unacceptable except when criticism of Israel is involved.

more...

The new McCarthyism

Salon: Use the free day pass.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Whatever

I don't care if people criticize the government of Israel. They have a 'right-wing' feel to them, much like our own government. What I am SICK of seeing is the "Blame Israel" meme! Not every problem in the ME is Israel's fault! Not every US policy in the ME is determined by Israel! As for the professor in question, he has made some outrageous comments. The real question is what is permissible under academic responsibility! We would not allow history teachers to teach that slavery was "no big deal" or the "Blacks really liked it." It is not intellectually honest...and some of the crap he spewed was not either!

I would like to point out (this is not directed at you Quetzal, just a general statement). The name of this forum is the Israeli/Palestinian forum. The very name implies that there are TWO parties involved. Neither side is ALWAYS right, and neither side is ALWAYS wrong! If peace is to be achieved, then it will take BOTH sides, not one! To act like Israel is the Nazi regime is wrong, hateful, and inaccurate! To act like the Palestinians are ass-backwards, uneducated, savages is also wrong, hateful, and inaccurate!

[Violet_Crumble]

26. What comments did he make?

I overcame my dislike of Salon's free pass crap and managed to get in there to read the entire article. What the article said was that accusations had come from folk who weren't even his students, and that the report cleared him of all but one comment, and personally I found the one that there appeared to be some doubt about not to be at all anti-Semitic and bigoted. Telling a student (or students) that if they refused to accept that atrocities had been committed against Palestinians, they could get out of the room depends on what context the conversation was happening in. If he was responding to some arsewipe who insisted that the Palestinians were all terrorists and their deaths are justified, then his response is more than justified. Even if no-one had been expressing outrage that anyone dare utter a word about atrocities committed against Palestinians, the worst that can be said about his comment is that it was a bit heavy-handed, but not anti-Semitic...

What comments of his do you believe are what he actually said, and what ones if any aren't?

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

30. From my research

When his story came up a few weeks back, I "googled" his name. Most of the stories that came up were about the flap at Columbia. But, I was able to find a few of his other writings and they were ambiguous. So, at first, I thought maybe things were getting blown out of hand. I finally find a "pro" professor piece, but it had new information. It seems this professor had a few seminars that were 'open' sessions. It was from those sessions that some of these allegations stemmed. So, when students complained, it was thought, at first, they were in his classes...that is where the story grew from. It was inaccurate. From what I pieced together, he made some inflammatory remarks in these "seminars," students reported it, and it was assumed he taught those statements/ideas in his classes. The only student in his class that reported something out of the ordinary, was when she (I think it was a female) brought a friend (a male) to class. The male had been a solider in the Israeli army. He then asked how many Palestinian children he had killed. Now that is inappropriate! However, if the student hadn't cleared the "guest" he may have felt he was being "set-up." And, although, it still doesn't excuse the statement, it is understandable that he (the professor) felt he might being set-up for something in his own class.

The other articles of his I read, lead me to believe that he has some anti-Semitic leanings. Now, whether that is taught in his classes or not is the real question. He was cleared of accusations. So, I have to let that stand. However, the more I read about him, the more I could see him making those statements, but I wasn't there. I also know that there are statements that I would make in one arena, but never in an academic one (I have also been an instructor). So, for the time being, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and respect the decision of Columbia University.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Yeah, that comment was inappropriate...

And if he suspected he was being set up, he shouldn't have bitten. Regardless of how bizarre the concept of bringing a friend to a class for a course they're not doing, and a professor allowing someone to be in the class that they suspected were there for a set-up, even if the ex-IDF guy had been obnoxious, the question was inappropriate...

I'd be interested in reading more about Massad, so maybe you could PM me the links to the articles you read, or post them here?

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

2. There's another side to this, and that's the fact that some

pretty loud, maybe even antisemitic Israel bashing is going on all over the US. Peace marchers paint swastikas on the Star of David. Jewish students are being intimidated, in and out of classes. It has become extremely fashionable to dis Jews and bash Israel, on and off the campus.

So I'd say, actually, the opposite is true. I think the academic world totally supports the proArab position these days. Which is dismaying, because the issue is far more complex than any one-sided vision can accomodate, and has been - well - centuries in the making.

I've read some stuff from professors that really make me quite ill.

Don't believe everything you read on Juan Cole, I looked at ONE paragraph he wrote the other day and found several factual errors, historical errors.

I understand he might be good to read on Iraq. If so, fine, but on Jewish and Israeli issues just from the bit I've seen I do not think he's even accurate on the facts - let alone to be trusted as a philosophical guide. And I wasn't even trying to find fault - just some statements totally jumped out at me that I KNOW - from research - just aren't so.

That is not to say there aren't people, and groups, who are contesting what they believe to be antisemitic attacks on Jews or on Israel. There are, and rightly so. Antisemitism is too dangerous to be allowed to flow unchecked. And Jews are such a tiny minority, 2% in the states, much, much smaller worldwide (13 million) we need to speak up, and we shouldn't be criticized for speaking up. Israel takes a pounding in the extremely biased UN, which represents 1.3 billion Muslims and only 5 million Israeli Jews. People who watch a sound bite or two on TV, think they are experts on Israel and Middle Eastern history. It's absolutely frightening.

McCarthyism? I don't think so. I think speaking up for principle, and for historical accuracy, represents one of the VERY thin lines between this country and mob rule.

A final note: did you read about the recent attacks on Jewish cadets at the Air Force Academy? They're being accused by Christians (the vast majority) of killing Jesus, so forth. So Jewish people are getting it from all sides, from the right AND from the left.

This is a very dangerous time and we MUST not allow minorities, including Jews, to get rolled or we'll be right back in Nazi Germany.

[Malikshah]

3. Factual errors? Where?

Don't believe everything you read on Juan Cole, I looked at ONE paragraph he wrote the other day and found several factual errors, historical errors.


Really? Please provide the points. Cole would not be so sloppy to make factual errors-- he is quite aware that his site is perused and everything he says on it is put through the ringer.

Juan Cole is allowed his opinion and interepretation --- people are allowed to agree and disagree-- in fact that was a key message in his Salon article.

To state that there are factual errors in his posting w/o providing proof is a weak argument against him.

I more productive use of time would be to point out the errors and address them one by one.

[Colorado Blue]

4. OK, I went through my notes.

I'm not an expert on Cole, but he came up in a discussion the other day, concerning allegations that he isn't strong on Jewish history or objective on matters concerning Israel. And, I've heard similar comments from other individuals.

So, being curious, I found this in just three minutes of Googling:

http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/veiled4allah/010065.php

In the paragraph below, he makes a statement that the slanderous, antisemitic text, 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' wasn't important in the Arab world until the last couple of generations. Also, he misinterprets, quite vividly, the true position of Jewish people in Islam.

"So it just isn't true that all Muslims have always hated Jews. In Islam, Jews were considered a "protected minority." They were not equal citizens with Muslims, but then there was no idea of citizenship or of equality in the modern political sense in any medieval society. Jews were in normal times assured of life and property. There were episodes of intolerance and even persecution, but they were not the norm. There was no blood libel in the Muslim Middle East (some Christian episodes of the libel started occurring under European influence in the 19th century). References in Arabic by Muslims to the blood libel as anything but a Western curiosity are as far as I can tell a very recent phenomenon. The protocols of the elders of Zion, a Tsarist forgery that posited a Jewish political conspiracy to rule the world, had no particular resonances in the Muslim world (outside a few radical Muslim cliques) until the past couple of decades."

According to every other bit of research I've seen, "The Protocols", which establish that Jews are Conspiring to Take Over The World, was widely published throughout the Arab world early in the 20th century and IS STILL BEING TAUGHT IN THE PALESTINIAN SCHOOLS and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

This bit of slander did much to establish patterns of deep suspicion and a level of antisemitism that hadn't previously existed in the Middle East.

This is a serious mis-statement.

The second point I take issue with is the portrayal of Jewish life under Islam, as a "protected minority".

Well, as "people of the book" Jews WERE allowed to practice their religion. However, they were also very much second class citizens, sometimes referred to as "dogs", forced to take "unclean" jobs that were considered beneath a Muslim. Jews lived in separate quarters, wore different clothes. This, in land they'd inhabited since 3,000 BC, long before Islam was ever conceived. And, it was and is greatly resented that Jews will not convert.

In fact, today, we would call this "apartheid".

This established a pattern of treatment that would bear bitter fruit in the 20th century, when the Jewish settlers arrived from Europe. Combined with the slanders of the "Protocols", the age-old bigotry against Jews became virulent. After WWII, which had established Hitler as a hero in some quarters of the Middle East, and Israel was established, Arab outrage was extreme. War broke out and hasn't really stopped.

If you take these two factors into consideration, it becomes clear that it was not, and IS not, the mere fact of Israel that causes antisemitism and violence. It is the fact that Israel is a state of JEWS, that has caused, in and of itself, a great deal of the strife in the modern Middle East.

Some teachers and writers put the creation of Israel, or even, the Occupation, as the cause for Arab antisemitism. In fact, it had existed long before Israel was established, long before any settlers had arrived. THIS created the pattern of resentment and warfare, not the fact of Israel per se, or of her later behavior or misbehavior.

There is ample documentation to support both these assertions. In fact, the opposite POV, that Arab bigotry came AFTER the settlers arrived or AFTER the creation of the State of Israel, or after the occupation, is difficult to support.

Religious bigotry was a PRECONDITION, the widespread publication of The Elders of Zion, combined with the presence of the settlers themselves, made it much worse. The presence of a number of "radical Muslim cliques", (and powerful individuals like the Mufti of Jerusalem) caused matters to escalate to the level of violence and atrocities. All this happened LONG before the establishment of Eretz Israel, and long before the occupation.

I feel, anti-Israel sentiment may have allowed Cole, in the above paragraph, to arrive at conclusions to fit his outlook, rather than allowing history to speak for itself.

This goes beyond simply expressing proArab philosophy. In the paragraph cited, it actually crosses over into inaccurate presentation of historical fact.

Given the two small but highly significant items above, one can see how his philosophy might be inherently rickety on matters of Jewish history, and why many people might feel his outlook on matters of scholarship in universities, might not be objective.

[Malikshah]

7. Still taught in Palestinian schools?

OK-- please give evidence of this.

Nathan Brown of George Mason University has done a lot of research on this topic while in Israel.

As for the other materials you provide--sorry--but that is interpretation a la B. Yeor.

So far, no factual errors on the part of Juan Cole. If he didn't extrapolate to the next level to some folks' desire that's one thing (i.e. interpretation/emphasis)-- had he made factual errors that's another. (As I'd mentioned in my first response-- interpretation and factual errors are just a bit different)

[Colorado Blue]

8. Excuse me, but that IS factual error. I don't really know how

much more you need. I will cite academic sources for my information, but I would like to know where YOU get the chutzpah to say these historical facts are "a la B. Yeor."

I don't even know who that is.

I have been studying this topic for 30 years, my friend. This is OLD NEWS, as in, contemporary, and widely sourced. Not, as in, revisionist or biased. That is what is being dispensed on certain websites NOW: revisionist and biased.

The Cole interpretation amounts to apologia, and is essential for the POV that the Arabs are innocent victims of the Israelis, when in actual fact the situation was and is far more textured and complex than that. The POV that Arabs only hate Jewish people because of Israeli violence in the OT, or even in the wars, is ridiculous.

It does, however, serve to paint a very slanted and very black and white picture of the situation.

I ask you, is that really in the service of accurate historical record? Moreover, as long as we are helping perpetrate that kind of slanted and inaccurate view of history, how are we going to make a peace in the region?

Holding to the viewpoint that Arabs were nice to Jews before the Occupation, only serves to create more bigotry and more chaos. Moreover, it prevents us from seeing what caused the violence in the first place, and when it started, as well as the grievous extent of the violence done to the JEWISH community, not just in Mandate Palestine or Israel, but all across the Middle East.

Below is documentation concerning the Elders of Zion, as well as other Palestinian commentary on Jews. Support for the fact of these extremely bigoted teachings comes from the European Union, who is refusing to remove Hamas from the list of terrorist organizations:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/567016.html

This actually came as rather a shock to me.

More listed below, in the next post. I tend to put us these monster posts, which I suspect nobody actually reads, so I'm going to break these down.

[Malikshah]

14. My chutzpah feeds off of yours

I suspect. Nathan Brown's studies are pretty definitive. Unfortunately as they go against the grain they are denigrated (as is he).

Further to the point of my original message-- what you list as "factual errors" are, in fact, at best errors of omission--in that Juan Cole did not go far enough.

As for Bat Yeor (a self-given name)--the work might be widely known and referred to-- due mainly to its feeding into existing prejudices.

As folks in the field of Islamic history (from the region and elsewhere)--about the issues of Dhimmis, etc. The academic response received is more in line with Juan Cole's coverage than the polemics some might desire.

The academic coverage Cole provides may be frustrating to some, but it's not due to inaccuracy, but rather simple frustration that old ways of thinking aren't actually the most accurate.

But enough from me. I'm muddy with this and need to get out of the pen and clean up.

All the best.

[Colorado Blue]

21. Sorry, but since we're the ones who've received the tender

treatment both in the Islamic world and in Europe, as well as in the modern press, I submit that we should be LISTENED TO.

I submit, errors of omission are tragically, often the most important. They're the ones that leave out the connections, between thought, word and action.

I submit that trusted sources such as the European Union and the ADL, should be LISTENED TO.

I submit that objective scholars like Kuntzel and even the old warhorse, Lewis, should at least be LISTENED TO.

And please note, I very carefully pointed out that I have not read Bat Ye'or - and who CARES if she made up her name! OY VAI! - nor did I cite her work.

There are Muslim voices, too, who admit and decry, the publication of slanders. Are THEY wrong, too? Isn't the "Protocols" on the shelf at the Library of Alexandria? WHY?

Why is it wrong to respect BOTH the Jewish point of view, and the Arab? Are they necessarily mutually exclusive? Have we not shared a long history? Isn't the truth made up, not of one or the other, but of BOTH?

Therefore, I submit that the records of the Jewish experience demand respect.

I submit that our experiences are documented through the ages and that a person can either choose to ignore the new and terrible mutation of bigotry in the press, the 'net, in schools, on the radio or on the tube, or one can have the courage to face it.

Would YOU appreciate being so lightly dismissed?

Can you imagine how it feels, that centuries of experience are to be delicately blown off by "modern scholarship"? Isn't that just another form of bigotry, to deny the voices of the past?

Why is this so? Can you not see that we are trying to build a bridge, but that the only way to make the bridge is with solid timbers, that acknowledge our history as well as yours?

Can you not see that we are facing our misdeeds, WE are having the courage to face the Nakba - but "modern scholars" do NOT have the courage to face the reasons it occurred!

Now, having presented pages of documentation, solid links, solid history, I get "I need a bath".

Give me a break. If total denial is "modern scholarship", I'm gonna find a CONVENT.

Shalom, and enjoy your bath.

[Malikshah]

28. Ah...the old switcheroo

Juan Cole and others (including myself...a WASC-- White-Anglo-Saxon-Catholic) are not ignoring the status or history of those living under Muslim rule over the centuries. In fact, many of us who study the area for a living, teach it, etc. are actually more tuned in to what actually happened in the medieval period.

The issue here is the objectivity of historians. This can be taken as lack of feeling, lack of compassion. Can't help what others think.

Were historians to rabble rouse and only focus on one aspect of history with a boulder sized chip on their shoulder-- they wouldn't last very long in the field. Methodologically and pedagogically they don't cut the mustard.

And for the third (or is it fourth time) -- there appears to be a refusal to note the difference between factual errors or perceived errors of omission.

"Total denial" ?? That sort of hyperbole is not conducive to any discourse.

For now-- I'll just shower this one off.

[Colorado Blue]

32. Wait a second. I think I mentioned that some people are

actually perceiving a "chip on the shoulder" on the part of certain academics, who themselves are retailoring history to suit a certain point of view, and who are noticeably reluctant to check out, for example, Jewish scholars on certain topics about which they know a very great deal.

So that cuts both ways, dude.

[Malikshah]

33. Again-- open to interpretation

"Retailoring history"???

That phrase alone shows a major bias against accuracy.

When more information comes out, documents are declassified, more sources are revealed-- in other words-- more material to provide a more accurate depiction of events-- when this is all used by historians-- they are called "revisionist?" retailoring history? Nope-- it's called providing a more accurate coverage.

The only chips on shoulders are found on those who don't like the old ways of thinking threatened or who don't like to be bothered with facts.

The sword doesn't cut both ways. It cuts one way-- the way toward enlightenment.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. A good book I read last year...

'Islam: A Short History' by Karen Armstrong. I tend to switch off when it comes to religion, but that book held my attention...

When it comes to the status of dhimmis, I find equally ridiculous claims that the lot of the dhimmi was worse than that of Jews in eastern Europe, and that the dhimmi had all the rights that we have nowadays in liberal dempcracies. I think the reality is in the middle of those two, but reality is bad news for those who thrive on rhetoric and clinging to a poisonous idea that the I/P conflict isn't one of two clashing national movements, but a deepseated hatred of Jews...

Violet...

[bemildred]

47. Excellent book. nt

[Colorado Blue]

9. Elders of Zion plus some other juicy tidbits

You should check out the discussion thread, called "The New Antisemitism", which is on page two of this forum. I originally sourced this information for that discussion.

Here is a link, dated April 13, 2005, as well as another which is accompanied by videos in case you want to watch the speeches by Palestinian professors and religious leaders, many of which appear on official TV or in university lectures. This particular site has a great deal of information about Palestinian media and what is being taught.

Also attached are links about a TV series produced in Egypt, and based on the Elders of Zion. This has shown at least twice. One can imagine the effect of a televised romance encapsulating these ideas.


http://web.israelinsider.com/views/5325.htm

Can Abbas tame the lion?
By Micah D. Halpern April 13, 2005

The official 10th grade Palestinian school curriculum teaches The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. The edition used in the schools is published in Syria. The curriculum never mentions that the Protocols are a forgery of the Russian secret police created by the Czar in order to generate the notorious myth that the Jews control the world.

One must ask:
Why teach The Protocols if not to expose the work as a conspiracy theory of Antisemites? In any other context, what is the educational purpose behind teaching The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion to impressionable 10th graders given today's social and political climate?

In order to perpetuate the myth. We all know the answer. The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion has not been removed from the Palestinian school curriculum, the book has not been removed from school library shelves, only, ONLY, in order to perpetuate the myth!

The Palestinians continue to teach The Protocols because they are not yet committed to the reforms. And Mahmoud Abbas, as president, is the man responsible for re-educating or not re-educating his people, for implementing reforms or for letting them linger, ignored if not forgotten.

snip...

***

http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part7.html
Palestinian Media Watch, accompanied by videos

A sample:

The Bible is "Lies" - Jews have no History in Israel
The Bible is said to be legends and lies while Israel is defined as a "parasitic worm" that lives in a snail’s shell after killing the snail. “We will not let anyone live in our shell” - "The invaders will be erased." This was taught by PA educational TV lecturer, Prof. Issam Sissalem, Islamic University in Gaza.


All of Israel is said to be "Palestine"
PA educational television teaches that all of Israel belongs to the Palestinians. In this example they teach that if "Palestine", which includes all of Israel, is not whole, it endangers the entire Arab world, because "Palestine" is the heart of the Arab world. The map to define used to portray "Palestine" encompasses all of Israel.

PA teaches Children: All Jewish History is Lies
Palestinians rewrite Jewish history teaching that Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem is “the greatest lie in history by those liars.” The Prophets of the Hebrew Bible are said to have no connection to the Jews but to Islam. All of the Jews' connection to the Land of Israel is "lies". One example: Prof. Issam Sissalem, Islamic University, Gaza.

PA historian: Zionism founded on Protocol's of Zion
A PA historian explains that the Protocol's of the Elders of Zion is an authentic book introduced at the First Zionist Congress in 1897. The book, in fact, is the infamous Russian anti semitic forgery of "the Jewish plan to control and rule the world."


Israel will be Destroyed through Violence
Israel's destruction in war is often depicted symbolically in video clips on PA TV. Here a heart is dripping blood from the map of Israel. Arms with stones sprout from the land which leads to the flag of the PA covering all of Israel - symbolizing Israel's destruction.
]

***

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...

'Elders of Zion' airs
on Egyptian TV
Series based on fabrication about Jewish plot to control world

Egyptian TV has begun broadcasting a month-long television series based on the ''Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' a fabricated document that depicts Zionism as part of a Jewish plot to rule the world.

There have been international appeals to keep the series off the airwaves, including criticism from the U.S. State Department. Officials there have told Egypt and other Arab governments that their state-run television stations should not air the series.

''We don't think government TV stations should be broadcasting programs that we consider racist and untrue,'' said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

snip

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_...

For the second consecutive year, Arab television featured a vicious anti-Semitic series that depicts stereotypical Jews hatching a plot for Jewish world control and domination. The program, Ash-Shatat ("The Diaspora") is a Syrian production and was aired in October and November 2003 by the Lebanon-based satellite television network Al-Manar, which is owned by the terrorist organization Hezbollah. Al-Manar is widely available to viewers across the Muslim and Arab world and around the world. The closing credits of the programs gives "special thanks" to various government ministries in Syria, including the security ministry, the culture ministry, the Damascus Police Command and the Department of Antiquities and Museums.

Timed to coincide with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the 30-part series purports to dramatize the "true history" of the rise of modern Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel, and depicts historical figures, such as Theodor Herzl, Alfred Dreyfus and others.

In October - November 2002, Egyptian TV featured a similar 41-part series based on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," Horseman Without a Horse, which also aired during Ramadan. At the time, the series was widely denounced by the United States, world leaders, ADL and others for its potential to incite and rationalize anti-Semitism across the Muslim and Arab world.

snip

***


I have LOTS more. Holocaust denial is particularly popular, throughout the Middle East.

[Colorado Blue]

13. "The Roots of Delusion" and other links

For the record - Bat Ye'Or, an Egyptian Jewess, has done a lot of work on the subject of "Dhimmi", which is extensively researched and documented, but which I personally have not read. My notes on this topic come from other sources and I'll append links later.

Maybe it depends whose shoes one is wearing.

OK. Here is a German article on the Elders of Zion, and other forms of brilliant Western ideology, and how they entered the Middle East.

Cole sort of glosses over the POWER of the "cliques" he mentions. That IS a factual error. Apart from the fact that lots of people read this stuff long before WWII, the people who believed them most were extremely influential and had a lot to do with creating the violence and sorrow we are still trying to end.

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/artikel.php?artikelID=81

An excerpt:

"There is certainly an interrelationship between developments in the Middle East and the mobilisation of antisemites around the world. It does not make sense, however, to draw a line between the “lunatic” antisemitism of the extreme right, on the one hand, and a more “understandable” antisemitism within the Arab-Islamic world, on the other, simply because the latter seems to respond to real problems. Firstly, Islamic as well as European antisemitism are both based on the same phantasm of a Jewish world conspiracy which demonises Jews as the eternal enemy of mankind. In both cases too, the style of argument is fundamentally racist: seemingly eternal negative character traits are imputed to “the Jews” in order to dehumanise them. Jewish World Conspiracy theories and antisemitic racial stereotypes have, however, nothing in common with the traditional image of Jews in Islam. It is rather Nazi ideology which has been resurrected here: in confronting Islamic antisemitism, it is the distorted face of Europe’s own history which stares back at us.<2>

Secondly, research and analysis by social scientists provide ample proof that antisemitism is unrelated to the actual behaviour of Jews. The same applies to Israeli policies. The policies of the Israeli government may give rise to anger and wrath. But there is no Israeli policy, however deserving of criticism it may be, that makes plausible the antisemite’s assumption that Washington is ruled by Jerusalem. Those, however, who have fallen prey to such demonizing delusions, will be sure to find their antisemitic prejudices confirmed by whatever the Israeli government does or does not do.

Thirdly, also considered in historical terms, Arab/Muslim antisemitism is not an immediate result of the present Middle East conflict. As far back as 1894, before a Zionist movement even existed, the first translation of the German antisemite August Rohling’s The Talmud Jew appeared in Arabic. The publication of this book – which popularized the concept of the “Jewish threat” – can be considered as the starting point of modern Arab antisemitism. In 1920, there followed the first Arabic translation of one of the most repugnant anti-Jewish publication, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.<3> One year later, on March 14, 1921, when Winston Churchill, at the time Britain’s Colonial Minister, paid a visit to Jerusalem, he was handed an antisemitic document by the Palestinian Arab Congress, led by Musa Kasim el-Husseini, which the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg could easily have written himself: “… Jews have been amongst the most active advocates of destruction in many lands”, this memorandum claimed without saying a single word about the actual conduct of Zionist settlers, “… It is well known that the disintegration of Russia was wholly or in great part brought about by the Jews, and a large portion of the defeat of Germany and Austria must also be put at their door. … The Jew is a Jew all the world over. He amasses the wealth of a country and then leads its people, whom he has already impoverished, where he chooses. He encourages wars when self-interest dictates, and thus uses the armies of the nations to do his bidding.”<4>

It was in the spirit of such virulent antisemitism that, in the spring of 1920 and 1921, under the command of the later Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin el-Husseini, the ancient Jewish quarters of Jerusalem and Jaffa were attacked and 48 Jews were killed. In 1929, a further massacre took place in the Jewish districts of Hebron and Safad. 133 Jews were killed. This attack as well was not aimed at Zionists but at unarmed members of ancient Jewish communities which had been living in the area for hundreds of years. Afterwards, the Mufti quoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in order to justify such barbaric acts.<5> Thus, already more than 20 years before the creation of the state of Israel, antisemitic manifestos were published and pogroms took place in Palestine. Moreover, it is the very same antisemitism which continues to place its stamp upon the Middle East conflict right up to the present time."


Hasn't Cole referred to some members of the Bush Administration as "Likudniks"? Isn't he contributing to these conspiracy theories?

You see why one is troubled?

By the way, Cole apparently is ALSO pissing off some Arabs, who feel he has taken an "Arabist" POV on the Muslim world - ie, he is STEREOTYPING.

Links in following posts.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. In the Bluest of the Blue

At Cal State San Francisco - and at UC Berkeley - physical intimidation of Jewish students and faculty is once again in vogue.

Physical intimidation at Cal State SF - and the SF District Attorney refused to investigate.

Physical intimidation of Jewish students in Berkeley - going from a Passover Seder to the apartment - and the Alameda County DA refused to go forward.

I am a 60 plus year old, white haired, white bearded "senior citizen" - and when I attempted to photograph two "students" in Arab traditional dress threatening Jewish peace marchers at Market and Powell (Union Square) after a "Peace March" I was physically threatened.

AND THIS IS IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, USA - THE BLUEST CITY IN THE BLUEST REGION OF THE BLUEST STATE OF THE US. I don't go to Peace Marches in Justin Hermann Plaza or Civic Center Plaza or Mission Dolores or Berkeley anymore. I do my parading at policed, mature adult rallies in Palo Alto.

[not systems]

6. Please offer up a link to back these statments...

about "physical intimidation".

I'm sure this wide spread intimidation has generated
some creditable ink some where on the web.

How were you "physically threatened" by "students" in
"Arab traditional dress threatening Jewish peace marchers"?

I'm afraid your story sound a little light on details and
a little long on embellishment.

I have never seen "physical intimidation" at peace marches
at Justin Hermann Plaza or Civic Center Plaza or Mission Dolores
or Berkeley. I have also never seen anyone in "Arab traditional
dress" at one.

I suppose that if the sight of Palestinian flag is enough to
offend then one could find one to get offended by.

[Colorado Blue]

10. Hello? How do you think the traditionally liberal and

peace-loving Jewish community feels when we see a Star of David disfigured by a swastika? Flags like this are routinely flown at antiwar demonstrations.

It makes us SICK, that's what.

Moreover, if you're interested in what is actually being taught and said at Columbia, and by Columbia professor Massad, I have plenty of documentation on that TOO. Let me know if you're interested.

By the way - you guys are getting enough documentation and theses on these threads to write a doctoral dissertation.

Maybe we should open the D.U. University:)

[not systems]

17. Frankly...

a Star of David disfigured by a swastika makes me sick also.

I can't say I have seen one at an antiwar demonstration so
they must not be that common or the prevailing motif.

I would not be surprised if some small faction felt that
it was an appropriate statement about the treatment of the
people of Palestine and exercised their free speech rights
to say so.

I just haven't seen it.

Spare me a link bomb on the subject, I'm sure you have many.

[Colorado Blue]

22. OK, no link bomb. And thanks. nt.

[centristo]

57. i don't have a link for you

but I have seen such flags first hand at "pro-peace" rallys in D.C. I saw Israeli and American flags with swastikas and comparisons of Bush and Sharon to Hitler. I saw people stomping on flags, burning them, and otherwise desecrating them. But this was a "pro-peace" rally so I guess its ok.

I think the pro-Palestinian cause would benefit GREATLY if they had a zero tolerance for such demonstrations in poor taste/judgement. It is very difficult for the uninformed or undecided to rally for their cause when they are associated with such actions. As a Jew it seems traitorous, not to mention stupid to back a movement that defames the Star of David, my symbol of cultural and religious heritage.

In America these actions are protected by free speech but I think it hurts the Palestinian cause way more than it helps.

[Colorado Blue]

11. Here, have a LINK:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=13779

Some Jewish students and advocacy groups say that their concerns go beyond the UCI administration’s unwillingness to speak out on their behalf. They claim that the campus has, at times, become a hostile and dangerous place for them.

“I get nervous when I’m on campus and I walk by one of ,” said UCI junior Natalie Korthamar, president of Hillel at UCI.

One Jewish student, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, said he carries mace around with him because Muslim students have followed him around campus on two separate occasions since he became a high-profile, pro-Israel activist.

In a 2004 video titled “Incitement at UC Irvine” a young student said, “Jewish students are afraid to speak out; Jewish students are afraid to be themselves.” The video never aired, because some students worried that their complaints about UCI would alienate the administration and faculty to their detriment, said Rothstein of StandWithUs, which produced the tape.

Read the article. I'm sure Coastie can come up with more when he has time.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Try these

Thank you for your kind and polite questions. I shall try to respond.

Please offer up a link to back these statments...about "physical intimidation".

See below

I'm sure this wide spread intimidation has generated
some creditable ink some where on the web.

May not be "credible" to some - but it was credible to me and it was credible on KRON4.

How were you "physically threatened" by "students" in
"Arab traditional dress threatening Jewish peace marchers"?

At the BART stop at Union Square - a young gentleman in a Bedouin head dress told (not "asked" but "told" me to put my digital camera away. October 2002 Peace March.

I'm afraid your story sound a little light on details and
a little long on embellishment.

Your opinion sir. It did fit the California Criminal Code definition of "assault" (reasonable apprehension of a unlawful touching)

I have never seen "physical intimidation" at peace marches
at Justin Hermann Plaza or Civic Center Plaza or Mission Dolores
or Berkeley. I have also never seen anyone in "Arab traditional
dress" at one.

See above - October 2002

I suppose that if the sight of Palestinian flag is enough to
offend then one could find one to get offended by.

It was not the sight of a Palestinian flag - or of an Israeli flag with a swastika painted on it. See above about the incident at the BART stop. It was the gentleman telling me not to take photographs.

LINKS

THESE MAY NOT MEET YOUR STANDARD OF "CREDIBILITY" - SO REBUT THEM.


1) http://www.momentmag.com/archive/aug02/feat2.html
2) http://www.jr.co.il/articles/sf-univ.txt
3) http://www.solargeneral.com/jtr/antis.htm
4) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,52888,00.html
5) http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000107.html
6) http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Fear_and_Loathing_at_San_Francisco_State.asp
7) http://www.kcholmim.org/antisemitism2.php
8) http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/05/17_Middle_East.html
9) http://www.standwithus.com/actions/051802.asp
10) http://www.adl.org/CAMPUS/campus_incidents.asp
11) http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/18392/edition_id/368/format/html/displaystory.html
12) http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/6302/format/print/edition_id/117/displaystory.print
13) http://www.newvoices.org/cgi-bin/articlepage.cgi?id=92
14) http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003846.php
15) http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020617&s=featherstone
16) http://www.standwithus.com/actions/121402.asp
17) http://www.sfjcf.org/israel/crisis/stories/sfsurally-lettermay2002.asp
18) http://www.wworld.org/programs/middleEast.asp?ID=204
19) http://www.jr.co.il/articles/colleges.txt


Should you want to continue this discussion off line - maybe we can do lunch at the Fish Market (Page Mill and El Camino Real in Palo Alto) or Tadich's on California Ave in the City, or Scomas. My treat. Just PM me.

[not systems]

15. What is unclear is why if you had...

a camera and were being threatened in a way that
"did fit the California Criminal Code definition of 'assault'"
is why you would not have pursue a legal case against the
alleged perpetrator.

You hardly seem like someone who is not ready to stand up
for your rights or fight for what you believe in.

If I understand you correctly the person who told you
to not take pictures was wearing one of the black and
white checkerboard scarves like Arafat used to wear?

I have seen that, but "in Arab traditional dress" I pictured
something a little more dramatic than that, like a big robe
or similar.

I don't see an KRON link above when did
they find your story creditable?

Did you manage to photograph the guy "in Arab traditional dress",
"threatening Jewish peace marchers at Market and Powell" or not?

If you did I'm surprised you didn't make any attempt to
bring action against him for such acts of violence.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. Last response

Q: "What is unclear is why if you hada camera and were being threatened in a way that did fit the California Criminal Code definition of 'assault'" is why you would not have pursue a legal case against the alleged perpetrator."

Why be a schmuck. Gave me a feeling of moral superiority.

Q: "If I understand you correctly the person who told you
to not take pictures was wearing one of the black and
white checkerboard scarves like Arafat used to wear?"

A: Correct

Q: "I don't see an KRON link above when did
they find your story creditable?"

A: It was on the news that night. October 2002.

Q: "Did you manage to photograph the guy "in Arab traditional dress", "threatening Jewish peace marchers at Market and Powell" or not?"

A: Previously photographed a group of his colleagues and him. But, at that point I walked over to an SF cop and shot the shit with him for a few minutes. I'm 60+ years old - I am not a you jock anymore. And after the May 2002 bull at SFSU I figured why provoke the guy.

Q: "If you did I'm surprised you didn't make any attempt to
bring action against him for such acts of violence."

A: As I said, why be a schmuck.

BTW - I do not disfigure Palestinian flags.

I have been to Eid-El-Fitr "Break the Fast" dinners at my friends' homes, I have had my Muslim friends at my home for Purim dinners (especially the Iranians - they are amazed that we toast a Persian emperor and his Jewish concubine), even had Iranians at our Passover Seders.

My endocrinologist is an Egyptian Sunni, and our veterinarian is an Egyptian woman Sunni. I have no animosity toward Palestinians, Iraqis, etc -- just the American who practice racism.

[not systems]

20. I just felt you...

were misrepresenting the vast vast majority of antiwar
demonstrations and demonstrators in SF as something they
were not.

Your proses:

I am a 60 plus year old, white haired, white bearded "senior citizen" - and when I attempted to photograph two "students" in Arab traditional dress threatening Jewish peace marchers at Market and Powell (Union Square) after a "Peace March" I was physically threatened.

AND THIS IS IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, USA - THE BLUEST CITY IN THE BLUEST REGION OF THE BLUEST STATE OF THE US. I don't go to Peace Marches in Justin Hermann Plaza or Civic Center Plaza or Mission Dolores or Berkeley anymore. I do my parading at policed, mature adult rallies in Palo Alto.


Seem a little overheated considering that you didn't immediately
report the incident to the SF cop you "shot the shit with" instead
of just making a formal complaint.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. I am a Hamische Mensch

Why give the kid a police record -- even if he is an ass hole.

But - if the assault had been consummated in a battery (any touching - no matter how slight) -- you bet I would have had his butt arrested.

BTW- as "I just felt you were misrepresenting the vast vast majority of antiwar demonstrations and demonstrators in SF as something they
were not." -- I love the Bay Area and its communities. And the vast majority of Bay Area peace demonstrators are a credit to the Bay Area (even if ANSWER would not let Rabbi Michael Lerner on the Speakers' Platform; which I think was a disservice to the Bay Area).

I just happen to feel very strongly about "personal space" - even in the Bay Area.

[not systems]

25. I agree...

Rabbi Michael Lerner should have been able to speak
but I don't think his group had worked with ANSWER to
setup the demonstration and ANSWER reserved the space
for people who had worked with them organizing it.

Take care and peace.

[Colorado Blue]

18. Dhimmi - Jews in Islam

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/education/historicalsurvey/

Current Arab antisemitism, which is mostly borrowed from Western sources, differs from the past. Bernard Lewis, the great scholar of Islam, has written that "For most of the fourteen hundred years or so of the Arab Jewish encounter, the Arabs have not in fact been anti-semitic as that word is used in the West (my emphasis) . . . because for the most part they are not Christians."46 Lewis is not telling us that Jewish life under Islam was a paradise; but he is telling us as another scholar put it, to avoid "the misleading analogy or comparison with the European Jewish experience."47 Antisemitism under Islam has to be viewed in it's own terms, not through foreign perspectives. It also has to be viewed with the understanding that both the Moslem experience (and so, consequently, the Jewish experience under Islam) varied over different times and places, and as a result of varying conditions.

The founding period of Islam began with Mohammad and continued until Islam had firmly established itself.48 The Koran, which dates from this period, records the initial Jewish opposition to Mohammed, and his triumph over the Jews of Medina. However, Mohammed also recognized a kinship with Jews, and accepted them as a "people of the book." This created a fundamental ambivalence in the view of the Jew, who on one hand were the descendants of Abraham and on the other were distorters of the Bible. While the Koran contains many anti-Jewish statements49 an early "hadith"50 has Mohammed saying "He who harms a member of the protected nation - I shall be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgement."51

In practice this ambivalence became reflected in the dual applications of tribute and tolerance. Once the Jews agreed to pay tribute, thus acknowledging their humiliation and subjection, they were granted the status of "dhimmi." In return they were extended the right of religious freedom, some forms of civil and political rights, and were able to benefit from some of the economic successes of the later Islamic world. The status of "dhimmi" was not necessarily a comfortable one. Restrictions on the "dhimmi" as found in the Pact of Umar (the basic document that spelled out the relationship) included 1) Not to use the Koran in jest or falsify it's text 2) Not to speak falsely or contemptuously of the Prophet Mohammed 3) Not to speak irreverently or derisively of Islam 4) Not to touch or marry Moslem women 5) Not to proselytize amongst Moslems or to make any attempt upon their lives or property 6) Not to aid enemies of spies Minor conditions included 7) Not building any house higher than those of Moslems 8) Not to ring bells or read their (holy) books aloud 9) Not to ride horses (asses and mules were allowed) 10) Not to drink wine in public (alcohol being forbidden to Moslems) and for Christians, not display their crosses and swine 11) They shall bury their dead in silence and not allow lamentations or sounds of mourning to be heard 12) They shall wear the "ghiyar" (a distinguishing sign), that was yellow for Jews, blue for Christians.52 Interestingly, as can be seen from the above, Christians (and even Zoroastrians) shared in this category. The status was activated upon payment of the tribute (which came as a land tax and a poll tax).

This status was the fundamental condition of Jews in the Islamic world. When that world achieved wealth, Jews shared to some extent. When intellectual creativity flourished, Jews participated - to some extent. But, despite the toleration extended, Jews never achieved real civil, political or military power. Any sustained attempt to raise their status met in failure. If, after viewing classical Islamic antisemitism on its own terms, we then wish to compare it to Christian antisemitism we can, once again, follow Bernard Lewis' formulation that Jews under Islam "were never free from discrimination, but only rarely subject to persecution; their situation was never as bad as in Christendom at its worst, nor ever as good as in Christendom at its best . . . (unlike Christendom) there were no fears of Jewish conspiracy and domination, . . . of poisoning wells or spreading the plague, and even the blood libel did not appear among Muslims until . . . the fifteenth century" (when it came from Christians).53 For Islam, Christianity was the enemy, the target at whom polemics were aimed. Jews were relatively unimportant, even powerless. However, as Islam lost power, Christians, particularly Europeans, began exerting religious and economic interest. While the blood libel was an early precursor, European Christian's antisemitic writings, particularly from the French, entered the Moslem world, along with ritual murder accusations, in the nineteenth century. All that was missing was racial antisemitism, which, for obvious reasons, never became popular in the Islamic world (although, in World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem joined the Nazi cause, as did a contingent of Bosnian Moslems who joined the S.S.). Today, however, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism includes usage of all the stock stereotypes of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, along with a general anti-Western and anti-secular ideology to fuel its fanaticism.


Walk in our shoes.

We need to grow beyond the horrors, the lies, the violence of the past, to end the violence of the present.

Happy Passover.

[Colorado Blue]

16. Some Arabs Aren't Happy With Cole Either

Juan Cole's Unbearable Lightness of Blogging

Vigilant Across the Bay points us to this breathtaking post from Juan Cole. The Michigan professor is terribly impressed by a conspiracy Website (Martini Republic), and cites it to suggest that the liberal Iraqi site, Iraq the Model (ITM), is a tool of Internet disinformation. Cole offers no facts whatsoever to buttress his appalling web of innuendo, but when it comes to challenging the integrity of those who disagree with you, innuendo will apparently do.

Like many Iraqis, the Fadhil brothers who post to ITM have been enjoying their new post-Baathist freedoms by expressing their opinions publicly and making their case for a liberal Iraq. Sometimes they've even challenged Juan Cole's own pretenses to expertise on what is going on in the country. This phenomenon seems to flummox Cole; the only explanation he seems to be able to come up with is to hint darkly that ITM is part of a nefarious Neocon plot.

http://iraqpundit.blogspot.com/2004/12/juan-coles-unbearable-lightness-of.html

and

http://beirut2bayside.blogspot.com/2004/12/kommissar-cole.html

Cole: "The MR posting brings up questions about the Iraqi brothers who run the IraqTheModel site. It points out that the views of the brothers are celebrated in the right-leaning weblogging world of the US, even though opinion polling shows that their views are far out of the mainstream of Iraqi opinion. It notes that their choice of internet service provider, in Abilene, Texas, is rather suspicious, and wonders whether they are getting some extra support from certain quarters."

The commentor says,

"Iraq the Model and IraqPundit are two bloggers who have critiqued, refuted, and made fun of Cole's excesses, conspiracy theories, romanticism and misinformation (and those of his likes, like Rashid Khalidi). For instance, Iraq the Model has written about him and his "expertise" in the same breath as Michael Moore and al-Jazeera: "I guess if instead I shifted to parroting Al Jazeerah or people like Michael Moore or Juan Cole, I’d be having an independent voice?"" IraqPundit called Cole "dependably misinformed" and poked fun at him and his insane conspiracy theories, mentioning how some Iraqis refer to Cole's site as "Misinformed Comment." Needless to say, I've taken great pleasure deflating Pope Juan Cole myself.

So what does Cole do? What he does best. Weave conspiracy theories that of course involve the Neocons (see that second link to IraqPundit for another one of those) on how Iraq The Model is "suspicious" and how "far out of the mainstream of Iraqi opinion" the posters are. Yes you heard right. An Iraqi site, whose authors have formed a pro-democracy liberal Iraqi party, based in Iraq, living through the war and its dangers (esp. when Cole's favorite, Sadr, was bullying other Iraqis and when Jihadists are killing anyone pro-American, while Cole is sitting pontificating from his Michigan office) is not reflective of Iraqi opinion, which Juan Cole is supposedly an expert on! The pretentious self-importance is nauseating. But there's more. This amounts to the worst "Orientalism" (in the Saidian sense) there is. It presumes that Iraqi opinion must not only be monolithic, but it must also conform to an anti-US, pro-Arabist party line (because Arabism is the "authentic" voice of the East)! Or, it must be what Juan Cole says it is! If not, it's an attempt "to spread disinformation ... It is a technique made for the well-funded Neoconservatives." I.e., not only must "Arabs" have one opinion, but if they are dissenters then they are passive agents of manipulation by outside (Jewish) forces! (Iraq the Model was quoted by Wolfowitz a while ago in a WSJ op-ed. Well that "proves" they're Neocons!)

But wait, the InterCole warns us that he has "suspicions about one or two sites out there already." Gee I wonder if that includes IraqPundit as he's an "Arab" who dared to critique and make fun of Pope Cole! That seals it, he must be a Likudnik or Neocon!"


I submit, true progressive thought means you think BEYOND your preconceptions.

Believing in a "Likudnik/Neocon" conspiracy theory can lead to deep and troubled waters. It is affecting all of us on the left as well as the people we make fun of: the right wing.

We reject information we don't like. We reject historical documentation that doesn't suit our point of view. We reject information out of hand if we don't like the source. We reject the POSSIBILITY that maybe the Jewish students at Columbia have a point about Massad, for example. We reject the possibility that Arabs have more than one point of view about the world - OURS.

If they disagree with US, they must be - RIGHT WING LIKUDNIK NEOCON ARABS. Am I right?

I submit, the world is far more subtle, textured and complex than quick and easy snapshots from the tube or from weblogs would have us believe.

[Colorado Blue]

24. You know what's so funny about all this? I think I can speak

for both Coastie and myself, and Aegis, and Drdon and everybody else who routinely posts here, that we want peace, and better conditions for ALL the people of the Middle East, almost more than anything else in the world.

I've spent most of my adult life working with and studying, the culture and arts of the Middle East. Went broke doing it, too - a measure of commitment, I think?

That means, art, music, architecture, history, dance - I'm a dancer for over 30 years. I established a company of dancers and musicians back in the '80's, from all OVER the Middle East, because I thought, gee, why can't we blend our cultures, our ideas, our skills? We could build a new world! Jews, Assyrians, Zoroastrians, Druze, Bedouin, Berber, Turks, Gypsies, Arabs, Kurds, Africans - we all have voices, we ALL have something to say and something to give.

Later, having become long in the tooth, I worked extensively with textiles of the Berber, the Kurds, the Turkmen and the Baluch as well as with Bedouin embroideries and of course, the great embroidered art of the Uzbek and the Lakai.

Given the respect we have for OTHER people's history and culture, it's a joke, that our POV is suddenly VERBOTEN, links to news articles and historical articles IGNORED, or our history, being "revised".

I am pissed.

[Malikshah]

29. Hyperbole again

The point of view espoused is not verboten. But to accuse Juan Cole of factual errors without providing evidence is something that must be challenged.

It's a form of discourse, debate. Not a place for extremes by any means.

Moderation in all things.

[Colorado Blue]

31. I repeat. I have just listed the factual errors, and given

ample supporting evidence.

This isn't a matter of interpretation. Either the scurrilous document, the Protocols, was or wasn't influential in the M.E. before the last couple of decades.

Either the state of the Jewish person was or wasn't salutory under the conditions of dhimmi.

Either the "radical cliques" were or weren't influential in spreading said scurrilous document.

Either the "error of omission" was or wasn't significant, to the point of being a significant failure to address an extremely serious incident or personage in the history of the time.

The answers are, yes, the protocols were important before the last couple of decades. Factual error. The Jew was discriminated against to a degree not admitted to by Cole. Factual error, although this shades more toward interpretation, since only a person actually IN this position can have commented, and as the Wiesenthal paper stated, it varied from time to time as fortunes shifted.

I suggest, therefore, that Jewish sources should be consulted and respected on this topic. I suggest, furthermore, that issues like "blood libel" are of great significance. They did indeed begin with Christians but spread to the Middle East and Jewish people have suffered for it. They have become widely popular and are contributing to the non-personhood and hatred of Jews, which is, I promise you, going to result in more violence.

Moreover, I find it highly ironic that people today will scream "apartheid" in regard to the OT, yet not acknowledge that a very real apartheid existed in regard to the Jewish people, througout the Middle East, that Jewish people were punished during and after the time of Mandate Palestine for their Jewishness; and that that very fact has colored the way we are seen in the Middle East today. It is contributing significantly to the difficulty if making peace. And, it has resulted in mutual hatred and mutual fear, which is also not helping matters. So this is important, important to recognize and respect as a contributing factor to the problems in I/P.

The status of the Jew was significantly lower than that of the Muslim, to the point that he is referred to as ape, dog, so forth; and this is still affecting the way the situation in I/P is seen today. It affected the treatment of the settlers in Mandate Palestine, as did their sheer differentness. It led to significant violence all during the years of the Mandate. It may have led directly to the war in 1948 and to the Naqba: the Jewish people, no matter how hard Ben-Gurion tried, simply weren't trusted. So people fought, and they ran. So it's a SIGNIFICANT problem in interpretation.

Additionally, that problem of interpretation tends to support a currently popular point of view, which is that antisemitism ISN'T an issue when discussing Israel or in the problems of Israel - and I think that is a cop-out.

Returning to Cole's statement, the radical cliques, lightly glossed over, were EXTREMELY important and influential. Muslim Brotherhood, for example, was one; other groups branching out from this time include the Ba'ath party, and so forth. Some of these groups were also interested in Abu Ali, also known as Hitler. Their philosophies affect modern Arab nationalism and Islamism to this day.

Yet what did I find in an article by Cole, but a statement that Sharon is morally on the same level as Assad, the dictator of Syria, who oppresses his people. Cole somehow hasn't noticed, or doesn't find it significant, that Sharon is operating in a WAR ZONE, dealing with terrorism and so forth; and is not a Ba'athist Party dictator oppressing his own population - but why should we worry about facts?

As to the error of omission: The Mufti of Jerusalem, who next to Hitler is one of the modern Jew's horror stories, and who MUST be mentioned in ANY discussion of modern Middle Eastern antisemitism. That is such a huge error of omission it amounts to a grave factual error. This one man was so highly influential in the outcome of the Israel/Palestine situation that he deserves a book or three, and in fact there are more than one, and many, many papers. He appears in the Nuremburg transcripts and in UN documents. He was no myth and he was not insignificant.

Indeed, if he had been anybody else - an Ataturk, a pragmatic, outward looking person, even a tolerant one - we might not be having this discussion.

Finally, to the best of EVERYBODY'S knowledge, including members of the US Government and the highly trusted ADL, and the EU, except the ONE source you have decided to rely upon, for some reason, the Protocols (and worse) are being taught as we speak, in the P.A. I have looked this person up and there is quite a bit written to refute his POV, but I haven't had time, as it IS Passover, to digest it yet.

Now. Why do you, oh moderate one, have such trouble accepting these FACTS, or even that Cole might have been mistaken? And why do you have trouble accepting that, interpreted correctly, this history leads to a certain conclusion apparently being blown off today, which is, the situation of Israel is NOT all the fault of Israel, but rather, is the result of a series of circumstances caused at least in part, by the influence of historic prejudice combined with documents and individuals creating modern prejudice?

The fact is, when the Jewish people were absolutely desperate, before and during WWII, they were prevented from seeking shelter in Palestine, due to Arab - ah - distaste. There were riots and pogroms and murders. Refugee ships were interdicted. People DIED, oh moderate one. And after the war, when the remnants of a shattered people were struggling to create a flower from the ashes, more war and more horror was wrought upon them.

We are still at war. And Muslim leaders are still promising to exterminate us. Which we take seriously, as we do the situation of the Palestinian people, so you'll forgive the hyperbole. It is a very serious situation, and many of us have lost people and fear we will lose more, including ourselves.

I would, therefore, appreciate not being blown off like dandelion fluff. It is just too easy to sit back from an UNINVOLVED POSITION, and say, oh, this just isn't true, we now have Modern Scholarship.

And moreover, Cole may just be wrong about the Columbia situation - maybe this SHOULD be looked at. From what I've read, direct quotes from Massad and his peers, it is troubling. To look at it isn't McCarthyism, but rather its opposite: to PERMIT free speech and free thought, and a balanced approach to history and to the world.

Now, you have chosen to blow off several scholarly sources and some highly respected news sources, and I remain confused:

Why? Because this nasty stuff makes you uncomfortable? Good. It should. And if it makes you feel dirty, then for heaven's sake, help me get RID of it. Help me fight it. Please do not sit back complacently and say, oh, I need a bath.

[Malikshah]

34. Ah-- the "truth is out"

Nasty stuff makes me feel uncomfortable? Nope.

Wrestling in the mud with folks who wish to change the subject of the argument, avoid admitting their mistakes (i.e. No-- no factual errors were provided, no evidence was provided-- just differing interpretations and wishful thinking)-- is what is distasteful. I get muddy, and those who wish to change the subject etc. enjoy it.

That's why I'm going for the bath.

It is clear from the standard line argument provided above ("Arab ah distaste"-- please -- get a grip on the history of the mandate-- it was not distaste, it was a whole plethora of issues in which both the Yishuv, the AHC all had their problems-- the whole victim spiel here is inaccurate, and thus leads to a dangerous misunderstanding of the causes of current problems) that someone doesn't wish to continue the discussion with regard to whether or not Juan Cole provides factual errors.

In other words-- a typical obfuscation of the discourse.

Best

[DemFromMem]

35. Challenge?

Fine. But despite Colorado's thorough defense of his position and his very specifically addressing your queries, you blow his responses off. Example? How about where you tell him to prove that the Protocols are taught to Palestinian students today. He provides evidence of this, yet no acknowledgement from you that he has answered your challenge. I agree that Cole's statement was inaccurate and it has the effect of making everything else he says in his piece less persuasive.

[Malikshah]

36. Uh, there was *no* evidence

of Juan Cole's factual errors.

I explained in my posts repeatedly that what were deemed factual errors were in fact interpretations by some that folks like Cole didn't say what they wanted them to day about dhimmis, etc.

As for evidence of schools teaching the Protocols. The sources provided are as suspect as could be. I provided evidence to Nathan Brown's Fulbright-sponsored study.

Everyone is free to their opinion. I disagree strenuously that Cole was innaccurate factually.

Others can disagree all they want. It will not make them factually correct. It is about objectivity and providing evidence.

I have not "blown off the responses" that have provided a shred of evidence that is unbiased/objective. On the other hand-- as the argument continually got changed to issues of the Yishuv, "deniers," etc. which was NOT part of the original discussion (i.e. Juan Cole being factually inaccurate)--I responded by calling it out.

It is tiresome and timeworn tactic in these forms of debate.

Don't have actual examples to back up generalized claims?
Change the subject of the debate. Make hyperbolic comments.
Charge folks with "avoiding the topic" etc.

Sorry-- but that is not discourse-- it's wrestling in the mud.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I've got to ask what might be a dumb question here...

..and I do have a disadvantage of sorts in this thread, but why are there attempts being made to show Juan Cole's article is factually inaccurate by going on about dhimmis when the article starting this thread is about Professor Massad?


Violet...

[Malikshah]

39. dingdingdingdingding

You win the "Emperor has no clothes prize"!

In all fairness, I did try and bring it back to the issue of factual errors on a regular basis...but it *is* nice to see someone else has noticed the modus operandi.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

41. The Issue of the Books

Malikshah complains that the ADL's assertion, that the PA schools continue teaching The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is not evidence thereof. He says, Nathan's Brown's study is proof that they are not.

Brown's study, which incidentally was published in 2001 and therefore does not bear upon events in 2005, asserts that books then used in PA are old books from Jordan and Egypt, some from 1947 (patriotic text about Palestine). This is not disputed; at issue is the content. Also, he puts a different emphasis on inciteful or inaccurate material, with which the CMIP disagrees.

About CMIP:

"The Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) is a non-governmental, not-for-profit making organization that was established in 1998 under the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law of the State of New York. Its purpose is to encourage a climate of tolerance and mutual respect between peoples and nations, founded on the rejection of violence and the changing of negative stereotypes, as a means to resolving conflicts.

CMIP's main work consists of examining the content of school textbooks used in the Middle East, to determine whether children are being taught to accept and recognize the right of the other to exist. Curricula, schoolbooks for children and handbooks for teachers have been chosen because they are an indicator that reveals the views and values societies want to instill in their youth.
CMIP will disseminate its findings in the hope that a sound basis can be built for a genuine and lasting peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors in the Middle East, with a view to expanding this mission to other regions in the world."

In any case Brown's report is disputed by the CMIP and they've had several conversations back and forth.

In the interest of fairness I'm publishing Brown's report, the CMIP reports and their commentary to each other.

***

I am publishing a letter, dated 2005, from the ADL to Mahmoud Abbas, complaining that IN THE NEW PALESTINIAN TEXTBOOKS, the Protocols are still being taught as history.

Also, I am publishing an article which quotes a note from Sharansky to Sharon, complaining about the same topic.

No doubt, Malikshah will complain that these reports, letters and articles are biased and anti-Arab. I do not see why reporting on such a heinous slander about Jews and Israelis, is anti-Arab. Rather, it is merely reporting.

Moreover, I repudiate the idea that a 2001 report constitutes evidence contravening an assertion made about events in 2005.

The appended will reflect that progress is being made BUT that the Protocols is still mentioned in PA textbooks, new ones, as history.

I add an article by the GERMAN political scientist Matthias Kuntzel, on the use of the Protocols by Hamas among others, and a couple of links on the topic of the educational and cultural climate surrounding the children of the PA.

Note: this does NOT excuse Israeli books, etc., which in the past have contained revisionist materials about the Palestinians. CMIP has criticized those also.

http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/Adam_Institute_Palestinian_textbooks.htm

http://www.edume.org/react/brown.htm

http://www.edume.org/react/brown1.htm


http://www.edume.org/reports/10/42.htmhttp://www.edume.org/reports/3/report.htm

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/letter_president_abbas.asp


Anti-Semitism in Palestinian Textbooks: Letter to President Abbas

April 11, 2005

His Excellency Mahmoud Abbas
President of the Palestinian Authority

Your Excellency:

At a time when there is renewed hope in the region, we are extremely troubled by reports that a new Palestinian school textbook refers to the anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as a true historical source.

The book, History of the Modern Contemporary World, claims that the first Zionist Congress, which convened in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland, issued a group of confidential resolutions entitled The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, the goal of which was world domination.

This textbook clearly sends a dangerous message that is contrary to the process of reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis.

There have been reports that some efforts have been made by the Palestinian Authority to reexamine what is being taught in the Palestinian education system. The reference to The Protocols as historical fact, however, undermines the credibility of claims to reform the Palestinian school system.

snip

http://arutzsheva.com/news.php3?id=80012

New PA Text Books Teach Anti-Semitic Forgery as History
16:02 Apr 12, '05 / 3 Nisan 5765


An urgent request was sent to PM Ariel Sharon to bring to the attention of US President Bush the prevalence of anti-Semitic material in the new Palestinian Authority textbooks.

The new PA history books present, among other things, the infamous anti-Semitic forgery produced by Russian police, known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as an accurate portrayal of the decisions of the First Zionist Congress. That work describes the Jews as plotting to take over the world.


Background articles:


http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/texte/matthias_kuentzel_-_euro_roots.pdf

Matthias Küntzel
European Roots of Antisemitism in Current Islamic Thinking
1
Islamic antisemitism is a key challenge of our time. It is not only expressed through Al
Qaida’s suicide terror attacks against synagogues or through attacks against Jewish
institutions perpetrated by European Muslims, but is propagated day by day throughout the
Arabic-Islamic world. Allow me to present to you three examples of this particular kind of
antisemitism:

Firstly Sheikh Madiras, an Imam from Palestine. In September this year, he addressed the
following to the faithful: "The Resurrection will not take place until the Muslims fight the
Jews, and the Muslims kill them. The Muslims will kill the Jews, rejoice , rejoice in
Allah's Victory.… The Prophet said: the Jews will hide behind the rock and the tree, and the
rock and the tree will say: oh servant of Allah, oh Muslim this is a Jew behind me, come and
kill him!… Everything wants vengeance on the Jews, on these pigs on the face of the earth.”

2
No-one protested when the Palestinian Authority's official TV station broadcast this call for
genocide. The story of the rock and the tree is a popular one and a standard item on the
Hamas propaganda menu.

snip

Please see entire article.


More on the educational and cultural climate surrounding Palestinian children.

http://www.teachkidspeace.com/about.php

http://www.eufunding.org/Textbooks/Nielson.html

[Colorado Blue]

42. Oh, the irony of it all - British Boycott vs. New McCarthyism

This is in part, a cross-post from the thread on the British Boycott of 2 Israeli universities. One should read that thread as well.

This post includes a piece by Joseph Massad, one of the professors at Columbia, who finds himself the subject of criticism for anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli sentiments and/or the intimidation of Jewish students.

This post also speaks to the perceived anti-arabism, or pro-Jewishness, of some historians, who have been mentioned by Malikshah as "biased" and therefore unreliable on the topic of Dhimmi and other matters, upon which I believe Cole's position is at least partially erroneous.

I'd like to comment briefly upon that assertion.

First, Lewis and the Wiestenthal Institute are not anti-Arab. They are reporting historical fact.

The condition of religious and ethnic minorities in the Islamic world has been historically documented for centuries and includes groups other than Jews, notably Christians, but also people of other religious, social and ethnic groups. Muslims, after all, supplanted other people and their religion and laws were imposed upon them.

The treatment of these minorities in the 20th century, especially after the dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire, was also, like that of the Jewish minority, not entirely salutory. The "Year of the Sword", which killed hundreds of thousands of Assyrian Christians; the expulsion of Greeks and the burning of their cities in Asia Minor; the persecution of the Copts, whose position has worsened; the savagery of the Lebanese Civil War; the stateless condition of the Kurds - this is all part of a larger pattern, of second class or even non-personhood, for non-Muslims.

The existence of this pattern argues for my assertion that anti-Jewish sentiment, the long-term perception of Jews as second-class citizens, fed into the Arab-Israeli conflict. That this condition has not always been extreme, we are not arguing. However, in the 20th century, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the assertion of European military might, money, and social mores, not to mention two World Wars, the stress on minority groups has been great. Even as some did well economically, and one created a state, so there has been great violence, prejudice, and a rise in the idea of "Islamism".

Moreover, Bat-Ye'Or, among others, should not be discounted merely because she is Jewish. That would be like discounting a black man who is writing about discrimination in Mississippi. Of course, if we ask Whitey, he'll tell you, "We LOVE our darkies." This, more or less, is the pro-Arab line, pre-Israel. Or so I gather.

Meanwhile, back to the present, from the same source as the opening paragraph (linked in the boycott thread):

"The most extreme expression of the demonization of Israel is its equation with Nazi Germany, which became, after the onset of the al-Aqsa intifada, one of the central themes of anti-Israel propaganda. Jews living in Israel are perceived as the incarnation of Nazi mentality and ideology. The key motif here is a kind of Holocaust inversion in which the Israelis are the Nazis and the Palestinians become their victims, the new Jews. Thus, those who support Israel, namely Jews, are the Nazis’ accomplices."

Professor Juan Cole is deploring an attempt to investigate alledged antisemitic and or Israel/bashing commentary and incidents of harrassment on US campusus. Rightly, he is concerned about the freedom of speech and the free flow of ideas.

However, Professor Joseph Massad, quoted below, has made many assertions which are troubling to many people. In that they could potentially lead to great misunderstanding, even violence, perhaps they, and others like them, ought to be examined more closely, particularly in light of the fact that people on campuses, even at peace rallies, seem to have been threatened or intimidated.

***

One of the professors involved in the Columbia situation, Joseph Massad, is in the forefront of efforts to pull an intellectual switcheroo, equating Zionism with Nazism and antisemitism with discrimination against Palestinians. Moreover, he acknowledges Holocaust deniers in the Arab world - but calls them ZIONIST!

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=1467

"Those Arabs who deny the holocaust accept the Zionist logic as correct. Since these deniers reject the right of Zionists to colonise Palestine, the only argument left to them is to deny that the holocaust ever took place, which, to their thinking, robs Zionism of its allegedly "moral" argument... If those Arab deniers refuse to accept the criminal Zionist logic that justifies the murder and oppression of the Palestinians by appealing to the holocaust, then these deniers would no longer need to make such spurious arguments. All those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists."

This is a very elegant and extremely confusing attempt to smear the entire Zionist cause, and even on close reading is difficult to interpret. While apparently deploring antisemitism and admitting the existence of the Holocaust, he manages also to completely conflate the Zionist cause with the mistreatment of the Palestinian people - WHICH OF COURSE WAS NOT ITS PURPOSE. Nor, of course, does he mention that the oppression of the Palestinians is directly related to their war, the greater Arab war, against the ISRAELIS.

Details, details - but this is one reason he finds himself a hot topic.

And, he completely misinterprets the work of earlier historians, such as Lewis, with anti-Arabism - as does our own Malikshah.

This sentiment is being used to revise entire histories of the Middle East, particularly those that deal with the treatment of religious minorities under Islam. This in turn, is robbing those minorities - among them Jews - of THEIR history, including preconditions of apartheid and prejudice - against Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and other groups, not to mention pagans who were entirely wiped out, and which revisionism in turn affects the M.E. today.

It's an amazing bit of intellectual sophistry, all in the name of a just cause - but which is feeding into the overall climate, growing at an alarming rate, of antiJewish sentiment.

Unfortunately, far more virulent calls for outright Holocaust denial and historical revisionism are echoing Massad's carefully worded essays:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n3p-7_alloush.html

The writer above is all in favor of Holocaust revisionism. I suggest once again reading the entire piece. It might put the whole question of anti-Israel vs. antisemitism into a clearer light, as well as showing the intent of modern historical revisionism, which as I asserted, is robbing the Jewish people of their heritage.

It is not enough to dismiss complaints about this as "the victim spiel," as Malikshah attempts to do - phraseology which in and of itself is revealing, I might add.

[bemildred]

43. Irony indeed.

But you can't have it both ways.

Once you open the floor to motions to shut people up, there
arise inevitable disputes as to who is worthy of that sanction,
and on what grounds. I prefer to let everybody talk. Fools soon
distinguish themselves and smart people that you disagree with
ought to be listened to.

FWIW, I favored the boycott (sort of) but I would happily give it
up if it was also agreed that Cole and Malikshah likewise should
be allowed to speak their minds without harassment.

[Colorado Blue]

44. Bemildred, with respect, did you read Malikshah's comments

to me? He was quite rude and insulting, besides impugning the integrity of quoted sources - all of which are backed up by reams of scholarly data and research, including reports of contemporary events when they occurred.

My arguments with Cole's premises, and my comments regarding Malikshah, in no way amount to a boycott or to McCarthyism.

I do NOT see the connection, there is none to be made. So I disagree with you on this matter:) Therefore, you can please feel free to argue against the boycott, which IS McCarthyism and also extortionist:)

McCarthyism would be simply AGREEING with people when you think they're wrong, or not making the effort to find out for sure, or simply bending over and taking a hit or an insult, or just being quiet. Shutting people up, that's McCarthyism. I'm not shutting anybody up, I'm trying to discuss.

***

Now, my sources were insulted.

My sources are not revisionist - like some being put forth today - and they are not anti-Arab or anti-Palestinian. Moreover the information therein can be cross-referenced and widely supported.

And, when questioned by Malikshah, or rather disrespected by him, as in being scolded for being hyperbolic when in fact I was expressing, as is my right, deeply held beliefs such as a hope for peace, I provided MORE information, responding as best I could in a scholarly manner, rather than simply flipping him off as he did me, and telling us he needs a bath, referring to Jewish history as the victim spiel and going dingdingding.

In fact, I went to the trouble of researching the source he's relying upon concerning P.A. books, linked to the complete report plus the author's comments to CMIP, and so forth. I do not think that is harrassment. Indeed, it is putting the information out there for people to judge for themselves. I am actually showing him the courtesy of publishing his source, which evidence he says refutes mine.

How is that harrassment?

[bemildred]

48. Sorry, meant Prof. Massad. nt

[bemildred]

50. Separate subject:

I have a general problem with the notion of "hate speech".
It is not a simple subject. The problem is who decides? Where
everyone can agree, it's fine. Where there is wide and honest
disagreement, as with this issue, and where the notion is widely
and flamboyantly used for propaganda purposes, it makes the whole
issue less, ummm, helpful. If you cannot come up with some sort of
practical, context independent criteria for what is and what is not
"hate speech", and use them consistently in a way that reasonable
and well-meaning people can agree on, you just have a flame war.

I can agree, for instance, that TPOEZ has been around in the ME for
a long while, and that it is hate speech", and that it has had a
pernicious influence there, and that that's a bad thing, and that it
should be criticized, but I balk at the idea that that tells me
something fundamental about Islam or Muslim culture in the large.

I don't necessarily see that Prof. Cole's error there, if error it is,
particularly invalidates his general point about the attempts to
apply real world sanctions on Prof. Massad, which I consider wrong.

[Colorado Blue]

53. I had a long talk with my dad about this general subject,

although in that case it was about Ward Churchill.

He thinks, everybody should be allowed to say anything, any time. And, in a free society, I agree in principle.

Hate speech - where do you draw the line? Well, clearly when somebody is standing in the village square trying to get people to whack each other, that's not the same as a professor in a university.

It really is hard to tell sometimes, when an intelligent, deliberately provocative teacher with a point of view is trying to make people think, has perhaps crossed a line. Families of the 9/11 victims certainly thought Churchill went over. But his philosophy, about the industrial/technological society and its affect on the agricultural/pastoral world, is certainly one to be taken seriously.

Moreover, if people could step back and really look at the world in those terms, we could figure out how, with planning, to keep the horse and camel working alongside (or below!) the 747, and enable people to choose spheres in which to live and work - it would help the environment, too. But no, people are mad about the Eichmann crack, so they're ignoring everything else he had to say.

Germany, however, has decided it is necessary to have outlawed the Nazi Party and all its very potent symbols, for fear that their hatred should become a political movement, or words become action. I would be sorry to see that happen here!

Hopefully, we have enough ethnic and religious and philosophical diversity to counterbalance a Nazi movement, which I think people are afraid of and which is part of what's behind the Massad dust-up IMO. There's no question, the party has gotten stronger since Bush got "elected" in 2000. And, they're armed to the teeth but so is half the US as far as that goes, and the other half is thinking about it, unfortunately.

***

In the case of Columbia, or in other cases which might involve tenure, or department chairmanships, or again in the case of MEALAC where balance has been questioned, maybe that whole question of balance is the answer. People have questioned the balance of MEALAC, that perhaps in and of himself, Massad should live and be well and continue teaching, but that overall, the department is maybe out of whack and could use some other voices. I think that's reasonable. Because I totally would hate, like you, to see boycotts.

I do hope, like you, that people don't think the revisionists and the bigots in the M.E. present the whole picture of that very complex and multidimensional world! That's why people need to take advantage of this tool, the internet, and books, and each other - the whole world is at our fingertips now.

In fact, I read some very fine essays last night, by Arabian scholars, which I'll try to find an appropriate place to post. They were speaking about the Holocaust and interestingly, one spoke about the fact that Magreb states actually seem to feel "nostalgic" about their vanished Jewish communities and their contributions, and that the Magreb states actually have a different outlook generally from the others, which makes sense.

***

My point about Cole is simply this: if he is speaking in defense of Massad on principle, then I agree with him although I completely disagree with Massad's philosophy and do find it upsetting.

But, if he is defending him because of an anti-Israel bias, which he has been alleged by some to have expressed, then I'm unhappy. Does this make sense? I'd be happier if he were complaining about the boycott as well!

I encountered a reader and fan of his the other day who thought I was delusional and brainwashed when I linked her to Wikipedia articles about the five wars, the terrorism, and the "population transfer" of the M.E. Jewish communities after 1948. She seriously believes that the whole Israel/Arab struggle has been a completely one-sided affair, had never HEARD of these other factors. That worries me!

[bemildred]

56. A messy subject.

I don't think I'm up to belaboring it much further tonight.

I would suggest that merely being "offensive" is nothing at all.
People should have a right to be "offensive" all day long if
they like, there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons
for doing so, rhetorically speaking, but in either case it's
something one should be able to do verbally as much as one
likes (well, at least quite a lot). The question is how do you
distinguish being "offensive" from "hate speech"?

I'll see if I can spend a bit more time on the "incitement to
violence" question tomorrow.

[bemildred]

58. I think I'll leave it for now, sorry.

The question of when violence is and is not "legitimate" has been
argued ad nauseum here with little progress that I could see.

Almost everybody agrees that genocide, in the sense of trying to
wipe ones enemies out, is not OK (and people that think that that is
OK will not last long here anyway) but after that things tend to
degenerate fairly quickly. I tend to look for a consistent point of
view that one can apply generally, and I tend also to not want to
approach it as a moral or ethical issue so much as a practical one,
which seems to me to allow one to make better progress in arriving at
consistent and pragmatic "rules", and to derive the moral and ethical
imperatives instead of taking them as given. Being areligious, I
find the notion of commandments from a deity as a moral or ethical
basis unsatisfying.

William T. Vollmann has made what looks like an interesting contribution
to this debate in his recent work "Rising Up and Rising Down" but I
have not had a chance to read it yet.

Edit: just to be clear: the question of when violence is and is not
"legitimate" is central to the question of whether "incitement to
violence" is to be censured also.

[Colorado Blue]

59. Yes - I can dig it. Perhaps a revelation will occur. Hey,

you never know, right? The Vulcans could come:)

Catch you later!

[Malikshah]

51. Hmmm. When did I call anyone a name?

Asking for proof is rude and insulting?

Repeating the request is rude and insulting?

Ah.

OK, then. Questioning someone is now rude and insulting.

It is indeed unfortunate that discourse has come to this.

[Colorado Blue]

54. If I have misunderstood you, I apologize. nt

[Colorado Blue]

45. About Professor Cole - who's harrassing? It's a discussion!

Critiquing Cole on certain specific comments he made concerning middle eastern history, is not harrassing him. It is merely showing where he is, in fact, either making a mistake or not telling the whole (and very important) story.

Of course, this is an inherent problem with electronic media. It's very difficult to tell the full story in a blog. So balance, when the opportunity presents itself, is important - it isn't harrassment at all.

I doubt if Prof. Cole is even reading this thread. But, I wish he were so we could talk directly to him, he is very smart and well read, and that he has managed to make EVERYBODY mad is not a negative. It does point out that he can be controversial, and shouldn't always be taken 100% at face value.

It also points out the limits of history-by-blog. This can be SO misleading. People without background or the desire to learn more simply pick up imcomplete or, at worse, erroneous information and think it's gospel. That's a real problem these days. I think it's important, when that occurs, to balance it and fill it out.

Moreover, such comments aren't trying to shut Cole up, they're merely pointing out historical error, or interpretation of historical fact that amounts to error, such as the downplaying of the importance of antisemitic literature pre-Israel, or the actual extent of the importance of minority status in pre-1948 Middle Eastern lands, or glossing over the importance of those radical groups whom he mentions almost in passing, yet which have had great and dire impact on the shape of modern politics.

If an influential person has made statements which are in conflict with historical data, or which interpret same in such a way as to support a certain point of view while neglecting or ignoring another, it is not harrassment to point out how and where.

Moreover, if one assumes Cole has a particular point of view, which can be considered narrow or one-sided in some respects, then one can argue his thesis concerning the McCarthyism article has flaws or is limited in outlook or in perception.

That isn't harrassment either. That's argument, and that is OK.

Don't you think?

***

BTW - I am in favor of First Amendment rights, which you should be aware of from my arguments AGAINST the boycott. For example, I think that the professor in Colorado - temporary memory loss, sorry! - got stomped on too hard for his Eichmann comments. They were offensive but a professor is supposed to make people think.

But, reading some of the actual statements of certain professors, such as Massad, particularly as they have impact in the Middle East as well as here and in Europe, one can see where their comments might cause alarm among a certain minority.

[bemildred]

49. I will stipulate that Cole has no beef, so far anyway.

He clearly went out of his way to stir this up.
If somebody tries to get him fired or shut him up, I would object.

[Colorado Blue]

52. Me too. nt

[Coastie for Truth]

46. One very cynical, nasty, mean observation

There are only three categories of faculty or student speech that can not ever be censored--
1. Pro-Palestinian speech.
2. Pro-Israel speech.
3. Religious speech.

For our introductory, mandatory, survey Mechanical Engineering class, we had a Professor who was an Evangelical Minister - looked and sounded like Zell Miller and had that same body language. And before class he used to read Scripture - and then lecture us on it. Ten minutes out of every fifty minute class.

We complained and complained and complained -- and nothing was ever done.

[Colorado Blue]

55. I wish somebody had censored my algebra teacher. Now,

HE was BORING:)