Read below CAMPUS Articles and Effective Letters October 19, 2007:

 

1)   NEW!  Oxford Union Is Dead - Alan M. Dershowitz,  FrontPageMagazine, Oct. 19, 2007

2)   Campus 'Holy War' threat growing - Julie Henry, Sunday Telegraph - 29/07/2007

3)   Professor's Letter to the Muslim Student's Association at MSU

4)    Should This Academic Fraudster Be Entertained At Stanford?
  - Amichai Magen about Holocaust denial in Stanford    

5)   Letter on “Academic Freedom and Prejudice"by M.Ostroff

6)   Letter on “Freedom of Speech on the Israel Lobby”

7)   Letter of Ex-Student to Brandeis University

8)   LETTERS DO WORK! Pennsylvania State Univ. Accepts Sole Letter-writer's Point !!!

9)   Letter to the IRISH TIMES on BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI COLLEGES 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)      

Oxford Union Is Dead

 

By Alan M. Dershowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 19, 2007

 

This is an obituary for the Oxford Union, which claims to be, one of the most famous and distinguished debating societies in the world. The reality is that it is no longer a debating society at all; it has become a propaganda platform for extremist views, primarily of the hard-left. It is now stopped even pretending to present both sides of controversial issues. To be sure it puts forward a façade of balance, by presenting speakers who purport to represent both sides of an issue. But the Oxford Union has become a Potemkin village where a façade of fairness serves as a cover for the reality of bias. Consider for example a debate that is scheduled to take place at the Oxford Union on October, 23 2007 at 8:30pm. The proposition before the house is as follows: “This house believes that One State is the Only Solution to the Israel-Palestine Conflict”

Every rational person knows that the so-called one-state solution is simply a way of achieving by demography what the Arab world has failed to achieve by military attacks: namely the destruction of Israel as a democratic, secular, Jewish state. A one-state solution would produce yet another Islamic fundamentalist state in place of the secular democracy that is now Israel. The resolution is simply another way of presenting an anti-Israel side (the one-state solution) and a pro-Israel side (the two-state solution). Not surprisingly the three debaters on the anti-Israel side are three well known anti Israel extremists. No problem there, because the one state side is the anti-Israel side. As Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of the new republic put it: “A bi-national state is not the alternative for Israel. It is an alternative to Israel.”

Now let’s turn to the pro-Israel side. One of three speakers on the pro-Israel side is Peter Tatchell who is a member of the gay rights group called Out Rage! and of the extreme left wing of the green party. He too is virulently anti-Israel and favors boycotts of the “the oppressive Israel state.” Yet the Oxford Union picked him to represent the pro Israel side, probably because he once opposed boycotting a gay rights march in Israel. I couldn’t find any record of Tatchell proposing boycotts of “oppressive” Muslim states, even those that execute gays. And he’s the pro-Israel advocate!

Yet compared to the next debater for the pro Israel side, Tatchell sounds like David Ben Gurion. Readers of this article will probably not believe it when I tell them who else was picked to represent the pro Israel side by the benighted Oxford Union (after I turned down an invitation because of the “when did you stop beating your wife” terms of the debate and my proposed teammates). The pro Israel debater is none other than the notorious Norman Finkelstein, an anti-Semitic bigot who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany, saying “[I] can’t imagine why Israel’s apologists would be offended by a comparison with the Gestapo.” This failed academic, who was fired from several universities for substandard scholarship, emotional instability and abusing students who disagreed with his extreme anti-Israel views, was recently denied tenure and fired by DePaul University. Finkelstein is beloved by Neo-Nazis such as Ernst Zundel, who credits Finkelstein for helping to promote Holocaust denial. Finkelstein is also an open supporter of Hezbollah, which advocates the destruction of Israel. He has called Israeli supporters, including me, “war criminals”

Yet by the standards of the Oxford Union, Norman Finkelstein is regarded as a pro Israel “scholar” – at least in this debate. Just last May, the same Finkelstein was selected to debate the anti-Israel side of the proposition: “This House believes the pro-Israeli lobby has successfully stifled Western debate about Israel’s action.” Considering the locus of the debate – and its sponsor (the Arab nation of Qatar) – it is not surprising that the proposition won overwhelmingly, despite its demonstrable falsehood. Truth plays little role in Oxford Union debates.

Will Oxford’s next debate be on whether the Holocaust occurred? And will they select as their debater in favor of the occurrence of the Holocaust the notorious Holocaust denier, David Irving? That would not be surprising since Norman Finkelstein and David Irving are cut from the same cloth and Finkelstein admires the Hitler-loving Irving. Wait! The Oxford Union just announced that David Irving has been invited to participate in a future debate. Recently Irving said that Jews were responsible for what happened to them during WWII (though he has denied that anything really bad happened to them) and that the “Jewish problem” was at the root of most of the wars of the last 100 years. That – plus his total discreditation as a scholar – would seem to qualify him, by Oxford standards, for defending the Holocaust. Perhaps his debate partner will be David Duke.

The Oxford Union: may it rest in peace, along side Pravda and other departed purveyors of “truths,” Stalin-style.

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

2)     Campus 'Holy War' threat growing

By Julie Henry, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:42am BST  29/07/2007

 

Campuses face more cases of students becoming radicalised by extremist propaganda, a university vice-chancellor has warned.

Professor Mark Cleary, of Bradford University, was speaking as four of his undergraduates were jailed for a total of 11 years last week for glorifying Islamic terrorism.

He said the problem of how to detect extremist material cut right across the higher education sector. "We cannot monitor and control every bit of information that comes in to the university," he said. "But we are certainly not complacent. The sector as a whole is grappling with the issue.

"It is far better if we are able to identify these issues within the university and work closely with the appropriate authorities and get these things sorted out and for prosecutions to take place."

The plot by Aitzaz Zafar, Awaab Iqbal, Akbar Butt and Usman Malik to launch a Jihad, or "Holy War" and to persuade others to become "soldiers of Islam", came to light when a schoolboy, Mohammed Ifran Raja, ran away from home in February last year. Raja, from Ilford, Essex, planned to join the students and travel to Pakistan to train as a terrorist. He was sentenced to two years youth detention.

During the trial, it emerged that the first-year students had used campus computer facilities to compile extremist material. Police who raided Iqbal's flat in Bradford found a photo montage that had been edited to include his face among the 9/11 hijackers.

Their extreme views alarmed the university's Islamic Society, when at a meeting, Zafar called for Muslims to kill anyone who dared re-publish Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed.

The society ejected them, but the university only became aware of the incident after the police raids.

A university spokesman said the society's decision to isolate the group demonstrated that moderate Muslim students were prepared to act when they came across unacceptable behaviour.

Up to 48 British universities have been infiltrated by fundamentalists, according to Professor Anthony Glees, the director of Brunel University's Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies. He claims that followers of Omar Bakri, the founder of the disbanded al-Muhajiroun, continue to preach on campuses.

A Government report published in December warned of "serious, but not widespread, Islamic extremist activity in higher education institutions".

Government guidance, which asks staff to log suspicious behaviour, has been rejected by the University and Colleges Union, which described it as a "witch-hunt".

a.                   Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

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

 

3)     Professor's e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association at MSU

On this www.take-a-pen.org website on May 26, 2007

 

The following is true per  http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman. Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that connected the Prophet Muhammad with today's Islamist terrorists. The group had complained the cartoons were "hate speech."


Professor Wichman's e-mail said the following:


"Dear Moslem Student's Association:

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues.
  
I counsel you, dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal and uncivilized Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

Those of you who do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that those of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering"
         ------------------

As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and mandatory diversity training for faculty and a seminar on hate and discrimination for freshman. Now the chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.

For its part, the university is standing its ground, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.

 

Send this to your friends, and ask them to do the same. Tell them to keep passing it around until the whole country gets it. We are in a war.

"We either start to publicly express ourselves or this political correctness crap is killing us."

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

 

 

4) SHOULD THIS ACADEMIC FRAUDSTER BE ENTERTAINED AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY?
Holocaust denial comes to Stanford
By Amichai Magen
The Stanford Daily
January 25, 2007

The Coalition for Justice in the Middle East (CJME) and its splinter group, Students Confronting Apartheid in Israel (SCAI), are at it again; pulling no punches in their relentless campaign to demonize the Jewish People and delegitimize Israel. Tonight, the two student groups are stooping to new lows and aligning themselves with the most radical elements in the Middle East by hosting Norman Finkelstein on this campus.

Finkelstein is an academic joke, and a bad one at that. The 54-year-old Assistant Professor at DePaul University, Illinois, has been hired and let go by several middling schools, before gaining his current (untenured) position in 2003. The New York Times Book Review has described his work as "juvenile," "arrogant" and "stupid."

He is an American-born son of two Holocaust survivors who began his career as an anti-Israel political agitator – circumstances which on their own make his claims to objective historical scholarship on the Holocaust highly suspect. Finkelstein can neither read nor write German. Being unable to access many of the sources that are the foundation of sound research in this highly complex and sensitive field has not prevented Finkelstein from passing sweeping, tendentious and twisted judgments on one of the saddest, and most important, episodes in human history.

In essence, Finkelstein's argument is as follows: The Jews, in a fiendish conspiracy, have fabricated a "Holocaust Industry" in order to portray themselves as victims, cynically exploit their suffering and consolidate Israel as a power set on regional domination. If the Holocaust had never happened, the Jews would have invented it themselves, since the Holocaust served their diabolical quest for money and global imperialism.

This thesis is a hodge-podge of pathological paranoia, ignorance, malice and brutal disrespect to the memory of the millions of human beings systematically murdered by the Nazis (Christians, Jews and Muslims). If we applied Finkelstein's warped logic, we would conclude that Blacks "exploit" the history of slavery to obtain civil rights gains or that in the 20th-century, women have created a "Feminism Industry" in a cruel attempt to gain power and subjugate men. How many Einsteins, how many Kafkas, how many Menuhins, how many lives (born and yet to be born) were lost forever in the furnaces of Auschwitz? The world will never know. But to suggest that the Jewish People, or anyone else on this planet, has "profited" from the extinguishing of so many souls – each of infinite value in its own right – is monstrous beyond belief.

Finkelstein's brand of Holocaust denial is all the more pernicious for its relative subtlety. Unlike David Irving – who claims the gas chambers never existed and that Hitler was the Jews' greatest friend – Finkelstein (who calls Irving "a good historian") admits that it did happen, and then proceeds to turn the Holocaust into a tool with which to attack its primary victim. In the Finkelstenian mind, the Jews, and the Jews alone, are prohibited from collective mourning. Jewish insistence that the Holocaust be remembered becomes an act of unforgivable Jewish aggression, for which Israel must be "censured," to use one of his favorite expressions of attack. This Holocaust erosion is at once more subversive and more dangerous than the outright factual denial practiced by the likes of Irving or Iran's President, Ahmedinejad. It insidiously assaults our moral imperative to remember the Holocaust and eats away at its chief lesson to humanity: Never again!

Not surprisingly, Finkelstein has become the house favorite of neo-fascists in America, Europe and the Middle East; the dream-Jew of the post-Holocaust anti-Semites. David Duke – the white supremacist and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klax Klan – endorses him warmly on his Web site (www.davidduke.com). German neo-Nazi queen, Ingrid Rimland, has intimated that Finkelstein's writing makes her feel "like a kid in a candy store." And Finkelstein's own enthusiasm for Osama bin Laden and Hezbollah have made him a welcome guest on the radical Shiite militia's official satellite TV station, Al-Manar.

Finkelstein is an American citizen and thus at liberty to express his odious views. But free speech is not at issue here. The real question is should this academic fraudster be entertained at Stanford University? Does Finkelstein's message of hate enhance or diminish our academic standards and community? And is it legitimate for CJME, a Stanford funded student organization, to offer its uncritical, enthusiastic endorsement to a man who defames an entire people and its six million murdered innocents purely for the purpose of making Israel look bad?

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

 

5)     Maurice’s letter:

Dear Professor Mary Sue Coleman                                                 May 14, 2006

Re: Academic Freedom and Prejudice

Your words at the Martin Luther King Jr. Symposium last January, carried an admirable ring of sincerity. You said inter alia "It is essential that we raise our voices, as individuals and as a university community, to draw attention to prejudice, discrimination and neglect that hampers the fostering of that welcoming environment." (*Bolds by editor)

Very sadly, rather than diminishing, prejudice appears to be growing within Americas great universities.  Students complain about professors who discourage them from expressing legitimate views, especially when said professors make extreme partisan statements without any attempt at substantiation. The mission statement of Students for Academic Freedom (SAF) states that these are routine occurrences on campuses today.

In these circumstances, I hope you will agree that though academic freedom is sacrosanct, the time is overdue for a clarification of its meaning and the legitimate measures which may be taken to prevent abuse and even possible deterioration of standards that could result from the sense of security given by tenure.

While universities refrain from interfering in the opinions expressed by faculty members, nevertheless, to maintain their reputations, universities need to constantly monitor the standards of scholarship (not the views) displayed by them, not only in the classrooms but off-campus as well.

Publication off-campus of the academic status of the authors, in articles showing sub-standard scholarship, must adversely affect the reputation of their universities in the eyes of critical readers, creating concern about the level of education students are receiving.

In this connection, I copy below an open letter I wrote to Professor Cole of your university, in which I take issue with the unscholarly arguments he uses in a petition he is organizing.

I would very much appreciate a considered reply, which will be published on the Internet, as will this letter.

Sincerely,
Maurice Ostroff
Herzliya
, Israel

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

6) An open letter to Professor Juan Cole
         
From Maurice Ostroff
                                                              May 13, 2006
 
Dear Professor Cole,
 

Your petition “Freedom of Speech on the Israel Lobby” addressed to the
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations

 
I am writing to ask you to please reconsider your petition because it constitutes an appeal to restrict that very freedom of speech that you advocate.
 
Your call on the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to condemn the smearing of Professors Mearsheimer and Walt as “anti-Semites” is fallacious. There has been no such smearing and your allegation misleads those who are asked to sign the petition. 
 
I ask you as an academic of stature, to re-read your serious allegation that Mearsheimer and Walt were smeared as “anti-Semites” and judge whether the manner in which it has been presented meets the academic standards of the great university you represent. On reconsideration, I trust you will agree that serious judgmental statements of this nature should not stand alone without substantiation.  You do a disservice to the signatories by imposing your judgment in omitting to document examples of the statements to which you object, with actual quotations in context, allowing the signatories to judge whether or not they are "smears"

Even in his hard-hitting article in the Washington Post ,Eliot Cohen does not call the authors anti-Semitic. Taking your Webster definition of anti-Semitism a stage further; he writes "If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information -- why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic". Note he refers to the paper not the authors. I do not believe you would deny the right to express opinions of this nature, even if you disagree with them, especially since you do not hesitate to use pejorative adjectives and cast abusive epithets like calling peaceful demonstrators in Israel fascists.(Informed Opinion, July 26,2004)

In the response by Alan Dershowitz, to which you refer I cannot find any statement accusing professors Mearsheimer and Walt of anti-Semitism, though he does legitimately discuss anti-Semitism at some length. The subject was unavoidable in view of the fact that, Mearsheimer and Walt accuse the lobby of indiscriminately crying anti-Semitism. In this it seems that they anticipated the substance of your petition.
 
The fact that Dershowitz draws attention to the similarity between Mearsheimer and Walt’s allegations and those promulgated in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and in Nazi literature does not mean he is accusing Mearsheimer and Walt of anti-Semitism. He is merely making a perfectly valid, verifiable observation supported by copious footnotes.

Your appeal to suppress such observations by labeling them as accusations of anti-Semitism, contradicts your support of free-speech. As you so rightly stated in your petition, “Democracy requires free public debate of all issues affecting the public weal”
 
Please withdraw your petition or, in all fairness, make the contents of this letter available to the signatories.

I would appreciate your considered response which will be distributed on the internet, as will this letter.

Sincerely,
Maurice Ostroff

Herzliya, Israel

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

7) Letter of Ex-Student to Brandeis University - May 2, 2006

For background read: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20394_Terror_Enablers_at_Brandeis&only

The e-mail was sent to five of Brandeis' top administration staff.
I got the email addresses and idea for the email from an anti-Semitic Brandeis student's (Kevin Montgomery) blog. I then modified it to say the exact opposite of what that Jew-hater was encouraging people to write....

To: terris@brandeis.edu - Daniel S. Terris, director of the International Center for Ethics, Justice, and Public Life, who actively lobbied for the artwork to be removed , and to:
jreinhar@brandeis.eduJehuda Reinharz – University President
sawyer@brandeis.edu – Rick Sawyer, Dean of Student Life
alwina@brandeis.eduAlwina Bennet – Assistant Dean of Student Life
jadams22@brandeis.edu - Jamele Adams - Assistant Dean of Student Life in Support of Diversity

Subject: Thanks for not supporting the anti-Israel artwork on campus

    I am thrilled by the actions of the Brandeis Administration last weekend. The Brandeis administration had a moral obligation to pull the anti-Israel incitement masked as "paintings by Palestinian children", and was right in doing so.
   With the resurgence of anti-Semitism throughout the world and on university campuses, it is imperative that Brandeis remain an outpost against anti-Semitism and against hatred to Israel.

    Such "artwork of Palestinian" children has no place on Brandeis' campus.

    When the Palestinians renounce violence and stop indoctrinating their children with anti-Semitic, Nazi propaganda , then they will have earned the right to have their voices heard. Until then, their voices of mere hatred have no place on any university campus.

Sincerely,
S. R. Class of 1995

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

8)      LETTERS DO WORK!!!
Pennsylvania State University Accepts  Sole Letter-writer's Point
         
April 26, 2006  

Joy Wolfe, senior letter-writer of Manchester, mailed this to the University,
Re: its cancelling exhibit on Palestinian Terror:
---Original Message-----
From: Joy Wolfe [mailto:j.wolfe@dial.pipex.com]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: University cancels exhibit on Palestinian Terror

She attached the article about this down below, and received this answer:

''Dear Ms. Wolfe:

Thank you for your note expressing concern over the proposed art exhibit.  President Spanier is out of town and his schedule will make it unlikely that he can respond in a timely manner so I am responding on his behalf, but I will be sure that he sees your note.

I certainly understand your concern, because there has been much confusion on this issue in the media. First, and most importantly, the "administration" does not condone censorship of artwork and had no role in this matter.  Indeed, we have worked diligently with the art department to help find a way to ensure that the student has an opportunity to display his work.

On Monday the student was again notified by email and in person that the space was available for his use the rest of this week and that two people from the department were also available to help him set it up.  I was informed last night that the student does not feel ready to proceed at this time and would prefer to wait until the fall.  We have assured him that the University will help to facilitate the exhibit whenever he is ready.

So let me reiterate that in no way is Penn State blocking the presentation of his work because of its content.

Again, thank you for writing. We appreciate your concern over this matter.

Sincerely,
Steve MacCarthy
Vice President for University Relations
''

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

 Pennsylvania  State University cancels exhibit on Palestinian Terror

======================================== ============

PSU censors exhibit By Jessica Remitz Collegian Staff Writer Friday, April 21, 2006

www. collegian. psu. edu/archive/2006/04/04-21-06tdc/04-21-06dn ews-13. asp

 

For Penn State student Josh Stulman, years of hard work ended in disappointment yesterday when the university cancelled his upcoming art exhibit for violation of Penn State's policies on nondiscrimination, harassment and hate.

 

Three days before his 10-piece exhibit -- Portraits of Terror -- was scheduled to open at the Patterson Building, Stulman (senior-painting and anthropology) received an e-mail message from the School of Visual Arts that said his exhibit on images of terrorism "did not promote cultural diversity" or "opportunities for democratic dialogue" and the display would be cancelled.

 

The exhibit, Stulman said, which is based mainly on the conflict in Palestinian territories, raises questions concerning the destruction of Jewish religious shrines, anti-Semitic propaganda and cartoons in Palestinian newspapers, the disregard for rules of engagement and treatment of prisoners, and the indoctrination of youth into terrorist acts.

 

"I'm being censored and the reason for censoring me doesn't make sense," Stulman said.

 

Charles Garoian, professor and director of the School of Visual Arts, said Stulman's controversial images did not mesh with the university's educational mission.

 

The decision to cancel the exhibit came after reviewing Penn State's Policy AD42: Statement on Nondiscrimination and Harassment and Penn State's Zero Tolerance Policy for Hate, he wrote.

 

Garoian could not be reached by The Daily Collegian for further comment by press time yesterday.

 

Penn State spokesman Bill Mahon wrote in an e-mail message that "there are other issues involved in the display that has caused a problem, issues that have nothing to do with the content of the painting." Mahon wrote that he did not know all the details.

 

"We always encourage those who are offended by free speech to use their own constitutional right to free speech to make their concerns known," Mahon wrote. "This is an educational institution and people should embrace opportunities to inform one another and the public. ... We don't have a right to hide art."

 

Stulman said the exhibit, which is sponsored by Penn State Hillel, aims to create awareness on campus about the senselessness of terrorism and drew inspiration from images that have appeared in the public through newspapers and television.

 

He said he was shocked at the university's decision to cancel the exhibit and that he has tried to meet with Garoian on numerous occasions to discuss his artwork.

 

"It's not about hate. I don't hate Muslims. This is not about Islam," Stulman said. "This is about terrorism impacting the Palestinian way of life and Israel way of life."

 

Stulman said advertisements for the event were defaced in the Patterson and School of Visual Arts buildings, one of which had a large swastika on it.

 

Stulman, who is Jewish, said he felt threatened and abused by the Nazi symbol and is concerned for his artwork and his personal well-being.

 

Garoian also wrote that exhibit space in the School of Visual Arts is reserved for students and faculty, not groups with a particular agenda.

 

Stulman said he created his paintings on his own and he approached Penn State Hillel in February to help with advertising costs and food for the opening. He said the School of Visual Arts did not object to his earlier exhibit, also sponsored by Hillel. Tuvia Abramson, director of Penn State Hillel, said while Hillel sponsored the Stulman's exhibit, the group had nothing to do with his message or content.

 

"We don't have a political agenda except to support the voice of Jewish students," he said.

 

Abramson said Hillel is exploring other venues for Stulman's exhibits to ensure his message does not go unnoticed.

 

"It's about opening eyes and challenging viewpoints," Abramson said. "Artistic expression is the basis for creativity -- but here, it was blocked."

 

--Collegian staff writers Meaghan Haugh and Devon Lash contributed to this article.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9)  Letter to the IRISH TIMES   -       May 20, 2005

BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI COLLEGES 

by John Harpur, Vice-President for Public Relations, Irish Federation of University Teachers

Madam, - In a controversial debate that has received little attention over here, the UK Association of University Teachers (AUT) on April 22nd passed a motion at a national AUT council meeting to boycott both Haifa and Bar iLan universities.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem is also a potential target.

The background to the AUT decision is a farrago of ideological analyses and propaganda relating to the participation of certain Israeli institutions in the management of the Palestinian issue. In reality Israel, despite its flaws, is the only reasonably functioning democracy in a region dominated by the worst forms of feminist, political and theocratic political repression.

Due to an embedded anti-Semitism in European intellectual culture, it is nearly impossible to raise rational arguments in defence of Israel.

If one recalls the deeply offensive Punch caricatures of "the Oirish" and the crude blanket generalisations of the Irish in Britain as potential terrorists over the past 30 years, then one can grasp some minute insight into the portrayal of Israel as replete with people of one religious and one political persuasion bent on the creation of a greater Judaea-Sumeria. Of course, the fact that political life may be less homogenous than that is sometimes inconvenient to acknowledge in cultures tuned to resonate to anti-Semitism.

It is a fact that there are political movements in Israel that profoundly object to the political privations imposed on the Palestinian population.

Of course, much of the material misery of the same population could be ameliorated if the Arab "brothers" dug deep enough into their oil wealth, as has the global Jewish Diaspora. In the absence of this, we are treated to tantrums by the AUT.

If the same boycott logic had been applied to Irish colleges because of individual staff identification with republicanism, would we have progressed to the Belfast Agreement more slowly - if at all? Would the Republic be trumpeting its Celtic Tiger legacy?

The end of dialogue marks the end of civility. Shame on the AUT for supporting the ending of intellectual commerce with a nation that has suffered so much indignity historically. - Yours, etc,

JOHN HARPUR,
Vice-President for Public Relations,
Irish Federation of University Teachers,