In October 2004, I reported that Columbia University was planning to start a new Israel Studies Department, in a rather transparent attempt to deflect criticism of its extremely anti-Israel Middle East Studies Department [home of the infamous Joseph Massad, for example], an attitude that had allegedly caused some of the faculty to behave unpleasantly to Israeli and Jewish students. I objected that if the criticisms of one-sidedness and discrimination were valid, this was not likely the best way to deal with it. Moreover, if this was an appropriate response, Columbia should have spent its own money on the new program, rather than ask the Jewish community to foot the seven-figure bill.
The New York Sun reports on the results of the search for a director of the new "Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies." First, the "Columbia search committee responsible for hiring a director included one of academia's most outspoken critics of Israel, Rashid Khalidi [last seen on this blog condemning Columbia president Lee Bollinger for his sharp introduction of Ahmedinajed; see also "What Planet is Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi on], as well as a professor who supported an anti-Israel divestment campaign on campus, Lila Abu-Lughod." And the upshot? The new director is Yinon Cohen, who during Operation Defensive Shield, when the Israeli Defense Forces were in the West Bank successfully fighting those who had been blowing up buses and pizzerias, signed a letter expressing "our appreciation and support for those of our students and lecturers who refuse to serve as soldiers in the occupied territories."
And Martin Kramer has dug up a letter signed by Cohen in 2001, when the wave of Palestininan terrorism was just ramping up:
"We, faculty and students of Israeli universities, extend our arms in solidarity with your just cause, against repression of the popular uprising by the Israeli military forces.... Academic faculty in the occupied territories! We wish to cooperate with you in opposing the brutal policy of siege, closure and curfew of the IDF."
Unfortunately, all utterly predictable.
Isn't it likely to be just the usual interest group battles? There are several interest groups, and this one was perceived as needing to be a part of the decisionmaking process for some reason internal to the politics of the institution.
I wish my small university could get on the gravy train.
;-)
As far as the Israel Studies department goes, the obvious point was to at least implicitly persuade donors that this would "create some balance," but it's equally obvious that internal Columbia politics made this impossible. A good example why it's almost always bad practice to give a university an endowment for a specific purpose. It would be very bad form for a university to impose a litmus test on a position like Cohen's; but foolish for donors who are giving the money for pro-Israel reasons to turn it over to Columbia before they know who will be getting it.
as i understand it you said
1. we shouldn't pick a director of an academic program based on ideology but some more merit based measure
2. this guy has little merit (little work in the area
if he has little work in the area that indicates hes
1. ideologically in the middle
2. has little merit in the area
which would make him the exact opposite of what your advocating
Then: We're not an unstoppable lobby. CRUSH THEM!
Now: Our middle eastern studies department isn't biased, so rather than hire someone pro-Israel we're going to create an Israel-focused department. For reasons of balance. But our existing department isn't biased.
The point, though, is to ignore it; the real 'life of the mind' is now out here.
Because they
indoctrinateeducate our future leaders?It's only counterintuitive if you assume (a) identical decisionmaking processes are involved in adding a department and staffing a search committee and (b) the decisionmaking processes that exist are principled ones rather than the product of compromise. I don't see why either (a) or (b) would be true.
George Weiss, there's no contradiction at all because your (2) is wrong. Cohen doesn't do work on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but that's not the only thing that's interesting about Israel(well to some people it is). He has done work on Israel, just not the conflict.
However, the post did, for example, object, on idealogical grounds, to the inclusion of the two Mid-East professors.
George Weiss -- no you can't but that doesn't mean that all the members of the department have to have an academic interest in the conflict.
o:: I haven't seen any evidence that Cohen supports terrorists that want to destroy Israel and its people. I really doubt that he does, seeing how Cohen is Israeli himself.
Leave them to their obtuse machinations.
unless of course..there IS a ideological litmus test...ie lets get someone with a anti isreal stance
find professors who believe that their respective nations
should not exist.
Of course, DB seems to believe that the allegations of widespread bias and misconduct are completely true. Although he purports to leave open the question of whether the "criticisms of one-sidedness and discrimination were valid," he implies that they are. Perhaps the search committee for the director of the new institute does not share his point of view.
No you're not, not really.
There's nothing new under the sun.
And by the way, cvt, when someone says, "if the allegations were true," I really don't see how that implies one the "allegations are completely true."
WF-
this is the second time youv'e emphasized his status as an 'actual isreali'
is it fair to accuse actual Americans who supported draft dodging as unamerican? maybe..even if hes an actual American
if those people also claim America is engaged in a repression of a popular uprising...then perhaps even more so..even if hes an actual American...
now..true..having a dovish stance is not anti israel..but having that type of response (advocating going awol) can at least reasonably called anti isreal..even if not definitely so.
Well yeah, because it's a salient fact. Here you have a guy who lived most of his life in Israel, speaks Hebrew, consumes Israeli culture, has family and friends in Israel. He's got opinions about what Israel should or should not be doing. So now some guy on the internet tells him he's anti-Israel, with some dodgy formulations about how he can do that "reasonably if not definitely so"? While confusing advocating going AWOL and and supporting people who are potentially going to jail for refusing to obey orders that they object to on conscientious grounds?
I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous, and people should know better.
Also, the way I read your post, your argument seemed to be premised on the assumption that the allegations were true. You've clarified your position, but that makes it harder to follow your argument that Yinon Cohen is a bad choice. It seems to me that he just wouldn't be your choice.
Finally, I don't think there is an objective basis for your assertion that there are "clearly well-founded allegations of a strong anti-Israel bias in the department." That just seems to be an opinion that you share with like-minded people.
If the issue is that the department (or at least those who teach the modern Arab-Israeli conflict, as opposed to the couple of Hebrew literature profs) is so extreme and one-sided that it only tolerates anti-Israel viewpoints, it would hardly make sense to put someone from that department who is especially known for his anti-Israel views on the committee to choose a chair of a new Israel Studies department.
If there is no problem, then there is no need for a separate department of Israel Studies.
1. agreed to by many others who do live in isreal." argument. Its ad hominim in the end...
2. well-you can potentially go to jail for going not following orders (and that includes both not fighting in a particular thetor as well as going awol or draft dodging)..thats the military
Isreal is not the only party involved in the palestiaian/ireali conflict
therefore by definition-you don't have to be Isreali to have opinions about it.
I stand by my assertion that for a non-Israeli to call an Israeli "anti-Israel" over a disagreement about (Israeli!) politics is not just wrong, but also ridiculous.
On your 2, refusing to obey an order you think is immoral and going to jail for that is not the same as going AWOL.
I'm sorry, by definition of what term exactly does that follow?
Anyway, I never said you can't have opinions about Israel or whatever else.
Unless I'm missing something, Hoosier, Paisley is a politician with no academic accomplishments, whereas Cohen is an academic sociologist who signed some petitions and the like. Not seeing the analogy here.
unamerican doesnt mean literally unamerican-it means hess advocating valeus destructive to america..if someone really was a communist supporter...he was unamerican
but even so..
mcarthy didnt just call people unamerican-he called them communists-and accused them of actively trying to overthrow the US...(and ruined innocenst peoples lives in the process)...thats why he has a bad name
i ssuspect many of these people didnt really think the orders immoral..they just had a poltical objection...thats pretty diffrent.
He signed a letter along with 357 other Israeli college and university teachers! Is that your evidence that Columbia is appointing another anti-Israeli faculty member?
that becuase many countries have a stake in the welfare and stability of the region..and because many parties have interests and family and friends and ties with isreal-they can attack others who advocate destructive positions as counter to those interests-even if the person they attack may have more interests than them....since that person may be corrupted so much by politcal correctness that that his loyalty has changed- and his first loyalty is no longer to isreal but to his own sanctimonious idea of morality
I know. The thing about Brits was a joke. The point of the joke was that you can't just go around calling people un-American unless you have a very good reason. McCarthy didn't have a good reason, he had political disagreements and ambitions.
"i ssuspect many of these people didnt really think the orders immoral..they just had a poltical objection...thats pretty diffrent."
Well, we don't know! Some have purely moral objections, some have political objections, and some have a mix of the two! Who knows? Not us. I think you can now see how you don't get to call people "anti-Israel" willy-nilly.
I think you can now see how you don't get to call people "anti-Israel" willy-nilly.
>>
He seems to be explicitly supporting the use of arms against his countrymen (the "popular uprising" is, and always has been, a violent one). Irrespective of whether it would be unfair to call him anti-Israel if he merely disagreed with the government policy or called for boycotts of the IDF, after you support people's military action against your nation, you sort of lose the "I'm the true patriot!" game.
Amazing! A person's first loyalty is to morality rather than the state. Any libertarians on this here blog? Whaddya think of this weird notion?
On the subject at hand. Like I said, anybody can have opinions about anything. It's respectable to define what you think Israel's interests are and then to say which policies would promote and which would hinder those interests, wherever you live. And calling Israelis "anti-Israel" sounds ridiculous.
Professor Bernstein, in all due respect, your blogging about Israeli and Jewish politics in the past few months does not make me confident in your ability to identify the bias of others on these subjects.
In this case, you've assumed bias to exist by reputation, which is prejudice, no? This doesn't add to your credibility.
I'm sorry to be repeating myself. Dude's Israeli. You need very strong evidence to think he supports people who want to blow him and his family and friends up. I'm willing to believe(I'd have to see the original of the letter he signed though) that he supports(or at least doesn't oppose) riots and the like. No, that doesn't make him anti-Israel.
no i think you take the term anti isreal to the nth degree and think that by it people mean the person is really loyal to the palestian side..like hes a secret agent or somthing...
no.. i mean..by saying isreal does not have the right to do x..hes taking an anti isreal stance that limits the rights isrealis further than what the governement has already said they think they have. (even if he thinks limiting those rights is better for isreal)..thats whats meant by anti isreal..and thats whats generally meant in agruments such as these.
if americans decided to retake the indian reservations then id take the anti-american side of the debate pretty fast..but i wouldnt be a secret agent of the opposition-
seems fine for a civilian-not ok for a soldier
librarians would agree
but this is an issue between is Isreal asserting a right over someone else and another entity-you can take the states side side or disagree with the state. if you disagree with the state-your anti that state for the purposes of that issue.
if canada was invading the us and you thought it bad-and you lived in Canada-id consider you anti Canadian
If you believe running a red light is a moral duty, of course you should do it and face the consequences after that(that, or commit yourself to a mental hospital).
Preferring the state's moral judgment to yours is no way to live.
I'm against Canada's restricting non-Canadians' free speech rights too! AND I'm against a Canadian invasion of the USA. I'm a raving anti-Canadian!!! For the purpose of those issues, of course.
Come on.
only in EXTREME cases do you break the law first and ask questions later-and you also think its planely obvious that your right and the states wrong ..mostly..you stay behind the law and criticize it democratically.
when your given a direct order-and you disobey that order to much fanfare-and face jail (but know that almost nobody goes to jail for these things..i think some guys did like a day) then your not in an extreme case
Come on.
ok ill admit that its a poor choice of words to call someone an anti isreali just becuse he disagree with the states position on its right to do X
if you adimit that it was understood that what i meant (and probably what DB meant) was not that this guy was an anti isreal secret agent who doesn't want isreal to exist-but rather someone who is heavily against the rights of isreal on many diverse forign polciy issues-including its ability to use troops to invade gaza and find terrorists and kill them..
(if you agree to this..then my pint is that perhaps it was Columbia who chose him using an 'anti isreal' litmus test...and by anti isreal i mean what i said in the above clarification)
What's also true is that shooting people is a pretty extreme situation, for a lot of people.
And there's no opinion on this issue that makes you anti-Israel(as most people understand the term).
I'll take your word for it. I just wish people wouldn't make this "poor choice of words" so damn often.
so is it fair to suspect that his positions on such issues was a possible factor in Columbia employing him? (instead of it being david who's advocating the litmus test)
"(instead of it being david who's advocating the litmus test)"
Those are not mutually exclusive, but Prof. Bernstein stated that he's against ideological tests(as, I would guess, would the Columbia hiring committee if you asked them...)
While it is unclear to what extent the faculty of the Middle Eastern Studies department are offensive to or discriminate against those who are not anti-Israeli, the overwhelming anti-Israeli bias of the faculty of the department is as far as I can see undisputed and indisputable.
I don't think that the problem is that it doesn't make sense so much as that renaming Middle Eastern Studies would be difficult because the possible names are either cumbersome or politically loaded. Stanford once upon a time had a Romance Languages department, which split, on left/right political grounds, so the story goes, into the somewhat oddly named departments of "Spanish and Portuguese" and "French and Italian". These aren't as awkward as the names one can imagine for the Department for the Study of Middle Eastern Countries other than Israel.
My email addy is shown above. Any time you want a liberal to express some outrage, shoot me an email.
http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/
Interesting, not a single conservative has expressed even the slightest outrage at the many people being killed in darfur as we speak.
I guess that means conservatives really are racist.
[... Killing people in Darfur: bad]
...it's 1-0 on Darfur as well.
[This sports update was brought to you by people procrastinating on presentation preparation. Procrastinate with us, and you'll never give a good presentation again]
As I recall, it was conservative Christian groups who first condemned killings and oppression in Sudan- years before it was a popular liberal issue.
Are you seeing any *parody*?
I don't know why you want to keep kiciking this can down the road. You yourself confessed ignorance of my analogues from Irish history. Now, someone possessing your almost ostentatious discernment must admit that this puts him in no good position to evaluate the success or failure of the parody.
I mean, even Monty Python's legendary "Spanish Inquisition" bit would "fail" for a viewer who had never heard of, let's say, Spain.
And I say you're bluffing and I'm not really missing anything here.
Could be wrong, but then, what's the worst that can happen?
I hope that this reflects a partisan bias, as the alternative is troubling indeed.
Or maybe the outrage factory needs to be closed.
Seconded. The supply of outrage that is generated organically is more than sufficient.
The position Cohen fills in Columbia was created in order to balance its extreme anti Israeli - can we agree that people like Joseph "Arab Homosexuality is a Zionist Plot" Massad are anti-Israel? (They are not Israeli) - Mid East department. When that role is filled by a person from the far left, who generally agrees to much of ME department's views on Israel and whose first action is to invite extremely far left Neve Gordon to appear, clearly the desired balance was not achieved. Surely even an academic can see that?
You ask a /Mick/ "What's the worst that could happen?"! I guess you really /don't/ know that culture; I doubt there are three of us out there that couldn't answer that one for at least half an hour.
(And the two who couldn't are just passed out.)
>>>And I say you're bluffing and I'm not really missing anything here.
Based on your extensive knowledge of--apparently--ones and zeros?
Maybe you should ask outspoken Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu about what they think of Hagee.
This is the same type of charges that Bush/Cheney make -- that those who do not support the American adventure in Iraq are anti-American.
Now, as to Prof Cohen's scholarship, it does not appear to be very incendiary: http://spirit.tau.ac.il/socAnt/cohen/index.html
Actually, McCarthy only has a "bad name" among the left because they are sympathetic to Communism.
He didn't ruin any innocent people's lives either.
But of course that doesn't matter. Facts never seem to.
i see you didn't recognize the satire in my post. my statement was just as ridiculous as the one i was mocking.
Not really, that was a rhetorical question.
"Based on your extensive knowledge of--apparently--ones and zeros?"
Good guess! But no.
And how do these discussions always degenerate into name calling? From rockets to the Sudan to defending Joe McCarthy? Bunch of trolls.
What strikes me about the entire /historiographical/ question of what to do with McCarthy is that, whatever we do with him, we *must* stop assuming that someone was innocent on the sole basis of a statement from McCarthy that he was *not*.
Other than that, I think Richard Gid Powers was right in suggesting that McCarthy was the worst thing that ever happened to the anti-communist movement in the US.
(I'd add a brief for my belief that the best thing to happen was Whittaker Chambers's conversion to democracy, but that is a completely different tangent.)
Let me clarify: For us it *isn't* a rhetorical question. It's a reflex: If you ask, I will tell you. That sort of thing.
>>>Good guess! But no.
Thanks for clearing that up?
Well, it was for you, or else you'd be answering, no?
"Thanks for clearing that up?"
;)
However, he wrote to the Palestinians that he stood with them during the Palestinian Intifada. The Intifada was executed as a first step to drive the Israelis first out of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and thereafter out of those lands designated on Palestinian maps as "Palestine", ie Israel. This Yasser Arafat explicitly stated, repeatedly, to his people and to the Arab world in Arabic, even as he uttered reassuring words in English. Those readers who would like to check my statements for themselves can find translations of those speeches at MEMRI.org, in their archives, along with translations of more recent speeches by Mahmoud Abbas and the Hamas leadership, explaining the intent of more recent actions.
So, yes, the political opinion of an Israeli academic who openly supports those acting to erase his country from the map and his compatriots from existing on the physical plane does meet the definition of anti-Israel. Sorry.
Whatever MEMRI says Arafat said, it's really doubtful that Cohen supports the erasing of Israel from the blah blah blah blah blah. The reason it's really doubtful is that he's spent most of his life in Israel, speaks Hebrew and knows Israeli culture, and he's got family and friends in Israel; in other words, he's Israeli. I believe I mentioned that already.