Finkelstein "security threat"? Haifa professors discuss.

MORE on the detention of American Jewish professor Norman Finkelstein at Ben Gurion airport in Israel, where he was held overnight before being put back on a plane for the United States.

Here is how it was reported by Yossi Melman in the daily Ha'aretz

Hebrew: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/986554.html

Israel denies entry to high-profile critic Norman Finkelstein
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

The Shin Bet security service detained and deported an American Jewish professor who is a prominent critic of the Israeli occupation when he landed at Ben-Gurion International Airport on Friday.

Professor Norman Finkelstein was interrogated for several hours and held in an airport cell before being put on a plane back to Amsterdam, his point of departure. Finkelstein said he was told he could not return to Israel for 10 years.

The Shin Bet said Finkelstein "is not permitted to enter Israel because of suspicions involving hostile elements in Lebanon," and because he "did not give a full accounting to interrogators with regard to these suspicions."

However, in e-mail and phone interviews with Haaretz while in detention at the airport, Finkelstein said, "I did my best to provide absolutely candid and comprehensive answers to all the questions put to me. I am confident that I have nothing to hide. Apart from my political views, and the supporting scholarship, there isn't much more to say for myself: alas, no suicide missions or secret rendezvous with terrorist organizations. I've always supported a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. I'm not an enemy of Israel."

Finkelstein visited Lebanon a few months ago and met with Hezbollah operatives there, and subsequently published articles.

Finkelstein, 55, has accused Israel of exploiting the Holocaust for political ends. He recently left DePaul University following pressure by Jewish organizations and individuals, including Professor Alan Dershowitz.

He also said in the interview that he was "en route to Palestine to see one of my oldest and dearest friends, Musa Abu-Hashhash."

Finkelstein said he was asked whether he had met with Al Qaida operatives, whether he had been sent to Israel by Hezbollah and how he intended to finance his stay in Israel.

"I was kept in a holding cell at the airport for approximately 24 hours. It wasn't a Belgian bed-and-breakfast, but it wasn't Auschwitz either. I had several unpleasant moments with the guards at the airport and in the holding cell, but since martyrdom is not my cup of tea, I'll spare you the details," Finkelstein said.

He said he eventually used a cellphone belonging to another detainee and called another friend he was scheduled to see in Israel, the journalist Allan Nairn, who called attorney Michael Sfard. Sfard met with Finkelstein and told him he could appeal the ban; however, Finkelstein said he has been to Israel at least 15 times and declined to appeal.

Sfard on Saturday said banning Finkelstein from entering the country "recalls the behavior of the Soviet bloc countries."

Note: "Hezbollah operatives" - Hezbollah, the "Party of God", is a major political party in Lebanon. I would not support it myself, but lots of Lebanese, at least from the Shi'ite population, do see it as their party. I don't know whether Yossi Melman's otherwise fair article used a
Hebrew equivalent of "operative", but in English that word is normally used of people working for agencies like Shin Bet, or clandestine terrorist societies. The latter is how the Israeli security establishment and its
allies wish to present Hezbollah, but wishing does not make it so. As we shall see, this is used to pretend that Finkelstein is not just a political opponent or critic, of whose contacts one may disapprove, but someone engaged in illegal activity who presents a danger.

Anyway, here is some comment by Haifa University professor Avraham Oz, who appends some different comment from his colleagues:


Dear friends,

You may have heard that US academic Norman Finkelstein was detained a couple of days ago by the Israeli authorities at the airport upon coming to visit the occupied territories and sent back home. Now granted that Finkelstein is a controversial figure in academe: the reason for his detention and expelling from the country is based on his opinions, as expressed in his books and articles. So much for an academic establishment which made a loud worldwide noise when the University of Haifa was boycotted by a union of academic teachers: no whisper was raised by members of academia in Israel to protest the case of detaining a fellow academic for his opinions, radical as they might be.

I send you the only two mails to date posted on the academic circuit of my university, one by my colleague Professor (of psychology) Micah Leshem and one by me, both obviously bitter and ironic, trying to alert our colleages to the implications of their roaming silence regarding this gross breach of academic freedom. And then two typical answers, by colleagues from the university. Note the last paragraph of the last message, by Professor of Business Administration Steven Plaut, who suggests that Israeli academics such as Leshem and me should get the same treatment by the Israeli authorities as did Finkelstein. Needless to say, our administration lets such comments pass without response. After all, our university is a haven of academic freedom!

For better days,
A. Oz


---------- Forwarded messages ----------

1. from Micah Leshem:

The well oiled anti-academic boycott machine of the University of Haifa has swung into action to fight for the Academic Freedom of Dr. Norman Finkelstein, an American Scholar with views critical of the Israeli Establishment.
The university of Haifa Vice President has called on the government of Israel to respect plurality of scholastic views, especially in view of the recent attempt to boycott our university by British academics critical of Israeli Academics' indifference to compromised academic freedom in selected academic institutions in Judea and Samaria.
Her press release emphasized that the University of Haifa has a tradition of not tolerating any infringement of academic freedom anywhere on campus, and that we have experienced security personnel to back this up. She warned the shabbak that interference with academic freedom of a colleague will be met with the full force of the university's UK lawyers and lobby, and that the university will make a point of Awarding Honorary Doctorates of Philosophy to all those who fight academic boycotts. She ended with a call for practical action, and said the university would put transport at the disposal of all those Faculty wishing to travel to the Knesset to protest the detention and expulsion of a Jewish Scholar from the Jewish State, just because his analyses are critical of Arab and Jewish mores and policies that perpetuate the bloody conflict.
The unicycle will leave from outside Bank HaPaolim at 2500h.
Flight 0000 from Cloud Cuckoo Land has landed. Kindly proceed to the shabbak desk to have your papers reviewed, stamped and shredded.
Micah

(Shabak -acronym from Sherut Bitakhon Klalit, General Security Service, also known as Shin Bet, from the first two Hebrew letters of its name - CP)
2. from Professor Avraham Oz:

From: Avraham Oz
Date: Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:04 PM

Yes, Micah,

You can't imagine the traffic jams blocking the roads of Tel Aviv right now with our colleagues rushing to the detention place to demonstrate against the breach of academic freedom!

Which explains of course the scant attendance of academics at the commemoration, this morning, to one of the greatest sociologists we had among us: Baruch Kimmerling, who died a year ago. Nothing to do, of course, with the colour of his arguments.

And the media - thoroughly analyzing every mail on the computer of Shula Zaken [Olmert's aide - A. O.] - didn't find the few seconds to mention either of these two events. Nor have I heard the voice of the famous London attorney who received an honorary doctorate from our University just for helping lift the academic boycott of it, issuing a statement to the effect that academic freedom should preclude political vendetta.

A. Oz

But as we see below, political defence of Hizbollah, even opposition to its liquidation, is treated as though it was
evidence of criminal, terrorist action, or equivalent to it:

3. from Professor Michael Antony

Micah,

I don't know whether Finkelstein is a security risk or not. Quotations such as the following one (from 2001; taken from Wikiquote, and also appearing on Finkelstein's web site) suggest he may well be:

"To my thinking the honorable thing now is to show solidarity with Hezbollah as the US and Israel target it for liquidation. Indeed, looking back my chief regret is that I wasn't even more forceful in publicly defending Hezbollah against terrorist intimidation and attack."

On what do you base your apparently very high level of confidence that he isn't?

Michael


4. From Professor Steven Plaut:

A heart congratulations to the Israeli authorities for uncharacteristically doing the correct thing in denying the Hizbollah agent and Neo-Nazi Norman Finkelstein entry into the country and the "occupied territories."

Finkelstein, described incorrectly in the news story as an "academic," something he is not and never has been, is a Neo-Nazi widely regarded as a Holocaust Denier (including by the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center), who was fired by DePaul university last summer because he has no academic credentials at all and has yet to publish an academic paper. While making a career out of mocking and denouncing Holocaust survivors as frauds, hoaxsters, and thieves, Finkelstein has spent most of his time since being fired by DePaul in promoting Hizbollah terror.
It is of course well in character for the University of Haifa's own pseudo-academic anti-Zionists to rally on behalf of a Neo-Nazi and terrorist agent. Why should they only rally for Bishara? These people believe that "freedom of speech" should always be defended only for those endeavoring to orchestrate a second Holocaust of Jews, but not for anyone else.
Perhaps the Israeli authorities should deny entry into Israel not only to people like Finkelstein but also to those Israeli "academics" who serve as apologists for Neo-Nazis and for Islamofascist terrorists?

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

Professor Plaut teaches Business Administration at Haifa. Maybe that does not require much grasp of politics or history. But one might have thought it could use care with words, respect for accuracy, and regard for the truth. We'll leave aside any consideration for professional colleagues.

Of course Professor Finkelstein is neither a Nazi nor a Holocaust denier. Nor are the fellow academics whom Plaut denounces "apologists for Neo-Nazis and terrorists". Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors who objects to his and other families'suffering being exploited whether for financial gain or to excuse ill-treatment of the Palestinians.

Avraham Oz, and the late Baruch Kimmerling whom he mentions, opposed racism and oppression, and demanded that their Israel honour the "democracy" of which it boasts.

If anyone resembles a "Nazi", with the use of the Big Lie, denunciation of colleagues, and insistence that those he dislikes are traitors serving the enemy, and must be denied their rights, it is Professor Steven Plaut.
And sadly, though he may be insignificant, he is not alone.

No Entry for Norman

'SECURITY' RISK? Professor Norman Finkelstein

ISRAEL is always trying to attract tourists, and Jewish people are used to being told its their duty to visit if not settle. The state has a Law of Return supposedly guaranteeing our right to do the latter. But one man was refused entry on Friday and told he's likely to be banned for at least a decade.

He is not a criminal - Israel has welcomed some of them and their money(remember mobster Mayer Lansky?) - nor a terrorist (like the late Meir Kahane). Just a writer and academic. He was not planning to spend time in Israel, but passing through to the Occupied Palestinian territories - a reminder once again of how the Israeli state acts as a jailer, deciding who can enter or leave, and what visitors are allowed.

Professer Norman Finkelstein, a Jew and the son of Holocaust survivors, was barred entry to the Jewish state as soon he landed at Ben Gurion international airport, early on Friday morning.

The professor, who has exposed Zionist falsifications of Palestine history and supported Palestinian rights, was told he would not be allowed into the country on 'security' grounds, according to his lawyer, Michael Sfard.
'This usually means a 10-year ban on entry,' Sfard added.

Finkelstein angered many people by accusing Zionist organisations of exploiting the Nazi Holocaust, both politically and financially. But he is not a Holocaust denier or revisionist, as some of his detractors have slanderously claimed (for instance Alex Brummer in the Jewish Chronicle recently, who even seems to confuse Finkelstein with David Irving, whether deliberately or through ignorance.) The US professor had to give up his post at the Catholic De Paul University last year, after a concerted campaign against him by right-wing Zionists. This ranged from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to some campaigners in California who fraudulently added names (including mine!) to their petition, accusing De Paul of being antisemitic for hiring the Jew Norman Finkelstein.

I'm told Finkelstein has said he does not want too much fuss over his detention to divert attention from more serious abuses and killing in the Gaza strip. However people can protest to:

Minister of Interior Mr. Meir SHEETRIT Israeli Ministry of the Interior 2 Kaplan St., Qiryat Ben-Gurion P.O. Box 6158, 91061 Jerusalem Tel. +972-2-670-1411 / +972-2-629-4722 Fax: +972-2-670-1628 or Mr. Meir SHEETRIT's numbers at the Knesset Telephone 1: +972-2-640-8410 Telephone 2: +972-2- 640-8409 Fax: +972-2- 640-8920 Email: mshitrit@knesset.gov.il

My friend Brian Robinson has written to the Israeli Interior Minister to protest the ban:

Mr. Meir Sheetrit, Minister

Israeli Ministry of the Interior
Jerusalem
Fax: 00 972-2-670-1628

23^rd May 2008

Dear Mr Sheetrit,

I write to protest at the arrest and ordered deportation of Dr Norman Finkelstein, as reported some hours ago. I understand that Dr Finkelstein was not even going to Israel at the time, but was on his way to the Occupied Territories. (You may dispute that nomenclature but in the eyes of the international community, that is what they are.)

I understand from news reports that the academic has been told that he has been “banned from Israel for 10 years”. If so, this is an outrage and quite scandalous.

Yes, Dr Finkelstein has been critical, as have many Jews including myself, of many aspects of Israeli policy in relation to the Palestinian people, and especially recently in connection with the ongoing siege on Gaza, but does Israel now consider it a crime to be critical of it?

I read that this action has been taken on ‘security’ grounds. Dr Finkelstein’s only weapons are words: is the state so terrified of his words that it must ban the author of them?

Almost everything that your government is currently doing “for security”, is not only failing to enhance security, but sullies the name of Israel and I fear threatens diaspora Jewry with dangerous reflections of that bad name.

Can an ordinary world citizen make a demand of a state? Yes, if it claims to be not only a democracy, but “the only democracy in the middle east”: I demand that you release Dr Finkelstein forthwith, allow him to proceed to his destination unhindered, and revoke any ban on his future entry to Israel.

Yours faithfully

Dr G B Robinson

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1700

See also Mark Elf's blog for comment on Finkelstein and Brumner remarks.
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/

Academic Freedom: Battle goes on at De Paul

PROFESSOR Norman Finkelstein continues to face barriers, after he was denied tenure and quit De Paul University. But though his case was the most publicised it was not the only one at the American institution.

The professor had been the target of a nationwide witch-hunt campaign because of his controversial views on Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians and misuse of the Holocaust. But another De Paul professor, Mehrene Larudee, was victimised by denial of tenure, apparently becuase she was one of those who spoke out for Professor Finklestein.

Thanks to the United States organisation Jewish Voice for Peace(JVP) and to Cecilie Surasky's dedicated blog Muzzlewatch, we have news that Mehrene Larudee's battle is continuing.

"DePaul Academic Freedom Committee sent out this statement today:
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/?p=288
Tenure Process Violated DePaul Professor’s Rights, Review Board says
Professor Mehrene Larudee’s rights were violated by DePaul University during her tenure process, according to a Review Board decision issued October 26. Unanimously approved for tenure by her department, the International Studies Program, as well as the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LA&S), she was turned down by the University Board on Promotion and Tenure (UBPT) in May, and the president denied her tenure in June. It is widely thought that she was denied for supporting Prof. Norman Finkelstein during his controversial tenure case last spring.

According to the Faculty Handbook, Larudee should have been notified promptly both of the fact that the UBPT had voted against tenure for her and of the reasons why. Had this rule been followed, she would have had a chance to give the President reasons to reverse the UBPT decision. The Review Board agreed that her rights were violated, but offered no remedy, saying the Handbook has no defined mechanism for a response to the President. Larudee insists the Handbook does define a right to respond. The Review Board also rejected her separate claim that her academic freedom was violated.

The Review Board ignored evidence, too, that the UBPT failed to use criteria prescribed in the Faculty Handbook to evaluate her performance, as the lower levels had. Many at DePaul wonder why the UBPT failed to follow the written guidelines, and why the Review Board made no response to Larudee’s objections. Possibly the Review Board decided this was beyond the scope of their mandate. If so, says senior International Studies student Evan Lorendo, “I strongly disagree. It implies that many rules for evaluating faculty for tenure in the Faculty Handbook are unenforceable.”

Victor Lang, a senior Economics student, says, “Larudee is an excellent instructor, a good scholar and should be tenured. This is a loss for the students of the International Studies Program.”

The Review Board of three, a dean and two faculty, of whom one recently served as an administrator, excluded faculty from the College of LA&S where Larudee and about half of DePaul faculty teach. Its decision stands in stark contrast to a recent report by an ad hoc Academic Freedom Task Force of faculty in the College of LA&S. The report insisted that if a candidate is endorsed for tenure at the department and college levels—as Larudee was—then the UBPT may only reverse that decision by uncovering procedural error or bias at the lower levels. The UBPT decision against Larudee’s tenure cited no such procedural error or bias.

Larudee is exploring further action to challenge the tenure denial.
The denial of tenure to Larudee, and the fact that the Review Board sustained that decision, has created a state of uncertainty regarding the rights of faculty at DePaul University. Junior faculty in particular are feeling pressure to avoid any stance that may be construed as controversial.# # #

Jewish Voice for Peace says:
Larudee, a member of the Chicago chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, is exploring further action to challenge the tenure denial. You can still write a letter of protest to DePaul University's President and Provost. Read background info here.

To see more about JVP and sign up for their e-newsletter, visit:
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_916.shtml

An Oxford Whodunnit?

BESIDES its famous dreaming spires and reputation for lost causes, Oxford has been home to several donnish mystery writers and background scene of many a green-cover Penguin before Colin Dexter's Inspector Morse and Lewis stepped into its halls and streets.

The episode of the Vanished - or Banished - Professor has become a bit of a whoddunit, with clues and red herrings inserted to misguide us, even though we can guess the denouement.

Professor Norman Finkelstein, late of De Paul University in Illnois, was due to speak in a debate before the Oxford Union on the motion “This House believes that one state is the only solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.” Incidentally, if that is accurately reported, I wonder whether I am alone in missing the words "secular democratic" between "one" and "state"? Perhaps it's my age, making me nostalgic for the old slogans. I trust the disappearance of those two words had no significance (though in other political contexts, and different company, I would not be sure of that).

Anyway, the speakers for the motion were to be Avi Shlaim, Ghada Karmi and Ilan Pappe. Professor Finkelstein was due to speak against, since like me he apparently believes a two-state policy is necessary. With him the speakers for two states were to be Peter Tatchell and Northern Ireland Unionist politician David Trimble.

Only it did not happen. That is, there was a debate, but without any of the advertised speakers. The star of the show, stepping in after persuading the Oxford Union president Luke Tryl to drop Norman Finkelstein, was Peace Now -UK co-chair Paul Usiskin; at least that's what we were told by the Jerusalem Post and Paul Usiskin. We were surprised to think that he could have so much influence.

It seems he didn't, at least not on his own. According to letters cited by Norman Finkelstein, the move to bloc him came from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who has made it his business to monitor anti-Zionist views on American campuses and headed the campaign which led to Professor Finkelstein losing his tenure at De Paul; the same Dershowitz who boasted that he could "bankrupt and devastate" the British academics' union UCU through the courts if it went ahead with a boycott policy against Israel.

This culprit sounds more plausible than Usiskin's claim, but the very idea has set Zionist lobbyists and apologists protesting that it's preposterous, it wasn't Dershowitz, it wasn't any of us at all, it was the other speakers who dropped out, and particularly Lord Trimble - prompting my fellow-blogger Mark Elf to ask "Was it the ex-Orangeman or the Jaffa Orangeman?"..
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/

Reading their comments in letters and blogs I'd almost say they were singing from the same siddur, except that like in the kind of little shul where zeal exceeds decorum, they are not all on the same page.

On the other hand this letter seems straightforward enough:

Dear Dr Finkelstein,

...Many people expressed concern that the debate as it stood was imbalanced and people felt that as someone who had apparently expressed anti-zionist sentiments that you might not be appropriate for this debate. I tried to convince them otherwise but was accused of putting forward an imbalanced debate and various groups put pressure on me. I received numerous emails attacking the debate and Alan Dershowitz threatened to write an Oped attacking the Union. What is more he apparently attacked me personally in a televised lecture to Yale.
I hope that you understand my position, this is not ideal and I would be happy to welcome you as an individual speaker to the Union in a forthcoming term. I know that the President-Elect Emily Partington would be keen to host you in Hilary. I just did not want to see the debate compromised and given the Irving Griffin Controversy I couldn't fight a battle on all fronts.

Best wishes

Luke.

It also fits what Finkelstein heard from Israeli soldier and film-maker Ronen Bercovich, that Tryl had told him Dershowitz was one of those who "demanded that Finkelstein should be removed from the debate".
See letters in Guardian :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2200298,00.html

Here too is the report from the Jewish Chronicle:

Speakers snub Oxford debate in panel row
26/10/2007
By Nathan Jeffay
A debate on Israel at the Oxford Union took place on Tuesday without any of the scheduled speakers, after a row over the make-up of the panel.

Three of the academic community’s most vocal critics of Israel — Israelis Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe, and Palestinian writer Ghada Karmi — were due to propose the motion: “This House believes that one state is the only solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

But members of the Jewish community, including Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz and Peace Now UK co-chair Paul Usiskin, complained to the Union that it had given the anti-Israel side a “fourth voice” by having US political scientist Norman Finkelstein in the pro-Israel team, which also comprised Peter Tatchell and Northern Irish politician Lord Trimble.

Dr Finkelstein, who recently lost tenure at Chicago’s De Paul University in a row over his views on the Holocaust, is “an extreme left-wing opponent of Israel” and provided a “covert ally” for the anti-Israel side, claimed Mr Usiskin.

Union president Luke Tryll withdrew the invitation to Dr Finkelstein, conceding that, with his presence “the debate would not be fair”. He asked Mr Usiskin to stand in.

Dr Finkelstein said that the union had “shamefully capitulated” to the “bullying tactics” of Prof Dershowitz who, he claimed, is “determined to hound me out of public life”. Mr Tatchell then pulled out over the Finkelstein issue, saying: “I don’t agree with Norman on some things but I know of nothing he has said to justify his invitation being withdrawn.

“The attempt to ban him goes against the principles of free speech that the Oxford Union claims to defend.”

Lord Trimble also withdrew, due to “diary pressure”.

Dr Shlaim, who was due to speak against Dr Finkelstein, wrote to Mr Tryll saying: “Disinviting a speaker raises questions about the Oxford Union’s commitment to free speech. Unless the invitation to Norman Finkelstein is renewed, I will not take part.”

Note incidentally that whereas the debate was about solutions to the Palestine-Israel conflict, for the Jewish Chronicle's reporter it was between "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel" sides. That's more honest than the pretence by Dershowitz, Usiskin and Co. that Finkelstein was not really going to make the case for two states. Had he been allowed to make that case, as someone who supports the Palestinians cause, it would have been strengthened. But here we can see a crack in their Orwellian facade. For "two states" in their code, read one state -Israel, with the Palestinians confined to reservations.

Finkelstein doesn't support two states, they protest; and we are supposed to be satisfied with their version, rather than hearing what the man has to say for himself. But who was responsible for stopping Professor Finkelstein? According to the JC, Trimble cited "diary pressure" as the reason he could not attend. Hardly a spirited protest against the invitation to Finkelstein. As for the other invited speakers, rather than withdrawing because Finkelstein was coming, as one of the dissimulators claimed, they withdrew after hearing that Finkelstein was barred.

Maybe Lord Trimble will come in to rescue the Zionists, or maybe he will protest against being used by them, but so far he has wisely stuck to that busy diary. Peter Tatchell, on the other hand, has spoken out honourably, both on this episode and related issues, and he deserves credit, and quoting:

I was also due to speak in the Oxford Union debate on Israel-Palestine but withdrew because of the dis-invitation of my fellow guest speaker, the US Jewish academic, Norman Finkelstein.

I was astonished that the Oxford Union is prepared to host Nick Griffin and David Irving in an upcoming debate - in the name of free speech - but not Norman Finkelstein.

I was not the only one to feel this way. All three main speakers in support of the motion had already withdrawn from the debate in protest at Norman's exclusion. Without Norman and the three distinguished proponents of the motion, the debate could not proceed with any credibility or legitimacy.

Norman Finkelstein is critical of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. I concur with some of his criticisms. I don't agree with Norman on certain things. But I know of nothing that he has said to justify his invitation being withdrawn by the Oxford Union. The ban on Norman Finkelstein goes against the principles of free speech that the Oxford Union claims to defend.

We were due to debate the following motion last Tuesday, 23 October 2007:

"This House believes that one state is the only solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict."

While I agree that one state based on peace, justice, equality and security for all Jews and Arabs would be the ideal solution, I do not agree that it is the only solution - nor do most Palestinians, who now support a two-state solution.

The priority is to establish some form of independent Palestinian state - however imperfect - as soon as possible. A two-state solution is more likely than a one-state solution.

On a positive note: The Oxford Union has sought to make amends by agreeing to host a further debate on Israel-Palestine early next year, where Norman Finkelstein and pro-Israel advocate, Alan Dershowitz, will be invited to speak.

Regarding the Oxford Union's up-coming free speech debate:

The decision to invite Nick Griffin and David Irving is a big mistake. Those who peddle hatred and historical distortions should not be rewarded by being feted by acclaimed institutions. I don't believe the defence of free speech requires the Oxford Union to proactively offer these hate-mongers a prestigious platform to secure respectability for their odious views.

I say this as a human rights campaigner, and as the Green Party's candidate for Oxford East.

I sometimes think Peter Tatchell gets his perspectives wrong. Not this time. He has got things absolutely right and spot-on.

Fools at Oxford

INVITED:
BNP's Nick Griffin

BARRED: Norman Finkelstein

WHEN the Oxford Union debating society announced it was inviting Holocaust revisionist David Irving, and British National Party leader Nick Griffin, there was naturally the widespread publicity that the organisers wanted.

Anti-racists and minority groups protested, smarmy right-wingers rehearsed their usual jibes that we Lefties don't like free speech, and I felt nostalgic for the days when an expectant crowd outside a lecture theatre at Lancaster was enough to scare the authorities into cancelling a visit by the National Front's Martin Webster, so the waiting police and ambulances could be sent home.

Of course, Oxford is different. The Oxford Union is not some northern university Monday Club. Its members don't need lecturers assuring them of racial superiority. They've known, some of them since prep school, that they are superior, and they have daddy's dosh and their own career prospects to prove it.

But here's a case that shows Oxford students can be sensitive to other's concerns, and listen. It has been brought to my attention by Ginny, an American resident here, who read it in the Jerusalem Post and wondered why it had not made the Guardian or Independent.

Oxford cancels one-state debate
Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post correspondent , THE JERUSALEM POST
Oct. 22, 2007

The Oxford University Student Union debating society has been forced to cancel a debate on the Middle East following the withdrawal of the proposers of the motion: "This House believes that one state is the only solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict."

Prof. Avi Shlaim of the university's St. Antony's College at Oxford, and Dr. Ilan Pappe and Dr. Ghada Karmi, both of Exeter University, were due to present the one-state solution at Tuesday's debate.
Norman Finkelstein, formally of De Paul University in Chicago, Peter Tatchall, a gay rights activist, and David Trimble, a former first minister of Northern Ireland, were due to present the case for a two-state solution. Shlaim and Pappe are both Israelis.
When Peace Now-UK co-chair Paul Usiskin saw Finkelstein's name on the team opposing the motion, he expressed concern that "a far-left detractor of Israel" had been chosen to defend the existence of the Jewish state.
He told the Student Union they were "seeking sensation over substance" and were denying a proper and balanced debate.
Following talks with Oxford Union President Luke Tryll, the union decided to drop Finkelstein and invited Usiskin to participate along with Yossi Mekelberg, an associate fellow of the Middle East program at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, who is also Israeli.
Usiskin told The Jerusalem Post that a Jewish student informed him Sunday that the proposers of the one-state solution were disgruntled at his inclusion in the debate and demanding Finkelstein's re-invitation. When this was refused, Shlaim, Pappe and Karmi withdrew from the debate.
"They clearly thought they had it sown up," said Usiskin. "I believe they're desperate for another arena in which to deligitimize Israel, after the failure to begin the academic boycott of Israel - in which all three were key. What they expected was a clear field for a one-state solution as the start of creating that new arena. Those of us who believe in Israel and support a two-state solution remained steadfast and denied them their victory."

Ah yes, I see he mentions the academic boycott issue. Now, didn't its opponents tell us that was a threat to academic freedom, or something?

Seems we won't be hearing that argument again.

I could not help noticing in passing that in a debate concerning the future of Palestine, the organisers had evidently seen fit to only invite one Palestinian, a woman long resident in Britain, among six speakers. Peter Tatchell is a nice fellow and could perhaps introduce the topic of gay rights in Palestine, as he has tried to do on more than one demonstration, but he is not an obvious choice to talk about Palestine and attempts to find a "two states" solution. As for David Trimble -well I suppose we can give the organisers marks for imagination.

Had Afif Safieh still been head of the Palestinian general delegation to the UK, I expect they could have invited him to speak on Northern Ireland. Afif would have made a witty and erudite speaker, but I expect as a diplomat he would have had more sense than to accept the invitation. Still, it is just a debating society, and it seems the speakers are chosen in the hope of putting bums on seats, by gaining publicity, and attracting students to hear a 'clever' celebrity, and be impressed by debating style, rather than listen to experts in the hope of learning something.

More specifically, though, what is striking about this story is that once again the Zionist lobby has succeeded in shutting the door to Professor Norman Finkelstein. This is the Jewish academic who upset the Zionists by denouncing the use they made of the Holocaust (of which his parents were survivors), and was the victim of a concerted campaign to deny him tenure at De Paul University. Having succeeded in pressuring a Catholic University in the United States, are the Zionist witch-hunters going to get away with it at Oxford University?

I've not yet met or had contact with Norman Finkelstein. I do know Paul Usiskin, though. We first met in 2002 at the founding conference of European Jews for Just Peace, in Amsterdam. Usiskin turned up claiming credentials as representing Peace Now-UK, and Rabbis for Human Rights; though he is no rabbi, and when I asked whether Rabbis for Human Rights (who have done some impressive work in Israel and the Occupied Territories) had many supporters in Britain, he was not very forthcoming, still less convincing.

Peace Now UK was set up as an explicitly Zionist group. When some of its leading activists joined with Jewish Socialists and expatriate Israelis to form Just Peace UK as a campaigning alliance they were soon replaced in a coup directed by the Zionist back-room boys, and disowned for associating with dangerous "anti-Zionists" . So it was a nice surprise when one of the replacements turned up at Amsterdam, took part in the conference, mingled amiably enough with other delegates, and voted with us for the final resolution, which committed European Jews for Just Peace to campaign for:

". . .an immediate end of the occupation of the occupied territories: West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem with recognition of the 4th June 1967 borders;

2. complete withdrawal of all Jewish settlements in all the occupied territories

3. the recognition of the right of both states to have Jerusalem as their capital;

4. the recognition by Israel of its part in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem...

http://www.ejjp.org/main.asp?pagid=9

In other words, EJJP is serious about what people call a "two-state solution" (I prefer to say two-state policy, because it is up to the peoples in the Middle East to determine their future, and not for us to impose our ideas of what should constitute an all-time solution).

What was no surprise to those who knew him or his associates was that within a week or so of returning to London, Paul Usiskin told the Jewish Chronicle how shocked he had been by some of the views he had heard in Amsterdam, and that Peace Now-UK wanted nothing more to do with European Jews for Just Peace, nor with its British affiliates.

I guessed what had happened, though I forgot to ask whether he had also reported back to Rabbis for Human Rights and if so, had they also asked to disaffilate? Or if they had been aware they had been represented by Paul Usiskin in the first place.

Since then the UK affiliates of European Jews for Just Peace, notably Jews for Justice for Palestinians , have grown both in support and range of activities, far obscuring anything managed by Peace Now-UK, or as it has been dubbed "Peace - but not now". (The Israeli parent body of which, though not the vanguard of the Israeli peace camp, does occasionally stir from its conservatism, and do something useful, such as producing a report on settlements, which is more than be said for its ostensible UK supporters).

After Usiskin's apparent success in stopping Norman Finkelstein maybe be should revise the jibe, and call it POLICE NOW! Because it's real role has not been to fight for "two states" - i.e. for the Palestinians right to a state alongside Israel, which would mean fighting the occupation, siege and settlements which other British Zionists support; but to clobber anyone to the Left, and particularly Jews like Finkelstein who have upset the Establishment.

What may seem surprising is that the Oxford union president has apparently bowed to a nobody like Usiskin, or been fooled by the latter's claims to represent anything significant or credible. Norman Finkelstein is inclined to suspect that Zionist witchfinder general Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard professor who engineered the campaign to oust him from De Paul, is also behind the move to exclude him from the Oxford debate. Maybe. We don't know what went on behind the secenes, but we do know Oxford, behind its hallowed stone, has a warm place for American dollars.

Oxford has also been known as the "home of lost causes", which might be comforting when we looked at some of the speakers the Oxford Union invites. But it is more worrying to think that the Oxford Union is jumping off point for many a career politician, and both Oxbridge universities with their high public school intake continue to fill so many posts in the British Establishment.

From Bil'in to Chicago: bulletins from the front say the struggle continues

Two press releases, bulletins from different ends of one front line:

ISRAEL's High Court has released its verdict in the petition of the Palestinian village of Bil'in against the separation barrier constructed on its land. After two and a half years of struggle, in which the villagers were joined by Palestinian, Israeli and international supporters, and weekly faced tear gas and rubber bullets, the High Court recognised there was an injustice.

The Israeli group Gush Shalom continues this report:

It decided that the present route of the fence is illegal and that the State must propose an alternative route within a reasonable period. According to the decision, the alternative route must retain Bil'in agricultural land on the Palestinian side of the barrier. Moreover, the court has decided that the benefits of the present route is disproportional to the damage it causes, and ordered the state to consider refraining from including the planned eastern section of the "Matitiahu-Mizrah" neighborhood on the "Israeli" side of the fence.

In the words of the judges "The present route raises grave questions also in regards to the security advantages it was said to provide…and the selected route cannot be explained other then by the intention to include the eastern section of "Matitiahu-Mizrah" on the west side of the separation barrier".

This means that the route cannot be rationalized except by the efforts to steal and confiscate the land, consideration forbidden even by the criteria endorsed by the court. Even with the best legal representation the ruling could not have arrived at without the unrelenting struggle mounted by the village of Bil'in against the construction of the barrier. The residents of Bil'in had raised the flag of the joint non-violent struggle from the very beginning of construction on the barrier and did not forsake it for a moment.

All of us, who shared the struggle, are fortunate to have participated in an event unprecedented in its importance. We were privileged to have formed very meaningful bonds as well a sense of empowerment that is the prize of those who persists in confronting violent oppression and overcome it. The journey is still long. The High-Court, failed to rule that the wall should be moved to the Green-Line (the pre-1967 Israeli border), and of course did not abolish the separation it produces. The present ruling is indeed an achievement and reinforces the popular struggle against the wall.

The common struggle against the occupation shall go on! Palestinians and Israelis shall join hands and shall behold, through their deeds, that the apartheid shall fail and the robbery shall not pass!

On this coming Friday We shall all arrive to Bil'in to show the occupation system that the struggle against the apartheid and theft, and for justice and equality is well alive! Transportation will leave from Tel Aviv - Arlozorov train station and Jerusalem - Bell park, Gan Hapa'amon.

www-gush-shalom.org

http://www.gush.shalom.org/

Next from Jewish Voice for Peace, in the United States, news of the struggle at

De Paul University, in Chicago, where two professors were denied tenure following a campaign against one of them in particular, Professor Norman Finkelstein, led by Zionist witch-hunter Alan Dershowitz.

Jewish Voice for Peace reports:

Following a large demonstration in support of academic freedom this morning, Professor Finkelstein met with DePaul University officials and reached a settlement in his tenure dispute. Profesor Finkelstein reminded the assembled supporters that the denial of tenure to Professore Mehrene Larudee remains an open wound at DePaul.

Please write an urgent letter of protest to the DePaul's University President (Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider) and Provost (Dr. Helmut Epp) today! We will send a copy of your letter to the De Paul Academic Freedom Committee, a student organization that seeks to preserve academic freedom on campus.

Prof. Finkelstein issued a joint statement with De Paul University, which reads in part:
During my six year stint at DePaul I consistently received among the highest student evaluations in my department. I have published five books to critical acclaim from leading scholars, and they have been translated into 46 foreign editions. I have been recognized as a public intellectual in the United States and Europe and have become an internationally recognized scholar in my academic specialties. Based on that record, I should have received tenure. Indeed, after extensive scrutiny of my academic credentials, my department voted overwhelmingly to tenure me as did the college-level tenure committee, which voted unanimously in my favor. The only interference that I can draw is that I was denied tenure due to external pressures climaxing in a national hysteria that tainted the tenure process. The outpouring of support for me after the tenure denial from among the most respected scholars in the world buttresses this conclusion.

Profesor Finkelstein reminded the assembled supporters that the denial of tenure to Professor Mehrene Larudee remains 'an open wound' at De Paul. Prof. Larudee, a universally respected professor of international studies, who openly advocated for Finkelstein, was denied tenure at the same time as Prof. Finkelstein, to the shock of her colleagues.

'Our jaws just dropped, hit the floor, when we saw the decision went the other way.'--Michael A. McIntyre, director, De Paul's program of international studies, in response to denial of tenure to Dr. Mehrene Larudee.

Dr. Larudee, rejected for tenure at the same time as Norman G. Finkelstein, believes her advocacy for the embattled political scientist may have derailed her career.

'There is no good explanation for why I was denied tenure,' Mehrene E. Larudee, an assistant professor of international studies, said in an interview on Monday. 'So one has to look elsewhere.'

Praised as 'outstanding' by the dean of her college and recommended unanimously by distinguished faculty peers during the tenure process, Ms. Larudee was 19 days away from becoming director of De Paul's program in international studies when she learned on Friday of the decision against her.
(Larudee is a member of the Chicago chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace.)

For more on the struggle at De Paul:

http://www.academicfreedomchicago.org/

and Jewish Voice for Peace:

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

Voices for Finkelstein

THE decision of De Paul University at Chicago to deny tenure to Professor Norman Finkelstein - plainly in response to outside complaints about his political views rather than any problem with his teaching or scholarship - has aroused numerous protests to the university authorities.

De Paul is a Roman Catholic university, but the anti-Finkelstein campaign came from Zionists such as Harvard lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who resented Norman Finkelstein's criticisms of Israel and the use it makes of the Nazi Holocaust. Professor Finkelstein's immediate colleagues had voted in favour of tenure but were overruled.

As reported, students at De Paul have occupied the university's administrative offices. People are also writing to De Paul's president, Reverend Fr. Dennis H. Holtschneider. Here are a few of the letters I have seen.

President Holtschneider
DePaul University
1 E. Jackson Boulevard.,
Chicago,
Ilinois
United States of America Thursday, 14 June 2007

Dear President Holtschneider:

Re: Denial of tenure to Dr Norman Finkelstein

I am deeply shocked and disturbed by the decision, unjust and unjustified, by your institution to deny tenure to Dr. Norman Finkelstein, one of the brightest, most original intellectuals in the US academia. But of course, you do not need me to tell you that - after all, as his direct employer, you must be well aware of this yourself. That the tenure was denied after a vicious and aggresive campaign against Dr. Finkelstein, by one of the better-known lawyers in the US, famous for his defence of an even more famous murder 'suspect', is making your decision a political, non-academic and non-scientific act - a mere surrender to the loudest voice in the neighbourhood.

May I say that as a Jew and Israeli, whose family was destroyed in the Holocaust, one who greatly values Finkelstein's work for its originality and courage, I am ashamed for you. I am ashamed that a president of a catholic university finds it possible to punish a Jewish intellectual of sterling quality for publishing original and highly necessary research on the nature of the Holocaust and its ideological use/abuse in the past decades. I would have thought that it behoves a catholic institution to be much more circumspect and professional on this issue, and not to capitulate to crude and aggressive Zionist propaganda of the kind voiced against Dr. Finkelstein.

I hope that the shock which your decision has created, may jolt the De Paul University into a realisation that a severe error has been committed, an error which needs addressing and correcting. I am sure that the academic community would be appreciative if you found the courage to admit your mistake, and revoke this decision without delay.

I am appealing to you to so do.

Prof. Haim Bresheeth
Chair of Cultural and Media Studies
University of East London

Dear President Holtschneider:

At the end of the day, evil is not about meaning it. Hanna Arendt, in her historical study of the Eichman trial, has taught us that evil is really quite banal. It is not about running evil campaigns. Rather, it is about following, blindly, the technicalities of a system without stopping for a minute to think about its meaning. And so, meaning it or not, it results in perpetrating and enforcing it. In Hebrew, which happens to be my native language, it has come to be known as 'small head'. It is the attitude many Israeli citizens and soldiers have explicitly adopted in the face of illegal and immoral system and orders. It consists of the approach that "we will do, thoughtlessly, that which is expected, literally, and we will refuse to let it touch us, thereby hoping that we will not be morally culpable."
They are, however, morally culpable. As is De Paul University and you as its president.
By denying Professor Finkelstein tenure, you have refused to face the central issue with any degree of moral courage, and opted, instead, to succumb to pressure masquerading as following technicalities, hoping that it will enable you to thereby assuage both responsibility and culpability. You have avoided none. You are responsible and you are culpable. What De Paul University, and you as its president, have done, will be neither forgotten, nor forgiven by history. We all know, academicians and others, that a precedent has been set which officially initiates the curtailing of academic freedoms and the freedom of speech so essential for academe in particular and for society in general. The purging of universities of any species of dissenting views has been the first step taken by dictatorial and undemocratic regimes throughout the 20th century, as well as prior to that, and history will hold you, personally, responsible for having carried it into the 21th .
By any and all criteria acceptable in US academe, Professor Finkelstein deserves to get tenure. Your statement, that you "find no compelling reasons here to overturn the University Board on Promotion and Tenure decision" is at the same time craven and contemptible. There is little for people like me to do or say, short of pointing this out, in the hope that this act alone will at least contribute to the emergence of the moral opposition which your actions deserve.

Hagit Borer
Professor of Linguistics, University of Southern California


Re: Denial of tenure to Dr Norman Finkelstein

It is rare indeed that individuals have an opportunity to make a difference and even rarer for someone in a position of power to stand up for principle.

By your own admission, as in your letter to Dr Finkelstein, it is accepted that he is a fine scholar and teacher. That should have been the end of the matter. Tenure granted. Instead you and the relevant committee succumbed to the pressure put upon you by Prof. Dershowitz and his cohorts. All the talk about Vincentian codes, collegiality etc. disguise one simple fact. That when it came to the crunch you took the path of least resistance.

As someone who is Jewish I am well aware that during the period about which Dr Finkelstein writes, i.e. the Holocaust, the Catholic Church remained silent about what was happening except for coded references in the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge. Nowhere, not once, was there an explicit condemnation of either anti-Semitism or luminaries of the church such as Cardonal Tiso. I am, of course, also aware of the hostility of the Catholic Church traditionally to free thought and expression, of which the Galileo affair was the most notable.

You had the opportunity to stand up for all these ideals, to reject the voices of McCarthyism which are prevalent in the United States today. Instead you hid behind bureaucratic excuses and a divided committee and acted as a functionary rather than the head of an academic institution.

I hope that even at this late hour you will reflect on your decision and decide to stand up for truth and justice rather than basking in the approval of those for whom truth is a matter of political convenience

Yours sincerely,
Tony Greenstein
Brighton, England.


It had occurred to me that in calling upon a Catholic institution to repress a Jewish scholar, the anti-Finkelstein campaigners had followed a historical precedent, albeit not a proud one. In the 13th century the Jewish authorities in Montpelier called upon the Christian authorities to ban and destroy the writings of Moses Maimonides (Moshe ben Maimon).
"From Moses unto Moses, there is none like unto Moses", so the latter's admirers have said, and I don't suggest Norman would claim such status, even if his persecutors do remind us of Medieval superstition and intolerance. But another writer has come up with a yet more exalted comparison.

Dear President Holtschneider:

I am an Israeli Jew. Your action in denying tenure to Dr Finkelstein has reminded me of another decision, made long ago regarding a compatriot of mine, Yeshua of Nazareth. Intervening in an inter-Jewish dispute, Pontius Pilate, acting out of cowardice, succumbed to the pressure of the more powerful Jewish faction against the powerless dissident Jew. Now you have done the same. Go, wash your hands.-

That one is from Professor Moshe Machover, of London University), and before either he or I find ourselves drawn into theological arguments, about what really happened at Easter, I should stress we are both atheists. But I think Moshe(another of the blighters) has found a witty and succinct way of piercing the bureaucratic armour of a Christian Catholic academic gentleman, if that's possible.

Finally, I wondered whether those proponents of "academic freedom" who strongly oppose any poposal to boycott Israeli institutions would raise their voices for Professor Finkelstein (and incidentally let's not forget his colleague Mehrene Larudee, less of a celebrity perhaps, but whom De Paul has also denied tenure). I said I was not holding my breath. Well, in all fairness, one of them, Professor Norman Geras, a stalwart of the Engage fraternity and not one of my favourites, has done so:

"The president of DePaul may be satisfied that 'academic freedom is alive and well' at his university, but it needs to demonstrate that its decision in this case hasn't betrayed that principle. You don't have either to agree with or to warm to Norman Finkelstein to find the decision suspect, at best".
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2007/06/norman_finkelst.html

Fair enough. And thanks to fellow-blogger Mark Elf, of Jews Sans Frontieres, who was fair enough to bring this to our attention.
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2007/06/norman-denounces-tenure-denial.htm

****************************************

AND NOW, CONCERNING THAT OTHER BOYCOTT.... the London Jewish Chronicle today has a

SCOOP!

Top news stories: Named: boycott ringleaders

THE JC today identifies the key players in the escalating British campaign to boycott Israel. Our investigation shows that many are Jewish or Israeli, and that they justify their stance as part of the struggle for Palestinian rights and ending Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.

Students stand for academic freedom against victimisation

A HEARTENING piece of news from the United States. Students at De Paul University upset at the denial of tenure to Professors Norman Finkelstein, and Mehrene Larudee have held an over-night sit-in after DePaul President Fr. Dennis Holtschneider refused to listen to their protest. The sit-in is continuing.

Student leaders had presented Fr. Holtschneider with a petition of over 700 signatures calling for a reversal of the decision, made at a secretive top-level meeting, and overturning tenure decisions made at the Departmental and College levels, which had approved Finkelstein's position by votes of 9-3 and 5-0, respectively.

Students were surprised by Larudee's rejection as she was unanimously approved by both the Departmental and University level tenure committees. The student leaders cite Finkelstein and Larudee's positive peer reviewed scholarship and flaws in the tenure process as reasons why they should receive tenure. Denial of tenure to the professors means their employment at DePaul will be terminated.

Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, was the target of a campaign by Zionist Alan Dershowitz and Israel lobbyists, because he had not only denounced the way the Zionist state and institutions cornered reparations payments but condemned them for using memories of Nazi genocide to silence critics of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, shocked many acdemics by his successful interference in the internal tenure process of another university. Campus Zionists also mobilised, gathering signatures - many of them faked - for an anti-Finkelstein petition, slandering the Jewish professor as a Holocaust denier, and even accusing De Paul, a Catholic university, of being "antisemitic" for hiring him.

The students who have rallied to defend their professor are showing impressive principle, by taking their action despite being in the midst of finals-week and upcoming graduation. They say they will occupy the Executive Offices of DePaul University indefinitely until their demands for the tenure of Professors Finkelstein and Larudee are met.

# # #More information can be found at http://www.finkelgate.com

This is not the only case of its kind where an academic's career has been hit because of their views on Israel and the Middle East. Juan Cole, described as one of America's top Middle East scholars, was teaching at the University of Michigan when he was approached to teach at Yale. Cole was approved by both the sociology and history departments, the latter the university’s largest.

But Yale's senior appointments committee, also known as the tenure committee, voted down Cole’s nomination. Yale faculty members described the decision to overrule the votes of the individual departments as “highly unusual.” It seems that pressure came from outside, and that what some people objected to was not Cole's academic ability but the views he expressed in a political blog.

The American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin and Washington Times columnist Joel Mowbray wrote attacking Cole in various publications and Mowbray sent a letter to a dozen of Yale’s major donors, many of whom are Jewish, urging them to call the university and protest Cole’s hiring. Cole said there had been a "concerted press campaign by neo-conservatives" against him, using made-up quotes, inaccuracies, and false charges.

“The idea that I am any sort of anti-Jewish racist because I think Israel would be better off without the occupied territories is bizarre, but I fear that a falsehood repeated often enough and in high enough places may begin to lose its air of absurdity.”

Mitchell Webber, a Yale graduate who is now a law student and a research assistant for Alan Dershowitz at Harvard Law School, published an op-ed in the conservative New York Sun.

As a report in the New York Jewish Week pointed out, the critics had little to say about Cole's academic background, focussing on his blog, and "appeared to blur the distinction between American Jews and some Bush administration officials. On Aug. 29, 2004, for example, Cole wrote a blog entry calling several Bush neo-conservatives “pro-Likud intellectuals” who wish 'to use the Pentagon as Israel’s Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv'.”

In Rubin's version for the Yale Daily News, this became that Cole “accuses Jewish Americans of using the Pentagon as Israel’s Gurkha regiment.” Similarly, Webber claimed that “according to Mr. Cole, American Jews both inside and out of government are primarily loyal to Israel and subvert American interests for those of the Jewish State.”

“These articles,” said Cole, “attempted to make my critiques of the Likud, on both sides of the Atlantic, look like an attack on American Jewry in general,which is manifestly not the case. For these people, Likud equals Israel equals Jews, so all criticism of revisionist Zionism and Greater Israel expansionism is anti-Semitic.”
(Middle East war flares up at Yale, The Jewish Week)
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12579

I doubt whether bodies like the Anti-Defamation League or the Simon Wiesenthal Centre which have been crying "foul" and shouting about alleged "antisemitism" in the University and Colleges Union's decision to discuss an Israel boycott will be at all bothered about cases like those of Professors Cole and Finkelstein, or Larudee. But perhaps Engage, whose spokesperson has been raising the alarm about non-existent calls to exclude Israelis from campus, will raise its voice as loudly about these real cases of victimisation?

Maybe some of the academics who have been stirred to protest with full-page press adverts at what they say is a threat to "academic freedom", will stay awake and protest the real attacks and forms of intimidation? Or will they be helping them?

I would not hold my breath. Instead, full marks and three cheers for the action of the De Paul students!

Swindle With Use; the anti-Finkelstein Fraud

"Stand With Us" is an Israel-is-always-right organisation, mainly active in the United States, mobilising silly students, naieve kids and some rather obnoxious half-wits of all ages, in defence of whatever the Zionist State does against its neighbours and those under its occupation.

SWU calls itself an "international educational organisation that ensures that Israel's side of the story is told"; but mostly it campaigns against any voices that might disturb its supporters' ignorance or undeserved peace of mind. It has called on Israeli army veterans to protest against other Israeli soldiers who are exposing what they know of the brutality of occupation. It is urging its supporters to e-mail everyone it can think of at the University of California Santa Cruz to complain that they allowed a "one-sided" conference to be held about Israel and Zionism. Not their side, I take it.

It claims to have amassed more than 5,000 names on an online petition calling on De Paul university to refuse tenure to Professor Norman Finkelstein. It wants this Catholic university to sack the Jewish professor, son of Holocaust survivors. because he has criticised the way the Israeli state and American Jewish organisations have used the Holocaust, and has condemned Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. This "grassroots" petition underpins a campaign against Finkelstein led by Harvard lawman and Zionist witchfinder-general Professor Alan Dershowitz.

I am not one for lionising intellectuals, even when I agree with them, and I might not always agree with Norman Finkelstein. I would not want to give Professor Finkelstein ideas above his station. But as well as evoking comparisons with McCarthyism, this call by Jewish organisations and machers for Catholic authorities to suppress a Jewish dissident scholar puts Finkelstein in very distinguished company, historically speaking. In 1232 the Jewish authorities in Montpelier, southern France, annoyed by the way Moses Maimonides (Musa Ibn Maimoun, Moshe Ben Maimon, aka the Rambam) had sought to reconcile religion and reason, turned to the Inquisition, or at any rate the Dominican order, asking that Maimonides books should be burned. The Dominicans decided instead that the works might have some use. (see Mike Marqusee's reference to this episode, in another context:
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2007/02/25/stories/2007022500100300.htm

I don't know whether these community leaders would have had the writer too burned. Moshe was already long dead before they sought the book burning, and had any way been living in safety in Egypt, where among other things he served as medical officer to the grand vizier Salah ed Din (Saladin). In those days the Islamic lands were freer and more tolerant than Europe, as is no longer unfortunately the case.

It became said that "From Moses unto Moses, there was none like unto Moses", and I don't wish to elevate Norman Finkelstein to that eminent status. But rather to show in which odious company the anti-Finkelstein witch-hunters would have us stand. Perhaps it is is because for them the Holocaust (itself an overly religious phrase to describe genocide) has also become a pillar of Faith, rather than subject for genuine study and rational debate which might lead to different political attitudes. That is the real betrayal of the Holocaust victims.

Although Stand With Us purports to be educational, they don't seem good at it, and nor does their Jewish education extend to the Ninth Commandment, judging from what I've seen of their petition. The messages accompanying the names are a bit repetitive. Several of the signatories appear to believe that Finkelstein (whose parents were in Auschwitz and Majdanek) denies the Holocaust, some accuse De Paul of being "antisemitic" because it hired (or "highered" as one writes) Professor Finkelstein "in the first place". One charming person proudly using the nom de plume "Itzhak Shamir"proclaims "We took care of his like at Deir Yassin and we'll do it again." (Yitzhak Shamir, a former Israeli prime minister, was a leader of Lehi, the Stern group terrorists who took part alongside Irgun Zvai Leumi in the massacre of Palestinian villagers at Deir Yassin in April 1948).

I suppose it could be argued that we should not worry overmuch about meshuggeners and nerds indulging their violent fantasies in cyberspace, whether in messages like that, or hate lists like those circulated by Britain's Nazis and their Israeli settlement-based equivalent. At least while they are at their keyboards, or even making threatening nuisance calls, they are not out on the streets doing it. But that's not what the authorities or media say about child pornography or other violent stuff, and besides, we know that people identified on Nazi 'hit lists' have sometimes been hit.

What's to say that some of these Zionists falsely convincing themselves that such-and-such a political opponent is a "traitor" or "Nazi holocaust denier" are not just sidestepping the debate about what the person really says, not just trying to silence them; but psyching themselves and others up, so they can attempt some real harm to their target? That too has happened.

I incline to the view that trying to deny a person's right to pursue their profession and take away their livelihood is also a form of violence. Whether the authorities at De Paul will take much notice of this petition, I don't know. Norman Finkelstein's faculty colleagues have already supported his tenure and rejected the demands from Dershowitz. I hope the University, however short of funds and subject to pressure, will also stand up to ignorami and enemies of scholarship.

But I have an added personal reason for speaking b'roigez, in anger, about Stand With Us. It is now getting on two weeks since I leaned that my name, along with those of others holding similar views on this issue, had been fraudulently added to the Stand With Us anti-Finkelstein petition. Several people have been shocked to find their names in it. I don't know how many of the thousands have simply been fabricated, and how many people might be unaware their names were used.

On April 19 I e-mailed Ros Rothstein of Stand With Us, who is running the petition:
I have been shocked to find my name used on your online petition against tenure for Professor Norman Finkelstein. I do not support your petition and nor do others whose name appear with mine.

It is quite evident that someone deliberately took their names and mine from communications defending Norman Finkelstein's tenure. This is not a laughing matter, but a case of identity theft and libel.

I understand that you already promised to look into this matter. I don't know who is responsible for the misuse of people's names, but I do know it is your responsibility to remove them forthwith.

While I was awaiting a reply, and assurance that my name would be removed, I heard from more people whose names had been misused. For instance:

'In regard to continuing fraud on the petition against Professor Finkelstein's tenure: my name has now been added fraudulently - #4197. Apparently this is a reprisal after the fact of my circulating spread sheets of names on both "anti" and "pro" petitions for purposes of easy comparison by anyone worried that his or her name might have been "stolen" for the "Stand With Us" petition. I cannot imagine that De Paul will take this petition at all seriously. At least one other entry is unlikely (Robert Malley's: there may be two Robert Malleys, but the one whose name rings bells was one of the US's chief Oslo negotiators. He wrote a paper making clear that Oslo was a way of consolidating Israel's occupation of WB and Gaza.) It's unlikely that he'd sign this petition. Also unlikely that former Israeli PM and Stern-Gang founder Itzhak Shamir would sign the petition unless he's done so from the grave. The attending remark, "We took care of his like at Deir Yassin and we'll do it again," a reference to the massacre of Palestinian villagers in Deir Yassin by Irgun Zvei Leumi and Stern Gang terrorists in April, 1947, is at the level of the worst KKK, skinhead, and other neo-fascist hate-speech.

Ellen Cantarow'

Last night I checked and found that not only was my name still included but it is on twice. I have still not heard from Ms.Rosalyn Rothstein. Nor, I must add from Petitions Online, whom I also contacted. They ought really to be having words with Stand With Us, and should remove the whole petition if the organisers don't clean up their act. The whole business of online petitions as an "exercise in democracy" risks being discredited by this kind of abuse.

Fraud Warning! Zionists at work

STANDING with him?








Anti-Finkelstein campaigners defend Israeli military against accusations of brutality - even when these come from ex-IDF soldiers.

THE slogan "Not in My Name!" took on added significance for me last night. I learned that my name had appeared on an online petition AGAINST Professor Norman Finkelstein and his right to hold his job at an American university.
As readers of my previous post on this subject will know I am in favour of Prof. Finkelstein's right to tenure, and in fact I signed a petition in favour of this.

But I heard last night from Dr.George Saltzman, an American academic whom I didn't know, but who had apparently seen my views, that my name, along with his, and those of others opposed to the anti-Finkelstein witch-hunt, had been fraudulently added to a "dump Finkelstein" petition.

The background to all this is that Professor Norman Finkelstein, the son of Jewish Holocaust survivors, has angered Zionist leaders and organisations, first by protesting at the way the history - not to mention reparations - have been misappropriated to serve the Israeli State, and silence critics; and then more recently by attacking Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.
http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein03022006.html

In fact, Finkelstein has taken up a fight on two fronts, not only challenging the Zionist Lobby, but also opposing those who try to hide US imperialism's responsibility for its own Middle East policies by blaming everything on the supposed power of Jewish influence.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Borer-Petras-Finkelstein17.htm

Norman Finkelstein is neither a "self-hater" nor a Holocaust denier, but this has not stopped the outraged Zionist propaganda racketeers from trying to smear him as both, and incite hatred against him, while at the same time starting a neo-McCarthyite campaign to press Professor Finkelstein's employers, De Paul University, into removing his tenure.

Leading the campaign is Harvard law Professor Alan Dershowitz. His intervention has raised concern among De Paul's own faculty, who question the propriety not to say, decency, of an academic at a larger institution trying to lean on a smaller one to get rid of a member of staff. But mobilising the ground troops, and trading on their ignorance, for an online petition to drive Norman Finkelstein from his post, and indeed profession, is an Israel-is-always-right propaganda outfit called "Stand With Us".

When challenged about its use of people's names without their knowledge, let alone agreement, spokeswoman Rosalind Rothstein replied disingenuously "Please be advised that we are not forging signatures. I have no idea who would do such a thing.... because obviously something is wrong. We are in the business of playing fairly, but playing. We entered the debate about this because there was a "pro" tenure petition going around. Certainly, we have not been monitoring the petition to see if there is a misuse of your petition, and certainly there may or may not be.... You believe that Dr. Finkelstein deserves tenure, and my "camp" does not. That is really about the extent of it. That does not mean that we would ever deliberately sign on academics that have not signed the petition. As a child of Holocaust Survivors, I must tell you that I am deeply concerned with the messages that Norman Finkelstein brings to the Israel/Palestinian debate. That being said, I am not in favor of "cheating" on a petition. Any names that you have identified that are unlikely to have signed, please do let me know, and we will request that they be immediately removed. We will also take a moment to review the signatures posted at this time.

All the best,
Roz Rothstein,
National Director,
StandWithUs

Note that reference to being "a child of Holocaust survivors" - as though that puts her sincerity beyond question and her opinions above criticism. Well, it might work with guilt-tripping gentiles worried about their own antisemitism (a big element in Christian pro-Zionism), Ms.Rothstein; but even assuming you are what you say, it does not give you the right to speak for others whose families went through the same horrors - including the parents of Professor Norman Finkelstein - nor for those of us who might have perished had it not been for the heroic fight of the Resistance, and the Allied and Soviet forces.

Norman Finkelstein has not attacked the memory of the Holocaust victims. He has attacked the exploitation of the Holocaust victims and misappropriation of their memory by those who in some cases did nothing to stop the Nazis, or rescue anybody; and those who nowadays perpetrate their own war and racism against the Palestinian people. That is, those who "Stand With Us" would have us stand with.

Anyone who thinks these propagandists are solely upset because they felt someone used insensitive language about the Holocaust need only take a look at their website. Advertising itself as "the one-stop shop for pro-Israel activism", it includes a campaign for "US Student Support of Israeli Defense Forces", with a letter which teachers and school administrators can send out, beginning

"Dear Parents,
Our community is going to show support to Israeli soldiers....",
and giving instructions on how children can be involved in sending cards and cheques to the Israeli forces.

But they won't support all Israeli soldiers. Another of their petition campaigns announces:
'STANDWITHUS INVITES VETERANS OF THE IDF TO: SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE FALSE CLAIMS OF “BREAKING THE SILENCE”
-50 Days Left To Sign
“Breaking the Silence,” a small organization of former IDF soldiers, travels abroad to tell foreign audiences that because of IDF policy, Israeli soldiers are callous and unethical, and regularly commit human rights abuses'.

Wow! I wonder where these Israeli veterans could have got that idea? Not from experience, I suppose. They must have been listening to Arab propaganda! Surely not more "self-haters"? I guess a card and a cheque for a refusenik's family, whose breadwinner has gone to prison for refusing to serve in the Occupation, is out of the question?

Although Stand With Us boasts supporters in Britain, Australia and South Africa, its website depicts Israeli and US flags. But that does not mean they are satisfied with the Bush administration's support and arms for Israel. Urging "letters to President Bush NOW" they say "Write to the President frequently, use your fax and call the comment line. The message must be: Please support Israel's fight against terrorism. There cannot be a double standard between the war being fought by the US on terrorism, and Israel's same war. TERRORISM MUST NEVER BE SUPPORTED OR REWARDED. Include: I appreciate all that you have done in this war against terrorism".

They continue "Kids letters to President Bush: Apparently President Bush likes to read children's mail. Talk to the kids in your life. Get them writing, and send snail mail. Keep those letters flowing. Do letters at gatherings. The letters should be personal, no "form" letters. Give your kids a few brief facts, and let them write".

Elsewhere they advertise a video exposing the indoctrination of Arab children.

I guess if the kids don't sign their names can be forged, as has happened to some of us with the anti-Norman Finkelstein petition. It is very good of Ms.Rothstein to promise that Stand With Us will "take a moment" to look at some of the signatures posted. That was on Tuesday, and by last night my name was still in the petition, as were those of Paula Abrams-Hourani and Dr. Miriam Reik, both of whom had written letters to De Paul University supporting Norman Finkelstein's right to tenure. Whoever is responsible, and whether the aim was just to bump up numbers or as it appears, to deliberately misuse opponents' names, it is SWU's responsibility to check and remove the falsely used names.

Identity theft and libel, by misrepresenting a person's views as the opposite, on a serious matter like this, are not a joke but a crime. I have written to petitions on line to say that if Stand By Us do not remove our names then their petition should be removed from the petitions website. I also contacted a few friends to warn what was happening. From the reply below it would appear the campaign against Norman Finkelstein is rebounding in his favour, not just with faculty members, and prominent intellectuals like Noam Chomsky, but much wider support. This is from a friend in Not in My Name (appropriately enough!), which is part of Jewish Voices for Peace, in the United States:

Charlie,
Hi from Chicago. Norman is receiving tons of support from all over the world. Of course, the petition of which you speak is really atrocious. The comments are ridiculous. Obviously, few signers have ever read a word that Norman has written. To suggest that he is a Holocaust denier is laughable, but so many seem to believe that. We in Not In My Name are going to give him our annual Tikkun Olam award in a few weeks at our Benefit event. We will know in early June if he has received tenure.

Regards,
Joel

That's heartening to know. Let's wish koech, strength, to those who are fighting in the belly of the beast, against US empire and the Israeli occupiers' lobby which misuses all our name.

The original petition in SUPPORT of Norman Finkelstein's tenure is at:


http://www.petitiononline.com/nf200704/petition.html