10.29.07
Intellectual terrorism
Rad-Green
The Guardian October 25, 2007
Intellectual terrorism
By Ghada Karmi
The newest and least attractive import from America, following on
behind Coca-Cola, McDonalds and Friends, is the pro-Israel lobby. The
latest target of this US-style campaign is the august Oxford Union.
This week, two Israeli colleagues and I were due to appear at the
union to participate in an important debate on the one-state solution
in Israel-Palestine. Also invited was the American Jewish scholar and
outspoken critic of Israel, Norman Finkelstein. At the last minute,
however, the union withdrew its invitation to him, apparently
intimidated by threats from various pro-Israel groups.
The Harvard Jewish lawyer and indefatigable defender of Israel, Alan
Dershowitz, attacked the topic of the debate as well as the Oxford
Union itself. In an article headlined Oxford Union is dead, he accused
it of having become a propaganda platform for extremist views, and
castigated its choice of what he termed anti-Israel and anti-Semitic
speakers.
Yet Dershowitz could have restored the balance as he saw it; he was
the first person invited by the Oxford Union to oppose the motion but
he declined due, as he put it, to the terms of the debate and my
proposed teammates.
Dershowitzs article attacking the Oxford Union appeared in the
Jerusalem Post in Israel and Frontpage magazine in the US. [Because of
British defamation laws Cif has been advised not to provide a link -
Ed.] [See http://tinyurl.com/yte4st]
Dershowitz and Finkelstein were protagonists in a much-publicised
academic row in the US, though it is unclear whether this has any
relevance to the Oxford Union spat.
In solidarity with Finkelstein and to oppose this gross interference
in British democratic life, the three of us on the one state side -
myself, Avi Shlaim, of St Anthonys College, Oxford, and the Israeli
historian Ilan Pappe - decided to withdraw from the debate. This was
not an easy decision, since the topic was timely and necessary given
the current impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, where
innovative solutions are in short supply.
Dershowitz and the other pro-Israel activists may rejoice at their
success in derailing an important discussion. But it is of little
comfort to those of us who care about freedom of speech in this
country. Last May, Dershowitz interfered in British academic life when
the University and College Union voted overwhelmingly to debate the
merits of boycotting Israeli institutions. He teamed up with a British
Jewish lawyer, Anthony Julius, and others, threatening to devastate
and bankrupt anyone acting against Israeli universities.
In another example of these bullying tactics, the Royal Society of
Medicine, one of Britains most venerable medical institutions, came
under an attack this month, unprecedented in its 200 year history. It
had invited Dr Derek Summerfield, a psychiatrist (who has also
documented Israels medical abuses against Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories), to its conference on Religion, Spirituality and Mental
Health. The RSM was immediately bombarded with threats from pro-Israel
doctors demanding Dr Summerfields removal on the grounds that he was
and biased, and that the RSMs charitable status would be challenged if
he remained. Intimidated, the RSM asked Dr Summerfield to withdraw,
although they later reinstated him.
The power of the Israel lobby in America is legendary. It demonstrates
its influence at many levels. Campus Watch is a network that monitors
alleged anti-Israel activity in US academic institutions. The
difficulties of promotion in the US for scholars deemed anti-Israeli
are notorious. The notable Palestinian academic, Edward Said, was
subjected to an unrelenting campaign by pro-Israel groups at Columbia
University with threats on his life. His successor, Rashid Khalidi, is
the current object of the same campaign of vilification and attack.
Finkelstein himself has been denied tenure at his university and
everywhere else. The authors of a recent study of the Israel lobbys
influence on US foreign policy have been called anti-Semites and white
supremacists. Former president Jimmy Carters book, Palestine: peace
not apartheid, has earned him the label of Jew-hater and Nazi
sympathiser. The British publisher, Pluto Press, is likely to be
dropped by its American distributors, the University of Michigan
Press, because pro-Israel groups accuse it of including anti-Semitic
(ie pro-Palestinian/critical of Israel) books on its list.
Such activities are familiar in the US. People there are hardened or
resigned to having their freedom of expression limited by the
pro-Israel lobby, and the threats of Dershowitz would cause no
surprise to anyone. But Britain is different, naively innocent in the
face of US-style assaults on its scholars and institutions. No wonder
that those who have been attacked give in so quickly, nervous of
something they do not understand. The UCU leadership, shocked and
intimidated by the ferocious reaction to the boycott motion from
pro-Israel groups, resorted to legal advice to extricate itself and
announced in September that a call to boycott Israeli institutions
would be unlawful. The Oxford Union jettisoned one of its participants
rather than stand up to the threats of its critics. The RSM tried to
distance the offending speaker from its conference to protect itself
from abuse.
All this is understandable, but it is exactly the wrong response.
Appeasing bullies like Dershowitz will not stop them. It will rather
encourage them to go further. The question is, do we in this country
want a McCarthyite witch hunt? If not, then we must confront the
bullies and expose them for the intellectual terrorists they are, bent
on destroying the values of a free society. To do otherwise will
invite the fate of all repressed people, cowed and intimidated, hating
their tormentors, but too afraid to say so.