Sony’s “The Interview” (now “a silent film”) It’s unacceptable for Sony Studios to allow audiences to see a comedy making fun of North Korea’s Kim Jung Un, but de rigeur for the Taliban to force Pakistani students to see their teacher burned alive. It’s bad taste for ISIS to behead innocents in Iraq and Syria, but not “terrorist” for Hamas to murder innocents by other means in the Holy Land, at least according to the EU’s “human rights supreme court.”
The Brandeis Center strongly condemns Harvard University’s suspension of SodaStream, the do-it-yourself soda and water machine, from campus dining services. It is no more than a clever ploy by supporters of the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement to hurt the Israeli economy, and in no way furthers the proclaimed human rights concerns of the students in favor of the suspension. Source: The Harvard Crimson The Harvard Crimson revealed this morning that the Harvard University Dining Service (HUDS) succumbed to pressure by anti-Israel activists, discontinuing use of SodaStream products, in response to Sodastream’s operations in territory that is disputed between Israel and Palestinians. “These machines can be seen as a microaggression to Palestinian students and their families and like the University doesn’t care about Palestinian human rights,” said Rachel J. Sandalow-Ash ’15, a member of the Harvard College Progressive Jewish Alliance. HUDS’ action, however, seems to disregard the opinions of many pro-Israel students on campus, as well as the many merits of SodaStream and how the company works to protect Palestinian rights. This action is incredibly disturbing, and laced with anti-Semitism. “Make no mistake about it,” LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus explained, “this attack on Sodastream is every bit as deplorable as any other anti-Israel boycott, divestment or sanction (BDS). It is an attack on Israel that bolsters efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state.” The Brandeis Center rebuffed efforts to differentiate Harvard’s action from the broader BDS movement. Marcus commented, In many ways, these micro-BDS efforts are more dangerous than broader campaigns against the entire country of Israel, because they are sneakier and more deceptive. They target one or two companies, or a short list of Israeli politicians or universities. And they claim that they are not advocating boycotts against the entire Jewish nation. But they are based on the notion that it is okay to apply different standards to Israelis than to the rest of the world’s peoples. And they ultimately end up in the same place. All anti-Israel boycotts, whether limited or comprehensive, advance the same agenda, which is to deny Israel normalcy and legitimacy. This is a deeply anti-Semitic campaign and it must be understood as such. In addition to the anti-Semitism laced to this campaign, this is simply not a well-thought out strategy from a human rights standpoint. SodaStream employs 500 Palestinians, along with 450 Israeli Arab and 350 Israeli Jewish citizens, providing equal wages to all. This greatly helps Palestinian workers, as Israeli wages are about four times more than what they would earn in the Palestinian Authority, if they were lucky enough to have a job (unemployment is between 30-40%). SodaStream feeds and provides health insurance to about 5,000 Palestinians, as each Palestinian SodaStream worker provides food and health insurance for ten. Additionally, the SodaStream factory in Area C of the West Bank actually operates under the Oslo Accord of 1993– the agreement of the Palestinians themselves – that Area C will operate under the Israeli administration until the final borders are drawn. In no way will boycotting SodaStream, and throwing SodaStream workers into unemployment, promote peace Harvard’s President Drew Faust has previously been quick to speak out against anti-Israel academic boycotts in the past. In a letter written to President Faust today, LDB respectfully urged Faust to reverse HUDS’ decision to boycott SodaStream. Harvard University President, Drew Faust LDB President Marcus wrote that in particular “we are concerned that HUDS’ actions created an environment that Israeli and Jewish students will reasonably perceive to be hostile. The decision to isolate and disparage Israel in this manner will signal that Harvard takes a disparaging view of Israelis and Jews. Such messages are incompatible with Harvard’s values and U.S. law.” We are awaiting a response from President Faust, but we only hope she follows her own precedent and reverses this troubling, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic decision.
Pressured by the authorities, Chabad in Australia has snuffed out its 30-year tradition of lighting a 33-foot Menorah in downtown Sydney. Santa Claus may also be put under wraps, but there are no plans to ban the erection of two large Christmas trees. One wonders whether Muslims in Australia will face any such restrictions come Ramadan. Perish such an Islamophobic thought. In Australia, Christians may not yet be relegated to second-class status—but there appears to be no such waiting period for Jewish dhimmization.
The University of California—once home of the legendary Free Speech Movement—has an academic freedom problem. Earlier this year, we witnessed Nicholas Dirks, Chancellor of UC-Berkeley, co-opt the anniversary of Berkeley’s Free Speech Movement to emphasize the limits that “civility” might, in his view, properly impose on freedom of speech. Now comes a new threat to intellectual freedom, as students across the UC system face a potential onslaught of classroom indoctrination. In December, the UAW 2865, the University System’s union for graduate instructors, voted to support the movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Nearly two-thirds of the union’s members voted in support of divestment, and over half pledged to personally abide by an academic boycott of Israeli educational institutions. A union vote alone does not constitute a breach of academic freedom. And UC’s graduate students unquestionably have the right to express whatever political opinions they choose outside the classroom. Nevertheless, the UAW 2865’s vote is profoundly worrisome. First and foremost, academic boycotts are anathema to academic freedom. In order to perform its mission in society—the educating of young minds—the university must maintain a neutral posture on hot-button political questions. As the seminal Kalven Committee Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action states: To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. … The neutrality of the university … arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. (more…)
Several groups, including the Louis D. Brandeis Center, have just sent this letter to the University of California seeking answers about the recent vote of the UAW 2865 in favor of participating in the BDS movement. Kudos to the AMCHA Initiative for coordinating this work: Dear Chancellors Block, Blumenthal, Dirks, Gillman, Katehi, Khosla, Leland, Wilcox and Yang: We represent 22 organizations with hundreds and thousands of members and supporters nationwide, who are deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of Jewish students at colleges and universities across the country in light of the rising tide of anti-Israel sentiment and the rapid growth of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement on many campuses. We are writing to you now about the recent vote of the UAW 2865 in favor of participating in the BDS movement, with 1,411 of the 2,168 voting union members (65%) favoring the resolution. In addition to the union’s adoption of BDS, a pledge was taken by 1,136 graduate student instructors to personally adhere to a discriminatory boycott of Israeli universities and scholars. While we support the right of every member of UAW 2865 to exercise his or her freedom of speech outside of the instructional setting, we are greatly concerned that these union members, who are responsible for instructing hundreds of thousands of undergraduate students, will bring their unscholarly, politically motivated and antisemitic propaganda and advocacy into UC classrooms, where it certainly does not belong. The BDS movement has become increasingly explicit in expressing its ultimate goal of eliminating Israel. This goal was echoed by members of the UAW 2865 BDS Caucus panel at UC Berkeley last month, when they stated that the purpose of BDS is “isolating Zionism” and “bringing down Israel.” In embracing a movement that calls for the elimination of the world’s only Jewish state, UAW 2865 members are trafficking in open antisemitism. Furthermore, the BDS movement calls for a campaign of anti-normalization whose goal is to delegitimize and silence anyone who accepts the legitimacy of the Jewish state. On numerous college campuses, including at the University of California, aggressive anti-normalization campaigns have targeted Jewish and pro-Israel students for harassment, intimidation, bullying, and even physical assault. UC policy, particularly the Regents Policy on Course Content, prohibits graduate students from using their instructional positions to promote anti-Israel propaganda and the antisemitic boycott of Israel inside their classrooms. We are aware that Provost Dorr has sent to each of you a letter enumerating these University policies. Given the antisemitic and discriminatory nature of the BDS movement, graduate student instructors who choose to use their classroom as a platform for advancing the goals of the BDS movement cannot help but create a hostile and threatening environment for many Jewish and pro-Israel students. We therefore call on each of you to issue a public statement affirming your commitment to strictly enforcing the Regents Policy on Course Content and to ensuring that Jewish and pro-Israel students are provided with a safe and non-discriminatory learning environment. Sincerely, Accuracy in Academia AMCHA Initiative American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists Americans for Peace and Tolerance Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law California Association of Scholars Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) CUFI on Campus David Horowitz Freedom Center Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) Hasbara Fellowships Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel National Conference on Jewish Affairs Proclaiming Justice to the Nations Scholars for Peace in the Middle East Simon Wiesenthal Center StandWithUs Students and Parents Against Campus Anti-Semitism The Lawfare Project Training and Education About the Middle East (T.E.A.M.) Verity Educate Zionist Organization of America Cc: UC President Janet Napolitano UC Provost Aimee Dorr UC Regents California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson California Senator Carol Liu, Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Education California Assembly Member Das Williams, Chair of the Assembly Committee on Higher Education California Assembly Member Shirley Weber, Chair of the Select Committee on Campus Climate California State Senator Marty Block, Chair of Legislative Jewish Caucus California Jewish Community Leaders
I consider torture—including waterboarding—not only morally but aesthetically revolting. But unlike Jews who miraculously always find their liberal preferences enshrined in biblical and rabbinic precedent, I find nothing in those traditions that directly bears on the question of torture except the Talmudic dictum, “ain adam mesim atsmo,” against self-incrimination. I’ve been more influenced by great literary treatments of torture—from Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon” to Graham Greene’s “Our Man in Havana,” set around 1958. This exchange occurs in the movie version of the latter that seems particularly apropos given the recent release of Alan Gross from the Castro brothers’ gulag: “Capt. Segura: The engineer does not belong to the torturable class. Beatrice: Are there class distinctions in torture? Capt. Segura: Some people expect to be tortured. Others are outraged by it. One never tortures except by mutual agreement. Beatrice: Who agrees? Capt. Segura: Usually the poor. In your welfare state you have social security, therefore you have no poor. Consequently there you are untorturable.” Literature, however, has to be read against the backdrop of real history. Readers of Thomas More’s “Utopia” or viewers of Robert Bolt’s “A Man For All Seasons” may think they know that Saint More sided with the angels. In fact, as Henry VIII’s right arm, he tortured the heretical and probably mad “Maid of Kent.” Thomas Cromwell, More’s successor, was much more consistent in his theory-and-practice of torture. See Hilary Mantel’s two great historical novels featuring Cromwell. I oppose torture—and not only of the poor and politically marginalized in totalitarian states—but this does not means I am “soft” on illegal combatants who violate international law. I think FDR got it right in 1942 by summarily executing, after trial by military commission, six German saboteurs; two others received lesser sentences. In my view, captured followers of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or ISIS guilty of war crimes should be summarily tried and, if convicted, sentenced to death. The sentence should then be stayed—provided they provide useful information. Another inducement could be the promise of eventual pardon and release. As Dr. Samuel Johnson said in the eighteenth century, “Nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of being hanged.” I think my preferred approach would be as effective as either drawn-out non-enhanced or enhanced interrogation techniques. That we don’t do it this way is not a convincing criticism. It just shows how, since WWII, we have lost the moral clarity to mete out wartime justice with a combination of ruthless dispatch and practicality. Suspending his conscience to serve his prince (which I don’t advocate), Thomas Cromwell understood how to extract information in a straightforward manner without the stench of hypocrisy.