Avi Mayer

Thoughts Longer Than 140 Characters

3 notes

Additional Statements Opposing the Boycott

The following are statements opposing the boycott of Israel from colleges and universities that have not yet posted them on their websites. I will update this post as additional statements come in. The overall list of institutions that have rejected the boycott may be found here.

DePaul University
Chicago, Ilinois

image

Gratz College
Melrose Park, Pennsylvania

Gratz College condemns the American Studies Association’s (ASA) resolution adopting a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. The ASA’s action violates academic freedom, a valued principle of our higher education system.  Gratz College stands with the Association of American Universities and all institutions of higher learning that oppose the ASA’s boycott, believe that political issues should not interfere with the pursuit of scholarship and inquiry, and recognize that exclusion does not advance knowledge or promote understanding. 

Joy W. Goldstein
President

Portland State University
Portland, Oregon

As the president of Portland State University, I join with many colleagues (as I already did through the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities) in condemning the call of the American Studies Association for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.  As academics, we are committed to the free and open exchange of ideas and knowledge. Thus, in principle, organizational attempts to stifle such exchange are antithetical to our beliefs.  Even if a nation’s politics or policies were abhorrent, it would be extremely rare for an academic boycott to be appropriate or useful.  In the case of Israel, while reasonable people can certainly debate the merits of any number of specific policies and programs, the totality of the practices and beliefs of the country does not even come close to meriting a boycott.  Indeed, the ASA action has encouraged me to strengthen my pursuit of academic exchanges between Portland State University and Israeli institutions.  

Wim Wiewel
President
Portland State University

 

University of Akron
Akron, Ohio

As an active member of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, The University of Akron supports the organization’s opposition to the boycott of Israeli institutions of higher learning.  We strongly endorse the principles of academic freedom and collaboration in the interest of inventing a better future for humanity.  We believe that more, rather than less, interaction, dialogue and exchange of ideas are the surest means of promoting peace and prosperity among the peoples of the world. 

Luis M. Proenza
President
The University


University of the Incarnate Word
San Antonio, Texas

To Whom It May Concern:

Let me take this opportunity to add my voice to those organizations opposing an academic boycott of Israel and Israeli academic institutions.

It’s been my experience as president of the University of the Incarnate Word, a Catholic college in San Antonio, Texas, that the only way to bridge cultural differences is for people of diverse backgrounds to engage in constructive dialogue.

Isolating Israel and its academic institutions would have a detrimental impact on this process, particularly in advancing the exchange of ideas.  More than ever, what is needed now is continuing, open dialogue. 

Sincerely,

Dr. Louis J. Agnese, Jr.
President
University of the Incarnate Word

University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Las Vegas, Nevada

image



13 notes

Universities Standing Strong For Academic Freedom and Against Bigotry (running list)

The following is a list of institutions whose presidents or chancellors have publicly rejected the academic boycott of Israel in recent days. The American Council on Education, an umbrella of 1,800 institutions that is widely considered the largest higher education organization in the United States, has condemned the boycott. So has the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, which has 223 institutional members. The Executive Committee of the Association of American Universities, which represents 62 top institutions in the U.S. and Canada, has also expressed its strong opposition to the boycott, as has the American Association of University Professors, which counts more than 48,000 members. 134 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed a letter condemning the boycott.

(Updated 1:21 p.m. EST, 2/26. Current tally: 250)

In addition, the following institutions’ American Studies programs have withdrawn their membership in the American Studies Association (ASA) following its boycott vote:

Furthermore, the following institutions have flatly denied being institutional members of the ASA, though the organization has listed them as such:

The editorial boards of the following student newspapers have also published editorials condemning the boycott of Israel and hailing their university administrations’ rejection thereof:

With thanks to William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection for his diligence.

2 notes

Max Blumenthal and the Gargantuan Goofs of Goliath

Max Blumenthal fancies himself a journalist. Or, at the very least, that’s how he’d like others to view him. But as I catch more and more glimpses of his new book, Goliath, I find myself wondering how anyone — even the most fanatical anti-Zionists, for whom this book has apparently been written — can take him seriously.

As noted in my previous post on the subject, I haven’t had a chance to read the book in full because, unlike seemingly all of Israel’s most radical detractors, I didn’t receive an advance copy. But thanks to Amazon.com and to Blumenthal’s own lavish self-promotion, I’ve had a chance to skim through a few sections of the book, and it’s quite a piece of work.

Setting aside the grammatical curiosities and the amateurish hyperbole, Blumenthal’s book is riddled with so many factual errors, unsubstantiated claims, and malicious innuendo that it’s hard to imagine anyone with even a passing familiarity with the subject matter reading it cover-to-cover without tossing it aside in disgust.

Eric Alterman has already commented on Blumenthal’s implicit comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, which run through the book. In my previous post, I presented an example in which Blumenthal printed a claim that was directly contradicted by the source he was purporting to cite — a text he later admitted he hadn’t read at all.

Below I will present five more examples — some seemingly minor, others decidedly less so, all culled randomly from whatever parts of the text were accessible to me — that illustrate just how profoundly flawed the book is.

Max’s Special Sticker

On page 40, during a discussion of security protocols at Tel Aviv’s Ben-Gurion International Airport, Blumenthal writes that,

Palestinians who pass through security procedures receive a special sticker on their passport reading, “Did you pack a bomb by mistake?”

Now, as a frequent traveler from and to Israel, I — a Jewish citizen of Israel — have encountered a variation of that question countless times. Israeli security personnel are known to ask whether a passenger’s luggage contains any packages passed along by others since, as they say, such packages could contain bombs (as they have in the past). I also have lots of stickers on my passport, stuck there by security staff following the standard questioning. And I’m aware of the fact that others may receive a more thorough examination than I do and that some are given different stickers for various reasons.

I have never, however, encountered an account of anyone — Palestinian, Israeli, or of any other background — having a “special sticker” asking whether they mistakenly packed a bomb in their luggage affixed to their passport.

Unsurprisingly, the source cited for the passage does not support Blumenthal’s claim.

Baba Yar

On page 57, Blumenthal describes the artwork in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament:

Nearby, in the lobby of the Government Room, where the prime minister meets with cabinet ministers, Knesset designers installed a giant oil painting by Joseph Kuzkovsky called The Last Way—Baba Yar. The painting depicts a procession of meek, defenseless Jewish peasants being marched out of their village in the Russian Pale of Settlement to be massacred by Nazi SS soldiers—“like sheep to the slaughter,” in the words of Abba Kovner, a Jewish partisan fighter and Zionist activist who hatched an abortive postwar plan to poison the drinking water of six million Germans in revenge for the Holocaust.

By adorning the walls of Israel’s deliberative body with representations of the European Jewish genocide (while ignoring the rich and varied history of Jewish life in the Arab world), the building’s decorators and designers deliberately enveloped Israel’s center of decision making with the insecurity of diaspora Jewish life.

There’s plenty to critique about this passage alone.

Babi Yar was the site of one of the most ghastly and infamous massacres of the Holocaust — 33,771 Jews were murdered over the course of two days in September 1941. It’s possible that Blumenthal would have bothered to get the name of the site right had he paid more attention to the accounts of Holocaust survivors like Elie Wiesel, whom he has attacked as an “amoral huckster.” It’s also possible that, had he known a bit more history, he’d have realized that the Pale of Settlement was abolished upon the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917, twenty-four years before the massacre at Babi Yar.

Not one to miss an opportunity to smear a Zionist, Blumenthal takes care to note that “Zionist activist” Abba Kovner hoped to kill six million Germans in retribution for the Holocaust, a detail that, though horrifying, has nothing to do with the rest of the passage and seems calculated to further develop his running comparison between Zionists and Nazis.

Most intriguing, perhaps, is Blumenthal’s parenthetical statement hailing the “rich and varied history of Jewish life in the Arab world,” presented as a counterpoint to “the European Jewish genocide” and “the insecurity of diaspora Jewish life.” It is common in some circles to pretend that life for Jews in Arab countries was a veritable paradise until Zionism came along. Unfortunately, that’s a myth, as journalist Ben-Dror Yemini painfully details (here’s the original article, in Hebrew). For more than a millennium, Jews were subjected to massacres, pogroms, expulsions, forced conversions, harassment, and daily humiliation throughout the Arab world. Pretending otherwise is an insult to the experiences of Mizrahi Jews and is meant — like so much in Blumenthal’s book — to smear Zionism and Zionists.

It’s the Demography, Stupid!

On page 57, Blumenthal makes the following claim regarding the comparatively small size of Tel Aviv’s Arab population:

[Tel Aviv mayor Ron] Huldai was determined to keep it that way, not only in a demographic sense by, for instance, supporting the construction of the separation wall that obstructed Palestinian workers from reaching Tel Aviv from the West Bank […]

I’ve heard many arguments in favor of what Blumenthal calls the “separation wall” and I’ve heard many against. Never have I heard anyone claim that it was meant purely to maintain Tel Aviv’s demographic balance by preventing Palestinian workers from reaching the city. 

According to Mideast scholar David Makovsky, it was Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who was the “intellectual father” of what Israelis generally call the security fence. In early 1995, following a wave of deadly suicide bombings, Rabin established the Shahal Commission to consider how best to construct a security barrier between Israelis and Palestinians. Prime Minister Ehud Barak raised the idea once again during peace negotiations in 2000. Public demand for a physical obstacle to prevent terrorists from striking Israeli targets grew dramatically after the outbreak of the Second Intifada in September of that year. After hundreds of Israeli civilians were murdered in terrorist attacks, the Israeli government decided in the middle of 2002 to construct a barrier — 95% of which is a fence and only 5% a concrete wall, according to its architect — to prevent terrorists from reaching Israel’s cities. As the construction proceeded, suicide bombings dropped sharply, as did the number of Israeli civilian casualties — including in Tel Aviv, which had been a major target of suicide bombings and which had suffered scores of casualties.

Of course, all of this is absent from Blumenthal’s telling of events, which ignores Israel’s security considerations entirely and portrays Huldai’s support for the fence as motivated by nothing more than “demographic” concerns.

Macabre Math

Perhaps most shocking is Blumenthal’s account of the first day of Operation Cast Lead in 2008. Page 4:

For a few hundred Gazan police cadets, December 27, 2008, held the promise of a short relief from the suffocating climate of the siege. That morning in Gaza City, the cadets assembled to celebrate their graduation from Hamas’s new police academies. They stood as a symbol of the order that finally presided over Gaza after years of gangland-style corruption and repression by the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA).

[…]

Just as the band struck up a martial tune, an Israel F-16 roared across the sky, launching a laser-guided missile into the center of the ceremonial procession.

[…]

Sixty more F-16s were now in the air, on their way to target police stations and civilian installations across the Gaza Strip. Within a matter of minutes, Israeli forces killed 240 Palestinians, including scores of children while they were leaving school.

Again, there’s a lot to critique here, including Blumenthal’s rosy depiction of Hamas rule in Gaza, which regularly draws widespread condemnation for its fundamentalist tyranny and its horrific abuses of human rights. It’s also noteworthy that, by virtually all accounts, the overwhelming majority of those killed that first day were members of either the Hamas security forces or the group’s military wing — a fact that does not appear anywhere in Blumenthal’s telling of events.

But I’d like to focus on nine words:

including scores of children while they were leaving school.

"Scores" indicates multiples of twenty, so according to Blumenthal, at least forty Palestinian children — minors, presumably, under the age of 18 — were killed while leaving school on the first day of the operation. A horrific thought.

Unfortunately for him, the numbers disagree.

According to B’Tselem (which Blumenthal cites elsewhere in the book, but, curiously, not here), sixteen (16) minors were killed on December 27 or died as a result of injuries sustained that day. Of the sixteen, thirteen were near Hamas facilities targeted by the Israel Air Force (IAF). Five of the sixteen were said to be on their way home from school — of them, four were also near Hamas facilities targeted by the IAF. Only one, 16-year-old Sha’ban ‘Adel Hamed Hneif, was said to be near his educational institution, an UNRWA professional training center, when he was wounded (he died in an Israeli hospital on December 31).

According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), twelve (12) minors were killed on December 27.

(It is worthy of note that neither B’Tselem nor PCHR is known for minimizing Palestinian casualty counts or tilting them in Israel’s favor.)

The higher number of casualties cited by B’Tselem is still less than half the number of children Blumenthal claims were killed that day, and the number killed “while they were leaving school” is, at most, an eighth of the number he cites.

Every child’s death — whether Palestinian or Israeli, intentional or not — is an unspeakable tragedy. That so many children were killed due to Hamas’s horrific practice of locating its facilities in the midst of civilian neighborhoods is criminal. And exploiting the deaths of children while playing with their numbers is despicable.

Did Blumenthal fabricate his numbers? Did he receive them from a source more reliable than both B’Tselem and PCHR? If he did, his readers wouldn’t know — no sources are cited for this passage.

It’s All Hebrew to Me

But most telling of all may be Blumenthal’s admission, on page 64, of a startling handicap:

But for a number of reasons, I needed help. First, I did not speak conversational Hebrew — I knew only enough to travel around the country, give commands, and order food.

It explains so much. Blumenthal presents himself as an authority on contemporary Israel, but as he was working on this book, he couldn’t even speak the language in which the majority of the country’s citizens conduct their lives. Perhaps that’s why he relies on so many English-language secondary sources and why one of the very few Hebrew sources he cites is accompanied by a note: “Translated for the author by…” And perhaps it’s why he gets so much so very wrong.

All this might, of course, have been slightly less egregious if he hadn’t mocked others for their language skills:

. Hussein, I’m sure you are the better judge of Arab media, but is it true you can’t read Arabic?

But that’s just like our Max, isn’t it?

A Closing Compliment

Awash with errors and drenched in bias, Max Blumenthal’s writing would not pass muster in a high school history class. For someone who passes himself off as a journalist, having his name attached to a book as shameful as this one should be a career ender. But Blumenthal hasn’t let shame stop him before, so I expect we’ll see more of him yet.

For all its flaws, though, I’ll grant Goliath this: it makes excellent use of the Oxford comma.

4 notes

Max Blumenthal and His Difficulty with Facts

First, a confession: I haven’t read Max Blumenthal’s latest screed, Goliath. This is due mainly to the fact that, although I requested one, he never sent me a review copy.

I have, however, caught some glimpses of the book’s contents in various fora and, if what I’ve seen is any indication, it seems Eric Alterman’s scathing reviews were actually rather charitable.

Alterman writes that Blumenthal’s tales are “mostly technically accurate,” but at least one of the examples he presents suggests that’s not the case.

Alterman:

Here is his argument in favor of the Arabs’ right to discriminate against Jewish Israelis: When a Haifa café is told by the municipality that it has no right to discriminate against Israeli soldiers in uniform by refusing to serve them, Blumenthal tells us it was “officially sanction[ing] a mob campaign” against it.

In a somewhat hysterical critique of Alterman’s review, Ira Glunts at Mondoweiss summarized the section in question:

This part of the book is about a Palestinian-owned bar in Haifa whose customers are young progressives, both Arabs and Jews. The owner instituted a rule which banned those in uniform from entering. The owner asked, “Why should we allow people to bring guns inside and wear uniforms that we identify with our own oppression?”

A uniformed soldier who was refused service later returned in uniform with his well-connected father and they called the police. The police informed them that the bar had the right, as a private club, to refuse service to customers, as is common practice in Israel. Ironically, the private club designation permits Jewish clubs and bars to refuse entry to Palestinians.

Within hours, reports of the incident appeared on Israeli TV. Someone organized a Facebook campaign to boycott the bar. Thousands of Israelis signed up on the page, adding many racist comments.

The next month, “a mob of Israeli students and soldiers, including members of the Likud-linked Im Tirtzu rallied outside the café ….” Hundreds of Israeli Jewish protesters marched outside the bar, singing the national anthem, draping Israeli flags over the front sign and blocking patrons view of the street. The police stood by watching.

Then according to Blumenthal, “… the Haifa municipality officially sanctioned the mob campaign (see Alterman objection above) against Azad (the name of the bar) issuing an order to shut down.” The order was appealed to the court and a judge struck down the order, citing no evidence of discrimination. After the court ruling, the soldier sued the bar owner in civil court. The judge ruled that the bar owner was liable for over $4000 in damages, although he did not cite any law that was broken.

The bar closed months later. The owner, disillusioned, told Blumenthal she planned on relocating to Ramallah in the West Bank. She felt that she would rather live in the occupied territory than live in Haifa, which is also occupied, but everyone is afraid to admit it.

Two things struck me about Glunts’s summary. The first was his statement that that the law “permits Jewish clubs and bars to refuse entry to Palestinians.” The second was his statement that the judge in the civil suit “did not cite any law that was broken.” For the moment, we’ll deal with the latter.

Here — thanks, Amazon! — is the relevant passage from Blumenthal’s book:

image

Blumenthal makes several claims regarding the law, the most intriguing of which is that Azad had “broken no laws,” and that the judge penalized the owners solely “for all the troubles they had caused the good people of Haifa.” 

Something about that didn’t sound quite right, so I looked up Judge Sher’s ruling.

Here’s the first line (my translation):

Before me is a claim of damages due to discrimination in accordance with the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law 5761-2000 (hereinafter “the law”).

What follows is a discussion of whether refusing to serve a uniformed soldier constitutes discrimination according to the law in question, since it is is not one of the categories explicitly mentioned therein. Ultimately, Judge Sher rules — based on several precedents — that the list of categories was not meant to be exhaustive and that discrimination against a uniformed serviceman does, in fact, constitute a violation of the law.

He concludes (emphasis added):

The extent of the offense has, to my mind, been correctly assessed by judges who considered similar cases, excluding an exceptional [case] that was settled. It seems that most judges saw fit in [cases of] similar though not identical offense that the court compensate the plaintiff with a sum of NIS 15,000 due to the violation of the law [committed] by the prohibition on entering the restaurant in uniform.

To that [sum] should be added legal fees of NIS 2,000, as well as the court fee as assessed for this date.

So Blumenthal’s statement that Azad was found to have “broken no laws” is, in fact, false.

(Incidentally, the Mondoweiss claim about the law permitting Jewish clubs to prohibit entry to Palestinians is also false: the law cited above explicitly bars “public places” — defined to include restaurants, cafes, performance spaces, nightclubs, and a variety of other establishments — from discriminating on the basis of “race, religion or religious group, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, views, political affiliation, personal status, or parenthood”).

Equally striking is that Blumenthal took care to exclude Judge Sher’s statement regarding the applicability of the law:

I will note parenthetically that I would also rule in this manner if something similar were done [i.e., service were refused - AM] to someone of Muslim, Christian, or foreign origin, wearing, for instance, a jalabiya or a veil.

Such a statement would come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the role of the Israeli judicial system in upholding civil rights and equality in Israel, but it may indeed come as a surprise to anyone who relies solely on Blumenthal’s telling of events.

Did Blumenthal bother to read the ruling? Indeed, can he, being that it — and much of the discourse surrounding the country on which he claims to be an authority — is in Hebrew? The answers are unclear.

What is indeed clear is that this is par for the course for an individual who has made a career of portraying Israel in the worst possible light, and facts be damned. Malicious dishonesty is a hallmark of Blumenthal’s work, and we should all expect to see further examples of his mendacity come to the fore in the near future.

3 notes

Introducing…

Hi, friends.

As the tagline suggests, I’ll be using this blog whenever I have something to say that doesn’t fit into a 140-character tweet (or a series thereof). I may migrate it to another platform at some point in the future, but I like how easy Tumblr is to use, so I’ll be sticking to it for now.

I look forward to your feedback!

Avi