One of the most disturbing trends around today is the tendency of many well-meaning folk - Ilhan Omar for one - to apologise, or otherwise back down, when under attack by Zionists for comments in support of the Palestinian cause. The simple fact of the matter is that it is those who advocate for Israel, not those who advocate for Palestine, who should be apologising for their role in aiding and abetting Israeli apartheid. If pro-Palestinians have done their homework, and are in command of the facts, there should be no backing down or appeasement of Israel lobbyists.
US academic Steve Salaita's essay The problem with apology (stevesalaita.com) should be read in its entirety by anyone intending to weigh in on the subject of Palestine/Israel. Here's an extract:
"You probably know that pro-Israel activists are intense, but unless you've been their target it's hard to imagine the level of intensity. They never stop. This relentlessness separates them from garden-variety fanatics. A single punishment, no matter how vicious, is never enough. Their goal is to force targets into destitution, and then they'll keep going until observers are destitute by association. The belligerence honors the settler-colonial entity to which they're devoted. If you fight back (the correct decision), they'll smear you as anti-Semitic. If you ignore the noise, they'll grow louder. And if you apologize, well, it would be a bad idea. They'll see it not as a victory, or an opportunity for reconciliation, but as an invitation to be more exasperating. The lists of journalists, academics, writers, artists, politicians, musicians, and activists punished for affirming Palestinian life - or merely for running afoul of right-wing Zionist orthodoxy - illustrates that recrimination is its own kind of stimulus. It's been so effective, may as well accelerate the model. It's hard to imagine the model's demise without reshaping the anatomy of US political discourse. And forget about avoiding it. If you criticize Israel's behavior - or condemn Zionism, the more important approach - you simultaneously risk defamation, or at least the nattering inanity of both voluntary and professional trolls. Institutions exist around the world to protect Israel's reputation and inoculate the state against the kind of inquiry any healthy community understands as normal. These institutions are funded by billionaires and various government agencies. It can lead to the bizarre scenario of a solitary Twitter critic getting pitted against the world's most powerful forces. I was once that solitary critic."
Showing posts with label Steven Salaita. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steven Salaita. Show all posts
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Thursday, April 2, 2015
First the Apology, Then the Re-Education
The Zionist bullying of the Red Rattler Theatre continues:
"The AJN understands that the Red Rattler's board is taking steps to ensure that the situation is not repeated." (Theatre apologises for rejecting Hillel show, The Australian Jewish News, 27/3/15)
The "situation," of course, being that someone from the board told a "Jewish organisation" (Hillel) that the RRT does "not host groups that support the colonisation and occupation of Palestine." (See my 23/3/15 post Back to Marrickville.)
Now if Hillel were merely a Jewish organisation, all it had to do was point out that it has nothing whatever to do with Israel or its colonisation and occupation of Palestine.
Except that then it would have had to explain away its Vision Statement, which advocates "an enduring commitment to Israel" and its promotion of Israel's Jews-only Taglit-Birthright Israel program, both indicating an explicitly Zionist agenda.
No, bluff and bully's obviously the way to go here:
"That includes a new process for approving events, education for the staff member who sent the response, including a visit to the Sydney Jewish Holocaust Museum, and a meeting between Mendelevich, Alhadeff and employees and board members from The Red Rattler." (ibid)
Think about this for a moment. A holocaust museum doubling as a re-education camp, not for anti-Semites, but for anti-Zionists! It doesn't get much more Orwellian than that.
Nor is entry to the camp voluntary for our hapless anti-Zionist. Please note the opening word of the penultimate paragraph of the AJN's editorial on the subject:
"When the employee attends the Sydney Jewish Museum and learns about the Holocaust, we only hope he/she understands the slippery slope that anti-Semitism can lead to." (Rattled by theatre, AJN, 27/3/15)
Let me conclude with the following enlightening analysis of Hillel by Arab-American academic Steven Salaita:
"Hillel is almost always involved in the promotion of Israel on campus either as a sponsor or an organizer. Hillel is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has a presence on every major campus in the United States. A close reading of its educational materials illustrates that it is deeply committed to Israel and eager to promote the state as a beacon of modernity through slick promotional campaigns. Criticism of Israel is verboten in Hillel discourse. The organization has been working hard since the emergence of pro-Palestine voices to prepare its local chapters for what it conceptualizes as an onslaught of perplexing and aggressive opposition. It is also invested in marketing strategies for Israel that ignore its military occupation of the West Bank and emphasize instead its wealth of American-style modernity. Hillel doesn't treat the Israel-Palestine conflict as a solvable dispute that requires dialogue and a just resolution. It approaches the conflict as a propaganda contest in which Israel must be defended as a matter of principle. Hillel's depoliticization of Israel's colonial mandate facilitates its marketing strategy. When groups opposed to Israel's policy criticize the state, Hillel relies on a decontextualized victimology, one that evokes the Holocaust and anti-Semitism without mentioning Jewish violence in Israel, to reframe the issue from one of decolonization to one of unfair persecution. Because Israel is inscribed in the daily observance of Jewish culture, to criticize it is to simultaneously perform an attack against the Jewish people. This logic underlies Hillel's claims to multicultural belonging.
"In campus promotions, Israel is usually described as follows:
*A land that's fun and effervescent
*A fabulous place for study abroad
*A great opportunity for American Jews to connect to their culture
*A promised land of multicultural splendor, representing Jews from over 50 countries
*A thriving democracy surrounded by hostile, undemocratic enemies
*An exotic nation housing an uninterrupted ancient culture
*A place with a punchy, unlikely origin as a David against intractable Arab Goliaths
*The exclusive territory of Jews from around the world
"The most noteworthy facet of these representations is of Israel is not what they describe, but what they omit. There is rarely mention of Arabs and Palestinians as anything other than existential threats to Israel. There is never acknowledgment of Israel's military occupation or even of its colonial origin; Israel is invented as a timeless entity liberated from the tyranny of Great Britain and the obstructionism of the Arabs. These portrayals represent more than just putting a good foot forward. They arise from a meticulous campaign to market Israel on college campuses as a modern antidote to the barbarity of the Arabs and their dubious supporters." (Israel's Dead Soul, 2011, pp 18-19)
"The AJN understands that the Red Rattler's board is taking steps to ensure that the situation is not repeated." (Theatre apologises for rejecting Hillel show, The Australian Jewish News, 27/3/15)
The "situation," of course, being that someone from the board told a "Jewish organisation" (Hillel) that the RRT does "not host groups that support the colonisation and occupation of Palestine." (See my 23/3/15 post Back to Marrickville.)
Now if Hillel were merely a Jewish organisation, all it had to do was point out that it has nothing whatever to do with Israel or its colonisation and occupation of Palestine.
Except that then it would have had to explain away its Vision Statement, which advocates "an enduring commitment to Israel" and its promotion of Israel's Jews-only Taglit-Birthright Israel program, both indicating an explicitly Zionist agenda.
No, bluff and bully's obviously the way to go here:
"That includes a new process for approving events, education for the staff member who sent the response, including a visit to the Sydney Jewish Holocaust Museum, and a meeting between Mendelevich, Alhadeff and employees and board members from The Red Rattler." (ibid)
Think about this for a moment. A holocaust museum doubling as a re-education camp, not for anti-Semites, but for anti-Zionists! It doesn't get much more Orwellian than that.
Nor is entry to the camp voluntary for our hapless anti-Zionist. Please note the opening word of the penultimate paragraph of the AJN's editorial on the subject:
"When the employee attends the Sydney Jewish Museum and learns about the Holocaust, we only hope he/she understands the slippery slope that anti-Semitism can lead to." (Rattled by theatre, AJN, 27/3/15)
Let me conclude with the following enlightening analysis of Hillel by Arab-American academic Steven Salaita:
"Hillel is almost always involved in the promotion of Israel on campus either as a sponsor or an organizer. Hillel is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has a presence on every major campus in the United States. A close reading of its educational materials illustrates that it is deeply committed to Israel and eager to promote the state as a beacon of modernity through slick promotional campaigns. Criticism of Israel is verboten in Hillel discourse. The organization has been working hard since the emergence of pro-Palestine voices to prepare its local chapters for what it conceptualizes as an onslaught of perplexing and aggressive opposition. It is also invested in marketing strategies for Israel that ignore its military occupation of the West Bank and emphasize instead its wealth of American-style modernity. Hillel doesn't treat the Israel-Palestine conflict as a solvable dispute that requires dialogue and a just resolution. It approaches the conflict as a propaganda contest in which Israel must be defended as a matter of principle. Hillel's depoliticization of Israel's colonial mandate facilitates its marketing strategy. When groups opposed to Israel's policy criticize the state, Hillel relies on a decontextualized victimology, one that evokes the Holocaust and anti-Semitism without mentioning Jewish violence in Israel, to reframe the issue from one of decolonization to one of unfair persecution. Because Israel is inscribed in the daily observance of Jewish culture, to criticize it is to simultaneously perform an attack against the Jewish people. This logic underlies Hillel's claims to multicultural belonging.
"In campus promotions, Israel is usually described as follows:
*A land that's fun and effervescent
*A fabulous place for study abroad
*A great opportunity for American Jews to connect to their culture
*A promised land of multicultural splendor, representing Jews from over 50 countries
*A thriving democracy surrounded by hostile, undemocratic enemies
*An exotic nation housing an uninterrupted ancient culture
*A place with a punchy, unlikely origin as a David against intractable Arab Goliaths
*The exclusive territory of Jews from around the world
"The most noteworthy facet of these representations is of Israel is not what they describe, but what they omit. There is rarely mention of Arabs and Palestinians as anything other than existential threats to Israel. There is never acknowledgment of Israel's military occupation or even of its colonial origin; Israel is invented as a timeless entity liberated from the tyranny of Great Britain and the obstructionism of the Arabs. These portrayals represent more than just putting a good foot forward. They arise from a meticulous campaign to market Israel on college campuses as a modern antidote to the barbarity of the Arabs and their dubious supporters." (Israel's Dead Soul, 2011, pp 18-19)
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
How Zionists Enforce the Party Line on Israel
Ever wonder why Western political parties and institutions such as the media and universities can generally be relied upon to toe the line on Israel?
One thing's for sure. It has nothing whatever to do with any particular fondness for the beast. Basically, it comes down to fear, fear of becoming the target of a campaign of confected outrage, sometimes accompanied by a threatened or actual loss of funding, or maybe even legal action.
To cite but one local example: despite the claptrap we hear from Labor leaders at Zionist functions about Australia and Israel sharing common values, and the nonsense they spout concerning the 'glorious' role of Labor icon Doc Evatt at the United Nations in laying the foundations for the creation of the Jewish state, the ALP's current piss-poor position on Palestine/Israel stems primarily from the party's reliance on Zionist funding - see my 22/6/10 post The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy.
The case of pro-Palestinian US academic Steven Salaita*, a professor of English and an authority on Arab and Native Americans, provides a rare glimpse into what goes on behind the scenes whenever the usual suspects get their knickers in a knot over anyone with the gumption to critique Israel from a mainstream party, media, or academic platform.
To set the scene:
"On Friday, officials of the University of Illinois offered their first public explanations for the decision to block the hiring of Steven Salaita. They denied that his criticism of Israel was the reason, and said that they were committed to promoting an atmosphere in which people and ideas are not demeaned. 'What we cannot and will not tolerate at the University of Illinois are personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them...' said an email from Phyllis M. Wise, chancellor of the Urbana-Champaign campus where the American Indian studies program offered Salaita a tenured position that he and the department believe he accepted. Since news emerged 3 weeks ago that Wise told Salaita that the job would not be his because she would not submit it to the Illinois board for approval, the decision has been the subject of intense national debate in academic circles and beyond." (U. of Illinois officials defend decision to deny job to scholar; documents show lobbying against him, Scott Jaschik, insidehighered.com, 25/8/14)
Now for that rare, behind-the-scenes look at what it was that influenced or prompted the university's chancellor to deny this perceptive and passionate critic of Israeli apartheid and terrorism a job:
"Also on Friday, the university responded to an open records request from Inside Higher Ed for communications to the chancellor about the Salaita appointment, prior to her action to block it. The communications show that Wise was lobbied on the decision not only by pro-Israel students, parents and alumni, but also by the fund-raising arm of the university. The communications also show that the university system president was involved, and that the university was considering the legal ramifications of the case before the action to block the appointment. Most of the emails have the names of the senders redacted and some are nearly identical, suggesting the use of talking points or shared drafts. Many of the letter writers identify themselves Jewish and/or sympathetic to Israel, as students, parents or alumni, and as people who say that the tone of Salaita's comments (especially on Twitter) makes them believe he would be hostile to them and to their views... While many of the emails are fairly similar, some stand out. For instance, there is an email from Travis Smith, senior director of development for the university of Illinois Foundation, to Wise, with copies to Molly Tracy, who is in charge of fund-raising for engineering programs, and Dan C. Peterson, vice chancellor for institutional advancement. The email forwards a letter complaining about the Salaita hire. The email from Smith says: 'Dan, Molly, and I have just discussed this and believe you need to [redacted].' (The blacked out portion suggests a phrase is missing, not just a word or two.)... At least one email... was from someone who identified himself as a major donor who said he would stop giving if Salaita were hired."
There's plenty more along these lines in Jaschik's report, but I'm sure you've got the idea. See also Steven Salaita's academic lynching by Stephen Lendman (sjlendman.blogspot.com, 25/8/14)
[*For those who might like to explore Salaita's writings, I can personally recommend Anti-Arab Racism in the USA (2006) and Israel's Dead Soul (2010).]
One thing's for sure. It has nothing whatever to do with any particular fondness for the beast. Basically, it comes down to fear, fear of becoming the target of a campaign of confected outrage, sometimes accompanied by a threatened or actual loss of funding, or maybe even legal action.
To cite but one local example: despite the claptrap we hear from Labor leaders at Zionist functions about Australia and Israel sharing common values, and the nonsense they spout concerning the 'glorious' role of Labor icon Doc Evatt at the United Nations in laying the foundations for the creation of the Jewish state, the ALP's current piss-poor position on Palestine/Israel stems primarily from the party's reliance on Zionist funding - see my 22/6/10 post The Best Israel Policy Money Can Buy.
The case of pro-Palestinian US academic Steven Salaita*, a professor of English and an authority on Arab and Native Americans, provides a rare glimpse into what goes on behind the scenes whenever the usual suspects get their knickers in a knot over anyone with the gumption to critique Israel from a mainstream party, media, or academic platform.
To set the scene:
"On Friday, officials of the University of Illinois offered their first public explanations for the decision to block the hiring of Steven Salaita. They denied that his criticism of Israel was the reason, and said that they were committed to promoting an atmosphere in which people and ideas are not demeaned. 'What we cannot and will not tolerate at the University of Illinois are personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them...' said an email from Phyllis M. Wise, chancellor of the Urbana-Champaign campus where the American Indian studies program offered Salaita a tenured position that he and the department believe he accepted. Since news emerged 3 weeks ago that Wise told Salaita that the job would not be his because she would not submit it to the Illinois board for approval, the decision has been the subject of intense national debate in academic circles and beyond." (U. of Illinois officials defend decision to deny job to scholar; documents show lobbying against him, Scott Jaschik, insidehighered.com, 25/8/14)
Now for that rare, behind-the-scenes look at what it was that influenced or prompted the university's chancellor to deny this perceptive and passionate critic of Israeli apartheid and terrorism a job:
"Also on Friday, the university responded to an open records request from Inside Higher Ed for communications to the chancellor about the Salaita appointment, prior to her action to block it. The communications show that Wise was lobbied on the decision not only by pro-Israel students, parents and alumni, but also by the fund-raising arm of the university. The communications also show that the university system president was involved, and that the university was considering the legal ramifications of the case before the action to block the appointment. Most of the emails have the names of the senders redacted and some are nearly identical, suggesting the use of talking points or shared drafts. Many of the letter writers identify themselves Jewish and/or sympathetic to Israel, as students, parents or alumni, and as people who say that the tone of Salaita's comments (especially on Twitter) makes them believe he would be hostile to them and to their views... While many of the emails are fairly similar, some stand out. For instance, there is an email from Travis Smith, senior director of development for the university of Illinois Foundation, to Wise, with copies to Molly Tracy, who is in charge of fund-raising for engineering programs, and Dan C. Peterson, vice chancellor for institutional advancement. The email forwards a letter complaining about the Salaita hire. The email from Smith says: 'Dan, Molly, and I have just discussed this and believe you need to [redacted].' (The blacked out portion suggests a phrase is missing, not just a word or two.)... At least one email... was from someone who identified himself as a major donor who said he would stop giving if Salaita were hired."
There's plenty more along these lines in Jaschik's report, but I'm sure you've got the idea. See also Steven Salaita's academic lynching by Stephen Lendman (sjlendman.blogspot.com, 25/8/14)
[*For those who might like to explore Salaita's writings, I can personally recommend Anti-Arab Racism in the USA (2006) and Israel's Dead Soul (2010).]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)