Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Israeli Lobby scuttles SJSU Panel on War and Occupation
The Israeli lobby managed to sabotage a teach-in on war, occupation and peace in the middle east last evening.
The teach-in was held at the San Jose State University. The lobby forced one of the panelists, Dr Gil Villagran
to bow out and his place was taken by a Zionist ideologue David Meir Levy.
The teach-in was held at the San Jose State University. The lobby forced one of the panelists, Dr Gil Villagran
to bow out and his place was taken by a Zionist ideologue David Meir Levy.
Israeli Lobby sabotages SJSU Panel on War and Occuptaion
The Israeli lobby is up to its usual tricks again. Last evening
it managed to sabotage a teach-in on war, occupation and peace
in the middle east held at San Jose State University. The panel
was supposed to be comprised of Emad Yahya, Salem Ajluni,
Hossein Al-Hamalawy, Gil Villagran and Sharat Lin. However
due to the last minute shenanigans of the lobby and the intense
pressure it applied, Professor Villagran had to bow out of the panel
in the "interest of a more balanced perspective". The upshot of the
whole sordid affair was that Prof Villagran was replaced by a Zionist
ideologue David Meir Levi.
Imagine, for the moment, that you are living in apartheid South Africa.
Imagine further that University of Johannesburg decides to hold
a panel commemorating the Soweto Uprising, whose raison d'etre
is to expose the horrible injustices of the apartheid regime. Now imagine
that powers that be at the University apply pressure on the
organizers of the panel to "balance the one-sided perspective of the panel"
by including an apartheid ideologue on the panel. Would such pressure
tactics be considered reasonable or would they be seen for what
they are - efforts of the powerful to squelch any dissenting views?
Although Israel and its apologists balk at the apartheid analogy,
the analogy is now commonplace. It is not just Jimmy Carter who
compares the conditions in occupied Palestinian territories to apartheid,
but even respectable human rights organizations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch which routinely use this
analogy while documenting human rights abuses in occupied
territories. Even Ha'aretz, a mainstream Israeli newspaper calls
a spade a spade. A recent article 'Yes, it is apartheid',
( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977947.html),
by Yossi Sarid which is a pungent satire on Israeli culture which
transforms Carter into the very epitome of evil for daring
to meet with Hamas leaders, observes
"Let's let old Carter be, so he may let sleeping warriors lie;
he will not be back. The contents of his words, however, should not be ignored. "Apartheid," he said, "apartheid" - a dark, scary word
coined by Afrikaners and meaning segregation, racial segregation.
What does he want from us, that evil man: What do we have to do with apartheid?
Does a separation fence constitute separation? Do separate roads for Jewish
settlers and Palestinians really separate? Are Palestinian enclaves between
Jewish settlements Bantustans?"
That the Israeli lobby routinely squelches dissent is not news. That
it has the power to make and break politicians is not news. That
it has the power to destroy academic careers of highly original scholars such
as Norman Finkelstein whose trailblazing work has been an inspiration
for all of us looking towards a just solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict
is not news. The real question is - Are we simply going to capitulate
to its shenanigans or are we going to stand up to it? The choice is ours.
The Israeli lobby is up to its usual tricks again. Last evening
it managed to sabotage a teach-in on war, occupation and peace
in the middle east held at San Jose State University. The panel
was supposed to be comprised of Emad Yahya, Salem Ajluni,
Hossein Al-Hamalawy, Gil Villagran and Sharat Lin. However
due to the last minute shenanigans of the lobby and the intense
pressure it applied, Professor Villagran had to bow out of the panel
in the "interest of a more balanced perspective". The upshot of the
whole sordid affair was that Prof Villagran was replaced by a Zionist
ideologue David Meir Levi.
Imagine, for the moment, that you are living in apartheid South Africa.
Imagine further that University of Johannesburg decides to hold
a panel commemorating the Soweto Uprising, whose raison d'etre
is to expose the horrible injustices of the apartheid regime. Now imagine
that powers that be at the University apply pressure on the
organizers of the panel to "balance the one-sided perspective of the panel"
by including an apartheid ideologue on the panel. Would such pressure
tactics be considered reasonable or would they be seen for what
they are - efforts of the powerful to squelch any dissenting views?
Although Israel and its apologists balk at the apartheid analogy,
the analogy is now commonplace. It is not just Jimmy Carter who
compares the conditions in occupied Palestinian territories to apartheid,
but even respectable human rights organizations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch which routinely use this
analogy while documenting human rights abuses in occupied
territories. Even Ha'aretz, a mainstream Israeli newspaper calls
a spade a spade. A recent article 'Yes, it is apartheid',
( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977947.html),
by Yossi Sarid which is a pungent satire on Israeli culture which
transforms Carter into the very epitome of evil for daring
to meet with Hamas leaders, observes
"Let's let old Carter be, so he may let sleeping warriors lie;
he will not be back. The contents of his words, however, should not be ignored. "Apartheid," he said, "apartheid" - a dark, scary word
coined by Afrikaners and meaning segregation, racial segregation.
What does he want from us, that evil man: What do we have to do with apartheid?
Does a separation fence constitute separation? Do separate roads for Jewish
settlers and Palestinians really separate? Are Palestinian enclaves between
Jewish settlements Bantustans?"
That the Israeli lobby routinely squelches dissent is not news. That
it has the power to make and break politicians is not news. That
it has the power to destroy academic careers of highly original scholars such
as Norman Finkelstein whose trailblazing work has been an inspiration
for all of us looking towards a just solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict
is not news. The real question is - Are we simply going to capitulate
to its shenanigans or are we going to stand up to it? The choice is ours.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The choice is and always has been yours.
Opt to use your available political capital against the "Zionists'" interests instead of for your own concerns.
But that apparently isn't what you want. You want to be able to oppose the interests of the "Zionists" but keep your political capital intact to be used for what you really want. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The reason that the "Zionists" DO "own the issue" (why the politicians don't dare go against them) is precisely that the "Zionists" ARE willing to give way on other issues in exchange for getting their way on this one -- and just about nobody on the other side of the case is willing to do likewise.
Understand? For you this issue isn't high enough PRIORITY. Your political resources are spread too thin. The influence of the "Zionists" on this issue isn't unfair -- they ARE "paying" for it politically (by giving up their say on other issues -- willing to ally witheither side of other issues according to whichever would offer them the best mutual support on Israel). And they NEVER forget -- their political memory is far longer than yours. That's why the politicians don't cross them. Tomorrow or next week YOU will be on the politicians case about some other issue, the week or month or year after that, yet a different issue. But those "Zionists", for them it's the same issue yesterday, today, and tomorrow, indefinitiley into the future, and the politicians know that. Going agianst them is a "career decision" (there is NOTHING else that could be offered in the future that would buy back their support).
You just aren't single minded enough to play in their league.
Opt to use your available political capital against the "Zionists'" interests instead of for your own concerns.
But that apparently isn't what you want. You want to be able to oppose the interests of the "Zionists" but keep your political capital intact to be used for what you really want. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The reason that the "Zionists" DO "own the issue" (why the politicians don't dare go against them) is precisely that the "Zionists" ARE willing to give way on other issues in exchange for getting their way on this one -- and just about nobody on the other side of the case is willing to do likewise.
Understand? For you this issue isn't high enough PRIORITY. Your political resources are spread too thin. The influence of the "Zionists" on this issue isn't unfair -- they ARE "paying" for it politically (by giving up their say on other issues -- willing to ally witheither side of other issues according to whichever would offer them the best mutual support on Israel). And they NEVER forget -- their political memory is far longer than yours. That's why the politicians don't cross them. Tomorrow or next week YOU will be on the politicians case about some other issue, the week or month or year after that, yet a different issue. But those "Zionists", for them it's the same issue yesterday, today, and tomorrow, indefinitiley into the future, and the politicians know that. Going agianst them is a "career decision" (there is NOTHING else that could be offered in the future that would buy back their support).
You just aren't single minded enough to play in their league.
The Zionist lobby? Do you mean AIPAC? What evidence do you have that they were involved? Or do you mean the school- students and alumni? Do you mean interested members of the community?
You use a term that has a specific meaning in an inappropriate way. What really happened was that there was grassroots community pressure to provide balance. I don't think there is anything wrong with that in a university setting. If you are sponsoring a private talk, stack the panel however you want- but in a taxpayer sponsored, paid presentation, its nice to see real debate and real balance.
The truth will speak for itself. so there is a Zionist on the panel. Big deal. If he lies there are 3 others to call him on it.
You use a term that has a specific meaning in an inappropriate way. What really happened was that there was grassroots community pressure to provide balance. I don't think there is anything wrong with that in a university setting. If you are sponsoring a private talk, stack the panel however you want- but in a taxpayer sponsored, paid presentation, its nice to see real debate and real balance.
The truth will speak for itself. so there is a Zionist on the panel. Big deal. If he lies there are 3 others to call him on it.
For more than a month, I have refrained from commenting publicly on this controversy over the "Teach-in on War, Occupation, and Peace in the Middle East" that took place at San Jose State University on April 29, 2008. But repeated questions from many people have made it important to set the record straight and to clarify my position as one of the organizers.
First, the teach-in was not "scuttled" or "sabotaged" as alleged, but its original focus on "U.S. Interests in the Middle East: Source of Stability or Conflict?" was certainly diverted into the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Second, Gil Villagrán was not "forced to bow out" of the panel. David Meir-Levi was added to the panel the day before the teach-in. The photo shows the entire panel with (from left to right) David Meir-Levi, Gil Villagrán, Emad Yahya, Hossam el-Hamalawy, Salem Ajluni, and Sharat G. Lin.
Third, "dissenting views" were not "squelched." David Meir-Levi's erroneous "history" and extremist opinions were answered by four other panelists, and even by me as moderator.
Fourth, while Sanjeev Mahajan argues that the organizers had "capitulated to shenanigans," the organizers also extracted concessions from the Zionists, namely, that a pro-Palestinian speaker would be allowed to speak at a future panel discussion organized by Zionists. This is a battle for "air time," not mischievous or deceitful "shenanigans."
The reason that Dr. Mahajan's commentary contains so many fundamental factual errors is because he never attended the teach-in and never asked the organizers precisely what happened.
But there are also differences of principle. While Dr. Mahajan appears to argue that Zionists have no place on a panel discussion on the Middle East organized for the purpose of educating the public on peace and social justice, I would argue that there can be no solutions to war, occupation, and injustice in the Middle East without dialog. Israelis cannot be simply wished away. There are currently 5.5 million Israeli Jews in Israel proper and another 500,000 living in West Bank settlements. They are living within the boundaries of mandate Palestine, and will (not should, but will) be a part of any possible future peace settlement -- whether two state or one state.
While the central discussion during the question and answer period was inappropriately diverted to one aspect of the teach-in -- almost to the exclusion of any discussion on Iraq, Egypt, and U.S. imperialism -- students and many members of the public found the heated debate to be illuminating. Contrary to his promise, David Meir-Levi's presentation was not focused within the topic of the teach-in. We can hold him accountable for that in planning future dialogs. Nevertheless, if the purpose of the teach-in was to educate, its objective was still met.
Those who fear dialog lack self-confidence in their own ability to defend their political perspective. I welcome dialog, where appropriate, precisely because I am confident that the case for the human rights of Palestinians, and against occupation and apartheid can be successfully argued in any forum.
The road to peace and justice in the Middle East is filled with diversions and potholes. To pretend that the road is a Palestinian-only one, straight and freshly paved, is an illusion. Discussion among the "choir" is comfortable and satisfying, but will solve little. Dialog with political adversaries is uncomfortable, but absolutely necessary.
First, the teach-in was not "scuttled" or "sabotaged" as alleged, but its original focus on "U.S. Interests in the Middle East: Source of Stability or Conflict?" was certainly diverted into the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Second, Gil Villagrán was not "forced to bow out" of the panel. David Meir-Levi was added to the panel the day before the teach-in. The photo shows the entire panel with (from left to right) David Meir-Levi, Gil Villagrán, Emad Yahya, Hossam el-Hamalawy, Salem Ajluni, and Sharat G. Lin.
Third, "dissenting views" were not "squelched." David Meir-Levi's erroneous "history" and extremist opinions were answered by four other panelists, and even by me as moderator.
Fourth, while Sanjeev Mahajan argues that the organizers had "capitulated to shenanigans," the organizers also extracted concessions from the Zionists, namely, that a pro-Palestinian speaker would be allowed to speak at a future panel discussion organized by Zionists. This is a battle for "air time," not mischievous or deceitful "shenanigans."
The reason that Dr. Mahajan's commentary contains so many fundamental factual errors is because he never attended the teach-in and never asked the organizers precisely what happened.
But there are also differences of principle. While Dr. Mahajan appears to argue that Zionists have no place on a panel discussion on the Middle East organized for the purpose of educating the public on peace and social justice, I would argue that there can be no solutions to war, occupation, and injustice in the Middle East without dialog. Israelis cannot be simply wished away. There are currently 5.5 million Israeli Jews in Israel proper and another 500,000 living in West Bank settlements. They are living within the boundaries of mandate Palestine, and will (not should, but will) be a part of any possible future peace settlement -- whether two state or one state.
While the central discussion during the question and answer period was inappropriately diverted to one aspect of the teach-in -- almost to the exclusion of any discussion on Iraq, Egypt, and U.S. imperialism -- students and many members of the public found the heated debate to be illuminating. Contrary to his promise, David Meir-Levi's presentation was not focused within the topic of the teach-in. We can hold him accountable for that in planning future dialogs. Nevertheless, if the purpose of the teach-in was to educate, its objective was still met.
Those who fear dialog lack self-confidence in their own ability to defend their political perspective. I welcome dialog, where appropriate, precisely because I am confident that the case for the human rights of Palestinians, and against occupation and apartheid can be successfully argued in any forum.
The road to peace and justice in the Middle East is filled with diversions and potholes. To pretend that the road is a Palestinian-only one, straight and freshly paved, is an illusion. Discussion among the "choir" is comfortable and satisfying, but will solve little. Dialog with political adversaries is uncomfortable, but absolutely necessary.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$205.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network