Scientist talk canceled at Harvard after “threat” to Dershowitz
Posted on May 30 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Alan Dershowitz , Free speech , Norman Finkelstein.This seems to be the “gift” that keeps on giving. Now a prominent evolutionary biologist, Robert Trivers had his talk canceled after publication of his letter in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in which he wrote:
“Regarding your rationalization of Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians, let me just say that if there is a repeat of Israeli butchery toward Lebanon and if you decide once again to rationalize it publicly, look forward to a visit from me. Nazis — and Nazi-like apologists such as yourself — need to be confronted directly.”
Dershowitz claimed that he thought this was a physical threat and reported it as such and did nothing to try to get the lecture canceled. From the Boston Globe:
“Robert Trivers said he had been invited to speak at Harvard to celebrate a prestigious international award he recently won. He planned to discuss his research on self-deception, including how self-deception factored in Israel’s invasion of Lebanon last year.”
There is, of course, a back story here that concerns the Norman Finklestein/Alan Dershowitz imbroglio regarding Finkelstein’s tenure application. Trivers, in the WSJ, was denying that his criticism of Dershowitz had anything to do with Finkelstein. Although Dershowitz, in the WSJ, said that Finkelstein “encouraged radical goons to e-mail threatening messages.”
This situation is generally unseemly, the hyperbolic and demonizing language of Trivers and Dershowitz, combined with Dershowitz’s disingenuous need to involve the police makes for a less than pleasant scenario. This being said, does any of this really justify an academic lecture being canceled?
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
May 30th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Interesting judgment call, there. Dershowitz’ “disingenuous need to involve the police”? Trivers calls him a “Nazi-like apologist” and says that he had better muzzle himself or he will get a visit from the esteemed Trivers himself. Somehow, I don’t think Dr. Trivers was threatening to have a calm, academic discussion with him.
If I stated publicly that if you hold another street protest against Israel that you should “look forward to a visit from me” because “you need to be confronted directly” and use inflammatory language like Trivers used, wouldn’t you be just a tiny bit concerned? Especially if I know where your offices are?
And who cancelled the lecture? Perhaps the hosting department also felt that this type of behavior was not only unseemly but bordered on criminal threat?
And whose free speech is muzzled here? Dershowitz is the one under threat, as are many who try to speak out for Israel on college campuses.
May 30th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
trivers’ comment certainly sounded threatening to me, i wouldn’t blame them for canceling his appearance on security grounds alone.
but there’s a better reason. what is an evolutionary biologist doing giving a biased, political talk? that is NOT an academic lecture. that is not his field of expertise, and it does not contain the neutrality that an academic lecture would. in that context, he’s just a random dude giving a hateful anti-israel speech. certainly unworthy of harvard or any other legitimate institution.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
I find it laughable that Dershowitz interprets Trivers comment as a physical threat. Such delusions typify Dershowitz’s self-aggrandizing “poor pitiful me” grandstanding mode.
I note that when Steven Plaut called Israeli progressive professor Neve Gordon a Nazi & Judenrat that Dershowitz defended Plaut and decried Gordon’s libel suit against Plaut (which Gordon won). Now the shoe’s on the other foot & Dershowitz is feeling the pinch a bit. Pity poor Al.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:02 am
Oh & responding to Mike, what do you think an internationally renowned evolutionary biologist would do if he showed up at Dershowitz’s door? Commit violence upon him? Isn’t it possible that it’s Dershowitz who is afraid of confronting his critics & who conveniently turns Trivers’ challenge into an alleged physical threat?
In my blog & the general blogosphere, I’m subject to similar taunting regularly fr. Kahanists, Steven Plaut & the like. If someone like Big Al can’t tell the diff. bet. a real threat and slightly overblown rhetoric (of the Trivers variety) then perhaps he can’t stand the heat of his own incendiary rhetoric & should get out of the kitchen.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:56 am
Why is this a “disingenuous need to involve the police”? If a conservative individual made these sorts of threats to anyone of your lefty pals you’d be calling for police involvement and you know it.
Anyway, it’s kind of silly. This ultra-nerdy scientist trying to be a tough guy and all. But his macho stance doesn’t surprise me. He was good pals with Huey P. Newton during the last decade of Newton’s life and Trivers was one of a few whiteys in the Black Panther Party. Granted, he joined rather late in the game (1979). But he did name Newton the godfather to one of his daughters. I wonder if he chanted “off the pigs” with David Horrowitz?
May 31st, 2007 at 6:42 am
Whatever must the gentiles be thinking of the Jews these days. Before the Internet, all this kind of stuff would have been kept in-house.
I think it’s bound to change long-term relations.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:22 am
WEVS1,
I see you’re back at the keyboard, welcome back.
Did you see the original Ha’aretz url you requested on the other thread, concerning the Dancing Israelis on 9/11 ? It’s at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=75266&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
May 31st, 2007 at 11:07 am
This is a subjective call (whether to cancel), and not a simple decision.
On the one hand, failing to cancel rewards threats of violence.
On the other hand, canceling allows those who thrive on claims of being “muzzled” to have great fun.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
[…] Muzzlewatch has some more luscious bits about Dersh that are too juicy to pass up. Apparently, distinguished evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers wrote the Harvard hack a personal e-mail attacking his piteous defense of Israel’s war against the Lebanese people. Trivers quoted the message in a separate Wall Street Journal letter: “Regarding your rationalization of Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians, let me just say that if there is a repeat of Israeli butchery toward Lebanon and if you decide once again to rationalize it publicly, look forward to a visit from me. Nazis — and Nazi-like apologists such as yourself — need to be confronted directly.” […]
May 31st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
If this is the best examples of “muzzling” hat JVP can dig up, they have then proven that there is no actual muzzling issue and this must therefore be some sort of ruse designed to get more publicity for JVP and its poorly thought out, naive agendas. Its rather ironic that “Jewish Voice for Peace” is none of the things in its name.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Be honest. The only way an old guy like Trivers could possible be making a physical threat would be when he is well on his way to senility and armed with a flailing walking stick.
Seems to me it is senile to take it as a serious threat.
Insofar as mauzz;ling is concerned. Why does someone not count the number of pro- and anti-Israeli articles appearing in the mainstream press and television in order to get a sense of the tendency in this regard. It’s quite simple really to see in relative terms who is in fact getting a platform and who is not.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
alan, i’ve already given you the link proving that there were no “dancing israelis” on 9/11. it’s an urban myth. is that really the best you can do? get some new material.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Cecilie,
How about mud wrestling on Harvard Yard?
Boys only. Sorry, Cecilie.
Seriously, I’m afraid Trivers went over the line in his WSJ letter. In my world, offering to pay someone a personal visit is considered threatening, although I certainly heard worse when I was in union politics. But Dersh was probably within his rights to call the cops. We all need to take a giant step backwards where this kind of talk is concerned.
There was no reason to cancel the speaking engagement, however.
This might be a good time to congratulate you for the tone you’ve established at Muzzlewatch. Objectivity bordering on actual civility! What a novel and exciting idea…and you’ve developed that objective reportorial stances in dealing with the explosive twin issues of Israel/Palestine and the US Israel Lobby, no less. That’s a real accomplishment.
I feel sorry for all those angry guys out there in the blogosphere, but you’re on to something, Cecilie–it’s such a pleasure to come in out of all that self-righteousness and histrionics to read a considered opinion or a summary about something as complicated as the Middle East.
Incidentally, look for my feature article in the Muslim newspaper InFocus, about MEMRI, in the June issue just coming out. Researching it I found out something rather intriguing about MEMRI’s approach to copyright law…but you’ll just have to read the article to find out what it is.
Anyway, thanks for a wonderful blog and a wonderful organization. Jewish Voice for Peace embodies the best of the democratic left with the prophetic voice of the Abrahamic tradition. Keep on keepin’ on, and keep on speaking truth to power!
In your case, you always seem to do it with civility. What a treat!
Lawrence Swaim
Interfaith Freedom Foundation
P.O. Box 133
Fremont CA 94537
510-745-8178
May 31st, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Lawrence, “counting articles” is a remarkably inaccurate way of determining that a voice is getting “muzzled”. The fact that a minority opinion doesn’t get the equal number of column inches doesn’t equate to the refusal to acknowledge that minority point of view. And, by definition, if that minority opinion does get some play in the media, it is obviously NOT “muzzled”! By the way, catch any pro-Israel articles in Counterpunch lately?
A sophisticated analysis would look at individual stories/media outlets for evidence of bias– for example, the recent NPR story that noted that “Gaza has been the target of Israeli air strikes for 10 straight days” without mentioning that Sderot has been the target of missiles launched from Gaza for nearly 2 years straight, or the recent headline in the Independent (UK) that claimed that “Israelis knew occupation was illegal in 1967″ when in fact the article under the headline made no such claim at all. In addition, the definition of pro-Israel is quite debatable; to many of those posting on this site, an article is “pro-Israel” if it doesn’t explicitly oppose Israel’s very existence!
May 31st, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“Be honest. The only way an old guy like Trivers could possible be making a physical threat would be when he is well on his way to senility and armed with a flailing walking stick”
old guys can’t get guns in the US? sorry, but calling someone a nazi and then saying you’re going to confront them directly certainly is a threat. if they don’t respond, and something happened, it would be negligence.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:00 am
Say it ain’t so, Jewish Voice for Peace. Say it ain’t so.
Are you REALLY going to protest our Jewish street fair this weekend? Are you REALLY going to protest artists and day school kids singing songs of peace, and falafel vendors and Chabad?
How do you rationalize this?
And if the answer is yes, that you really are going to protest our Jewish street fair, then are you planning on protesting Al Awda’s celebration of “59 years of resistence?” next Friday? (Because we all know what Al Awda’s resistence looks like, don’t we?)
It is acts like this, Jewish Voice for Peace, that make the established Jewish community doubt both your sincerity and your willingness and ability to explore both sides of the issues critically and fairly.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I’m not all that in tune with the comings and goings of Alan Dershowitz, especially after he yelled at my mother twenty years ago (a story for another time). However, it does seem to me that this Robert Trivers fellow is following a path blazed by Norman Finkelstein (and now followed by Jewish Voices of Peace) to use the attack on a well-known person to raise their own profile. Certainly writing books or letters attacking the obscure (not to mention writing that involves actual academic research) wont generate nearly as much publicity.
Since we’re talking about goings on in Prof. Dershowitz’s home town of Boston, another news item has occurred there this week that has gone unmentioned on this site. The Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), which had sued a number of media outlets and activists for subjecting them to scrutiny regarding a questionable land deal, just dropped its suit. I would think this victory for free speech would be celebrated on a site dedicated to ending the practive of “muzzling,” although - as I’ve noted before - Jewish Voices for Peace has already spoken out on this issue; in this case, by joining the ISB in a lawsuit designed to use the power of the courts to crush the free speech rights of others.
Given that JVP has never explained themselves on this issue (despite a promise months ago to do so), I don’t expect to get a response to this question, but here goes:
Are you planning to take legal action on your own against those practicing free speech in the Boston area, or does ISB’s dropping of its lawsuit mean that you are also ending this sad chapter of supressing dissent?
June 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I would differ with that, non-sequitor. In my contacts with JVP members, I have no reason to doubt that they are EXTREMELY sincere individuals– except when they claim that they don’t oppose the existence of the Jewish state of Israel.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
ouch, is JVP really protesting at an israeli cultural festival? that sucks. unbelievable, really. it’s not a political event, it’s a cultural event. we wouldn’t protest a palestinian dance event, we might even attend. it’s unbelievable, really. but not, i guess. i guess it’s a form of projection.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Protesting a cultural event like Israel in the Gardens, sends the message of protesting the existance of the culture rather than any particular political expression of that culture. Is JVP moving in THAT direction?
June 1st, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Speaking of protesting a culture:
CHIEF RABBI ADVOCATES CARPET BOMBING GAZA
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill a thousand,” said Shmuel Eliyahu. “And if they do not stop after 1,000 then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million. Whatever it takes to make them stop.”
June 1st, 2007 at 7:25 pm
not that the (former) chief rabbi is a great shining example, but Dara’s post does raise the question: is jihadism now a “culture”?
you also conveniently omitted what it is that is asked to be “stopped”– which is the daily rocket fire on Sderot that has taken place every day since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Note also that Hamas refers to residents of Sderot (which is within the pre-1967 borders of Israel) as “settlers”, consistent with its refusal to accept any Jewish presence in the Jewish homeland.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I’m not sure what “jihadism” is. The culture I was protesting is the chief rabbi’s.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:12 am
Hmmm, so Richard Silverstein, the mother of all whiners about others’ attacks on him according to the NY Times and his own posts on our site and others feels that a genuine physical threat - not the laughable childish pranks on the website that mocks him and against which he has gone on a massive campaign of muzzling - against Dershowitz should be ignored and any complaints about it are self-aggrandizing and delusional.
Well, Richard would know, he’s the expert.
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:12 am
one person does not a culture make. you’re missing the point.
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:44 am
To respond to #’s 18, 19 and 20:
Mike, I appreciate that you noticed that we were sincere, at least about some things, especially in light of ridiculous claims from R that we’re not Jewish. (Can’t wait to tell my parents they’re really Arabs; boy, with they be surprised! I also can’t wait to do so historical research about my fascinating ancestors, the Yiddish-speaking Arabs of Eastern Europe!)
Next to respond to R and the “Real Voice,” if Israel in the Gardens is a purely cultural event, perhaps you can explain why JVP repeatedly been denied a chance to have a literature table inside the event.
Since our point of view is prohibited inside the event, we will be doing a silent vigil outside, protesting the occupation, as we always do. In the past when we have done this vigil, many people attending the event have thanked us for being there and some have even joined us.
For you to call this a purely cultural event is really disengenuous; just look at who will be receiving the “Israel in our Hearts” awards and why they were chosen and you will see that this event is quite political; it’s all about uncritical support for Israeli government policies.
I would show up to protest this event the same way I would show up at a Fourth of July celebration to protest the war in Iraq. I wouldn’t be protesting against the hot dogs or calling for the destruction of the US, I would be there to protest certain US policies, the same way I protest certain Israeli policies.
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Why is my comment still awaiting moderation?
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
“if Israel in the Gardens is a purely cultural event, perhaps you can explain why JVP repeatedly been denied a chance to have a literature table inside the event.”
you’re not israeli, you’re american, and your organization has nothing to do with culture, just politics. you’re completely missing the distinction between culture and politics. we don’t protest palestinian dance events. many of us participate in them. culture should bring us together and once again you only wedge us apart.
“it’s all about uncritical support for Israeli government policies.”
not at all. because israel has free speech and a free press (unlike her arab neighbors), there is always a multiplicity of viewpoints. the same is true with people who attend that event. but we’re not there to debate about policy, we’re there to enjoy israeli music and dance and food. superficial, yes, but an important part of life nonetheless.
“I would be there to protest certain US policies, the same way I protest certain Israeli policies.”
presuming you are american, there is a HUGE difference between protesting your own government’s actions and adopting a hateful one-sided stance against another country. at the very least, it is geopolitically laughingly simplistic.
and if you’re not calling for the destruction of israel, you probably don’t want to stand with those who do.
i wonder what else you protest. do you protest the shelling of southern israel from gaza?
and i wonder what your “ancestors” who suffered in ww2 would think about your attitude toward the jewish homeland?
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
“Real Voice,”
I don’t think your understanding me here. It’s just fine with us that you want to go to this event and enjoy Israeli culture. I plan to attend part of the event myself. We’re not asking people not to attend, or making any sort of judgement about the people who do attend. We are simply exposing people to information and a point of view that they won’t be exposed to inside the event.
We don’t protest the same way SF Voice for Israel does. We’re not going to wave flags in people’s faces, browbeat, verbally abuse, goad, harangue, yell at or harrass people like they do. We’re simply going to stand with signs and hand our flyers and if you’re such a believer in freedom of speech you should be fine with that.
As to our not getting a table because we’re not a cultural group, I unfortunately tossed my supplement to the ‘J.” (our local Jewish newspaper) which listed all the groups that were going to table, but from what I remember many of them were political groups. Last I heard, ADL is not a dance troupe.
And if you read through the list of the people getting awards, you will notice that none of them are being honored for their dancing, singing or cooking abilities.
Thanks for your concern about my ancestors. Why did you put that in quotes? Do you not believe that I have ancestors? For your information, my mother is a Holocaust survivor who, like me, is strongly opposed the the Occuation. In fact, she is the one who taught me to be suspicious of flag-waving and unquestioned patriotism and to speak out and stand up against injustice.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Just wante to add a P.S. here, about the rocket attacks, which I, like JVP oppose. And this will hopefully address some of the comments Mr. Haber posed to me earlieron another thread, which, unfortunately I didn’t have time to respond to.
I think that the only way to end the violence and mayhem that both side are committing in and around Gaza is for their to be a just, comprehensive, negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. We at JVP think peace will be impossible without an end to the Occupation, which is why we’re a peace group who works to end the Occupation. We consistently oppose all attacks on civilians.
I know it will be a stretch for you to see it this way, but when we protest the occupaton, it is our way of trying to stop the rocket attacks, as well as the bombings and assassinations carried out by Israel. Certainly every military solution Israel has tried has failed miserably, which is why it’s time to try something esle: Peace!
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
Since I never heard of Mr Trivers before, I did a Pubmed search. He has not been that productive, and has not written a manuscript in the past 2 years. None of his previous work has had wide impact. How can I get a prestigious title, get neat prizes, travel a lot, but work occasionally? I would really like that job
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
jvp member,
please give me a link to the jvp website that mentions your opposition to the rocket attacks. i’d be curious to see it.
and we’ll all see how you protest today. we’ll see.
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Melvin,
I don’t know much about the guy, but here’s a list of his publications since 2000. He’s also a full-time faculty member at Rutgers University. I’m sure he works pretty hard.
Zaatari, D. and Trivers, R. in press. Fluctuating asymmetry and behavior in the ultimatum game in Jamaica. Evolution and Human Behavior
Trivers, R., Manning, J.T., and Jacobson, A. 2006. A longitudinal study of digit ratio (2D:4D) and other finger ratios in Jamaican children. Hormones and Behavior 49: 150-156.
Burt, A., and Trivers, R. 2006. Genes in Conflict: The Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Brown, W.M., Cronk, L., Grochow, K., Jacobson, A., Liu. C.K., Popovic, Z. and Trivers. R. 2005. Dance reveals symmetry especially in young men. Nature 438: 1148-1150.
Trivers, R. 2005. Reciprocal altruism: 30 years later. In C.P. van Schaik and P.M. Kappeler (eds.) Cooperation in Primates and Humans: Mechanisms and Evolution. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp 67-83.
Levin, DA, Palestis, B.G, Jones, R.N and Trivers, R. 2005. Phyletic hot-spots for B chromosomes in Angiosperms. Evolution 59: 962-969.
Manning, J.T., Stewart, A, Bundren, P.E., and Trivers, R.L. 2004. Sex and ethnic differences in 2nd to 4th digit ratio of children. Early Human Development 80:161-168.
Penton-Voak, I.S., Jacobson, A., and Trivers, R. 2004. Population differences in attractiveness judgments of faces: comparing a British and Jamaican sample. Evolution and Human Behavior 25: 355-370
Palestis, B.G., Trivers, R. Jones, R.N. and Burt, A. 2004. The distribution of B chromosomes across species. Cytogenetics and Genome Research 106: 151-158.
Trivers, R, Burt, A, and Palestis, B.G. 2004. B chromosomes and genome size in flowering plants. Genome 47:1-8
Palestis, B.G., Burt, A., Jones, R.N. and Trivers, R. 2004. B chromosomes are more frequent in mammals with acrocentric karyotypes: support for the theory of centromeric drive. Proc. Royal. Society. B Suppl.271: S22-S24.
Trivers. R. 2002. Natural Selection and Social Theory: Selected Papers of Robert Trivers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cashdan, E, and Trivers, R. 2002. Self-deception. In M. Pagel (ed.) Encyclopedia of Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Manning, J., Martin, S., Trivers, R., and Soler, M.. 2002. 2nd to 4th digit ratio and offspring sex ratio. J. theor Biology 217: 93-95.
Manning, J.T., Barley, L., Walton, J., Lewis-Jones, D.I., Trivers, R.L., Singh, D., Thornhill, R., Rohde, P., Bereckie, T., Henzi, P., Solder, M., and Szwed, A. 2000. The 2nd:4th digit ratio, sexual dimorphism, population differences and reproductive success: evidence for sexually antagonistic genes. Evolution and Human Behavior 21: 163-183.
Trivers, R. 2000. The elements of a scientific theory of self-deception. Annals NY Acad Sciences 907: 114-131.
Manning, J.T., Trivers, R., Thornhill, R. and Singh, D. 2000. The 2nd:4th digit ratio and hand preference in Jamaican children. Laterality 5: 121-132.
June 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Dear JVP Member – First, thank you for responding to one of my contributions to this forum. In response, I want to assure you that it is not the least bit of a stretch for me to appreciate your desire that violence of all kinds end and your belief that this can only come about with an end to “the Occupation.” While others may question the sincerity of JVP members on this subject, I do not.
So the issue is not whether you sincerely believe that “the Occupation” is the root cause of the problem, leading to violence on both sides, but whether this thing you believe so strongly is actually true. After all, there is a competing narrative that says Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was the result of violence directed against the Jewish state, so therefore it could not possibly be the cause. Since violence directed against Jews in the region pre-dates 1967 and pre-dates even the establishment of a Jewish state, cause-and-effect and the linear nature of time should at least have thoughtful JVP members question the iron clad assumption of Occupation as root cause.
Indeed, one can only hold onto the centrality of the occupation by either (1) ignoring the decades of violence and war that pre-dated the Six Day War in 1967 or; (2) widening the definition of “Occupation” to include not just the West Bank and Gaza, but to the establishment of a Jewish state itself, which gets you perilously close to an eliminationalist view on Israel, even if that was not your intention.
It’s been interesting note that as Jihidi violence spreads across the globe, taking the lives of more and more Muslims, Christians and Jews each year, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza (a political matter that can potentially be solved) has morphed into simply “The Occupation,” an almost religious belief that all roads lead to this one causal event. I don’t believe the fetishization of “The Occupation” to be an accident. Rather, when faced with the enormity of the current state of the world, it is comforting to think that putting pressure on a liberal democracy like Israel can lead to peace. The other alternative: confronting the political dysfunction of the Arab world and treating this as the real root cause of the conflict (which I believe it to be) would require too much energy, risk and – dare I say it – courage to deal with.
If this were just a matter of opinion, then we can simply agree to disagree and move on. Unfortunately, treating any form of violence (from rocket attacks to suicide bombings to beheadings and kidnappings) as just more reasons to redouble efforts to end “The Occupation,” effectively says such violence has a point, even as you issue a one-sentence condemnation of such violence on your way to protest the next Israel cultural event. If the Jihidi form of Islam justifies limitless violence to achieve its ends (with pretexts for such limitless violence always at its fingertips), then “The Occupation” fetish is tied not to a program for peace, but as part of a framework of justification for endless and increasingly ruthless war.
As I stated earlier, I do not doubt for a minute that you and your fellow JVP members sincerely believe yourselves to be righteous advocates for peace. However, if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to total hell on earth is often built by those with an absolute belief in their own virtue who have chosen willful ignorance over confronting issues that challenge their world view and their view of themselves.
June 3rd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
very well said, jon haber
June 4th, 2007 at 12:54 am
“I think that the only way to end the violence and mayhem that both side are committing in and around Gaza is for their to be a just, comprehensive, negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. We at JVP think peace will be impossible without an end to the Occupation, which is why we’re a peace group who works to end the Occupation. We consistently oppose all attacks on civilians.”
You must be referring to events such as the Camp David II summit where Israel offered a state and peace, and then to Taba a few months later where Israel upped its offer significantly only to have the Palestinians refuse to budge on the key issues at hand.
June 4th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
JVP’er: We don’t protest the same way SF Voice for Israel does. We’re not going to wave flags in people’s faces, browbeat, verbally abuse,
goad, harangue, yell at or harass people like they do.
Anarcho-Zionist: Apples and Oranges. Jewish Voice for Peace, according to your 990’s, has hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets,a paid staff and an office . SFV for Israel is an anarcho-Zionist collective. $0 in assists. 0 paid staff. No office.
Perhaps SFV for Israel does not act respectful towards you because they do not deem you worthy of respect. Perhaps protesting a Jewish fair
(call it what you will, it was a protest) is not the way to win friends and influence people in the Jewish community. Perhaps rubbing noses with blatantly racist groups such as International ANSWER and Al Awda doesn’t endear you to those with different values. And perhaps those who have seen you in action don’t respect you because they’ve seen your hypocrisy up close and personal.
It brings to mind the proposal presented at the Friday Session of your conference- to change your mission statement to make a stronger
condemnation of anti-Semitism : “It increases our clarity and our chances of winning. We gain credibility and stature among our church allies if they see us being proudly Jewish and opposing anti-Semitism while we also fight the occupation”
How about making a strong statement against anti-Semitism because anti-Semitism is wrong, not because it enhances your marketability? How about condemning racism not only in words, but in deeds?
Until we see some pretty dramatic changes, expect the anarcho-Zionist community continue to challenge, confront and expose you whenever they can.
June 4th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
“Since our point of view is prohibited inside the event, we will be doing a silent vigil outside, protesting the occupation, as we always do.”
Well, you are once again stating a half-truth. The point of view of opposing the occupation is not at all prohibited inside the event, as B’rit Tzedek V’shalom has had a table there for at least the past 4 years. BTvS at least CLAIMS to support Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, though many of their leadership’s recent actions do throw some doubt on whether that is still true. The point of view that IS NOT welcome is the one that does not accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. But don’t worry, the folks at al-Awda will be happy to welcome you inside their conference, since I’m sure you have no reason whatsoever to protest outside THEIR events.
The reason many of us treat you with disrespect is because you’ve earned it: because of those who you choose to associate with, and because of your disingenuous hypocrisy in claiming ONLY to be protesting the “occupation”. I’m sure none of you would have the courage to wear your “anti-Zionist” T-shirts to this event– that would give away too much information.