American Association of University Professors' Anti-Semitism

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) should join the American Jewish Committee (AJC) in retracting a peculiar statement  that disparages three law suits concerning antisemitism.

Today, The Jewish Daily Forward published Kenneth L. Marcus's Op Ed about the joint AAUP-AJC statement, which was written by Kenneth Stern, AJC's president, and Cary Nelson, AAUP's president.  Marcus describes one of the three law suits which the AAUP and AJC disparage.  It is brought by two Berkeley students, Jessica Felber and Brian Maissy, and Berkeley Professor Mel Gordon.  It concerns persistent and violent anti-Semitic harassment to which the three and others allegedly have been subjected on the Berkeley campus.  Similar complaints have been lodged at UC Santa Cruz and Rutgers.

Marcus writes that the AAUP-AJC statement says:

(S)ome, in reaction to these recent incidents, are making the situation worse by distorting the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and what has been called the 'working definition of anti-Semitism'... 

...Opposing anti-Israel events, statements, and speakers, they believe the only way to “protect” Jewish students is by imposing censorship. 


The "working definition of antisemitism" comes from a statement of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC):  "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."  In
other words, in a classic example of victim blaming, Nelson and Stern aver that Jewish students' and professors' complaints about having been violently attacked are actually censorship of their attackers' criticisms of Israel.  The AJC-AAUP  statement also refers to a Department of Education "Dear Colleague" 
letter which states that bullying  falls  under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act when:  "peer harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability is sufficiently serious that it creates a hostile environment and such harassment is encouraged, tolerated, not adequately addressed, or ignored by school employees."


Former Berkeley student Jessica Felber alleges that she was rammed by a shopping cart because because she is Jewish, and Berkeley's Professor Mel Gordon alleges  that "he had been, 'savagely beaten and spat upon' by the Students for Justice in Palestine."
 
The antisemitic character of the Stern-Nelson claim can be assessed with a thought experiment--if a  Latin or African American student alleged that they had been battered with a shopping cart, would the AAUP have issued a statement indicating that the complaint had been an attempt to silence academic debate about race relations?

Marcus's Op Ed in the Jewish Daily Forward is spot on.  Marcus notes that several influential figures, such as David Horowitz, had criticized the AJC-AAUP statement, which had caused a "rift in the Jewish community."  He also notes that David Harris, the AJC's executive director, and other AJC leaders,  have renounced the AJC-AAUP position statement. However, Mr. Marcus does not raise the question of the AAUP's commitment to a position which is insensitive and anti-Semitic.

I call on Dr. Nelson to retract the statement.

Letter from Mayor Ed Koch Supporting George Phillips for Congress

Dear Friends:

With less than two weeks to go before the mid-term election, we know this letter -- asking for support for George Phillips for Congress – is coming very late in the day. But we are making this unusual request because this is both a moment of urgency and opportunity.

The urgency is that this is a crucial moment in the U.S.-Israel alliance. Iran is edging ever closer to becoming a nuclear power. If that should come to pass, a grave threat will become an existential threat for the state of Israel. All against the backdrop of an aggressive  international campaign of deligitimization and isolation against Israel. So now more than ever, Israel needs strong allies in America – and strong allies in the United States Congress.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Maurice Hinchey, who represents New York’s 22nd District, we have one of the least sympathetic, most hostile lawmakers in Congress on all issues impacting the U.S.-Israel relationship. Hinchey is a member of a small group of Representatives that routinely votes against the bipartisan resolutions and legislation by which Congress supports the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Consider just a few items from his record:

-In 2002, at the height of the Intifada, as Israeli civilians were being murdered by the hundreds in suicide bombings, a simple House resolution expressing solidarity with Israel passed by a 352-21 margin. Hinchey voted “present.”

-In 2006, Hinchey voted against a bill to promote democratic institution-building in the Palestinian territories titled the “Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.” It passed 361-37.

-In 2009, he voted against a resolution condemning the Goldstone Report, an infamous product of the UN that accused Israel of intentionally committing war crimes in Gaza. The anti-Goldstone resolution passed 344-36.

-This year, he signed a letter to President Obama that accused Israel of the “de facto collective punishment” of Palestinians in Gaza and demanded that President Obama pressure Israel to open its borders with Gaza, a move that would leave Israel dangerously vulnerable to terrorism.

-Most stunningly of all, Hinchey voted against one of the Obama administration’s most important foreign policy initiatives, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act, passed by overwhelming margins in both houses of Congress and signed into law this summer. This key piece of legislation, vital to both American and Israeli security, sailed through the House 412-12.

Hinchey voted against it.

If there is a Member of Congress who has voted more consistently against consensus American foreign policy interests and against U.S.-Israel friendship, we would be hard-pressed to name him.

Fortunately, the opportunity comes in the person of George Phillips, a young and talented candidate who was born and raised in Endwell near Binghamton. Mr. Phillips -- a dedicated teacher who also brings foreign policy experience from his days as a Congressional aide -- has closed to within just a few points of Representative Hinchey. A race that was once thought of as untouchable is now winnable. New York’s 22nd District is now on the national political radar screen. A stunning upset is within reach. Which is where you come in.

The two  of us signing this letter differ on many issues and indeed belong to different political parties. But we are united in our criticisms of and opposition to Maurice Hinchey; and in our support and enthusiasm for George Phillips, who would prove to be a strong and faithful friend of the US-Israel relationship.

Your help during this sprint to the finish will make a meaningful, and quite possibility a decisive, difference in the outcome of this race. That is why we are asking that you join this effort by going to www.electgeorgephillips.com,  and make an online donation today.

George Phillips will prove to be what Maurice Hinchey has never been: A serious voice on American national security and a stalwart defender of Israel. In protecting the interests of Israel we are protecting the interests of America. The United States and Israel are animated by the same principles. We care about the same causes. We are hated by the same enemies. And our destinies are therefore inseparable. As one who cherishes the special relationship between both nations, we hope that you can find it within yourself to make a contribution.

It can make all the difference.

Sincerely,

Ed Koch  

Hinchey's Anti-Semitism May Cost Him His Seat

Ed Koch's recent endorsement of George Phillips has underscored Congressman Maurice Hinchey's longstanding anti-Israel and anti-Semitic pattern.   Glenda McGee just forwarded a Politico article that mentions Hinchey as one of an unusually large number of threatened Democratic congressional seats this year.  I was just down in Broward County, Florida visiting my dad and noticed a huge number of signs for Allen West, the wonderful Afro-American conservative running down there. Given the atmosphere of disdain for liberal Democrats, Hinchey's anti-Semitism may put the kibosh on his election.  

 

Obama, Khalidi, and O'Reilly

Contrairimairi forwarded a Charles Lemos By the Fault article. In the Youtube video featured on Lemos's site, Obama denies any special connection to Khalidi.



Lemos notes that Obama failed to mention that Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian anti-Semite,

-hosted a fundraiser for Obama when he ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2000, or that
-Obama attended a testimonial dinner for Khalidi and praised him when Khalidi left Chicago to chair Columbia’s Middle Eastern Studies Department, or that
-while Obama served on the Board of the Woods Fund, the board voted to grant $40,000.00 to the Arab American Network, an organization headed by Khalidi’s wife, Mona Khalidi.

The Woods Fund is also the focus of Obama's relationship with William Ayers.

At a dinner celebrating Palestinian culture the LA Times reported in April 2008 that:

"a special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

"His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”

Yet, the major news outlets are willing to accept Obama's claim that he hardly knew Khalidi. This is more than journalistic incompetence. Listening for about sixty seconds to O'Reilly tonight I heard O'Reilly speak of Obama's "presidential statesmanship." But O'Reilly has refused to discuss Obama's pathological lying or to question him about it when Obama appeared on his program. The mass media, from ABC to Fox, from O'Reilly to Lou Dobbs, has been a hall of mirrors.

Contrairimairis adds:

"These were BO's words back in May, when his affiliations with Rashid Khalidi came under closer scrutiny. My question is........WHERE are the "900" other friends? Why do we not have someone from the "hood" just coming forward to say......"Wow, I know Barack, what a great guy! I think you can really trust him. His kids and my kids used to play together...I think Barack has ALWAYS maintained a very 'clandestine' life because he has NEVER viewed America the way 'Americans' view America. His 'friends' all seem to think there is something seriously wrong with this Country, that needs to be RADICALLY fixed...

"You see, I truly believe that once the crown is on his head, all those waiting under the bus will be greeted with open arms at the WH. And probably with TONS of praise and thanks for their understanding that the prize had to be first obtained, and THEN the associations could resume at full speed. We may even start to see those questionable 'disbursements' begin once again.

"This is just so frightening, that so many Americans are willing to be duped...Seriously, it's not like there was a single person who hated America.....let's say Billy Boy, and another who said we should be against nuclear energy, and maybe another who thought we should be sharing technology with oh,....maybe Australia. That is not what these associations are, or show. They are all America hating, Jew/Israel hating..."

Mairi is right, of course. But this is not the first time "progressive" Jews have preferred the pride of political correctness and fashion over concern for palpable, potentially murderous anti-Semitism. In the 1930s, for example, New York's "progressive" Jewish community was passive during the lead up to the Holocaust, and their passivity was encouraged by the Ochs Sulzbergers, owners of the New York Times, who buried the Holocaust story in the remote inner pages of their newspaper. Today, "progressives" prefer to be cool, to side with fashion and to call Sarah Palin anti-Semitic because she once attended a meeting where a Jewish convert to Christianity spoke. Meanwhile, their favored candidate openly associates with an activist who aggressively supports those who murder Jews.

Sarah Palin, Anti-Semitism and Jewish Prejudice

One of the slanders concerning Sarah Palin is that she is anti-Semitic. The reasoning on which this accusation is based is as follows. She attended a meeting at her church. The speaker, an executive of Jews for Jesus, in remarks not previously vetted by the church or by Palin, said that the Jews' refusal to convert to Christianity causes terrorism. As well, Palin once appeared at an event with Pat Buchanan.

The "Jed Report" makes these claims in a blog entitled "Sarah Palin and the anti-Semitism Question", based on a blog by Ben Smith on Politico.com entitled "Jewish Voters May Be Wary of Sarah Palin" in which Smith accuses Palin of anti-Semitism because she once appeared on a podium with Pat Buchanan and because she once attended a speech at her church. The speech was given by David Brickner and in it Brickner said that terrorist attacks on Israelis were God's "'judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity'".

To accuse someone of anti-Semitism in good faith there ought to be at least a little evidence. Knowing an anti-Semite or appearing with Pat Buchanan is not evidence, in part because many Jews have been associated with anti-Semites and with Pat Buchanan. Likewise, attending a speech billed as a "Jews for Jesus" speech is not anti-Semitic because all Christians believe in Jesus and there is nothing anti-Semitic about welcoming Jews who believe in Jesus either. Moreover, I have heard Jews make similar remarks. For instance, when I was a teenager a Jewish friend had discovered the Jewish religion and he said to me that the holocaust had occurred because the Jews were not sufficiently observant of Judaism. Coincidentally and tragically, my friend was killed in a car accident not long after.

It is not surprising that readers of the Bible make statements like this because the Bible is full of such statements. The Jews are criticized throughout the Bible for foresaking the path of righteousness, etc. That does not make the Bible anti-Semitic, just the opposite. Jews should not condemn Christians for using the same kind of logic that's in the Bible.

A friend recently e-mailed me with the argument that Sarah Palin is anti-Semitic as follows:

>"...Palin does go to a church that is wildly antisemitic..."

>"Palin's church supports what I consider, although others may not, the most antisemitic group of them all, Jews For Jesus, who have blamed the problems in Israel on the Jews because they have not accepted Jesus. The church's support of this group is incontrovertible, I leave it to you to decide whether they are an antisemitic group."

>"One of the many terrifying things about Palin is that she is an active member of a church that believes that the world will come to an end in our lifetime. I don't want her near "the button"

>"There are many deep conservatives who I respect, even though I may be in disagreement with 80% of their philosophy. I think there is a big difference between Pat Buchanan and a shrill shill like O'Reilly"

Interestingly, my correspondent likes Pat Buchanan even though Ben Smith and the Jed Report claim that association with Pat Buchanan is evidence of anti-Semitism.

Part of the reason for Jews' concern about anti-Semitism is that there has been alot of it, although few left-wing Jews have the knowledge to distinguish between European anti-Semitism and American anti-Semitism, which is much less intense and more the exception than the rule. In contrast, European anti-Semitism is more the rule than the exception.

Jews were expelled from much of western Europe, to include Spain, France and England, from the 13th to the 15th centuries. They were forced to either live in ghettoes as in Venice and Germany, in eastern Europe or the Muslim world. Over the course of the following centuries, eastern Europe, especially Russia and Poland, became intensely anti-Semitic, and much of the anti-Semitism was channeled through the official Russian Orthodox Church. Rape and killing were part of this history, as was official state oppression. Czar Nicholas, for instance, mandated that all Jewish males serve in the army from childhood until age 42. This was meant to be genocidal.

As a result, many eastern European Jews are fearful of Christianity. However, they do not understand that the Protestant Reformation was accompanied by an intensification of interest in and warmth toward Jews. The Cromwellian Revolution was accompanied by England's reopening to Jews. This was also associated with the growth of commerce due to the same historical process. Likewise, at least some of the Puritan thinkers in America were openly Zionist and philo-Semitic. Following the Revolutionary War, Jews were always permitted freedom of religion in the US, with a couple of stark exceptions, such as an edict by General Ulysses S. Grant. Progressivism integrated elements of Populism, which was often anti-urban and anti-Semitic, and was accompanied by a reaffirmation of feudal values that included anti-Semitism. Hence, there was more anti-Semitism beginning in the late nineteenth century through 1950 then there had been previously. However, many Jews, such as Walter Weyl and Walter Lippmann, were prominent in the Progressive movement, and the older, laissez-faire Mugwump movement as well.

When eastern European Jews arrived here between 1880 and 1925 they carried the fear of anti-Semitism with them. This was accompanied by the fact that America, in the throes of Popuulist nativism and Progressivism, was susceptible to various anti-Semitic movements, to include that of Henry Ford and Father Coughlin.

Despite the history of tension that eastern European Jews feel toward Christians, largely because the Russian Orthodox church was virulently anti-Semitic, the Whigs in England and the Calvinist faith to which they adhered, and their American offspring, the Puritans, were often philo-Semitic. Palin's church, Assembly of God, descends from the Puritan heritage. Many of the Puritan religionists of the 18th and 19th century were Zionists.

Christianity is a proselytizing religion that is historically a Jewish sect. The imagery of the New Testament is rooted and imbued with the old. A knowledgeable Christian cannot hate Jews. However, they naturally aim to convert Jews, which is not the same thing.

I would add that Jews need to be aware of their own prejudices. Calling someone anti-Semitic merely because they belong to a Protestant Church in itself may constitute bias. As well, America is very much a Christian country. To understand America a deep understanding of Jonathan Edwards, the Great Awakening, the Church in America and the philosophy of tolerance rooted in the Cromwellian Revolution of 1648 is absolutely essential. Jews should be aware that the tolerance of America is an Anglo-exception to the intolerance of socialist Europe. In contrast to Europe, where Jews were repeatedly murdered and oppressed by feudalistic then socialist and national socialist regimes, America, precisely because of its Protestant basis, has accepted and honored Jews. Jews should be aware of this virtue. I do think that there is much anti-Christian bias among liberal Jews, which is as much a form of bigotry as anti-Semitism.

Hugo Chavez's Blood Libel

Gateway Pundit (hat tip Larwyn) reports yet another anti-Semitic campaign in Venezuela:

>On December 1, 2007, Venezuelan police raided a Jewish community center in Caracas. The raid by drug and terrorism police occurred just hours before Venezuelans went to the polls to vote on constitutional changes proposed by President Hugo Chavez. The Jewish community is routinely the target of verbal intimidation in the Chavez government-sponsored media- ADL.org.

>Today Hugo Chavez, the "brother" of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, opened a new media campaign against the Jews...

The stridency of Chavez's anti-Semitism is not, as the ADL claims, "inexplicable". Chavez is a national socialist in the same tradition as Hitler and Stalin. His storm troopers have attacked Jews before and will so again.

Institutional Death in America and Europe

The new and old worlds are divided not just by their relative emphasis on flexibility and markets, but also by their openness to change. Radicalism in Europe has generally taken the forms of Hegelian emphasis on historicism. Marxism and its derivatives while pretending to advocate radical change are romantic reassertions of medieval stability and security. The chief outcomes of Russian and eastern European communism were societies that had difficulty with flexibility and change, that could not integrate information about price and consumer demand intelligently and that placed political stability before economic change. As well, Europe has emphasized the Nietzschean will to power and minimized liberal openness to change.

Both Americans like Europeans have revealed prejudices but while Americans are discarding them, Europeans are not. In the 19th century the people of California hated Asians and passed discriminatory laws against them. The first immigration law in America, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, excluded Chinese mining labor from immigration under penalty of law and required that Chinese immigrants obtain certification of their qualification to immigrate. In 1902 Chinese immigrants were required to register with the government and obtain a certificate of residency. Similarly, antagonism and hatred toward African-Americans following Reconstruction led to passage of Jim Crow laws by post-Reconstruction redeemer governments beginning in 1876 and the laws continued in force until passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. The northeastern Mugwumps, the educated post-reconstruction Republicans who preceded the Progressives around 1884, did not advocate the Jim Crow laws aggressively but did not oppose them aggressively either. The Jim Crow laws were primarily the product of southern Democrats. The northern Democrats did not oppose them either. As president, Woodrow Wilson intensified the Jim Crow laws and supported them. During the Progressive era, imperialist sentiment fit the racism of the Jim Crow laws. Progressivism was very much associated with racism.

In Europe, there was a parallel history of anti-Semitism. Jews were banned from England, France and Spain in the middle ages and were forced to migrate to Asia Minor and eastern Europe. In Germany and Italy they were forced to live in ghettos. During the Crusades, Crusaders murdered tens of thousands of Jews (along with eastern Christians, southern French Christians and Muslims). There was a brief period of liberalization in the 19th century, but in the twentieth the rise of Nazism, a derivative of Marxism, led to the murder of the majority of European Jews.

Despite this history of bigotry in both continents, in recent decades Americans have reduced but not eliminated the degree of anti-Asian and anti-Chinese racism. In contrast, anti-Semitism is more intense in Europe than it has been since World War II. The European addiction to anti-Semitism attends a deeper inability to overcome antiquated traditions and class structures that inhibit change.

Americans' ability to create and accept change may in part be the cultural residue of the American frontier. The open frontier led this people to see the possibility of the new. As well, the science and technology that freedom made possible, the inventions and progress that came from laissez faire capitalism, led to an openness to change. Perhaps the openness to change went to far under the philosophy of modernism, but it is preferable to the alternative, which is the stagnation of bigotry, impoverishment and lost economic opportunity. The degree of tradition and change is best balanced through private decision, not through bureaucratic laws that require landmark preservation.

As well, Americans are a religious people, and their acceptance of change is likely linked to their faith. In America, religious tolerance has been the norm and religion has been a matter of belief and conscience rather than social imposition and structure. Many Americans have believed that material rewards reflect divine grace. Since belief in God is a matter of conscience, not social institution, and since material rewards reflect divine election, in many Americans' view, American are likely to pursue and feel comfortable with such rewards and with the change that they require.

Since the creation of wealth requires the creation of change, of new ideas, of new markets and new technology, the converse of new ideas, the death of old ones, is critical to change. Europeans are reluctant to give up old prejudices like anti-Semitism and tribal social arrangements like socialism. Firms cannot in the European model be allowed to go bankrupt. Business executives must be permitted to maintain their social position and employees must be secure in their jobs.

To the extent that Americans adopt such tribal, European views they will be unable to change. Change depends on death. The growth of the economy depends on the death of failed firms. Incompetent managements like Bear Stearn's or Enron's do not deserve subsidies. Their managements have failed and deserve the economic returns that failure implies.

Likewise, the introduction of Progressive and New Deal institutions were significant not so much because they reflected change, but rather because the institutions reflected the tribal views of German historicism and so became institutionalized as reaction to change. Few Progressive institutions have been overturned and those New Deal institutions that were not rejected by the Supreme Court have remained in place for the past 70 years. When change in proposed, the American people's reaction is not the openness to change that characterized America in an earlier era but a European-style tribal reacton, a fear of change and a hostility to the possibility that failed institutions ought to change. Likewise, when American business has failed, as it increasingly often has in the past decade, the American people's reaction has been to protect the wealth of those whose businesses failed to produce value for investors or for the American people and so shore up a class system that is decidedly non-American in nature.

Alexander S. Peak Responds to Allegations of Libertarian Anti-Semitism

I have previously blogged about anti-Semitism, the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul. My blogs on this topic responded in part to a column in the New York Sun and as well my own recollections of past events, which may not be generalizable to today. Alexander S. Peak, a Libertarian Party activist in Maryland has responded carefully and thoroughly to my concerns. His e-mail follows:

>"Allow me to apologise in advance for the somewhat rambling nature of this letter.

"I, like you, admit that I'm not an expert in Middle East issues. I like to think of myself as more familiar with what is going on there than the average American, but that isn't saying much. I'm also not an expert on European history, but I believe you are irrefutably correct that there has been a long history of anti-Semitism in Europe.

"I also can't comment on what was going on with the Free Libertarian Party seven years before I was born. I would like to think it was, as you put it, one rotten apple. I had not heard of the Liberty Lobby prior to your letter, but having skimmed over the Wikipedia entry thereon, it indeed appears that it was anti-Semitic, cloaked in a veneer of constitutionalism and fiscal conservatism. (It even states the founder created a group known for publishing books that denied the Holocaust!)

"I cannot comment on the New York affiliate party from three decades ago, but I can speak of the current Maryland affiliate. And, I can say I've never seen a hint of racism or anti-Semitism from these people.

"In 2006, the Libertarian Party of Maryland endorsed a third-party coalition candidate who was running for the Libertarian, Green, and Populist nominations. (He got all three. Looking back, it may have been a mistake to endorse him, but I digress.) The two other candidates for Senate were Ben Cardin (D) and Michael Steele (R). The Libertarian Party of Baltimore had a table at a festival, and I was there talking to people as they walked by. One guy, whom I presume was a Republican, started talking to me about our candidate for the Senate. He said to me that he can't possibly vote for Steele (he made no mention of Cardin) because "if he gets elected, he might eventually go on to the White House." I paused, hoping that all he meant by that was that he didn't like Steele's policies. He continued, saying, "Gotta keep the White House white." At that, I turn away from the guy a walked back under the tent, wanting nothing more to do with him. (I actually gave thought to voting for Steele just to counter-balance this guy's vote. After all, the candidate we were endorsing wasn't a libertarian anyway.)

"When one of my fellow Libertarian Baltimorians, Lorenzo Gaztanaga, came back under the tent, I told him of the incident. He verbally applauded what I had done, saying, "Good for you! Good for you!" He later told me that, on his census report, he and his wife list their race as "human."

"When I think of libertarian activists with regard to tolerance, I think of this incident. I like to think that most libertarians--the vast, vast majority--are as disgusted by xenophobia as am I. Surely, I'm under no illusion that there are no people out there espousing libertarian views yet who make us look bad by holding such views on race, gender, religion, et cetera, but I believe from my experiences with fellow libertarians that such people are in an extremely small yet vocal minority.

"You ask, "Does the Libertarian Party have a position on aid or support to Israel and not aid or support to Egypt or Kuwait?"

"I'll address the question directly in a bit.

"In search for an answer, I used the following Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jews+OR+jew+OR+jewish+OR+israel+site%3Alp.org+-yourturn

"Nothing from this search actually answered the question you posed, so I employed the search to seek out examples of anti-Semitism.

"The closest thing I saw to what could possibly be described as anti-Semitic upon doing this search was an article from California Freedom in which an author points out that the existence of Israel may be a factor in the decision among terrorists to commit terrorist acts--the author does not, however, make the claim that this means that Israel should not exist:
http://ca.lp.org/cf/CF-200707.pdf

"(My personal position, being the ultra-radical that I am, is that no nation-state should exist. But I know that I'm not likely to get my way, and consider the two-state solution the second-best option for the Israel/Palestine conflict.)

"I did find a link on the Libertarian Party of Delaware site to the Liberty For All blog, which has this rambling paragraph in one of its posts:

"This tells me that one ignorant atheist who has the right to believe as he does because of the blood spilled from our Christian founding, has more power than millions of Christians demanding their rights. Why does he? Because his agenda matches exactly the agenda of the US Government, its pseudo Christians - including Bush, Ash-Kraut, and the most of the officials at every level - and the Jewish controllers (does not include all the Jewish people, just the Jewish tyrants who do the controlling) who are intent on destroying Christianity in this country" ( http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=1024 ).

"I can't figure out what "Jewish controllers" he's talking about, but the guy obviously has issues with anyone outside of Christianity.

"Upon my search, I did find many statements made that were very positive about Jews and even Israel. One quote I found just a few minutes ago from Ron Paul was:

"Number five, an attack on Iraq will not likely be confined to Iraq alone. Spreading the war to Israel and rallying all Arab nations against her may well end up jeopardizing the very existence of Israel. The President has already likened the current international crisis more to that of World War II than the more localized Vietnam war. The law of unintended consequences applies to international affairs every bit as much as to domestic interventions, yet the consequences of such are much more dangerous."

"But none of this directly answers your question. The short answer is, I actually see nothing from the Libertarian Party stating a position on aid to Israel specifically.

"The 2006 platform states:

"Freedom of Religion:

"Issue: Government routinely invades personal privacy rights based solely on individuals’ religious beliefs. Arbitrary tax structures are designed to give aid to certain religions, and deny it to others.

"Principle: We defend the rights of individuals to engage in (or abstain from) any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others.

"Solution: In order to defend freedom, we advocate a strict separation of church and State. We oppose government actions that either aid or attack any religion. We oppose taxation of church property for the same reason that we oppose all taxation. We condemn the attempts by parents or any others -- via kidnappings or conservatorships -- to force children to conform to any religious views. Government harassment or obstruction of religious groups for their beliefs or non-violent activities must end.

"Transitional Action: We call for an end to the harassment of churches by the Internal Revenue Service through threats to deny tax-exempt status to churches that refuse to disclose massive amounts of information about themselves.

"The platform actually mentions nothing about foreign aid currently. But, it's worth noting that the platform was gutted in 2006 thanks to the efforts of the Libertarian Reform Caucus. 80% of the platform was deleted, and I strongly believe that there will be an effort in 2008 to bring back the 2004 platform.

"The 2004 platform stated, in its short answer on foreign aid, "We support the elimination of tax-supported military, economic, technical, and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations." It also stated, in its short answer on foreign intervention, "We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. We make no exceptions."

"The actual 2004 plank on foreign aid stated:

"The Issue: The federal government has used foreign aid as a tool of influencing the policy of other sovereign nations under the guise of aiding needy people in those nations. This forces American taxpayers to subsidize governments and policies of which they may not approve.

"The Principle: Individuals should not be coerced via taxes into funding a foreign nation or group.

"Solutions: All foreign aid should be voluntarily funded by individuals or private organizations.

"Transitional Action: Eliminate all tax-supported military, economic, technical and scientific aid to foreign governments or other organizations. Abolish government underwriting of arms sales. Abolish all federal agencies that make American taxpayers guarantors of export-related loans, such as the Export-Import Bank and the Commodity Credit Corporation. End the participation of the U.S. government in international commodity circles that restrict production, limit technological innovation and raise prices. Repeal all prohibitions on individuals or firms contributing or selling goods and services to any foreign country or organization, unless such provision constitutes a direct threat to the people of the United States.

"The actual 2004 plank on foreign intervention stated:

"The Issue: Intervention in the affairs of other countries has provoked resentment and hatred of the United States among many groups and nations throughout the world. In addition, legal barriers to private and personal aid (both military and economic) have fostered internal discord.

"The Principle: The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them.

"Solutions: End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling. Individuals should be free to provide any aid they wish that does not directly threaten the United States.

"Transitional Action: Voluntary cooperation with any economic boycott should not be treated as a crime. End all limitation of private foreign aid, both military and economic. Repeal the Neutrality Act of 1794, and all other U.S. neutrality laws, which restrict the efforts of Americans to aid overseas organizations fighting to overthrow or change governments. End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above.

"I also checked the first official Libertarian Party platform. The 1972 platform had a much shorter foreign aid plank. It read simply, "We support an end to the Federal foreign aid program."

"So, in answer to your question, no, the Libertarian Party does not have a position on foreign aid that deals only with Israel. It has no position dealing with foreign aid, and when it did, it's only position on foreign aid was one that applies to all countries, including Egypt and Kuwait; not merely Israel.

"You also ask, "Has Ron Paul made public statements about the 'Muslim' or 'Arab' lobby as he has with respect to the 'Jewish lobby'?"

"To my knowledge, he has not.

"But then, I have never heard Dr. Paul refer to a Jewish lobby, either. I see no mention of such a lobby on his congressional website:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22jewish+lobby%22+site%3Ahouse.gov%2Fpaul

"I also see no such reference on RonPaulLibrary.org:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aronpaullibrary.org+%22jewish+lobby%22

"Perhaps you meant "Israel lobby" or "Israeli lobby." I can't say whether or not he's made reference in public to such a lobby. Nor do I see any mention of an Israeli lobby or Israel lobby on either of those sites mentioned above. But I'll defer to you and assume he indeed make such a reference in a public speech.

"I really can't say what sort of lobbying Congresspersons deal with, or if there are people who actually go to Washington so as to lobby for aid for Israel. If such lobbying efforts actually exist, then I would argue there's nothing offensive about addressing it. If no such lobbying efforts exist, then I would definitely have to question his intent with that statement.

"You ask, "Is there a Libertarian position about the treatment of Jews in Iran?"

"There is a small-L libertarian position, namely that the government in Iran is corrupt, abusive, and oppressive to Jews, homosexuals, women, etc.; and that its powers must be dramatically limited or eliminated.

"But there is no big-L Libertarian position on the matter, just as there is no big-L Libertarian position on what's going on in Darfur or elsewhere.

"Prior to the platform purge in 2006, the Libertarian Party platform had a position on human rights, which read as follows:

"The Issue: We condemn the violations of human rights in all nations around the world. We particularly abhor the widespread and increasing use of torture for interrogation and punishment. The violation of rights and liberty by other governments can never justify foreign intervention by the United States government. Today, no government is innocent of violating human rights and liberty, and none can approach the issue with clean hands.

"The Principle: We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups. Only private individuals and organizations have any place speaking out on this issue.

"Solutions: We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty.

"Transition: Until a global triumph for liberty has been achieved, we support both political and revolutionary actions by individuals and groups against governments that violate rights. In keeping with our goal of peaceful international relations, we call upon the United States government to cease its hypocrisy and its sullying of the good name of human rights.


"Once again, allow me to apologise for what I fear will sound like rambling. I hope I've also answered your questions satisfactorily.

"I hope I've presented a balanced picture with my reply. The only other instance I recall of libertarianism being in any way associated with anti-Semitism was in a very misleading and skewed book review from the New York Times. Although, David Boaz points out why the author was wrong to make that implication here:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/03/31/nyt-clueless-on-libertarianism/

"Thanks for your questions. If you have any more, I'll again be happy to answer them.

Yours sincerely,
Alex Peak



MLangbert@hvc.rr.com wrote:
If I may, I'll post your thoughts on my website.

I appreciate your thoughts. There has been a tinge in the Libertarian movement. When I belonged to the Free Libertarian Party (the NY Libertarian Party) in 1978 I began receiving mailings from the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby and as well recall seeing anti-Semitic literature in the offices. Whether that's due to one rotten apple in the office or not I can't prove. But the Libertarian Party seems to have been more eager to criticize aid to Israel than to other countries, such as Egypt.

My questions for you: (1) Does the Libertarian Party have a position on aid or support to Israel and not aid or support to Egypt or Kuwait? (2) Has Ron Paul made public statements about the "Muslim" or "Arab" lobby as he has with respect to the "Jewish lobby"?

I am well aware that many libertarians were Jews, to include Rothbard and von Mises (and Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman) but that doesn't change the dynamic. Nor does it prove that Rothbard wasn't anti-Semitic. There are many left-wing Jewish anti-Semites. Karl Marx's "On the Jewish Question" is anti-Semitic (Marx's closing argument that the real Jew is the capitalist does not change the article's anti-Semitism). Of course, Marx was ethnically Jewish.

I'm not so much criticizing the anti-Israel-support (I oppose all foreign aid myself) but rather that Israel is is singled out when Egypt gets a similar amount of support as did Kuwait get much more in terms of military spending, etc. Also, the exodus of almost every Jew from the Arab countries, the treatment of Jews in Iran, the absence of Jews (as well as any other religion) from Saudi Arabia, the discrimination, intolerance and oppression throughout Arabia of other religions gets no attention. Is there a Libertarian position about the treatment of Jews in Iran? At the same time, is there one about religious intolerance in Arabia that led to the exodus of nearly half the Israeli population to Israel?

To pretend that there isn't a very long history of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Muslim world and in populist movements in the US is disingenuous. To pretend that the focus of state violence in much of European history beginning with the Crusades was not against Jews, and that the Jews had nowhere to turn during the 1930s because of the American Populist movement is also disingenuous. I'm not overly expert in Middle East issues but I do not believe that anything Israel has done, especially given that it is a country of 2 million people that one billion Muslims want to destroy, entitles it to be singled out the way that the Libertarians have. As well, references to the "Israel lobby" are reminiscent of the Populism of Father Coughlin that led to the refusal to permit Jewish immigration in the 1930s, hence the holocaust.

You can take a purist argument and oppose aid to Israel, which is fine with me. In fact, I agree that foreign aid is a mistake. But then take an equal position in opposition to Egypt, Pakistan, Kuwait, etc. But again, my questions for you: (1) Does the Libertarian Party have a formal, officially stated position on one and not the other? (2) Has Ron Paul made public statements about the "Muslim" or "Arab" lobby?



----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander S. Peak"
Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:53 am
Subject: Regarding Rothbard, Paul, anti-Semitism, and the LP
To: mlangbert@hvc.rr.com

> Mr. Langbert:
>
> Sorry to be emailing you, but I was unable to post a reply on
> your blog, so I figured I would email you directly. This email is
> in reply to this post, titled In Praise of NOTA:
> http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2007/10/in-praise-of-nota-
> none-of-above.html
>
> Indeed Paul was a student of Rothbardian economics, and agreed
> with probably 90% of Rothbard's political agenda; but that would
> hardly imply any anti-Semitism on the part of Paul. I'm fairly
> sure that Rothbard, an agnostic Jew, was not anti-Semitic. And
> how can I be sure he wasn't simply a self-hating Jew? Because his
> teacher and mentor, Ludwig von Mises, was also Jewish.
>
> As for Paul, true, he's not also Jewish. But, he is a
> libertarian and, as such, an opponent of collectivism. He has
> specifically called racism collectivist, reflecting a similar
> opinion presented by Rand in her great essay, "Racism."
>
> (You can read that essay here:
>
> http://tiger.towson.edu/~apeak1/writtenwork/otherworksworthreading/racism.html )
>
> As for Israel, infering that one's opposition to the Israeli
> government (which receives a tremendous amount of welfare from the
> U.S. taxpayer, more than any other government) somehow amounts to
> anti-Semitism is no different than infering that opposition to the
> minimum wage (which creates unemployement, raises costs for
> consumers, and lowers the general standard of living) is somehow
> anti-poor.
>
> Finally, just because some nut started sending you anti-Semitic
> literature while you were in the LP doesn't make the LP anti-
> Semitic, nor does it prove that the sender even knew that you were
> in the LP, and moreover doesn't prove that the sender had any real
> clue about libertarianism even if he/she/they did know you were in
> the LP. After all, if someone starts sending communist literature
> to Smith while Smith is on the Robinson diet, that doesn't mean
> Robinson is a communist.
>
> Perhaps your perspective is different from mine. I'll be happy
> to listen to your argument if you believe there is any anti-
> Semitism in the LP or the broader libertarian movement.
>
> Respectfully yours,
> Alex Peak
>
> P.S. I grant you permission to publish this letter, or any
> portion thereof (so long as no quote is taken out of context, of
> course), if you wish.

In Praise of NOTA (None of the Above)

I have a project in which I believe: None of the Above. I had a long conversation with Bill White on Tuesday. Bill founded Voters for NOTA in Massachusetts and introduced bills in both legislative houses to permit voters to register a vote for "none of the above". The bill isn't going anywhere in Massachusetts, but it's worth a college professor's try in New York as well. Back in the 1960s, Howard Jarvis, a 1962 California primary Senate candidate didn't see Proposition 13 pass until 1978, eight years before his death in 1986. I envision a similar bill being proposed in NY, and I think I will be the one to propose a bill to my legislators. Bill White has done all the heavy lifting, and NOTA is an idea whose time has come in New York State.

This is a good year for NOTA. There's very slim pickings among the presidential candidates in both parties. Newsmax reports that James Carville believes that the Democrats are stronger than the Republicans only because of the "complete implosion" of the Republican Party, not because of enthusiasm for the Democrats. Even so, reports Newsmax, Carville still believes that the Democrats "could still lose focus". One reason might be the way the candidates look. I still believe that, ugly as Carville is, he is still better looking than Hillary, although both are better looking than Rosie O'Donnell.

On October 3, the Sun reported that growing evidence that conservatives are concerned about the choices shaping up in the Republican primary race, and Mike Huckabee's increasing popularity among voters in caucus states, offers the former Arkansas governor a rare opportunity to become a serious contender. Instead, social conservatives are thinking of running a third party candidate.

Speaking as an advocate of hard money, limited government and the common man, I feel the same way. Candidates just aren't interested in the erosion of the dollar, presumably because they assume that since voters have been educated in American public schools, the subject is difficult for them.

Last week in Kingston, NY, a shopper on line behind me in Hannaford's Supermarket claimed that grocery prices have gone up six percent since July. At dinner on Monday night, my aunt, Norma of Manhattan, a retired bookkeeper, mentioned that she believed that the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics has been misleading the public by publishing inflation statistics that do not include food prices.

The only candidate who grasps the inflation issue is Ron Paul, but his views on Iraq are silly and his use of the phrase "Israel lobby" concerns me. Ryan Sager covers this matter here.

Review of Gary Tobin, Aryeh K. Weinberg and Jenna Ferer's, "The Uncivil University"

Gary A. Tobin, Aryeh K. Weinberg and Jenna Ferer
The Uncivil University
Institute for Jewish and Community Research, 2005
296 pages

Gary A. Tobin, Aryeh K. Weinberg and Jenna Ferer have written a useful and insightful book on anti-Semitism in universities. The book is actually more than that. It starts by discussing standards of academic competence and ethics. These standards have been increasingly neglected in recent years. Universities have become overly obsessed with money, with narrow fields of specialization and with protecting their prerogatives from external review, even as they require ever greater amounts of financial support from external sources.

Following their discussion of the decline of universities, the authors discuss fiduciary and ethical duties of academics and academic administrators. They follow this with a discussion of a history of anti-Semitism in academia, in America more broadly, and in the Arab world. The authors do a good job of discussing the blurring of the distinctions among anti-Semitism, anti-Israelism and criticism of Israel, three areas which overlap. They include an interesting quote by Tamir Sorek of the Cornell Daily Sun in this regard. As the authors point out,

"There are only fourteen million Jews in the world out of a population of more than five billion. If one listens to the rhetoric of the anti-Semites and the anti-Israelists (and now the anti-American voices as well), one can only assume that there are hundreds of millions of Jews in the world controlling government, controlling the banks, controlling the media, and who are poised to profit from everybody else's distress."

Sadly, as the authors point out, p. 72, "the university and the left now seem interchangeable" with Jim Piereson labeling "higher education 'the left university'". Universities have become fonts of anti-Semitic propaganda and (p. 105) "the university has failed, permitting a converging rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism on college campuses that marginalizes Jewish students." Politicized research marginalizes honest research.

For instance, Yale Assistant Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh circulated a list of Jewish students whom he labeled a "pro-war cabal". As well, Jewish students at the University of California, Berkeley have been spit on and called "Zionist conservative bastards" and "f**king Jews" when campaigning for student office." These are not isolated occurrences, but rather are widespread. Jews are routinely harassed and called vicious names at college campuses around the country. For instance, in 1993 Khalid Abdul Muhammad, speaking at Kean College, called Jews "bloodsuckers". The authors assert that:

"Professor Norton Mezvinsky, of Central Connecticut State University, has been quoted stating that Jews believe 'the blood of non-Jews has no intrinsic value' and that this allows Jews to consider that the killing of non-Jews does 'not constitute murder according to the Jewish religion'."

Professor Emeritus Helen Cullen of the University of Massachusetts, known as "the Harvard of Marxism", wrote a letter that was published in U. Mass.'s student daily, Collegian, saying that:

"Judaism and the Jewish identity are offensive to most human beings and will always cause trouble between the Jews and the rest of the human race."

The University of Illinois student newspaper published a letter from Ariel Sinovsky stating that "the President should act immediately...First, separate Jews from all government advisory positions and give them one year full paid sabbatical...Then the Jews might face another Holocaust."

In 2002 Santa Rosa Junior College's student newspaper The Oak Leaf published an article by Kevin McGuire stating that "Israel is the largest and most dangerous terrorist organization in the world..."

A key example is the low-quality field of Middle Eastern Studies. Bernard Lewis is quoted as saying that the field is of low quality. Students complain of marginalization, ideological harassment and intimidation. The Middle Eastern Studies field is junk and does not deserve to be part of the university. Columbia Professors such as Samir Awad, Gil Anidjar, Janaki Bakhle, Marc Nichanian, Hamid Dbashi, Joseph Massad, Frances Protchett, George Saliba, Nader Sohrabi and Marc van de Mieroop, all of Colubmia's Middle Eastern Studies program, dominated the list of signatories on a petition for divestment from Israel. The scholarship of Middle Eastern Studies departments has been of such low quality that it is a standing joke in academia.

To remedy these problems, the authors suggest enhanced external control. In 2005, Congress passed House Resolution 3077, subsequently folded into House Resoultion 609, that establishes an independent higher education advisory board to provide advice, counsel and recommendations on international education issues.

Uncivil University is a very well written and readable book. It is well researched and balanced. The authors have treated an important subject with care. The book deserves a wide readership.