Comments on: State council seeks to shut down ‘leftist’ department at BGU

By: delia ruhe

delia ruhe — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:50:11 +0000

How old is Israel now? About 65? And its leadership — and many of its citizens and supporters in the Diaspora — still haven’t figured out how to deal with a challenge in an adult fashion.

By: Neve Gordon

Neve Gordon — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:21:03 +0000

Peace can only be achieved by denying there ever was a Holocaust and then by driving all the yids into the sea with pointed bayonets behind them.

By: Vicky

Vicky — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:02:29 +0000

Philos has already pointed out the dangers of this idea. University faculty members shouldn’t have to support their state lock, stock, and barrel and they should be free to make their own choices about political action, otherwise universities simply become government mouthpieces. Your argument is basically ‘don’t bite the hand that feeds you’ – no matter what else that hand might be doing. This is an argument that is routinely applied in dictatorships.

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 05:18:02 +0000

Kolumn9 correctly observes that the citizens through their elected representatives have the right to demand that state employees protect their values and interests rather than subverting them. What is strange is that State of Israel is so slow and round-about in proceeding toward that goal.

When I was a wee lad, more precisely 7-grader in elementary school I witnessed how it can be done. I was member of Scouts (co-ed scouts), and one day our our scout masters (I do not know good English equivalents) got arrested. It turned out that this was closely related to the fact that they were university students who rather then simply attending lectures, tests and exams took parts in most misguided gatherings. Authorities also reviewed the role of professors and it was discovered that a large number was lamentably lax in their duties as educators and ideologically unacceptable. They were relieved of their duties, administrators who tolerated their outrageous behavior were demoted (it happened in 1968).

If one country may find professors as being too Zionist (they were also other ideological deviations, chiefly “revisionism”), why another can’t find professors to be insufficiently Zionists? “Nulla contro lo Stato”.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:37:50 +0000

Speech does, can harm. Silence harms as well. You may reply to speech, but not to the silenced. If you think a boycott call wrong, state your reasons, join the debate. That is where Israel prospers. Exactly what has Israel done to make you think a boycott call would be heard? There lies your fear.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 02:28:36 +0000

“If that creationist analogy nonsense is the best example of your logical reasoning, you really should stop digging. The rest of the stuff you are just making up, but hey, whatever keeps you happy.”–you are turning ugly, K9, a clear sign something is wrong.

It is quite possible that one could believe a boycott is the best thing for one’s land at the moment. The creationism analogy fails for you precisely because you are not a born again creationist–but that is the point, you deny their premise, so see no harm, while they see eternal harm. As I have pointed out, the Boycott civil law denies speech solely based on presumed harm as well. In both cases, a concept of race traitor is being articulated. But I assert the true harm to Israel is in this silencing. For once things are silenced, alternative vanishes–and alternative is what you fear. Let them speak and be fools; do you not know the true way all will follow?

By: Kolumn9

Kolumn9 — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:26:34 +0000

They have all the rights in the world to operate a political science department. They don’t have the right to expect public funding when operating as activists against the people and institutions that pay their salaries.

By: Kolumn9

Kolumn9 — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:57:54 +0000

A professor explicitly calls for an action that is designed to damage the economy and academic institutions of the country, including his own. This isn’t some vague line of reasoning from creationism to damaging the country. This was an explicit, open and purposeful call to economically damage the very institutions that pay his salary. By what possible logical reasoning should institutions continue to pay people that are directly trying to damage them?

If that creationist analogy nonsense is the best example of your logical reasoning, you really should stop digging. The rest of the stuff you are just making up, but hey, whatever keeps you happy.

By: Vicky

Vicky — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:15:32 +0000

XYZ’s proposal (accepting Ariel’s university status in exchange for remaining open) basically translates as, “Don’t oppose the policy of entrenching settlements even further. Support it instead. And then you can keep operating.”

In other words, their right to operate as a political science department is contingent on their willingness to subscribe en masse to a particular political viewpoint. Conform to state ideology, or close. Marvellous.

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:48:42 +0000

Philos, I see comments and replies not so much as direct conversation (although they can be in good form) but as a decision to not allow the forum to be crushed, as Picker, above, would say. Can I make a statement without rancor? Can I articulate a position transcending this forum? These questions I ask myself. I am most often not happy with what I say here. Although I know myself not important at all, I would like to think some words might go on.

But thank you. I think you right about how Spinoza would be gleefully treated this day. The others’ words ae important because they are articulating the concept of race traitor, and this must be refused.