The following appeared originally at Campus Watch, which I direct.
Will the taxpayer-supported Middle East studies centers at five American universities join a boycott of Israeli academic institutions? Or were their directors, who signed a recent letter pledging “not to collaborate on projects and events involving Israeli academic institutions,” engaged in personal protests that won’t affect their schools’ official relations with Israeli universities, as Middle East scholar Martin Kramer asks of the director of Columbia’s Middle East Institute?
The letter, “Middle East Scholars and Librarians Call for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions,” was published at Jadaliyya on August 6, 2014 “in the name of the below signatories,” which an update on the site says totals 550. University of Toronto professor of Arab civilization Jens Hanssen is listed as the media contact.
As heads of U.S. Department of Education Title VI National Resource Centers, the directors are administrators of bodies required by the Higher Education Opportunity Act to give “assurances” that they will “maintain linkages with overseas institutions of higher education and other organizations that may contribute to the teaching and research of the Center.”
If their pledges aren’t simply personal but apply to the centers they lead, they stand in conflict with the assurances they gave in exchange for federal funds.
The six directors (Georgetown boasts two) and their respective centers are:
- Lila Abu-Lughod, Middle East Institute, Columbia.
- mirian cooke (no relation to e.e. cummings), Middle East Studies Center, Duke.
- Osama Abi-Mershed, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown.
- John Esposito, Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown.
- Helga Tawil-Souri, Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies, New York University.
- Gabriel Piterberg, Center for Near Eastern Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.
American taxpayers deserve to know the intentions of these six directors: Are their public pledges against Israel merely personal, so that the centers they lead may cooperate with Israeli academic institutions and scholars? Or are they declaring the intention of their centers to engage in an official boycott of Israeli academic institutions despite federal policy?
From: Bergman, Jay (History)
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 9:06 AM
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Listserv-campusforum
Subject: RE: 10 killed at UN school: moral outrage and criminal act – UN Secretary General; disgraceful shelling, no justification – US State Department
I’ve read your posting carefully.
There is evidence — suggestive if not conclusive — that Israel did not target a school and that the victims were carried from where they were hit into the courtyard of the school so that Israel could, yet again, be accused of crimes it did not commit. (1)
But that is not the point I wish to make.
While reading the postings on the campus list-serve these past few weeks, I have been struck by how seemingly detached from reality are those on the faculty who have focused their moral microscopes on Israel, condemning what they see as Israel’s crimes for the purpose of denying its moral legitimacy, forgetting that Israel is reacting to the assaults by an enemy, Hamas, that has since 2006 fired some 10,000 rockets into Israel and continues to seek its destruction and the murder of all Jews. Indeed, Hamas exists for that very purpose; killing Jews is its raison d’etre. I’m sure you’ll agree that should Hamas be able to kill all Jews, it will kill Israel’s Jewish critics just as happily as it will Israel’s Jewish supporters.
You did, to your credit, condemn Hamas’s launching, in one day, 60 missiles against Israel. But your condemnation, to me, seemed perfunctory, a way of minimizing an unpleasant fact before launching into an attack on Israel — a propos of which, the UN can hardly be considered an unbiased observer and adjudicator. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights actually condemned Israel for not sharing its Iron Dome ABM system with Hamas, which, as you know, seeks Israel’s destruction. I’m not aware of such a demand being placed on a combatant in any war in human history.
There is so much that you and other critics of Israel ignore:
*Hamas planned a mega-terror attack, through the tunnels it had dug into Israel, to coincide with the Jewish New Year next month, in which hundreds, maybe thousands of Israelis, all of them civilians, would have been slaughtered. About this you and other critics of Israel have written nothing. (2)
*The unending calls for the destruction of Israel from Iran and Sunni Muslims. About this you and other critics of Israel have written nothing. (3)
*Hamas has repeatedly used civilians as human shields. About this you and other critics of Israel have written nothing. (4)
*Hamas claims that Jews use the blood of Christians in making matzos. About this you and other critics of Israel have written nothing. (5)
*The new “Caliphate” in Iraq is forcing Christians in Mosul either to convert to Islam or to leave the country or to be killed. About this you and other critics of Israel have written nothing.
*Anywhere from 160,000 to 200,000 innocent Muslim civilians have been slaughtered in the Syrian Civil War. About this you and other critics of Israel have written nothing.
*Coptic Christians in Egypt have been murdered and their churches destroyed. About this you and other critics of Israel have written nothing.
* A wave of genocidal anti-semitism is sweeping across Europe — demonstrators are beating up Jews and calling for Jews to once again be slaughtered in ovens. About this you and other critics of Israel have written nothing. (6)
* Turkey has degenerated into a one-party, one-man dictatorship that has imprisoned more journalists than any other country in the world. About this you and other critics of Israel have written nothing (7)
*Homosexuals are regularly stoned to death in the Middle East, especially in Iran. About this you and other critics of Israel have written nothing. (8)
These are all, obviously, horrific evils, many of them far worse than anything Israel has been accused of doing, all but one of them in the Middle East. And yet you and other critics of Israel have written nothing about them.
(3) http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/23/iran-supreme-leader-the-only-solution-for-crisis-is-israels-destruction/#! & http://pjmedia.com/blog/5-new-muslim-calls-for-genocide-of-the-jews/?print=1 & http://freebeacon.com/national-security/rouhani-this-festering-zionist-tumor-has-opened-once-again/
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 3:38 PM
Subject: 10 killed at UN school: moral outrage and criminal act – UN Secretary General; disgraceful shelling, no justification – US State Department
As the international law doctrine of “excessive force” applies to individual cases, and cannot be excused on the grounds that the other side is also committing criminal acts (e.g.: the launch of 60 missiles over Israel today), here are some preliminary judgments on such an instance, the IDF shelling today (Sunday) of a UN school in Raffa, Gaza Strip in which 15 civilians seeking refuge were killed. According to CNN, Israeli military spokesmen said that 3 militants on a motorcycle were “in the area”. UN Chief Ban Ki-moon condemned the killings as a “criminal act” and a “breach of international law”. The US state department spokesperson called the shelling “disgraceful” and noted that “the suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians.” I reproduce below the report on these statements provided by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:
UN chief Ban Ki-moon condemns shelling of Gaza school as ‘criminal act’
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon demands those responsible for the ‘gross violation of international humanitarian law’ be held accountable.
By Michelle Nichols Aug. 3, 2014 | 7:09 PM |
REUTERS – UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned a deadly attack on a Gaza school on Sunday as a “moral outrage and a criminal act” and demanded those responsible for the “gross violation of international humanitarian law” be held accountable.
The shelling of the UN school in Rafah in southern Gaza killed at least 10 civilians, the United Nations said. It was the third deadly attack on a UN school sheltering Palestinians during the 27-day conflict between Israel and Hamas militants.
All three incidents are being investigated, but the United Nations has initially blamed Israel for Sunday’s attack and another strike last Wednesday on a UN- run school in Jabalya refugee camp that killed at least 15 civilians.
“The Israel Defence Forces have been repeatedly informed of the location of these sites,” Ban’s spokesman said in a statement.
“This attack, along with other breaches of international law, must be swiftly investigated and those responsible held accountable. It is a moral outrage and a criminal act,” the statement said.
Israel began its offensive against Gaza on July 8 after a surge of cross-border rocket salvoes by Hamas and other guerrillas.
The fighting on Sunday pushed the Gaza death toll given by Palestinian officials to 1,772, most of them civilians. Israel has confirmed that 64 soldiers have died in combat, while Palestinian rockets have also killed three civilians in Israel.
Ban again demanded an end to the fighting and for the parties to begin negotiations in Cairo to address the underlying issues of the conflict.
“The resurgence in fighting has only exacerbated the man-made humanitarian and health crisis wreaking havoc in Gaza,” the statement said. “This madness must stop.”
U.S. slams ‘disgraceful shelling’ of UN school in Gaza Recent attacks on UN school in Gaza Strip must be investigated, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki says.
By Doina Chiacu Aug. 3, 2014 | 9:34 PM
REUTERS – The United States criticized the “disgraceful shelling” at a UN school in Gaza on Sunday and urged Israel to do more to prevent civilian casualties in its war against Hamas militants.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki also called for an investigation into attacks on UN schools in densely populated Gaza.
“The United States is appalled by today’s disgraceful shelling outside an UNRWA school in Rafah sheltering some 3,000 displaced persons, in which at least ten more Palestinian civilians were tragically killed,” Psaki said in a statement.
Psaki urged Israel again to live up to its own standards of avoiding civilian casualties as the conflict in the Hamas-controlled Gaza stretched into its 27th day.
On Wednesday, at least 15 Palestinians who sought refuge in a UN-run school in Jabalya refugee camp were killed during fighting, and the United Nations said Israeli artillery had apparently hit the building. The Israeli military said gunmen had fired mortar bombs from near the school and it shot back in response.
Psaki said UN facilities should not be used as bases from which to launch attacks.
“The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians,” she added.
The fighting on Sunday pushed the Gaza death toll given by Palestinian officials to 1,775, most of them civilians. Israel has confirmed that 64 soldiers have died in combat, while Palestinian rockets have killed three civilians in Israel.
The CNN article ‘Vicinity’ of U.N. school in Gaza struck by shelling, officials say is at:
You are currently subscribed to campusforum as: email@example.com.
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to firstname.lastname@example.org
The following appeared in the Providence Journal (RI), the Connecticut Jewish Ledger, and the Journal Inquirer in Manchester CT:
President Obama’s demand for an unconditional and immediate cease-fire in the fighting between Israel and Hamas, which would leave the latter with the wherewithal to murder Israeli civilians in the future, is just the most recent example of what can only be considered a conscious and deliberate policy to weaken and to undermine the security of the only Jewish state in the world.
From denying Israel the “bunker-buster” bombs it needs to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, to infantile snubs of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the president of the United States has shown an unswerving, consistent and relentless hostility to Israel that is not only harmful to Israel but to America as well.
Theological fanatics like Hamas will not be kindly disposed to the United States, much less deterred from continuing their genocidal war against Israel, by Obama’s ongoing appeasement, which has been justified and explained away by the president’s ridiculous claim, first made in his speech in Cairo in 2009, to understand Islam because he lived as a youth in a Muslim country, Indonesia.
Every public and semi-public admonishment of Israel, whether by President Obama or by his loquacious secretary of state, John Kerry, only encourages those who seek Israel’s destruction to persist in their evil design: Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and, by seeking to flood Israel with “refugees” too young to have been alive when Israel was created in 1948, the Palestinian Authority.
One may disagree about the reason for the president’s attitude. The most plausible is not that he is secretly Muslim, but rather that he loathes Israel because he loathes America, that for Obama the former is an integral appendage of the latter, no less racist and discriminatory at home and just as imperialist and expansionist abroad. Ironically, the Iranians show they also believe in this connection by building intercontinental missiles to fire at “The Big Satan” (the United States) once “The Little Satan” (Israel) is destroyed.
In light of the multiple dangers Israel faces, even as it is currently dealing, at great cost in human life, with an enemy that seeks the destruction not only of Israel but, as its founding charter makes clear, of all Jews, it is time for American Jews to recognize that the current occupant of the White House means real and lasting harm to the state of the Jewish people and thus to the Jewish people themselves.
If American Jews who support Obama’s positions on domestic issues such as abortion and immigration consider these issues more important than Israel’s survival, then they should continue to support his presidency. But for American Jews who both as Jews and as Americans consider Israel’s survival the foremost moral imperative of our time, and who believe that without Israel Judaism itself will suffer demographic extinction and that America would be even more tempting a target for Muslim terrorists than it was before 9/11, their obligation is clear and inescapable: to do everything they can to pressure President Obama to cease his relentless hostility to Israel and, if that does not work, to seek his removal from office. Impeachment and conviction do not require the commission of crimes. Dereliction of duty is sufficient.
The foreign policy Obama has pursued, of punishing America’s allies, not just Israel but other pro-Western democracies such as Poland and the Czech Republic, and of appeasing America’s enemies, not just Muslim theocracies but also thuggish dictatorships such as Putin’s Russia, is clear evidence of presidential negligence, of failing to do everything necessary to protect the American people. If this is not an impeachable offense, one is hard pressed to say what is.
Jay Bergman is Professor of History at Central Connecticut State University.
JOSEPH J. SHATTAN, 1950 – 2014
For 7 months, I worked alongside Joseph J. Shattan as one of the Heritage Foundation’s 3 Major Gifts Writers. Perhaps because he was Brooklyn & I was South Yonkers and we were close in age, we hit it off right away – same sense of humor, same love of crafting language ourselves and of reading others’ well wrought prose – same challenge of making a living doing work we loved.
Joe was utterly unpretentious, a quality seemingly outlawed in D.C. While others power-lunched at restaurants, we’d go to the Subway’s next door to Heritage, get the sandwich/chips/drink special, and head up to Heritage’s typically deserted roof, a finished area where functions are held in nice weather. We’d grab some chairs, plunk ourselves down, and as we gazed across the city, we’d trade stories about the strange directions our writing lives had taken.
Our last lunch was on an unusually chilly day. In the cold drizzle, we ate our sandwiches and kibitzed, until the drizzle turned to rain and drove us in. But it was, as always, a wonderful lunch: Joe’s wisdom and humor always put the minor, irksome aspects of a writer’s life in perspective.
After I left Heritage, we stayed in touch. I’m a former English professor married to a nonfiction book author. With over 10,000 lbs. of books, we finally decided it was time to purge (just how many copies of the Nicomachean Ethics does one household need?) I mentioned this to Joe and reassured him we weren’t letting go of his book. I wrote:
One of the books that is permanently on my shelf is ARCHITECTS OF VICTORY. . . It may amuse you that your place on my shelf is between my Roman missal and the Book of Common Prayer. If you find yourself with a sudden desire to stock up on rosary beads and incense, well, now you know why.
Here’s Joe’s response:
Jaine and I enjoy the mixed blessing of living next to a library that has a used book room. Over the years, I have bought a great many books at bargain prices, but I never seem to get around to reading them. Even on weekends, if the sun is shining and the birds are chirping, the last thing I feel like doing is sitting at home reading Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate, or Leon Edel’s Henry James. Somebody once said, “I try to be a philosopher, but laughter keeps breaking through.” In my case, I try to be a serious intellectual, but the sunlight is far too distracting.
That Architects of Victory survived your purge pleases me more than I can say. For all I know, future scholars may discover that everything I wrote is wrong, but it still occupies a warm spot in my heart. I suppose Indian warriors must have felt the same way about their first scalp.
Thank you for writing, for saving my book, and for placing it in such a strategic position.
God bless you, my friend. Here’s to sandwiches and chips some future day in Heaven
Online at the website of the Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/brandeis-and-double-standards_791299.html (May 12, 2014)
Support for the decision of Brandeis University not to award Ayaan Hirsi Ali an honorary degree, after previously announcing it would do so, has coalesced around the notion that while Islamic radicalism can be criticized, even condemned, one cannot criticize Islam itself. By condemning both, and by implying strongly that Radical Islam and Islam are indistinguishable, Ms. Ali—so the argument goes—not only does not deserve an honorary degree; she is, in fact, a bigot.
Ms. Ali’s critics are wrong. At the very least, radical Islam is just as valid a version of Islam as any other, and may even be more valid because it takes the commands of Sharia law literally, which is to say in a way that is consistent with the ordinary meaning of words. Moreover, Sharia is based on the Koran, which is considered the word of God, and thus something with which no Muslim can disagree and to which no Muslim can object.
And what does adherence to Sharia require? One among many barbarous demands is that apostates like Ms. Ali be killed. True, millions of Muslims do not take the requirement literally. But millions of Muslims do. And I am unaware of any Muslim state or organization in the United States, such as the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), denouncing practices such as this, as a result of which people are murdered, or, as in Ms. Ali’s case, threatened with death. Perhaps Ms. Ali should have phrased her condemnation of the barbarism she considers typical of Islam today in slightly less sweeping, less categorical language, and acknowledged that many Muslims either believe apostates should be killed but choose not to act on their belief, or for whatever reason reject this particular injunction. But I doubt that her doing so would have mollified CAIR and the defenders of Brandeis who consider any criticism of Islam somehow beyond the pale of reasoned discourse. Instead they consider it evidence of “Islamophobia,” the pervasiveness of which, since 9/11, groups like CAIR have grossly exaggerated.
Why should a religion—as opposed to any other system of thought and action—be immune to criticism or condemnation?
Islam is not some pristine, disembodied entity, like a Platonic form that exists independently of those who practice it. The Christianity that existed in Europe during the wars of religion that followed the Protestant Reformation was different from what it is today. And what made it different was not the theology itself but rather how the theology was interpreted. The same could be said about Judaism. Some of the injunctions in the Jewish Bible, taken literally, could be conducive to violence; Baruch Goldstein, who in 1994 murdered twenty-nine innocent Muslims on the West Bank, may well have justified what he did on precisely such grounds. But is there any evidence that Jews beyond a lunatic fringe act on the basis of such injunctions or that such actions, when they occur, are condoned by the vast majority of Jews? There is not. Goldstein’s homicidal rampage was condemned by every faction on the Israeli political spectrum, and by every major American Jewish organization.
That is hardly the case for Islamic states and organizations. CAIR not only refuses to condemn specifics acts of Muslim violence. Like the fifty-six member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, it seeks to criminalize any criticism of Islam as a form of blasphemy. Perhaps in four hundred years Islam will be as pacific as Christianity is today; there is no large body of Christians anywhere in the world bent on imposing it forcibly on others. It may be inconvenient to say so, but millions of Muslims today seek the destruction of Western civilization; should they succeed, not only freedom of religion but the other freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights will disappear. Islam, as expressed in Sharia, is not just a religion but a way of life, one that Ms. Ali’s critics, if they examined it honestly and carefully, might find inconsistent with the freedoms they currently enjoy by virtue of living in the West. To the extent that Ms. Ali calls attention to this threat to our civilization, she deserves praise, not opprobrium.
But even if one accepts the view that the Muslims Ms. Ali condemns are not representative of Islam, there is no reason why her courageous battle for women’s rights—of which many of her detractors claim to approve—cannot be divorced from her views on Islam. In the case of Desmond Tutu, on whom Brandeis conferred an honorary degree even after he called Israel a Nazi state, the university made precisely the distinction it has refused to make in Miss Ali’s case—namely honoring Tutu for his struggle against apartheid in South Africa while (one hopes) tacitly rejecting his anti-Semitic bigotry.
In fact, Tutu’s smear of Israel is far worse—far more vicious, far more absurd, far more defamatory, far more indicative of bigotry—than anything Ms. Ali has said about Islam. Her opinions, unlike Tutu’s, are grounded in evidence. Millions of Muslim girls have had their genitals mutilated. Many are the victims of honor killings. Many have been forced to marry persons they did not wish to marry. But there is nothing that Israel has done in the sixty-six years of its existence that is even remotely comparable to Nazism. (It goes without saying that when bigots say that Israel is like Nazi Germany, what they have in mind is not the construction of the autobahns or the achievement of full employment.)
But of course when Tutu was awarded an honorary degree, the Brandeis faculty who now malign Ms. Ali were mute. The double standard and hypocrisy this suggests is repulsive. The fact that when Tutu received his honorary degree he did not—on the day he received the degree—smear Israel is true but trivial. The same applies to the playwright Tony Kushner, another recipient of a Brandeis honorary degree, whose claim that the most repugnant American Jews are those who strongly support Israel is the kind of ad hominem attack one would expect from a hyperactive undergraduate, not the recipient of an honorary degree. Kushner, of course, provided no evidence for his smear because none exists.
As for the argument that awarding Ms. Ali an honorary degree might cause discomfort for Muslim students who disagree with her, the proper response is that that should not trump academic debate and discussion, without which the central obligation of the university—the dispassionate and disinterested pursuit of truth—cannot be fulfilled. Ensuring that all students always feel comfortable when their religion, or any other aspect of their lives, is discussed and evaluated is to ensure that universities have no students at all. Feeling uncomfortable when opinions contrary to one’s own are expressed is an integral part of college, and an inescapable part of life.
Notwithstanding Ms. Ali’s critics, her supposed intolerance is actually laudable because what she is intolerant of is intolerance itself. And in purely human terms, her willingness to risk her life pursuing the laudable objective of saving the lives of Muslim women—they constitute 91 percent of the victims of honor killings in the world today—fully justifies her receiving an honorary degree. (Of course courage alone is hardly cause for awarding honorary degrees. Were that the case, they would be given to persons who climbed Mount Everest.)
Finally, one can only describe as unbelievable the claim of Frederick Lawrence, the president of Brandeis, that no one in his administration knew anything of Ms. Ali’s views on Islam prior to the demands of CAIR and a significant minority of Brandeis faculty that Ms. Ali be denied the honorary degree she had previously been promised. But even if his claim is true, Brandeis should not have yielded.
Given the outcry outside of academia that followed Lawrence’s decision, the absence of comparable condemnation from within it might seem incredible to persons unfamiliar with the shibboleths of political correctness that constitute the conventional wisdom in academia today. But the reason for this silence is not hard to find: college campuses are liberal-left echo chambers almost totally devoid of dissenting (i.e. conservative) opinions. With a fanaticism that borders on the pathological, American colleges and universities seek cosmetic diversity, but not intellectual diversity, which is the only kind of diversity that matters in higher education.
Jay Bergman is a graduate of Brandeis University and a professor of history at Central Connecticut State University.
Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard!
Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and sign-up for our free Newsletter.
Copyright 2014 Weekly Standard LLC.
Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/brandeis-and-double-standards_791299.html
Email Exchange on the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Honorary Degree Fiasco at Brandeis University with Stephen Whitfield, the Max Richter Professor of American Civilization at Brandeis
Dear Professor Whitfield:
I appreciative your taking the trouble to respond to my email to President Lawrence. I have read your response carefully. But I find your arguments unpersuasive.
You sharply distinguish Islamism and Islam: the first should be criticized, even condemned, the latter should not. And you imply strongly that the former is a perversion of the latter. I disagree. To me “Islamism” is just as valid a version of Islam as any other, and in fact may be more valid in that it takes the commands of Sharia law literally, which is to say in a way that is consistent with the ordinary meaning of words. Moreover, Sharia law is based on the Koran, which is considered the word of God, and thus something with which no Muslim can disagree and to which no Muslim can object.
And what does adherence to Sharia law require? Among many barbarous requirements, that of punishing apostates like Ms. Ali with death. True, millions of Muslims don’t take the requirement literally. But millions of Muslims do. And I’m unaware of any Muslim state or organization in the United States, such as CAIR, denouncing practices such as this, as a result of which people are murdered, or, as in Ms. Ali’s case, threatened with death. Perhaps Ms. Ali should have phrased her condemnation of the barbarism she considers typical of Islam today in slightly less sweeping, less categorical language, and acknowledged that lots of Muslims either believe apostates should be stoned to death but choose not to act on their belief, or for whatever reason reject that particular injunction. But I doubt that her doing so would have mollified CAIR and the colleagues of yours on the Brandeis faculty who consider any criticism of Islam somehow beyond the pale of reasoned discourse. Instead they consider it evidence of “Islamaphobia,” the pervasiveness of which, since 9/11, groups like CAIR grossly exaggerate.
Why should a religion — as opposed to any other system of thought and action — be immune to criticism or condemnation? What you call “respect for religious differences” seems a euphemism for granting Islam immunity.
“Islam” is not some pristine, disembodied entity, like a Platonic Form that exists independently of those who practice it. The Christianity that was endemic in Europe during the Wars of Religion on both sides of the battle lines, Protestant and as well as Catholic, was different from what it is today. And what made it different was not the theology itself but rather how literally the theology was interpreted. And the same could be said about Judaism. Some of the injunctions in the Jewish Bible/Old Testament, if taken literally and in the abstract, could be conducive to violence, and I suspect that Baruch Goldstein, who in 1994 who murdered 29 innocent Muslims on the West Bank, did precisely that. But is there any evidence that Jews beyond a lunatic fringe act on the basis of such injunctions or that such actions are condoned by the vast majority of Jews? There is not. In fact, Goldstein’s murderous rampage was condemned by every faction on the Israeli political spectrum, and by every major American Jewish organization.
That is hardly the case for Islamic states and organizations. CAIR not only refuses to condemn specifics acts of Muslim violence; like the 56 member Organization of the Islamic Conference, it seeks to criminalize any criticism of Islam as a form of blasphemy. Perhaps in 400 years Islam will be as pacific as Christianity is today; there is no large body of Christians anywhere in the world today seeking to impose it forcibly on others. It may be inconvenient to say so, but millions of Muslims today are seeking the destruction of Western Civilization; should they succeed, not only freedom of religion but other freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights will disappear. Islam, as expressed in Sharia law, is not just a religion but a way of life, one that I doubt you and the other faculty at Brandeis who have attacked Ms. Ali would find consistent with the freedoms you currently enjoy by virtue of living in the West. To the extent that Ms. Ali calls attention to this threat to our civilization, she deserves praise, not opprobrium.
But even if one accepts your view that the Islamists Ms. Ali condemns are not representative of Islam, I cannot understand why her courage, which you acknowledge, cannot be divorced from her views on Islam. Why can’t she be honored for her struggle for the humane treatment of women — one she pursues even though it puts her very life in danger, which is something I daresay you have never done. (Nor have I.) You say that Tutu’s struggle against apartheid can be distinguished from his calling Israel Nazi, indeed, that the former is so laudable as to warrant his receiving an honorary degree. Why can’t you make the same distinction for Ms. Ali? To me, Tutu’s smear of Israel is far worse — far more vicious, far more absurd, far more defamatory, far more indicative of bigotry — than anything Ms. Ali has said about Islam. Her opinions, unlike Tutu’s, are grounded in evidence. Millions of Muslim girls have had their genitals mutilated. Many are the victims of honor killings. Many have been forced to marry persons they did not wish to marry. But there is nothing –I repeat nothing — that Israel has done in the 66 years of its existence that is even remotely comparable to Nazism. (It goes without saying that when bigots say that Israel is like Nazi Germany, what they have in mind is not the construction of the autobahns or the achievement of full employment.)
But of course when Tutu was awarded an honorary degree, the Brandeis faculty was mute. The double standard and hypocrisy this suggests when juxtaposed against the current opposition to Ms. Ali’s receiving the same degree is really — and here I must be blunt — repulsive. The fact that when Tutu received his honorary degree he did not — on the day he received the degree — smear Israel is true but trivial. The same for Kushner, whose claim that the most repugnant American Jews are those who strongly support Israel is the kind of ad hominem attack I would expect from a hyperactive undergraduate, not the recipient of an honorary degree. To the best of my knowledge, Kushner has provided no evidence for his smear, no doubt because none exists.
And as for making “people of differing religious views feel at home,” I don’t think that that should trump the search for truth “even unto its innermost parts.” By your reasoning, any speech that caused a Brandeis student of a particular religion not to feel at home should be banned. What you are therefore giving such people is the proverbial “heckler’s veto.” And as for the Ali case in particular, your statement that Ms. Ali would not be speaking at the commencement makes the heckler’s veto Muslim students at Brandeis have exercised successfully even less defensible. Ensuring that all students always feel at home when it comes to their religion is to ensure that Brandeis has no students whatsoever. I repeat, feeling uncomfortable when opinions other than your own are expressed is an integral part of college, and an inescapable part of life.
In short, unlike you I find Ms. Ali’s “intolerance” laudable because what she is intolerant of is intolerant itself. And in purely human terms, her willingness to risk her life pursuing the laudable objective of saving the lives of Muslim women — they constitute 91% of the victims of honor killings in the world today — fully justifies her receiving an honorary degree. (Of course I am not suggesting that courage alone is reason for awarding honorary degrees. Were that the case, they’d be given to persons who climbed Mt. Everest.)
Finally, I find unbelievable Lawrence’s claim that no one in the Brandeis administration knew anything of Ms. Ali’s views on Islam prior to the demands of CAIR and a significant minority of Brandeis faculty that Ms. Ali be denied the honorary degree she had previously been promised. But even if his claim is true, Brandeis should not have yielded, for the reasons I’ve tried to explain here.
Whatever the case, Lawrence’s cowardice in this instance is consistent with his action — or lack of action — in the Hindley Affair. Shortly after his inauguration I wrote to him recommending that on behalf of the university he make proper restitution to Donald Hindley for the reprehensible way he was punished by the Reinharz administration, which acted in the name of the university, for merely explaining to his students the origin of the term “wetback.” He refused to do so.
P.S. Given the outcry outside of academia that followed the announcement that Ms. Ali would not receive the honorary degree she had been offered, and which she had accepted, I have been struck by the almost complete absence of comparable condemnation inside the academy. More specifically I’m unaware of any Brandeis faculty publicly criticizing the decision. Is the liberal/left echo chamber that is the Brandeis faculty totally without dissenting (i.e. conservative) opinions? I ask the question only rhetorically, because it is clear that the university seeks only cosmetic diversity, rather than intellectual diversity, which is the only kind of diversity that matters in higher education.
From: Stephen Whitfield [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 8:44 PM
To: Bergman, Jay (History)
Subject: Fwd: Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Dear Professor Bergman, Your open letter to President Fred Lawrence deserves a rebuttal. I speak only for myself, nor do I have any knowledge of what led him to decide to rescind the honorary degree to Ms. Ali. But I believe that his decision is not only defensible; it was the correct one.
At first I was thrilled to learn that she was to be given an honorary degree. Her courage and her independence of mind are admirable; the price she has paid for her beliefs is high. But the more I actually learned of her views, the more problematic they appeared to me, and that is why Brandeis made the right decision.
Unlike many scholars and polemicists who have denounced radical Islam or Islamism, and here I am thinking of Bernard Lewis, Paul Berman, Bassam Tibi, and even Daniel Pipes, she does not draw a distinction between the religion itself and the fanatical, violent, dangerous versions of it that any decent person must abhor and oppose. Even when given an opportunity to make that distinction, as in her interview in “Reason” magazine, she made a point of refusing to do so. In her two public statements since the rescinding, she did not draw such a distinction (though I believe it is an elemental one). For her Islam is simply “the new fascism,” an evil that must be “defeated.” To condemn an entire “Abrahamic faith” like that collides with the historic commitment of Brandeis University (or so I would like to believe) to respect religious differences. She makes a point of being religiously intolerant.
Her views, given how awful much of Islam is, deserve a hearing, which is why the university expressed the hope, in withdrawing the honorary degree, that she would in the future speak on campus, and have her views subjected to attentiveness and scrutiny. In any case her views would not have been heard at Commencement exercises, since she was never to be the Commencement speaker, so the issue your letter raises–of an intellectual challenge that may make students uncomfortable–is irrelevant. Also dubious is your claim that that Ms. Ali has been “condemning aspects of Islam.” It is Islam itself that she, presumably in part due to her atheism, condemns.
The analogy that you drew to the honorary degrees given to Tony Kushner and Bishop Tutu is false. Their views of Israel were irrelevant to their selection–Kushner for his acclaimed gifts as a playwright, Tutu for his brave fight against apartheid. By contrast Ms. Ali’s courage cannot be separated from her opinions of Islam, opinions that (I repeat) even dedicated foes of “Islamism” distance themselves from. That Ms. Ali’s opinions deserve a hearing (which I fully favor) is quite different from whether she herself should be honored by an institution that, from the beginning, has sought to make people of differing religious views feel at home.
I attended the commencements in which Kushner and Tutu were honored for their achievements, and I can assure you that neither of them “smeared” Israel. I am glad that they did not do so. But even if they had, isn’t it your own claim that education is about challenging students with views that might make listeners uncomfortable?
I don’t think this episode is a matter of intimidation by “narrow-minded” faculty. If I had to guess, most faculty members would have wanted Brandeis to continue its academic partnership with Al-Quds University, despite the ugly anti-Israel demonstrations occurring there. I want to teach at a university in which views of the faculty carry weight. But in this case Fred Lawrence has ignored such wishes, and has continued the suspension of the partnership with a Palestinian university that harbors a malicious and menacing anti-Israel contingent. He has made the right decision despite what I suspect is the majority of the faculty’s opinion. That is also why I simply don’t recognize your characterization of the presidential decision to withdraw the honorary degree from Ms. Ali.
Sincerely, Steve Whitfield (American Studies Program)
“A Letter to the President of Brandeis,” The Weekly Standard Blog (April 10, 2014), http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/letter-president-brandeis_786727.html
Dear President Lawrence:
The decision of Brandeis University not to award an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, after first announcing that it would do so, is disgraceful.
The cowardice it reflects contrasts sharply with the courage Ms. Ali has shown in condemning aspects of Islam that she rightly considers cruel, bigoted, and misogynistic, and for which she has suffered grievously.
It is yet another example of how arrogant, closed-minded faculty, and students who believe they can prohibit anything on campus that makes them uncomfortable, can intimidate administrators such as yourself to the point where one of the principles essential to higher education — a tolerance of opinions with which one disagrees — is dispensed with in the name of preserving “a welcoming environment.” But the very essence of education is being challenged intellectually, and if students cannot endure the discomfort that that often induces, they have no business attending a college or university.
You say that you are withdrawing the award because Ms. HIrsi’s views violate what you call “the core values” of the university. But Brandeis saw nothing wrong in awarding an honorary degree to Tony Kushner, who has called the creation of the state of Israel a mistake and falsely accused it of ethnic cleansing; and to Desmond Tutu, an anti-semitic bigot who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany. From this one could reasonably conclude — since Tutu’s anti-semitism did not cause Brandeis to refrain from awarding him a degree — that anti-semitism is either one of the core values of your university or is not inconsistent with these values.
It is clear that at Brandeis University Israel can be smeared and those who do so are rewarded, but someone who properly criticizes Islam is unfairly attacked and dishonored.
In short, you have made the sorry record the university has compiled in awarding honorary degrees even worse.
And what makes your shameful capitulation especially regrettable to me is that I am an alumnus of Brandeis University, class of 1970. Your university is my university. And right now I am ashamed to call it my alma mater.
Professor of History
Central Connecticut State University
New Britain CT 06050
P.S. For your edification I include below the excellent article by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, an alumna of Brandeis, in today’s Jewish Press, and an article by Toby Young in today’s Telegraph, published in England and subtitled, appropriately: ” Cowardly Brandeis University Capitulates to Islamist Pressure.”
Lori Lowenthal Marcus
“Brandeis Caves to Pressure. Withdraws Honor to Ayaan Hirsi Ali The Jewish Press (April 9, 2014)
In a complete collapse of rectitude, Brandeis University’s president Fred Lawrence issued a statement on Tuesday evening, April 8, announcing the withdrawal of women’s and human rights champion Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a recipient of an honorary degree from the school at this year’s commencement.
For two days Muslim students and supporters raged against the decision to honor Ali because, they claimed, she is Islampohobic.
Ali was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. In 1992 she escaped an impending arranged marriage to a relative, running to the Netherlands, where she learned the language and established a life. She rose to become a member of the Dutch parliament, where she worked to further the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society.
In 2004, Ali made a film with her friend, Theo Van Gogh. That film, “Submission,” is about the oppression of women in conservative Islamic cultures.
After “Submission” was aired on Dutch television, an Islamic extremist murdered Van Gogh who was enraged by the portrayal of Islam. A letter pinned to his body contained a death threat to Ali. She eventually fled Holland and Ayaan Hirsi Ali now lives in the United States.
Ali evolved from being a devout Muslim to one who questioned her faith, to ultimately and resolutely rejecting it.
“I left the world of faith, of genital cutting and forced marriage for the world of reason and emancipation. After making this voyage I know that one of these two worlds is simply better than the other. Not for its gaudy gadgetry, but for its fundamental values.” That is a quote from Ali’s book, “Infidel.”
Ali has been extremely and indeed harshly critical of the Islamic world in which she suffered, both as a child in Africa, and also as a hunted creature, in Holland, from the angry immigrants who brought with them to Europe a profound inability to accept criticism of Islam.
And now, here in America, Ali is still being hounded by those who refuse to live by the standards of the West, of tolerance, of robust confrontations, but ones not knife-edged with intimidation.
The Facebook Page denouncing Ali and the decision to honor her at Brandeis’s 2014 Commencement decried her for her “hate speech.” The Muslim Students Association claimed that honoring her “is a direct violation of Brandeis University’s own moral code as well as the rights of all Brandeis students.”
Most chillingly, while the students acknowledged Ali had experienced “terrible things in her life,” their bottom line was “we will not tolerate an attack at our faith.”
And so they issued a fatwa: the invitation to Ali had to be rescinded. The school newspaper, The Justice (yes, the irony!) ran both a “news article” and an editorial denouncing the decision to give Ali an honorary degree.
Brandeis University president Fred Lawrence echoed the students (and a large number of faculty members, including the Women’s Studies professors) in his statement:
Following a discussion today between President Frederick Lawrence and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ms. Hirsi Ali’s name has been withdrawn as an honorary degree recipient at this year’s commencement. She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world. That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values. For all concerned, we regret that we were not aware of these statements earlier.
Commencement is about celebrating and honoring our extraordinary students and their accomplishments, and we are committed to providing an atmosphere that allows our community’s focus to be squarely on our students. In the spirit of free expression that has defined Brandeis University throughout its history, Ms. Hirsi Ali is welcome to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue about these important issues.
In other words, Ali’s decades of devotion to helping women enslaved by misogynistic practitioners of the Muslim faith – who dominate the governments of Muslim countries – was neutered by the pronunciamento by students that they “would not tolerate an attack on [their] faith.” And in still other words, on American campuses criticism of religion – which has been a fixture of campus life – is no longer permitted. What words, what thoughts will be deemed unacceptable next?
And this is a new trend. All manner of people have received honorary degrees from Brandeis, many of whom have been critical of other religions, particularly of Judaism and of the Jewish State.
Need one really trot out the many people who have received honorary degrees from Brandeis, a school founded by the Jewish community as a way to get around the strict quotas on the number of Jews who could attend high quality schools.
People such as Tony Kushner, who flatly stated that the creation of Israel as a Jewish State “was a mistake,” who regularly accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing and of savagery and who blames the existence of the state of Israel for the “terrible peril in the world.” Kushner received an honorary degree in 2006.
Then there is Desmond Tutu – a man widely revered for the work he did on behalf of South Africans, but who also is a rank anti-Semite. Tutu has compared Israel to Hitler, attacked the “Jewish lobby” as too “powerful” and “scary,” he has sanitized the gas chambers of the Holocaust which he said made for a “neater death” than one under Apartheid, and he complained of the “Jewish monopoly of the Holocaust.” He also insists that Jewish Holocaust victims should forgive the Nazis. Bishop Tutu received his honorary degree from Brandeis University in 2000.
The school administration buckled under to the Brandeis contingent of an increasingly entitled and belligerent faction on U.S. campuses who believe diversity, tolerance and justice only apply to positions and people whose views are consistent with their own. This goes not only for the students, as Bernadette Brooten, a Brandeis professof in the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Department explained on the Facebook page denouncing Ali, “a group of 86 faculty members has signed a letter to President Lawrence, asking him to rescind the invitation.”
I was shocked to learn that Brandeis University, a liberal arts college in Massachusetts, has withdrawn its offer of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the outspoken critic of female genital mutilation and a campaigner on behalf of Muslim women.
“We cannot overlook that certain of her past statements are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values,” the university said in a statement released yesterday, just eight days after announcing that Hirsi Ali would be awarded an honorary degree.
The change of heart was prompted by a well-organised campaign by various pro-Muslim groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations which sent a letter to Dr Frederick Lawrence, the President of Brandeis, referring to Hirsi Ali as a “notorious Islamophobe”.
“She is one of the worst of the worst of the Islam haters in America, not only in America but worldwide,” Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the group, said in an interview with the New York Times.
In addition, a Muslim student at Brandeis started a petition at change.org accusing Hirsi Ali of “hate speech”. By way of evidence, the petition cited an interview she gave to the Evening Standard in 2007 in which she described Islam as “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death”. In the same interview, she also said that “violence is inherent in Islam” and that “Islam is the new fascism”.
This is an act of extraordinary cowardice on Brandeis’s part. To accuse Hirsi Ali of “hate speech”, which is defined as “any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which… may incite violence or prejudicial action against… a protected individual or group”, is almost comically ironic. She was raised as a Muslim in Somalia, underwent circumcision at the age of five and was later forced into an arranged marriage with her cousin. She only escaped this fate by running away to Holland where she subsequently became a member of the Dutch Parliament.
As an MP, she highlighted the hypocrisy of the European Left for aggressively defending the rights of Muslims while, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the disregard for women’s rights within Muslim communities. She started to receive death threats for her outspoken views from 2002, culminating in a note pinned to the corpse of murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh saying she would be next. “Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you will break yourself to pieces on Islam,” the letter said. “You, oh America, will go down. You, oh Europe, will go down … You, oh Netherlands, will go down … You, oh Hirsi Ali, will go down.”
Defenders of Brandeis’s decision will say that Hirsi Ali is guilty of tarring all Muslims with the same brush and that there’s nothing inherently violent about Islam. Needless to say, she has often answered that charge. “People who ask me that question assume that geography is more important for Muslims than what is contained in the holy Quran,” she says.
Of course the circumstances in which people live in Turkey are different from those in Morocco or Somalia. But when it comes to the relationship between men and women, in all these countries there is a red line of the woman being subordinate to the male. And most Muslim men justify this subordinacy with the Quran. There are so many meanings Europeans miss. We Muslims are brought up with the idea that there is just one relationship possible with God – submission. That’s Islam: submission to the will of Allah.
Whether you agree with Hirsi Ali’s Manichean view of Islam, she’s entitled to express it without being bombarded with death threats or accused of “Islamophobia” which, in this context, amounts to “hate speech” since it’s precisely that charge that has led to threats on her life. You would think that an American university would be a staunch defender of Hirsi Ali’s right to free speech and wouldn’t capitulate to a mob of politically correct Muslims at the first sign of trouble. If the same institution had offered an honorary degree to Richard Dawkins, it’s simply inconceivable that it would change its mind after being attacked by Christians.
Everyone involved in this cowardly decision should be ashamed of themselves. As a liberal arts college, it should be a beacon of light. Instead, it has sent a clear message to everyone in the academic community that vigorous criticism of Islam won’t be tolerated.
The resolution approved by the American Studies Association supporting a boycott of Israeli educational institutions is yet another example of the hypocrisy, dishonesty, malevolence, and outright bigotry rampant among the left in American academia today.
The resolution’s supporters claim — oh so piously! – to be concerned for the academic freedom of Palestinian Arabs. Yet they are mute — totally mute! — about the millions of Syrian children denied their right to an education by a brutal civil war, fought next-door to Israel, in which over 125, 000 persons, many thousands of them students, have been killed.
Nor do they appear to give a damn about the Coptic Christians in Egypt who have been denied places in Egyptian colleges and universities. Or about the homosexuals and Bahais in Iran who not only can’t receive an education but are stoned to death. On all of this the resolution is silent.
Instead, they attack only Israel, which treats its Arab minority infinitely better than Arab countries treat their ethnic and religious minorities.
The resolution is a moral outrage and clear evidence that the American Studies Association inhabits a moral and intellectual sewer.
Reprinted from American Thinker, December 3, 2013.
[N.B.: This version differs slightly from the American Thinker text. Update below.]
Munir Akash,* a Syrian-born visiting professor in the department of world languages and cultural studies at Suffolk University in Boston, claimed in a recent Arabic-language interview with Lebanon’s ANB TV that the U.S. government has a secret plan to sterilize women in thirteen Third World countries and even in “the entire world.” This marks yet another bizarre assertion made by Akash, who is successfully bringing the Middle East’s stultifying culture of conspiracy theories to America.
Akash began his October 17, 2013 anti-American invective, made available by MEMRI, by blaming former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for hatching the sterilization scheme:
In 1974, Henry Kissinger proposed a plan to President Ford. . . . “We can’t annihilate Communism, but we can annihilate the Communists. How? The more people there are in the world, the more Communists there are. So let us tackle the roots of the problem — if we kill the poor, there will be no Communists.”
Akash went on to explain that the plan includes sterilizing women of 13 countries, including Egypt and Turkey. He also claimed that the plot included sterilization of men, too. Such claims trump even those of the man he says devised them: John P. Holdren. The controversial Harvard scientist, who currently holds several posts in the Obama White House, including Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has a decades-long record as an alarmist on issues ranging from overpopulation to global warming. But the sterilization scheme Akash falsely attributes to him isn’t bad science, but science fiction:
This man has a plan to sterilize not just the women of 13 countries, but the women of the entire world…. he wants to plant a chip under the skin of men and women to control their fertility.
Akash didn’t explain what America would gain by wiping mankind (including Americans) off the map, but he’s written a book that explains this. A glowing review by the Holocaust-denying Abdullah Mohammad Sindi, a retired Saudi-born professor of international relations in California, summarizes the book’s thesis.
In America and Genocide: Right of Sacrificing the Other (Beirut, 2002), Akash tells how the Pilgrims (whom he anachronistically calls “WASPs”) turned on and “savagely stung Native Americans.”
Underlying Akash’s anti-Americanism is a more sinister ideology: anti-Semitism. In his telling, the supposed genocide of Native Americans by colonists bent on seizing their land is analogous to the ancient Hebrews’ “gruesome colonization of Canaan” and the “current savage colonization of Arab Palestine since 1948 by Western Zionist Jews.”
the idea of America . . . was inspired from the Jewish stories and the Israeli tales found in the Torah and Talmud and Kabala. . . . the idea of assembling the Jews in Palestine and establishing an Israeli State and replacing one culture and one people by another culture and people was but one of the constituents of the idea of America.
The Jews of both ancient and modern Israel are presented as genocidal; the Pilgrims and the nation they helped found are the Jews’ genocidal heirs. This racist historiography emanates naturally from the same author who thinks the U.S. government plans to kill off the entire human species.
Akash is a crank conspiracy monger and charlatan who should have no place in American higher education. But, by hiring him, Suffolk University has given its imprimatur to Akash’s work and entrusted its students to his mercies, something that brings shame on their institution.
If you wish to protest this appointment to Suffolk University, contact information for its president, James McCarthy, is not publicly available but you may contact the public relations department:
Marketing and Communications
The general contact to reach the university:
8 Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108-2770
*The original version of this article identified Munir Akash as a visiting professor at Suffolk University because, at the time of publication, his web page at Suffolk was active; a cache of it is available here. Greg Gatlin, vice president of marketing and communications at Suffolk, has stated that Akash taught at Suffolk from 2007 until December, 2011, that the university left his web page up in error, and that it was removed after this article appeared. Gatlin adds that Akash does not have permission to claim any affiliation with Suffolk. During his October 23, 2013 interview on Lebanon’s ANB TV, conducted in Arabic, the script below his image stated that he was “Historian D. Munir Akash – Professor of Humanities and head of the Arabic Studies at Suffolk University/Boston.” The host presented him as such and stated that, “his research focused on the history of the first settlers who invaded the new world and annihilated 400 nations, using all methods of violence and killing.” Translation courtesy of MEMRI.
The claim that Hassan Rouhani, the new president of Iran, is a “moderate,” with whom Western leaders can do business on the basis of mutual self-interest, brings to mind an earlier fantasy common among elites in the West after the death of the Soviet dictator, Leonid Brezhnev, in 1982: that his successor as General Secretary, Iurii Andropov, was a closet liberal eager to reduce the tensions of the Cold War, then nearly four decades old, and thereby make nuclear war less likely. The evidence of Andropov’s moderation was his supposed fondness for scotch whiskey, the novels of Jacqueline Susann, and such icons of American popular music as Glenn Miller, Frank Sinatra, and Chubby Checker. By some accounts a witty conversationalist conversant in German, English, and Hungarian, the new Soviet leader was even reputed to dance the tango gracefully.
Trumpeting this information – which in reality was Soviet disinformation — with the breathless intensity of those who think wishing hard enough for something makes it real, Time, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times and other pillars of establishment opinion in the West didn’t bother to consider whether Andropov’s personal preferences bespoke a loss of faith in Marxism-Leninism or a diminution of the ardor with which the Soviet leadership sought to spread communism. In fact, Andropov, when he succeeded Brezhnev, was the same man who, as Soviet ambassador in Budapest in 1956, oversaw the destruction of the Hungarian Revolution; it was Andropov who, after the revolution was suppressed, falsely promised its leader, Imre Nagy, who had taken refuge in the Yugoslav embassy, that he would be treated leniently if he turned himself in. Foolishly Nagy did so, was flown to Moscow, imprisoned and hanged two years later.
As General Secretary, Andropov almost certainly issued the order for Soviet fighter planes to shoot down Korean Airlines flight 007, in which all 269 passengers lost their lives, over international waters and in violation of international law. And Andropov’s treatment of Soviet dissidents was no less cruel and repressive than it was from 1967 to 1982, when he headed the KGB and in that capacity ordered dissidents imprisoned, incarcerated in labor camps, exiled abroad or internally to cities far from Moscow or, worst of all, declared insane and committed to psychiatric hospitals, where they were given mind-altering drugs that reduced some to a vegetative state.
Rouhani’s record is even worse: he planned the bombing of a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994, which took 85 lives, and of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in1996, in which nineteen American soldiers were killed. He refuses to acknowledge that the Holocaust happened, and claims that in any case it is something only historians should be concerned with. He has also called Israel “a wound” on the Middle East that must be removed. His boast about deceiving the West into believing that Iran, from 2003 to 2005, had stopped enriching uranium is well known, and there is no evidence of his having the slightest objection to his own government’s savage persecution of Bahais and others in Iran professing a religion other than Shiite Islam.
One can only hope that President Obama and his counterparts in Europe, now engaged in yet another round of futile negotiations with Iran, will recognize that men like Andropov and Rouhami who acquire positions of power share the beliefs, objectives, and policies of the repressive regimes they lead, and are not about to repudiate them because of any personal habits they have or because they talk in tones suggesting they are amenable to reason. The potential consequence of not doing so – the detonation of nuclear weapons as an act of war for the first time since 1945 – would be catastrophic.
(The article above was published in the Jerusalem Post on November 5, 2013)