Terror in academia
Three years ago, I published claims by a student in the International Politics department at Aberystwyth university that it was fomenting a climate of hatred of Israel, claims that were heatedly denied at the time.
I have now received a message from another student in the same department. He claims that students studying the ‘Understanding Terror: Perspectives on Terrorism’ module are being forced, on pain of being marked down, to reproduce distorted and bigoted opinions about America and Israel. He refers to an email sent by the convenor of this module, Dr Marie Breen Smyth, who was commenting in turn on remarks made by the author of one of the set texts recommended in the handbook for this course, Dr Richard Jackson. Both the handbook’s guidance and associated reading list are skewed towards an ultra-left perspective on terrorism (the title of one of the set texts, for example is Western State Terrorism) and it states explicitly that it aims to encourage a contrarian view – ie, enforce a far-left line:
The course re-conceptualises a number of commonly-held views on orthodox subjects and introduces a number of alternative approaches and perspectives through which to examine contemporary political terror. The aim of this course is to de-mythologise, de-mystify, and deconstruct the dominant policy, media, and academic discourses about terrorism. Specifically, it aims to provide the necessary analytical tools for a critical assessment of the discourses on terrorism, including the current ‘war on terrorism’, and the ways in which it has been constructed in policy, media, and academic discourses…The course will also consider the ways in which the dominant discourses of terrorism have allowed states to pursue a range of geo-political objectives and expand their powers. This course aims to introduce students to a distinctly ‘critical’ approach to the study of political terror through a thorough critique of orthodox terrorism studies and a clear articulation of an alternative ‘critical’ approach.No prizes for guessing what that ‘alternative ‘critical’ approach’ might be. The handbook further instructs students to prepare a ‘learning log’ which will itself constitute 10 per cent of the final grade:
Each entry in your logbook should contain the following: (a) The lecture date, number, and topic; (b) the author and title of the books, chapters or articles you read as preparation; and (c) what you felt you learned in the lecture, plus any issues you found interesting or particularly informative.The student wrote to me as follows:
I am a student studying the module 'Understanding Terror: Perspectives on Terrorism' in the department of International Politics at Aberystwyth University. A notable statement made in a lecture which I did attend was an implicit comparison between the treatment of Jews in Germany prior to the Shoah of World War Two, and that of Muslims today.
Part of the assessment of the course involves submitting a learning log every week, which consists of a critical appraisal of the reading done for the lectures in the preceding week. I have noticed that those who mark these logs tend to be very quick to criticise when a student does not 'tow the line' (an example of 'the line' is in the forwarded email below) whereas simply regurgitating in note form what the various authors of the readings say earns ticks and no comments.
We have also been told to read only books which they approve (unofficially in one of the seminars), something I found ominous. Passing this module is key to my obtaining a degree, and I will shortly find myself in the unpleasant situation (an essay and exam. form the main part of the assessment) of having to write what I know they want to read, rather than what I actually think, moreover I am certain that should I use any sources which they regard as unacceptable (although they have included a token number of these on their reading list), my work will almost certainly be marked more critically than that of someone who simply agrees with their beliefs.
I should add also that at the start of the course, before any teaching occurred, we were given a questionnaire (attached) asking various things, essentially our opinions, on terrorism, its causes and so on. This was said to be to show how we had progressed during the course, but to me it was uncomfortably like some kind of political profiling document. A final point is that the seminars have a policy in which anything which anyone says cannot be attributed to them outside of it, apparently to shield those who have had 'experience' with terrorism. By this, I am hoping they mean as a victim rather than as a practitioner. Most notably of all, although Islam is quite clearly at the heart of anything to do with terrorism nowadays, it is never mentioned directly except alongside non-Islamic terrorists, although I suppose that they are trying not to discriminate by doing this.
This was the email to students, to which he refers, from Marie Breen Smyth:
Dear All,In the light of the lively debates in seminars last week about state terrorism, I thought you might be interested to know about debates that are going on between members of the department and others. Here is one exchange that took place earlier this week between Dr Richard Jackson and a student who challenged him on the issue of state terrorism at a lecture he delivered at Oxford.
Richard's explanation of the background:I gave a lecture at Oxford yesterday about the failings of terrorism studies and in passing I said that something like: 'Palestinian terrorism receives a disproportionate amount of attention in the literature compared to Israeli state terrorism.' During the question time a student excoriated me for making unfounded claims about Israel and said that I was a poor academic for not backing up my statements. He's since emailed me asking for proof that Israel has ever practiced state terrorism.
Richard's written response to the student's criticism:
My assertion that Israel has been engaged in state terrorism lies first, in a clear understanding of what the aims and consequences of terrorism are. Second, by analysing Israeli actions such as the widespread use of torture, targeted killings, military attacks on civilian areas, collective punishments, and covert operations, we can see that they qualify as terrorism.
Among scholars, there is now a broad consensus that terrorism is the use or threat of violence against civilians (or sometimes unarmed soldiers or police officers) for the purpose of terrifying or intimidating an audience for political purposes. It is a kind of political communication, a message of fear directed towards an audience. The essence of terrorism lies in its intention to spread terror for political advantage through the threat or infliction of violence by which standard it is clear that states can commit acts of terrorism in the same way that non-state actors can. When government agents for example, attempt to cause fear and intimidation to sectors of their own (or another’s) population in order to undermine support for a political movement through a violent campaign that involves kidnapping, torture, assassination and bombs in public places (the same acts that non-state terrorists commit), there is no doubt that this constitutes terrorism. Similarly, the ‘terror bombing’ of civilian areas during wartime to intimidate the population into submission, particularly when the bombing itself brings no strategic advantage, also clearly falls under the terrorism label. Similarly, it is clear that counter-terrorism itself can become terrorism when it fails to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty, it is highly disproportionate and it aims to terrify or intimidate the wider population or a particular community into submission. Lastly, when torture is not used simply as a means to secure intelligence about imminent threats, but also as an attempt to undermine the morale of the leaders and supporters of the insurgents — by spreading widespread fear — torture then becomes a tool of state terrorism.
It is clear on this basis that a number of Israeli actions therefore constitute state terrorism. First, the widespread use of torture by the Israeli security services, which is well documented and has been the subject of cases before the Israeli Supreme Court, is a form of state terrorism. The fact that many thousands of Palestinians have been tortured and that ordinary Palestinians live in terror that they may be arrested and tortured at any time, particularly if they show outward signs of support for certain political groups, clearly makes it a form of state terrorism. Such state terror was widely practiced in Latin America, South Africa, Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
Second, the use of targeted killings, particularly when they involve bombing civilian areas are also acts of state terrorism. Given that they have little strategic value (they have never seriously affected the capabilities of Palestinian groups to launch attacks), they are retaliatory, they are extra-judicial, and they involve killing people who are not strictly speaking soldiers (they are not recognised by Israel as prisoners of war when they are captured, for example), makes them a form of terrorism. Imagine if Palestinian groups started planting bombs designed to kill members of the Israeli security forces when they were at home, and then asserted that they did not intend to kill the civilians who were nearby but only the soldiers. This would clearly qualify as terrorism too. The important point to note is that actions can have both military and terroristic motives, particularly if you are trying to send a message to another group. Thus, when Colombian death squads assassinate a union organiser or Israel assassinates a militant, they are both trying to trying to undermine the organisational capabilities of their opponents AND send a message to the group and its supporters. The use of violence to send a message is a form of terrorism. What is interesting is that Israeli officials frequently admit that they are sending a message to the Palestinians that the price they pay for supporting terrorism is such retaliation. The same argument can be applied to illegal kidnappings.
Third, the collective punishments aimed at the entire Palestinian population, as well as house demolitions of families of militants, are a form of terrorism because they have no strategic value but are simply designed to send a message to the wider population — they are an attempt to intimidate them through violence into changing their political support. When non-state terrorists attack the water supply or electricity or disrupt a society for the purposes of sending a message, it is still considered terrorism. Israel’s similar disruptions are also therefore a form of terrorism. I would also add in this context that the use of sonic booms on a civilian population which are not strategic but simply designed to terrify and intimidate, also fit the definition of terrorism.
Fourth, states can act in a terrorist manner during war when they use military force not for strategic purposes but for the purposes of intimidation or clearing areas of civilians. On this basis, the widespread bombing of civilian areas in the most recent war against Lebanon constitutes a form of state terrorism. It had little strategic value, as the Israeli military knew that the Hezbollah forces were underground and would still need to be driven out with ground forces; therefore, it was a kind of collective punishment against the population for their support of Hezbollah and an attempt to intimidate them into changing that support. The use of violence to intimidate a population for political purposes is a form of terrorism.
Incidentally, the most common justifications for by Israeli officials for the use of strategic bombing in counter-terrorism — that unlike non-state terrorism it does not deliberately target civilians and that the large numbers of civilian casualties are unintended — is, in fact, rather specious. In most countries, if you know with a high degree of certainty that as a result of your actions innocent civilians are likely to be killed, then you clearly intended it and are guilty of murder. For example, if I spray machine gun fire in a crowded shopping mall aiming to kill a known murderer who is walking there, even if I don’t intend to kill innocent civilians, I will be guilty of murder because I know with a high degree of certainty that the consequences of my actions will be innocent deaths. Similarly, when Israel drops bombs in civilian areas, it knows with a high degree of certainty that innocent civilians will be killed; it therefore intends those deaths at some level. This is particularly the case if Israel fires those bombs and kills those civilians a hundred times in a row and a hundred times in a row it results in civilian deaths. In this case, it cannot be reasonably claimed that the civilian deaths were not intended.
Fifth, as the discussion above states, when counter-terrorism becomes disproportionate and brutal, it becomes terrorism because it aims to intimidate and terrify the population. Clearly, when Israel responds to an act of Palestinian terrorism in which one or two civilians are killed with an invasion and the massive use of firepower which results in hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including many children, this is nothing but disproportionate (and therefore, a kind of state terrorism). Similarly, the use of live ammunition against demonstrators qualifies as disproportionate and a form of state terrorism, particularly when the soldiers are not in imminent danger.Lastly, I would argue that over the past fifty years, Israel has been involved in a great many actions which fit the definition of terrorism, including: the actions of the Irgun and other Zionist terrorist groups against both the British and Palestinians, the attack on Deir Yassin during the 1948 war and other such attacks on civilians designed to terrify them into fleeing, the first aircraft hijacking in the 1950s, the Sabra and Shatilla massacres, operations Accountability (July 1993) and Grapes of Wrath (April 1996), etc. You might also consider the following cases which illustrate that Israeli policy towards counter-terrorism has long entailed a terroristic element -- the attempt to terrify and intimidate an audience. I found these on a brief internet search:
* On September 17, 1948, four months after the official establishment ofIsrael, U.N. Palestine Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte was assassinated by members of an Israeli terrorist group, the so-called Stern Gang, while driving in the Israeli-controlled sector of Jerusalem. The U.S. government, at the time, believed the identity of the perpetrators was known to Israel's Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, but the perpetrators were never prosecuted. Thirty years later one of them, Yehoshva Zeitler —known to be a close friend of Ben Gurion's —acknowledged that he was one of the assassins and explained that ‘we executed Bernadotte because he was a one-man institution who endangered the status of Jerusalem by his declared intention of turning her into an international city. He was hostile to Israel from the moment the state was established and actually laid the foundation for the present U.N. policy of supporting the Arabs.’ The message to other potential pro-Arab sympathizers was clear.
* In early October, 1953, three people in an Israeli border village were found murdered —presumably by attackers who had crossed from Jordan. Later, on the night of October 14-15, an Israeli military force crossed into the small Jordan border village of Qibya and demolished 30 to 40 buildings, including the village school, the water pumping station, the police station and the telephone office. But the soldiers did much, much more. According to the official report by the Chief of Staff of the U.N. Truce Supervisory Organization, whose officers went to the scene immediately after the raid: ‘Bullet-riddled bodies near the doorways, and multiple bullet hits on the doors of the demolished houses indicated that the inhabitants had been forced to remain inside until their homes were blown up over them. Witnesses were uniform in describing their experience as a night of horror, during which Israeli soldiers moved about in their village, blowing up buildings, firing into doorways and windows with automatic weapons, and throwing hand grenades.’ More than 50 men, women and children died. It was later acknowledged by Israel that the raid had been carried out by Force 101, a special unit set up for just this kind of operation under the command of Major Ariel Sharon.
* During July, 1954, several bombs went off in Cairo and Alexandria, including two which set fire to the U.S. Information Service offices in both those cities and one which went off in a Metro-Goldwyn Mayer theater. Members of what the Egyptian authorities described as a ring of ‘Israeli spies’ and who were, in fact, Jewish were tracked down and put on trial. Two of them were executed and the rest jailed. The Egyptian action raised a furor among Israelis, who accused Egypt's president, Gamal Abdul Nasser, of ‘trumping up’ charges against Jews. A few months later, however, a political scandal erupted in Israel —later known as the ‘Lavon Affair’ and forced out the admission from Israeli government officials that the members of the Cairo spy ring were indeed Israeli spies —highly trained members of Israel's military intelligence service. A primary purpose of the bombing operation, it turned out, was to try to put a halt to what the Israeli government saw as an alarming trend towards better Egypt-U.S. relations —by creating the impression through the bombings that Egypt was basically unstable and anti-American.
* On December 12, 1955, Israel carried out a three-pronged, meticulously planned attack by land and sea against Syria, on the northeastern shore of Lake Tiberias. More than 50 Syrians were killed. Israel told the U.S. Security Council, which condemned the raid, that the attack was a reprisal for Syrian hindrance of Israeli fishermen on Lake Tiberias, but U.S. truce observers declared there had been no such hindrance. In the opinion of American truce observer Commander E.H. Hutchison, ‘it was a premeditated raid of intimidation, motivated by Israel's desire to test the strength of the Egyptian-Syrian mutual defense pact, to disrupt Arab unity further, to bait the Arab states into some overt act of aggression that would afford it the opportunity to overrun additional territory...’
*On October 29, 1956, in the Israeli Arab village of Kafr Kasem, Israeli border guards shot and killed 43 Israeli Arabs, including seven children and ten women. The victims were farm workers who were returning home on foot unaware that while they were laboring in the fields a daily Curfew — imposed because of the Suez war had been moved forward from 9 p.m. to 5 p.m. The government kept the massacre secret for two months, but was forced to hold a trial after word of it was leaked. At the trial it was revealed that the border police had been given orders to enforce the new curfew in a way that would impress the inhabitants of the local Arab villages: violators were to be shot, not arrested, even if they had not heard about the change in the curfew. Several of the defendants testified that the police officer in charge had said that if some Arabs were killed it would make the task of enforcing the curfew that much easier. The officer told the court that he was obeying the orders of the military. A number of the defendants were given sentences, but less than a year later all of them were freed.
*On July 18,1981, Israeli planes bombed Beirut, killing more than 300 civilians. The Israeli army's chief of intelligence told reporters that the motive behind Israel's massive raid on a densely populated quarter was to generate Lebanese civilian resentment against the presence of Palestinian guerrillas there. "I would say at least they have something to think about now," he said. A few days later, Israeli jets again dropped bombs over Lebanon. According to The New York Times, ‘Witnesses, including Western reporters caught in the attacks, said nearly all of the casualties appeared to be civilians, most of them burned alive in their cars, trapped in clogged traffic.’
*In October, 1982, an Israeli court began the trial of seven Israeli soldiers on charges of beating up West Bank Palestinians. The soldiers had said they were just following standing orders. Documents introduced at the trial included some issued by the then Israeli chief of staff Lt. Gen. Rafael Eitan, which called for the punishment of the parents of students who participate in demonstrations, expulsion from the West Bank of Arabs considered troublemakers by the Israelis, and ‘economic punishment’ of whole villages. Eitan said Arabs should be imprisoned for investigation, without formal charges, for up to 18 days as allowed by Israeli law in the occupied territory, released for a few days and then reimprisoned. ‘Harrass them,’ Gen. Eitan said, according to the documents. He also urged the creation of a special ‘detention exile’ camp in the West Bank and said that the Arab population should be informed that ‘the inhabitants of Jewish settlements (in the West Bank) must carry arms and open fire when attacked.’ After the documents were introduced at the trial, Gen. Eitan commented: ‘None of these methods were illegal.’ The court agreed, but convicted four of the soldiers, on February 17, 1983, for having gone beyond Eitan's recommendations. They were given token sentences.
I would also suggest that you carefully examine the following reports from Human Rights Watch to see how Israeli actions clearly fall under the definition of terrorism in a number of different areas.
I hope this explains why I used the term ‘Israeli state terrorism’ in my talk. There are a great many more individual instances of Israeli state terrorism than I have time to detail here; the key point to note is that when violence is used to send a message or intimidate a broader population, then it is terrorism.
I sent the following message to the Vice-Chancellor of Aberystwyth university, Dr Noel Lloyd:
I am writing to ask you if either the university or Ms Breen Smyth has any comment to make, first about this student’s allegations of gross political bias on this course along with pressure on students to toe a particular line; and second, about whether it is appropriate to include on the reading list for students on this module someone with Dr Jackson’s apparent animus against Israel and his tendentious recycling of hateful propaganda, taken from either Arabs or their left-wing Israeli sympathisers, as facts; and indeed whether the whole ethos of this module, as set out in its handbook ‘Understanding terror: perspectives on terrorism’ as being ‘…to introduce students to a distinctly “critical” approach to the study of political terror through a thorough critique of orthodox terrorism studies and a clear articulation of an alternative "critical" approach’, is not simply a form of subversion.This was his reply:
I write in reply to your email concerning the module in the Department of International Politics at Aberystwyth University ‘Understanding terror: perspectives on terrorism’. In recognition of the nature of the subject this module has been designed in such a way to be as sympathetic as possible to those who have experienced terrorism or who feel strongly about it. The aim is to be objective, with no bias and no prejudice against any race or country. There is no sense that any view is necessarily correct. The information for students considering taking the module is explicit that the purpose is to examine accounts of terrorism and subject them to critical analysis. Students taking the module are asked to reflect on this.
As with all modules, there are various means whereby students provide feedback and there is a variety of fora where modules are discussed. Feedback may relate to module content, teaching style and assessment. This is the first occasion this module has run and student feedback will be sought in the usual way; students may approach staff in the Department at any time. As with all degree level modules in the Department, work for this module will be double marked internally to ensure consistency, fairness and accuracy, and then sent to an external examiner for further review.
The module handbook includes a wide variety of sources, written from a variety of perspectives. This is, of course, entirely consistent with the module’s aim of not advocating a particular view and encouraging students to examine critically different accounts of terrorism. I note that Dr Jackson’s work has appeared in a number of leading journals which have very high standards of peer review, and the book to which you refer was published by a leading University press.Yours sincerelyNoel Lloyd, Vice-Chancellor, Aberystwyth University
The Soviet Union perfected the targeting of the young by propaganda (as in the picture above, proclaiming ‘Comrade Lenin cleanses the earth of filth’) to shape their minds and thus control society. Is it any wonder that so many of our young people are now consumed by hatred of America and Israel?
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (281)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Britain’s AWOL ally - Fraser Nelson
2 A phonecall to Kelly looks better than not mentioning expenses - Peter Hoskin
3 Fatal inexperience - Humphrey Carpenter
4 The day ends on a sour note for Labour - Peter Hoskin
5 Cameron fires a broadside at ‘petty’ Brown - David Blackburn
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
GASCONY
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
patricia
April 15th, 2008 3:14pm"Is it any wonder that so many of our young people are now consumed by hatred of America and Israel?"
zzz.
Perhaps if the US behaved legally, respectfully and even handledly in the Middle East,and perhaps if Israel stopped illegally occupying other people's lands and murdering their inhabitants, there would not be a motivation for people to hate them.
Its always the same with Melanie. Where Israel is concerned - See no evil, hear no evil, do no evil.
So tell you what Mel, go off and live there.
Francis Ingle
April 15th, 2008 3:28pmI have a better idea Patricia: you go and live in Israel, and maybe you will begin to understand the realities of life under constant threat of bombs in pizzerias, nightclubs and school buses, instead of snoozing in your deluded armchair.
Ravi
April 15th, 2008 3:47pmPatricia, let us get this plain. The Palestinians are driven and fronted by terrorists. They OBVIOULSY don't want peace. Reason, because under The Roadmap they could obtain peace by following it. The FIRST requirement of any party in The Roadmap is down to the Palestinjians who must "immediately and unconditionaly cease incitement and terrorist action....". So, explain to us why anyone would resort and maintain terrorism to try and get something that they could get without a drop of blood being spilt. That alone tells me that the Palestinjians don't want peace and the best result for the Palestinians would be for them to be politically and militarily crushed in a single action and hand over to Abbas to see if he is true to his words. I have found there is abssolutely NO logical refutation of teh point about The Roadmap so I wouldn't bother replying on that one.
elixelx
April 15th, 2008 4:05pmHey Pat, I'd like to pat, actually slap!--you on the back for your only-too-pat response to this article.
How amazing that the professor can come up with 20 chapters and verses about Israel's state terrorism, and claim he can come up with even more, yet he does not ever refer to Palestinian state terror...oh that's right, Palestinians don't engage in terror, far less state terror---BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A STATE!
He must have practised reciting that list many, many times; it probably consumes him like a fire from hell!
Nevertheless, the student's complaint was that he was being dishonestly and unfairly marked by a professor with whose obviously-biased point of view he disagreed.
This was about academic honesty, not about state terror and certainly not about whether Melanie Phillips supports Israel or not.
But then we shouldn't expect a cowpat to understand, when she doesn't recognise bullcrap!
Frank Pulley
April 15th, 2008 4:09pmI'm surprised that anyone even expects objectivity from the Halls of Academe any more. For the past half century or so they have been agitprop factories and it has been difficult for almost everyone attending to escape the effects of that in one way or another. Hence the serious erosion of our social fabric, our heritage, our culture and our common sense. As Gerard Hoffnung would say, "It's in the Book." The book of Gramsci et alia, et sequens.
The new cultural hegemony is now firmly in place. Enjoy!
Patricia - perhaps you should go zzz-ing with Hezbollah, you seem to be doing it metaphorically - why not go the whole hog; it might get get some of that pent-up anti-semitic, anti-American hatred out of your system when you see how the Hez boyos treat their women - not to mention their children: as sacrificial lambs.
Dee Ranged
April 15th, 2008 4:12pmWhatever the Vice-Chancellor claims, it is clear that Smyth's jusitication of Jackson's narrative exudes partiality.
It could, more properly, be described as patent propoganda.
So much for scholarship!
Nick Kaplan
April 15th, 2008 4:14pmIt appears that staff at Aberystwyth university have taken the word ‘Understanding’ in “Understanding terrorism” in the sense of ‘sympathising with’ rather than ‘learning about.’ It is deeply worrying that Universities like this act as centres for propaganda of the terrorist cause. What chance does the West have in the war against terrorism if this nonsense is being preached in our educational establishments? I find it incredible to believe that University professors are unable to make the totally obvious distinction between those motivated by a desire to kill, maim, subjugate, oppress, terrorise, hate and destroy and those who wish to defend, liberate, and prosper. It is quite clear to me that when looking at who is a terrorist and who is a ‘freedom fighter’ one must look primarily at intentions and one must distinguish between murder and collateral. In both cases the West and Israel are morally superior (although not entirely faultless) by a very significant margin. The values that the West and Israel seek to uphold and promote are those of individual Liberty, including free-speech, a free press, property rights, habeas corpus, the rule of law, democracy, free association and Capitalism (the last one being where the left-wing university professors have a particular problem). In this case of Israel it seeks to preserve these values by defending itself and its free-citizens. In the case of America it has attempted to export these fundamental values with varying degrees of success and failure around the globe. Those innocents that die or are injured in the process are called collateral and such loses are regretted by all concerned. The terrorists on the other hand are motivated only by a desire to subjugate the entire world to the delusional fantasies which they believe in, by forcing an unreformed version of Islam on the rest of the world. Such an aim includes the desire to end; free speech, democracy, Individual liberty, property, capitalism, the rule of law and western culture in general in favour of theocratic government based on Sharia Law. Those that are killed in the name of this cause are murdered intentionally and their deaths are not just celebrated by those that bring them about, but by thousands of Arabs throughout the Middle East (e.g. after 9/11) thus brining into question their innocence. To call the militant Palestinians or other terrorist groups "freedom fighters" when they support the subjugation of their own people under totalitarian theocratic government, when they deliberately murder children in the streets or gleefully praise such depravity, is a mind-numbing perversion. To describe the two sides in this war as morally equivalent is utterly disgraceful and akin to saying that the Allies were analogous to the Nazis because they dropped as many bombs on towns and cities as each other.
PHIL
April 15th, 2008 4:25pmThe only thing that surprises me is that melanie allows such racist posts on her thread -perhaps it is because she is not a person who crawls out from under a stone every so often to post stuff like that AS OF COURSE SHE HAS DONE BEFORE
Tiberius
April 15th, 2008 4:33pmYou miss the point, patricia.
Academic institutions should provide a means for students to develop their own views, which in some cases may coincide with your view that America and Israel are indeed to blame for most of the world's ills. But do you not think students deserve the opportunity to reach a different conclusion?
Antoine
April 15th, 2008 4:34pmYou haven't actually engaged with the guy's point - why is it so unreasonable to describe some of the IDF's actions as state terror? At the very least the account provided above makes the issue a reasonable academic proposition for discussion...
Van Dook
April 15th, 2008 4:43pmNo Patricia -
You go off and dissemble elsewhere.
DougS
April 15th, 2008 4:44pmAh, Patricia . . . your kind is all too familiar. I won't even address your implicit criticism of the substance of what Melanie's saying. Your mind is no doubt (twistedly) already made up.
It's that last comment . . . that Mel should live in Israel because she often defends it (though she offers criticism whrere appropriate). Surely, surely there are countries you might defend -- Britain's allies, or the "old Commonwealth," for instance.
Should an interlocutor then tell you to go live there? Why with Melanie?
I'll tell you why: Because you're bringing up the old charge against Jews, the old grotesque charge of dual loyalty, that's why.
Bigot.
Tony Allwright
April 15th, 2008 4:54pmAnyone who wants to equate Israeli self-defence (or as Dr Jackson would have it, k"state terrorism") with Palestinian terrorism should consider the following.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be resolved at a stroke. The Palestinians merely have to stop attacking Israel; that's all!
This would immediately open the way to constructive negotiations. Unfortunately, as we have so often seen, it won´t work the other way round.
Anyone who advocates or defends continued attacks by Palestinians on Israel cannot also want a peaceful, just outcome.
Moreover, this simple test establishes who, of the pair, are the true terrorists. No amount of anti-Semitic ranting will change the facts.
Spartacus
April 15th, 2008 4:59pmIsrael is not only defending itself against the very many privateering free-booting gangs of well-equipped terrorist proxies in its immediate vicinity in as humane a way as is humanly and therefore Jewishly possible,it is also fighting the state terrorism of the big bully neighbouring dictatorships which receive military,financial and genocidally morale-boosting support from the entire muslim, and from virtually the entire oil-dependent non-muslim but disgustingly craven, world.But the modern Boy David is not cowed by that whole vast,overwhelmingly hypocritical,self-serving gentile edifice of anti-semitic intent bent on finally wiping Jews off the surface of the earth.
In short, Israel is fighting a war(of survival). Amongst gentiles this is called self-defence.About Jews this is called something else -terrorism, war crimes, world domination,a stain upon the planet,the actions of monkeys and apes................
pete woodhouse
April 15th, 2008 4:59pmpatricia
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Its always the same with patricia. Where palestine/ iraq/ afghanistan/ iran are concerned - See no evil, hear no evil, do no evil.
So tell you what Pat, go off and live there.
John
April 15th, 2008 5:00pmAre you a graduate Patricia?
Do you agree with the right to free speech, or do you agree with the right to express only the 'correct' trendy opinions, and do you further believe that any who don't do this should be encouraged to leave?
Mike
April 15th, 2008 5:00pmMelanie - you are way out of line on this one. How did you reply to the student who brought the complaint before you? The first port-of-call if a student is unable to deal with the content of a course is within the university and/or ideally with a tutor if fortunate enough to have one. It certainly isn't to one of the most controversial columnists in the media who has now placed it on the world-wide-web! Disgraceful. I wonder what the young person's family are thinking? I urge you to stop meddling Melanie, and direct your comments to mature adults who know how to deal with you. This student is obviously struggling with a problem, but that is one of the benefits of higher-education. It's part of the maturing process. Such students should be advised to do their own research, which may or may not conflict with what has been propagated by lecturer(s), as a contribution to the debate, and not to whinge to outsiders and never to the media.
In any event it seems to me that increasingly you seem to have your back against a wall, , and it possibly never occurs to you that you could make your views far more palatable if just for once, just once, you were to agree that sometimes, just a little bit, sometimes, not always - Israel may have got it wrong.
It's noticeable that you have yet to express a view on the Tibet/China situation, but maybe that conflict is a little too close to home! Or perhaps you could make a case for Tibet's right to self determination. Just curious.
Martin
April 15th, 2008 5:08pmIs America perfect? No, nobody makes that claim. Is Israel perfect? No, but nobody makes that claim.
But, let's remove America and Israel from the scene and see how long you can spout your personal opinions. Maybe American and Israel do take actions we would disapprove of, but their actions and the similar actions of the UK are sometimes necessary to preserve the freedoms we enjoy.
Further, Israel do not illegally occupy anyone's land. They have many right and legal reasons to exist in that land, more so than any other people group existing.
Anyway, the facts are out there.
Ian G
April 15th, 2008 5:23pmUnfortunately, Melanie, having reproduced the charges against Israel, I think you will have to provide the rebuttal or, at least, links to the rebuttals. People do not have the time to research or even know where to research. Some assistance is, therefore, needed. This is not to imply that the email is anything but propaganda. However, without some kind of defence there is a danger of scoring an own goal. Already, 'Patricia' has taken the opportunity of castigating Israel.
Edward
April 15th, 2008 5:25pmTerrorism is perpetrated by forces not wearing uniforms, against a population of non-combatants.
Terrorism is bombing buses and trains as in Madrid and London.
Terrorism is bombing planes, in-flight, such as Pan Am 103 which crashed onto Lockerbie Scotland.
Terrorism is attempting to ignite a bomb hidden in a pair of sneakers as Richard Reid tried to do in an in-flight plane, but was stopped in the vigilant post 9/11 world by another passenger.
Terrorism is hijacking an elementary school as in Beslan Russia and murdering hundreds of children.
Terrorism is praising “The Magnificent 19” of 9/11 as the Finsbury Park mosque did.
Before 9/11, when a plane was hijacked, the hostage passengers had an expectation to end up in Cuba or Lybia, or some other dumb country. Thanks to cellphones the passengers of Flight 93 learned of the true flight plan of the hijackers.
Terrorism is invading the Olympics and kidnapping athletes and murdering them.
patricia, if you want to tally the crimes of self-defense committed by Israel versus the crimes against humanity committed by fascist elements of Islam all over the World, you will find yourself facing a very long list of Islamist inspired atrocities.
steve
April 15th, 2008 6:03pmI don't necessarily agree with all of the views put forward in this class (I wouldn't equate state terrorism with terrorism carried out by non-state actors, for example), but to equate ideas and views that Melanie Phillips disagrees with with "subversion" is simply ridiculous. Student are adults, not sheep, and, as anyone who has ever taught at a university knows, rather difficult to brainwash.
phil
April 15th, 2008 6:40pmMike you are at it again .sometimes I wonder whether you actually read what people have said 'the student complained that he/she would lose marks because of the inherent prejudice of the lecturers not the content of the lectures -you have become so deluded by your haste to condemn both Melanie and whenever possible Israel that reason seems to flown away -you bob from thread to thread with the same message -please give it a rest ,write to sir Alex and tell him how to pick a team and let me have his reply ,I don't think it will be as polite as ours .In closing patricia ,we will make Melanie's travel arrangements not you and your friends .
Herbert Thornton
April 15th, 2008 6:55pmThe obsession of academia and leftists in general with Israel is mystifying. Israel is, after all a tiny country, albeit one that could describe itself in much the same way as Lee Kwan Yew once described Singapore - a poisonous shrimp.
But in relation to the rest of the world, it can hardly be called the elephant in the room. The elephant is Islam.
Yet academia and the left feel nothing but hostility towards the shrimp, while ignoring the danger of being trampled by the elephant. Indeed, they encourage the elephant to make itself more and more at home, despite the elephant trumpeting it's intention to trample not just on the shrimp, but on everybody else in the room.
The elephant has already begun to run amok. I wonder what scale its frenzy will have to reach before there is an effective reaction to it? Will academia and the left keep on taking the side of the elephant?
Graeme
April 15th, 2008 8:16pmI have come across Anti-Isreal attitudes myself from a lecturer when I was at University in 1999 at the time of the military action against Serbia. He said if anyone should be bombed it should be Isreal bacause of all the UN resolutions she has violated. I told him in front of a whole class of 25 or 30 students to shut his mouth and said that she was a Democracy surronded by totalitarian states and Isreal could do what she bloody liked. Needless to say, I did not pass that course I sat.
Soreofhing
April 15th, 2008 8:26pmI wonder who this young student is? The one who, instead of placing a complaint against to the university authorities, decides to be a snitch and write to Melanie Phillips (unbiased person that she is when Israel is concerned).
So this whippersnapper doesn't like to hear what doesn't fit in with his vast knowledge of how the world is, and instead runs to Big Sister to help him out (anonymously of course).
Dr. Richard Jackson presented a cogent detailed answer and explanation of Israeli state terrorism however Melanie chooses to dismiss it as "hatefull propaganda" as it presents a clear picture of the dark side of her sacred cow--Israel.
Israel's open actions are to kill, maim and terrorise the Palestinian population in the stubborn desire to hold on to stolen lands.
The severe criticism that Israeli actions attract cannot be suffocated by attempts to gag university lecturers.
Well done Aberystwyth university!
DBCJohn
April 15th, 2008 8:35pmExcellent material from Prof. Jackson, thanks for posting it. I have ordered his book via Amazon.
Alf Tupper
April 15th, 2008 9:01pmSteve
Students may or may not be easy to brainwash, but the point you evade is that in order to complete their course successfully, they are pressured into a particular viewpoint.
Mike
"The first point-of-call...within the university'
Yeah right that's going to get a first isn't it?
How you claim you ran some kind of business with that level of naivety mate?
David
April 15th, 2008 9:25pmOne of the main things that I learned at university was that any course described as giving a "critical" perspective basically wanted the students to suspend their critical faculties and regurgitate uncritical leftist dogma.
David M.
April 15th, 2008 10:37pmWay back when, some wag inscribed above the bog roll holders in the student union bogs, "B.A.s, please take one."
A remark as incisive as the Izal paper they dispensed. Arts degrees have always been a hostage to fortune inasmuch as students may well have to regurgitate the potentially 'distorted and bigoted opinions' of their lecturers in order to pass their courses. The student loan and worthless university degree industry of today must rank amongst the biggest scams ever to be foisted on the British public. The mystery remains as to is why anybody would want to put themselves into a lifetime of debt to spend three years of their life in such a miserable godforsaken 'hole as Aberystwyth.
teqjack
April 16th, 2008 12:39am"The use of violence to send a message is a form of terrorism."
NOt completely devoid of truth - but very much lacking sense. As far as I know, every nation uses violence to send a message. Some bad, yes, but not most.
The wielders of this violence are many and varied. Police. Tax assessors and collectors. Real estate zoning commissions. Safety-standards boards.
The professor in his EMail considers all of these equal, or at least equivalent. Obviously, rather than encouraging thought he has refused to think.
George Steiner
April 16th, 2008 1:13amI have a suggestion for this young fellow, in a moral and intellectual difficulty. Approach the question of understanding terrorism like this. OK we al know that Israel and the US are both rerrorist states. There is nothing original about such an examination. Much has been written about this already. Instead I (the student that is) want to Understand Terrorism in a wider contect. So he will examine the connection between Saudi Arabia, the immense amount of money available, the Wahabi tradition and the unending supply of Saudi terrorists available. Follow this with the similar examination of Pakistan. Its immense poverty, the Saudi money available, the Daobandist tradition and the unending supply of terrorists available. Particularly in Britain. Follow this with a similar examination of Iran, the immense amount of money available, the Shia messianic tradition and Hezbollah. Follow this with an examination of the rerrorism of the South American Marxists from the Shining Path to the.... But by now he may have enough to work with already. This will delight his professors.
field
April 16th, 2008 1:58amI think the academic's position is defensible and it is within the bounds of the acceptable. It is difficult to argue that many if not all of the actions by Israel referred to have a terroristic quality to them. The fact that they may have been taken as a reaction to acts of terror does not detract from that.
However, I think it is a rather sterile debate. I think it is more important to look at the narrative substance at what has been going on in the dispute between Jews and Arabs.
I think if one analyses that objectively (and this is where I suspect you will find these leftie academics compleltey biased), one sees that Israel has a legitimate right to existence but the Arabs have (by and large) an illegitimate desire to eliminate the state of Israel. This is seen most horrfically in Hamas controlled areas where children's TV pumps out genocidal indoctrination.
Israel muddied the waters by attempting for some 20 years after the 67 war to engage in an illegitimate expansion, with settlements in Sinai, Gaza and the West Bank. She has paid the priced for that foolish enterprise. But that does not undermine her fundamental right to exist.
If we are to doubt Israel's right to exist we will have to doubt a lot of other things: Does Saudi Arabia have a right to exist? What is legitimate about a corrupt Sunni elite ruling over millions of Shiahs who have far more sympathy with their Iranian co-religionists across the water? What is legitimate about Poland occupying land that was previously German? What is legitimate about Indonesia's occupation of Western New Guinea ? By what right does Ukraine hang on to Crimea, historically part of Russia? The list will be endless.
Israel's right to exist is better than that of many other states. It at least has the stamp of UN approval at its birth.
Israel's right to an existential threat to its existence has been very like that of other democracies who have faced similar threats. The UK and its allies in world war 2 used torture, assassination, murder of civilians and terror bombing But again,rather than concentrat e on that, I would want to compare the UK and Nazi Germany their aims and their social/political organisation.
Roy
April 16th, 2008 3:15amStrange thing that academics can be the most flamboyant propagandists and twisters of the truth ever to grace this earth. Once a learned person gets off his learned track he's lost!
Mark Pollock
April 16th, 2008 7:32amIan G
Something as morally unbalanced and partial as Jackson's slander doesn't really need a rebutall. But, to look at just one of the allegations that Israel is engaged in "State Terrorism", the attrocity at Kafr Kasem:
It is acknowledged by Israelis as one of the most horrible events in their country's history.
It was in no way sanctioned by the state.
Prime Minister and Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion was horrified by the massacre and ordered ordered an investigation, and later arrests and a trial.
The eight defendants, including an officer with the rank of major, Shmuel Malinki, were given prison sentences ranging from seven to 17 years. Agreed, that on appeal, the sentences were reduced, and not long afterward, the men were granted clemency. The defence of "just obeying orders" was rejected.
The Kafr Qasem attrocity has been taught in state schools for the eight years in a row in the framework of citizenship studies, as part of a mandatory chapter entitled "Obeying the Law in a Democracy and the Issue of a Manifestly Unlawful Order."
This was an isolated criminal act committed by individuals acting on their own authority. It happened over 50 years ago. The most perfect state in the world can not prevent such occurences. Compare and contrast the reaction to attrocites committed against Jews. Has any Arab country ever condemned any act of terrorism against Israel? Was there dancing in the street when the news of this action was broadcast?
Mike
April 16th, 2008 8:22amPhil: Kindly refer to http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=827 where you will find a refreshing post by Melanie. No doubt if I had written the last view expressed you would have found some reason to excoriate it out of hand, and whistled up your friends in support. Par.
Mike
April 16th, 2008 9:14amfield: I agree with the main thrust of your post, and the endless positioning of views about whether or not Israel 'has the right to exist' should be kicked into the long grass. Israel exists - its a fact. Period.
However, and as you are probably aware, there is a view that the Zionist project as conceived in the 19th and early 20th century was illegitimate, and is the major cause of all the terror and warfare aroused since. Jewish folk, in what is now Israel and elsewhere, have 'paid a price' and tragically continue to do so. Its settlement policy remains a form of ethnic warfare, and the Palestinians are justified in claiming a violent response. If the Arabs have a 'desire for Israel not to exist', then this is surely illegitimate, but hardly the Palestinian right to their own state which is way overdue.
I would like to endorse your view that the 'academics position is defensible' but that we should end the endless bickering about historical so-called facts. However, it is a 'sterile debate' but which most on this site would appear to enjoy.
phil
April 16th, 2008 10:42amDBC good to hear your still around and of your engagement to sorething .you will be able to share the book together ,maybe even one of Melanies ,unless of course you go to the book burning first-dont stay away so long again we need you -boring without you
Ken
April 16th, 2008 10:43amAbout 5 years ago I sat in on an MA international relations class in a leading UK Politics department with a large proportion of overseas students on its MA course. One British Muslim in the class made such scholarly comments as 'in Iraq, this is only just the beginning, we're going to be killing many more.' Occasionally when the subject of Israel came up, an overseas student sitting next to me whispered repeatedly, 'the Jews, the Jews.' Little attempt was made to dress up the antisemitism as anti-Zionism. The department, desperate to secure funds to compete with Oxford and Cambridge with whom they were slightly obsessed, dropped its academic and left liberal standards and allowed open antisemitism on campus chiefly in order to get the fees paid by overseas students. Multiculturalism tended to be a convenient screen for this although it goes without saying, there was an anti Israeli climate. One British student said to me, smiling broadly, that it was 'so old fashioned' to see Jews as the main victims on the holocaust.
steve
April 16th, 2008 11:11amStrange that Melanie didn't mention that she faced Richard Jackson on The Moral Maze a few weeks back and he pointed out that her views, particularly about the motivation of terrorists, were completely at odds with most of the credible research in the field.
steve
April 16th, 2008 11:14amAlf: You're right. I didn't mention this because in this case these are the allegations of a single student and I don't believe credible academics mark down views they disagree with provided the students provide the evidence to back up their views. I've given firsts to well written and well researched papers that I thought were completely wrong about the topic.
Merkava
April 16th, 2008 11:46am"If the Arabs have a 'desire for Israel not to exist', then this is surely illegitimate, but hardly the Palestinian right to their own state which is way overdue."
They have a state already, it's called Jordan. A Judenrein country which was created in 1923 from 4/5ths of British Mandated "Palestine." The remaining 1/5th was to be split in to Arab and Jewish territory, this was proposed in 1937 by the Peel Commission, and again by the UN in 1947. The Arabs refused and chose perpetual war instead.
Between 1948-1967, Gaza, Judea & Samaria were occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively. At no point did they attempt to establish a state of "Palestine."
The so-called "Palestinians" were again offered statehood in 2000-01, and yet again they refused and entered into the most despicable, morally degenerate terrorist campaign in history. For which they have been rewarded with tens of billions in foreign aid and endless misplaced sympathy.
So, no, they certainly do not *deserve* a 2nd state carved out of Israel.
epaminondas
April 16th, 2008 11:52amWhat the names and grades of students with contra views to the admin and professors of this JOKE?
If they wish to create a mental gulag where an entire construct is manufactured to justify inner racist compulsions, where jewish people are concerned, and create venomous anti americanism, certainly there must be a few of 'the righteous' around.
Who are they and what were their grades? Some of them must have had reasonable academic arguments to have made, and been given appropriate grades to that reasoning.
Unless of course no (especially) valid dissent can be tolerated lest the entire gestalt of such a course come unglued.
Nick Kaplan
April 16th, 2008 12:26pmSteve; I don’t know what ‘credible research’ you are referring to but if it’s at odds with Melanie’s view on Hamas, one can only assume this research bizarrely doesn’t take into account Hamas’ own charter which says such vile nonsense as: “HAMAS aspires to implement Allah's promise, whatever time it may take. The Prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said:‘The Hour [Day of Judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: Oh Muslim! Oh Abdallah [Slave of Allah!], there is a Jew behind me, come on and kill him. This will not apply to the Gharqad tree, which is a Jewish tree.’” And; ““There is no solution to the Palestinian Question except by Jihad. All initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are but a waste of time and futile.” Why is it that people such as yourself who seek to condemn Israel in favour of monsters such as Hamas, refuse to look at the most credible sources of evidence of the motives of such groups, namely what they themselves say.
Mike
April 16th, 2008 1:09pmMerkava: Regrets, but the argument you put up has gone backwards and forwards on this site and elsewhere and I'm sure will continue. The pseudo-biblical claims, and more recently the disputed archeological research will continue to arouse passions, and I'm certain a lot of 'bad history' will continue to be written. I feel for you and Israel's predicament, but the harsh reality is that the Jewish people have to work out for themselves the best way to bring a permanent peace to their land. Just suppose, for a brief moment, it was possible to persuade all the non-ethnic Jews to move out of where they are at present, to Jordan or anywhere else in Arabia, for how long do you think the Israel that's left would live in peace and security?
Ian G
April 16th, 2008 1:17pmMark Pollock , thanks for rebutting one of the 'charges', but I think that you have misunderstood my point. Much of this information, although in the public domain, is not in the general public arena. It is not part of the background. The background is more or less owned by the Arabs. For example, the lie about the need for a Palestinian state (Arab) when they already have one (Jordan). Sadly, Israel and its defenders have not done enough to change this milieu. Melanie has complained of this before now. All I want to see is that information made more easily available. A book has been published and some of the posters here have bought it, and probably swallowed it as well. In my experience, when unfair accusations are made silemce allows them to stand. Admittedly, answering them gives them more credence than they deserve. It is something of a cleft stick as a defence can look like excuse-making. Nonetheless, propaganda must be countered and, as will be inevitable due to the nature of the beast, when the propagandists go too far then the truth will be present rather than in hiding. We are not operating under English Common Law or academic rigour. Israel is guilty until proven innocent (in the minds of many) and we must have our proofs of innocence to hand.
Athina K
April 16th, 2008 1:58pmOn the last sentence 'Is it any wonder that so many of our young people are now consumed by hatred of America and Israel?'
I would like to counter that question with another:
'Is it any wonder that American propaganda and the identification of British national interest with US national interest has reached such extent in some International Relations departments and the media in the UK that students will complain about supposed 'left bias' by worthy colleagues?
In reference to Soviet Uion practices, perhaps you should also refer to tactics in the US, where academics have been reported by a 'watchdog' website that stigmatises them for supposedly making Anti-iraeli statements
See relevant article here:
Profs protest Campus Watch
Watchdog Web site lists accused ‘apologists to terrorism'
by Christine Armario
Washington Square News
November 21, 2002
http://www.nyunews.com/getstory.php?id=20003920
Hereford
April 16th, 2008 2:08pmActually, leave the subject aside and this is a typical, and unsurprising academic approach. Degree students aren't expected to provide evidence of being able to think, but rather evidence of being able to recite what others have thought before them.
It's all part of the academicisation of our society, which is one of the reasons why it is rotting from the centre.
Ravi
April 16th, 2008 2:26pmSo refreshing to read that Jews deserve all the violence they get from Palestinians Jewish folk, in what is now Israel and elsewhere, have 'paid a price' and tragically continue to do so. Its settlement policy remains a form of ethnic warfare, and the Palestinians are justified in claiming a violent response. We don't often get such comments unless we delve into the filth of extreme Islamist and Neo-Nazi websites. Of course, if I was in a foul mood I might respond that the Palestinians are lucky to have what they've got and deserve a lot less. The fact that they are 20-nil down but still in extra time is amazing. Of course, they will always try and tell us that THEY are the true victims of The Holocaust. Actually they are the failed perpetrators of a Holocaust when they lost in 1948 and 1967 - so bringing them continual war instead of peace. Anyway, give my regards to Asghar and those crew cuts at Combat 18.
steve
April 16th, 2008 2:58pmNick Kaplan: Nowhere in my post that you refer to did I mention Israel or Hamas. I was simply trying to raise the tenor of the debate on this site that ranges from ideologues supporting Israel to ideologues attacking Israel.
Robert Houghton
April 16th, 2008 3:25pmMelanie,
I'm with you in exposing "terror in academia" but you need a more nuanced response to the accounts of Israeli 'state terrorism' by Richard Jackson.
I've checked with a conservative Orthodox Jewish friend living in Israel and he confirms that Jackson's accounts are factually accurate. You might have argued that the accounts date from 50 to 60 years ago and are relatively few over a time span of that number of years of continuous hostilities. Also, several cannot be represented as the responsibility of the Israeli state.
The anti-Israeli argument includes a redefinition of terrorism which amounts to gross fallacy. Also the analysis of what is intentional killing is false, as is the account of lack of proportionality.
Joe Strummer
April 16th, 2008 3:58pmI thought the whole point of a University education was to impartially and forensically examine any given topic or subject, and only then come to finally form opinions or conclusions. ?
To just spoonfeed impressionable teenagers attending, as that is mostly what they are, a rigid dogma of a simplistic good guys / bad guys scenario on such a complex theme as the Arab / Israeli conflict is embarrassing for any educational establishment and must be damaging for the students themselves when they later discover a very different slant on what they have been previously "taught".
Universities just cheat their students when indulging in this not so very subtle brainwashing.
Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA
April 16th, 2008 5:07pmThis is my latest blog on life in Israel:
http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/04/count-down-to-p.html
Regarding academic life in present day Britain, the work of the ultra left-wing group, Engage, for instance, should speak for itself.
It is as well to remember that the German university system embraced Hitler eagerly, on the whole, so why should academia be more objective than any other institution, especially when one bears in mind that university departments are dependent on funding?
Alf Tupper
April 16th, 2008 5:36pmSteve
"...at odds with most of the credible research in the field". Well the central thrust of the article here is surely the assertion that academia is, and has been for quite some time, steeped in the one point of view. No big surprise then if said "credible research", which is compiled by academics, tends towards the affirmation of that view.
Spartacus
Go easy there fella - some of my best friends are gentiles
field
April 16th, 2008 5:51pmZionism was a project of the late nineteenth century. It resulted in the founding of a state. There were other similar projects around that time: e.g. Germanism, gave rise to the unified German state, there was a similar movement in Italy; Norway split from Sweden; the "southern Slavs" united in a single state; Poland emerged from the ashes of world war 1, where there had been no state before.
Lots of people seem to accept as legitimate the states that arose out of this fluidity, even though they did not have the backing of an international body like the UN in the case of Israel. But with Zionism and Israel, it seems - as always - a higher standard is being applied. Some people will say - ah well, this was a colonial movmenet not a national movement. And yet these people are prepared to accept Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Canada, and Brazil which were all clearly colonial enterprises. Zionists gained the land through purchase and negotiation not through wholesale slaughter as often happened in those other countries. Furthermore there was a continuous Jewish presence in Israel for many centuries, whereas the same cannot be said for the European presence in New Zealand which was actually quite heavily populated with Maoris.
Alf Tupper
April 16th, 2008 5:53pmMike
You refer to 'non-ethnic Jews'.
The term 'Jew' as I understand things, denotes people who observe - or are at least descended from observers of - a religion, but there is much more surely to being a Jew: the sense of heritage, culture, history, tradition etc. In fact all the things which constitute 'an ethnicity'?
Did you really mean non- Jewish Israelis?
Leslie
April 16th, 2008 5:56pmNick Kaplan,you asked Steve "Why is it that people such as yourself who seek to condemn Israel in favour of monsters such as Hamas, refuse to look at the most credible sources of evidence of the motives of such groups, namely what they themselves say."
I have come to the conclusion that, as has been said before,the reason is because these people are antisemites,and don't care to know the truth.
I didn't want to believe that,but there can be no other answer I'm afraid.
Fox
April 16th, 2008 6:08pmIf only, Athina Gk, if only.
Also, the accusation levelled seemed to be about the emphasis on left-wing sources and denigration of anything contrary to that. The student probably should have acted on his own initiative and found some alternative sources, but maybe it would have made sense also for the lecturer in question to recommend some more, in the name of balance. As for going to the media, not sure I would have done that, then again it must be hard to face up to an academic who disagees with your views, and to try and present more 'right-wing' counter arguments when the sources themselves will be dismissed out of hand as mel suggests, and especially if the dept. in general is a bit biased, as I have heard that this one is. When I did my politics degree, a few years ago, there was always seemed to be the initial assumption that the left-wing curse-the-evil-west view was correct by default, so that it was not a case of objective study but rather one of confirmation of the dominant views and ridicule/dismissal (encouraged by the prof.) of alternative views. Someone above said that university doesn't teach students to think, but to regurgitate, and they're quite right.This phenomenon is by no means confined to Aberystwyth.
patricia
April 16th, 2008 6:47pmHow pathetic, predictable and ultimately shameful all you Melanie - Worshipers are.
Today, Israel massacred 20 Palestinians, including five children.
A G A I N.
But do we get a word of contrition from any of you?
No.
Instead, the words of the Israeli commander on the spot were completely chilling.
This is plain barbarism.
Your inability to criticise Israel in any way shape or form, even at a time of such barbarity, says more about you than I ever could.
The only good to come out of your dripping contempt for the truth is the crack that has opened up in your ranks, and the evolution of newly pragmatic Jewish Lobby Groups both here and in the States, in dismay at your constant racism, and in a spirit of finding peace, not constantly provoking war.
Dipper
April 16th, 2008 8:23pmI recognise this approach from some business studies I did a few years ago.
Modern education seems to consist of giving a course and then testing the students ability to master the course material. Originality scores negative marks. This seems now uniform across all subjects.
In its defence, I think that even with this subject, a deep knowledge of the arguments of the anti-Israeli lobby would surely be useful for all interested in this subject, irrespective of one's opinions.
Beaman
April 16th, 2008 8:28pmThe following comment by Mr Lloyd stuck out like a sore thumb:
"There is no sense that any view is necessarily correct."
The Liberal-Left's moral relativism is part of why it has lost any credibility.
Orl Korrect
April 16th, 2008 9:20pm"Yesh...but...Dr. Jackson, war IS mainly a catalogue of blunders."
Andy Gill
April 16th, 2008 9:24pmMelanie, you might like to know that Richard Jackson is a leading member of a little group called NASPIR, (Network of Activist Scholars of Politics and International Relations). I quote from their website:
"As what we choose to study and how we choose to study it are unavoidably political, the traditional academic pretence of neutrality is unsustainable."
Won't this come as a surprise to the Vice-Chancellor, who wrote "The aim [of the module] is to be objective, with no bias and no prejudice against any race or country."
I think the Vice-Chancellor should be told. How can you teach a course without bias, if you aren't neutral?
Paul
April 16th, 2008 11:44pmPatricia your absolute hate of Israel says more about you than I ever could...
London Calling
April 17th, 2008 12:47amI am not surprised by this story, I experienced a similar situation and sacrificed my Distinction for speaking out, by disagreeing with the views that were forced on us as students and also the Bullying I witnessed by the head of our year, for whom I confronted. However whilst I was being stripped of my distinction by the Head of Year, my tutor meanwhile nominated me for a National achievement award for my work, which was presented to me by the Mayor of Westminster at the British Museum. For me, speaking out was far more important than being marked down, so much so I nearly walked away from it all as I was so disillusioned.
Brainwashing and control of thought should have no place in learning, period.
Soreofhing
April 17th, 2008 12:52amMelanie is outraged that "Aberystwyth university was fomenting a climate of hatred of Israel".
As Patricia mentions above, today the 16th Aril 2008, a day to be remembered in infamy, the Israeli army killed 20 civilians in Gaza.
Israel creates its own climate of hatred without any help from Aberystwyth university.
Mark Pollock
April 17th, 2008 1:47amPatricia,
My morning newspaper says "..Nine Palestinians and three Israeli soldiers were killed in fighting in Gaza after Israeli forces sttacked the area in a fresh bid to target militants involved in firing rockets."
Am I sorry? Yes, for the three Israelis who gave their lives in order to protect the civillians who were the targets of the said rockets. What is there to criticize?
Edward
April 17th, 2008 6:38amSince when are Palestinian gunman in street clothing ”civilians”? When are 18 year olds firing AK47s “children”? Is the leader of Islamic Jihad a “civilian”?
patricia and soreofhing, please use your influence to get Hamas to stop the rocket attacks on Israel, for the sake of real children.
Alf Tupper
April 17th, 2008 6:45amPatricia and Soreofhing
I think you both know that for Israel, there is nothing but hatred until extinction from people like you.
If the whole nation was lifted and shifted to some remote donated area in the middle of Alaska (as recommended by Ahmedinajad), then the pursuit would continue with all the more ferocity.
It works like this: stop the rockets and the border attacks and there is peace.
But you don't want that do you?
Ian C
April 17th, 2008 9:57amAndy Gill, I think you may have hit a bullseye with that little discovery. Melanie, you should add this to your correspondence with said chancellor. If he is not embarrassed by it then we can be safe in our knowledge that academai is no longer academic. http://www.naspir.net/content/view/1/10/
TD
April 17th, 2008 10:34amLet's forget the use of the word 'terrorism'. It permits academics, with little to no experience of the real world (let alone life in the Middle East), to create endless semantic arguments that serve to pad their own grievances.
At the end of the day, you have Israel and Israel's enemies pitted against each other in a full scale conflict. Israel is not perfect and has abused human rights and indulged in illegal activities,murder etc. But then again, that's what tends to happen when someone is trying to destroy you- you try to defend yurself the best way possible! Both sides are using the full scale of their power to damage the other. This involves torture, killings etc. Yes suicide bombing is awful but Hamas ect are simply using the weapons they can find, which include children, women and disabled people. It's savage,it's evil,it's totally counter-productive and it's incomprehensible, but it isn't the worst thing committed against people in history. Both sides also use propaganda and other techniques. It would be a better world without it, but that's been the way of the world for thousands of years. We're left with a conflict, pure and simple - and the strongest side will prevail.
At the end of the day, I support Israel in the conflict. The land is theirs and historically, always has been. The people who were there in 1947 were cast offs from the Middle East, not indigenous inhabitants. They also won land by military victory in 1967, when they were attacked. Also - and more positively - Israel is a fully functioning democratic state and democracy is the most advanced political form, however imperfect, that we have. It's truly amazing what they have done with a small strip of land that is barely arable. The other side - in particular Hamas - is a dysfunctional theocratic entity, creating nothing and destroying future generations with an active, violent plan to bring down the Israeli state.
Opponents of Israel always aim to reduce the conflict to one of moral equivalence. The argument seems to be that due to the actions of Israel,they are in some way as morally repugnant as the Islamists. To me, however, moral superiority comes from the system that underpins people's daily lives and lets them live freely, so as to realise the best of themsleves. Democracy provides this, which is why it must always be supported. The idea of an islamic theocracy, as recently seen in Taliban Aghanistan, achieves the exact opposite and therefore must be resisted at all costs.
patricia
April 17th, 2008 11:25amPAUL - you say my hatred of Israel says more about me than he ever could.
PAUL - does this mean you are lost for words at Israel's behaviour?
I guess you have no words with which to justify Israel's barbarity.
Agreed?
phil
April 17th, 2008 12:32pmMike I did read it but I am trying to live in the present-this student is NOW .and you still never answer my questions -on this current problem you have accumulated patricia ,DBC , and sorething-what a motley bunch to go alongside a decent guy like you .they alone should show you how wrong you are -your post apl 16
phil
April 17th, 2008 12:47pmPatricia ,if Paul doesnt I do -another pack of lies and distortions by you and your friend sorofthing perpetrated yet again by a pair whose purpose in life is to hate Israel and no doubt Jews -who cares what you think -not many I would bet
Nick Kaplan
April 17th, 2008 12:55pmTD; My point exactly! Academics condemnation of Israel is based almost entirely on drawing moral equivalence to the two sides when there is no equivalence to be drawn. Your point about semantics is also interesting, it does seem that Jacksons entire argument rests on a completely arbitrary redefinition of the term ‘terrorist’ such that it means; ‘any person or thing that uses/ threatens violence, thus generating fear in those upon whom this violence is threatened, in order to achieve a particular end’. If his definition of terrorism is correct, it is not just Israel that is a terrorist State but all States, after all, is not forcing a citizen to pay tax or even, simply to obey the law an end that is achieved with the threat of state-violence in the form of Incarceration? The fact that this conclusion can be reached by following Jackson’s argument should lead us to reject his redefinition and his quit ridiculous conclusion. After all; if someone were to assert that 1+2= 4 we would think he were mad. But, if in order to justify his claim, he explained that by 1 he meant the same as we do, but by 2 he means what we refer to as 3, we would be inclined to agree that he is correct, in the sense that 1+ (his) 2 does equal 4. Similarly we might conclude that under Jackson’s definition Israel is a ‘Terrorist State.’ However, this in no way shows that the redefinition of 2 or of terrorist was justified, instead we should ignore both his redefinition and his now technically correct but still unacceptable conclusion.
London Calling
April 17th, 2008 1:27pmThink about it? If the British had retained the land and had not created the state of Israel, the American and British
soldiers would not be just stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Israel also, therefore I am certain the comments from those above would be altered somewhat, don't you think?
Britain went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, a place that most British had never heard of, or knew where it was, a small Island with a small population of British, yet to war we went, and if the state of New England
(Israel) was under attack, we would have the same situation in that we would not tolerate acts of violence against our people, therefore why do we accept attacks against Israel.
The truth is we are at war with an enemy that wants to eliminate non believers and dominate the world through Islam, this is not about land, but a clash of civilizations based on the Islamic extremist's view that they have the right to destroy what they cannot control, based on religious text within the Koran, therefore there will never be peace in Israel, or the world, whilst we fight an enemy that loves death more than we love life.
Brian Williams
April 17th, 2008 1:40pmI'm unclear on this business about killing civilians being an indicator of state terrorism. What about the bombing of Dresden, and of course Hiroshima, which was backed by the allies. Which country, therefore, is not guilty of state terrorism? Surely, since civilians are killed by Palestinians with the tacit consent of the Palestinian government, they are state terrorists as well? Incidentally, I hold no political brief, just interested in the logic of the discussion. It seems to me that it would be impossible to prosecute a modern war without killing civilians. Not like the good old 1800s where armies faced each other across a battlefield, and civilians had picnics while they watched the fun.
Paul
April 17th, 2008 1:51pmNO PATRICIA
Israel is faced with an enemy that deals in barbarity and pedals hatred as it`s common currency and relies on people like you for their support.
I believe that groups such as Hamas will deliberately use innocent civilians including children as a human shield to curry favour from people like you who blinded by their hatred of Israel are also,in their own way,victims of these truely barbaric organisations.
Frank Pulley
April 17th, 2008 3:31pmTD @(10.34am 17/4)
You get it! I agree, you don't complain about your comrade-at-arm's BO when you're up to your knees in muck and bullets. You cover each other's backs and fight the enemy lest he kill you. It's called survival and in times of war (no matter what expedient title politicos and pacifists hang on it, to deodorise it) you do what has to be done to exhibit your own strength and exploit the weakness of the enemy. And if the patricias of this world want to concentrate on innocent Palestinian children as an excuse for her whinging and surrendering to the barbarians; maybe she should rather address some opprobrium towards those who are pumping those children full of vile propaganda and when necessary using them as 'human shields' and for jigging up fake scenarios for the MSM's sympathetic cameras. I think 'patricia' is either Orla Geurin or Jeremy Bowen in drag.
Barry Larking
April 17th, 2008 3:43pmIf one may bring this back to a basis in academic practice, I am disturbed by the prescriptive nature of the module ‘Understanding terror: perspectives on terrorism’ as described. If true, then the response of Dr Lloyd, the Vice Chancellor, sounds extraordinarily complacent in the light of the evidence of bias.
Academic life was corrupted by partisanship in the 60s and one hoped that was all in the past. Some of the posts above (not many, but some) demonstrate a degree of objectivity which was once thought an essential part of academic discourse.
Any student should have recourse to independent arbitration in the matter of grades. Usual academic rigour should be applied to written papers which, as to opinions must be based upon evidence and exposition. My advice to this individual would be to ensure contributions be rigourous as to sources which must include a spread of material, clear in demonstrating factual grounds, exercising caution in attributing motive even on face value and acknowledging alternative readings. Personal opinion must not be allowed to contaminate evidence. As long as these academic requirements are met any written assessment must be itemised according to the aims and objectives as set out in the module guide and validated against outcomes described in the same place. If necessary request a peer review and if that fails pursue a legal challenge. You will be acting within your rights.
Frank Pulley
April 17th, 2008 6:20pmPaul
"Israel is faced with an enemy that deals in barbarity and pedals hatred..."
Most of their Islamic enemies have bloody Toyota pick-ups it seems, not bicycles! :-)
phil
April 17th, 2008 6:33pmPaul dont let that hariden draw you into a logical discussion it justs flatters her .people like patricia and sorething come from a different world to us- we seek peace and reconciliation .they only dispense hate -I have suggested a wedding for them on the "an Iraqui says site " and contributions for a trip by Melanies travel agent -perhaps you would like to make a contribution :)
Mike
April 18th, 2008 9:28amPhil: Thank you for believing I'm a 'decent person', that should please my dear late Mother, but I would like to assure you I haven't set out to recruit a 'Team Mike'. For starters I'm not at all sure 'patricia' et al would wish to join it. No more than I feel you would not wish to join the net-work of pro-Israeli pressure groups who specialise in orchestrating complaints against the media. For example, HonestReporting has offices in London, NY, and Toronto and boasts it has 140,000 members who it can call on to drench media organisations in letters and emails. CAMERA uses street demos, pressure on advertisers, formal complaints and email showers. Giyus, Give Israel Your Support, supplies its members with a browser button which they can hit to send them any article which they deem offensive, and software called Megaphone to assist them in launching mass complaints. Memri (the Middle East Media Research Institute), Palestine Media Watch, Bicom (the British Israel Communications and Research Centre) and Israeli Embassy staff all supply more energy for the defence of Israel. The net result is that some facts become dangerous: to report Palestinian casualties; to depict the Palestinians as victims of Israeli occupation; to refer to the historic ousting of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes; to refer to the killing of Palestinian civilians by Zionist groups in the 1940s. The facts are there, but god help any reporter, who selets them. Words themselves become dangerous: to speak of 'occupied territories'; to describe Palestinians resisting occupation as anything other than 'terrorists'; to reject Israeli government euphemisms of 'targeted killings'. Crucially there is no lobby of similar force on the Palestinian side.
For more on Falsehoods, Distortions and Propaganda in the Global Media read 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies.
phil
April 18th, 2008 10:17amsorry Mike I don't want to read more stuff supplied by your pal fisk ,why doesn't he write here under his own name ? as to falsehoods etc there is plenty from the Arab media without having to go further. what do you think about the result of the latest terror trial ?And what I never can get an answer to (from you) why do these people keep killing their own?you seem to have had a good career why are you making such a fool of yourself on this site ?it gives me no pleasure to see it ,you are just doing fisk,s work without any comeback for him
Dave
April 18th, 2008 11:25amI am a student at Aberystwyth University taking this particular course, and for what its worth, the claims made by the student are wholly unfounded. The course examines the 'critical perspective' but invites students to comment on this as they will. A wide variety of texts are recommended and students are encouraged (and sometimes required) to research beyond the recommended material. At the University level students are expected to critically analyse everything they read or hear, particularly so in this course, and that is exactly what they have done. I would suggest that whoever fabricated these allegations to the press find a more mature way to express their opinions (such as in their essay, which would not be marked down for a political viewpoint).
Alex
April 18th, 2008 12:34pmThis article is based upon a shameful lie.
I am enrolled on this course; only a fool would feel intimidated or coerced into subscribing to a particular view.
We have not been forced to believe anything and there has never been any agenda aside from a visible effort to maintain neutrality.
That this blog sees fit to publicise the worries of a single student with no real evidence and seeks to sully the name of a fantastic lecturer ill deserving of such a groundless attack tells us only that it was a slow news day.
George
April 18th, 2008 1:07pmAs a student at Aberystwyth studying this course I would like to say that the claims made by the indivual student concerned are completely unfounded. A wide range of texts are suggested, and a wide range of views are expressed in seminars and lectures. As students we are expected to critically engage with the course and its readings, and are encouraged to present our ideas and arguments in the lectures, seminars and learning logs. I myself have argued against some of the ideas in the reading and lectures, in the learning logs, and have not been marked down in any way, and nor do I fear I will.
Aberystwyth University is a very respected university for international politics, and the quality of lectures is very high. I would like to protest against its reputation being damaged in such a vicious manner, for unfounded allegations.
Mike
April 18th, 2008 1:42pmPhil: You may not have taken the time to notice, but I credited the pen of Nick Davies, an acclaimed investigative reporter for some 30 years so you can put him down as another of my friends. Read the book man, or better tell me which of the facts in the post under reference you wish to refute; none of which are attributed to Robert Fisk, Jeremy Bowen, John Pilger or any of the other conflict reporters who fortunately are still alive to tell the world what they have seen and heard. How would you report proportionately standing over the shredded bodies of innocent women and their children, blown apart by munitions supplied to Israel by the United States for 'weapons testing' purposes, and give the same reporting weight to seeing the bodies of 3 Israeli soldiers?
Why don't you try hunting for the truth rather than clearly just relying on propaganda and half-baked theories from myopic Melanie..perhaps then you'd inject some balance into your responses.. So I'm looking forward to more reasoned and proportionate views. Best of luck!
KateA
April 18th, 2008 2:13pm"Crucially there is no lobby of similar force on the Palestinian side."
Crucially, propaganda is the art of persuasion and repetition - "If we tell the lie often enough the people will believe it." OR: 'Words mean what I say they mean' shouts the Queen. (Alice Through the Looking Glass).
Mike in 'Wonderland' offers repetitive examples of that maxim. Palestinian propaganda is disseminated on a daily basis in:The Guardian,The Independent and BBC radio and television
Google will reveal hundreds of pro-Palestine, anti-Israel, organisations posting varying degrees of propaganda, e.g.. Palestine Solidarity UK, YaQuds UK, BRICUP, PACBI, TUFP, JIHAD FOR PALESTINE, UMMAH - Muslim Forum, SUPPORT PALESTINE UK, ACTION Palestine UK, UK Indymedia Support Palestine, NATFHE, Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine, MPACUK - Muslim Civil Liberties, CAABU - Council for Arab British understanding, DSC, UNESCO, and most pernicious and internationally influential, the UN Human Rights Council
The UN 'Human Rights' Council enacts one resolution after another condemning one single state - Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah are granted total impunity. Darfur is ignored - as it is by all the bleeding hearts in 'solidarity' with Palestine.
The entire rest of the world—millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries are ignored. The HR Council has 47 members. The Council’s founding resolution states that Council members should be chosen on their human rights records. However, it imposes a significant constraint: the Council’s 47 seats are divided by a set formula among the UN’s five regions:
13 for the African Group, 13 for the Asian Group, 6 for the Eastern European Group,
8 for the Latin American and Caribbean Group. Clearly western democratic states (7) are massively outnumbered.
The current HR Council is composed of 47% of the world's non-democracies. That includes nine - 19% - ranked “Not Free” in a 2006 worldwide survey of political rights and civil liberties. Four of the nine—China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, figured as “Worst of the Worst” human rights abusers.
Africa and Asia together hold a majority 55%, of the Council’s 47 seats. NAM, a political alliance of developing countries including many repressive regimes, holds a majority - 57% of Council seats.
The OIC, a political alliance of Muslim countries led by Pakistan, holds 36%, or 17 seats. The OIC has used its power to obtain repeated condemnations of Israel whilst blocking debate on genocide in Sudan or the examination of abuses in any other country in the world. It also enacts repeated resolutions promoting Islam as a victim.
Case closed. Convention and courtesy forbids we accuse another of deliberate intention to deceive.
Simon Newman
April 18th, 2008 2:46pmJackson's argument is interesting. He claims that Israeli reprisals intended to deter further attacks on Israel are 'terrorism', because they are 'disproportionate' - he does not say what would be 'proportionate'. It seems to me that any punishment of criminals that causes other criminals to be fearful would be terrorism on Jackson's definition. Further, Israeli reprisals seem to be at a level far below what would induce maximum terror, and far below what they're capable of, which makes the characterisation dubious to my mind.
Ravi
April 18th, 2008 3:11pmMike, the Palestinians only have BBC, Channel 4, The Independent, Guardian, Comment is Free, MPAC UK, MCB, MAB, Palestinian Solidarity Committees, SWP, Respect, UCU, NUJ, Fisk, Pilger, Bowen, Geurin, Plett...... and thats just the UK. MPAC UK regularly run campaigns to storm the BBC or in one case to target Asian shops for selling Israeli dates. MPAC UK forced BBC to apologise for stating Jersualem was the capital of Israel and for calling an honour killing anything to do with Muslims, even though the BBC quoted the coroner. I KNOW the Islamist lobby VERY well and just because teh Zionist lobby is smarter and use technology it is only there to deal with the lies, like all the fakery out of the war by Hezbollah, Al Dura fake, Jenin fake etc.
TDK
April 18th, 2008 3:26pmIt would be interesting to see what grades Dave and Alex get at the end of the course. Perhaps you both can come back in a year and let us know if you managed to get firsts.
Adam B.
April 18th, 2008 3:26pmAlex, how exactly is this article "a shameful lie" when Melanie has supplied damning evidence? Do you dispute the evidence, and if so, how?
phil
April 18th, 2008 3:29pmhi this is dum
billiejo
April 18th, 2008 3:33pmi love this
phil
April 18th, 2008 4:10pmwe have an interloper calling himself phil at 3.29 well it isnt me -I am phil from the phil and mike show -so i didnt say "it is dum " probably a friend of patricia!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ann
April 18th, 2008 4:23pm"and perhaps if Israel stopped illegally occupying other people's lands and murdering their inhabitant" - ignorant regurgitated nonsense. Israel is not occupying anyone's land 'illegally', except in the hallucinations of people who know nothing about the situation.
Ann
April 18th, 2008 4:27pmIt is only in the deranged minds of antisemites, including Al Beeb, that Jerusalem is 'not the capital of Israel'. It is one thing not to like it: but to deny reality because of pathological hatred of the Jews, would normally qualify a person to receive psychiatric help on the NHS.
Kris
April 18th, 2008 4:27pmDave, Alex, George, you should put your full names down so that they know who to give good marks too. With regard to Aberystwyth's reputation, I obtained my masters in political science in the US, and no one had ever heard of the place there. Seems like a big fuss about nothing to me, academia here and in the UK is loaded with lefties and their dazzled students, not much you can do about it.
Ann
April 18th, 2008 4:28pmShoeofthing would regard it as less of a day of infamy if Arabs could murder Jews without fear of reprisal. We know exactly where he comes from.
Ann
April 18th, 2008 4:32pm"to refer to the killing of Palestinian civilians by Zionist groups in the 1940s" - the poster doesn't even know that in the 1940s, the JEWS of Israel were referred to as 'Palestinians'. And these people want to lecture to us!
Simon
April 18th, 2008 4:41pmI am also a student on this course and let me tell you right now, no marks have been handed out as yet. We only handed our essays in this Monday gone (14th April) and our exam is not until 13th May. So not only is this student a complete coward for not taking their questions and disagreements to Dr Breen Smyth, they are a blatent liar as well!
The name of the module is Understanding Terrorism. What did this student think the course was going to involve? Having Daily Mail and other tabloid newspaper headlines regurgitated to them? If they want to disagree with the points made then that's all well and good. After all, we are here to learn and the Socratic method is the best way forward. But learning is a two-way street and sometimes one has to accept that the views they hold are wrong. This is something this individual has failed to appreciate.
Oh and Francis Ingle, there is no need for any of us to go to Israel. The memories of the IRA planting bombs in London, Birmingham and Brighton are still fresh enough for us students to know that terrorism is not romantic. Of course it isn't. But it is a perfectly legitimate tactic when confronted by an enemy bigger than oneself. Britain funded and supported many 'terrorist' groups in Eastern Europe during World War II to carry out sabotage operations. If you're going to condemn all terrorism, then you have to condemn our actions too.
phil
April 18th, 2008 4:56pmMike your quote " How would you report proportionately standing over the shredded bodies of innocent women and their children, blown apart by munitions supplied to Israel by the United States for 'weapons testing' purposes, and give the same reporting weight to seeing the bodies of 3 Israeli soldiers
mike substitute IRAN and the Palestinians for the USA and Israel and you might get me to answer you -I have seen the films of the orthodox JEWS IN JERUSALEM SCRAPING UP THE BODIES OF THE INNOCENT CHILDREN ON SCHOOL BUSES so please don't quote me bowen and guerin , pilger, fisk and any other sicko you can dredge up-- you continually trawl anywhere to find criticism of Israel why not try finding sites where they agree with the policies of the state of Israel-you know democratic truthful ones not the pathetic few Israelis who want to write their irving like revisionist history ,which sells well of course
-do you know anyone in Israel ,probably not- but I do and I know they only want peace and harbour no hatred towards the Palestinians-would you like to live 5 miles from qualquilya without THE WALL to protect you from suicide bombers who have no desire for peace -would you like to live as a neighbour with someone who only wants to drive you into the sea -would you want to have talks with people who do not recognise you as a human being and whose charter defines your elimination -you never answer me so I will not expect you to this time .for the record I have read the web sites you keep sending me to I cant find what mr Davies says but the rest are rubbish and sadly just what I expected -
and please no more crap about occupied territories -you well know this history where your friends started wars against Israel and were pushed back and "occupied "to try to ensure no further attacks were launched again -do you remember the allies were in Germany after the second world war to keep the peace not the land ,is this different?you do not need to answer that just let me quote Gaza the exit the rockets the murderers, that should say it all -I am pretty sick of all this as probably are most people who keep reading what you are dredging up ,sometimes I wonder why I do it
Hereford
April 18th, 2008 5:03pmSimon, So speaks the youth who knows he knows everything and that as an undergraduate he has nothing to learn. If you can remember the bombings of the IRA, you are a very mature student indeed. Some of us, by contrast actually lived through those times. Do you really believe there is an equivalence between the IRA and radical Islam? Do you really believe that you are receiving the knowledge of history without it being filtered and influenced by the biased views of those who reported it. You are an academic undergraduate. You know only what you have been fed, and you understand nothing. At best you will regurgitate what you have read, or been told by others, with perhaps, if you are really adventurous, the tiniest, tiniest grain of original thought. Please do not presume to lecture those who have lived in the real world.
phil
April 18th, 2008 5:11pmDAVE GEORGE ALEX AND SIMON possibly I am cynical but your posts seem awfully alike -you will not want to put up your full names here but maybe you will consider writing to Melanie so that we can all have confidence that you actually exist,she can then confirm it -you will realise that it is very easy for one person to write in with different names ,so please give us a little confidence that all this is above board -your course deserves it
Apollo
April 18th, 2008 5:15pmBeing a Student studying at this university and taking the understanding terrorism module I can tell you that this students claims are unfounded and very wrong.
When I entered this module I didn't know what to really expect. And I must say that as growing up and closely following the course of the "War on Terrorism" and being subject to the Bush administrations media propaganda (because let’s make no joke about this THAT is what it is) my views on terrorism were rather one sided. The course has brought me into the studying of the Irish troubles for example (which I am too young to remember and understand) and other terrorist organisations and campaigns throughout the world and throughout history. This has been one of the most enjoyable modules I have so far done and Dr Marie Breen Smyth has actively encouraged discussion and debate within the lectures and not just the seminars. This I have found an excellent method of learning and questioning things that you may or may not understand. The course has attempted to look at Terrorism from a terrorist’s point of view. I’m sure that anyone reading this would agree that if you are to understand terrorism and the threat that it today poses our society that an analysis and understanding of the causes of terrorism is key.
The lectures that have been called into question here are the lectures concerning “State-terrorism” using a standard definition of terrorism like the ones used by our government “The use of threat, for the purpose of advancing political, religious, or ideological course of action, of serious violence against any person or property.” I’m sure that you can see what the term “State-terrorism” is implying. The extreme cases of regimes that use methods of “State-terrorism” would be Nazi Germany, Revolutionary Russia, hell even the US funding of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the soviets, and Contras in Nicaragua, and Iran’s sponsorship of Hamas, and the Iraqi insurgency.
There has been no anti Americanism or Anti-Semitism within the lectures or the course itself; it has raised arguments both for and against areas of US foreign policy regarding terrorism and debates on the subject of state responses to terrorism.
I also disagree that the class is being forced to tow the party line on subjects, throughout my essays at the university I have wrote arguments against what the lectures have themselves argued in their publications/lectures and this has in no way affected my grades.
I’m not surprised that a journalist such as Ms Phillips has gone to this extent of bad-mouthing a excellent University, Department and academic on the basis of a disgruntled students claims. This student is likely to be one of the people who sit in the seminars in silence not raising any points or contributing to the class in anyway shape or form. If they had this much of a problem with the course why did the not follow the usual channels that are available to them and contact such a rightwing magazine and journalist. I’d like to invite Ms Phillips to one of the lectures and get some real proof about what she’s writing. Isn't that what serious journalists do?
Mike
April 18th, 2008 5:19pmSimon: I was wondering how long it would take for a student from the same course to appear on this thread. Welcome!
Apollo
April 18th, 2008 5:36pmAs i can tell a response is bound to come why i havn't used my real name in my post it is for the exact reason that I don't want repercussions from my views expressed in one form or another. People who know me well enough will know that that is my post for anyone else it doesn't matter.
Mike
April 18th, 2008 6:02pmKateA: The post to which you refer was addressed to Phil for the reasons which should be apparent, and while I'm awaiting his response, I have to say that I don't read the websites you cite from Google, so I'm unable to comment on whether or not they target editors of the mainstream media, or indeed use any of the elaborate and highly sophisticated tactics used by Israel. However, what I suggest is that you obtain a copy of Nick Davies's book, 'Flat Earth News' which is an expose of his own profession, marked by Falsehoods, Distortions and Propaganda. It is NOT a critique of Israel so I suggest you take off your paranoid hat in this instance! The 'Wonderland' you talk of is one I share with anyone who has read the reports, and books written by war and conflict journalists, from Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins on the Falklands War to Robert Fisk's book on the wars of Afghanistan, Iran/Iraq, Bosnia/Serbia, and of course the long conflict in Northern Ireland. He and others have written also of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982,
('Pity the Nation') and if he'd been around in 1967 he would undoubtedly have covered the 6-Day War also. That is my 'Wonderland and it puzzles me why should be so disparaging of it. You are very welcome to enter if you wish; the only qualification you need is to have taken time out to read what I and 000's of others have read. This invitation applies to Phil also. Perhaps you could enter hand-in-hand; that is really something I would like to see.
Thor
April 18th, 2008 6:40pmI'm on this course as well, and the learning logs, while not technically marked, do have comments on quality when they are returned. I would count this as marking, given that when they are handed in for final assessment I doubt very much that they will reread everything, moreover each returned log is accompanied by critical comments as noted above. Also, the student expresses a fear of future biased marking in the case of the upcoming essay and examinations rather than asserting that this possible outcome has already occurred. On the question of regurgitation of rightist newspaper articles, of course no one would want that, however there have been a number of arguably leftist newspaper articles given out in several of the seminars(eg controversial discussion of 9/11 by Susan Sontag), which is I guess is just as bad. On the question of right and wrong, copying the views of the lecturer is not necessarily right, and universities are as susceptible to, shall we say contamination, as anyone else. I would say there is less anti-americanism than a general anti-westernism, this is implicit in a number of the readings, including that which Melanie cites. On anti-semitism, I don't know, but that email by Richie was certainly something to debate, it is true as many above have noted that Israel is judged a lot more harshly than other states and groups. Note especially the inclusion of the New Internationalist published 'No-nonsense Guide to Terrorism' which is quite dodgy, it is not what I would consider to be academic. I notice that someone talks of silence seminars, in truth I too will sit in silence in a seminar, as I suspect that if I say anything against the academic consensus (or regurgitaion, maybe), in so far as an Aberystwyth undergraduate seminar can be even considered academic, pseudointellectualism aside, I will be more strongly questioned by the memeber of stafff present than had I said something else. The seminars appear to me at least to be less objective discussions in the Socratic tradition, and more a lot of people agreeing with the leftwing leanings of a considerable proportion of course content, and possibly those who run the course. Pretty intimidating to speak in those circumstances, although I don't speak because I didn't go to university to hear the half-baked unoriginal opinions of kids who think that reading a few articles makes them an expert on the subject. In the case of the reading list, there is some more conservative stuff, but not as great deal. The concern of the student, incidentally, appears aimed at the whole course, although the lectures mentioned above are certainly key to that. Excellent university though? Hmmm.
Alex
April 18th, 2008 6:44pmPhil, I have already written directly to Melanie Phillips.
I look forward to her reply.
Allan Sharp
April 18th, 2008 6:54pmDoes this nonsense and those who promulgate it actually receive finance from the taxpayer? It's not whether the 'subject' is right or wrong, it's then fact that it exists at all in academia which is most troubling.
Adam B.
April 18th, 2008 7:34pmSimon's post shows how well the indoctrination is working. Simon, there is a difference between using guerrilla tactics (or sabotage) against a military target, and going into a cafe and blowing yourself and the innocents around you into pieces of flesh. You say that terrorism "is a perfectly legitimate tactic when confronted by an enemy bigger than oneself". NO IT ISN'T! Just because one party may be smaller than the other, it does not have the moral right to commit any act of violence it chooses, nor is the underdog always in the right. Terrorism is the DELIBERATE targeting of civilians. It seems your couse can't even define terrorism, a disease of our age, where there are no wrong or right, just "different narratives".
Mark
April 18th, 2008 8:03pmfirstly i think the student is worrying needlessly, lecturers are grown ups, they are sensible and they love academic debate. if a student can think of justified reasons to go against the trend than thats a sure way to a frist - i recently completed an essay on statistical mathods of assessment in forensic psychology, spending the entire time saying why it should exist (knowing full well all 3 of the exam markers iether come up with the models themselves or implement them for a living) did i get a first...well yes i did actually. grow some academic credentials for the love of god. oh and i imagin that re-writing tired cliches about muslim terroists and western freedom fighters without a substantial backing is likly to get you no-where.
also, isnt it kind of weird that all 'academics' are lefty...so all the people that do the research, read the books, understand the topics and generally know things outside of what the daily mail tells them are lefty? could that possibly mean that lefty = the more informed and considered and righty= the more reactionairy
just a thought
George of Currumbin
April 18th, 2008 8:25pmSimon Newman
Indeed Jackson's definition of "terrorism" is feeble minded.
Installing fear in the minds of terrorists who blow up innocent women and children is NOT state terrorism.
IN other words he is stating the old Christian blood libel against Jews that they do not have the right to self defence.
IF HAMMAS and others are porposefully hiding behind coerced civilians when attacking Israel, and some of these civilians are being killed by Israeli responses ,it is precisely because of the "moral" attitudes of such academics as Richard.
The Palestinians know that the outrage caused by such accidental killings are worth their weight in gold in the propaganda war these western academics are waging against Israel.
Mike
April 19th, 2008 12:04amPhil: There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that in Israel, I would find many, many people with whom I would have empathy, sympathy, love and any other emotion you care to mention, and share with them their fear and apprehension of all that surrounds them. I'm a European with a similar history.... just like them.
I have to tell I had a very fearful experience when I was accosted in the early hours of a very dark night, by two kalashnikov carrying Palestinians on guard duty outside the Bourg al-Barajineh refugee camp in Beirut. They tied my hands behind my back, blindfolded me, and marched me into the camp at gun-point. I've never been so frightened in my life! They sat me down in a room, and then an English speaking voice asked what I was doing outside the camp at such a late hour. I said I would explain if they took the blindfold off. He introduced himself as the Camp Commandant and that was that. We had a coffee together, and spent the next hour or so chatting about his village in Palestine and the course of his life since his family fled. I learned a lot. So please Phil don't lecture me on how I would find the people of Israel or anyone else in the Middle East.....Remember?..I've 'got the tee-shirt'.
As you know perfectly well my argument is with the Zionist regime of Israel and NOT with the Jewish people either there or in the diaspora. I don't understand very much of what else you write.....it's merely an angry rant, which says nothing of substance. I can understand your frustration at constantly having to defend your support of Israel.....how you choose to do it is up to you, but I think you could do it far, far better if you didn't allow your anger to show so much. As my friends in the West Indies would say....'Cool it maan'!
Bob Gray
April 19th, 2008 12:05amMark: happily, your forensic essays require no writing skills.
Alf Tupper
April 19th, 2008 7:54amApollo
It's great to hear that you "have wrote arguments"
whilst on your course at such "a excellent University".
Along with Mark it seems, your sub-primary grasp of written English, points to a wider lack of attention to detail, which itself leaves you at a disadvantage when tasked to investigate matters of great importance and some sophistication.
david skinner
April 19th, 2008 9:33amThis Leninist/Marxist government is indeed in the job of deconstruction but it is happening but from day one that children enter school.
Sir Trevor Phillips who heads up the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) has said:
"When we talk about the Armada, it is only now that we are beginning to realise that part of it is Muslims - actually it was the Turks who saved us because they held the Armada for a few weeks, on the request of Elizabeth I," he told a Labour party conference fringe event.
"Let's rewrite that story, let's use our heritage to rewrite that story so that it is truly inclusive.
"So that we have an identity which brings us together and binds us in the stormy times we're going to have."
With Sir Trevor Phillip’s own sensitivities concerning slavery; one wonders what kind of chains he envisages for binding the British people together in the stormy times ahead.
phil
April 19th, 2008 11:54amMike at least now I can see where you learned your history of the ME -BLINFOLDED WITH A KALASHNIKOV AT YOUR HEAD in a Palestinian camp -it explains a lot, what relevance it has to what I wrote to you I don't understand -once again you never address my questions and now accuse me of anger and ranting instead -its the way of a naughty child and that's about the sum total of your tee shirt ,you have no idea of the concept of Zionism even though I have told you many times .you are just indoctrinated to hate it ,so please if you cant deal with my points lets leave it at that -we agree on Man U and that's about all
phil
April 19th, 2008 11:56amAlex thank you
Leslie
April 19th, 2008 12:27pmReally,Mike,pull the other leg.
Bob Gray
April 19th, 2008 12:40pmAlf Tupper: as your comment was more incisive, you win the pair of new plimsolls. Just as well, it beats me how you ran on those cinders.
jl
April 19th, 2008 1:44pmI doubt very much if most British people, including university-educated ones, have the knowledge base to deal with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in a less than emotive way. The comments on this blog reflect that ignorance - on all sides.
Alex
April 19th, 2008 1:47pmGeorge: "Installing fear in the minds of terrorists who blow up innocent women and children is NOT state terrorism."
Since when did fear pick out its targets and since when did Israel not strike against ‘terrorists’ for fear of striking innocents?
I agree with Israeli retaliations, I think they are the only actions available but let’s not kid ourselves, its state terrorism and you should have the courage to admit it.
Mike
April 19th, 2008 2:01pmPhil: Jews don't kill Jews. But the violence of the Anglo-Saxons is well documented down the years, and they do kill each other. So do Christians - very successfully - we carpet bomb each other over London and Dresden. Catholics/ Protestants were killing each other in Belfast, Chinese v Chinese....the whole goddam' world is guilty of horrific crimes against each other....and Arabs, Palestinians et al have always been at each others throats for one reason or another from ancient times. Jews are the exception ....it would appear they don't kill each other...a shining light for all of us.
Happy now?
By the way I have no hatred of Israel. Why can't you get it into your head. I just happen to believe, as I've told you time and time again, that Zionism is the REAL enemy of all the Jews. Period.
Noel
April 19th, 2008 2:12pmA quote from Phil:
do you know anyone in Israel ,probably not- but I do and I know they only want peace and harbour no hatred towards the Palestinians.
Now look at
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mario-vargas-llosa-how-arabs-have-been-driven-out-of-hebron-811770.html
Yes, yes, I know, MVL is a well-known vicious anti-Semite.
Alf Tupper
April 19th, 2008 2:27pmBob Gray.
I have no scientific proof of it, but I like to think my regular intake of fish & chip suppers counts for more than any of these steroid whot-nots. As for spiked shoes? Not down our street.
Ta.
Clive
April 19th, 2008 2:41pmMelanie Phillips article Terror in academia
I find the article above by Melanie Phillips false and totally without merit. I am currently studying the same course and have been to every lecture and seminar on the module. The allegation that we are being forced on a one direction of thinking and that we should only read books that have been approved is utter rubbish. Dr. Breen- Smyth had repeatedly encouraged us to read material that has not been mentioned in the module handbook and we have a constant stream of emails, almost daily informing us of new or interesting materials that are being discovered or read. It should be noted this includes all spectrums and sides to the debate.
I also find it amusing on the ‘being marked down’ quote as it is only on Monday 14th April that our first piece of assessed work has been handed in and is only now in the process of being marked, so it is not possible for our marks to have been marked down as no marking has really occurred yet.
As for ‘towing the line’ I find this an amusing phrase. Dr. Breen-Smyth and I are critics of each other as we have very different views on a variety of topics in the subject area and often engage in debate on the subject (as I’m sure every person who attends lectures would agree with). Not once has she tried to force her view on me. While Dr. Breen-Smyth has her personal political beliefs she has never been biased in her evaluation or analyse of terrorism but uses her expertise from Northern Ireland to show implications or application/practicalities of events. This is the only are she could ever been seen as focusing on but in no way is it a form of bias, but more expertise.
As for the module being anti-Israeli, I’ve never heard Dr. Breen-Smyth engage in this practice nor it being part of the setup of the module and no hateful propaganda by Dr. Jackson. The module is setup so academic debate can be had from all spectrums with no repercussion on the person/s that have made a comment. This also allows us to read material that is controversial to the government’s stance. In academic circles it’s called ‘The Chatham House Rule’ where what is said in the room must stay in the room and no names are affiliated with an individual on comments made in that room. This is to protect people who have been involved in terrorism such as victims or people related to victim, but for people who may have had an association with or known of someone or something related to terrorism, but also to those who are involved in counter-terrorism or in the military itself which there are a number on this course.
I therefore find it improper that this student in the module has gone to the press about a grievance as there are proper lines of procedures and authorities within the university and the department for dealing with such a grievance. They have undermined not only Dr. Breen-Smyth and Dr. Jackson but also every student on the course who has obeyed the Chatham House Rules and thus breaking the principles of academic debate and therefore unsuitable to peruse such studies as we come across some very sensitive and controversial materials.
Sofi
April 19th, 2008 3:54pmI wonder what level of cynicism should be exercised when looking at some of the shrill defences and expressions of outrage by students on this course. Worried about their degrees? Or something else? It's just a blog. Also, aren't they giving the student an undeserved level of importance by making this one of the most commented-on blogs since Melanie started on the Spectator? Why even dignify this student with a comment, if they are to be condemned so, and their accusations are so outrageous, groundless etc? Or do these students feel important by commenting,and by writing letters, 'in the loop' so to speak. Not to be horrible, but some of these students are demonstrating that they haven't actually read much, or perhaps have not grasped the concept of, what Melanie, or indeed others who have commented, have presented. Perhaps they should just concentrate on their exams, and hope for the best?
phil
April 19th, 2008 4:13pmNoel I don't want to be rude but I have to say please read carefully what I wrote --I said I knew people who didnt want to hate or hurt Palestinians and only wanted peace -I do know people who think like that in fact an overwhelming majority-sadly there are others who are violent extremists amongst the settlers and I feel ashamed of them -I know what baruch goldstein did -he committed an atrocity ,but not in my name nor the names of any other Israelis/Jews except for lunatics -We bred here the yorkshire ripper and the panther ,do you think we should be castigated for that ?If as I hope you are, someone who cares what happens to both sets of people ,consider what I have said but if you are just a friend of patricia sorry but I don't give a damn what you think
phil
April 19th, 2008 4:26pmSofi makes a good point -the students are exhibiting most of what is good in young people compassion and caring -so did I when I was their age with great passion for the "underdog", as I grew older I began to see more depth in the problems that arose and with it came pragmatism and calmer appraisal -so I will make a plea to them ,you are early in your course ,wait awhile and decide with the benefit of hindsight what your final conclusions will be ,and now a little bet -you will change your minds more than once -I wish you all great success in your future lives
Commondog
April 19th, 2008 4:39pmRe Clive (and excepting Thor, which for his own sake, had better not be his real name)
Clive is the latest in a series of contributors who are students on the course in question. Commonly, they forward the complaint that their fellow student and whistle blower should be brought to book, on account of the fact that
"there are proper lines of procedures and authorities within the university and the department for dealing with such a grievance."
In defence of the course - and applying one of its sad and central tenets - much mention is also made of the right to commit terrorist acts, basically, whenever terrorists find themselves facing superior forces.
So we have a situation whereby one student of politics, in choosing merely to consult and inform a journalist of what he/she considers malpractice in a University, is guilty of a heinous crime; whilst at the same time, highly armed, well funded organisations who choose not to pursue the available "proper lines of procedure" and instead, by design, target and execute civilians in the name of whatever goal they might choose - they are justified in their actions.
"If little faults, proceeding on distemper,
Shall not be wink'd at, how shall we stretch our eye
When capital crimes, chew'd, swallow'd and digested,
Appear before us?"
Such inattentiveness in the general approach of these students, confirms surely the observation that if you stick around long enough in a British University, then someone will give you a 2:1.
BTW
The correct figure of speech is TOE the line not TOW.
Noel
April 19th, 2008 5:26pmWe await jl's magisterial non-British-educated analysis of the Israel Palestine conflict with bated breath.
Si, N
April 19th, 2008 6:27pmA dumB, you’re a fine one to talk about indoctrination – I see you’re still trotting out the same old guff in defence of the monstrous psychopath you so cherish – in which institution did you learn to be so supportive of the ongoing Israeli occupation and genocide of the Palestinians? I blame the parents.
Yes, terrorism is the ‘DELIBERATE targeting of civilians’ – so by your own definition Israel is a terrorist entity and the Israeli Occupation Forces are terrorists – arriving at that conclusion requires no great mental effort – you don’t even need the benefit of having had a significant academic experience – nor is any degree of ‘sophistication’ needed Alf Tupper, so quit the sophistry - just look at the documentary evidence.
Now I know how you apologists for Israel – [God knows how much you have to apologise for] – insist on evidence of the terrorist activities of the IOF, but I’m not going to supply it – for crying out loud if you can’t discern it for yourselves – and let’s face it, you can’t – then what’s the point. I mean you’re perfectly capable of recognising the barbarity of lobbing bound soldiers from windows. You have no problem when it comes to counting the exact numbers of dead IOF gunmen and describing the horrific deaths and injuries inflicted by suicide bombers on innocent civilians on buses and in pizza houses. But beyond that you’re blind to the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents that happens before your eyes.
Suffice to mention the deliberate murder of the Reuters journalist, Fadel Shana – [the IOF have form when it comes to the neutralisation of those that seek to report what goes on in Gaza and the West Bank – 9 journalist killed in the occupied Palestinian territories since 2000 + 150 injured – clear breaches of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] - and the other innocent civilians within the ambit of those disgusting indiscriminate flechette spewing bombs the IOF deploy with impunity in the most crowded strip of land on earth. That is pure terrorism. The notion of a ‘targeted killing’ just doesn’t wash when that type of indiscriminate slaughter is the result. The same applies to the warped logic that describes the dropping a 1 ton bomb on a densely populated civilian centre – 22 July, 2OO2, Gaza City, 15 civilians, 9 of whom were children, murdered and over 100 injured – and they call that ‘targeted’ – certainly, Major General Dan Halutz saw no problem with it ‘militarily and morally’’. Indoctrination sits deep when such actions and explanations are allowed to pass unquestioned.
Frank Pulley
April 19th, 2008 6:31pmCommondog:
One thing is certain: whether they toe the line or not, it is certain that these students will be towing a great deal of weighted and leftist 'intellectual' baggage planted by their agitprop tutors when they leave this backwater of academia. Even so, most of them will then have to grapple with the real world - and eventually grow-up, as all but a few irretrievable and sad cases do. But the fact that they chose this nest of vipers in the first place bodes ill for development.
As usual, even after 132 comments, no one has laid a finger on Melanie's reason and logic in this expose, which illustrates perfectly what is happening within our 'education' system and how the irrational attitudes towards Islamic jihad are germinated.
Alex
April 19th, 2008 6:36pmCommon dog: "much mention is also made of the right to commit terrorist acts, basically, whenever terrorists find themselves facing superior forces."
Much mention?
I assume your first was dispensed to you for gross exaggeration and well deserved too.
Edward
April 19th, 2008 6:59pmWhen the British retreated from the British Mandate of Palestine in 1948, they believed that the Jews would be massacred as they were in WW2 by invading armies and a blood thirsty population.
The real problem for some people is that the Israelis are not the unarmed Jews of WW2 Europe.
I send my best wishes to all Jews for a Kosher and Happy Pesach.
Paul
April 19th, 2008 7:05pmjl,I eagerly await to read the definitive views of an expert on middle east politics enlightenment is close at hand....
Ann
April 19th, 2008 7:10pmCommondog, terrorists don't 'execute' civilians: the word is 'murder'.
Noel, there is no such thing as 'Palestine'.
Mike
April 19th, 2008 7:13pmPhil: Nick Davies's book 'Flat Earth News' was only published this year so you may well not find it on any of the usual search-engines at this time. Try Amazon.co.uk......Books, and then use their search facility to open the book's page. I think you will find all the reviews interesting. Be warned...this book isn't about politics, wars, conflicts as such, but the best expose of to-days mainstream media available. It certainly opened my eyes - I hope it has the same effect on you.
By the way I don't need to 'trawl the internet'. All my sources and references are books I've bought for cash and are in my libary at the house. Of course I would dearly love to have you read them!
Noel
April 19th, 2008 7:15pmIt's disingenuous to say 'well Britain had the Yorkshire Ripper and Israel has the settlers' (not a direct quote). The settlers are an enormous political force in Israel, and the government is very reluctant to enforce Israeli law where they are concerned.
There is a fundamental question (connected series of questions) to which I've never felt I've heard a convincing answer: If Israel wants peace why have the settlements been expanding for 40 years under all governments? Can you look at a map of Israel/Palestine (now) and see how a Palestinian state could emerge? If it doesn't, what will happen? Do you think the Palesinians will just go away, or accept their role as untermenschen?
Another fundamental question is this: do you not think that the creation of Israel caused terrible suffering to another people? I know all the pat answers (no such thing as a Palestinian people, their leaders told them to flee till the Jews were destroyed). Not interested in exchanging cliches!
Patricia speaks sharply, but no more so than Ann.
If I were you, rather than spending so much time here I'd go out into the wider world where there is not the same cosy pro-Israeli consensus as there is here.
Bob Gray
April 19th, 2008 7:29pm"I am currently studying the same course..." That's a tad vague.I never went to university Clive so you will have to help me here, do you mean you enrolled on the course as a student, mature or otherwise? Are you studying the course in a, you know, holistic sense? Are you perhaps an overseer of some sort? (Oviously I don't mean like some STASI invigilator.)
Something else is baffling me which I hope the more learned contributors to this site will put me straight on - this 'Chapter House Rule' of which you speak.
Frankly, it sounds like a device to secure immunity from investigation but you say they are "..to protect people who have been involved in terrorism..." Then you tell us that people involved in counter-terrorism and the military attend this course. Cripes! I bet they don't pass.
As your comment drew to a close, your barely contained vindictiveness was beginning to show through - I don't fancy a certain student's chances.
One final thing, I know it's difficult for you to disprove but, I have this nagging feeling that your dad wrote your post.
Mike
April 19th, 2008 7:37pmLeslie: Okay, maybe the time is right for your other leg to be pulled! But seriously, the reason I was outside the camp at such an ungodly hour was because of a dog. My apartment was on the third floor of 4 storey block overlooking the camp and quite close to the Golfe Club de Liban. We were awakened by the howling of this animal and couldn't get back to sleep. So feeling very angry, I pulled on a black coloured tracksuit, tied on some trainers, left the apartment, ran down the staircase instead of waiting for the lift...jogged down the road past the entrance to the camp to a piece of waste ground from where I'm sure the dog was. I caught a brief glimpse of it against the lights of another building.....picked up some stones and thought I may have hit it because it gave a sharp yelp and appeared to run off. I turned back towards the apartment, and that is when I was caught. Dressed the way I was they were probably right in taking me in for investigation, but I can assure you it was the most frightening experience of my life at that time. So much so that I gave up the lease and moved to Baabda close to the Presidential Palace where I remained for the rest of my time in Lebanon.
But I shall never forget the chat I had with the Camp Commandant. His experience in Palestine was just one of many I heard from refugees over the years. And that is one of the reasons why I earned the 'tee-shirt'.
Bob Gray
April 19th, 2008 8:35pmLet's have a look then shall we?
Marie Smyth (sic) writing in the Guardian February 2007:
"This is further undermined by dealing collectively with "Muslim attitudes" without any recognition of diversity among British Muslims. This is not only unhelpful analytically, but also runs the risk of replicating stereotypes. The report implies that multiculturalism is responsible for exacerbating differences between Muslims and the rest of the population without any evidence to justify these claims...This is not the first time Britons have identified a "suspect community" in their midst. From the 1970s, the Irish were subject to screening, profiling, summary arrest, deportation and exclusion. Surely there are lessons to be drawn from that."
Yes love, when indigenous people are subjected to campaigns of terror, they tend to tighten homeland security.
Good grief! It's not that difficult is it? I have to drive a truck six days a week and pay taxes to fund research grants for people like this?
Adam B.
April 19th, 2008 11:59pmMike, your repeated assertion that Zionism is the enemy of the Jews is incredibly arrogant - obviously, Jewish people can't decide what's in their own best interest (i.e. the right to self-determination, a natural right to everyone except them, it seems) so you Mike are there to correct them. How thankful the Jews must be to you and your wisdom.
Adam
April 20th, 2008 12:53amMaybe I could reassure the student who wrote to Melanie. I studied in the International Politics department at Aber (which was the first in the world and is internationally respected). I also took modules with some of the lecturers mentioned. Your essays will be marked according to how well they're structured and how well you support your argument -as a student there I genuinely enjoyed building strong arguments which challenged what I perceived to be my lecturer's views. So don't worry about your essays or your exams - if you're capable of supporting what you have to say, you'll be fine. Despite (or, I would suggest, because of) numerous essays in which I sought to challenge my lecturer’s work, I was awarded a first class degree.
I'm surprised that you chose to email a controversial national columnist without raising your concerns with the department. I know from my time there that they have an effective staff-student consultative body as well as a tutoring system where such concerns can be raised in confidence.
Finally, as an aside, the email from Marie Breen Smyth begins: “In the light of the lively debates in seminars last week about state terrorism” …this very much reflects my own experience of the department as an institution which encouraged debate between students and allowed different views to be argued out in seminars. I also note that in the first issue of the journal “Critical Studies on Terrorism” which is edited by two members of the department (including Richard Jackson), a complete spectrum of views are represented (ranging from those who dismiss the need for the ‘critical’ approach, to those making the case for it). For those interested in evaluating the two sides of the debate, the first issue can be accessed here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=g791259001~db=all
jose garcia
April 20th, 2008 12:56amPatricia you are an hypocrit
where is your outrage at 4000 rockets launched at sderot for the last 4 years, where is your outrage at the hamas charter, where is your outrage at palestinians using children as bombs.
where is your outrage at the indoctrination in palestinian tv of children using MICKEY MOUSE to ask them to kill jews.
where is your outrage at the PERMANENT CLOSING of egypt crossing to GAZA.
where is your outrage at the cold killing of 10 priests in israel just a few days ago?
where is your outrage at the palestinians for voting hamas into power?.
where is the outrage at the billions (yes BILLIONS)_ OF AID given to palestine by the whole world and stolen by PLO and HAMAS to arm themselves even more.
where is your outrage at the arab world for doing nothing but using proxy terrorism in israel and the rest of the world.
where s your outrage at 7/11 , the london bombings, the bali nightclub massacre, the sudan massacres by the islamic north?
the spanish train massacre (how many real children (not imaginary 18 year olds with ak-47s) died in spain ?
when is the left we are talking about see no evil , hear not evil, but america and israel.
i am so disgusted by your hipocrisy .
and last .... what ARE PALESTINIANS/HAMAS RESISTING AGANIST?
THE ROAD MAP?
jose garcia
April 20th, 2008 1:17amto "DAVE, ALEX, AND GEORGE"
or whoever you really are
your comments on the 18th where posted all at the same time more than 3 days after the main article was posted by melanie
who is behind that in the Aberystwyth political studies department?
i mean a whole reply was posted by the professor talking about israel being a state terrorist, no counter argument is given and
then you say there is no bias or pressure aganist toing the radical left propaganda in the university.
you really want us to belive that
you realy think we are stupid do you?
the whole letter by that professor was so ridiculously biased as to ignore every single reason to those facts
Commondog
April 20th, 2008 8:11amAlex.
The mention is there, read the texts.
My first? Yeah right. Don't you need to go to University to do that?
Anyway, best of luck with the politics, it should be great preparation for the Tesco fast-track management programme.
Alex
April 20th, 2008 11:17amJose: your penchant for conspiracy makes you look stupid quite well enough without the assistance of a faction of the great arch demon that is Aberystwyth IR department.
Commondog: I didn’t deny the mention, I pointed out that it’s false to say “much mention” given that of all the students posting here a tiny minority have said anything bordering on “much mention is also made of the right to commit terrorist acts, basically, whenever terrorists find themselves facing superior forces”
If you’d said “mention” I wouldn’t have a problem with you (aside from your delightful attitude) but you said “much mention”
I think one person said it, I myself disagree with it as I suspect many students on my course would, it’s not a dominant feeling in the course. How you feel capable of characterising a course you’re entirely ignorant of is quite beyond me and I suspect anyone with an iota of common sense.
Will
April 20th, 2008 11:57amI studied my undergraduate degree in International Relations in Aberystwyth. Since then i've got a masters in human rights and got a job working with one of the largest and highest impact NGO's in the world. Aberysystwyth, including my courses across the IR department and with Marie, set me up for a life where I make a real difference to people's lives. The department there, and Marie's courses, are fantastic. They are challenging in the best senses of the word- they require hard work, a lot of reading and an ability to critically analyse, they also invite students to challenge the predominant understanding of international relations- a worthy cause when the current system allows billions to live in poverty, disenfranchises so many through inequity and conflict, whether undertaken by states or non-state actors, is still legitimised by the powerful as a means of controlling the weak.
I well recall the incident 3 years ago when Melanie spouted her filthy misguided thoughts on the department, its staff and its students. This time round she is as wrong as before. If her student contact understood the framework for academic learning in Aber and did their reading they might not be so quick to jump to the conclusions they have done. The 'critical' approach is a framework for understanding human problems- it invites us to identify a purpose for society to pursue; the emancipation of people so that they might live as they choose without harming others ability to do likewise. Critical theory then invites us to investigate means to that end- for me, and for many of the most renowned critical theorists in the world, the pursuit of the a 'universal human rights culture' is the primary means in the modern era.
The thing to remember is that as a student in Aber you are INVITED to understand the world in this way- there is nothing that they like more than to have their ideas intellectually challenged. Spouting dogma without understanding or evidence will not gain you marks, nor should it.
Mike
April 20th, 2008 12:26pmNoel: You'll be 'accused' of reading Robert Fisk if you go on like that! Of course you are right about the 'wider world', but folk in denial never ever think of going there. They are locked into a mindset which started in the cradle so I have to admit it is that much more difficult to escape. One part of me feels for them, but my conclusion is that nothing that one may say or write is going to make one iota of difference. Occasionally one senses a breakthrough, but it's very difficult posting on a site like this to make much headway thereafter.
In the event you missed it here is the headline story in 'The Independent' of yesterday; a report by Donald MacIntyre from Jerusalem: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/our-reign-of-terror-by-the-israeli-army-811769.html
No doubt this story will be condemned out of sight by those 'in denial' as fiction, propaganda, Israel-hating, you name it. Meanwhile, it's reported that 13 Israeli soldiers were injured by a suicide-bomber at a Gaza crossing. In the line of duty no doubt.
Mary
April 20th, 2008 3:13pmPerhaps Melanie Phillips should be invited to Aberystwyth to meet the lecturers and talk to the students. My son attended the department in Aber and has developed into a most thoughtful, open-minded and generous person. He is certainly not anti-Israeli - although Melanie might push him over if she carries on her attacks against the tutors who gave him so much of their time and consideration, and encouraged him to think!
Bernie
April 20th, 2008 3:34pmCommondog -Tow/toe the line
Of course, the original phrase toe the line comes from lining up for a race. Once the race has started it is each man for himself. How better to "tow" the line when all would be pulling in one direction for the common good. Language never has to be as rigid as, alas, you seem to be.
Frank Pulley
April 20th, 2008 3:38pmWill
Boy! The brainwashers of 'Aber' surely did a job on you! Two tablets of Gramsci detergent and a large dollop of Arrogance stiffener and a three year spin in the scalding waters of Welsh bigotry creates a useful idiot for life. A 'Masters in Human Rights'? Ye Gods! Listen to yourself man and be ashamed! And to think that people who didn't have the chance to attend university - and enterepreneurs who created our wealth, spent a lifetime working and paying tax to fund your parasitical internationalist 'career'.
You say: "Aberysystwyth, including my courses across the IR department and with Marie, set me up for a life ..."
but they didn't manage to teach you how to spell Aberystwyth, apparently, or check your copy when writing your rubbish.
Commondog
April 20th, 2008 3:52pmAlex.
The mention is there, and when something as momentous and downright dangerous as this is uttered, then to me that is much - too much.
Delightful attitude? You defend the stuff in the texts above and you want pretty please?
Above there is a litany of one sided reports, a series of blinkered attempts at analysis, and a complete absence of any notion of balance, context, history; with the unwavering finding that Israel is evil and whoever opposes Israel is downtrodden, disenfranchised and quite within their rights - nay, duty bound, to go on with their hatred.
This is not the dissemination of political knowledge and awareness. This is inculcation to one way of thinking. Introduction to the Established Position.
So my attitude arises out of the fact that I fund this. There is nothing I can do to stop it. There is no-one who I can vote for or appeal to; no political party, no authority that has any power or even inclination seriously to question this. Best of all is the sure knowledge that this department will be just one of many, busily engaged in preparing tomorrow's mindset.
Delightful attitude?
Dave R.
April 20th, 2008 4:38pmI strongly reject the student's accusations of bias and anti-Israeli propaganda within the department. The objective of the course is to identify all aspects of terrorism. Reading on state terrorism for the one lecture/seminar on state terror involved looking at a number of examples including proxy groups from a number of states - not necessarily Israel as seems to be conveyed in this article. As for prejudice, perhaps Melanie is most guilty of this by presuming that young people are incapable of making their own judgement. 'Is it any wonder that so many of our young people are now consumed by hatred of America and Israel?'
Terry
April 20th, 2008 4:58pmMary: I'd suggest that the department's time and money would be better spent on a more thoughtful speaker than Melanie Phillips - Jeremy Clarkson perhaps.
phil
April 20th, 2008 5:09pmDAVE R what a wonderful balance you are being taught -re -read your last sentence-you disagree with Melanie and then decide you will hate USA and Israel because of her -how sad
Michael B
April 20th, 2008 5:54pmClearly, there's a qualitative difference between those who are spirited when it comes to flying the banner of "critical thinking" vs. those who more appreciably - and with some ground under their feet - engage in critical thinking with requisite depth. But late-moderns are all "critical thinkers," and proudly and complacently so, thus the banner flying in order to be assured that it really is true. Without the banner, in this case the institutional banner, who would know?
Ultimately, the wheat cannot be separated from the chaff, but that's not to suggest that a malodorous rot does not smell.
phil
April 20th, 2008 6:08pmnoel-it looks like I have got you to break cover -definately not the caring peace seeking type-you received a polite and calm reply from me and were unable even to address me by name -its called "cant meet my eyes" if you read sufficiently on this blog you would see that I disapprove of both ann and patricia and their rants although I can understand why ann does it -its through haters like you, and no doubt utter frustration with those that learn their history at the feet of david irving
phil
April 20th, 2008 6:09pmnoel-it looks like I have got you to break cover -definately not the caring peace seeking type-you received a polite and calm reply from me and were unable even to address me by name -its called "cant meet my eyes" if you read sufficiently on this blog you would see that I disapprove of both ann and patricia and their rants although I can understand why ann does it -its through haters like you, and no doubt utter frustration with those that learn their history at the feet of david irving
.Do not quote the wider world to me ,you obviously know nothing about it .the overwhelming "wider world" may not approve of all the methods of Israel although they do understand its problems,but they certainly despise your type which is now pretty obvious
phil
April 20th, 2008 6:10pmMike ---
"" But I shall never forget the chat I had with the Camp Commandant. His experience in Palestine was just one of many I heard from refugees over the years. And that is one of the reasons why I earned the 'tee-shirt' .""
I am often invited to dinner at a Lebanese (Muslim) friends house where I sit with Palestinians-we share a hug and a tear ,discuss the past and hopefully the future without a trace of hate ,and this from a family who ran away in 1948-and why---our talk is about peace not war -do you have a tee shirt for this .
your story about the dog is of course fascinating :) but can you tell me why there was a need for a gunman commandant rather than a mayor ? would it be wrong to assume the Lebanese didn't want the Palestinians in their country ?-just a thought -if you can give me an answer I wouldn't mind if it was pure fisk in this case -I genuinely want to know
Dave R
April 20th, 2008 6:23pmThe point is I do not hate Israel or America in the slightest, I resent the fact that Melanie thinks all young people do by her comment!
Dave R.
April 20th, 2008 6:38pmI am not anti-Israeli or US in the slightest, I used that quote to highlight the misguided view of Melanie that young people can't develop their own viewpoint. If you observed closer it is quite clearly in quote marks.
Dave R.
April 20th, 2008 6:49pmI'm sorry Phil but you have completely misread my comment, I was quoting what Melanie said and challenging the fact that she thinks all young people hate Israel and America. I personally like the US and Israel, so your comment doesn't make any sense.
Adam B.
April 20th, 2008 7:02pmMary, what a ridiculous assertion that your son may become anti-Israeli because you disagree with this article. If that's true, I would suggest that it doesn't take much to change your son's world view.
Ann
April 20th, 2008 7:12pmCosy pro-Israeli consensus? What unmitigated nonsense. Patrician and Harvey and all those others are 'pro-Israel'? Do you have a reading comprehension problem, dear?
If you think that you have demolished the factual arguments with your snide and ignorant label 'cliche', then by all means go and argue somewhere else where people may buy such nonsense. I don't.
Ann
April 20th, 2008 7:16pm"No doubt this story will be condemned out of sight by those 'in denial' " - as against the balanced Mike, who was there last week and knows the facts first hand, and whose balanced and factually accurate treatises about the history of Israel we have learned to know and love? ROFL.
"Meanwhile, it's reported that 13 Israeli soldiers were injured by a suicide-bomber at a Gaza crossing. In the line of duty no doubt" - yes, the Israeli soldiers were there in the line of duty, and no delusional Jew-hating rants will change that fact.
Ann
April 20th, 2008 7:18pm"in which institution did you learn to be so supportive of the ongoing Israeli occupation and genocide of the Palestinians?" - which institution taught you to be so illiterate that you don't even know what the word 'genocide' means?
Mike
April 20th, 2008 7:38pmIt seems to me that dear Mel has shot herself in the foot over this one as I forecast in my first post on this thread.
Commondog
April 20th, 2008 7:50pmBernie.
Well if we're not at the linguistics now. Listen, I'm no expert on this and so I must thank you for I'm now a little wiser on the origin.
But hang on a minute, this here is gold-dust.
We start off with a load of toes against the starting line - with it so far.
Then we start the race but hey, it's like, wouldn't it be great if we could kinda kick out the dog eat dog type situation? Yeah? And meld metaphors - toe..tow...tow rope...pull together, to evolve into some kind of interface dedicated to a mutual furtherance...like type of thing?
See what you mean. Language sure is a slippery sloppery old thing.
London Calling
April 20th, 2008 8:14pmAnd they all lived unhappy ever after.
The End
Craig
April 20th, 2008 9:50pmI am a student at Aberystwyth University and I am on the Understanding Terror: Perspectives on Terrorism course. The claims that have been made against Dr Marie Breen Smyth and the International Politics department are completely baseless and unjustified.
There are no set texts. The texts which are suggested are varied and merely serve as a springboard for a student to pursue an argument in any direction. Students can read any material they like and credit is given to those who can critique it.
There is no political bias. Dr Marie Breen Smyth is a talented academic who addresses issues on the course in an objective manner and possess the ability to stimulate lively debate amongst the students.
There is no possible way that a student could be marked down for their political beliefs. Not only would this be against any academic standard, but when you consider that no piece of work has been marked and the exams are yet to take place it is a simple impossibility.
Peter
April 20th, 2008 10:18pmApollo
"Being a Student studying at this university and taking the understanding terrorism module I can tell you that this students claims are unfounded and very wrong.
When I entered this module I didn't know what to really expect. And I must say that as growing up and closely following the course of the "War on Terrorism" and being subject to the Bush administrations media propaganda (because let’s make no joke about this THAT is what it is) my views on terrorism were rather one sided."
So the brainwashing worked then?
Adam B.
April 20th, 2008 11:38pmThe extreme left brainwashing on this course is utterly unacceptable, the hierarchy at Aberystwyth should be ashamed.
Peter
April 21st, 2008 12:11amMike,
"So feeling very angry, I pulled on a black coloured tracksuit, tied on some trainers, left the apartment, ran down the staircase instead of waiting for the lift...jogged down the road past the entrance to the camp to a piece of waste ground from where I'm sure the dog was. I caught a brief glimpse of it against the lights of another building.....picked up some stones and thought I may have hit it because it gave a sharp yelp and appeared to run off. I turned back towards the apartment, and that is when I was caught"
Buy the equivalent of the RSPCA I hope.
For someone who talks psycho-babble and accuses others of being in denial you are a rathe despicable piece of work.
Michael B
April 21st, 2008 12:18amMs. Phillips has provided a specific example, in the originating post, of Dr. Marie Breen Smyth's extended commentary on Israel. Given that some students of the class are commenting herein, albeit via generalizations and assurances only, why not furnish similarly specific examples of Dr. Smyth's commentary on certain contrasting subjects, eg:
1) Palestinian terror
2) Jordan's and Egypt's treatment of Palestinians
3) Eliminationist ideology and strategies forwarded by Hamas, Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. against Israel
4) The inculcation of the use of terror as a weapon against Israeli civilian targets by Sunni Arab Palestinians, from pre-school ages and forward
5) Shi'a Muslim Hezbollah's launching of rockets into Israeli civilian centers from southern Lebanon
6) Sunni Arab Muslim launching of rockets and military forays from southern Lebanon c. 1981 or any number of other periods.
7) The corrosive
Etc.
Etc.
The proof is in the pudding itself, not how the cook might describe the pudding. We've heard statements and have been given assurances, but no one - as in no one - has provided specifics such that others may, much more simply, judge for themselves.
In short, transparency and specifics, please.
Alex
April 21st, 2008 12:33amCommondog: You are more perceptive than me sir, that you can judge an entire institution (and embark on such an impressive rant) on the basis of one argument.
I applaud you!
Bob Gray
April 21st, 2008 12:37amCraig: I'm probably missing something here - "There is no possible way that a student could be marked down for their political beliefs. Not only would this be against any academic standard, but when you consider that no piece of work has been marked and the exams are yet to take place it is a simple impossibility." - but, are you saying that because something has not happened yet, it therefore cannot happen in the future?
(Looks like this is attrition Melanie, I wouldn't bother with your diary for a while - this one could run and run.)
jose Garcia
April 21st, 2008 12:38amTo "Alex , will and mike"
YOU DONE IT AGAIN.
3 consecutive posts all done in one hour from aberystwyth students, on a sunday?
i dont think so, god are you soo stupid to do it again?
whoever you are stop it , is really insulting to anyone with a brain.
and regarding the political studies department of Aberystwyth, the acussations of antisemitism and biased education come from 3 years ago , not just now.
you can call israel terrorists, but we know who the real child killers are, and why they do it.
Mike
April 21st, 2008 7:04amPeter: You silly, silly man! I'm more angry now than when I'm responding to some of Mel's blogs and others on this site! It just so happens that I'm an 'animal freak' and have a wonderful 8 years old English Cocker Spaniel as a companion. I've dealt with them and horses all my life. So back off - in polite English! What would you have done with a stray dog, you could hardly see? I threw the stones in an attempt to frighten it off - it was unfortunate one may have caught it, but it stopped barking otherwise it was in danger of being shot....but not by me.
If you wish to contribute sensibly to this ongoing debate then I suggest you put your 'thinking' cap on....if you have one....and comment appropriately!
Mike
April 21st, 2008 7:16amJose Garcia: Just to reassure you that this 'Mike' has two sons, both former university students, and no member of this family were ever associated with Aber University.
Alex
April 21st, 2008 8:36amJose: You’ve seen through us! The communist authorities (who took over the town in the confusion over welsh devolution in a flurry of harshly spoken words and much unfurling of banners) won’t let us access the evil inter-web without supervision and even then we must all do so together!
I did say that surely, the dirty capitalists will see through our misplaced efforts to defend that most disgusting of entities the truth but alas, you know communists with their PalestiniancrossdressingweirdsexualhabitsecofriendlymuslimhuggingPRadvocatingorganicfood sympathies! They are not to be reasoned with!
Oh how I yearn one day for one as intelligent as you to appear and free us from our overalled, armband sporting imprisonment in Aberystwyth. Bless you Jose! I must go now, I hear the organ harvesting truck pulling up outside.
Jose, I imagine if you feel strongly enough about the issue and your foil hat simply isn’t working then you could contact the spectator who I am sure can assure you that the contributors are providing individual e-mails. If that does not placate you then tough, it’s the price you pay for discussing something on an easily accessed wall.
Ann
April 21st, 2008 8:50amBob, you just beat me to that one! If Craig thinks that 'It hasn't happened, ergo it can't possibly happen' is the sort of logical argument that will gain him a good mark, one can only feel sorry for Aberystwyth Uni for being unable to attract intelligent students, never mind the content of the course.
Lloyd's line of argument is about as convincing, of course. Let's see who spots the fallacy in the following: "I note that Dr Jackson’s work has appeared in a number of leading journals which have very high standards of peer review, and the book to which you refer was published by a leading University press".
Bob Gray
April 21st, 2008 10:14amAlex: when you say you can assure us that "...the contributors are providing individual e-mails" you are probably correct. But, not wishing to appear ingenuous, how exactly would you know this?
phil
April 21st, 2008 10:51amok Dave R thank you for your clarification,although it certainly needed it
phil
April 21st, 2008 11:12amBob Gray has alluded today to the same point I made 18/4 at 5.11pm-alex responded ,nevertheless it does seem strange that a string of very similar responses reach here initially at the same time allowing for the delay in publishing and subsequent similar posts continue -I know I am a cynic!!but it does look like a concerted effort coming from one room and showing mainly a very left wing attitude -can ms Breen cast any light on these events or maybe Melanie can tell us she has authenticated these posts .Meanwhile I have to ask what made the initial student write in the first place ?could it be just that it is true ?
Captain Pugwash
April 21st, 2008 11:17amSorry to interrupt, but I always thought toe the line was a figure of speech that came from sailing.
I thought it was to do with the way that sailors climbed the rigging, toes just over the line of the rigging.
I think it made it the safest and quickest way to climb and so if you were clumsy and put more of your heel on the rigging, you'd be less safe a climber and slower.
This meant that if someone saw an inexperienced sailor slowing everyone else down and putting them out of synch with the group ascent or descent on the rigging, they would say to the amateur: "Toe the line, toe the line, mr hearties, aha and avast and a bottle of rum, innit?"
phil
April 21st, 2008 11:18amMike ,Boots are offering a new medication that gives writers the ability to answer questions posed to them . Taking it may well slow the angry remarks that others address to you -you certainly try my patience but I haven't lost all hope yet -I will read your directives but not until you respond to my enquiries -ok?
Daniel
April 21st, 2008 11:38amI am a student on this course.
We have received no marks for any piece of work yet, so the claim that a student is marked down for disagreeing is completely unfounded.
The course is taken by over 90 second and third year undergraduates. This is the view of one of them - it is hardly surprising a handful of others have posted comments in response. I personally disagree with the student's claim that the course supports one political view over another - I have been given ample opportunity to formulate my own opinions on terrorism by reflecting critically and analytically on the variety of academic research in the field.
If this student did not wish to have his assumptions challenged I suggest he should not have come to university.
If, after being challenged, he still maintains his original view that is of course fine. He should therefore respond intellectually to argue his case academically rather than pander to the media. It is precisely why the experts carry out these debates in academic journals, not national press, where there is a distinct lack of intellectual vigour, as this example reveals.
phil
April 21st, 2008 11:42amAlex I am having a busy morning writing here but this thread has elicited the largest response I have ever seen -you posted earlier before you began to major in sarcasm (unbecoming)
"I agree with Israeli retaliations, I think they are the only actions available but let’s not kid ourselves, its state terrorism and you should have the courage to admit it."
how do you view the allied response to nazi Germany,do you think that was collective state terrorism?
if your views are those of your teachers I fear for your course -you obviously are an intelligent young man ,may I suggest you use it and think deeply for yourself -you may be surprised at the conclusions you will come to-for instance that a state defending itself and its people per se are performing its legal obligations and are not therefore terrorists
Alex
April 21st, 2008 2:16pmBob, I recognise some of the names and I know of several students who have taken the time to point to the inaccuracy of this article.
I assure you with some grounding that the responses here are coming from a number of students; it is no conspiracy as Jose seems bent on perceiving.
Phil, I would definitely not regard the allied response to German aggression state terrorism; the response was simply too broad to categorise in that manner. I can however perhaps understand the argument that a few acts can be seen as state terrorism.
What was Dresden? It served questionable military purpose and left conservatively over 20 000 people dead mostly civilians. It was a massively successful exercise in fear though it occurred in a time of clear cut war so the issue is complicated further. I myself would not term it state terrorism but I can understand the logic behind anyone doing so.
However WW2 was if viewed next to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a simpler affair. I don’t think the two conflicts can be easily compared in this respect.
Collective punishment is not a strike against Israel’s enemies; it’s a strike against all Palestinians. I cannot regard it as a strike against just violent factions; it’s akin to smashing the windows of your entire street because you are displeased with your neighbour. You’re relying on their fear to help you solve the problem, on their fear to realise your aims. The blockades are the application of Israeli state resources to deprive Palestinians of key resources prompting considerable fear within the Palestinian population as a whole for the future.
That is why I regard some aspects of Israeli counter terrorism as state terrorism though I do so with no moral judgement, I would likely do the same.
Richie
April 21st, 2008 3:25pmThe following statement was read out in the lecture on Friday;
"For those of you who were not at the lecture on Friday, here is the text of a statement which I read out at the lecture, pertaining to recent events on the course.
A student on this course, whose identity is not known to me, has approached a member of the press with complaints and allegations about me, and about the way this course is run. Since these allegations are in the public domain, and pertain to the fairness with which I treat students, I feel it is necessary to clarify a number of points.
The student alleges that students who do not ‘toe the line’ or who disagree with the approach taken by me will be penalised in their marks. As you know, no marks have yet been allocated on this module, and this is the first time that this module has ever been taught, so it is difficult to fathom the basis for this allegation. I wish to reiterate what I said at the beginning of the course. The course takes a critical approach, and students may respond to that approach according to their own views, but since it is a course of academic study, students should support their views with evidence, reading and reasoned argument. I would further add that I have taught in higher education both in the UK and elsewhere for many years, and there is no evidence that I have ever penalised a student for their political views. Indeed I am a strong advocate of respectful political debate and freedom of expression.
Allied to this, the student has alleged that students’ reading is restricted and students are told not to read certain texts. As those of you who have attended lectures and read my emails will know, students are encouraged to read beyond the course reading list and indeed share their ‘finds’ in terms of reading with their fellow students, and I facilitate this by circulating material that students suggest.
One final point, a student on this or any other course who is unhappy or dissatisfied may take their worries to me, or to Jennifer, or to John, or if that is not possible to Professor Edkins, Director of Undergraduate Studies, or if that doesn’t work to Professor McInnes Head of Department, or indeed to one of your student representatives. That a student would choose to go directly to a member of the press is not only a breach of trust, but in this case has resulted in my good name being impugned on the internet for all to see, without any kind of opportunity for me to respond to these allegations. I would ask you, as a class, that if you have a complaint, to consider the avenues of complaint that are available to you, and to use them, rather than taking the course of action that this student has chosen.
Marie Breen Smyth"
At the time, I thought that it was really a big fuss about nothing. However, I wonder if it was read maybe to drum up support in this comments section?
It is worth noticing that up until last year, the department used its weekly email to occasionally promote various politically-tinged activities which were not a part of its courses. One notable example was an email publicising a decidely partisan and quite antiisraeli film, the title of which I can't for the life of me remember.
It's funny how many of the students refuting the claims use approximately the same phrasing.
About encouraging criticism, the student does say that they did that, and was still not dealt with fairly. I have had some experience with this system of impartiality, and for my part, I found it to be markedly not so. In my case also, they did criticise extremely heavily, and there did not seem to me to be evidence of impartiality. of course, this is purely anecdotal, take it as you wish. A friend of mine who has gone on to far far better things had an essay of his marked down, on another course, because it criticised the violence employed by 'Palestinians'-he was usually a first class student , yet for this essay he received a second class mark. he was offered a msters and PHD funding here, but turned it down, despite having to pay for the postgraduate course which he did eventually complete elsewhere.I noticed that a student above said that those who did not want their assumptions challenged should not come to university. I would modify this and say that if you are quite conservative in your views you should not come to Aberysywth University; I bitterly regret ever coming to this 'academic backwater' to use a great phrase above. Certainly one should allow one's view to be challenged, but at Aberystwyth it is not a case of challenging, it is a case of political re-education,at least so it seems to me. Briefly, I have noticed among the students here a significant amount of intellectual arrogance, reflected in some of the other students' posts, even mine here, if you wish. I have never understood this, as the place may be the oldest international politics department in the world, but it is hardly Oxford or Cambridge. A postgraduate who has since completed her course here told me that the place was’ all reputation, and no substance', another told me that he would return his masters if it had not cost him so much, such was his dissatisfaction. Although as noted this is all anecdotal, I wanted to say it, because any one considering coming here should not be swayed by some of the other students have said above; it was the biggest mistake I ever made, though of course if you are on the left and prepared to have your assumptions reinforced, come by all means. The funniest thing is that this blog will if anything give the place publicity (big enrolment drop recently), I imagine that they are hugely enjoying being in the limelight for a change!
Richie
April 21st, 2008 3:29pmBTW I could have given specific details, but I am worried about being identified-some of the students here seem shall we say, 'hostile' to those who criticise their precious 'university'. Looking forward to angry responses from other students, assuming there are any angry responses.
Ann
April 21st, 2008 3:36pm"It is precisely why the experts carry out these debates in academic journals, not national press, where there is a distinct lack of intellectual vigour, as this example reveals" - comment is probably superfluous, but for the benefit of this towering intellect let me say it anyway: it's 'intellectual rigour', dear, not 'vigour', and there has been a distinct lack of such rigour from the apologists for the course, incl. the vice chanceloor.
William James
April 21st, 2008 4:36pmWhat a glorious piece of journalism Melanie.
Tell me, how have you managed to get from the whinings of a disgruntled student (one too cowardly, let me stress, to even confront Marie with his issues) -on a course where the vast majority, even those from a rightwards political persuasion, are more than satisfied with the teachin- to absurd comparisons to Stalinist Russia?
Perhaps you should more critically examine your own rampant biases and narrow world-view, rather than criticising someone whose fairness and independence is proven repeatedly as a matter of process in her job.
Mike
April 21st, 2008 5:23pmPhil: I've been to Boots, bought the medication you describe, but it says clearly on the label that it helps only with one question at a time. I think I've dealt with your query on why Arabs kill each other, or words to that effect. May I suggest you pose your questions again, but number them, and I'll try again. Sorry about this, but I think the Boots stuff will work if I follow the directions.
Michael B
April 21st, 2008 5:31pmAbove I requested "transparency and specifics, please," from any of the students or participants in the class who have given, to this point, assurances and generalizations only.
Still waiting ...
Captain Pugwash
April 21st, 2008 5:35pmDave on April 18th, 2008 at11:25am says: “The claims made by the student are wholly unfounded.”
Alex on April 18th, 2008 12:34pm goes further: “This article is based upon a shameful lie.”
George on April 18th, 2008 1:07pm says the allegations are: “completely unfounded”.
Apollo on April 18th, 2008 5:15pm says “this students [sic] claims are unfounded and very wrong”.
Clive on April 19th, 2008 2:41pm says the entire post is “false and totally without merit” and the student’s allegations “utter rubbish”.
Will on April 20th, 2008 11:57am says that the student has been “quick to jump to the conclusions they have done”.
Dave R. on April 20th, 2008 4:38pm says: “I strongly reject the student's accusations of bias and anti-Israeli propaganda within the department.”
Craig on April 20th, 2008 9:50pm says the allegations are “completely baseless and unjustified”.
If the student who wrote to Melanie sat in a lecture hall and heard the suggestion that “the treatment of Jews in Germany prior to the Shoah of World War Two, and that of Muslims today”, then how is that unfounded, without merit, utter rubbish?
Why would he just make up a random lie?
If the student sees with his own eyes: “That those who mark these logs tend to be very quick to criticise when a student does not 'tow the line'… whereas simply regurgitating in note form what the various authors of the readings say earns ticks and no comments”, how does that amount to his allegation being unfounded?
For reasons of confidentiality, we may not be able to see such documents directly (they may be the student’s own), but if a person feels that there is unfair bias and that unfair bias is politically motivated, why would they trust the authorities at this university and take their complaint to them?
Yes, Simon (April 18th, 2008 4:41pm), we know “no marks have been handed out as yet”. This isn’t suggested by the student or by Melanie.
Daniel (April 21st, 2008 11:38am), too, struggles to get the point: “We have received no marks for any piece of work yet, so the claim that a student is marked down for disagreeing is completely unfounded.” Again, this allegation has not been made, either by the student or by Melanie.
If 10 per cent of your grade comes from a “learning log” that records “the author and title of the books, chapters or articles you read as preparation”, but you are then told “(unofficially in one of the seminars)” “to read only books which they [the tutors] approve”, then how does that not amount to an implied threat that you reject that advice “on pain of being marked down”?
Craig says: “The texts which are suggested are varied and merely serve as a springboard for a student to pursue an argument in any direction.” Isn’t there clearly the heaviest incentive to read them if they count towards the marks for “learning log”, especially so if tutors unofficially say they're only thing you need to worry about reading?
Further, if this is the attitude taken to the “learning log”, what does it suggest about the way the rest of the course in the form of exams and course work might be judged?
If I were in this student’s position I would most certainly worry that I should “write what I know they want to read, rather than what I actually think”.
I don’t call that being quick to jump to conclusions, Will. I call that using your common sense to join up the dots.
Or are we supposed to convince ourselves that the tutors’ attitude to this “learning log” would not be reflected elsewhere?
It may only be 10 per cent of the grade, but source material lies at the heart of contextualising and understanding any subject.
If students feel under pressure “to read only books which they [the tutors] approve” at this key stage of assimilating evidence and opinion, what sort of effect might that have on the rest of their learning?
Of all the student and graduate responses, only Thor (April 18th, 2008 6:40pm) seems to want to go anywhere near the heart of the matter.
Many who have commented here may well not have attended the lecture in which the Shoah comparison was made or the seminar in which the unofficial advice as regards the reading list was given, but that is no reason to simply assume these things did not happen.
If I had heard and seen what the student who wrote to Melanie had heard and seen, I’d be drawing exactly the same conclusions as them for all the reasons I’ve set out above.
Ann
April 21st, 2008 6:20pmMary Smyth says, along with lots of other stuff:
"That a student would choose to go directly to a member of the press is not only a breach of trust" -
so she is saying that what happens on a political science course at a taxpayer-funded British university should not be divulged to the press, that it is confidential and not for the public to know. Imo, that says it all: that is Stalinist behaviour, and a clear threat against the student, should she discover his or her name.
Alex
April 21st, 2008 6:40pmCaptain Pugwash, Lolloping landlubbers, I've never seen someone so intent on pushing their way through, blocking out anything in the way.
To deny the mild parallels between the mistreatment of Jews in history and the early stirrings of similar sentiments against Muslims today is to deny reality.
I point to the demonisation of Muslims, the growing currency of films such as fitna and increasingly hard line attitudes towards the Muslim community in Britain.
The reaction of the nation to Dr Rowan Williams' foray into the role of Sharia law in Britain demonstrated aptly the majority British attitude to Sharia.. What Sharia? Well I assume Sharia of any kind, even allowing Muslims to marry legally with their own ceremonies.
Attitudes do exist as I am sure you know. Attitudes can grow and we must be aware to stop the events so cruelly inflicted upon the Jews from ever happening again. I am sure you know this so stop being scrappy.
As for this bit:
"Daniel (April 21st, 2008 11:38am), too, struggles to get the point: “We have received no marks for any piece of work yet, so the claim that a student is marked down for disagreeing is completely unfounded.” Again, this allegation has not been made, either by the student or by Melanie."
I am sure that if you consult Tom (the cabin boy for the lesser indoctrinated) he will no doubt inform you that the student spoke of his fears. I am not entirely sure what makes you trust the chap more than say I or any number of students writing here but somehow you do, I sense the influence of cut throat Jake! His fears prove precious little as all here well know.
I really am falling over myself to make Captain Pugwash references, I apologise.
phil
April 21st, 2008 6:44pmAlex thanks for your reasoned response, a far cry from the childish Will. I must point out that you didn't respond to the problem of a states responsibilities to its citizens ,so I hope you will.May I also say that the cliche.s of collective punishment and measured response are the facile ones so easily put out by the left,perhaps not you
-There are no collective punishments by Israel, merely a losing battle to keep the lid on violence and we all know what happens in battle including awful behaviour by persons on both sides and regrettable accidents .one side glories in it and the other deals with its own perpetrators through its legal system.
The so called "blockades" again are propaganda -Israel supplies gas electricity ,fuel etc to GAZA and takes in the Palestinians to its hospitals,it has been known to reduce these supplies in attempt to stop the use of these supplies for the use in rocket production and flight -Do you know of any other state that supplies its enemies?
One thing I can tell you Alex is that the state of Israel set out with the ambition to "be a light unto nations"and is still trying not to be deviated , also that Jewish people throughout the world are peaceful contributors in every aspect to their respective nations . We do not seek to hurt or harm anyone and that includes the Palestinians -We do not ask to have our own legal system ,nor do we threaten other religions -In all the major cities students are offered hospitality in Jewish homes .sadly I doubt if that would be possible in Aberystwyth-I just wish you could meet some Jewish people in order that you could get a more balanced view of this appalling problem -I am writing to you because I believe I am relating to a young person who seeks the truth and justice and I hope I do not sound patronising -regards phil
Bob Gray
April 21st, 2008 6:53pmAye Captain. It's all very well to rush, indignantly, to their Earth Mother's side, sounding like po faced parliamentarians, but the boys are going to need more than 'take our word for it' on this thread.
Perhaps the Doctor from the University of Canterbury could come on as a substitute to add some gravitas to their effort, he is central to this.
But you know what's really hurting them? The shock that they and their beloved 'Aber' are held in such low esteem or contempt by so many people; people for whom stringing two sentences together is not a novel experience.
The internecine war which will inevitably follow, we'll never get to hear about. Shame.
phil
April 21st, 2008 6:58pmRitchie that was quite explosive and does show the other side to this problem -It also seems a more realistic scenario of what is likely to happen in real life -I am not to old that I cant remember being a student ,so I well remember that one did not challenge ones teacher -ms BREEN does have a problem ,she has been criticised,but she does have a solution and it is not by getting her students to curry favour with her by writing here -let her respond herself -I think she will get a fair hearing by most here -we look forward to it
Commondog
April 21st, 2008 7:08pmLots of posts defending the module. Uncannily similar in substance.
A recurring charge they make is that no valid claim could be made that there exists an atmosphere of pressure to conform, simply because no marking has yet been done on the module.
Therefore, he-who-should-be-horsewhipped, is fabricating accounts of such atmosphere and is clearly unreliable.
However, this module is not available until semester one of the second year. That means students have had at least two semesters of assignments marked - more than enough for them to have assumed the 'house style'.
Any student entering this module would surely be justified in claiming to know what was expected and what was forbidden.
PS Melanie, do you think you could knock off a little item for Mike? His colouring book is full I think. He keeps chirping up but can't find his feet. Something with dogs and camels in it would be nice.
Noel
April 21st, 2008 7:10pmPhil - apologies for not addressing you by name. I'm not often on these forums and it's easy to forget it's not a 1-1 chat.
I asked serious questions, fundamental to the whole Israel-Palestine situation. You reply with ridiculous abuse. I quote:
"-its through haters like you, and no doubt utter frustration with those that learn their history at the feet of david irving.
Do not quote the wider world to me ,you obviously know nothing about it .the overwhelming "wider world" may not approve of all the methods of Israel although they do understand its problems,but they certainly despise your type which is now pretty obvious."
To suggest I follow David Irving is so outrageous I hope you'll consider - even present? - the evidence on which the allegation is based?
How do you know for certain I know nothing about "the wider world." You actually know nothing about me at all.
You could have addressed the questions I asked. I've reviewed them and I don't think they provide evidence of being an Irving-following (Jew)-hater:
"There is a fundamental question (connected series of questions) to which I've never felt I've heard a convincing answer: If Israel wants peace why have the settlements been expanding for 40 years under all governments? Can you look at a map of Israel/Palestine (now) and see how a Palestinian state could emerge? If it doesn't, what will happen? Do you think the Palesinians will just go away, or accept their role as untermenschen?
Another fundamental question is this: do you not think that the creation of Israel caused terrible suffering to another people? I know all the pat answers (no such thing as a Palestinian people, their leaders told them to flee till the Jews were destroyed). Not interested in exchanging cliches!"
Answer comes there none. I think you pose as a middle of the road peace-lover while actually being a narrow-minded bigot. You've been quite rude about me, so I'll not hold back.
Don't waste breath replying - this is not a place for serious debate and I will not be returning.
phil
April 21st, 2008 7:13pmMike you will no doubt have noticed I have been a busy boy today ,even so got in a game of golf -but I am glad to hear you have taken the medication and retained you sense of humour-I am reminded of the old Bolton Wanderers back line of Hennin ,Hartle, and Higgins who brutalised any wet behind the ears young winger and asked Tommy Banks the full back who was "WOISE" TO CHIP HIM OVER TO US WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED WITH HIM-well apropos that how about trying Anne instead of me (lol)-anyhow to business try reading me at April 18 -4.56 here and also Michael B apl 21 at 12.18 that will keep you busy and will prove what a good investment that medication was -good luck
Noel
April 21st, 2008 7:30pmPhil, just noticed your comment
"Mike ,Boots are offering a new medication that gives writers the ability to answer questions posed to them"
(A litle while later you blast someone else for 'sarcasm'!)
Any chance of answering my questions? Hand-on-heart they represent what seems to me the core of the issue. If it's anti-Semitic to ask them, well...
Getting the feel of the people here, and can see why absolutely everyone ignores Ann as an embarrassment, not that it seems to stop her.
Noel
April 21st, 2008 8:01pmMike,
I have indeed read Fisk (Pity The Nation, The Great War...) When in Beirut (at the time of 7/7 - a strange experience) I even tried to 'look him up', but understandably he has to keep a fairly low profile.
I've noted that there is a sort of hate list here of Fisk, Ilan Pappe, Gideon Levy... Funnily Uri Avnery, who seems to me the wisest commentator on the whole sorry mess, doesn't get a hate-mention.
This is an odd space, and I can't help wondering why you stay! In general the people who seem to spend half their lives here don't seem able to distinguish between making a hard debating point and being personally offensive. Insecurity?
Having said a few minutes ago I wasn't coming back here, I find myself being strangely drawn to the abusive relationship on offer.
Noel
April 21st, 2008 8:50pmPhil, having said I would go away I have to say one more thing (at the risk of boring people here with my postings).
How do you make the connection from:
(a) the measured (in my opinion) series of questions I posed (won’t repeat them again), and
(b) assuming I follow David Irving – I’ve never read anything of his, and everything I know about him leads me to despise him utterly. As bright kid at grammar school aged 12 or 13, learning and reading about the holocaust from my local library was one of my profoundest formative intellectual experiences. I can’t remember (45 years on) how I got be doing that, but it wasn’t related to school work – it was something I was beginning to work out for myself (the almost unfathomable capacity of humans for evil).
I’ll stop there.
Adam
April 21st, 2008 10:54pmIn light of Richie’s comments above, I’d like to offer an alternative account – primarily for the benefit of any students thinking of studying at Aberystwyth. I won’t concentrate on accusations that work has been marked down for its ‘politics’ or that the courses are partial, beyond reiterating my comment above that I never experienced either of these during my three years there (despite often arguing against what I perceived to be my lecturers’ views).
However, there are a couple of points that I would like to make. The notion that the International Politics Department at Aberystwyth is an ‘academic backwater’ somewhat undermines Richie’s credibility as a source. In the most recent UK-wide research assessment exercise it was rated 5*A (along with Oxford and the LSE). It is one of the biggest departments of its kind in Europe and hosts some of the world’s most respected experts on issues ranging from political theory to humanitarian intervention and security.
Richie’s friend’s view that the department is “all reputation, and no substance” has also left me a little confused. As a Masters student at Oxford I have been set numerous readings written by my former lecturers (and PhD students) at Aberystwyth. In my acceptance letter, my current Course Director expressed his “enormous respect” for the academics there. Again, one might point towards the independent research assessment – I would add that the teaching was, in my view, excellent. Conversations with friends who took their undergraduate degrees in other top IR departments have also given me an appreciation of how approachable the academics in Aberystwyth were.
My former Aberystwyth course mates have, in the year since we completed our undergraduate degree, gone on to work for organisations including GCHQ, Oxfam, UNHCR, Christian Aid, the BBC, the Army and the Navy. Others are studying at top departments and institutions across the UK and Europe (including Aberystwyth). I can only suggest that those students who feel their degree from the Department wasn’t worth anything, perhaps didn’t make the most of their time there.
Alex
April 22nd, 2008 9:31amBob, you would do well you apply your sharp streak of cynicism, or as I suspect plain cantankerousness to the article in question.
Its not often I am accused of being a liar (or much worse, a parliamentarian!) so I am interested to hear exactly why this other students views are more valid than mine.
Aberystwyth is not held in contempt by “many”, it’s taken a hit from an incorrectly sourced article which has been commented on by a troop of spectator readers.
If we like to think of our University as a prestigious and honourable institution wrongly then sir you are certainly wrong to think yourself and this anything more than a blip in the ocean of debate that any University engages in as a matter of fact daily.
I do hope somehow you have experienced Aberystwyth, to think you can write so angrily about an institution you have no experience of reflects badly on you.
Bob Gray
April 22nd, 2008 10:23amAdam: some of your mates have gone on to work for, among others, OXFAM,UNHCR and the BBC.
In your world, is that a recommendation?
phil
April 22nd, 2008 10:36amnoel reread your post on april 19 and maybe you will see why you got a sharp response -!?
"untermenschen" has connotations which most would find disgusting and in this thread more so .My normal way is to debate politely but when some overstep the mark you will have noticed none of us go quietly anymore . I think I have made it quite plain that I am unhappy about the settlers,but I will not apply harsher criticism to them than to their antagonists .When you apply similar disapproval to the Arabs I will be more inclined to respond to your questions.at this stage you are not a debater ,rather an accuser -I have castigated both ann and patricia for their posts although one writes with anger and the other solely with hate -I have no doubt I will get another missive from ann for this but she is just another person damaged by this ongoing process
Richie
April 22nd, 2008 10:43amAs noted, anecdotal, however;
The last research assessment exercise was some years ago. I await the new results with interest. When were you at Abersywyth, precisely? The department is rated reasonably well for teaching(in various university guides), and they are indeed approachable, however the staff-student ratio is poor. As for Oxford's view of Aberystwyth, what is the focus/subject/name of your course, what is the name of the course director mentioned, and which academics' work have you been set to read(just a sample of names)?
A minority do go on into the 'jobs' mentioned, but only a minority, and probably armed with a large wad of c.v. material, I have found that this sometimes, but not always requires a certain degree of wealth. Many of the experts are no longer present. The 'academic backwater' phrase was not, as noted, my own. The comment about arrogance still stands. Another anecdote; a well -regarded student who did her PHD here, and did very well, now works full-time in a local restaurant.
Congratulations on getting into Oxford from abersywyth, why did you not apply there in the first place? were you seduced, as I was, by the prospectus of this place? I wish I had done a more useful subject. Over 10 grand for this? Jesus. Btw, you shouldn't worry; you are at Oxford now , so you have credibility. P.S. What I said previously still stands, anyone who wishes to go here should think about it very carefully indeed.
Mike
April 22nd, 2008 11:11amNoel: Since it would appear the 'Moderators' have censored another of my posts elsewhere on this site, and since I've found that anyone who suggests the slightest criticism of the State of Israel is immediately sterotyped as 'anti-semitic', 'Israel-hater', and/or 'Jew-hater' with all the invective that accompanies it, I agree with you there's little point in continuing.
Even Phil, with whom I've quite enjoyed jousting with, I now find a disappointment.
May I suggest that if you haven't already done so, you join the Front Line Club online at http://www.thefrontlineclub.com/(Registration is free). I think you would enjoy it.
Who knows one may find Melanie Phillips there one day.
BiBi
phil
April 22nd, 2008 11:36amNoel ,as you mentioned you are new here on this thread so you are not au fait with the regular contributors or their styles-I am normally polite and occasionally attempt to employ humour .but somewhat like an Israeli sabra-a fruit hard on the outside with a soft inner .which may answer your remark about insecurity -I think history has shown we have every right for that .There are ones who post here like patricia ,latchford,DBC john,sorething who have nothing but abuse to put here and yes they are ridiculed ,that is all they are worth -there are others like Mike who disagree with most, but are neither rude nor hateful and people like him get a response (with humour ,I hope ,from me )-you mentioned sarcasm ,and I agree I told Alex it was unbecoming ,particularly as he writes politely and with reason and is worth more than that
There is another side to this and Ann and patricia highlight it, but with different motives which I alluded to in an earlier reply to you .
One thing must be said that those who continually quote fisk and the Israelis who write against their own state (they get paid) and never quote the other side to the argument do not get much respect .they are seen not as contributors but as accusers with various motives .Melanie is of course very pro Israel and a great defender of the Jewish people ,for which we are very proud of her -yes she goes over the top occasionally ,we are not all perfect ,but most of the time she is absolutely correct -just check her sources .
As for david irving .I always told my clients that if they didnt understand what I had tried to explain to them -it was my fault not theirs .so if I have misunderstood where you are coming from I would have to say you didn't make yourself clear .Now having clarified my position I will tell you I am part of polite and gentle race ,but one who will defend themselves when necessary and offer hospitality and joy at all other times
phil
April 22nd, 2008 11:38amMike dont go ,just listen to the other side -if we save your soul we will have saved the world
Richie
April 22nd, 2008 11:41amAnyone interested should consult the Times Good University Guide;
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/gug/gooduniversityguide.php?subject=POLITICS
or
The Guardian Guide at http://browse.guardian.co.uk/education?SearchBySubject=false&FirstRow=0&SortOrderDirection=&SortOrderColumn=GuardianTeachingScore&Subject=Politics&Go=Go
The Sunday Times guide is also of use;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/sunday_times_university_guide/
No doubt there are others too. So, draw your own conclusions, no matter what I or anyone else says. In fairness, and as much as it pains me to say it, Abersywyth does well in some categories, especially teaching, although the possible conditions and problems mentioned in this blog do in my opinion stand. Again, the 2001 RAE should not be taken as an indication of quality, this was seven years ago. If you have a marked left-wing bent though then you will love Aber, and no doubt will do well there. Moreover, they have trouble recruiting enough students,even in the case of the politics department, so entry standards are lower than they otherwise would be.
Adam
April 22nd, 2008 12:34pmRichie: At risk of repeating myself – I studied at Aberystwyth until last year. I am curious to learn which of the department’s many experts have left since then? Please forgive me for not wanting to list all of my personal education details in the comments section of a Melanie Philips article on the internet. However, if I tell you that in my first term alone I was required to read articles and/or books by Milja Kurki, Rita Abrahamsen, Mike Williams and Ian Clark (just as a sample of names…) then you will be able to deduce the focus of my course.
I don’t doubt that it is a minority who go on to get the jobs I have mentioned (incidentally, I should also have added the European Parliament to that list) – and it will certainly be those students who are ‘armed’ with decent CVs. However, it costs barely anything to get actively involved with the numerous university societies and it is free to volunteer, so I would suggest that any student with an ounce of initiative will be perfectly capable of constructing such a CV. Incidentally, if it is something more expensive that you would like to do (work abroad perhaps?) the department, student union and university all offer grants to enable this – perhaps your time would be well spent applying for them.
Finally, in answer to your question as to why I applied to Aberystwyth– it wasn’t so much the prospectus (which doesn’t seem a particularly sound basis through which to be seduced into a degree?) as the Department’s reputation for research and teaching; a visit in which top professors and lecturers were helpful, friendly and approachable; the prospect of opportunities such as Crisis Games and exchange programmes to some of the most respected universities in North America and Europe; and the realisation that it would be a great deal cheaper to study there than at my alternative offer (LSE).
I couldn’t agree more that people should think “very carefully indeed” about where they want to study… for anyone thinking of applying to Aberystwyth I would say certainly don’t be seduced by its prospectus (which frankly seems bizarre) – all universities and departments have their strengths and weaknesses, so do some proper research, go and visit or get in touch with one of the lecturers… and then make up your own mind.
Michael B
April 22nd, 2008 1:19pmProtestations, expressions of indignation, proclamations concerning how righteous and fair the class is - all of it stated in the most general terms and proclaimed via "trust me" assurances. Yet ask for some contrasting evidence of what actually occurs in the class - and all those preaching "trust me" suddenly vanish, though only after yet further expressions of indignation.
Again, the challenge is to inform us such that we might form our own opinion. Or does empiricism, transparency and rational inquiry not inform the classroom in question? Again, some topical examples follow:
1) Palestinian terror in general
2) Jordan's and Egypt's treatment of Palestinians, along with the treatment accorded Sunni Arab Palestinians by the wider Arab world
3) The eliminationist ideology and strategies forwarded by Hamas, Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc. against Israel
4) The inculcation of the use of terror as a weapon against Israeli civilian targets by Sunni Arab Palestinians, from pre-school ages and forward
5) Shi'a Muslim Hezbollah's launching of rockets into Israeli civilian centers from southern Lebanon
6) Sunni Arab Muslim launching of rockets and military forays from southern Lebanon c. 1981 or any number of other periods
Again, those are only some of the more prominent examples. "Trust me" assurances and indignant "harrumphs" are all well and good when you're preaching to your own choir, but that's not the challenge in an open forum.
Still waiting ...
Lisa
April 22nd, 2008 1:56pmIn yet another embarrassing fit of incomprehension Alex says to Cap’n Pugwash: “the student spoke of his fears”, yes mate, we know that. These fears were due in no small part to what was going on with the tutors’ attitudes to the learning log. That’s the point made by Melanie, the anonymous student and Captain Pugwash – they are all totally consistent.
And then the drivel goes into overdrive:
“To deny the mild parallels between the mistreatment of Jews in history and the early stirrings of similar sentiments against Muslims today is to deny reality.” Eh?
If that is so, why is Islam on the rise? Why have so many mosques sprung up outside the Middle East since the end of World War II?
I know the lecturers at Aberystwyth University probably don’t like to talk about it but there is at present only one threat of ambitions for a global tyranny and it comes from Osama Bin Laden and chums with their plans for an Islamic Caliphate.
There is only one world leader hell-bent on achieving genocide and it’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He deliberately supports terror to achieve this aim, but maybe your course doesn’t mention that.
You object to “the growing currency of films such as fitna”, but then don’t say what you object to in Fitna. It’s based on The Koran and all the events depicted in it are true. What’s your problem with it?
Alex, no-one whatsoever has stopped “Muslims to marry legally with their own ceremonies”. They have their own ceremonies and are married under British law.
To create a parallel legal jurisdiction for such marriages would fatally fracture the foundations of our society, of which law is always the cornerstone. Salman Rushdie put it better than me (on this very website) when he berated: ‘the idiotic Archbishop [of Canterbury] who says there can’t be one law for everyone. That slide into cultural relativism is very, very dangerous. This is supposed to be a really intelligent man. Yet that was a schoolboy mistake. How could anybody who knew the history of this country seriously offer the thought that there should not be one law for everyone, that people would not be equal before the law? It seems to me that the basic principles on which any free society is based are freedom of expression and rule of law — that’s it. If you have those, then you have the foundations of a free society and if you don’t have those, you don’t. So to say “we will voluntarily give up one of those pillars” and not to see that it brings the whole house tumbling down is stupid.’
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/600936/part_4/we-have-been-wimpish-about-defending-our-ideas.thtml
Perhaps if you’re not convinced by the argument that any form of officially sanctioned Sharia would dangerously destabilise this country, you’ll listen to the argument of Muslim women living in Canada where, as the Bishop of Rochester noted, ‘it was mainly Muslim women's groups that succeeded in preventing the application of Islamic law in matrimonial matters’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=513354&in_page_id=1770
Or do you not let little facts like that bother you if it helps you to cling on to your silly delusions?
Michael B
April 22nd, 2008 7:46pmI'm waiting for someone to point to the "good university guide" for Germany during the 20's and 30's. After all, they had professors such as Husserl, not to mention "special" cases, including Heidegger and de Man.
Alex
April 22nd, 2008 8:11pm‘mate’,
I did write a reply but it was almost as vulgar as your charming style so I have shortened it into handy (no need to thank me) bullet points.
-Fears do not equate to facts.
-The growth of a religion is irrelevant to the discrimination and mistreatment that it suffers.
-I truly think it speaks volumes of your intelligence that your biggest worry about the future is a Jihadi who may or may not be dead and even if he isn’t will be hiding in a funk hole somewhere suitably deep for fear of a most deservedly painful death. You want to talk threats? Let’s look at Saudi Arabia who has created Islamic extremism in Saudi Arabia and helped fund Islamic extremism in Afghanistan, our “buddies” the Saudi’s.
The Shariah issue is slightly more complicated than you make out, it’s also wildly irrelevant to both this blog and the point I was making by bringing up the example, check back.
Terry
April 22nd, 2008 9:22pmRe: Michael B. I’m not quite sure what your point is… Richard Jackson’s email (published by Ms Phillips above) is in response to a specific request by a student to justify the statement that Israel is guilty of state terrorism. I can’t find anything in it which suggests he doesn’t recognise the ‘topical examples’ you raise. If someone asked you to justify the statement that Palestinians commit terrorism, would you go on (adding to the very long email which I suspect you would also write) to list all of the examples in which Israel and the US were guilty of state terror and/or war crimes as well…? It doesn’t strike me as a particularly rational thing to expect…
With regards to the classes themselves and the field in general - I would guess that had Dr Jackson been asked to provide examples of Saudi, or American, or Egyptian state-terrorism he would be equally capable of doing so. International Relations (as an academic discipline) is hugely dominated by research which seeks to provide policy advice to state-leaders. As far as I understand it, researchers such as Dr Jackson simply seek to centre the state itself as a subject of critical analysis – after all, states kill far more people than any terrorist group. This seems to me to be a worthy endeavour (at least, certainly not an endeavour that should attract such aggressive and reactive attacks). Perhaps, if you are interested in a more sophisticated understanding of what scholars such as Dr Jackson seek to achieve you might be interested in this: http://www.e-ir.info/?p=432 . Melanie Phillips and the Spectator have approached this issue with the sensitivity and nuance of a bull in a China shop – it is painfully evident that she has not done any background research into the issue.
Commondog
April 22nd, 2008 9:44pmAlex.
In the truncated form of the blog, it's very easy to pick up the wrong sense, so much irony knocking around and all.
So do I take it that with the comment on the Saudis as our 'buddies', you were hoping to set passions aflame here? Did you have hopes of people leaping on you for castigating them?
Also 'fears do not equate to facts' Eh?
And 'the growth of a religion is irrelevant to the discrimination and mistreatment it suffers'.
It all sounds so very profound, very Ben Okri meets Sun Tzu, but it conveys nothing at all.
Look at it.
Does it?
It's doggerel. You are playing a game. Badly.
And bin Laden. You have him covered then?
The Intelligence Agencies and military of the West are foxed but you can assure the world there is no cause for concern?
Please. Enough.
Alex
April 22nd, 2008 10:39pmPhil, I am afraid I’m not sure I entirely grasp your first comment. I’ve taken it to mean “Israeli reactions in the area are down to its responsibilities to protect its citizens” if I’ve gone off base please correct me.
If that’s the case however then sure, I agree completely. However I see no real problem in accepting that the Israelis are required to defend themselves through state terrorism.
The blockade in Gaza (I did not mean to imply it was against all Palestinians) is without doubt collective punishment. I accept of course that no state would ever supply its enemies but Gaza is not Israel’s enemy, Hamas is (though this is another debate to be had). This isn’t a clear cut war and casualties are much more difficult to dismiss as “a fact of such things” because often the casualties were not even involved with the conflict.
I appreciate your concerns about the potential of the term “state terrorism” soiling the name of Israel but lets be realistic, what state hasn’t at some point indulged in the application of violent state power against civilians?
I’m not attempting to apply “state terrorism” to Israeli actions in an effort to point score (I on the whole sympathise with Israel’s predicament) I apply it with no moral judgement.
Dan Moore
April 23rd, 2008 12:28amJesus Christ. Another article in the media that takes a side on Isreal and although rightfully attacking the other side completely ignores anything their chosen side does. The right-wing press always choose Isreal to back. The left-wing press always choose the Palestinians. And all on both wings are so arragant as to imagine their chosen side is the most hard done by and is not only justified in killing civilians, but in fact doesn't do it at all apparantly. And anyone who dares suggest anything different is obviously deluded or "liberal" or "neo-con" or something ridiculous. I haven't time to read all of these comments, but every one I've seen so far vehemently defends one side over the other.
Fact is, both sides are headed by bigoted extremist fascist terrorists.
Doubltess I'll get attacked on here by both sides for trying to ascribe balance where apparantly there is none.
Michael B
April 23rd, 2008 3:52amTerry,
Well, alluding to my original comment herein, you are spirited. Still, I'll respond at some length since any adequate response will necessitate covering an array of topics.
Firstly, no one questions the need to "center the state" as a subject for "sophisticated" critical analysis. Such a notion is hardly cutting edge, thank you very much. Otoh, if "sophisticated" is being used when the more proper term might be "sophistical" or "sophistry" or "casuistry," etc., then that would inform aspects of the counter-critique, no?
Words have meaning and at best they're intended to convey that meaning. At worst, they're used for something else entirely - e.g., equivocating rhetorical forays wherein far better distinctions, qualifications and contexts are needed.
Otoh, what would seem to be cutting edge - given the resistance manifested in this thread, and elsewhere - is the notion that it's acceptable to subject the critiques of the professoriate class to equally trenchant criticism and review. Hence my request that specific (empirically based) information be (transparently) forwarded in order that a (rational) review of that material might be advanced. That might mean critiquing prominent aspects of the neo-Marxian Frankfurt School on its own terms (pointed to in R. Jackson's brief apologia, which link you provided) or it might mean a different tack entirely. But the point is, whether it's mundane class material (as requested) or some abstruse form of reasoning advanced by a sophisticate, it cannot be assessed on proper terms without the relevant empirical and rational evidence being advanced in a transparent manner. That's rather basic when it comes to simple inquiry and critique, no?
Yet that's difficult for you to comprehend?
And as far as "sophisticated" is concerned, nothing you offered was sophisticated in the least. Indeed, you forwarded yet additional indignation, you forwarded the notion of the presumptive authority of those among the professoriate class, you forwarded a dismissive tone concerning a perfectly warranted inquiry and other material - in sum, you forwarded the very type of thing that has already been repeatedly offered up in this thread - and all of it in lieu of what was requested.
Bull in a china closet, thy name is Terry.
So save us the credulous self-regard, the facile indignation and the circular reasoning . There's already ample supplies of all that evidenced in this thread.
The subject matter being what it is, it would take a very lengthy reply indeed in order to respond to all the social/political, philosophical, historical, etc. themes that are, both overtly and tacitly, invoked. This is not the forum for such thesis-length material; but it also doesn't have to be a forum wherein pseudo- and presumptive authority and rank dismissiveness are repeatedly used - in lieu of transparently providing information that is germane to the discussion.
Finally, the reason it's relevant to be able to assess how the professors in question address Sunni Arab Palestinian (e.g., Hamas, Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) terror and Shi'a Muslim (e.g., Hezbollah, with Iranian and Syrian funding) terror directed against Israeli civilians and Israel's existential right - their very right to exist on the face of this planet - is because if these professors advance their arguments in an equivocating manner, then that fact would be particularly telling of either an anti-Israel and/or antiSemitic bias or at the least would be telling of a relativism or perhaps a neo-Marxian point-of-view that is embedded within the warp and woof of their most philosophically penetrating assumptions. But regardless of what it would reveal specifically, it would minimally and most certainly reveal a point of view that is worthy of being counter-critiqued - and that can be done ONLY by rendering those aspects of their arguements in an open and transparent manner.
Finally again, prof. Jackson even gets some of his most basic material wrong. For example it was the Stern gang, not the Israeli state, that assassinated Count Bernadotte. Indeed, the Stern gang (LEHI) was disbanded almost immediately after that assassination due to disapproval by the state of Israel and by the Israeli public as well. Likewise the Irgun - formed in substantial part in re-action to the terror and riots perpetrated by Arab Muslims in 1929, including the Hebron and other massacres - met with disapproval from entities such as the World Jewish Congress and Israelis in general. That doesn't mean Israel or Israelis have always acted in a manner that is beyond reproach, of course not, but it doesn point to the fact that they have often redressed their own excesses, when they have taken root and when they have occurred, via internal controls and due to their own cultural and socio-religious based constraints, their ethos in general, the classical liberal form of governance that prominently includes checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.
By contrast, what is fomented and what is inculcated and enculturated from the earliest pre-school ages in Sunni Arab Palestinian camps and Shi'a Muslim quarters as well is an overarching jihadist, tribal and clan based form of socio-cultural and political/religious governance wherein the eradication of Israel and the killing and murdering of Jewish Israelis - often civilians foremost, as a systematic form of terror and incitement - is a way of life that receives both approbation and material support from the very institutions - governmental and religious and cultural - which form those societies.
Those are qualitatively different scenarios within which Rupert Jackson's "state violence" or supposed "state terror" takes place. Feel free to disagree, but save us any further specious indignation, pseudo-authority and rank dismissiveness forwarded as serious argument. Members of the professoriate are not high and holy priests who are beyond reproach, their arguments are deserving of rational and critical review, just like everyone else's.
Ann
April 23rd, 2008 9:23am"Gaza is not Israel’s enemy, Hamas is" - nonsense. Hamas is their 'democratically elected government', or so we are assured by right-on Islingtonites. If it is, then what it does (in this case, wage a shooting war on Israel) is what its constituents have elected it to do. That's how it works. You can't have it both ways, although I appreciate that left-wing tyranny apologists will always try to have it both ways.
Richie
April 23rd, 2008 9:52amIn response to Adamg, since the 2001 RAE, which is what I should have said, sorry about that, staff who have departed include Michael Cox, Erik Landis, Jan Selby, Douglas Stokes...
Student societies, by virtue of their being voluntary and unofficial, are of limited use to employers. No doubt this will be disputed , however. A year ago a couple of friends and I opened the time-wasting society, and organised a function which consisted of ten people sitting in the cafe drinking coffee. I could legitimately put this on my cv, yet it is rubbish.Anyone can set up a student society, and employers with any sense know this.
The grants available will by no means cover everybody who requests them, the total finanace available is limited, moreover the internships are extremely competitive and no one coming here should assume that they will automatically have access to them. Competition is part of life, but the selection criteria tend to favour those who are, shall we say, fond of having their mouths open-you need a certain arrogant confidence, and good references, from buttered-up professors, and it is difficult to personally develop when not given the chance;this applies to me, who being rubbish at public speasking, was out of the running from the off! The Crisis games are a childish and laughable clash of egos involving the playacting of international situations, on such things you will find the arrogant students mentioned, I think that they help the students beleive that they really are in interpol-related careers already. The exchange year is also not guaranteed entry, you must justify to them why you would benefit over others, and stranegly those who are chummy with the department(professors, staff etc.) often seem to do better. You will be more likely, to gain access to European universities than North American ones however.
I am not sure that talking to the professors is a particularly sound basis for choosing a degree either, note also that this will be the only time you talk to them, the majority of the courses being large and tutored by phd candidates, with the only contact with the professor being in lectures, although they sometimes drop in on seminars. By the way, i note that the RAE defence has evaporated. this is the departmenrt's big boast in their prospectus. I was foolish enough to be fooled by this.
On the subject of exchange years and other cv-boosting activities which the department offers, another drawback is the snowball effect- the more you get accepted onto various things, the more likely you are again. By contrast, if it is your first time, they will be less likely to offer you anything- ineffect they look at you cv's,as though you were at a job interview. There is every year a sort of incrowd who tend to dominate such things, the university's policy of equality does not always apply,even if they claim otherwise and potential students should treat coming here as a sort of prejob job, but butter up the right professors(never never question them ) and you'll be fine. You might say that their is a class system inside the interpol department.
Btw, definitely use the guides, the Guardian especially was spot on about this place. if you get an alternative offer, even if it is more expensive, such as....LSE, you would be crazy not to go there instead. The talk of cvs is depressing, it sometimes seems there is more focus on that now than actual learning. I would still like to hear the name of that OXford professor, I would like to email him and ask him what he thinks of Aberystwyth.I hope this post is not moderated like my last.
Adam
April 23rd, 2008 11:16amRichie: I’m at a bit of a loss as to what to say… you set up the time wasting society, the idea of having to compete for grants or exchanges seems outrageous to you, you’re surprised (angry even?) that learning to speak in public is important, you seem to think it’s ridiculous that making an effort to interact with professors helps your reference, and the idea that employers should expect more than simply “I went to my lectures and learnt loads” on your CV is depressing for you… I honestly don’t think you would have fared any better at another university.
There are a host of opportunities available at Aberystwyth, it’s an internationally recognised department, academics there continue to publish cutting edge and award winning research (look at the staff pages on the departmental website), students that go there have taken up Masters, PhD and teaching positions in top departments and universities across the world, and –as long as you don’t presume that simply going to lectures should be justification enough for employers to give you a job– you’ll be able to compete for some of the most sought-after careers in the UK/world.
phil
April 23rd, 2008 11:36amAlex,the point I was trying to make is that clichés have arisen such as "collective punishment " and "proportionate response" which now are used as wide ranging ways of easy criticism without ever getting to the nub of the matter . A states responsibility to its citizens is paramount otherwise what is the point of government .So if its decision is to hunt down militants rather than area bomb .do you have a better suggestion ? I realise there may well be collateral damage and I do not say that lightly, as I value every single life whether Palestinian or Israeli ,but the state has to do something or the attacks will just multiply.I do not believe for one moment that collective punishment is on Israel's agenda ,particularly as I believe a huge proportion of the Palestinians would want no part in this terrible war and the Israelis are well aware of that.
May I say the term "proportionate response " is one of the craziest clichés I have ever heard -is the suggestion that if one side loses 10 people then the other side should seek out another 10,or if one side uses sticks and stones the response must be in similar terms .I am sorry Alex I cant buy into that.That term has been invented by those that are anti -Israeli and are frustrated that they are better able to defend themselves . When we all as kids had fights in the playground did you only punch a boy back as hard as he hit you? -I don't think you need to answer that-(lol)
Well at least this passes for debate Alex rather than the futile insults that some of our fellow posters seem to enjoy and you do address the points I make .Young people like you who take the trouble to think are the future of our country ,so I hope you will not mind an old codger trying to offer a few thoughts .My late and wise grandpa once told me as a kid ,that he wished he knew as a young person what he knew now -I,m old enough now to know what he meant
Sadly my friend Mike always answers difficult questions with further quotes from his pal fisk et al so we never get any further and now after a long time tells the world he is disappointed in me ,I am sure the disappointment is that we did not find common ground so if you read this Mike keep trying ,I always read carefully what you write .regards to you both
Alex
April 23rd, 2008 1:36pmAnn, it isn’t nonsense to differentiate between the Palestinian people and the Hamas movement; Hamas was never accepted as a government of the Palestinian people and has never been engaged with. Palestine isn’t even a state and even if you insist on calling it one it is certainly a failed state. You say “left wing tyranny apologists” try to argue it both ways whilst doing so yourself.
You can’t reject the legitimacy of a government then claim it to be one if it will allow you more room to manoeuvre.
Jo
April 23rd, 2008 3:41pmBob Gray,
With all due respect, your posts sound like you have a personal issue with academia, university education and the jobs graduates with politics aspire to.
Not having a degree and driving a truck in my opinion is just as acceptable and purposful as getting a university education, but your demeaning comments smack of an inferiority complex and reflect a certain narrow-mindedness. None of the students commenting here belittle you, so why not pay the same courtesy?
Jo
April 23rd, 2008 3:50pmRichie,
The name of that Oxford Professor is Dr. Hull, but I am not sure he would appreciate your emails, as he seems to be a busy man. Like Adam, I receive my undergraduate degree from the Aberystwyth IR department, and like Adam, I have been accepted for post-graduate studies in Oxford. Guess what, through my correspondance with said Oxford Professor, I learnt that Oxford highly appreciates applications from Aber IR graduates.
I am sorry you seem to have had a bad experience in Aber, but I do not think your personal experience is necessarily reflecting the true potential of the department. As you seem fond of anecdotes, I for my part enjoyed it here, and would have gone on for post-graduate studies had there been anything tayolored for my special interest.
Jo
April 23rd, 2008 4:10pmAnn,
It is perfectly possible to be critical of Israel without having any particular sentiments towards Jews. It is highly telling that for many people in the UK, it seems impossible to acknowledge the terroristic nature of Israeli policies without being an anti-semit...as if seeing the atrocities committed by both sides could arise only from hateful and fundamentalist minds.
It appears it is not Dr. Jackson who has a particular view on Jews, it is you. You have a peculiar affinity to Israel, (possibly for the only reason that Arabs subconsciously scare you (?)), thus, your ability to judge is narrowed.
Imagine it was the Chinese occupying Palestinian territory, or any people BUT Jews, employing the tactics Israel employs. Perhaps the association with state terrorism would not sound as outrageous anymore.
Tom
April 23rd, 2008 4:48pmWe can all be vulnerable to the odd typo, but the level of spelling and grammar on display in Jo’s two posts puts Aberystwyth University and Oxford University (a post-graduate writes like this!) to shame:
“graduates with politics”
“purposful”
“receive my undergraduate degree”
“correspondance”
“tayolored”
This seems to sum up so many of the cheerleaders for Dr Marie Breen Smyth: sub-literate, ill-informed and possessed of an arrogance that would make Mohamed al Fathead blush for shame.
Do they try to pick people for their stupidity so they’re easier to brainwash?
Paul
April 23rd, 2008 8:47pmIt never ceases to amaze me how when Israel takes steps to prevent terrorist attacks and pursues those responsible for these outrages it is accused of carrying out state terrorism which in turn is used to justify further acts of terrorism by terrorists and their sympathizers,but I shouldn`t be so surprised as I guess we`re all Hezbollah now...!?
Jo
April 23rd, 2008 9:21pmTom,
True, my spelling is quite abysmal in my previous posts.
But the fact that my typos are all you can criticise, and that you feel the need to bring cheerleaders, personal insults and blatant prejudice into your comment speaks for itself. Not to your credit, though, I am afraid to say.
Bob Gray
April 23rd, 2008 9:25pmOkay Jo, you may very well be correct. Firstly, I do have feelings of inferiority but whether they are complex I'm not qualified to say. Allow me to explain: I am quite happy that, with an IQ of 73, I should not be running the country. I believe that people with superior faculties than mine should be doing that. I have always understood 19th century Tory Paternalism which I suspect may be anathema to you. I have a place in society which I readily accept and a job which someone has to do. I thank you for equating it with a university education but I really cannot agree.
You see Jo, I don't believe that we are all experts - that we know what is best for us at any given time.
I am just a good little citizen who knows his place and, as I'm sure you guessed, I read the Mail occasionally. So why, I hear you cry, do I have such a cynical and dismissive attitude about some of your colleagues when I am a self-confessed ignoramus? Because, you guessed it, I am an empiricist and, low IQ or not, I have eyes, ears and a capacity for storing information. I have only visited your university on four occasions, many years ago. Twice in a - don't laugh - 'professional capacity' and twice as the guest of an old Welsh pal of mine who was doing International Politics as a mature student. Both being 'extra mature' we fared rather better in the students' bar which allowed me, rather unfairly, access to the students' less guarded opinions about their course as 'vino veritas' slid inexorably into place.
The disappointment and anger that I brought away with me was caused by the knowledge that the finest education system this country had ever produced was being abused, if unwittingly, by the students and aided and abetted by their tutors. So when you say I "...have a personal issue with academia, university education and the jobs graduates with politics aspire to" then I suppose that, once again, you are correct.
Now to the charge of narrow mindedness. Growing up I was aware of this as a potential accusation levelled, with some justification, at the working class. In my, obviously unsuccessful, attempts to stave this off, I read as much as I could and, when older and able to afford it, dragged my long suffering wife to places such as China, Cuba India and the Soviet Union. I fell hopelessly in love with the latter country and have returned many, many times, enrolling at night school back home to learn the fascinating language. Although I declined, I was asked to tutor a subsequent evening class. (Thinking about it, they probably just wanted a tame lorry driver on their books.)
But what was the 'big' truth I learnt, what did I learn on my road to Damascus? Jo, I'll tell you, in all sincerity: I learnt that throughout history it has been the 'doers' and not the 'thinkers' who have contributed to the furtherance of mankind. I compared Watt to Huxley, Edison to Heidegger, Daimler to Hume. I compared pragmatists with idealists and I compared Michael Foot to Margaret Thatcher. My people have been Boyle, Rutherford, Curie ad infinitum. And then I gave up comparing because, as an instinctive creature, I realised the futility of it, especially as I have to brace myself for the next generation coming over the hill with their self-importance and ill conceived ideas.
I've taken up too much of this thread as it is but here's the patronising bit; you're what we used to call a 'means well'. What the World needs is people with gumption, someone to tap into the will of the people not try and subvert it for their own motives.
Hopefully Jo, you should outlive me and as you approach the other end of your brief stay here you will discover that Nature has a really neat trick up its sleeve. The older you get the more cantankerous you get, as noted by Alex. This is because Nature is making you feel uncomfortable here on Earth - "I don't like your taste in music, clothes" etc. You are being distanced from the previous generation. You are being prepared - shuffling off becomes a distinctly more attractive proposition. To go quietly into the night so to speak. Ennui preventing us from 'raging'.
I accept your comments but would ask you to remember that nobody's perfect, not even 25% of the posters on this thread. I also apologise for what you may consider the overuse of commas. Old habits.
phil
April 24th, 2008 10:46amBOB GRAY wonderful stuff !! your just an old codger like me (lol) strange isn't it what we learn as we advance in years -even that we who thought we were slightly left of centre are really to the right just like Melanie has posted recently,but many of these students at least are thinking rather than drinking and will probably finish up just like us -regards
Tom
April 24th, 2008 11:13amJo, I haven’t made any personal insults to you at all, I have merely pointed out that your language skills are shameful to you and shameful to the universities that let you study at them. What’s prejudicial about criticising your sub-literacy when you (and some other students here) provide such abundant evidence of it?
You have the gall to bark about prejudice when the only argument you have to put to Ann is that: “Arabs subconsciously scare you”. In other words, you don’t have any damning evidence to put to Ann so instead you’ll rely on speculation about her subconscious. That is cast iron prejudice.
Bob Gray
April 24th, 2008 11:35amCheers Phil, I just get annoyed by their snot-nosed attitude as displayed in "...will reflect badly on you." and "Not to your credit, though, I am afraid to say." So measured, so 'off the shelf', so devoid of any real passion. So debating chamber.
Did you see 'Aliyah' last night? If so, I'd be interested to know what you thought. Fair or not?
Alexandrovich
April 24th, 2008 12:04pm"...(possibly for the only reason that Arabs subconsciously scare you (?)), thus, your ability to judge is narrowed."
Please, someone...tell me I didn't just read that.
Staggering, absolutely staggering. Whoever you are, try telling it to a few of the 7/7 survivors. I bet they even fear Arabs consciously, as well.
Harriet
April 24th, 2008 1:21pmAlex says: “To deny the mild parallels between the mistreatment of Jews in history and the early stirrings of similar sentiments against Muslims today is to deny reality” and cites in support of this argument: “the growing currency of films such as fitna”.
Why, then, do some Islamists feel that is they who are on the verge of inflicting a second Holocaust on non-Muslims to such an extent that one of their supporters feels confident enough about this to hold a placard that appears in a still photograph in the film Fitna (appearing at 4.49 minutes) that reads: “BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST!”?
Alex says to Bob: “I am not entirely sure what makes you trust the chap more than say I or any number of students writing here”, but it is you who is challenging the student’s honesty, Alex, not the other way round. It is you who wrote: “This article is based upon a shameful lie.”
The fact that you may not have seen and heard what this student saw and heard does not mean they did not happen.
As people keep asking you on this thread, why would this student start making up this lie or that lie?
Plenty of people have shredded the credibility of the arguments you put forward, Alex, but none has called you a liar, yet here you are bleating away saying: “Its not often I am accused of being a liar.” When have you been accused of this on this thread?
I know you might be feeling a little humiliated at the credibility of your arguments being rubbished, Alex, but that’s no reason to try to cover that up by alleging that someone has challenged your honesty.
Alex says to Lisa: “Fears do not equate to facts”. Who suggested this? No one. The students fears were based on the facts of what he saw and heard, an entirely different thing. There seems to be a pattern building up throughout this thread with you, Alex, of you being unable to address the points put to you and so instead you decide to address something that wasn’t put to you at all.
You challenge Lisa’s intelligence, Alex, by saying that it must be flawed because her: “biggest worry about the future is a Jihadi who may or may not be dead and even if he isn’t will be hiding in a funk hole”. Of course, that isn’t what was expressed by Lisa at all. The franchising of the aims of Osama Bin Laden was spelt out exactly by her when she used the phrase “Osama Bin Laden and chums”. You conveniently forgot the last two words. I wonder why.
You complain, Alex, that the Lisa’s references to Shariah are “wildly irrelevant”. No they’re not, you tried to criticise the reaction of the British public to the idea that Shariah might be introduced here. Lisa then justified the public’s reaction firstly herself and secondly by quoting Salman Rushdie, who echoed the reaction of the British public by articulating what a nonsense of an idea it is. The public reaction was not to demonise Muslims at all, but defend the coherence and integrity of the British legal system.
Finally, an awful lot of the criticism aimed at the student who wrote to Melanie seems to be along the lines of: “Why didn’t he go to the authorities at Aberystwyth University?”
But why would anyone go the authorities at this university given the evidence of another student, who did complain to the authorities and was dismissed out of hand, as revealed Melanie’s post of April 21, 2005 “Running the campus gauntlet”, which she provides a link to at the top of this post?
Adam
April 24th, 2008 3:18pmRe: Bob Gray (April 22nd 10.23am). I am sure some people sit degrees purely for the pleasure of learning (mature students perhaps). The majority of those studying international politics however, will be doing so in the hope of finding work in the field. That studying at Aberystwyth enables you to go on and get jobs at institutions such as those you named, or the Army, Navy, GCHQ… etc. would therefore strike me as an excellent basis for recommending it. So I suppose the answer to your question is yes.
phil
April 24th, 2008 5:39pmBob G -i did watch Aliyah,on the whole I thought it was a decent programme showing the lives of a "proper young Jewish couple " and a very likeable young man ,but why the producer felt it was necessary to show the strange lady who went to live with the Arabs I do not know even though I applaud her compassion -one among many millions -odd!! Also the part about the killing and oppression was out of context in this programme and not balanced with other atrocities ,but it was late and I was tired so maybe I missed something -I don't expect ever to see fair reporting on the BBC anyhow so cest la vie
-For me the startling thing is until I started participating here I didn't realise how people can hate Jews now ,whether Israeli or otherwise -naive me thought it was all over,that it was just for the odd nutter or person who had never risen to where he thought he deserved , although I am encouraged by the great number also of really decent Christian people who exhibit true morality even when they disagree with some Israeli acts ,which of course I do at times .I give greater weight to what you and Kate A write because Jewish people will naturally react to defend them selves -you give us a better balance and I am really grateful for the support of all of you -
it is mostly a great pleasure to participate here and has given me the opportunity to do what I have tried many times to get my friends to do -that is try your hardest to influence the society you live in to be better,and do not complain about it if you do nothing to try to change it
Richie
April 24th, 2008 6:12pmYes, well, you're probably right in that there is anger and bitterness involved in my case; I am certainly not objective. Losers always sink to the bottom, in any environment, and also it isn't enough to just have a degree, my fault for not realising this, despite being told do so many times while at university! I hope that those students choosing to go here have your experience rather than mine, and ensure that they take advantage of the opportunities etc. For my part, McDonald's beckons!
KP
April 24th, 2008 8:08pmIn response to Richie’s earlier comments:
Student societies are not unofficial as the Student Union endorses them, provided they have a certain number of signatures. Membership to a student society is not of limited use to employers; it demonstrates commitment, variety and an active lifestyle (unless it is the time-wasting society).
The Crisis Games are not created to help students think they already have “interpol-related careers”. They are designed for students to learn and debate in a situation which could potentially happen in the international system; qualities developed in such an environment are easily applicable to more than just interpol-related careers. Negotiations (a primary quality developed in crisis games) happen everyday in many careers: banking, police on the beat, youth work, journalism, etc. (As a side – the Games also provide a platform amongst peers to develop their public-speaking technique.)
The exchange year: As Richie acknowledged, life is competitive. The interview for the exchange is centred more on your ability to adapt to your particular choice from a range of universities, whilst maintaining a sound academic standard, than whether you are ‘chummy’ enough with Mr Chips to know what he had for breakfast.
However, if you do feel that interacting more with your professors would be of benefit to you, then every professor or doctor holds office hours (and if they don’t, they are available through appointment) and are thus accessible. (If you think this is still not accessible enough, try Rummer's.)In addition, many are willing to answer questions at the end of lectures. They are, in fact, human too and have chosen to go into a profession to teach; it is up to the student to seek extra help (or even just conversation about their latest work or your own research interests) during office hours. As teachers, it is unlikely that they will turn the student away.
In relation to the snowballing CVs. University is the time and place to get your foot on the ladder. If that is where you have to start, then there is ample opportunity to volunteer in Aberystwyth, as it is such a community-based town.
Do question your professors. There is nothing academics like more than defending their research. Indeed, the academics at Aberystwyth question each other. When you question your professors, or offer them your own opinion, support your argument. The likelihood is that an academic has thought it before you and if not, write it down and do a PhD.
The entire university experience, academic and otherwise, will turn out how you make it turn out.
Terry
April 24th, 2008 8:11pmMichael B. Apologies for offending you – and if I’ve misinterpreted what you said. As far as I can see you think that on the basis of the claims of the anonymous student (and Richie… who I think the less is said about the better), which have been forwarded to Melanie Philips (a journalist renowned for being bombastic and controversial), someone from Aberystwyth should be obliged to publish the details of the class for you to look through…
I wholeheartedly agree that the class can’t be assessed on proper terms without the relevant empirical and rational evidence… but I’m somewhat at a loss as to how you think it’s rational/reasonable to be demanding that the university publish all of this information for you to assess on the basis of the claims the student makes.
The university/department will evaluate the course on the basis of student feedback (even more rigorously than normal I suspect, after the hot headed response to this article). …that seems a fairly rational course of action. But perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps every time there’s an anonymous accusation made about someone we should thrash out what we think on the comments section of a Melanie Philips article.
Michael B
April 25th, 2008 12:26amTerry,
You're referring to my April 23rd, 3:52am comment??? I stand by it in its entirety. But you didn't offend me (nor did I even suggest you did so). Likewise, nothing I said suggested "details" would need to be offered in this type of forum. However, given the subject matter, some general commentary in the vein suggested would have been appropriate. Indeed, more than appropriate, it would be absolutely necessary if a more honest and transparent discussion - one including critique and counter-critique - were to take place.
We're not talking about a secret society or state secrets, we're talking about a public university and the content being taught there and we're talking about a wider range of social/political, historical and ideologically invested topics.
To talk grandly and with self-approbation about how worthy and right and righteous the content of the class (and the thesis in question) is while deflecting any need for empirical information, for transparency and for a rational review of the material is disingenuous and reflects an ego-centric view of things or, in this case, an incurious and ideologically invested view of things.
Terry
April 25th, 2008 10:29amMichael B. Perhaps we’re simply departing from a different point. I can’t see any remotely convincing evidence to suggest that the course ferments a climate of hatred against Israel. Melanie Philips has attacked the two lecturers in question on the basis of one student’s claims (Richie perhaps?) and an email which encouraged a DEBATE on a controversial (but fascinating) subject. If anything, I think it’s a good advert for a department which is clearly not afraid to make their students grapple with difficult but interesting issues.
I would suggest that the reason the rational debate you seek isn’t already possible is because Melanie Philips hasn’t provided any convincing material on which a debate could be based. As such, I’m not sure why the lecturers should be forced to defend their reputation or their courses.
Richie
April 25th, 2008 1:19pmI retract all of my previous comments. Truly I am humbled to have attended such an internationally-acclaimed, bastion of academic excellence! Pay no attention to the guides, or to anything that the university's detractors have said. It's a testament to the university's quality that not one member of university staff has come on under alias to defend this most worthy institution, the students love it so that they do it for them. Three cheers for Abersywyth Uni. Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah!
Tina
April 25th, 2008 4:28pmThe lecturers on this module consider the students’ background reading so important that the written log of what undergraduates read comprises 10 per cent of the mark for the module.
The breadth and depth that comes with background reading will, of course, go much further than any lectures.
It really is the most important part of any sort of academic study and will consequently mould and shape the bulk of the thinking that students put into their essay answers, exam answers and seminar discussions.
Dr Richard Jackson’s views are apparently typical of the bulk of the set texts recommended in the module’s handbook and we get some considerable insight into the measure of this man’s warped opinions in the lengthy sample of his writing provided above.
Indeed, the flawed thinking among those who have put this course together seems to be epitomised in the lecture in which “implicit comparison between the treatment of Jews in Germany prior to the Shoah of World War Two, and that of Muslims today” was made. Other posters have dealt with this demonstrably absurd argument.
When this is added to these two points:
1) That there seemed to be lots of comments on the logs of those who extended their reading outside of the official background reading list and ticks for those who pretty much stuck to it, and
2) That in one seminar at least students were told only to bother themselves with reading books on the official background reading list
that pretty much tells you what the people who will be marking your work on the log and in essay form are looking for, doesn’t it? Given that degree marks are at stake, who wouldn’t feel under pressure in these circumstances if they didn't share the sorts of views epitomised by Dr Jackson?
It’s all very well saying it’s only one student, but there may well be other students fearful of speaking out. Not everyone is going to risk jeopardising their degree marks by publicising all this. I’d remain anonymous if I was this student, too.
What’s more, this is the second time that this university and this department that has been brought to Ms Phillips’s attention.
The dismissal of the complaint by the student three years ago seems to be falling into a wider picture - and it’s a far from pleasant one.
Michael B
April 25th, 2008 4:55pmTerry,
You are earnestly fatuous.
Once again you offer up mere deflections and a facile indignation. I won't repeat myself, I'll more simply note I stand by, in every detail, in every jot and tittle, my comment dated April 23rd, 3:52am, my query dated April 22nd, 1:19pm and will further note my initial comment herein - April 20th, 5:54pm - was positively prescient.
You and others offer up the most shallow and insipid deflections while averring to "sophisticated" analyses; you offer up indignation without even a minimal amount of support for those indignant reproofs and harrumphs; you offer up the bona fides of the professoriate in question without any supportive material whatsoever. On top of all that, you're aghast and utterly beside yourself that anyone might question your repeated "trust me" assurances. To all that self-regard and self-approbation, you add your "bull in a china closet" sneers.
Again, you are earnestly fatuous.
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrichie
April 25th, 2008 5:11pmTerry, I am afraid that I don't have that honour, as although I absolutely regret coming here, I still wish to receive my 'degree', something which that student, if caught, will not do. K.P. , thanks for your input, although, as with the comments made by Adam and Jo above, it does read rather like an official university publicity document. I am sorry if it is upsetting to Aber students past and present for these things to be said, but I am sure that it won't affect you.
A general question, if the university and the department in question are as fine as some of those on this page claim, why is it that it does not do better in the various guides available (which I continually refer to do as an impartial source), particularly in terms of employment figures? Also, is it really fair to continually cite a seven-year old research assessment exercise(which they do acknowledge is old) as proof of quality to potential students?
As to this debate attracting potential students, it may well do, and I do wonder as to the origins of this 'complaint'. Sheer genius if it was orchestrated by the university itself...
Alexandrovich
April 25th, 2008 5:11pmIt would appear that, their initial sorties being repulsed, the University has now sent in the '17th and 21st Light Academics' a crack spelling unit. The messages are more readable although the content is still the same.
Bob Gray
April 25th, 2008 5:29pmAndy Gill posted this quote from DR. Jackson, taken from the NASPIR website, on 16th. April:
"As what we choose to study and how we choose to study it are unavoidably political, the traditional academic pretence of neutrality is unsustainable."
Has anybody from the Univerity had any thoughts on this yet?
Terry
April 26th, 2008 2:34amRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrichie: As far as I can see, the reason the department doesn’t fare better in the guides is not a reflection of its research or teaching (which are rated highly) but because it struggles to attract the same calibre of students as universities such as LSE/Oxford (I’d have thought this is fairly evident to people who’ve been reading your posts) and, as you mention, because fewer students go immediately into employment. I’d suggest that these are linked – also the fact that the University itself doesn’t have the reputation of Oxford/LSE/Bristol...etc is also probably something to do with it. Nonetheless, judging by some of the other comments, students with a bit of initiative seem to do very well for themselves having studied at the department…
The idea that the university wants its lecturers associated with a Melanie Philips article headlined “Terror in Academia” is laughable – or at least it would be if it wasn’t people’s careers that are being potentially damaged despite a lack of any convincing evidence (or rational line of criticism).
Michael B: Again, apologies, but I honestly can’t see what you’re getting at so forgive me if I’m wrong with the following. You basically want someone from the department to list examples of Islamic terrorism (as per the points that you raised)? In what sense is that rational? Are you concerned that the students and lecturers of international politics are unaware of it? (Perhaps they haven’t really watched the news or read any newspapers since 9/11?) Or do you worry that they think apocalyptic Islamist terrorism is a good thing? I can’t see how the argument made by Dr Jackson—that Israel could be said to have committed state terrorism—even remotely suggests either of these things?
Tom
April 27th, 2008 7:08pmIf you were going to successfully effect long-lasting and substantial unfair bias anywhere on a degree course, the official reading list is the most effective way to do it.
Here we seem to have a carrot - the reading list - followed by the stick - only read the books we tell you to or you can expect lots of critical comments on your log.
It stinks.
Rrrrrrrrrrrichie
April 28th, 2008 2:03pmCome mow Terry, no need for snideness and insults. I freely admit that I shouldn't be at university, particularly this one. I should add, to avoid losing all dignity, that before I realised how pointless it all was, I obtained first class marks, although I cannot prove this, unfortunately. if I was able to do that (in Part two, not just the first year, what does that say about the firsts of those who have left here? Again, the last RAE was in 2001. As for teaching, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Too much reliance on PHD candidates , I feel. As for initiative, ,my point is and was that initiative alone doesn't cut it here. There is the need for competition, but there should also be concessions for those of us who are less able, particlarly for those who lack the gift of the gab. I maintain that the department runs something of a class system, generally only a select group will have access to various cv-enhancing perks after the first year.perhaops they are concerned about their reputation. Sadly, I cannot prove this either, as with many others on here, it is anecdotal.
However, if any potential students do ever look at this obscure comments page, and it changes their minds about enrolling, then I will be happy. It is good to see that you admit that the university attracts a lower calibre of candidate, which arguably will lead to a worse learning experience, hopefully that will assist in the above. As for the article, laughable that idea it may be but stranger things have happened. I can't comment on what that student said, except that they did provide some evidence, and Melanie was careful to avoid stating that that which was said was fact, rather, it was allegation. A final word about c.v.s-I could have shown initiative, but really i didn't come to university to pick up skills for employers, I came to 'learn'. Doubtless I could, as did someone recently, teach English to kids in Croatia, using university/department grants, or my own money, however to me it seems fairly unethical to do things for cv-boosting purposes.
Nor should one forget the previous-mentioned limitations.
I hardly think, btw, that this blog will damage any careers. further insults are welcome, btw, I am hugely enjoying this message board fun. hurrah!
RRRrrrichie
April 28th, 2008 4:27pmI should add also that it is 'terriff'-ic that so many people have commented on this issue, it is important that such things are brought out into the open.
Richie
April 28th, 2008 7:22pmAdams?
Richie
April 28th, 2008 7:34pmNow British oil advisor to the provisional authority running Iraq, and Aber Departmental fellow? Surely surely not? Hmmm?
Bob Gray
April 28th, 2008 7:46pmI noticed that also Richie. I suppose it's natural that people are primarily concerned with their careers. Only natural to be concerned about nest-feathering and self-advancement but, in people so young? Just now and again, I found myself hankering after those old Miss World contests where a contestant, lying through her teeth, would tell Michael Aspel that all she wanted was for the World to live in peace and harmony.
Terry
April 28th, 2008 10:19pmRichie: sorry, I can’t be bothered – I’ll refer people reading this to some of the more intelligent comments made by students from the department (that’s not supposed to be snide or insulting – I just don’t have time…)
Since Bob Gray raised the question of neutrality earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Ya9h2eMAE
If you believe, as Melanie does, that Israel “does not commit” human rights abuses, let alone ‘state terrorism’ then I suppose it’s possible to come to the same conclusions as her: namely that academics are seeking to create a “climate of hatred” against the country. If you read any of the human rights reports written on the Israel-Palestine situation however, her argument becomes less plausible. That’s not to say that Richard Jackson is necessarily right, just that Melanie Philips is wrong.
Richie
April 29th, 2008 9:07pmIt's fine Terry, not at all snide or insulting. People reading the 'more intelligent' posts from Aber students should note that some of them actually justify, or at least excuse, terrorism, thereby confirming precisely what Melanie's blog suggests. They might also want to consider that the university members of staff who, I think, have posted have chosen to do so unofficially; I don't understand why, if they are sure of their correctness. Further, they might consider that many of the 'defensive' posts placed by students are remarkably similar in wording. Those considering attending this university might want to think about the quality of thought which it inspires, in terms of originality, and to ask whether a department which attracts a lower calibre of student, at least compared to Oxford, etc, despite having such an excellent reputation, based on a seven year old research assessment, (good teaching though, apparently) is really one they want to be studying in. Any student who has done their research will know of Aberystwyth, and the 'less well known so retarded student affecting the figures negatively' argument doesn't quite cut it. Assuming then that the department does attract students worthy of it's grand reputation, why are their employment prospects so poor? As for the numerous pro/con anecdotes, believe what you like. And consult the guides.If there is even an ounce of truth in those allegations, thenit is very disturbing indeed. like it or not, it is likely that at least some of the students who have done well at Aberystwyth will end up in positions of influence, and I don't fancy the UK's chaces if they do.
Also, if attending a university, choose a proper academic subject, not a social science-related one. About bias against Israel;it is horrible, and misguided, but what these lefties really hate is that no matter what they say, whatever lies or slurs or misinterpretations they spread, Israel exists and will continue to do so; she is fully capable of defending herself. I agree with Terry about one thing; this is becoming tiresome.
P.S. Bob Gray; I totally agree, it is a shame that academia has been brought so low as to be just a way to get lots of money and prestige. Hopefully other subjects not related to this aren't so bad, though!
Charles
May 12th, 2008 2:49pmI am a student on that course.
I can happily say the claims made are a load of bunk. Not only have I _not_ felt any "pressure" to toe a specific line for marks, nor has anyone I know, but the idea of the course promoting bigotry against Israel is ludicrous. What it did do was do a lecture on the subject of state terrorism, in which a number of states came up; this can only be promoting hatred of a state if you think it's inherently hate-mongering to even raise the subject that a state's actions may be terroristic.
In fact, the most common complain I've seen for this course among other students is that Marie Smith uses Northern Ireland as an example a lot (on account of _being_ Northern Irish).
What this looks like to me is someone taking the course who's refusing to take an open mind nor try to understand and/or legitimately argue against difficult & uncomfortable issues. In which case they shouldn't have done a module called "Understanding Terror" and based around understanding why people become terrorists, why terrorists commit certain acts etc etc.
To finish off - we weren't being marked on anything at the time these allegations were being made. So how can we have been marked down? The nearest we had were Learning Logs, where we had to write what we thought about issues raised in the lecture to show evidence of us thinking about the course (and which got marked after the _final_ lecture). I managed to disagree with some of the stances and issues raised in the lecture and give reasons why without any problems or negative comments.
Thomas P
May 12th, 2008 4:42pmJust for the record, the learning logs were in a sense marked during the course. There were on average two lectures per week. The learning logs were handed in on the Monday of each week, and were usually returned during the Friday lecture later that week, or during the seminar in the following week. When returned they did have comments, but no marks, however the comments generally gave an indication of the quality of the log,or according to the student at least, how close to 'the line' the log was. The logs were all handed in at the end of the course to be given an overall mark, although I doubt that they had time to go through everything, suggesting that they probably did record preliminary marks during the course. So the student's claims of bias etc. could I suppose be correct. I don't know about their claims, I never saw much bias frankly, and I am surprised that there have been so many comments on such an unimportant subject about a module at a relatively obscure university, and besides that the comments page is just full of tedious assertions from one side or the other. If something like this happens at AU a third time, maybe it will be worth taking seriously. No smoke without fire. Other than that though, is this issue really worth 270 odd comments?
Ben Allard
July 14th, 2008 11:56pmWOW!;)
John McClane
July 18th, 2008 12:08pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7511601.stm
Perhaps this is why people need to undertake (and have the time to undertake) cv expansion at universities?;a degree may no longer be what it once was.
ronald
July 21st, 2008 4:10amwhere's this legal action then?
Richie
July 22nd, 2008 11:11amI think the student has ceased to be anonymous! Ronald, the uni. isn't taking legal action, according to the Times higher (June 16). Either they don't feel it is worth bothering with, or are concerned that subjecting the course to close scrutiny might prove what was alleged, despite the defense mounted by the many anonymous warriors and friends and of AU on this page.
Joop Einstein
November 30th, 2008 8:09pmI can't believe everyone is attacking patricia instead of trying to debate the issue. the anger and hatred is so obvious that there seems to be no one who is willing to listen
ENzy4
January 6th, 2009 11:58amChief Executives who attended Aberystwyth should have the courage to use their real name, see above.
Fritz
February 10th, 2009 12:29pmJeez, what a bunch of losers. Do you really think that anyone cares? Arguing on the internet is like entering the Special Olympics, whether you win or lose... BTW Marie Breen Smyth, why are you posting as 'Terry',and why the belief from both sides that arguing on this board will resolve the issue one way or the other?
Barry
June 12th, 2009 10:07amMelanie,
Add this to your list of dubious academic conferences - Cost of War @ Liverpool Hope. How can a conference of this title ignore the effect on Israel of being kept at war by its enemies for over 60 years if its organisers are not themselves biased.
Nicky
July 25th, 2009 2:14pmThe States Union perfected the targeting of the young by propaganda (as in the picture above, http://mssassypants.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/axis-of-evil-cartoon.gif) to shape their minds and thus control society. Is it any wonder that so many of our young people are now consumed by hatred of "brainwashed" Muslims and Lefties?
It is always a privilege to have the last word. http://www.bendib.com/democracy/Axis-of-Evil.jpg
As far as Mr. Jackson is concerned, as much as I don't don't like him as a person, I have to admit that he's got a nearly flawless line of argumentation.
Theo D.
August 11th, 2009 11:15pmActually, I've had the last word, or rather, phrase; there's no smoke without fire...