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: Clive Davis | Stephen Pollard | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (271)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
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.’ Howev