posted 05-13-2004 06:27 PM            

http://www.rense.com/general52/aga.htm

Against The Law To Criticize Israel?
By Terrell E. Arnold
wecanstopit@cognigenmail.com
5-12-4

Scholars and journalists who for years have studied, written and talked about the Israeli- Palestinian conflict suddenly are facing a potential brick wall. This wall, not unlike the concrete barrier now being built by Israel to keep out the Palestinians, is designed to silence all discussion of Middle East issues that involves any form of criticism of Israel on any American university campus. The wall, if it were built, would be created in law by senators Rick Santorum (Pa) and Sam Brownback (Kan.) through an amendment to Title IX of the Higher Education Act. Deceptively to be called an amendment to include "ideological diversity and "sexual equality as prerequisites for federal funding, the real purpose of the measure is to require denial of federal funds to any university whose faculty or students, perhaps even guest lecturers, make statements that are in any way critical of Israel. The argument is that any action or statement critical of Israel is perforce anti-Semitic.

Among hardliner supporters of Israel and the Zionists this type of move has been brewing for some time. Critics of Israeli treatment of the Palestinian people have been increasing in number and clarity. But in human relations there are always several ways to deal with criticism. One obviously is to ignore it. A second is to meet criticism head on with superior proofs and arguments. A third is to kill the messenger. A fourth is to assert that the critic is actually the problem. A fifth is to argue that the critic or even everybody does the thing being criticized. A sixth is to assert that the criticism falls within a broad class of statements that are taboo, e.g., anti-Semitism. When all these essentially social control options prove unworkable, as in the Israeli case they have, the last ditch option is to suppress criticism by law.

Note that the optimum choice is and always has been, of course, to modify the behavior being criticized. However, anyone listening and watching closely what Israeli leadership is doing under Sharon and the Likud party knows that there is no intent whatsoever to modify behavior. That would require acquiescence in creation of a Palestinian state as well as acceptance of the Palestinian State as an equal in the family of nations. This, in turn, would require once and for all determinations of the size and shape of Israel. The Zionist dream of a Greater Israel would have to remain just that.

It may not be possible to persuade the Zionists and their supporters, Israelis, fundamentalist Christians, or well-wishers in general that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies through recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people. It may not be possible for Israelis and their supporters to face the fact that denial of Palestinian rights and repression of their freedom are the taproots of Palestinian terrorism. Nor may it be possible to persuade the White House and the Congress, as well as the Democratic candidate for President that unconditional support for Israel is not and never has been a winning strategy for the United States. But they all must understand that continued insistence on this posture is courting a national disaster.

This proposed amendment is an echo of Nazi, Communist and other totalitarian forms of censorship. If enacted it would provide cover for increasing Israeli excesses against the Palestinians. That will surely provoke more Palestinian resistance, including more terrorism. Every member of the Senate and House of Representatives who is worth the confidence we placed in them and the salary we pay them should vote against this amendment. Their best strategy would be to prevent it from coming to the floor. To do otherwise would be to pervert our national laws, to willfully corrupt our diplomatic relations with other countries, and to undermine the intellectual freedom of our higher educational system.

George Washington saw the problem clearly, as outlined in his farewell address more than 200 years ago: " . . . a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest.. and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and the wars of the latter without adequate inducements or justification.. It leads, also, to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which are apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld

The definition of national interest as Washington saw it has not changed. Nor has the stickiness of the fly paper wrapped around the proposed amendment. We have conceded to no other nation such a license to interfere in our internal affairs. The way for Israel to reduce or eliminate most of the criticism that is abroad today is to clean up its own act.

The writer is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer of the US Department of State. He will welcome comments at wecanstopit@cognigen.net

posted 05-17-2004 03:48 PM            

Is Congress Aiding A Massive Israeli Deception?

By Terrell E. Arnold

From: wecanstopit@charter.net
5-7-4

On April 28, 2004, with little or no fanfare, members of the House Committee on International Relations introduced a bill, H.R. 4230 to make the United States Department of State responsible to "Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism" everywhere in the world. The bill cites several examples: (a) the speech of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia; (b) car bombings outside synagogues in Instanbul, Turkey; (c) anti-Semitic slogans (unspecified) burned into the lawn of Parliament House in Tasmania; (d) desecration by vandals of gravestones in a Jewish cemetery in Russia; (e) attack on a Jewish school by vandals in Toronto, Canada; and (f) a fire of unknown origin at a synagogue in Toulon, France. Narrowly construed, this bill would not only have a special office in the State Department to monitor such activities and make an annual report to the Congress of them. State would also be expected in any country where anti-Semitic acts occurred to "combat" those acts.

If enacted this bill will make the United States the world policeman for any actions that Israelis or Jews anywhere in the world feel is anti-Jewish. Moreover, as the act is written, it would make the United States responsible for taking actions to counter such actions with any government or organization that may be responsible for the alleged acts. Since the bill is written so that what constitutes anti-Semitism is a matter of judgment, there would be no end to the problems such a law would create for US diplomats and no limit on the harassment of other governments for alleged misdeeds.

Any sensible person will deplore acts against Jews or their institutions and symbols, just as they should deplore such acts against Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and other religious communities. And if the Congress is so confused about its mission as to take this on, then it should be ready to discharge the same responsibility for all the world,s religious practitioners. There will be no end to it, because such acts are often obscure in their perpetrators and intentions.

That, however, is not the problem with the purposes of this bill. Its central purpose is to sweep under the rug any criticism of Zionists, current Israeli leadership, Israeli settlers, and their supporters for their actions against the Palestinian people. Its goal is to stifle all criticism of extreme behavior such as building the wall around the West Bank, assassinating Palestinian activists and their leaders, imprisoning Palestinians without trial, torturing them in captivity, and taking their ancestral homes without compensation. If objections to such acts are anti-Semitic, than a growing number of people will be targeted by this legislation, because most of the unhappiness in the world with developments in Israel is generated by those actions, not by Jewishness or Judaism. Moreover, those objections are wide spread, not confined to any society or any part of the world.

The American government and the United States Congress cannot honorably be associated with a scheme designed to suppress legitimate criticism of Israeli repression of the Palestinian people. In truth, the Palestinians are Semites and Israeli actions against them are brutally anti-Semitic. It is therefore predictable that if the Israelis stop those patterns of repression and take actions to deal with the Palestinians as people, yes, even Semites of equal worth, then much of the world objection to Israeli behavior will subside. No US law can accomplish that purpose. Nor can it police objections to Israeli misconduct. Only the Israelis can change their own habits. The larger Jewish community must recognize this and work to get it done.

The writer is a former Senior Foreign Service Officer of the US Department of State and one of the signers of the letter sent by US diplomats to President Bush on May 5. He will welcome comments at wecanstopit@charter.net