A friend of mine recently pointed out a small Associated Press article published on Yahoo about the Israeli Ministry of Communications baning the import of the Apple iPad due to a suspected Wi-Fi frequency variance. Since the iPad is only manufactured for the American market, it did not meet the European and Israeli standard. The ban has been lifted but that’s not the story I find interesting. It's the 786 comments (as of this writing) on this seemingly insignificant – and certainly non-political – article.  Most contain the usual hateful and extreme language against Israel.

An emerging trend is the unholy alliance of the far left and radical Islam. This can sometimes be comical. For example, in Toronto, Queers Against Israeli Apartheid have been a disruptive force in the annual Gay Pride parade. Thankfully the city of Toronto is showing a great deal of common sense in this matter.

But comedy aside (have Queers Against Israeli Apartheid never been to Tel Aviv?) it is also dangerous. These voices are not pro-peace, they are not even pro-Palestinian. They are anti-Israeli and anti-peace. All good people who support peace must disassociate with these groups.  

In another post regarding events in Europe, I wrote: "The West suffers a pathology. A habit of “sitting on the fence”, giving equal weight to both “narratives”, trying to understand the conflict through the narrow prism of the electronic media, forcing a moral equivalency where none exists, the unwillingness to criticize a cultural norm or practice or belief system as such, for a noble yet misguided political correctness – these are all leading to a devastating blow that is yet to come. A day when Westerners will wake up to discover that their world, with all its values, mores, flexibilities, pluralism, rule of law, grace, equality, understanding and compromise – is no longer. Sitting on the fence is not an option any more. Forgiving the violence of radical Islamic groups will lead to more violence."

As the writers of South Park  recently learned, that day is closer at hand –  and it must be stopped. Because, to quote John Stewart, "Revolution Muslim, your type of hatred and intolerance – that’s the enemy".

It is the same hatred and intolerance you will find on campuses demonstrating against Israel. They are not calling for a negotiated fair and just solution. They are calling for destruction. 

My favorite quote from Edmund Burk: "When bad men combine, the good must associate, else they fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." In other words, for evil to prevail, good people need only to remain silent. Where there is silence, darkness and evil will prevail.

What can you do?

Be a candle in a dark room. Don't remain silent. Support reason and common sense. And if you have friends who are sitting on the fence, ask to come over to the right side of history.

Uri Goldflam has been working in the field of Israel education, leadership training, and educational tourism for the past 17 years in various positions in Israel and abroad. Click here to read his biography »

Jew haters and ‘free’ speech
The Toronto District School Board has Israeli Apartheid Week figured out, unlike our universities
By Lorrie Goldstein, Senior Associate Editor
Toronto Sun, March 14

Common sense from educators when it comes to dealing with Jew haters and Jew baiters is so rare that when it happens, it should be applauded.

That occurred March 2 when Toronto District School Board education director Chris Spence, following a motion by Trustee James Pasternak and discussions with senior staff, issued the following statement regarding Israeli Apartheid Week.

“Our educational goal includes the building of understanding, trust and co-operation among groups and individuals in the TDSB. The event called ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’ has the effect of fostering ill-will and disharmony among groups and individuals. The Government of Ontario and the opposition parties have unanimously adopted a resolution condemning ‘Israeli Apartheid Week.’ The Toronto District School Board therefore affirms that ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’ and its activities are not permitted to take place on school or Board property, or as part of any activity under the jurisdiction of the TDSB.”

See? No muss, no fuss. No crazies screeching Jew-hating is protected by free speech.

Plus, the board now has a sensible precedent in place banning, should anyone ever propose them, an Islamic Terrorism Week, or Muslim Honour Killing Week, or Black Crime Week, or anything similarly malicious.

Admittedly, it’s easier for a school board to deal with Israeli Apartheid Week than a university because we agree children need to be protected from things adults don’t.

For example, if your colleague tells you the Holocaust was a hoax and he can prove it, he’s entitled to his repugnant views. However, if a Grade 6 history teacher says that to his class, there could and should be official sanctions against him.

Consequences

Those who argue this should fall under “free speech” don’t understand what it is. Free speech is the right to state your views without being censored, harassed, imprisoned, tortured or killed, but it doesn’t mean people are unaccountable for what they say, or for the context in which they say it. Speech has consequences.

Further, free speech isn’t absolute. You can’t falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theatre. You can’t libel or slander someone, in the sense they have civil remedies.

Under the Criminal Code, you can’t preach genocide or willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, or threaten individuals.

The problem when universities deal with Israeli Apartheid Week — which started at the University of Toronto in 2005 and has spread to about 40 universities — is that their (usually) liberal administrations often disappear up their politically correct behinds defending “free speech.”

Free speech isn’t the issue. The appropriate use of publicly-funded institutions is.

At a university, the fact a group holds an Israeli Apartheid Week that may engage in one-sided attacks on Israel lacking context (i.e. security threats and terrorism) and that much of what is said is offensive to many Jews, and others, isn’t a valid reason to shut it down.

Free speech applies. Israel isn’t above criticism and universities are places where we especially value freedom of inquiry, debate and controversial, even offensive, views.

(Sadly, universities don’t have a stellar record of defending free speech when it matters. Say in Nazi Germany where many academics, far from resisting this appalling evil, became its apologists and scientists, conducting medical experiments that were actually torture.)

A university is a publicly-held trust and is accountable to society for how Israeli Apartheid Week (or anything else) is conducted. For example, that events are peaceful. That participants don’t threaten those who challenge their views or try to shut down their activities. (This also applies to those who oppose Israeli Apartheid Week.)

University administrators who defend “free speech” regarding IAW events, even as the cops have to be called in, miss the point.

Demanding, with sanctions, appropriate conduct from all members of the university community isn’t suppressing free speech — it’s doing their jobs. If they don’t do it, they’re shirking their responsibilities.

If anyone on campus defies reasonable standards of conduct, they can rent a room off campus, on their own dime, and Jew hate to their heart’s content.

But not at a publicly-funded university and not under the false flag of “free speech.”

This week, on university campuses across Canada, those who seek to demonize Israel and question her right to exist are hosting the annual ritual called Israel Apartheid Week (IAW).  Coordinated by CIJA (Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy) and supported by UJA Federation of Greater Toronto, Jewish student activists across the country are fully prepared to deal with IAW using social media, hard hitting printed material and dynamic speakers on campus.

This week, students are leading a campaign to counter deliberate distortions about Israel being promoted by IAW proponents.  Students are distributing “truth cards” and hosting well respected speakers, challenging the IAW portrayal of Israel.

Last week, prior to IAW, a campaign called Size Doesn’t Matter targeted the vast majority of students who have no opinion on the Middle East and are not aware of Israel’s positive contributions to the world. The campaign has attracted tens of thousands of Web site visitors and Facebook fans.

Recently, we have become concerned about fair treatment by York University for both those who oppose IAW and IAW proponents. Conditions were imposed on some pro-Israel speaking events this year that have not been imposed on IAW events, based on the university’s evaluation of security requirements.  If this is also a personal concern, please contact Patrick Monahan, the York University Provost at provost@yorku.ca.

You are also invited to attend any of these events presented by Hillel of Greater Toronto on GTA campuses.

• Khaled Abu Toameh, Palestinian Affairs reporter for the Jerusalem Post, who recently broke a story about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. Today 7pm, Ryerson University, Library Building 72, 530 Victoria Street
• Dr. Joel Kotek: Images and Extremism. Dr. Kotek, an expert on anti-Semitism and imagery, is author of the book “Cartoons and Extremism,” Wednesday, March 3 at 3 pm, Curtis Lecture Hall F, York University/ Thursday, March 4 at 11 am, Student Campus Centre, Room, 310, Ryerson University/ Wednesday, March 3 at 8 pm, Rm 230, Ontario College of Art and Design.
• Kamal Saleem, Ex-terrorist: Rising Above Terror, a personal story. Wednesday, March 3 at 7 pm,  Innis Hall, University of Toronto/Thursday, March 4 at 4 pm, York University, Curtis Lecture Hall I

We are very proud of our Hillel students who are at the forefront of the battle against IAW proponents. Their initiatives are part of a well-considered national strategy, coordinated by CIJA, together with Canadian Jewish Federations.

Introduction

York University has a rich tradition as a globally respected institution of higher learning that fosters Jewish campus life. York, for example, boasts a renowned Jewish Studies program, active exchange initiatives with Israel, a campus kosher restaurant, approximately 4500 Jewish students, and many Jewish donors who are active in community life. Clearly, the Jewish community is very important to York University and the future of York is very important to the Jewish community. As such, concerned members of our community recognize the need to restore a safe, civil environment at York University, which Jewish students will want to attend and where all students can comfortably study and gather.

During the past month, Hillel of Greater Toronto and Hasbara at York, supported by UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and CIJA (Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy), established a commission to identify trends affecting the quality of life for Jewish students at York, and to make practical recommendations for improvement.

UJA Federation, the primary funding, allocations, planning and community mobilization organization for Toronto’s Jewish community of 200,000, has a long-standing relationship with York University, as do a significant number of UJA’s 21,000 donors. The commitment of UJA Federation and its commission partners to the wellbeing of York University is historic and unequivocal, as reflected in this report.

In order to prepare this report, our commission requested and received many submissions and hundreds of recommendations from students, faculty, and Jewish community members. These recommendations have been reviewed and refined for presentation to and consideration by the York University Task Force on Student Life, Learning and Community.

Background:

Over the past year, our community watched with concern, and sometimes with alarm, as several incidents adversely affected the quality of life for Jewish students on campus (please see Appendix 1). Episodes of intimidation, harassment, ridicule and virulent anti-Israel sentiment demonstrably diminished the campus environment for all students. The York campus has become the focal point for opposing views on a single global dispute, and this overriding campus focus on the Israel-Palestinian conflict threatens to undermine the educational excellence of the University.

This past year at York does not represent a new, nor isolated phenomenon. York has been plagued for many years by vehement anti-Israel expression (please see Appendix 2) on campus and attempts to shout down or suppress speakers hosted by Jewish campus groups, although recent incidents have surpassed any prior occurrences by a considerable measure.

On May 22, Janet Mosher, the adjudicator investigating complaints related to a disturbing February 11 incident at the Hillel lounge, found that Krisna Saravanamuttu, the incoming president of the York Federation of Students and another student, Jesse Zimmerman, promoted an atmosphere of “hostility, incivility and intimidation” (please see Appendix 3). On April 21, an unauthorized campus newspaper, the YU Free Press, containing cartoons comparing Israeli soldiers to Nazis, was distributed to York University students on Holocaust Remembrance Day (please see Appendix 4). On March 31 last year, former Israeli cabinet minister and human rights advocate Natan Sharansky was continuously interrupted by anti-Israel agitators as he attempted to address students. In 2003, the University, under pressure from the Middle East Students Association, initially banned Professor Daniel Pipes from speaking on campus, before reversing its decision and permitting him to deliver a lecture in a partitioned section of the basketball court, under heavy security, paid for by the Jewish community.

Events at York University have left many members of our community shocked and shaken and our community leaders have frequently expressed their concerns to the highest levels of the University administration.

We strongly believe a University campus should be a place where open, honest and balanced debates occur and where a wide range of opinions are expressed within a safe, non-confrontational environment based on mutual respect and a commitment to civil discourse. The organizations represented by our commission strongly support freedom of expression, consistent with the University Code of Conduct and academic standards. However, several incidents that have occurred at York are unbecoming of a well-regarded institution of higher learning and intolerable in a campus setting.

The time for change has come. The opportunity to help York restore safety, peace and mutual consideration is upon us. With that in mind, and with a view to assisting the Task Force in its work, we offer the recommendations below.

In developing these recommendations, we paid careful attention to the initiatives taken by other North American universities that demonstrated determination to ensure an atmosphere of respectful, civil debate; an atmosphere that maintained their academic commitment to deal with controversial issues but in a manner that sought to preclude the possibility of defamation against individuals or groups of individuals.

Montreal’s Concordia University, where tensions were similar to those at York, blocked access to the central space on campus for political demonstrations and exhibitions (please see Appendix 5). Pennsylvania State University established ‘free speech zones’ for speakers, displays and literature distribution. California Polytechnic University has regulated allowable space for signs, posters, flyers and banners. Concordia, McMaster University, and Texas A&M specifically defined harassment within their codes of conduct, and at Stanford University, the Code of Conduct is violated when shouts, interruptions or chants prevent others from hearing a scheduled speaker.

Recommendations:

Use of University Space

Although York University serves an important public function, its property is private. York, like the universities cited above and many others, is entitled to set reasonable limits on those who use its campus and services, in order to preserve the appropriate academic atmosphere. The following recommendations are based on the necessity of York regulating its use of space in a more rigorous and systematic way.

• The University should not allow Vari Hall to be booked by student groups for political purposes. Vari Hall is the public face of the University. It is a meeting ground, gathering place, lecture hall and the gateway to virtually all campus activities. This space must remain neutral ground for the benefit of all students. Just as political expression is guaranteed, so should the rights of students who seek only to acquire an education, without involvement in political protest.

• The University should put an immediate end to the unauthorized use of Vari Hall and strongly sanction those responsible for any such unauthorized use.

• The University should, instead, identify alternative spaces for political expression and establish a set of rules, consistent with the Code of Conduct, to regulate the use of such space e.g. advance, approved booking.

• The University should prohibit signs and statements that do not contribute to an atmosphere of respectful dialogue and civil discourse.

• York should provide its security services and Toronto Police with the requisite authority to remove trespassers immediately from campus who are, or threaten to become, disruptive.

Code of Conduct:

Detailed, well defined and well publicized student codes of conduct permit universities to maintain both their academic missions and a secure environment, free from intimidation (please see Appendix 6). We believe, for the most part, York’s Student Code of Conduct and existing regulations are sufficiently thorough to fulfill their objectives, but more rigorous and consistent enforcement is required.

• Our commission recommends more timely and determined enforcement of both the University Code of Conduct and existing regulations, including suspension and expulsion, when warranted, as one of the most significant steps toward setting a new, respectful tone and a safer environment on campus.

• The University administration and York Security Services need to become more proactive and aggressive in dealing with violations of policies, by amending the Code of Conduct to permit the initiation of complaints by authorized University personnel rather than waiting for students to register complaints, as is the case at Concordia University.

• The University should take steps to ensure that Code of Conduct complaints are dealt with more expeditiously than is currently the case.

• The University should increase the severity of sanctions for those who repeatedly violate the Code of Conduct.

• The University should ensure that all students sign the Code of Conduct prior to registration and that copies of the Code are displayed in prominent campus locations and on the internet.

• The University should take swift and forceful action against those who make racist statements and statements that demean or delegitimize identifiable groups.

• The University should provide a more detailed definition of ‘harassment’ in the Code of Conduct section dealing with ‘disruptive and/or harassing behaviour in academic situations.’ The University should also include and define ‘intimidation’ within the same section.

Security Services

The Commission believes that York University should authorize its security services to play an even greater role in ensuring the safety and security of students on campus, and has confidence in the capacity of York Security to do so. We believe enhanced authority for York Security is essential for a more secure campus atmosphere, as is evident in the following recommendations:

• York Security should be directed to take any action within its legal authority to deal with disruptive individuals.

• York Security should be encouraged to issue Trespass Notices under the Trespass to Property Act to disruptive trespassers.

• The University should provide its Security Services with enhanced training in order to deal more effectively with disruptive events and individuals.

• The University should direct its Security Services to prevent protestors from interrupting speeches or lectures and impeding pedestrian traffic.

• York Security should be empowered to issue ‘Academic Offence’ tickets to students found in violation of the Student Code of Conduct or other University regulations. The Code of Conduct should be amended to explicitly permit the issuance of such tickets along with meaningful financial penalties. These tickets would be treated in the same manner as parking or library fines. Failure to pay them would result in an ‘ineligible to graduate’ status.

• The University should also empower York Security to issue reprimands, under appropriate circumstances, that would remain on a student’s academic transcript for a period of not less than two years.

Acceptable Expression:

The Commission believes strongly in freedom of expression at York, as long as such public expression is lawful, respectful, civil, and free from inflammatory rhetoric and the defamation of individuals or identifiable groups. The following recommendations are designed to prevent future incidents involving rhetoric that violates these norms:

• Senior administration officials must be prepared to consistently speak out against inappropriate public expression. The President, and all senior officers of the University, must actively encourage civility and honest, open and balanced debate within an atmosphere of respect.

• Publications produced by unauthorized campus groups should not be displayed or distributed on campus.

• The University should ensure that content of authorized publications is free from defamatory material and makes a positive contribution to an atmosphere of respectful dialogue and civil discourse.

• The University, through the management of student levy dollars, should ensure that the York Federation of Students promotes the same atmosphere.

• The University should rigorously define the academic standards expected of all University-sponsored conferences, insist on peer review for all conference speakers, and deny its endorsement to any conference that violate these academic standards.

Dialogue among those with Opposing Views:

Civil discourse cannot take place without a commitment to dialogue, and true dialogue is illusory when hostility and invective are commonplace. We suggest the following initiatives to encourage genuine dialogue.

• The University should play a leadership role in fostering partnerships and dialogue among groups with opposing views on campus.

• The University should designate an individual to champion bridge building between opposing groups on campus and to facilitate respectful relationships. York should also designate appropriate funding for this initiative.

• The University should review written commitments to respectful relationships on other University campuses by groups with opposing views. In this regard, elements of the ‘McMaster Peace Initiative’ could be considered (please see Appendix 7).

Abuse of the Lecture Podium:

One of the most frequently articulated student concerns in submissions to our commission surrounded ‘misappropriation of the podium’ – remarks reflecting a faculty member’s personal point of view on issues unrelated or marginally related to the course at hand, or personal opinions based on incorrect facts. What takes place inside the classroom is far less visible than events within the University’s public spaces, but no less damaging to the University’s character. In addition, many students are reluctant to report such abuse or they are unaware of procedures to do so. The following recommendations will, we believe, strongly and effectively address this issue.

• President Shoukri should issue a strong statement, instructing faculty members and teaching assistants (‘teachers’) not to abuse or misuse the classroom by turning it into a forum for the expression of personal political views unrelated to the subject of the course. While it is the role of a teacher to encourage critical thinking, it is not his or her role to require explicit or implicit adherence to any particular political ideology.

• The University should establish and promote a mandatory training program for all teachers on ‘abuse of the podium’.

• The University should develop, and publicize as widely as possible, a clear and efficient complaints mechanism for students who reasonably believe their teachers have appropriated the classroom in order to advance a particular political agenda.

• The University should establish a confidential hotline for students to report ‘abuse of podium’ incidents.

• The University should ensure that students who initiate such complaints against teachers are protected from retribution or punishment.

Conclusion:

All of the recommendations in this report are based on an honest assessment of the challenges facing not just Jewish students but all those who attend York University. Yet, our suggested solutions also reflect our deep commitment to the University and our acknowledgement of its outstanding accomplishments. We submit these recommendations with confidence that York can and will reinvigorate its reputation, renew its dedication to a respectful, civil campus society and play an even greater role in fostering scholarship, nurturing innovation and enhancing Canadian life.

Respectfully submitted by

Commission Members:

Daniel Ferman
Tyler Golden
Elyse Lackie (chair)
Tom Lobel
Morris Perlis
Edward Prutschi
Miryam Spiegel
David Spiro

Staff
Howard English – UJA Federation of Greater Toronto
Jay Solomon – CIJA

Efforts to delegitimize Israel continue to run amok: UN anti-racism conferences being used as forums to single out and vilify Israelis in racist terms; Israel Apartheid Week as an annual Israel hate-fest on various campuses; Canadian Union of Public Employees (Ontario) and other Canadian unions and organizations working feverishly to isolate Israel through boycott and sanctions campaigns; and more.

Into this inimical atmosphere stepped the organizers of a “one-state solution” conference recently held  at York University under the more academic title Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace.

In “What’s discussed openly in Israel is toxic in Toronto” (Toronto Star, June 23), Haroon Siddiqui strung togther a number of quotes from conference organizers and participants, making it appear that the conference was a balanced academic exercise carried out in a climate of open, tolerant discussion and debate.  Siddiqui wrote: “The dialogue was civil, [Professor Sharryn] Aiken [one of the organizers] reported from the meeting, which was closed to the media.”

That assessment came as surprising news to a number of those in attendance including one of the Israeli academic participants, Na’ama Carmi from Haifa University.

In “Middle East conference anything but academic” (TheStar.com, June 30), Carmi presented a very different picture, explaining that the dialogue was anything but “civil.”

Carmi, who belongs to the left in Israel, opposed banning the conference even though she feared it might be hijacked to become yet another anti-Israel event.  Still, she wanted to participate in order to bring “another voice.”  What she discovered, however, only confirmed her initial fear.

As she put it: Not in my worst dreams did I imagine an atmosphere that was totally incompatible with academic discourse… A hostile atmosphere toward people with different views generally, and Jewish-Zionist Israelis in particular, was created. Anyone who challenged the Palestinian perspective was intimidated or even labelled a racist. The audience vocally applauded those whose views it approved. At times, those presenting a different view were subject to abuse and ridicule [her own ‘psychological state’ was questioned]…And all of this without any apparent attempt by the organizers to stop it.”

Carmi concluded, “This was not an academic conference, but an ‘academic’ version of Durban.”

This, of course, could readily have been anticipated by a glance at the program.  By inviting a number of prominent anti-Israel political polemicists as participants, the conference organizers could not conceal the fact that they were apparently less interested in real scholarly debate than in promoting a political agenda.

As the conference began, Stephen Scheinberg and Neil Caplan, two Canadian academics affiliated with Canadian Friends of Peace Now, wrote an op-ed in the National Post titled “One state is no solution” (June 23).  With historical perspective about why a two-state solution is the only viable option for conflict resolution, they argued: “Current calls for a one-state solution mask a desire for the disappearance of Israel as a Jewish state. They not only reinforce the demands of fundamentalist groups like Hamas, but also cater to demagogic seekers of ‘justice’ and anti-Israel campus groups.”

Today, these “demagogic seekers” pass themselves off in some media circles as “progressives,” whereas they represent the height of intolerance.  Their position amounts to the following: “A state for the Palestinian people?  But of course.  A state for the Jewish people?  How dare you!”

They well know that a “bi-national” state for Jews and Palestinians from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River would, because of demographics, quickly become another Arab-majority state in which the Jewish minority would be at risk.  But this is the very idea: to eliminate Israel as a “progressive” step.

Middle East conference anything but academic
by Na’ama Carmi
June 30, 2009

I hesitated whether to accept the invitation to participate in the conference at York University on “Models of Statehood in Israel/Palestine.”

Such conferences, even when organized with goodwill, are frequently hijacked and become anti-Israeli events. However, the dilemma is always whether to leave the floor only to the most extreme and one-sided views, or to try to bring a different voice, one that attempts to display the complexity of the situation and presents a perspective that would not be presented if one were to stay away.

Reaction to the pressure put on the conference and the Jewish Defense League’s (JDL) activity against it, and the desire to present such a voice seemed good reasons to take part, and not to surrender to attempts to silence debate and curb academic freedom.

Although the extreme manner in which they were presented was sometimes hard to hear, I was not surprised by the same Palestinian arguments that have been around for decades.

Thus, we heard that Israel is a racist, apartheid state; that the Palestinians are the “indigenous” and Zionists the colonials; that the only reason for the unwillingness of Jewish Israelis to give up a Jewish national state is their unwillingness to surrender power and privileges; and that Zionism has an inherent tendency toward war crimes.

Unfortunately, this was not accompanied with introspection or self-criticism by the Palestinians. Hamas was not mentioned at all. Apparently it does not exist in the virtual map of the Palestinian participants. Another “marginal” phenomenon that disappeared as if it did not exist is the lethal Palestinian terror against Israeli citizens.

But if all this was quite an expected scenario, not in my worst dreams did I imagine an atmosphere that was totally incompatible with academic discourse. The university rightly resisted outside pressures aimed at silencing the conference. But there were attempts at the conference itself to silence unpopular views.

A hostile atmosphere toward people with different views generally, and Jewish-Zionist Israelis in particular, was created. Anyone who challenged the Palestinian perspective was intimidated or even labelled a racist. The audience vocally applauded those whose views it approved. At times, those presenting a different view were subject to abuse and ridicule.

For me, this reached an extreme when one interlocutor, rather than debating the substantive arguments I presented, questioned my psychological state. And all of this without any apparent attempt by the organizers to stop it. Never before in my whole academic career have I encountered the rudeness that I experienced at this conference.

Academic discourse implies in-depth analysis of issues, even loaded ones, theorizing and making well-based arguments. Reasoned criticism is a first-degree instrument for the advancement of academic knowledge. Ad-hominem offence and the silencing of unpopular views are its antithesis. If one has good arguments, one doesn’t need to resort to such tactics. As an Israeli politician once reputedly wrote on the side of his written text: “Here the argument is weak, raise your voice.”

After my presentation, people approached me to thank me for presenting an alternative view. They admitted that in the prevailing atmosphere they were deterred from stepping forward and expressing a different voice. This is a disgrace for the academic host of this conference. I’d very much want to believe that the organizers were only naive. It’s more difficult to accept that there was no agenda, explicit or hidden, to this conference

The Palestinians’ pain and rage are understandable. But what happened at York University reflects a worrying, dangerous and, unfortunately, not uncommon pattern. Persons who demand the protection of human rights abandon them and display little tolerance for the views of others when they have the power to marginalize them. This provides food for thought. Surely such tolerance would be a sine qua non in the liberal democratic state that many participants in the conference purport to support.

The universities that sponsored this conference should give themselves an accounting. While the JDL demonstrated outside the campus, a pro-Palestinian demonstration took place inside the conference itself, from the floor, under an academic disguise.

This was not an academic conference, but an “academic” version of Durban.

Na’ama Carmi teaches at the faculty of law of Haifa University, Israel.

Now that the controversial York University conference called Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace has ended, UJA Federation and CIJA (Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy) wanted to provide you as soon as possible with a brief report.

UJA Federation and CIJA have a long history of supporting the principle of academic freedom. However, months before the conference began we expressed concern about its adherence to “academic” principles and its unbalanced approach, and we criticized York University’s endorsement of what we feared would become a propaganda exercise against the concept of Zionism.

CIJA assigned three observers to monitor and evaluate the event, attended by approximately 150 participants and, unfortunately, the tone of the conference confirmed our fears.

The conference devoted virtually no time to suggestions about an invigorated peace process and concentrated instead on Israel as a military machine determined to dominate the Palestinians. There was no discussion of terrorism or Israel’s security needs and there were no speakers who presented an Israeli centre-left or centre-right perspective. The assumption that Zionism and Israeli society are based on violence and racism predominated.

At one panel discussion, “Zionists” were blamed as the cause of domestic violence perpetrated by Palestinian men against Palestinian women. At another, some participants questioned the sanity and integrity of an Israeli presenter. Speakers who defended Zionism were often jeered and heckled and virtually all of the publicly available material was anti-Israel.

The presentations and attitudes of participants should now convince York President Shoukri that “Mapping Models” did not come close to meeting the rigorous academic criteria that he expected.

In view of all the disturbing events that have taken place at York University this year, we believe endorsement of this conference represented a serious lapse of judgment by the university.

CIJA and UJA Federation are preparing a more detailed assessment of the conference. We are working on a wide range of initiatives to combat campus antisemitism and virulent anti-Israel sentiment and we will do our best to prevent another conference of this kind. A commission established by Hillel of Greater Toronto, Hasbara at York, UJA Federation and CIJA has already submitted dozens of recommendations to a York University task force about improving the current climate at York.

We will certainly keep you informed of future developments. If, in the meantime, you have any questions, please e-mail us at info@jewishtoronto.com

York University vs. Israel: ‘Academic Freedom’ or Academic Farce?

By Gerald M. Steinberg
Chair, Political Science, Bar Ilan University
and Executive Director, NGO Monitor

The President of York University in Toronto has issued a statement attempting to defend his university’s sponsorship of an event headlined “Israel/Palestine: Mapping Models of Statehood and Paths to Peace,” scheduled for June 22 to 24. This response to intense criticism of the program attempts to portray serious analysis as an attack on academic freedom. However, in examining the details and the debate over this event, and in the context of vulgar anti-Israel activities and physical intimidation of Jewish students at York, these bland words are a diversion. These officials are using a straw man to deflect criticism and block important public debate over the role of university campuses as battlefields in the Arab-Israeli narrative wars that perpetuate the violent conflict.

York’s defense seeks to answer the public statement issued by Hershell Ezrin, head of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA). This analysis was based on a careful examination of the speakers and their topics, which reveals that this conference “aims to explore a one-state, bi-national solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the imposition of which would spell the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The conference will include a number of speakers who are recognizable for their roles as organizers and outspoken proponents of ‘Israel apartheid week’ and the Israel boycott movement.”

Far from an attack on academic freedom, such criticism highlights the very absence of the free exchange in a marketplace of ideas which is the indispensible foundation for academic freedom. The extremely complex history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and multiple dimensions of peace efforts contrast starkly with the narrowly constricted ideologies reflected in the list of 44 speakers. This information is readily available using the internet, and had the eleven sponsors — six from York, four from Queen’s University and a government funded research framework — exercised “due diligence”, they would have found that many of the speakers are virulent anti-Israeli activists, and are far removed from the efforts to understand complex issues through research and debate. In other words, it is the conference that constitutes a brutal attack on academic freedom, rather than the analysts and critics.

For example, the first speaker on the list is Ali Abunimah, who runs a propaganda internet site known as the “Electronic Intifada”, specializing in demonization of Israel through articles such as “Why Israel won’t survive”. Abunimah is also affiliated with a political organization (PCHR) based in Gaza that systematically distorts and exploits the language of human rights – also to attack Israel. Abunimah’s groups frequently condone Palestinian terrorism using the euphemism of “resistance” and terms like “apartheid” and “racist” in reference to Israel – the exact opposite of promoting compromise and a two state solution. Attempts to feature speakers like Abunimah under the banner of peace research is dishonest, and rather than attempting to prevent this criticism by pretending that academic freedom is at stake, York university officials should welcome the analysis

While the ideological bios and activist records of all 44 speakers would fill dozens of pages (a task that the sponsors at York University should undertake as a public service), a few more illustrations are useful. Jeff Halper is another veteran pro-Palestinian campaigner, far removed from any academic pursuits. He runs a small organization that claims to oppose the demolition of illegally constructed Palestinian houses, but most of his activities are aimed at generating support for the Palestinian narrative. He recently participated in sailing a few small boats from Cyprus to Hamas-controlled Gaza, hoping to engage in publicity-generating confrontations with the Israeli Navy. Halper often appears in support of Naim Ateek, whose speeches include classical antisemitic references, such as accusing Israel of “crucifying Palestinians”. The context of Palestinian mass terror attacks, the mangled bodies, and the hatred against Israelis that promotes this inhuman behavior, are entirely erased.

An Israeli columnist recently witnessed Halper urging “his Muslim listeners in an American university to reject the Arab Peace Initiative, because it serves the Muslim tyrants. He told his listeners that Israel is actually a force that serves world capitalism, in the framework of the attempt to make enormous populations in the world disappear. The antisemites could not have said it better.” To label such activities as promoting peace or remotely connected to university discourse is an insult to intelligent people. Recently, Halper’s main benefactor, the European Union, rejected his application for renewed funding, but York University – for reasons yet to be explained – is giving him the façade of academic legitimacy.

Amidst the long list of speakers, there are also few genuine academics – whom critics might dismiss as fig leaves for the hard-core propagandists — but even here, the ideological range runs from strongly critical of Israel (but accepting the legitimacy of Jewish sovereign equality) to extremely critical (one-state promoters, tantamount to “wiping Israel off the map”.) Although there are many academics whose research goes beyond one-dimensional Israel bashing, and examines the failures of Arab, Palestinian, and Moslem leaders to contribute to peace making, these dimensions are conspicuously absent from the program.

In this Orwellian twist, the use of “academic freedom” is a mask for the crude censorship at York.

With so many obvious distortions, the defense offered by the President of York University is a farce. Without a free market of ideas, academic freedom, and even the concept of a university, is meaningless. Given a conference which fails to even hint at the complexity of the issues, the result is not censorship, but the transformation of the university into a macabre circus that sells hatred, martyrdom and murder.

In a free society, the circus, like the university, is open to all – as P.T. Barnum observed, “There’s a sucker born every minute”. But in the Middle East, such farces will only serve to fuel the vicious warfare and mass terror which has taken the lives of tens of thousands of Israelis, Palestinians, and others, and is escalating into nuclear confrontation. And York University has become an accomplice in this crime.

Over the past several months, many of you have expressed concern about events at York University and their impact on Jewish students.

That’s why UJA Federation, in conjunction with its partner agencies, has established a Commission on the Quality of Jewish Life for Students at York University.

Our commission will be submitting a report to York by June 15 in order to improve the quality of Jewish life at York University, assist York in ensuring a safe, welcoming environment for all students and provide you with an opportunity to present your views.

This is your chance to turn your concern into positive action and help York University maintain its rich tradition of higher learning.

Here are the questions we would like you to answer:

• What direct personal experiences concerning the quality of Jewish life can you tell us about related to safety, the atmosphere inside or outside the classroom or the overall campus environment?
• What practical suggestions do you have to improve the quality of life for Jewish students on campus? Please focus your suggestions on what steps the university should take to encourage a safe, positive environment, free from intimidation, harassment and discrimination.
• Please send your submissions to yorkcommission@ujafed.org by the end of the day, Monday, June 1.

We look forward to hearing from you and we will keep you posted on commission developments.