OP-ED: Reinharz, Israel and me
by Daniel Pipes
Op-Ed | 2/13/07
Posted online at 10:34 PM EST on 2/12/07
/ Last updated at 3:47 AM EST on 2/12/07
In October 2006, the Brandeis Middle East Review and the Middle East Forum at Brandeis invited me to speak at the University, and I quickly accepted. The hosts and I selected the date April 23 and the topic ("The Islamization of Europe?"), and everything appeared settled.
But on Jan. 23, former President Jimmy Carter visited Brandeis, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz quasi-debated him, and the ensuing contention prompted the University to establish a closed student-faculty committee to monitor speakers on the Middle East. (This committee comes on top of an already existing committee the provost created earlier in response to the "Voices of Palestine" exhibit in Spring 2006.) Oddly, although my talk was to deal with Europe, it was deemed to fall into the Middle East category and is now on hold, pending this new committee's approval.
That's bad enough. Worse was to read in the Justice on Feb. 6 these remarks by University President Jehuda Reinharz: "I have a fear that these people [Norman Finkelstein and myself] who are being invited are weapons of mass destruction."
Then John Hose, Reinharz's executive assistant, further elaborated:
"These are people who tend to inflame passions, whose mission is not so much discussion and education as it is theater, a show. … If [students] want theater then it's best to go to Spingold [theater]. … But if you want serious discussion, there's lots of resources available for that already at Brandeis."
I strenuously object to being lumped in with Finkelstein in any fashion whatsoever. Finkelstein denies the Holocaust as a uniquely evil deed, equates Israel with the Nazis, compares persons he disagrees with to Nazis, justifies Hamas and excuses Muslim anti-Semitism. For good measure, he adds, "I do not think there is very much genuine grief among Jewish leaders about the Nazi holocaust," for they gained from what he calls "the Holocaust reparations racket." They "blackmailed Europe, got billions of dollars and then stuffed their pockets, bank accounts and organizations with the money." Yoking me to Finkelstein betrays Reinharz's profound moral confusion-something especially regrettable in the case of the president of a major university whose moral judgment is in steady demand.
But on Jan. 23, former President Jimmy Carter visited Brandeis, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz quasi-debated him, and the ensuing contention prompted the University to establish a closed student-faculty committee to monitor speakers on the Middle East. (This committee comes on top of an already existing committee the provost created earlier in response to the "Voices of Palestine" exhibit in Spring 2006.) Oddly, although my talk was to deal with Europe, it was deemed to fall into the Middle East category and is now on hold, pending this new committee's approval.
That's bad enough. Worse was to read in the Justice on Feb. 6 these remarks by University President Jehuda Reinharz: "I have a fear that these people [Norman Finkelstein and myself] who are being invited are weapons of mass destruction."
Then John Hose, Reinharz's executive assistant, further elaborated:
"These are people who tend to inflame passions, whose mission is not so much discussion and education as it is theater, a show. … If [students] want theater then it's best to go to Spingold [theater]. … But if you want serious discussion, there's lots of resources available for that already at Brandeis."
I strenuously object to being lumped in with Finkelstein in any fashion whatsoever. Finkelstein denies the Holocaust as a uniquely evil deed, equates Israel with the Nazis, compares persons he disagrees with to Nazis, justifies Hamas and excuses Muslim anti-Semitism. For good measure, he adds, "I do not think there is very much genuine grief among Jewish leaders about the Nazi holocaust," for they gained from what he calls "the Holocaust reparations racket." They "blackmailed Europe, got billions of dollars and then stuffed their pockets, bank accounts and organizations with the money." Yoking me to Finkelstein betrays Reinharz's profound moral confusion-something especially regrettable in the case of the president of a major university whose moral judgment is in steady demand.
Viewing Comments 1 - 9 of 17
David Sternlight
posted 2/13/07 @ 3:44 PM EST
Many years ago, when I was an undergraduate at MIT, I spent many happy hours on the Brandeis campus. At that time (1950-54) it was a distinguished institution of higher learning and a beacon of clear thinking. (Continued…)
jordan
posted 2/13/07 @ 5:29 PM EST
Pipes writes: "I strenuously object to being lumped in with Finkelstein in any fashion whatsoever. Finkelstein denies the Holocaust..." and goes on to attack our university for a litany of muslim-loving acts. (Continued…)
mlo
posted 2/15/07 @ 5:25 PM EST
"When the cold war was over, and the US was trying to conjure up new enemies to keep up the defense budget, Pipes found himself a new perch for an untenured 'soviet-ologist. (Continued…)
Shimon Gottschalk
posted 2/16/07 @ 2:15 PM EST
Daniel Pipes should be recognized for who he is, a radical right wing war hawk. He has every right to speak his mind, but should be recognized for who he is. (Continued…)
Monty
posted 2/20/07 @ 12:29 PM EST
:Readers should pay close attention to Jordan's tactics. His message is a rewarmed smear typical of those unable to deal with Pipes' irrefutable facts. (Continued…)
Michael Santomauro
Michael Santomauro
posted 2/27/07 @ 9:41 AM EST
The Holocaust: Let's Hear Both Sides
Nearly everyone has heard that the Germans killed some six million Jews in Europe during the Second World War. (Continued…)
Mark Surchin
posted 2/27/07 @ 3:24 PM EST
Am I reading too quickly, or is there in fact a long Holocaust "revisionist" letter to the editor posted above on the online edition of my alma mater's student newspaper of?
Holocaust denial is not a crime in my country (Canada) but depending on how the thoughts are expressed, it could constitute criminal "hate speech" under our Criminal Code. (Continued…)
David Sternlight
posted 2/27/07 @ 6:02 PM EST
Although Holocaust denial is protected by free speech provisions of the US Constitution, its consequences may not be immune to civil suits for damages, particularly the pain and suffering caused by such denial to Holocaust survivors and perhaps the general Jewish and even non-Jewish public. (Continued…)
Mark Surchin
posted 2/28/07 @ 10:44 AM EST
People are free to believe that the Holocaust did not occur or to disagree with parts of the generally accepted narrative. That's no different that people being free to believe that the Earth is flat. (Continued…)
Post a Comment