To the Editor: Re: “C.U. Debates Allegations of Columbia Anti-Semitism,” News, Feb. 4
I was disappointed to read Professor Tamir Sorek’s take on the recent controversy concerning Columbia University’s department of Middle Eastern studies.
With regard to the petition to organize wide-scale divestment from Israel, he states, “There is nothing anti-Jewish. They feel that the Israeli policies are unjust and they want to change it. This is not anti-Semitism.” Professor Sorek misses the mark badly. The divestment campaign is just another weapon in the widening arsenal to delegitimize the very existence of the Jewish state. It has already expanded into an effort to deny deserving Israelis positions in European graduate schools, a uniquely anti-Semitic practice not applied to any of the world’s hundreds of other nationalities.
Where is the academy-sponsored petition regarding the current genocide in Sudan? Torture and persecution in Chechnya? Honor killings and judicially-sanctioned gang rape in Jordan and Pakistan? The outlawing of all non-Muslim religious practices in Saudi Arabia?
The dearth of academic activism regarding any of the world’s other (and frequently graver) human rights violations should make one wonder whether the reason for the disproportionate focus on Israel isn’t more sinister than Professor Sorek thinks.
Michael Taylor ’05
To the Editor:
Re: “C.U. Debates Allegations of Columbia Anti-Semitism,” News, Feb. 4
While Professor Sorek believes that anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism, I would like to offer an opinion to the contrary. Having been born in the Soviet Union and having observed anti-Semitism firsthand, I can say that officially anti-Semitism didn’t exist.
However, what existed was official anti-Zionism. When the government would decide to mete out punishment to individual Jews, they were usually charged with anti-Zionist (reactionary) beliefs. Similarly, the modern victims of the official anti-Zionist positions in various instances and countries all seem to be Jews. All of the anti-Zionist sentiment has somehow targeted the Jews who may not have even harbored an inkling of Zionist beliefs. Paraphrasing Harvard University President Summers, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic in effect if not intent.
As for the accusations at Columbia, the press reports make it quite clear that the professors overstepped their rights by intimidating students. Questions concerning the number of Palestinians killed during service in the Israeli Defense Forces is as offensive and intimidating as a question about the number of babies killed to a person who is pro-Choice. While it is true that the accusations need to be thoroughly investigated, it is also true that as they currently are described these reports do point to intimidation of students by professors. Whether or not they were a way to silence Israel critics can only be seen upon the conclusion of the investigation and complete public release of the information. It is too early to characterize the accusations one way or another.
Vitaliy Galler ’04