Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: A shameful silence

A shameful silence
by Priyamvada Gopal  
 October 15, 2007 
 
UK Guardian Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend  
We have become accustomed to theatrical displays of intolerance: death
threats against writers, bonfires of novels, plays shut down, vandals
defacing paintings. The danger, however, is that this obscures the more
insidious forms that the suppression of dissent can take. 
Announcing that the proposed boycott of links with Israeli universities
would be illegal, the University and College Union asserted that debates
related to the topic under its auspices would also be "unlawful". On the
basis of last week's legal opinion (the details of which remain shrouded
in mystery), the union's leadership has summarily cancelled public debates
to have been attended by "legitimate representatives of organisations from
both Israel and Palestine". Scheduled for a national tour this autumn, the
carefully balanced debates had been described by the union leadership
itself as a "sensible basis" on which to approach the divisive issue. As
such, they were supported by many of us who, while condemning the abuse of
Palestinian human rights by the Israeli state, questioned the ethical and
strategic merits of a boycott. Now all engagement on the issue is off the
table. 
Some argue that this fractious union would do better to focus on domestic
matters, after the ignominious end to last year's action for better pay.
Academics, however, can't afford to ignore this appalling attempt to
undermine that most fundamental intellectual value - free debate. How, in
an apparently democratic context, can it be "unlawful" to discuss an issue
or possible action? Are discussions of economic sanctions against, say,
Burma illegal? What about sanctions against Hamas-led Palestine? It is a
particular travesty when such a blatant attack on civil rights comes from
the very organisation members expect would defend them were they to be
harassed for their scholarly opinions. 
The move comes at a time when academic freedom cannot be taken for
granted. In the US, it is under increasing assault from within and outside
academia. Even as freedom of speech is invoked as the great western value
to be spread across the globe, by force if necessary, its limits are
marked by two unbreachable taboos: anti-Americanism, and criticism of the
Israeli state and its occupation of Palestine. Organisations such as
Campus Watch monitor what academics write and teach, compile blacklists
and attempt to shut down debate, despite their claim to support free
speech. Respected scholars who have faced campaigns include Columbia
University's Middle East specialist Joseph Massad, who was accused and
then cleared of anti-semitism; outspoken Michigan professor Juan Cole; and
Norman Finkelstein, refused tenure and forced to resign after DePaul
University came under external pressure. Most recently, Archbishop Desmond
Tutu was banned by the University of St Thomas in Minnesota b! ecause of
his stance on Israel/Palestine. 
Dissenting Jewish academics are themselves the target of what Professors
Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer call "the Israel lobby". These authors,
by no means anti-American radicals, came under fire simply for attempting
to open discussion on US-Israel relations. 
Though encomiums to free speech underpin displays of civilisational
superiority by America and other western polities, it is undermined in
practice by flagrant breaches of academic integrity and protocol. It is
impossible to imagine a white European or American head of state, even an
authoritarian such as Putin, being described in the demeaning way that the
Columbia University president Lee Bollinger introduced Iran's Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad - as "a petty and cruel dictator". The same Bollinger was
president when the investigation of Massad and other scholars took place.
There is no excuse for inviting an elected leader to talk at your
university only to undermine him as lacking in "intellectual courage"
before he has had a chance to speak. It's called a set-up. 
The UCU leadership's call for constructive engagement over a divisive
boycott is looking like a set-up, too. Sadly, the pressure exerted by
people identified as part of the Israel lobby - including the Harvard
lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who is quick to denounce criticism of Israeli
policy as anti-semitic (never mind if it comes from Jewish intellectuals
as well) - has succeeded in shutting down discussion, let alone criticism,
of the Palestinians. Is silence the only constructive approach to the
Palestinian question? 
Writers and intellectuals have a moral obligation to criticise violations
of human rights and freedom wherever they occur - Iran, Zimbabwe, Burma,
Guantánamo or South Africa. The military occupation of Palestine should be
no exception. Whatever their views on boycotts, academics must not allow
such persistent exceptionalism to suppress debate in an organisation
expected to defend, not undermine, their right to freedom of speech and
engagement. 
* Priyamvada Gopal teaches in the English faculty at Cambridge University 
pg...@cam.ac.uk
 
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

può sempre organizzare un dibattito al distributore di bibite..

 insidious forms that the suppression of dissent can take. 
Trovo francamente incredibile l'incapacità a gestire questa materia da parte di 
organizzazioni come ADL, JWC e altre.
E' evidente che le strategie messe in campo per contrastare posizioni critiche, 
come quelle di UCU, portano inevitabilmente al diffondersi di ostilità e rancore 
verso queste organizzazioni, percepite come "potenti" e "illiberali".
Sono troppo profondamente radicati i principi di democrazia liberale per pensare 
che sia possibile comprimerli oltre un certo limite senza che vi sia, prima o 
poi, una forte reazione di rigetto, che molto probabilmente non riguarderebbe 
soltanto le organizzazioni sioniste.
Non è *impedendo* la discussione e la critica che si risponde alle distorsioni, 
ai malintesi, ai pregiudizi, vi si risponde con *più* dibattito, con *più* 
partecipazione; accogliendo le critiche per discuterle ad oltranza magari, ma 
non rifiutandole a priori o cercando di bloccarle.
Mah.

accogliendo le critiche per discuterle ad oltranza magari,
La merda non la si "accoglie".  La si getta nel cesso, dove deve stare.
-Stefano