Featured this week

Brandeis: Prof Shai Feldman on the Hopes for the Annapolis Summit
by Colin Blakely

Speaking to Religious Intelligence, Prof. Shai Feldman, director of the Crown Center at Brandeis University, said that it was unrealistic to expect a ‘monumental drama’ to come out of the U.S.-sponsored conference in Maryland aimed at re-starting the Middle East peace process. “I think the hope is for a credible process in the months afterwards. The best to hope for is that it turns out to be a type of Madrid conference. The photo opportunity is important, because effective photos also send a signal that there is hope. But the real importance is whether it launches a serious process.” He drew a parallel with the Madrid conference which set the scene for the Oslo Accords two years later. However, he said he believes that all the parties involved are already working behind the scenes on laying the ground for some sort of agreement. “The parties are hoping to conclude some kind of document. And if the U.S. expectations are that they get the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians at the conference, then any agreement will have regional legitimacy.” (Religious Intelligence)

UC Irvine: MSU Should Understand Not to Attack Another's Religion
by Alex Chazen

It is in the spring of each year that the MSU puts on its “Zionism Awareness Week,” in which it denounces the state of Israel and its supporters, attacking one of the major tenets of modern Judaism (support for the state of Israel). After the cartoon event, I figured that the rhetoric would be toned down, and that there would be a better situation on campus, as we all knew what it felt like to have our religion attacked. Unfortunately, I was wrong, and the rhetoric was turned up, and the anti-Semitic week of events took place as though it were the Jews on campus, rather then the College Republicans, who had held the cartoon-unveiling event. (New University)

UConn: Military Misuse Of U.N. Schools Must Cease
Editorial

Schools are supposed to be places of learning. Children should be able to attend them safely and without fear of retribution. Unfortunately, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, schools have become a place of violence and intimidation. In the last week, Israeli surveillance aircraft have taken aerial images of Palestinian militants using a United Nations-run school to launch homemade rockets and mortars into Israel. The U.N., Israel and the international community have been quick to decry the terrorists who perpetrated this act of cowardice. (Daily Campus)

Harvard: The Israeli Perspective
Interview with Itamar Rabinovich

Ideally, I’d like to see an agreement with the Palestinians but that’s not really realistic. So, realistically, we have a mutually agreed text for a declaration of principles, accompanied by some measures on the ground, to be taken by both sides. That would be a realistic expectation. (Harvard Political Review)

Harvard: The ‘Free Speech’ Agenda
by Alan Dershowitz

The hypocrisy is rather easy to spot if you’ve been around long enough to remember when it was leaders of the radical left, led by MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, who were trying to intrude on the tenure process for political reasons. I recall vividly when Chomsky campaigned to prevent Columbia from granting a tenured position to Henry Kissinger. Chomsky spoke at a noisy rally against Kissinger’s tenure. It was that same Chomsky who complained when I wrote a letter - in response to a request from the former chairman of the political science department - detailing misquotations, made-up facts, and other scholarly sins by anti-Israel extremist Norman Finkelstein and urging DePaul University to deny him tenure. I also remember when it was Professor Matory who tried to prevent former University President Lawrence H. Summers from exercising his freedom of speech with regard to Israel when he was president. Don’t expect the defense of those with whom they disagree from the Israel-bashers at Columbia, Harvard, and MIT. For them, it is “free speech for me, but not for thee!” Freedom of speech to criticize Israel and the U.S. is alive and well at Harvard and most other universities. The writer is the Frankfurter Professor of Law. (Harvard Crimson)

Hebrew: Prepare for the Day Iran Goes Nuclear, For Eventually It Will
by Martin van Creveld

The purpose of Israel’s nuclear doctrine, like those of other countries, should not be to try and foresee every eventuality that may arise. Rather, it is to save decision-makers the need to think out everything from the beginning at the most unsuitable moment - namely, when Iran makes threatening noises, or when Iranian missiles are actually on their way. Israel doubtless has the experts capable of developing such a doctrine, but it remains to be seen whether key decision-makers will take the time to study and absorb their counsel. To deter a war, one must be able to fight it. Given the enormous uncertainties involved, preparing for nuclear war is an extraordinarily difficult enterprise that will require the best minds, as well as plenty of money. The writer a professor of military history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Forward)

Ithica: Western and Eastern Terms Are Not the Only Characteristics to Define Israel
by Pooja Shah

Many would also be surprised to hear that Israel is a very safe place. During the 14 years I lived there, I never had to worry about being physically abused or mugged. Yes, there is arguably a higher risk of being bombed than in some Western nations, but in reality, there are more chances of being run over by a car. And in the case of a car accident, Israel has the best medical care available to save lives. This sort of security is very rare, even in many Western nations. Israel, however, is neither a “Western” or “Eastern” nation. These terms are just part of political and economical language that mean nothing when you consider the elements of Israel that actually define it - the warmth and hospitality by the Israeli people, great weather, delicious fruits and historical sites. (Ithican)

Princeton: A Bizarre and Unsupported Argument
by Seffy Muller

Norman Finkelstein's distorted image of the topic may be partially explained by the fact that he does not appear to speak Arabic or Hebrew. In the entire talk he mentioned no original research he had conducted. For a person who claims to represent an embattled minority view, he has an unusual reliance on the weight of authority. Instead of presenting evidence of his own on any of the issues discussed above, he would quote out of context a sentence or two from experts in the field, such as Gideon Levy or Benny Morris. Even when quoting others, he would not report their evidence or their arguments, only their conclusions (and only when they fit his assumptions). (Daily Princetonian)

Ripon College: Comparing Greeks to Terrorists Unfounded
by Joshua Barkin

Fully refuting Joe Hentz's assertion that Palestinian terrorists have reacted appropriately in the face of Israeli "aggression" would take an entire course on the history of the conflict. I used to eat lunch every day in the rebuilt remains of a café that had been blown up three years earlier, killing young people who were themselves around the same age as the average Ripon student.  (Ripon College Days)

Texas at Austin: Reality in Israel
by Tom Kelley

Israel has taken measures to defend its citizens from terrorists. Nowhere else in the Middle East are Muslims, Jews and Christians allowed to practice their faith as they wish. Nowhere else in the Middle East do minorities have equal protection under the law. And nowhere else in the Middle East is there a free press that keeps its government accountable. Is Israel perfect? No. But there is plenty that countries in the region could learn from a country with a population of only 6 million, which is despised by its neighbors and still promotes democracy. (Daily Texan)

Brooklyn College: The Lacrosse Case and Anti-Israelism on Campus
by KC Johnson

Many of the same professors who took an extreme position on the lacrosse case had previously distinguished themselves for vehement anti-Israel beliefs. Dozens signed a 2005 pro-divestment petition comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa and claiming that "torture is endemic and systemic-part and parcel of the Israeli Occupation and Israel's security culture." Wahneema Lubiano, author of the Group of 88's ad, was one of three Duke professors to speak at the PSM conference. She was joined there by another Group of 88 member, Rebecca Stein, who in a 2005 interview pointed to Israeli Jewish racism as among the causes of the second intifada. And Group member Miriam Cooke blamed the West for the Arab states' poor record of women's rights: "When men are traumatized [by colonial rule], they tend to traumatize their own women." In short, the Group of 88 demonstrated no more intellectual acuity in their comments about issues relating to Israel than they did in their perspective on the lacrosse case. I'm dubious, therefore, about rationalizing academic anti-Israel polemics as a necessary dissenting balance to pro-Israel sentiments in the public, media, or political classes - without examining the quality of those dissenting arguments. The writer is a professor of history at Brooklyn College.  (Ha'aretz)

Columbia: Greatest Victory, Even in Defeat
by Paula Stern

Sometimes, the right is in the fight itself and not in the results. No doubt Abu El-Haj is celebrating, but the victory is not hers or Columbia’s. The victory goes to those who fought against her tenure, because Barnard knows it has damaged itself in the eyes of many graduates. I recently attended a graduate gathering in Israel. Most of the women there signed a petition against Abu El-Haj’s tenure. The visiting dean of the college, Dorothy Denburg, was forced to offer a rambling explanation, but mostly, she asked not to be held responsible for the decision. The oldest alumna there, class of ’43, listened, and was livid. “I want nothing to do with Barnard. I’m finished with Barnard,” she said to me, the anger so apparent. This woman has held on to letters and notes from 60 years ago, and when she went home that evening, she left the notes and the book on the table. It was sad, heartbreaking. This is Columbia’s loss. A petition with over 2,500 names proved that thousands thought that Abu El-Haj’s tenure was the wrong decision. They will think twice before sending their children to Columbia, and certainly those yearly requests for money will go unanswered. This too is Columbia’s loss. But more importantly, Columbia and Barnard have lost their respect. (Columbia Spectator)

George Mason: Faith, Freedom and a Jewish Homeland
by Aram Zucker-Scharff

As a Jew, I consider Israel a home and, despite everything that happens there and whatever pressure may come from other nations, I still support Israel. Not the “my country right or wrong” type of support, but the support that makes the place mine, no matter what mistakes it might make. Israel is my country and it absolutely deserves to exist. As a people, have we not been through enough? Is Israel the country that Jimmy Carter describes it as? An apartheid state? No. In the Middle Eastern region Israel is a shining light of everything that we are supposed to support. It is a bastion of Democracy. According to Transparency International, Israel is the least corrupt nation in the area. The nation is far more progressive than any others in the region in preserving human rights, rated as best in the Middle East for economic competition by the World Economic Forum as well as Freedom of the Press by Reporters Without Borders. Israel is ranked number 23 out of 177 on the United Nation’s 2006 international Human Development Index. (For reference, the U.S. is number 8, U.K. is 18 and China is 81.) (Broadside)

Harvard: Identity Politics
by Alex Copulsky

The carelessness extends beyond sloppy philosophical arguments, for Mearsheimer and Walt neglect the very real question of causality. While they show that the Israel Lobby is tremendously wealthy and wields serious clout in Washington, clout does not always translate into a measurable impact on policy formulation. The authors admit that the American public supports the current stance toward Israel, but they attribute this support to the power and skill of the lobby. The implication is that only through being duped could Americans support the case for Israel that the authors dismiss so confidently in the early chapters of the book. Yet the authors do not refute the possibility that the notably idiosyncratic American polity just disagrees with the rest of the world. (Harvard Political Review)

Harvard: Mr. Smith Goes to Jerusalem
by Gabriel M. Scheinmann

To demonstrate that he is interested in peace, which would require ending Syrian support for all anti-Israel organizations and permit the Israeli flag to fly high from a potential Israeli embassy in downtown Damascus, Assad should visit the land of his mortal enemy. Only by addressing the Knesset, by visiting Yad Vashem, and by shaking hands in public with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, can he demonstrate that his talk is not mere lip service. The Israeli people no longer trust Arab leaders at their word; they must prove their credibility and desire for peace through their deeds. By taking the political and personal risk of flying to Jerusalem, Assad will have taken the road less traveled. Going to “the ends of the Earth,” as Sadat did three decades ago, will convince the world that he is willing to take the difficult steps necessary for peace. (Harvard Crimson)

IDC: Combat 'Westophobia'
by Barry Rubin

There are four main pillars critical to the Middle East's dominant ideology:  that its problems arise from Western and Israeli oppression;  that the struggles and violence of radical Arab nationalists and Islamists are based on genuine grievances;  that the West behaves wrongly because it is hostile or ignorant about Arabs and Muslims;  and that Arab and Muslim society is vastly superior to the West - which justifies their rejection of it and will ultimately pave the way for their victory over it. The first three pillars are too commonly accepted in the West; the last is largely ignored - creating a critical flaw in Western thinking, since the key to understanding the Middle East is not "Islamophobia" in the West, but the region's own "Westophobia." Within this broad category we can discern many other phobias: of modernity, secularity, democracy, freedom, female equality and of Judaism and Christianity. (Jerusalem Post)

Princeton: How Rice Can Improve Her Odds
by Daniel C. Kurtzer and Scott B. Lasensky

The United States did not do its homework before the 2000 Camp David summit, and the Israelis and Palestinians saw the result - what one U.S. participant has called "bumper car diplomacy." The time to do the homework is now. American diplomacy in the Arab-Israeli peace process in the past has scored big (peace treaties involving Egypt, Jordan and Israel) and has been shut out (Camp David II and the Road Map). Secretary Rice's chances of winning her high-risk bet in Annapolis can be enhanced by learning from these successes and failures. Daniel C. Kurtzer (pictured), a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, teaches at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. Scott B. Lasensky is a senior researcher at the United States Institute of Peace. (International Herald Tribune)

Purdue and Tel Aviv: The Limits of Deterrence
by Louis Rene Beres and Isaac Ben-Israel

If for whatever reason Iran should be permitted to proceed to become nuclear, Israel would have to enhance the credibility of its presumed nuclear deterrent, and to deploy a recognizable second-strike force. This optimally robust strategic force - hardened, multiplied and dispersed - would be fashioned to inflict a decisive retaliatory blow against selected enemy cities. Iran should understand, therefore, that the actual costs of any planned aggression against Israel would always exceed any conceivable gains. Louis Rene Beres is a professor of international law at Purdue University. Isaac Ben-Israel is a professor at Tel Aviv University and member of the Knesset's Foreign Relations and Security Committee.  (Washington Times)

Technion: The Day After Annapolis
by Moshe Elad

The “day after” syndrome is expected to hit our region the day after the Annapolis conference, and then we shall be discovering, for the who-knows-which-time, what the parties to the conflict and the various mediators have been repressing time and again: A peace agreement between Israel and Palestine is not viable. We’re late, as the Palestinians have not been one people or one entity for a while now. The writer is a researcher at the Technion. (Ynet News)