McCarthyism comes to the UK
A very important article here by Ghada Karmi, a research fellow at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter.
"This week, two Israeli colleagues and I were due to appear at the union to participate in an important debate on the one-state solution in Israel-Palestine. Also invited was the American Jewish scholar and outspoken critic of Israel, Norman Finkelstein. At the last minute, however, the union withdrew its invitation to him, apparently intimidated by threats from various pro-Israel groups."
"The Harvard Jewish lawyer and indefatigable defender of Israel, Alan Dershowitz, attacked the topic of the debate as well as the Oxford Union itself. In an article headlined "Oxford Union is dead", he accused it of having become "a propaganda platform for extremist views", and castigated its choice of what he termed anti-Israel and anti-semitic speakers."
Karmi then goes on to discuss the power of the 'Israel Lobby' on the other side of the Atlantic in disciplning political debate through threats and intimidation, giving examples of how such practises are making their way over to Britain. She ends by saying:
"Appeasing bullies like Dershowitz will not stop them. It will rather encourage them to go further. The question is, do we in this country want a McCarthyite witch hunt? If not, then we must confront the bullies and expose them for the intellectual terrorists they are, bent on destroying the values of a free society. To do otherwise will invite the fate of all repressed people, cowed and intimidated, hating their tormentors, but too afraid to say so."
Read the rest here.
******************
Update - 28/10/07
Israeli soldier writes President of Oxford Union
Ronen Berelovich
Israel
Luke Tryl
President of Oxford Union
Oxford University, UK
Dear Luke,
In spite of our differences, it was a pleasure to talk to you on the phone today, 23-10-07. Thank you for your openness and honesty. I am now following up with a letter to register my official complaint about the decision you took to remove Professor Norman Finkelstein from the "One state is the only solution for Israel" debate that was to be hold in 23\10\07 at Oxford Union. I am registering my complaint as a private individual living in Israel i am a film-maker and a reserve soldier in the Israeli Army. There are a few points that arose in our conversation, which I believe would be of wider interest than just to the two of us, so I'd like to highlight them and to share this letter with Professor Finkelstein and anyone else interested.
To reiterate our conversation, you told me that the reason for the removal of Professor Finkelstein from the debate was the intervention of certain interest parties and people pressuring Oxford Union. You identified Alan Dershowitz as one of those people and you said that he had personally demanded that Professor Finkelstein should be removed from the debate. The reason being that with Finkelstein on the "two-state" side, the debate would be too "anti Israel" and "not balanced".
I replied that this debate was about a one-state solution versus a two-state solution; the two parties were to argue which of the two solutions might be best for Israel and the Palestinians. It was NOT to be a debate about being "pro" or "anti" Israel; therefore, whether Finkelstein was "pro" or "against" Israel was irrelevant. Finkelstein, like everyone else, has a right to be pro or against Israel and it should NOT be enough to exclude him from a debate at a place like Oxford Union. You agreed with me and you stated that this was what you thought as well. However, you were forced to drop Finkelstein due to the pressure exerted on you.
Unfortunately, with that decision you have demonstrated that "freedom of speech" in Oxford debating society is liable to be censored. You have also revealed a sad fact that even such an established and prestigious institution as Oxford, which is supposed to represent the highest ideals of the western culture, such as freedom of expression, bows down to demands of interest groups i.e. the Israeli lobby and Alan Dershowitz. I suggest that the only honorable way for you to restore your academic integrity is to officially apologize to Professor Finkelstein on his website, explaining what really happened.
I am not asking you lightly to stand up to what you believe in. I used to be in the Israeli elite paratroopers, but after what I saw and was forced to do, I vowed that I would never go back to the Army and act as a tool for enslaving 3.5 million people in their own land without any basic human rights. As a soldier refusing to go to the reserve duty (I am a member of the Courage to Refuse group of IDF officers), I live with the constant threat of imprisonment. You can appreciate therefore that I do understand ‘outside pressure'. I just wish you the courage to follow your own ideals and integrity, because as a president of the Oxford Union, your fellow students and intellectuals world over expect nothing less of you.
I wish you the best,
Ronen Berelovich
"This week, two Israeli colleagues and I were due to appear at the union to participate in an important debate on the one-state solution in Israel-Palestine. Also invited was the American Jewish scholar and outspoken critic of Israel, Norman Finkelstein. At the last minute, however, the union withdrew its invitation to him, apparently intimidated by threats from various pro-Israel groups."
"The Harvard Jewish lawyer and indefatigable defender of Israel, Alan Dershowitz, attacked the topic of the debate as well as the Oxford Union itself. In an article headlined "Oxford Union is dead", he accused it of having become "a propaganda platform for extremist views", and castigated its choice of what he termed anti-Israel and anti-semitic speakers."
Karmi then goes on to discuss the power of the 'Israel Lobby' on the other side of the Atlantic in disciplning political debate through threats and intimidation, giving examples of how such practises are making their way over to Britain. She ends by saying:
"Appeasing bullies like Dershowitz will not stop them. It will rather encourage them to go further. The question is, do we in this country want a McCarthyite witch hunt? If not, then we must confront the bullies and expose them for the intellectual terrorists they are, bent on destroying the values of a free society. To do otherwise will invite the fate of all repressed people, cowed and intimidated, hating their tormentors, but too afraid to say so."
Read the rest here.
******************
Update - 28/10/07
Israeli soldier writes President of Oxford Union
Ronen Berelovich
Israel
Luke Tryl
President of Oxford Union
Oxford University, UK
Dear Luke,
In spite of our differences, it was a pleasure to talk to you on the phone today, 23-10-07. Thank you for your openness and honesty. I am now following up with a letter to register my official complaint about the decision you took to remove Professor Norman Finkelstein from the "One state is the only solution for Israel" debate that was to be hold in 23\10\07 at Oxford Union. I am registering my complaint as a private individual living in Israel i am a film-maker and a reserve soldier in the Israeli Army. There are a few points that arose in our conversation, which I believe would be of wider interest than just to the two of us, so I'd like to highlight them and to share this letter with Professor Finkelstein and anyone else interested.
To reiterate our conversation, you told me that the reason for the removal of Professor Finkelstein from the debate was the intervention of certain interest parties and people pressuring Oxford Union. You identified Alan Dershowitz as one of those people and you said that he had personally demanded that Professor Finkelstein should be removed from the debate. The reason being that with Finkelstein on the "two-state" side, the debate would be too "anti Israel" and "not balanced".
I replied that this debate was about a one-state solution versus a two-state solution; the two parties were to argue which of the two solutions might be best for Israel and the Palestinians. It was NOT to be a debate about being "pro" or "anti" Israel; therefore, whether Finkelstein was "pro" or "against" Israel was irrelevant. Finkelstein, like everyone else, has a right to be pro or against Israel and it should NOT be enough to exclude him from a debate at a place like Oxford Union. You agreed with me and you stated that this was what you thought as well. However, you were forced to drop Finkelstein due to the pressure exerted on you.
Unfortunately, with that decision you have demonstrated that "freedom of speech" in Oxford debating society is liable to be censored. You have also revealed a sad fact that even such an established and prestigious institution as Oxford, which is supposed to represent the highest ideals of the western culture, such as freedom of expression, bows down to demands of interest groups i.e. the Israeli lobby and Alan Dershowitz. I suggest that the only honorable way for you to restore your academic integrity is to officially apologize to Professor Finkelstein on his website, explaining what really happened.
I am not asking you lightly to stand up to what you believe in. I used to be in the Israeli elite paratroopers, but after what I saw and was forced to do, I vowed that I would never go back to the Army and act as a tool for enslaving 3.5 million people in their own land without any basic human rights. As a soldier refusing to go to the reserve duty (I am a member of the Courage to Refuse group of IDF officers), I live with the constant threat of imprisonment. You can appreciate therefore that I do understand ‘outside pressure'. I just wish you the courage to follow your own ideals and integrity, because as a president of the Oxford Union, your fellow students and intellectuals world over expect nothing less of you.
I wish you the best,
Ronen Berelovich
Labels: Israel/Palestine
posted by David Wearing at 8:02 AM
15 Comments:
Dear David,
I was directed here from links in your Media Lens posts (which I find refreshingly commonsense and insightful compared to some of the material posted there).
I hope you don't mind a question which is off-topic as regards your current blog entry (although you could say it concerns a form of "McCarthyism" which I've seen operating at Media Lens):
Do you have any comments on the conspicuous lack of corrections to the misrepresentations of Marc Herold's views by the Media Lens editors, as documented at the link below:
http://www.mediahell.org/community/07102504.htm
Thanks,
Peter
Thanks, Peter. And thanks for your kind comments.
I've had a glance at this and I don't think there's much there to be honest.
Firstly, what the David's say about Herold in the piece in question is an entirely faithful and accurate representation of what it says in the Toronto Star article that they cite, from what I can see. So there's no question of dishonesty or "lazy/sloppy research".
Which precise project it was of Herold's that inspired IBC seems to me to be of fairly little interest. If the "Daily Casualty Count of Afghan Civilians Killed by U.S. Bombing" uses broadly the same methodology as "The Afghan Victim Memorial Project" then the error's an irrelevance. And anyway, the error is the Toronto Star's, not ML's, so Herold should complain to them.
As to the point which ML were making about the methodology underestimating the true number, Herold does not contradict this and the point stands. NB: ZNet's is a note of clarification, not correction.
Herold offers clarification in defence of this broad methodology of his, and only to the extent that he say he thinks its less of an underestimate in the case of Iraq than the Lancet figure would imply. Fair enough, that's his view. I'd expect him to defend his methodology. But the methodology is still passive and thus a "vast underestimate" (his phrase, uncorrected). So his saying in big capital letters that he gets his data from "OTHER NON-MEDIA REPORTS" is simply a way of inflating a non-point by saying it a bit louder.
He says "I am thinking of a maximum order of twice the number of deaths I capture and report". Again, fair enough. That's his opinion. But I see no evidence upon which he bases this arbitrary factor of "twice". Again, I'm tempted to trust the real experts in this field, which are epidemiologists, not economists.
Herold concedes himself that his methods produce a "vast underestimate"; a phrase he doesn't retract, just attempts to qualify. He may not want that to "critique, invalidate, dispute" the idea that IBC is a comprehensive tally, but it plainly does whether he likes it or not. Its either a vast underestimate or its the comprehensive tally that the media have been effectively presenting it as (as ML have rightly observed). It can't be both.
So "ALP", whose post on the "media hell message board" this is, seems especially in his last para to have a bit overexcited about not very much. As though ML have been caught out in some way. On what, precisely, is unclear.
I'm quite happy to criticise ML (often in strong terms) when they've got things wrong, as you'll know from reading my posts on the message board, but I can't see anything much of interest here. Sorry.
Why don't you flag this up on the ML board or email the David's and see how they respond?
Best wishes
David
David,
Thanks for your reply. In fact, it is a correction from Herold (who thought it important enough to request that ZNet intervene - the milder word "clarification" is ZNet's, not Herold's).
Herold is pointing out that Media Lens are in error, and that he doesn't accept Media Lens' misuse of his quote to discredit IBC.
Regardless of how important you think this is, do you not think that (at the very least as a matter of courtesy to Herold) Media Lens should relay the information to their readers?
It would only take a few seconds of their time. Even in the interests of "clarification", people should be allowed to make up their own minds. By withholding this information, Media Lens are effectively preventing this, which is not how I see "open debate" working.
Imagine, for instance, if the media used a Chomsky quote to discredit someone, and then Chomsky indicated in no uncertain terms that his quote "should not and cannot be used" (Herold's exact words) to discredit the other party.
What would be your reaction if the media outlet in question didn't relay Chomsky's response to its readers? It would be outrageous, wouldn't it?
You say this is "overexcitement over not very much". But the point is that people should be allowed to make up their own minds how important it is. You don't think it's important, and that's fine. But shouldn't others be allowed to decide for themselves? If Chomsky, in the hypothetical case, thought it important enough to respond (as Herold does in the real case), then that should be respected.
It shouldn't require a prompt from me or anyone else for Media Lens to simply relay Herold's objections to their readers. That they haven't done so says a lot about their commitment to open debate, I would suggest.
Thanks,
Peter.
David, one further point if I may...
You say:
...what the David's say about Herold in the piece in question is an entirely faithful and accurate representation of what it says in the Toronto Star article that they cite...
I don't buy this. You don't expect Media Lens to repeat, as truth, something they read in the very media which they criticise for not telling the truth. You expect, as an absolute minimum, that they would check their facts. That they repeated a number of factual errors is sloppy, whichever way you look at it. And, of course, they should issue a correction, just as they expect journalists to issue corrections.
Thank,
Peter
Peter - sorry, you've misread this situation.
Its Herold's own quote that his method produces a "vast underestimate" that "critiques, invalidates, disputes" the idea that IBC is a comprehensive tally.
If Herold doesn't like the implication of his own words that's his problem, not the problem of those who quote him, and quote him accurately.
you say
Herold is pointing out that Media Lens are in error
Which error? That IBC were inspired by a different study? As I've said, if the study used broadly the same methodology its irrelevant. And the error was the Toronto Star's in any case.
Herold points out no other "error" in his note.
you say
and that he doesn't accept Media Lens' misuse of his quote to discredit IBC
In what way do medialens misuse his quote? They quoted him saying his methods produce a "vast underestimate". He doesn't retract that. His "clarification" is that this doesn't mean he endorses the Lancet figure. So what? They didn't say he did. They quoted him saying that the method produces an "vast underestimate". Which it does.
In my view this did not require a note from ZNet and they were wrong to insert one. The one error, which I mentioned above, is apparently trivial, and is an error of the Toronto Star's.
If people want a right of reply to Newspapers they write a letter which may get published. If Herold or you want a right of reply on this you can post on the message board or email the editors.
Again, I'm more than happy to point out when ML have got things wrong, as is well known by now. If there was something here I'd be raising it with them. But there isn't.
I don't buy this. You don't expect Media Lens to repeat, as truth, something they read in the very media which they criticise for not telling the truth.
This is a bit silly, Peter. You expect them to double-check every source they quote? Can you imagine if every writer did this? If every academic who wrote a paper duplicated the work of the several dozen papers he/she drew on to make sure they'd not madea any errors. That's preposterous. You cover this point by saying "according to" or otherwise being open about who your sources are, and that's what ML have done.
And, of course, they should issue a correction, just as they expect journalists to issue corrections.
As I said in my last post. There's no correction for them to make.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this Peter. It strikes me as an total waste of time. If you want to pursue it with ML go ahead. No one's stopping you.
David, you say:
Its Herold's own quote that his method produces a "vast underestimate" that "critiques, invalidates, disputes" the idea that IBC is a comprehensive tally.
In fact, Herold is clear that his words "vast underestimate" "cannot" be used to "critique, invalidate, dispute" IBC's work. (That IBC's figure isn't a "comprehensive tally" has never been in dispute by IBC or Herold - that's a red herring).
It "cannot" correctly be applied to IBC's work since it was made about a study with different conditions (and a different methodology) than IBC's.
In any case, Herold also points out that by "vast underestimate" he's referring to "a maximum order of twice the number of deaths I capture and report".
So, Media Lens made incorrect assumptions about what Herold meant by the word "vast". Could they not have checked with Herold before asserting that IBC had never "accepted" their own count was an underestimate in the "vast" sense meant by Herold?
Media Lens should perhaps issue a correction saying that IBC have, in fact, said that their count may undercount by this degree.
You say:
If Herold doesn't like the implication of his own words that's his problem, not the problem of those who quote him, and quote him accurately.
Come on. As I'm sure you appreciate, David, it's possible (and indeed common) to quote someone "accurately" and yet misuse that quote by making unwarranted assumptions relating to it. This is what Media Lens have done. This is the point Herold is making when he says his quote "cannot" be used to invalidate IBC's work.
You say:
Which error? That IBC were inspired by a different study? As I've said, if the study used broadly the same methodology its irrelevant. And the error was the Toronto Star's in any case.
A factual error is a factual error. Media Lens should check their facts, especially when they lift those "facts" from the very media that they criticise. That you find it irrelevant doesn't make it less of an error. Herold clearly doesn't think it's an irrelevance. I think it's an indication of sloppiness by Media Lens that they sinply lift this incorrect statement from The Star without checking its veracity.
You say:
Herold points out no other "error" in his note.
Another Media Lens' error (corrected by Herold) was to write: "There is no reason to believe that the application of the same methodology in Iraq is generating very different results."
David said:
You expect them to double-check every source they quote?
Not every source. I wouldn't expect them to check facts from sources they find reliable. But they don't find the media reliable - especially on this issue. In fact they're among the most vocal people on the planet in telling us not to trust media "facts".
So it's ironic that in their build-up of "facts" leading to their criticism of IBC, they would simply lift an erroneous fact, without checking it, straight from the media.
You say:
You cover this point by saying "according to" or otherwise being open about who your sources are, and that's what ML have done
Not in this case. They simply lift the erroneous fact as if it's their own. They don't say "according to the Star".
I'm sorry, David, but it is sloppy and lazy, as the original poster commented. And combined with the other errors they make (not Herold related - documented in another thread at Media Hell), I can't think of another article I've read recently which is more in need of a series of corrections, so that its readers aren't mislead.
Thanks,
Peter
Peter - As I've said, this is making a great deal out of very very little so I find debating this - with the greatest of respect - to be something of a waste of time. I'll address your points and then this will have to be my last post on the subject. If you find my reply unsatisfactory then I'm afraid we'll both have to live with that.
In fact, Herold is clear that his words "vast underestimate" "cannot" be used to "critique, invalidate, dispute" IBC's work.
"Cannot" because he says so? Come on. His words stand as a criticism whether he likes it or not, as I said before.
(That IBC's figure isn't a "comprehensive tally" has never been in dispute by IBC or Herold - that's a red herring).
You of course know that ML's point has been that IBC have not been sufficiently clear to correct the assumption that there's is a comprehensive tally. So far from being a red herring, its actually the point of the whole controversy.
n any case, Herold also points out that by "vast underestimate" he's referring to "a maximum order of twice the number of deaths I capture and report".
covered this in my 2nd post above, 7th para. "Twice" is a fairly arbitrary factor, as far as I can see. There doesn't seem to be any particular scientific judgement on Herold's part for ML to defer to here.
So, Media Lens made incorrect assumptions about what Herold meant by the word "vast".
no they didn't. Again, I've covered this already. See above. They made no attempt to impose any additional meaning on the word "vast". Herold said its a "vast underestimate". Nowhere do they say Herold was endorsing the Lancet. Nowhere do they say that by "vast" Herold meant ten, fifteen, five or two times lower than the actual number. They just quoted what he said, and quoted him accurately
the rest of your 2nd to last post continues on this issue so I've not much to add to what I've said already.
Another Media Lens' error (corrected by Herold) was to write: "There is no reason to believe that the application of the same methodology in Iraq is generating very different results."
This is ML's own interpretation, (ie "there is no reason for us to believe") not a representation of Herold's views, so its not for Herold to "correct" it, only to offer a counterveiling viewpoint. Actually, I see nothing in what he's said (perhaps he's not said it with sufficient clarity - the first half of his last para is not well expressed) to indicate that his passive methodology will not still result in "vast underestimates" in both studies.
hey're among the most vocal people on the planet in telling us not to trust media "facts".
the only error in the Toronto Star article is that it says IBC were inspired by one study when they were inspired by another. If both these studies used broadly the same methodology then this is simply a nothing issue.
They simply lift the erroneous fact as if it's their own. They don't say "according to the Star".
Peter, they cite the Star as the source.
As I say, this will have to be my last post on the subject, though by all means feel free to reply. If you find my above responses unsatisfactory then I'm afraid we'll both have to live with that. I don't see anything to get worked up about here.
Best wishes
David
Thanks for your reply, David. I noticed that you said it was "a waste of time" in an earlier post, so I didn't expect a further reply - thanks for addressing my latest points. I don't think it's a waste of time, so I've posted our correspondence to Media Hell (minus your last post which appeared after I posted to MH), so others can follow it up.
There are a number of problems with what you've just written, but I'll just address one, so as not to take up your time...
You say:
They made no attempt to impose any additional meaning on the word "vast"...
Actually, they do (by implication), and this is the crux of the matter. They say:
But IBC has never, to our knowledge, accepted that their own count is "probably a vast underestimate"
But they know that IBC has said that their count may be 50% of the actual figure (and that John Sloboda has previously said between 50% and 25%, but not 10% or 5%).
They've quoted Sloboda on these percentages several times. So they know that IBC has acknowledged it could have as little as 25% of the total figure. So clearly they must be implying that the word "vast" means more than four times - as the only alternative is that they are being dishonest when they say that IBC has "never accepted" this degree of undercount.
On this point it's irrelevant whether you agree with Herold or not. The point is that whether you like his quote or not, Media Lens are misusing it in their claims about IBC.
I think this is absolutely clear, and I'm not impressed by your apparent attempts to side-step it. ;)
Peter, I've just typed and then lost a reply to this. This'll be shorter than that post was I'm afraid.
Despite your rather smarmy last sentence (rather poor form to accuse people of bad faith - "sidestepping" - on the basis of zero) the point you raise is at least worthy of examination. So lets look at it.
Herold's chosen word "vast", on any straightforward reading, is qualitatively different from the way Sloboda describes his undercount as no more than half. Entirely reasonable of ML to draw attention to this dissonence.
Plainly Herold wishes he hadn't used this word, as it undermines his own methodology, so now he seeks to clarify. Now he says that actually "vast" doesn't mean that vast as all. OK. Then that's him clarifying his own choice of words, not correcting ML who simply quoted him, and quoted him accurately.
So now, ML could post a clarification note on their alert which reads (something like): "prof.Herold has written to clarify that by "vast" he did not mean any more of an undercount than that already acknowledged by IBC. That would be fair.
However, ML have said that neither Herold nor ZNet have raised this issue with them. So a bit hard for them to have made the clarification, no?
Now that being the case, I assume - especially given your insistence on corrections - that you'll be retracting your statements about ML's commitment to open debate etc. These are after all serious accusations to make - of bad faith on ML's part - which you've made hastily and erroneously.
one more thing.
after all this fuss about nothing we are left with ML's central point intact. IBC's figure has been used in a way that misrepresents the true death toll in Iraq. Now I criticise ML when I feel its necessary. But on this issue they deserve a medal. What coudl be more serious than failing to acknowledge the deaths caused by an illegitimate war that we started? ML have worked tirelessly to get at the truth of this issue and to ensure that those deaths are acknowledged.
Personally, I'm always humbled by examples of activism like that. It makes me ask: what's my contribution been? Sad if one's answer to that would only be "I helped by erroneously accusing ML of acting in bad faith".
Now lets leave it there shall we Peter?
David, you say:
Despite your rather smarmy last sentence (rather poor form to accuse people of bad faith - "sidestepping"...
Sorry, David, it was intended as mildly humorous and affectionate, not "smarmy" (did you not see the smiley I added?).
Since you seem determined to have the last word (after previously saying you weren't going to post further), I'll leave it there.
I've copied the thread (except for the last few posts) to Media Hell: http://www.mediahell.org/community/07102801.htm
Thanks,
Peter
Back to the post -
You may be interested to read the letter from Luke Tryl, President of the Oxford Union, to Norman Finkelstein explaining why he was dropped:
"Dear Dr Finkelstein,
...Many people expressed concern that the debate as it stood was imbalanced and people felt that as someone who had apparently expressed anti-zionist sentiments that you might not be appropriate for this debate. I tried to convince them otherwise but was accused of putting forward an imbalanced debate and various groups put pressure on me. I received numerous emails attacking the debate and Alan Dershowitz threatened to write an Oped attacking the Union. What is more he apparently attacked me personally in a televised lecture to Yale.
I hope that you understand my position, this is not ideal and I would be happy to welcome you as an individual speaker to the Union in a forthcoming term. I know that the President-Elect Emily Partington would be keen to host you in Hilary. I just did not want to see the debate compromised and given the Irving Griffin Controversy I couldn’t fight a battle on all fronts.
Best wishes
Luke."
From Mark at jewssansfrontieres, who in turn got it from the Magnes Zionist.
Thanks for that, Jamie. I suppose I sympathise with Tryl, but not to the point where his behaviour is excused. He wasn't threatened with a gulag or torture. There's a responsibility attached to his job, which has to do with upholding standards of openness in public debate, and he's sigularly failed to live up to those responsibilities.
But weakness is one thing. Straightforward malice is something else. And how else can you describe out-and-out bullying to silence views you disagree with but are unable to refute in open debate?
However, as you and I have both mentioned separately on our blogs recently, the increasing aggression of this quasi-fascistic form of Zionism may be a sign of increasing weakness rather than strength. Put simply, they are showing their true colours, and that makes the task facing the likes of you and I all the easier.
Post a Comment
<< Home