We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication.
The Campus Crusaders: David Brooks, New York Times, June 2, 2015— Every generation has an opportunity to change the world. Right now, college campuses around the country are home to a moral movement that seeks to reverse centuries of historic wrongs.
Charlie Hebdo and a Rubicon Moment for Free Speech: Amanda Foreman, Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2015 — On balance it would have been awkward if the boycotters of the annual awards dinner of PEN American Center had changed their minds and attended on Tuesday night.
French Move Illustrates Israel Boycott BDS Peril: Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary, June 4, 2015 — One of the sidebars to the debate about the trade bill currently before Congress is over the language inserted into the legislation that will seek to discourage boycotts of Israel by America’s trading partners.
Canada’s Failure on Nazi War Crimes: Avi Benlolo, National Post, June 4, 2015 — Vladimir Katriuk died peacefully last week in Ormstown, Que., at the ripe old age of 93.
Some Questions for Jeffrey Goldberg: Manfred Gerstenfeld, CIJR, June 3, 2015
Cut Off BDS at the Spigot: David Bedein, Israel Behind the News, June 4, 2015
Orange Pullout Seen as Sign of BDS Influence on French Policy: Cnaan Liphshiz, JTA, June 5, 2015
Why We’re Honoring Charlie Hebdo: Andrew Solomon and Suzanne Nossel, New York Times, May 1, 2015
Arthur Miller’s Forgotten Masterpiece: Maxim D. Shrayer, Tablet, May 27, 2015
David Brooks
New York Times, June 2, 2015
Every generation has an opportunity to change the world. Right now, college campuses around the country are home to a moral movement that seeks to reverse centuries of historic wrongs. This movement is led by students forced to live with the legacy of sexism, with the threat, and sometimes the experience, of sexual assault. It is led by students whose lives have been marred by racism and bigotry. It is led by people who want to secure equal rights for gays, lesbians and other historically marginalized groups.
These students are driven by noble impulses to do justice and identify oppression. They want to not only crack down on exploitation and discrimination, but also eradicate the cultural environment that tolerates these things. They want to police social norms so that hurtful comments are no longer tolerated and so that real bigotry is given no tacit support. Of course, at some level, they are right. Callous statements in the mainstream can lead to hostile behavior on the edge. That’s why we don’t tolerate Holocaust denial.
But when you witness how this movement is actually being felt on campus, you can’t help noticing that it sometimes slides into a form of zealotry. If you read the website of the group FIRE, which defends free speech on campus, if you read Kirsten Powers’s book, “The Silencing,” if you read Judith Shulevitz’s essay “In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas” that was published in The Times in Sunday Review on March 22, you come across tales of professors whose lives are ruined because they made innocent remarks; you see speech codes that inhibit free expression; you see reputations unfairly scarred by charges of racism and sexism.
The problem is that the campus activists have moral fervor, but don’t always have settled philosophies to restrain the fervor of their emotions. Settled philosophies are meant to (but obviously don’t always) instil a limiting sense of humility, a deference to the complexity and multifaceted nature of reality. But many of today’s activists are forced to rely on a relatively simple social theory. According to this theory, the dividing lines between good and evil are starkly clear. The essential conflict is between the traumatized purity of the victim and the verbal violence of the oppressor.
According to this theory, the ultimate source of authority is not some hard-to-understand truth. It is everybody’s personal feelings. A crime occurs when someone feels a hurt triggered, or when someone feels disagreed with or “unsafe.” In the Shulevitz piece, a Brown student retreats from a campus debate to a safe room because she “was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against” her dearly and closely held beliefs.
Today’s campus activists are not only going after actual acts of discrimination — which is admirable. They are also going after incorrect thought — impiety and blasphemy. They are going after people for simply failing to show sufficient deference to and respect for the etiquette they hold dear. They sometimes conflate ideas with actions and regard controversial ideas as forms of violence.
Some of their targets have been deliberately impious. Laura Kipnis is a feminist film professor at Northwestern University who wrote a provocative piece on sexual mores on campus that was published in February. She was hit with two Title IX charges on the grounds, without evidence, that her words might have a “chilling effect” on those who might need to report sexual assaults. Other targets of this crusade had no idea what they were getting into. A student at George Washington wrote an essay on the pre-Nazi history of the swastika. A professor at Brandeis mentioned a historic slur against Hispanics in order to criticize it. The scholar Wendy Kaminer mentioned the N-word at a Smith College alumni event in a clearly nonracist discussion of euphemism and free speech.
All of these people were targeted for purging merely for bringing unacceptable words into the public square. As Powers describes it in “The Silencing,” Kaminer was accused of racial violence and hate speech. The university president was pilloried for tolerating an environment that had been made “hostile” and “unsafe.” We’re now in a position in which the students and the professors and peers they target are talking past each other. The students feeling others don’t understand the trauma they’ve survived; the professors feeling as though they are victims in a modern Salem witch trial. Everybody walks on egg shells.
There will always be moral fervor on campus. Right now that moral fervor is structured by those who seek the innocent purity of the vulnerable victim. Another and more mature moral fervor would be structured by the classic ideal of the worldly philosopher, by the desire to confront not hide from what you fear, but to engage the complexity of the world, and to know that sometimes the way to wisdom involves hurt feelings, tolerating difference and facing hard truths.
CHARLIE HEBDO AND A RUBICON MOMENT FOR FREE SPEECH
Amanda Foreman
Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2015
On balance it would have been awkward if the boycotters of the annual awards dinner of PEN American Center had changed their minds and attended on Tuesday night. At the very least their presence at the literary gathering might have been an unnecessary distraction. At worst it could have been taken as an insult to the memories of the 12 members of the satirical French publication Charlie Hebdo who died on Jan. 7 while exercising their right to free speech.
The heartfelt standing ovation for Gerard Biard and Jean-Baptiste Thoret—who accepted the Freedom of Expression Courage award on behalf of the magazine—had its own eloquence. Unusually, the many writers in the room didn’t need to say anything to make themselves heard. Simply being at the dinner was a statement, a Rubicon moment for those who believe that universal human rights is a cause worth dying for. Just as boycotting the awards has become the rallying event for those who believe that it comes second to other considerations.
If rational argument were a numbers game, there would be no need to continue the discussion about whether PEN behaved correctly in honoring Charlie Hebdo. In the days since 204 writers including Peter Carey, Joyce Carol Oates and Francine Prose—roughly 5% of the membership—signed a letter outlining their objections to the award, criticism of their stance has been unending. From the liberal Nation to the conservative Weekly Standard, the outrage from the majority of the writing community has been unequivocal: Freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, is a nonnegotiable right.
After the boycott began, it was met with a thorough demolishing of the claims by its supporters, especially the charge that Charlie Hebdo is racist. Whether through ignorance or malice, this self-appointed committee of public safety insinuated that the magazine’s writers had provoked their own murder by attacking Islam in general, and victimizing French Muslims in particular. Charlie Hebdo’s brand of humor, we were told, “intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.”
That calumny has now been exposed as a lie in point-by-point repudiations by some of the most respected voices in France, including the author Bernard-Henri Lévy and Dominique Sopo, the head of SOS-Racisme. The facts are there for all to see, such as: the Hebdo staffers were murdered while planning a conference on antiracism, and only seven of 523 covers for the magazine in the past decade touched on Islam. The protesters can no longer peddle the libel that Charlie Hebdo is a modern-day equivalent of a Nazi propaganda sheet, as several have, including Deborah Eisenberg, whose letter to PEN asked whether it would next be “giving the award retroactively to Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer.”
Yet dragging Nazism into the discussion is useful in one respect. While denouncing the PEN boycott, Mr. Lévy referred to the “deplorable Congress of Dubrovnik of 1933, at which the predecessors of Peter Carey refused to take a position against the book-burnings in Germany.” The Dubrovnik conference, in what was then Yugoslavia, took place on May 10, 82 years ago. The PEN president at the time, H.G. Wells, tried to maintain neutrality between those who wanted to speak out against Nazism and those who argued that politics had no place in a literary organization. His aim was defeated by the sole American delegate, Henry Seidel Canby, who forced through a resolution crafted by PEN America that restated PEN’s core mission as an advocacy organization.
Because of Canby’s courageous stand, the exiled German playwright Ernst Toller was able to make his own speech the following day—an impassioned plea on behalf of writers suffering Nazi persecution. The German delegation and others walked out. Toller’s speech persuaded the remaining delegates that the organization had to remold itself into the one we know today. Toller, who committed suicide in New York in 1939, declared: “Insanity dominates our age, and barbarity drives humans . . . the voice of humanity will only become powerful if it serves a larger political agenda.”
On Tuesday night, PEN President Andrew Solomon reaffirmed Toller’s position, saying: “PEN stands at the intersection between language and justice.” As the organization recovers from one of the ugliest episodes in its history, the Dubrovnik example offers clarity about what should happen next. Like its 1933 counterpart, PEN today has decided it will not be neutral in the battle between free speech and the assassin’s veto. It may be that some members will never be fully comfortable with this decision. They should be let go without heartache or second-guessing. There are plenty of other organizations for which the dictates of personal taste, sensitivity and interpretation carry the day.
By awarding Charlie Hebdo the Freedom of Expression Courage prize, PEN has also shown its willingness to lead by example and from the front. That leadership is more important than ever. If human-rights organizations, starting with PEN, fail to affirm the indivisibility of free speech, that failure will not lead to more peace and harmony in the world. It will lead to the reverse as vigilantes from all sides interpret such weakness as an invitation to impose their own order. The shootings in Copenhagen in February, and in Garland, Texas, last weekend—both involving Islamists targeting events they deemed insulting to their religion—are two examples of how some would like to see the “debate” unfold.
For those who believe in freedom of expression, the moment has come to make the choice between its defense or abandonment against a murderous movement that believes democratic values are subordinate to religious sensibilities. At the end of the evening on Tuesday, I spoke with Jean-Baptiste Thoret, Charlie Hebdo’s film critic. “There are just two options facing us all,” he said, “and we have to take a side.”
FRENCH MOVE ILLUSTRATES ISRAEL BOYCOTT BDS PERIL
Jonathan S. Tobin
Commentary, June 4, 2015
One of the sidebars to the debate about the trade bill currently before Congress is over the language inserted into the legislation that will seek to discourage boycotts of Israel by America’s trading partners. That provision is being opposed by left-wingers such as the J Street lobby because it might interfere with their attempts to support efforts to boycott products made in settlements. But as the controversy over the decision by France’s Orange telecom company to cease doing business in Israel in order to mollify partners and consumers in the Arab and Muslim worlds, such fine distinctions are lost on Israel’s foes. Orange’s decision makes clear that the Israel boycott BDS (boycott, divest, sanction) campaign isn’t a legitimate protest movement, but a nothing less than an effort to revive an Arab boycott that friends of Israel thought they had defeated years ago. That makes it all the more necessary that Congress leaves the anti-BDS language in the trade bill and ought to encourage states to continue passing their own bills in order to further marginalize this economic war on the Jewish state.
The Orange company might have gotten away with abandoning Israel or at least escaped a lot of the criticism it’s getting today had its CEO not given an interview in which he vowed to get out of Israel and said that doing so was part of his desire for Orange to be “trustful partners in all of the Arab countries.” He then complained that it would take time because complying with the demands of his Arab partners might expose Orange to a “huge risk of penalties” that can be assessed against firms that comply with boycotts of Israel. That interview provoked a firestorm in Israel where Orange didn’t do business directly but licensed its name to a local firm called Partner Communications. But the following day, Orange announced it wasn’t going to wait and said it was ready to sever ties with its Israeli partner despite the fact that their license had recently been renewed for ten years.
Despite claims that its decision wasn’t political, Orange should pay a high price for its willingness to join efforts to isolate Israel. This contretemps should also inform the debate in the United States about whether firms and nations that participate in such boycotts should be allowed to do business in or trade with the United States.
Opponents of anti-BDS measures claim that penalizing companies or institutions that take part in boycotts are attempts to suppress free speech. That is false. Anyone may say or write what they like about Israel including calling for its extinction. But there is no right to engage in discriminatory commercial practices. The point of Israeli boycotts is not to change its policies or to make a statement about where its borders should be drawn but part of an effort to wage economic war on a nation so as to cause its collapse.
As the Orange debacle illustrates the problem isn’t just that companies and institutions might be pressured into stopping investment or business in Israel, but that it encourages secondary boycotts in which those who do not will ostracize any company that does work there. The point is to single out the one Jewish state in the world for discriminatory treatment and to intimidate all those who might not wish to participate in such efforts. The primary and second boycotts of Israel that existed throughout its first decades were eventually broken by U.S. laws that made it impossible for any company that played along with the economic war on Israel to do business here. The same lessons must be applied to the BDS movement.
Disputes about whether BDS is okay if only applied to Jewish settlements in the West Bank are diversions from the real issue here. The point is, Orange and other boycotters aren’t pulling out because of the existence of Jewish communities in the West Bank, most of which would be retained by Israel if the Palestinians were ever to decide to make peace. They are boycotting all of Israel. The same is true of the BDS movement. The conflict predates the existence of the settlements and, as the Israeli pullout from Gaza proved, their removal wouldn’t end it. The settlements are merely a pretext for those who wish to support efforts to isolate and ultimately destroy the Jewish state.
In particular, the federal trade bill will make it much harder for European countries to engage in boycotts of Israel. On the state level, legislatures like that of Illinois are passing bills to ensure that its pensions funds are prohibited from investing in companies that participate in BDS. Doing so won’t set back peace efforts since BDS is aimed at furthering the war against Israel, not encouraging the Palestinians to finally accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state and end a century-long conflict.
Just as it has recently become clear that the BDS efforts on college campuses are thinly veiled anti-Semitism, so, too, it must be understood that businesses that are responding to pressure to get out of Israel are also engaging in discrimination against Jews. The case of Orange shows how easily major European companies are sliding back to a position in which they are backing discrimination against Israel. If President Obama and the rest of our political leaders want to back up their rhetoric about opposing anti-Semitism, they must demonstrate zero tolerance for BDS in international commerce.
CANADA’S FAILURE ON NAZI WAR CRIMES
Avi Benlolo
National Post, June 4, 2015
Vladimir Katriuk died peacefully last week in Ormstown, Que., at the ripe old age of 93. A source close to Katriuk revealed to us only two weeks ago that although his physical health was deteriorating, his mental faculty was quite good. Denaturalization and extradition on the charges of crimes against humanity was still entirely possible up until the day he died.
The Katriuk case exemplifies our national failure to try each and every Nazi war criminal that sought refuge in Canada. It is a stain on our nation’s identity as a defender of justice and humanity. Although some examples were made, Canada has repeatedly received failing grades from the Simon Wiesenthal Center for insufficiently addressing Nazi war crimes.
Katriuk was allegedly a member of a Ukrainian battalion of the SS, the elite Nazi storm troops, between 1942 and 1944. One of the most damning allegations against him is that he was an active participant in the massacre of 156 people in a small village in Belarus outside of Minsk named Khatyn. In 2012, Lund University historian Per Anders Rudling revealed in a Holocaust and Genocide Studies report that Katriuk “lay behind a stationary machine gun, firing rounds on anyone attempting to escape the flames of a burning barn.” Just last month, Katriuk was ranked number two by the Simon Wiesenthal Center on the list of Most Wanted Nazi War Criminals. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, Katriuk had denied involvement in war crimes — preferring to tend to his bee farm. That is not surprising. How many Nazis ever turned themselves in?
In 1999, a Federal Court determined he could be stripped of his Canadian citizenship and denaturalized after it was revealed and that he falsified his name upon immigrating to Canada. But one suspects there was a politicized campaign that triangulated the Ukrainian community against the Jewish community, with Russia pressing both levers. The Canadian government had to choose. Sadly, justice lost. The result was an inexplicable government decision in 2007 not to revoke his citizenship or even, at the very least, to explore the allegations further.
On April 25, 2012, I flew in a group of Holocaust survivors from Toronto to Ottawa to appeal directly to Rob Nicholson, then Minister of Justice and Jason Kenney, then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We presented the ministers with the new evidence and encouraged the government to re-open the case and take a closer look. This never happened. The story did not end there. Russia moved troops into Ukraine soon after. The Canadian government, supported by a large Ukrainian diaspora, rightfully came to the political and economic aid of Ukraine. Prime Minister Harper courageously put President Putin on notice. In retribution, Putin declared some Canadian leaders persona non grata in Russia.
The international intrigue continued. Several weeks ago, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center was asked by the Russians to help encourage the Canadian government to push for Katriuk’s extradition. While we agreed with Katriuk’s extradition, participating in Russia’s game of thrones against Canada was a non-starter. We would press for his expulsion on our own.
Katriuk and thousands of others like him may have lived out their lives. But they were never free and they were never at peace. Alienated from society, they lived often lonely lives in rural communities. They lived in fear — always looking back, knowing that at any moment, someone may come for them. The press never left them alone. The law never left them alone. We never left them alone. Had Katriuk been innocent, he would have made every effort to clear his name. Instead, his name will forever be tarnished. The memory of the evil he wrought will never be forgiven, or forgotten, and he will never be permitted to rest in peace.
CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!
Some Questions for Jeffrey Goldberg: Manfred Gerstenfeld, CIJR, June 3, 2015—Jeffrey Goldberg is a senior American journalist who recently interviewed US President Barack Obama for the Atlantic Monthly.
Cut Off BDS at the Spigot: David Bedein, Israel Behind the News, June 4, 2015—Thousands of young people are now employed on campuses around the world, well financed and well organized, in an unprecedented effort that challenges the very legitimacy of Israel on every possible academic and economic front.
Orange Pullout Seen as Sign of BDS Influence on French Policy: Cnaan Liphshiz, JTA, June 5, 2015—To Israel’s supporters, the decision by the French telecommunications giant Orange to dump its Israeli affiliate is not only a politically motivated divestment by a major multinational corporation, but a sign that European policymakers are being impacted by efforts to boycott the Jewish state.
Why We’re Honoring Charlie Hebdo: Andrew Solomon and Suzanne Nossel, New York Times, May 1, 2015—An organization that champions dissidents must embrace dissent in its ranks.
Arthur Miller’s Forgotten Masterpiece: Maxim D. Shrayer, Tablet, May 27, 2015—“The German Refugee,” originally published in 1963 under the title “The Refugee,” is one of my favorite stories by Bernard Malamud.
