In order to assess whether Harvard is acting properly in relation to the upcoming student-sponsored conference entitled: Israel/Palestine and the One-State Solution, I propose the following thought experiment. Ask yourself what Harvard would do if a group of right wing students and faculty decided to convene a conference on the topic, Are the Palestinians Really a People?, and invited as speakers only hard right academics who answered that question in the negative? Would the Provost office at Harvard help fund such a conference? Would the Kennedy School at Harvard grant such conference legitimacy by hosting it? Would Harvard's Carr Center For Human Rights Policy or Weatherhead Center for International Affairs support such a conference? Would distinguished Harvard professors agree to speak at it?
If the answers to those questions are clearly "yes", then Harvard cannot be faulted for its role in the forthcoming anti-Israel hate fest. It would mean that in the name of academic and speech freedom Harvard will host a conference on nearly any kooky idea of the hard right or hard left. If the answer is "no", then the single standard of academic freedom would demand reconsideration of the Harvard Provost's decision to help fund the anti-Israel hate fest and the decision of the Kennedy School to lend its premises to this event. If Harvard were to decide to host the anti-Israel hate fest but not the anti Palestinian one, that would reveal either an anti Israel or pro hard left bias unbecoming a great university.
To be fair, the dean of the Kennedy School did issue a statement that his school "in no way endorses or supports the apparent position" of the conference, and that he hopes the "final shape of the conference will be significantly more balanced." But the question remains, would he have done no more than that if an anti-Palestinian conference were being hosted on his premises and supported by "centers" associated with the Kennedy School?
I believe Harvard would probably pass the "neutrality test," but I hope the issue is never directly put to Harvard, because it would be obnoxious for there to be a conference here on the subject of whether the Palestinians are a real people. They are, and so are the Israelis. The quest for a Palestinian state is a legitimate one, as is the need to preserve Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.
The participants in the Harvard conference will deny that there is any parallel between the subject of their conference and the subject of my hypothetical one. They will claim that the "one state solution" is a serious academic subject, whereas the question "are the Palestinians really a people?" is not. This is a pure rationalization. The question regarding the Palestinians was raised by a candidate for President of the United States and has been the subject of debate and controversy in the media and in academic writings. Both subjects are essentially political in nature and both have similarly phony academic veneers. Both conferences would be unacademically one-sided in their selection of speakers. Moreover, a great university committed to free speech and academic freedom does not get to pick and choose which political issues it deems sufficiently "correct" to warrant its imprimatur.
The only real difference between the two subjects is that if Harvard were to sponsor a one-sided conference against a Palestinian state, there would be massive protests, especially by some of the very academics who are willingly lending their imprimatur to the anti-Israel hate fest. But the charge of hypocrisy has never stopped these professors from applying a double standard against Israel. They should not be stopped from speaking -- that would be censorship and a denial of academic freedom. But they should be shamed for participating in an unacademic one-sided hate conference, and for their hypocrisy in doing so in the name of academic freedom, when they would never tolerate a comparable hate conference against a Palestinian state or the Palestinian people.
Let there be no doubt that the call for a single state solution is a euphemism for ending the existence of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. The major proponents of this ruse acknowledge -- indeed proclaim -- that this is their true goal. Tony Judt, who was the academic godfather of the "one state" ploy, saw it as an alternative to Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, which he believed was a mistake. Many of those speaking at the Harvard conference are on record opposing the existence of Israel. Leon Weiselteir was right when he observed that the one state gambit is not "the alternative for Israel. It is the alternative to Israel."
The "one state" solution failed in the former Yugoslavia. It failed in India. And it would fail in the Mideast. That's why most Palestinians and nearly all Israelis are against it. They favor a two state solution, as does most of the rest of the world.
Many of the speakers at this conference will rail against "a Jewish State." But they will not protest the Palestinian Constitution which establishes Islam as the only "official religion" and requires that "the principles of Islamic Sharia shall be the main source of legislation." Moreover, it establishes Arabic as the sole "official language" of Palestine. Israel, in contrast, treats Judaism, Islam and Christianity equally, does not base its laws (except regarding family matters of Jews) on Jewish law, and has three official languages -- Hebrew, Arabic and English (with Russian constituting the 4th unofficial language and Ethiopian a 5th, manifesting its extensive ethnic diversity).
As this conference goes forward, and as the massive casualties mount in Syria, the resounding silence about the victims of the Assad brutality by those speakers, who use the G word (genocide) every time Israel acts in defense of its citizens, speaks louder than their hypocritical words. The extremists who will be speaking at this hate fest are so obsessed with Israel's imperfections that they ignore -- indeed enable -- the most serious human rights violations that are occurring throughout the world. That is the real shame of the double standard that is represented by this hateful conference.
A shorter and somewhat different version of this appeared on Newsmax.
I'am Daniel Moshe Johnson, a citizen of The State of Israel, The United States and a resident of Canada. In my opinion, Harvard should not provide a platform for a discussion to defame the great state of Israel, the only true democracy in he whole of Middle East. You and others like myself are democracy partakers, democracy does not come free, it comes at a price of the men and women who protect it's ideology. An ideological vision, that you mentioned in your second to last paragraph, Israel does not base it's secular civil law totally upon Jewish values, this is a trait of a nation that truly wants peace and promotes other scholars whichever religious expression. Israel allows the freedoms of a true democracy, it is because of this stance that reapers of havoc seek to take advantage of her generosity. As a fellow Jew, I challenge you today Mr. Dershowitz, to seek oneness with the infinite source of all wisdom, that will release us all from the prism of hypnotism. There is a God Mr. Dershowitz, their is a source of all sources, and it will be revealed shortly! The Haggadah of Sinai is not folklore, but it is suppose to lure folks into divine expressions and suggestions. SHALOM
But the Arabs illegally has build over 250 new settlement in Judea and Samaria etc. which mostly are used as terrorist nest and no one speak about this.
Palestine was never a sovereign power and Palestinian people do not exist as we speak, fact not fiction!
Palestinian people = Arabs of different Arabic diction/ethnicity; some are al Masris, Egyptians. Some are Serbian, Syrians, Iraqis, Saudis, Yemenis, Tunisians, Libyan etc. They can easily be absorbed in the rest of the 22 Arab countries all newly created in the same mandate post WWI just as Israel was reestablished.
Who are the Palestinians? Read here: http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/whopals.html
and here: http://www.wnd.com/2003/07/19713/
And I am not sure that Harvard would have held this sham conference run by practically anti-Israel/Jews and the West creeps if they wouldn't have received the $ 20, 000,000 from Prince Bin Talal of the Saudi Jihadists. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/education/13donation.html
For the most part the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank govern themselves. Their subjugation is at the hands of their own leaders, Hamas and Fatah who are in charge of their everday lives. They complain about Israel but their main problem is the corruption of their own leadership. Full independence from Israel is available but the Palestinians refuse to negotiate a peace agreement.
Jewish people moved there from all over the world. There is no Israel so to speak. Just people stealing land and claiming it.
If someone stole your car would you negotiate sharing it ? no
Thats Whats happening in palestine.
... wake up people
2. If Israelis are just stealing land, why do Arabs have laws that prohibit them from selling
land to Jews?
3. Jews were driven from their land. They have returned and are willing to share it with others. The Arabs need to learn to share as well.
4. If Palestine is Palestine, then rename Jordan as Palestine since that was what it the land that it currently ocupies was orginally called.
Now, we can go back and forth about who was driven off their land and who moved onto the land and when or we can try and find a solution forJews and Arabs to live in peace. Which would you prefer to dwell on?
“Just people stealing land and claiming it” Which people would that be? Surely not the Jews as there are laws that prohibit Arabs from selling land to Jews. Why are there laws prohibiting Arabs from selling land to Jews if Jews just steal the land?
“If someone stole your car would you negotiate sharing it? no” Well the answer is actually yes. We were driven off our land into exile. We have returned and the vast majority of us are willing to share it with the Arabs (i.e. the two state solution). You unfortunately seem to take a position of an unwillingness to share the land for the sake of peace which has been the position of most Arab leaders and which explains why today the Palestinians still do not have a state. So, while we can dwell on who was driven off the land and who settled the land and when, I would prefer focusing on seeking peace a peaceful solution for Jews and Arabs. Which do you prefer?
The question, "Is one state a useful idea?" is a question about the future. It's a speculative exercise that might prove useless -- or not.
Claiming that we should not even ask or examine it is timid.
The whole point of the discussion is that Israeli policy divides and privileges by religion -- and that's dangerous. (I don't believe in the idea of race, and you may not either.)
There are many examples of one-state solutions that accommodate many religions.
What if there was a conference on baking and only bakers showed up?
Muslims do not do well in multicultural societies. Jews and Christians are persecuted, their churches and synagogues destroyed and their cemeteries desecrated. Israel is the only country in the ME where all people have the freedom to practice their religion and that is the country they want to destroy. What else could it be other than anti-Semitism or good old-fashioned Jew hatred.
Says you. Israel exists and is recognised, not least by the Palestinian Liberation organization. Yet the recognition of Palestine is the subject of blackmail and bullying on the part of Israel and the US. Its recognition will not cause the disappearance of Israel.
But to avoid discussion that quickly becomes hypothetical, I'd ask another question: is a two-state solution still viable and what can be done to support it?
I hope a two state solution is still viable but it may not mean what you think it means. It may include Jordan rather than a new Palestinian state. It may include a Palestinian state in association with Israel. But whatever it means it cannot mean the end of Israel as an independent Jewish state.