So now the occupation has corrupted Brandeis University too.

A huge majority of American Jews are sensible liberals. Hardly any of us agree with these McCarthyite tactics. Why can we not get adequate representation in these so-called Jewish organizations that don't come close to speaking for us?

Reinharz's letter is absolutely hilarious! Some president... Make that grovelmeister!

I only hope Brandeis follows suit and takes the obvious next step: ban access to TPM Cafe! Wouldn't want their beautiful minds to be contaminated by the writings of MJ Rosenberg! Might make Herr Peippz mad!

It is sadly predictable situation.

American universities usually have this mode of governance: President is in charge of really important stuff, which is fundraising, and to make it sound less awkward, "strategic planning". Number two person, Provost, is in charge of matters of secondary importance, which is actual hiring of professors, teaching, research etc.

Thus a college President is the most qualified person on the subject: what do rich donors like, and what they do not like. The behavior of Mr. Reihartz suggests that a most active Jewish donors have quite different attitudes than those found by Gallup among American Jews at large. A peculiarity of Jews among other parts of American public is the character of those more conservative attitudes (e.g. on many issues they are much less conservative than, say, rich Christians, but they make up for it on the issue of Israel; this makes me think that the rich have a need not only for representing their "interests", but also for class shiboleths).

Herr Peippz said:

"I worry very much from the Jewish point of view that the presence and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims will present true dangers to American Jews."

You may not understand it so let me try this for size:

"I worry very much from the Christian point of view that the presence and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Jews will present true dangers to American Christians."

Got no problem with that, Brad?

How is that all that difference with the lunacy here about AIPAC and the general anti-Israeli and even anti-Semitism?

This hysteria over the likes of Pipes and the ingoring of Rosenberg's similar attitudes just from the other perspect is so hypocritical. Indeed the hypocracy of these threads are rather amusing.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Thanks. I agree!

I am hardly a defender of Pipes but I think that particular quote by Pipes is taken out of context. That's a view he ATTRIBUTES to Europeans. (Whether he shares that view or not is not clear)

Pipes is smart enough to generally avoid saying anything which can directly be incriminatory - but that doesn't mean he's not a hater. He's just a slightly smarter hater.

While I completely agree with your take on Rosenberg I think your first sentence ad hominem attack on Daniel Greenbaum is very unfortunate and unwarranted..  I happen to completely disagree with Daniel's take on this issue but it doesn't make him, in terms of his overall morality, a "moral idiot".  I happen to agree 100% with Daniel on other specific issues where he, in those cases, takes very moral positions.

"He's just a slightly smarter hater. "
Can we go beyond this? MJ community spends most time discussing
who is and who is not hater/anisemite instead of discussing substance.
Carter is not Anisemite, but he still is wrong about a lot of issues, Pipes might be hater but he stll could be right about some issues.

"I am hardly a defender of Pipes but I think that particular quote by Pipes is taken out of context."
This is MJ's favorit trick. He has skills to work for Bush White House Press office.

So, davai- you're saying that a majority of American Jews are anti-Arab in the Israeli Right mode where Israel's interests are concerned, but less so when Iraq is involved?

Bring on the green-tech, that's all I've got to say...

MJ was there a link or more info regarding the identity groups who most oppose the war?

Update: I found it.

Overall, Protestants are divided, with 48% opposed and 49% in favor. But black Protestants and non-black Protestants diverge in their views. Black Protestants -- who are overwhelmingly Democratic -- show strong opposition to the war, while among non-black Protestants, support for the Iraq war surpasses the majority level (55% say the war was not a mistake). 

Wow! A whopping 78% of black protestants think the war was a mistake.

I wonder how this will play in SC for the primaries, seeing how Hilliary has enlisted the help of the State Sentor/Rev Jackson with his 9K member congregation.  I hope Barack uses this to make Hilliarys vote on the war an issue.

As you are probably aware, roughly 50% of the Democratic primary voters in SC are black.

And then there is this:

But a closer analysis of the data show that Jewish war opposition goes beyond their basic political leanings. Jewish people are more likely to oppose the war than non-Jews of the same political persuasion. For example, 89% of Jewish Democrats oppose the Iraq war, compared with 78% of all non-Jewish Democrats. 

This is real critical information for Obama's candidacy as well.

I wonder if there is a difference between Jewish voters in NY vs.a Florida voter, in terms of how they view the war.

As a (formerly) proud Brandeis alumnus ('97) I continue to be appalled by this entire episode. The mainstream Jewish community who is so disgusted when it decides to have Carter speak, only is interested in Brandeis when it does something which challenges their knee-jerk "ideals." For many upper middle class Jews, Brandeis isn't even a blip on the academic radar. Most kids and their parents consider Brandeis "too Jewish" to be taken seriously. When I was there, many of the students were there because Brandeis was a safety school. Most Jews would prefer to send their kids to "less Jewish" schools like Harvard or Penn. Yet when Brandeis does something they disagree with, they are outraged. All of a sudden, Brandeis somehow belongs to the Jewish community as a whole.

It doesn't.

The vast majority of them don't have degrees from Brandeis, let alone give it one penny. They didn't want to go there themselves, and they don't want to send their kids there.

As far as I'm concerned, they have about as much of a right to shoot their mouths off about what happens at Brandeis as I do about what happens at Marquette.

My degree from Brandeis has served me well to this point. But I am worried that the increasing influence of AIPAC and ADL donors in the academic policy of the University is going to destroy it. If it continues on its current path, dominated by politically powerful fat cats, it's academic reputation will be on par with a Jewish summer camp.

Speaking of stifling free speech on campus:

Cinnamon Stillwell

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

America's college campuses, once thought to be bastions of free speech, have become increasingly intolerant toward the practice. Visiting speakers whose views do not conform to the prevailing left-leaning political mind-set on most campuses are at particular risk of having their free speech rights infringed upon.

While academia has its own crimes to atone for, it's the students who have become the bullies as of late. A disturbing number seem to feel that theirs is an inviolate world to which no one of differing opinion need apply. As a result, everything from pie throwing to disrupting speeches to attacks on speakers has become commonplace.

Conservative speakers have long been the targets of such illiberal treatment. The violent reception given to Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group, at Columbia University in October is a recent example. Gilchrist had been invited to speak by the Columbia University College Republicans, but was prevented from doing so by an unruly mob of students. What could have been mere heckling descended into yelling, screaming, kicking and punching, culminating in the rushing of the stage and Gilchrist being shuttled off by security.

The fact that the rioting students could be heard yelling, "He has no right to speak!" was telling. Apparently, in their minds, neither Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has a right to express their viewpoints. In any other setting this would be called exactly what it is -- totalitarianism. But in the untouchable Ivy League world of Columbia, it was chalked up to student activism gone awry. While condemning the incident, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger has yet to apologize to Gilchrist or to conclude the supposed investigation into the affair. In other words, mob rule won the day.

Bay Area PC Intolerance

Such behavior is certainly not limited to East Coast universities. Last February at San Francisco State University, former liberal activist-author turned conservative activist-author David Horowitz had his entire speech shouted down by a group of protesters. Composed primarily of students and other members of the Spartacus Youth Club, a Trotskyist organization, the group stood in the back of the room shouting slogans and comments at every turn.

Even this was not enough to warrant their removal, so Horowitz and his audience, which included me, simply had to suffer through the experience. Horowitz, whose speech centered on his Academic Bill of Rights, took on his critics and attempted to engage them in dialogue, with varying degrees of success. But those who actually came to hear him speak, whether out of sympathy for his views or out of a desire to tackle them intellectually, were unable to do so fully because of the actions of a few bullies.

It is not only conservative speakers who are at risk of having their free speech rights trampled upon on American college campuses. Those who dare criticize radical Islam in any way, shape or form tend to suffer the same fate.

In 2004, UC Berkeley became the locus for bullying behavior during a speech by Islam scholar Daniel Pipes. I was witness to the spectacle, one I'll never forget. Members of the Muslim Student Association and other protesters formed a disruptive group in the audience, shouting, jeering and chanting continually. They booed loudly throughout and called Pipes everything from "racist" and "Zionist" (which in their minds is an insult) to "racist Jew" -- all because Pipes had the audacity to propose that moderate Muslims distance themselves from extremist elements in their midst; that in tackling terrorism authorities take into account the preponderance of Muslim perpetrators and that Israel has a right to exist peacefully among its neighbors.

This was hardly the first time that UC Berkeley students had espoused hostility toward speakers with "unpopular" views or those hailing from "unpopular" countries such as Israel. Nonetheless, it was a wake-up call for many in the audience who had not yet experienced first-hand the intimidation of the mob.

Arab Reformers Silenced

Recently, reformers from within the Arab world itself have been on the receiving end of such treatment. Whether it be the work of student groups or faculty, insurmountable security restrictions and last-minute cancellations have a strange way of arising whenever such figures are invited to speak on college campuses.

Arab American activist and author Nonie Darwish was to speak at Brown University earlier this month, when the event was canceled because her views were deemed "too controversial" by members of the Muslim Students' Association. Given that Darwish is the author of the recently released book, "Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror," such claims are hardly unpredictable. Like most Arab reformers, Darwish must overcome the resistance within her own community, aided and abetted by misguided liberal sympathizers, in order to get her message across.

Darwish was born and raised a Muslim in Egypt and later lived in Gaza. It was during this time that she had several experiences that led her to reject the anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism with which she was indoctrinated as a child. She eventually converted to Christianity and emigrated to the United States. She has since dedicated her life to exposing the ways that hatred and intolerance are crippling the Muslim world and leading to violence against non-Muslims.

Her pro-Israel views led to an invitation from the campus Jewish group Hillel to speak at Brown University. Unfortunately, the very same organization later backed out, fearing that their relationship with the Muslim Students' Association would be harmed by the experience. But if such a relationship is based on mutually assured censorship, then it's hardly worth preserving. In the end, all of Brown's students missed out on what would undoubtedly have been a thought-provoking experience.

Word has it that Brown University has re-invited Darwish to speak, no doubt in response to the furor, so perhaps students will have that opportunity after all.

Terrorists Recant

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist turned Christian convert and outspoken anti-jihadist, fared slightly better at Columbia University in October. Shoebat is the author of "Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam." He was invited to speak by the Columbia College Republicans, along with former Lebanese terrorist Zachariah Anani and former Nazi Hitler Youth member and German soldier, Hilmar von Campe. All three have renounced their former anti-Semitic views and dedicated themselves to exposing radical Islam in a no-holds-barred fashion.

They managed to give their presentation, but the turnout was greatly impacted by last-minute changes to security policies implemented in the wake of the Jim Gilchrist debacle. As a result, 75 to 120 people who had RSVP'd for the event were turned away at the door because only Columbia students and 20 guests were allowed to attend. An e-mail sent out 3 hours before the event was the only forewarning, and as one would expect, most of those planning to attend didn't receive it in time. The event had been widely advertised in the blogosphere, and those denied entry were not only greatly inconvenienced but also greatly disappointed.

Members of student groups who had boycotted the event were much cheerier at the prospect of a low turnout. A post at the blog for the Blue and White, Columbia's undergraduate magazine, expressed eagerness for "pretty pictures of empty chairs." Unfortunately, they got their wish, to the detriment of open discourse at Columbia.

Illiberal Mob Rule

It's a sad state of affairs indeed when the figures of moderation and reform that many who call themselves liberal or progressive should in theory support are instead shunned in the name of political correctness. For how can one expect to promote progress while helping to stifle the voices at its heart?

People such as Shoebat and Darwish, who literally risk their lives to call attention to a grave threat to all our rights, are the true freedom fighters of our day. But far too many accord that label to those who choose to effect political change by blowing themselves up in a crowd of civilians or by randomly lobbing rockets into homes and schools or by promoting hatred of other religions. By excusing such behavior and simultaneously helping to suppress reformers, liberal student groups are in fact aiding the very totalitarian forces they claim to oppose. They have in effect become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

It would be nice if we could look to our colleges and universities as the bearers of progress, but at this rate it seems an unlikely prospect. If we are to truly promote an atmosphere of intellectual openness, respectful political debate and the free flow of ideas on campus, then we must stem the tide of thuggery, bullying and intolerance that threatens to subsume future generations.

Otherwise, we cede the day to mob rule.

Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com. Read her blog at cinnamonstillwell.blogspot.com/.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/11/29/cstillwell.DTL

Just so nobody is confused about the the agenda of the extremist Cinnamon Stillwell, quoted extensively in the previous post, I'd like to point out that she has written in unapologetically supportive tones of the activities of the extremist Meir Kahane and the organization which he founded, the Jewish Defense League (JDL). She has also written in defense of JDL members Earl Krugel and Irv Rubin, who confessed to a plot to bomb both the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California and the field office of Darrell Issa, an Arab-American Congressman.

Lest anyone need additional information about the JDL, it can be found here, at the Anti-Defamation League website.

The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning. ~~Adlai E. Stevenson

As far as "strange foods" are concerned, Arabic fast food is increasingly popular across Europe. Indonesian food is popular in Holland. Then a little detail that Middle East Muslim look pretty much like Europeans, as opposed to Black Africans. IMHO, Pipes is attributing to Europeans his own thinking.

Shoebat and Darewish are former Muslims; Horowitz is a former liberal; Jim Gilchrist is a former newspaper reporter turned right-wing nativist fringe political candidate. Each of them is a formerly-something, who converted to what they are now.

It should not come as a surprise, then, when Cinnamon Stillwell claims of herself, on her blog:

"My perspective is that of a former liberal turned post-9/11 conservative."

http://www.CinnamonStillwell.com

My experience with conversions, religious or political, has usually been to ask myself, "Who is paying this one's bills?"

This is what Carter, MJ, and majority on this list write every day.

I uprated this comment because it is unclear why all this factual information was troll rated. It appears to be about disagreement with an opposing view, rather than the content. None of the information has been challenged with a rebuttal. I find it very disturbing that college campuses shouting down speakers. Very distrurbing.

Just post a link rather than filling the screen with someone else's words.

Libertine

First and foremost thank you.

Other than thinking this site is unbelievably anti-Israel and onesided in regard to Jews and Arabs I bet as a matter of substance we are in close agreement as to the final settlement.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I honestly don't see why ethnic chauvinists of any kind post on a progressive site.
Liberalism, more than anything else, is about trying to look at every issue without the blinders of pure faith, nationalism, race or ethnic bias.
Obviously, most of the people who post at TPM are liberals and progressives.
And it's fine that others post here too. It's a free blogosphere.
But, hey, if I start posting my liberal views at FREE REPUBLIC, I will be mindful that I am not a conservative and am out of step with what being a conservative is. I sure won't expect other Freepers to take well to my views.
The rightwingers and ethnic chauvinists here are guests, and welcome ones, but the politics of bloodties is, by definition, out of place here.

Good idea.

I troll-rated it because it's a straight copy/paste from a right-wing website.

Josh has commented on the matter, here:

Readers trying to participate in discussions in good faith should never be given ratings of 1s or 0s. Those ratings are reserved for clearly inappropriate behavior or content -- obscene or offensive language, ethnic slurs, spam, disruptive behavior, extreme ad hominem attacks. This isn't an exhaustive list. [emphasis mine] But the key point is that you do not give a 1 or 0 to someone's comment just because you think their comment is stupid or because you strongly disagree...

At TPMCafe we're still trying to decide just how we want to define who is and who isn't a 'troll'. But simply being a conservative or having viewpoints not shared by the majority of people at this site does not make someone a troll. It's no secret that this is a progressive site and that the great majority of people who spend time here identify in one fashion or another as Democrats. But this is also a place for open debate, where all ideas are open to challenge and where all opinions are welcome. The dividing line comes if someone is simply here to provoke or antagonize and disrupt our exchanges and discussions. Admittedly, where to draw that line can be quite difficult. But readers should try hard to do so. [emphasis mine]

Daniel...

You are very welcome. :) 

We've had our share of back and forth's on this issue. You are passionate in defending your positions as am I. We do disagree on many of the specifics but I tend to agree with you that we are in close agreement on the principle that we both want to see a safe and secure State of Israel. And I think many (a vast majority imo) on my side of the issue aren't anti-Israeli and want to see the same ends. We only disagree on how to get there.

But having many discussions (and reading many of your posts) on a wide range of issues this is by far is one of the few exceptions in terms of us having complete agreement on an issue.

John Casasanta

aka

Libertine

Great.  I am genuinely pleased and encouraged that we agree that Jewish and Arab national rights are not mutually exclusive in the Old Mandate.  But your criticism would seem more constructive had someone in the thread actually accused another of antisemtism.