Behind a paywall at Haaretz
Judea Pearl, professor of computer science and statistics at
UCLA writes about the anti-Israel culture at UCLA and how it relates to the attacks
on Rachel Beyda for her “Jewish affiliations”
UCLA is a campus that has allowed Middle East history to be taught by instructors who demonize Israel, and has permitted its Center for Near Eastern Studies to be directed and co-directed by BDS supporters. It is a culture where a student can come to class wearing an "Israel Kills" T-shirt, yet any mention of Muslim symbols is sure to trigger the heaviest gun of political correctness, "Islamophobia!"
It is a culture where
pro-coexistence students, especially in the social sciences, prefer to keep
silent rather than risk mockery and social estrangement. Most importantly, it
is a campus overrun by soft-spoken BDS propagandists who managed to hijack the
student government's agenda with repeated proposals for anti-Israel
resolutions, the purpose of which is one: to associate the word
"Israel" with the word "guilty."
Coming from this culture, it is
quite natural for a council member to assume that Rachel Beyda, as a Jew, is
likely to have a built-in reluctance to joining the never-ending orgy of Israel
indictments. Especially indictments authored by a movement like BDS, which
openly denies one of Jews' most deeply held convictions – Israel's right to
exist.
I am purposely using the generic
term "as a Jew" here, in its most inclusive, people-based sense. I do
so because a great many Jews do consider Israel the culmination of their
millennia-long history. Likewise, I follow the observations of Hillel's
leadership, who repeatedly assures concerned parents and outraged donors of its
commitment to the Zionist dream, and to pro-Israel education.
So why all the outrage about the misuse of the inclusive term "Jewish?" Roth's mistake was not that she probed into Beyda's faith as a Jew, but that she implied that Jews can only gain social acceptance and student government credentials by joining the "indict-Israel" circus, as some of their professors have chosen to do.
Part of our outrage should also be directed at ourselves, and at our leadership, for failing to educate the campus that Jews are a people, not merely a religion, that this people has a dream called Zionism and that religion does not have a monopoly on human sensitivity. In other words, that when it comes to campus norms of civility, Zionophobia is at least as evil as Islamophobia.
So why all the outrage about the misuse of the inclusive term "Jewish?" Roth's mistake was not that she probed into Beyda's faith as a Jew, but that she implied that Jews can only gain social acceptance and student government credentials by joining the "indict-Israel" circus, as some of their professors have chosen to do.
Part of our outrage should also be directed at ourselves, and at our leadership, for failing to educate the campus that Jews are a people, not merely a religion, that this people has a dream called Zionism and that religion does not have a monopoly on human sensitivity. In other words, that when it comes to campus norms of civility, Zionophobia is at least as evil as Islamophobia.
By reacting to anti-Semitism with
greater sensitivity than to anti-Israelism we reinforce the idea that religions
are entitled to a greater protection from discrimination than other
identity-forming narratives, and we thus give anti-coexistence forces the
legitimacy they seek to harass Israel-supporters with ideological impunity.
Read it all here
