Dreaded Zionist Spy Robots at Brown university

Dubbed by Howard Jacobson as the "offense-taking as lifestyle choice" folk, the same delicate flowers that recoil at giant Pinocchios  have a new reason to be offended. 

An event, "Suffocating Embrace? The Future of Palestinians in Israel," was part of the Middle East Studies' one-sided "Critical Conversations on Palestine/Israel" series at Brown University. Speaking were Haneen Zoabi, a member of the Knesset  facing 6 months suspension for calling Israeli-Arab police officers "traitors,"  threatening them and directing a protesting crowd to spit in their faces.  Other participants included Shira Robinson from George Washington University,  Areej Sabbagh-Khoury from Columbia University,  Gershon Shafir from University of California, San Diego, and Beshara Doumani, the Saudi born Palestinian-American chair of Middle East Studies at Brown. 

Glossary (Open Hillel to English translation)
"police academic discourse"  = listen
"accosted"   = addressed
'harassed'  = asked

From a press release by Open Hillel, printed in its entirety at Jewschool

In a dystopian twist, the latest development in the attack on open discourse by right-wing pro-Israel groups appears to be the use of robots to police academic discourse. At a March 3, 2016 event about Palestinian citizens of Israel sponsored by Middle East Studies at Brown University, a robot attended and accosted students. The robot used an iPad to display a man from  StandWithUs, which receives funding from Israel’s government.

The robot wore a suit and tie, and had an iPad in the place of its head, which displayed the StandWithUs employee. The man who appeared on the iPad told questioners that he worked for StandWithUs. The robot was accompanied by a man identified by event organizers as also affiliated with StandWithUs, and the two spoke together in Hebrew. Students believed that the technology being used was a “Double Robotics Telepresence Robot for iPad Tablet” from Brookstone, which retails at $2,299.99. It is unclear at this time whether the individual that brought the robot was a student or professional employee of StandWithUs.

Before the event began, students say, the robot approached students and harassed them about why they were attending the event. Students declined to engage with this bizarre form of intimidation and ignored the robot. At the event itself, the robot and the StandWithUs affiliate remained in the back. During the question and answer session, the man briefly left the robot’s side to ask a question.

Dreaded Zionist Spy robots. Its a natural progression of course, from the same people that brought you Spy storks.  Spy Eagles.  Spy Vultures.  Spy Dolphins and of course, the spy squirrel

UPDATE via Legal Insurrection

The developer of the device, Roey Tzezana, PhD. had a more innocent explanation which he posted on the Open Hillel Facebook page. He had permission from the organizers, the device did not record, and was an educational experiment:

Dear Open Hillel,

I’m afraid there’s been some mistake in your report. I’m the co-founder of Tele-Buddy – a company that brings robots everywhere so that people will be able to log into them and share their opinions.

A few days before the event, I contacted Prof. Beshara Doumani (the organizer) and asked for permission to bring a Israeli using the robot. He confirmed, saying that the event was open both for human beings and robots. I also promised that since the robot can (and should!) be used to enrich any discussion, I would be happy to host another person who couldn’t come with his/her biological body in the next panel: whether it is a Palestinian, a Chinese, a North-Korean or anyone. The robot can serve such valuable purpose for all debates and panels!

Anyway, Mr. Shahar Azani from StandWithUs took control over the robot in the event. I can personally testify that he absolutely did not “harass” anyone. He talked with people, and if they didn’t talk back – he just went on talking with other people. It was fun, and people took pictures and were interested to hear about Shahar and the robot.

As for surveillance or Israeli support for this venture: you’re absolutely wrong. No footage of what the robot ‘sees’ is being saved anywhere, and the Israeli government has absolutely no connection to this use of the robot. It was strictly my idea, and I stand behind it: if we can enrich debates with more points of view, to reach more meaningful insights about the future, how can we allow ourselves not to do so?

I’ll be back in Providence next week, and would be happy to meet with you (with or without the robot) and discuss the event and the way you see it – and how we can all make better use of the robots in future events, with or without connection to the Israeli or the Palestinian issue.

Yours,

Roey Tzezana, PhD.
Tele-Buddy

Stand With Us provided the follow letter it sent to Jew School:

Dear Editor,

We were surprise and saddened to read the following story on your blog

The article published is inaccurate in multiple ways. It would have been appropriate and demonstrate journalistic integrity and professionalism to seek information from StandWithUs prior to publishing incorrect information.

The “Robot” used is not a drone, nor is it or was it at any point owned or invented by StandWithUs. It is an invention created by two companies: Telebuddy and Double Robotics and our participation at the event was initiated by Telebuddy CEO, Dr. Roey Tzezana, who told our staff member that he has permission from one of the organizers of the event to attend the discussion with the “robot.”

To the best of our knowledge, the invention meant to enrich discussions and conversations by allowing remote participation in an interactive manner, with great potential for a variety of opinions, meetings and engagements.

Thankfully yours,

StandWithUs

The PLO Promotes Open Hillel

The PLO promotes Open Hillel, proving, once again, that you are known by the company that you keep

Save Berkeley Hillel

Students and Alumni of UC Berkley have joined together to urge their classmates, colleagues and friends to "Save Berkeley Hillel.". If you are a current student or alumni, please sign the petition here

 We write to you as concerned alumni and concerned students who believe that the message of those pushing for an “Open Hillel” is a fundamental deviance from one of the major pillars of Jewish identity, and therefore, an unacceptable position for our Hillel to take.

 Endorsing speech calling for the dismantling of the Jewish state, or anti-Zionist speech, besides being repugnant in and of itself for denying the right of self determination to the Jewish people, would not create openness in our Jewish community, but rather shut the door on views held by each major Jewish denomination: Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Reconstructionist, all of which encourage Zionism and support the State of Israel. To suggest that Hillel could increase its openness by endorsing this and other messages that most Jews see as offensive and hateful is a disastrous idea.

 This is not to argue that a diverse range of opinions should not be welcomed at Hillel; a check on free speech would be disastrous, and deplorable. But supporting free speech within the Hillel building does not mean that Hillel should endorse all speech. Hillel is not a campus classroom, where even the most reprehensible speech can be invoked in the spirit of exchange in the free market of ideas; it is an institution with an ideological message that includes the support of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

 Others might castigate us as narrow-minded and unwilling to engage in dialogue, but this could not be further from the truth. Dialogue and the free exchange of ideas should be protected on campus, but Hillel need not be a platform for each idea. Even though it would be acceptable on campus, no one would dream of welcoming speakers in Hillel who call for the dismantling of the Jewish religion, because that would contradict the essence of Hillel itself, and the case of Israel is no different. By supporting anti-Zionist and anti-Israel speakers, Hillel would cease to be Hillel, and it would become nothing more than a campus building, unprincipled and devoid of messaging.

  It is also important to note that Hillel does recognize diverse opinions regarding Israel. Criticisms can be voiced and speakers from the left-wing to the right-wing have been welcomed into Hillel. A myriad of examples abound of this being the case. However healthy criticism is very different from demonizing, delegitimizing, or applying double standards to Israel, denying its right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state, or supporting the BDS movement.

There is nothing “open” about denying the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. There is nothing “open” about demonizing or delegitimizing the state of Israel. There is nothing “open” about BDS. There is nothing “open” about double standards. There is nothing “open” about stripping Hillel of all messaging and leaving it as nothing more than a campus classroom. There is nothing “open” about shutting the door on the values and principles of all Jewish denominations and the overwhelming majority of American Jews.

    Ascribing to the “Open Hillel” movement would be nothing but signing up to become walking contradictions; praising Jewish values on the one hand while calling for an end to them on the other. As students and signatories to this petition, we refuse to become such walking contradictions. We refuse to participate in a Hillel that goes beyond the borders of reasonable dialogue and engages in hateful speech. We will not stand idly by and watch as the Jewish home on campus is stripped of its principles and disintegrates.

On free speech, Hillel, boycotts, and knife wielding jihadi wannabes

Written by Dr.Mike  and originally published in j weekly,  January 9 2014.  Cross-posted at Bluetruth. He really nails it here:

Let’s be honest: If the type of bloodthirsty hate demonstrated by Hammad had been aimed at African Americans or LGBTQ individuals — or Muslims — the response by the SFSU administration would have been swift and strong.

The Dec. 20 issue of J. featured two views touching on the issues of free speech and civil discourse as it relates to conversations about Israel. Both are thoughtful, well written and make some valid points. And both, in their own ways, are wrong.

 That’s a very presumptuous comment on campus issues from someone who is neither professor nor student. Yet the issues raised by Ryan Ariel Simon (“SFSU student’s call for civility starts with ‘I feel your pain’ ”) and professor Ari Y. Kelman (“Stifling voices hurts students, free exchange of ideas”) are those in which not only the Jewish community, but also the community at large, are stakeholders.
  
Hillel International, whose position on the limits of sponsored events was challenged by Kelman, is a Jewish community institution. San Francisco State, in the news yet again for hate speech directed at Israel, is a publicly funded institution subsidized by California taxpayers.

 The issues at SFSU are clear. Mohammad G. Hammad, the president of the General Union of Palestine Students, crossed a line with his glorification of murder and his knife-wielding threats against Israeli soldiers — and those who support them. Simon suggests the core of this issue is a lack of empathy, a “refusal to recognize or understand the pain of the other.” He appropriately attempts to span that divide by acknowledging that some Jewish soldiers, during and after Israel’s War of Independence, did have some responsibility for Palestinian civilians taking flight.

Indeed — this has been well documented by historians such as Benny Morris and Israeli authors such as Ari Shavit, and has been a subject in Israeli political discourse for years. And the broad center — as well as all of the left — of American pro-Israel groups recognizes the Palestinians’ desire for a state of their own. Thus they support peace between Israel and a future state of the Palestinian people living side by side and with mutual recognition. They host talks by Morris and Shavit, and by others like them.

Yet the response from the “pro-Palestinian” side is a near-complete rejection of peace and a refusal to recognize Jewish history in the land of Israel, with the insistence that “from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free” — free of a Jewish state, that is. Hammad and the GUPS have a track record of extremist, demonizing speech, though brandishing a lethal weapon and threatening to use it to behead an Israeli is a new low, even for them.

 Getting “pushed beyond our comfort zones” doesn’t mean having to accept graphic, specific threats from those who evince a desire to kill. Let’s be honest: If the type of bloodthirsty hate demonstrated by Hammad had been aimed at African Americans or LGBTQ individuals — or Muslims — the response by the SFSU administration would have been swift and strong.

 Simon feels that outside pro-Israel groups should have taken their direction from the Jewish students before acting. Given the fact that SFSU is a public institution, its stakeholders include all of the people of California. Nor are Hammad’s rants protected by “academic freedom” — he’s not a faculty member, and his activism is not part of his coursework. Pro-Israel groups did not come onto campus uninvited, which would have escalated an already difficult situation. Nor did they try to press an agenda except for urging the administration to uphold exactly what Simon calls for: civility of debate.

Kelman, in his piece, states that those who support the decision by Hillel International not to allow Hillel groups to host anti-Zionist speakers are hypocritical if they also condemn the American Studies Association boycott. That’s comparing apples and oranges. Hillel is an organization with a mission that includes support of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. It would be a violation of that mission, and a breach of trust with its funders, to host a speaker who opposes that.

 The ASA, on the other hand, is an ostensibly scholarly organization with a mission to promote the study of American culture. As an organization of academics, it has taken a position against academic freedom in support of a narrow and biased political agenda unrelated to its mission. And it did so by using the only tactics by which the BDS movement can engineer a victory: stealth resolutions without advance notice, and stacked debates at which the opposing side is prevented from presenting its case. One can easily recognize ASA’s breach of the principles of academe while simultaneously supporting Hillel’s objectives.

 There are always limits to speech that institutions will present. The NAACP is not going to host David Duke as a speaker, nor is the Democratic Party going to have Sarah Palin speak at its convention. Nor have we seen Muslim Student Associations host presentations by Zionists, although we have seen them forcibly shut down such presentations. The debate is not really about unlimited free speech — it’s simply about where we, within our community institutions, decide to set those limits.