NYT’s guest columnist Stanley Fish engages in Orwellian doublethink to justify BDS speakers at Brooklyn College *UPDATED*

[UPDATE: I should clarify here that, while Fish regularly writes opinion pieces for the Times, and while his beliefs and the Times' beliefs harmonize more often than not, Fish is not a salaried employee of the Times. I've changed the title of this post to add the phrase "guest columnist" in order to reflect that fact.]

BDS and terrorism

BDS is a movement perfectly aligned with genocidal anti-American and anti-Israel organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah

Over the past couple of weeks, there has been an appropriate uproar about the fact that Brooklyn College’s Political Science Department, along with the usual Leftist suspects in American academia, were sponsoring a much-publicized forum advocating in favor of BDS.  For those who do not closely follow Leftist political attacks on Israel, BDS stands for “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.”

BDS is a political movement aimed at isolating, demonizing, and bankrupting Israel.  Please take the five or so minutes to watch this video, which explains what BDS is — and mentions its goal, which is to “wipe out Israel”:

In other words, then, the BDS crowd seeks Israel’s destruction. I am hard put to find a context in which it is appropriate to use a publicly funded college to serve as a forum for the destruction of a democratic nation that, at least for now, is an American ally? (There’s no saying what Commander-in-Chief Obama will decree in the coming years.)

In respect to Mayor Bloomberg’s formulaic “I hate what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to let you say it” stance, Jonathan Tobin explains why it is so heinous to support BDS conclaves:

But contrary to the mayor’s typically highhanded formulation, this is not a free speech issue. Using a public university to promote hate speech in which the one Jewish state in the world is hypocritically singled out for isolation and destruction is not a matter of tolerating a diversity of views. What is so frustrating about the debate about BDS is the willingness of even those who do not support it to treat as a merely one among many defensible views about the Middle East or, as the New York Times referred to it in an editorial on the subject yesterday, a question of academic freedom whose advocates do not deserve to be spoken of harshly. As I wrote last week about a related controversy at Harvard, the BDS movement is not motivated by disagreement with specific Israeli policies or the issue of West Bank settlements. It is an economic war waged to destroy the Jewish state and is morally indistinguishable from more traditional forms of anti-Semitism that do not disguise themselves in the fancy dress of academic discourse.

As Yair Rosenberg noted today in Tablet, the BDS movement has as its declared goal Israel’s destruction via implementation of the Palestinian “right of return.” This is consistent with their overall rejection of Israel’s right to exist as a separate Jewish state and their opposition to any means of self-defense against Palestinian terrorism.

It needs to be understood that those who take such a position are, in effect, denying the Jewish people the same right of self-determination that they support for every other nation on the planet. That is a textbook definition of bias and such bias when used against Jews is called anti-Semitism. That is why the various members of the City Council and New York State legislature who have spoken out on this issue are right to try to exert pressure on Brooklyn College to cancel the event and the Times and Bloomberg are wrong to defend the decision to uphold it.

I couldn’t have said it better myself (which is why I quoted Tobin at such length).

Despite these protests, the forum went ahead and Stanley Fish, at the New York Times is thrilled.  To him, using American taxpayer dollars to fund a convention aimed at destroying the world’s sole Jewish nation (which also happens to be the sole democracy in the otherwise Muslim, totalitarian Middle East) is the essence of free speech (emphasis mine):

Among the cultural institutions a boycott might target are those Israeli universities that are judged to be either actively in league with the government’s policies toward the Palestinians, or complicit with those policies by virtue of remaining silent while they are being implemented. To the charge that a boycott of academic institutions is a violation of academic freedom,  B.D.S. supporters reply that because the state of Israel abrogates the academic freedom of Palestinian professors and students (by denying them funding, access and mobility), it is an affirmation, not a derogation, of academic freedom to refrain from engaging in intellectual commerce with Israeli universities. You can’t invoke academic freedom, they say, when you’re denying it to others. So the lines of battle are set with both sides claiming to be academic freedom’s champion, and it is easy to see why a college might be thought to be an appropriate venue for a discussion of the matter.

Doesn’t Fish’s formulation remind you of such famous phrases as “War is Peace,” “Freedom is Slavery,” “Ignorance is Strength,” or even “Arbeit macht frei“?

Nazis boycott Jewish stores

The original BDS movement — Nazis boycott Jewish goods

Fish is either a fool or a fellow traveler.  BDS has nothing to do with academic freedom and everything to do with nation killing.  Do I need to mention here that, while Palestine is Judenrein, Israeli universities (see video, above), its government, its military, and even its sports associations have Arab and Palestinian members who, provided that they avoid advocating or agitating for Israel’s imminent destruction, have the same rights as Israel’s Jewish, Christian, atheist, and whatever else residents?

Only a perverse Orwellian doublespeak would pretend that BDS — which aims, as I said, to achieve Israel’s isolation, economic collapse, and her ultimate destruction — is simply a tit-for-tat about academic freedom.  If academic freedom was the real issue, this would be a cat fight about speaking gigs at various universities.  One doesn’t challenge economic malfeasance by targeting the only Jewish nation in the world for complete destruction.

I won’t deconstruct the rest of Fish’s endlessly long article.  Suffice to say that it is as rotten as the foundation on which it’s built.

The New York Times is an increasingly foul publication.  I don’t use that word — “foul” — lightly.  Even during the Duranty years, it aimed for some semblance of objectivity.  Those days are gone.  Its slobbering fervor for Barack Obama and the Democrats; its unrelenting hostility to Israel, George Bush, Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians; and its amoral and immoral attacks on all religions but for Islam, which PC dictates be shielded behind a Teflon coating despite its institutional misogyny, homophobia, and antisemitism, all make the Times too foul for fowls.  Birds, being smart, deserve something a little classier to line their cages.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Mike Devx says

    BDS: Boycott, Divestment, and Sactions of Israel.
     
    The only thing in recent history that I can compare this to is the organized assault against South Africa, in an attempt to isolate that nation to such an extent possible that it would be forced to abandon apartheid.
     
    But for South Africa, did they include Sanctions in the mix?  I don’t remember anything about sanctions.  But the intent, for South Africa, was the destruction of the nation.  And the intent for Israel is the same.
     
    I would note that sanctions is granted equal validity here, where it was not for South Africa.  That would appear to make Israel MORE EVIL than South Africa.  It would appear to make Israel the most evil of ALL nations on the face of this earth.
     
    What else could you possibly conclude based on the expressed intent of the BDS organizers and supporters?
    Slogans: “We are all Hizbollah.”  ”We are all Hamas”.  These organizations advocate the genocide of the Israeli people.  There is no one within Israel that advocates the genocide of the Palestinations, and yet we are to believe that *Israel* is the most evil of all nations?
     
    But here in Book’s domain, and elsewhere, we’ve already been through all the attempts we could attempt to figure out the mindset of these people, to find some way to understand where they are coming from.  And it’s just not possible.  Once you scrape everything else away, all that is left is the mindless hatred of Jews and the mindless hatred of Israel. 
     
    In my worst imaginings, I see nuclear mushroom clouds rising over the cities of Israel, and the population driven into the sea and slaughtered by all of their surrounding enemies.  Millions upon millions murdered yet again in a genocidal slaughter while the world watches.
     
    And in that nightmare, all of these BDS supporters and their ilk, what is their response to the inevitable result of their efforts?  ”Tsk, tsk, what a shame”, they will say, and shake their heads, and go to sleep peacefully, and wake up peacefully.  They won’t even feel one moment’s worth of shame at deliberately causing such a genocide.  It’s a nightmare: Not only the genocide, but the vast shrug of indifference caused by that lack of shame at deliberately CAUSING that genocide, among the guilty.

  2. stanleyfish says

    I am in fact a salaried employee of the New York Times. Each year in late Fall I  sign a contract specifying the number of columns I am to produce in the next twelve months along with the compensation I will receive for doing so. With respect to the column on the Brooklyn College event , I expressed no opinion at all on the logic of the boycotters. I merely reported it. For the record I find that logic specious. I have said so in previous publications (including an earlier column) , and will say so at length in a forthcoming book , Versions of Academic Freedom: From Professionalism to Revolution–Stanley Fish

Leave a Reply