Further, in Michelman’s view, the Vassar students, both Jews and non-Jews, who identify themselves as “anti-war” are only “pretending.” “Once we began to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they talked aggressively, calling ‘pro-occupation’ persons ‘enemies of peace.'” The “anti-war” group invited two Palestinian speakers but refused to invite anyone to present the Israeli point of view.
Do such heartbreakingly frightened Jews believe they will be spared the wrath of Jew-haters because they themselves are “good,” i.e. are the first to adopt an anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist position? Are they so ready to sacrifice the other, “bad,” Jews in order to hold onto their own illusions for awhile longer? If so, their psychology is pure German Jewish psychology, circa 1936.
Have centuries of persecution permanently deranged some of my people? Are they suicidally short-sighted and historically illiterate? Are such Jews, out of fear, denying that Palestinians and Islamists hate Jews, Zionists, and infidels? Are they psychologically identifying with the aggressor for this reason? Do they think that by adopting the politically correct point of view they will be spared?
Jews assisted the PSM conference at Duke. To the best of my knowledge, no Palestinians are assisting Jewish groups in quite this way.
For example, an Israeli Jewish graduate student at Duke, Rann Bar-On, belongs to HIWAR, the student group that invited the PSM to its campus. HIWAR means dialogue in Arabic. In response to questions about why he is supporting a group that endorses terrorism, Bar-On has been quoted as saying: “We don’t see it as very useful for us as a solidarity movement to condemn violence” and “We’re not Palestinians, so we don’t have the right to endorse a solution.” At least three Jews were scheduled to speak for PSM.
Emily Antoon, the president of HIWAR and a Duke junior, has refused to co-sponsor the “Jewish” rally for peace and against terrorism. Antoon has been quoted as saying: “I think it’s specifically a counter-concert to the PSM conference. I think it implicitly endorses state terrorism.”
The Hillel Jews (and so many other worthy, progressive Jews) apparently agree with her. In their view, the Palestinian terrorists really want peace but Sharon’s military policies have frustrated their every peace-loving and non-violent effort. The Palestinian terrorists are, by nature and training, diversity counselors and ardent followers of Gandhi, who have been forced into becoming suicide bombers by Israeli “apartheid” and “colonial occupation.” Obviously, these terrorists love their people so much they are willing to kill themselves.
But what if these terrorists don’t love their people at all? What if they are haters and nihilists who lack a political program and diplomatic goals? What if Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade are not composed of serious political actors who are motivated by compassion for their suffering people and who have been elected, in some sense, to represent their people? What if they exist simply to inflict terror and humiliation on envied scapegoats, and to exact eternal vengeance against the infidel?
If true, one cannot appease such psychological actors; one cannot even sacrifice the “bad” Jews to them in order to save the “good” Jews. One must fight them with every means at one’s disposal and one must win.
Why is the Duke administration and Hillel at Duke (and last year at Michigan which hosted the 2003 PSM conference) so invested in the concept of “balanced” programming? Let me quote Israeli-born, Los Angeles-based Rachel Neuwirth, who has been struggling to update and transform the Hillel Mission statement. She writes: “(Balanced programming) is not simply about balance in the abstract. There is no ‘balancing’ of truth with falsehood…it is about telling the honest truth in defense of Israel, Judaism, and the Jewish people. Hillel is a campus organization but today the campus has become a political battleground in which there is an assault upon Israel and the Jews.”