Ahmadinejad, Columbia Faculty Politics, Martin Peretz, Islamic Fascism

Ahmadinejad and Tsar Nicholas I

Ethan Stanislawski, who is the son of the eminent Columbia Jewish Studies Professor Michael Stanislawski, posted an extremely interesting entry on The Voices blog. I have included this article after my comments.

Stanislawski provides some disturbing information about the politics of both the Columbia Faculty and also of Newton Jews like David Project President Charles Jacobs. Even though Martin Peretz, who is the editor-in-chief of The New Republic, really lives in Cambridge, he clearly flies with that flock and like Jacobs believes that he is some sort of avatar of liberalism or progressivism.

[The comment below is color-coded with sections in Ethan Stanislawski's article.]

Peretz is ticked off that Rashid Khalidi and Joseph Massad would challenge standard but long ago discredited Zionist narratives.

Peretz is also thoroughly immersed in the discourse of Islamic Fascism.

I agree with Peretz that Michael Stanislawski is a very good historian even though the Professor seems to have Zionist essentialist views of Jewish ethnicity.

Two years ago was the high point the David Project's attack on Columbia's Arab and Muslim American faculty members.
At that time The David Project was frequently showing the movie Columbia Unbecoming in order to slander Khalidi, Massad, Georges Saliba and Hamid Dabashi while at the same time, it was defaming leaders of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) and scare-mongering against the ISB's Roxbury Mosque project.

Altogether the activities of the David Project constitute conspiracy against the rights of Arab and Muslim Americans to assemble freely, to practice their religion, to engage in free expression and to earn a living.

Such conspiracy is a violation of Title 18 of the US Criminal Code. Ethan Stanislawski provides evidence that Peretz was playing a role right in the center of the David Project's criminal activities.

The Jewish scholarly institution in question is probably the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research.

I am surprised that Peretz would suggest Bollinger was Jewish and then ascribe the role of court Jew to Professor Stanislawski. The court Jews provided services to non-Jewish princes.

Ethan Stanislawski seems to have misunderstood Peretz' curiosity about Professor Stanislawski's feelings about the second invitation to Ahmadinejad to come to Columbia. Peretz was aware of Professor Stanislawski's role in the withdrawal of the first invitation, but since then Peretz probably has not been corresponding with Professor Stanislawski.

I am stunned that Jewish faculty like Professor Stanislawski are acting as gatekeepers or arbiteurs of acceptable discourse at Columbia. The misrepresentation of Ahmadinejad's remarks in US media is well-documented, but in a situation where (often Jewish) racists and hate groups are manipulating the information accessible to the American public, giving Zionist Jewish academics any input into decisions about inviting leaders like Ahmadinejad to address the university community is completely inappropriate.

Professor Stanislawski's book entitled Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews: The Transformation of Jewish Society in Russia, 1825-1855 carefully documents the misrepresentations, falsehoods, and slanders that many Jewish writers have spread about Tsarist Russia. I am particularly distressed that in the affair of the first invitation of Ahmadinejad Professor Stanislawski for all intents and purposes certified some very similar misrepresentations, falsehoods, and slanders that have originated with fanatic and extremist Jewish racists, who seize any opportunity to demonize Arabs and Muslims in order to normalize or legitimize Zionist plunder, oppression and genocide of the native Palestinian population.

Friday, September 28, 2007

Yet another reason not to read The New Republic

As if you needed another.

I have done my best to be quiet about talling about Ahmadinejad's appearance in Columbia, if for nothing else in that my father is in the thick of it. But I will draw the line at being inaccurate and borderline offensive, a line that was crossed by Marty Peretz, who my dad's known since he was an undergrad at Harvard, on his TNR blog The Spine. His post, and my dad's email, are as followed:

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: mfs3@columbia.edu
Date: Sep 27, 2007 6:02 PM
Subject: last thing you need to read, but this one is pretty funny-- you might want to share it with Aharon Barak
To: Lee Bollinger < bollinger@columbia.edu>

"From The Sprine, Martin Peretz's blog:

09.27.07

INSIDE THE COLUMBIA DRAMA:
Columbia is "reeling," reads the headline in Wednesday's New York Times . Columbia is the Sulzbergers's university, and they had traditionally put a wordy buffer between what really happened at the institution and their paper's readers. Of course, that's virtually impossible to do these days. Still, it is not the Times that has excelled in reportage on Columbia during the past few tempestuous years. It is the Sun which has taken on that burden -- and, with some pleasure, I would think, since the university is a model of what the upstart daily thinks of as paradigmatic of the cowardice of liberal institutions in general. Or worse, the pusillanimity of liberal institutions when their very liberalism is being undermined from within.

In any case, Columbia is really reeling; and its wobbliness about what it stands for has been magnified since Lee Bollinger became president. He is simply scared out of his wits by Edward Said's less bright heirs on Morningside Heights. I have posted on this matter before. Actually, I am sure that Said would never have condoned an invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a lower class thug and a Shi'a besides, both an offense to Said's elitism and to his ill-fated Christian maneuvering to make Arab nationalism safely secular. I note that, with his usual discretion and allergy to street fights, Rashid Khalidi has not been heard from on the A'jad matter. He has bigger fish to fry: making sure that that vulgar practitioner of critical theory and deconstructor and rewriter of narratives, Joseph Massud, gets tenure. And that the Barnard tenure aspirant, Nadia Abu El-Haj, who believes that archeology proves there were never any Hebrews in the Holy Land, also is tenured. My guess is that, this time, the gang loses.

Of course, it is not only Columbia that is reeling. It is Bollinger himself. The faculty see this; the students certainly see this; and the trustees who typically will give a president enough rope to hang himself see that he has. My conclusion is that Bollinger is on his way out. The mandate of heaven has deserted him. He has no authority, least of all moral authority.

I also have a speculation about why the earnest protestations of Jewish students and others who were pro-Israel never could touch Bollinger about their terrible experiences in classes in the Middle East: he himself is Jewish, maybe an ambivalent Jew, maybe a frightened Jew, but a Jew nonetheless. (emphasis added)
There are three people who have played a curious role in this drama.

One is John Coatsworth, whom Bollinger lured from Harvard to replace the sneaky Lisa Anderson as dean of the School of International and Public Affairs. What can one say about Coatsworth without having oneself strung up as a McCarthyite? Let's leave it at this: at least since graduate school at the University of Wisconsin he has been extremely radical. Why would a radical find common cause with an Islamic fascist? By the way, Coatsworth signed the Harvard divest-from-Israel petition. Did Bollinger imagine that such a person could (or would want to) restore calm to the Middle East programs at Columbia that were in his SIPA portfolio?

Richard Bulliet is the Columbia historian who negotiated with the Iranians for their president's visit. I've read what I believe is a wonderful book of his, The Camel and the Wheel, although I admit that my credentials for judgment are slight. I've also read parts of The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization, a cross-your-fingers-and-hope book, predictably well-reviewed by Juan Cole, which is by now even worse than getting a good review from John Esposito. Bulliet was a supporter of the 1979 Iranian revolution.

There's a personal angle for me in this saga. It involves a Columbia professor, Michael Stanislavski, whom I have known since he was an undergraduate at Harvard and I an assistant professor. He is a very good historian, and I've read three of his books on Jewish history. Moreover, I've learned from them, although my view of E.M. Lilien (someone you don't know of) is different than his. About two years ago, I was scheduled to speak at a Columbia meeting protesting the patent bias of the Middle Eastern faculty against Israel. Michael asked me not to come, arguing that, among other things, it would be unfair to Bollinger who was well-intentioned on the matter and would take deliberate action to solve the situation. I had no interest in inflaming it. So I called the student who had invited me and told him why I would, in the end, not speak. Still, I left out Professor Stanislavski's role in my decision. Stanislavski and I have had difficult exchanges since on these matters. He even wrote a letter to the chairman of a Jewish scholarly institution saying Columbia would not cooperate with it as long as I was on its board. It was a preposterous communication: one professor's pique doesn't decide whether his university would have an institutional relationship with another part of the academy.

As this drama has unfolded I wondered what Stanislavski made of Bollinger's canceling A'jad last year, giving permission for his speaking this year. Inviting him and then attacking him, a cowardly act followed by an act of spurious bravery. There is in Jewish history the figure of the court-Jew. This Jew did financial and commercial business for the prince. Sometimes he was a medical doctor and cared for the prince and his family. He also tried to intercede for the Jews when trouble was coming their way. Sometimes he succeeded, sometimes he failed. I guess Michael failed. But Jews no longer need court-Jews, and they haven't for at least a century. It must be sad trying to fill a function that has been obsolete for so long."

---

So, Lee, an official welcome to the tribe.

And speaking of Court Jews-- I should only be so lucky: they were bankers to the princes/bishops, and most were extraordinarily rich. Can you instruct Alan or Nick to double my salary for next year --at least?

Finally, as you can see, he didn't even spell my name right.

Yes, that's right, Marty Peretz accused Lee Bollinger of being a bad Jew, even though he's not Jewish. It's true that his relationship with my dad has soured, but, judging by the some people's standards (I'm looking at you, Gawker staff), this probably puts my dad in a positive light. You can tell by Peretz's poor spelling that my dad and he have not had much interaction as of late.

But the killer part of it is the following statement by my father, the underpaid Court Jew: As this drama has unfolded I wondered what Stanislavski made of Bollinger's canceling A'jad last year, giving permission for his speaking this year. Inviting him and then attacking him, a cowardly act followed by an act of spurious bravery.

The ironic thing was that not only did my dad, in fact, respond to the issue last year, he gave Marty Peretz and exclusive of his letter. Here's that email:

Quoting Marty Peretz: Fri, 06 Oct 2006

Dear Michael,

> Thanks for sending me your letter which I will keep completely to
> myself.

> Your reasoning about why Ahmadinejad should not have been invited to
> Columbia (or to any university, for that matter) and not to the Council on
> Foreign Relations either is very compelling. Moreover, you made the case
> much better than I did.

> I fully agree with you about Lisa Anderson whom I've known since
> the start of her undistinguished academic career at Harvard. Even then,
> when she was focusing on Tunisia -or was it Libya?- she was in her calm but
> embittered fashion hostile to Israel. An anticipator of present fashions, so to
> speak. But, if Bollinger understands this, why did he permit her to be on
> the committee evaluating the students' grievances? And why, moreover,
> does he permit her to hold him and Columbia hostage to biases which are
> poisonous to a scholarly association and destructive of its relationship to
> the wider community outside?

> Thanks again.

> Marty

> At 04:19 PM 10/6/2006, you wrote:
> >Marty-- given your recent comments about Columbia, I am copying you
> >here (for your eyes only) a letter I wrote to Lee Bollinger the
> >other week about the invitation of the Iranian President to Columbia.

> >Wishing you a healthy and happy new year,

> >Michael

> >"Dear Lee,

> >Several members of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Israel
> >and Jewish Studies, faculty members, parents of Columbia students,
> >and students as well, urged me yesterday to issue a statement about
> >yesterday's fracas regarding President Ahmadinejad. Since the matter
> >became moot I decided that there was no point in doing so. But I do
> >want to circulate to you, and privately to the Advisory Board, my
> >thoughts on the matter.

> >Since you know me well, you know that I totally agree with you on
> >matters of the sanctity of academic freedom and of free speech;
> >indeed, I do not feel that I possibly can—not to speak of need--
> >enlighten you on either of those matters. But I do think that the
> >University's official response to Lisa's invitation could have been
> >more substantive regarding the subtle yet crucial questions of
> >academic freedom and free speech that were raised by yesterday's
> >events.

> >First let me say that I believe that Lisa's actions were utterly
> >inappropriate and, I surmise, deliberately provocative, in the
> >negative sense of the word, meant to put you personally, the Jewish
> >community at Columbia, and the University as a whole in an untenable
> >situation. Clearly, as you stated, the Dean of the School of
> >International and Public Affairs has the right, and the
> >responsibility, to bring to campus figures who would enhance the
> >academic discussion on campus, including bringing to the University
> >figures of controversy. But as we have spoken about so often in the
> >last several years, discussions of academic freedom often neglect
> >the issue of academic responsibility. Thus, it is not only the
> >timing of the invitation to Ahmadinejad that was so irresponsible
> >and insensitive, but in my mind, its very essence: What possible
> >enhancement of our collective or individual academic knowledge or
> >understanding of the world's situation would have been augmented by
> >his speaking on campus? Anyone at Columbia who reads the newspapers
> >or watches television already knows Ahmadinejad's repugnant views
> >all too well; this is not a question of free speech or stifled
> >speech. And, as is obvious, President Ahmadinejad deliberately and
> >vociferously opposes any discussion that challenges his views,
> >either putatively at Columbia, or as you say in your statement, in
> >Iran as well.

> >On the contrary, the question here, I would propose, is one of the
> >deliberate invitation to campus not simply of a controversial
> >figure, or even one with repugnant and absurd views, but of a
> >purveyor of hate speech. I feel absolutely confident in so labeling
> >the Iranian president, on the basis of his denial of the Holocaust,
> >which he frequently (and perhaps even cynically) advances solely to
> >foment hatred of Israel and of Jews around the world, as well as
> >his frequent calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. (I
> >need not detail here how this differs from points of view that
> >relativize the Holocaust or question the legitimacy of the
> >existence of Israel or any of its policies.) I, like you, have
> >always opposed and will continue to oppose any "hate speech" codes
> >at Columbia, since I believe none can be drafted that sufficiently
> >guard against violations of our students' and faculty's freedom of
> >speech. But the obverse of opposing hate-speech codes is not
> >automatic support for the invitation to campus of any outside
> >purveyor of hate speech, however famous or controversial, on the
> >grounds of free speech or academic freedom, in situations in which
> >there is blatantly no possible enhancement of "the academic
> >experience of our students." I see no point in pondering, at this
> >stage, the theoretical question of what would constitute a
> >situation in which an invitation to campus of a purveyor of hate
> >speech WOULD enhance the academic experience of our students. But
> >yesterday's situation seems to me to be cut-and-dried.

> >I look forward to seeing you on Wednesday to discuss other matters!

> >With best wishes,
> > Michael

So Marty Peretz lied about Lee Bollinger being Jewish, only so he can call my dad his Court Jew, and then accused my dad of not responding, when in fact, he had given Peretz an exclusive last year, and Peretz thanked him for it. Sounds like the publisher of a magazine I want to read! Frankly, Peretz's post sounded like an Isaac Bashevis Singer story, but maybe that's just me.

---

Sphere: Related Content