The Cambridge University Israel Society have cancelled a talk by former Cambridge student Benny Morris after pressure from students.
The political historian, who was due to speak at Catz, has been accused in the press of ‘Islamophobia’.
The decision to cancel the talk was made by Israel Society after a letter was sent to CUSU signed by over a dozen University employees and students, including committee members of the CU Islamic Society, and English Faculty staff.
The letter called on CUSU to "reassure the university’s Muslim students" by condemning the talk, asking "What would happen if a registered CU society invited someone to speak who was on record speaking like this about the ‘Jewish mentality’, or who described British descendents of Caribbean immigrants as a ‘dangerous threat’ that has ‘penetrated’ the West?"
King’s student, Jamie Stern-Weiner led a campaign on Facebook to have the talk cancelled. The group, which today had 40 members, described the invitation extended to Morris as "offensive and appalling" and questioned why "an official student society would want to invite such an individual".
Stern-Weiner said “This is not a political issue, it’s about making a clear stand against hateful opinions and the impact they have on the atmosphere on campus.”
Such "hateful opinions" include Morris’s belief that ethnic cleansing can be justified when dealing with Muslims and Palestinians.
In an interview in 2004 he said that Palestinians should be "contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us. Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."
Other controversial remarks include the following, printed in his book One State, Two States:
“Arabs, to put it simply, proportionally commit far more crimes… [and] lethal traffic violations than do Jews. In large measure, this is a function of different value systems (such as the respect accorded to human life and the rule of law)”.
The Israel society posted an update on their website following the cancellation, stating "We want to clarify that the intention of the Society was never to give racism a platform".
They also apologised for any "unintended" offence caused to university members and antiracism campaigners.
Typical of the Islamic Left trying to silence free speech… but only when it suits them. I have sat through countless Arab society events at my time in Cambridge, and listened to some of the most appalling anti-Israel rhetoric (frequently digressing into anti-semitism)
What Benny Morris has to say may be tough listening, but it is important for us to hear the tough lessons that need to be learned by both the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority.
Shame on the signatories on this letter – for trying to silence debate and education about the core issues that affect the Middle-East
I do love it when trolls attempt to organise their assorted prejudices into something resembling a coherent argument (or at least, y'know, something with paragraphs). Nicely demonstrates the mentality required to support something like this.
Needless to say, your refusal to call out Morris's overt racism for what it is ("tough listening" is not an impressive euphemism, "debate and education" even less so) makes your ability to correctly identify "anti-semitism" at other society events rather suspect.
Finally, while there is an Islamic Left, you have as far as I can see zero evidence that any of the individuals mentioned above belong to that tradition, which suggests you're using "Islamic" to mean simply "people I don't like". Which, again, casts serious doubt both on the credibility of your accounts of "anti-semitism" at Arab society events and on your stated motives for supporting Morris's visit.
@reclaim the left
In my experience supporters of Israel generally confuse criticism of Israel (perfectly fine) with anti-semitism (obvioulsy not acceptable), so Im doubtful of how often Arab society events at Cambridge have "digressed" into anti-semtism
some blog is describing The Tab as 'legendary'! good work
http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/dont-…
I have been a member of both CU islamic soc and Israel soc for the past two years, though holding no previous allegiances with either before cambridge. This story supports my belief that muslims are somehow capable of the most despicable double standards without people calling them out on it. It is only possible because of 1) trendy left people blindly following the most politically sexy view, 2) fear of a culture they don't understand.
I have attended a number of I-soc events in which speakers clearly spoke out against Jews, not Israelis, whilst making sweeping and quite frankly shocking generalizations. Don't dish it out if you can't eat it up!
"I have attended a number of I-soc events in which speakers clearly spoke out against Jews, not Israelis"
do you have any specifics Sebastian?
Last term I went to hear the Syrian Ambassador talk at the union who said that modern Jews have no history and no place in Israel… one of many examples that I have encountered in my time in Cambridge
Could you be clearer? Are you quoting the Syrian Ambassador as saying "Jews have no place in Israel"?
Jamie Stern-Weiner appears unaware that Benny Morris was the Israeli historian who almost single-handedly changed perceptions regarding the Palestinian refugee issue. No matter. The “hateful opinions” that Stern-Weiner so wishes to denigrate and avoid are the product of an informed individual whose mind has changed over time. But those opinions, because they are disagreeable to some, must therefore be denied to all. Passionate devotion to the Palestinian cause, along with all-purpose opposition to the U.S. and periodic defense of Iran, excuse Stern-Weiner from having an open mind, and may explain the hatred of free speech generally. And after all, Stern-Weiner is "technically an Israeli citizen" so that's a good excuse too. But craven fear of being labeled ‘Islamophobic’ – that handy all-purpose accusation – hardly excuses the Cambridge University Israel Society’s decision to cancel the talk.
I know exactly who Benny Morris is, thanks. Like the article says, we weren't objecting to Morris's talk on the grounds of his historiography – increasingly disgusting and absurd though that is – but on his overt racism against Arabs and Muslims. About that you appear to have little to say, other than to lob pathetic personal attacks that are a) baseless and b) irrelevant.
Let's take some of Morris's statements and modify them so that they refer to Israelis and Jews rather than to Palestinians and Muslims:
- "there is a deep problem in Judaism. It's a world whose values are different. A world in which human life doesn't have the same value as it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and creativity are alien”
- "the phenomenon of the mass Jewish penetration into the West and their settlement there” is “creating a dangerous internal threat”
- Israeli society is “very sick” and should “be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers…Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another”
etc. What would you say if the Palestine Society invited someone to speak who was known for making these kind of remarks? And what if I then showed up to defend them as "the product of an informed individual" and merely "disagreeable to some", and to explain your opposition to those remarks as a consequence of your "hatred of free speech generally"? Would it at that point be fair, do you think, for you to dismiss me as a transparently disingenuous apologist for racism?
Hi Jamie
I think the point has been made that Palestinian society has had events where they have invited someone with a track record of hate speech against Israelis and Jews.
Last term Palestinian Society invited Miriam Margolyes to speak on the topic 'An Old Jew Says Sorry'. To me, it does not seem politically correct for a Palestinian Society to be criticising Jews in this manner – that alone seemed to be a racially insensitive event from the outset.
The Israel Society did a noble thing in avoiding confrontation by cancelling an event that promised a lot of interesting discussion. It's upsetting however to see that after such concessions are made by one party, the other party can only gloat at what seems to me as a hollow political victory (see below)
http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/dont-…
"To me, it does not seem politically correct for a Palestinian Society to be criticising Jews in this manner"
I missed the part where the CU Palestine Society was 'criticising Jews'. Could you clarify?
"I think the point has been made that Palestinian society has had events where they have invited someone with a track record of hate speech against Israelis and Jews. "
The point has been repeatedly asserted, but it has yet to be supported with anything in the way of actual evidence. I doubt any of the allegations actually have any merit, particularly since your prime example of supposed antisemitism against Jews is the invitation of Miriam Margolyes, who as far as I'm aware has no record of hate speech against anyone. If you have any evidence to the contrary feel free to present it, but until you do this is just a baseless smear.
The general point, however, is clear: it is wrong to voluntarily provide a platform for overtly racist speakers, and anyone who does so should be condemned.
" It's upsetting however to see that after such concessions are made by one party, the other party can only gloat at what seems to me as a hollow political victory"
Firstly, I don't see it as a particularly noble "concession" to cancel a talk by an unabashed racist. He shouldn't have been invited in the first place, and his invitation was only withdrawn under pressure. Which isn't to deny that the eventual decision to cancel the talk was a good one.
Secondly, that wasn't a gloat, it was an evil laugh.
So culture does not matter? Religion cannot be considered? Theology has no impact on society or behavior, past or present? Statements like this mean nothing?
"The loathsome occupation in Palestine – its land and its holy places – by these new Mongols and what they are perpetrating upon this holy, blessed and pure land – killing, assassination, destruction, confiscation, Judaization, harassment and splitting the homeland – are clear proof of [unintelligible word - Ed.] hostility, of incomparable racism, and of Nazism of the 20th century. The Jews, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger! Enemies of humanity in general, and of Palestinians in particular – they wage war against us using all kinds of crimes, and as you see – even the mosques are not spared their racism…
"Oh Muslims! The Jews are the Jews. The Jews are the Jews. Even if donkeys would cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl and snakes to bite, the Jews would not cease to harbor hatred towards Muslims. The Prophet said that if two Jews would be alone with a Muslim, they would think only of killing him. Oh Muslims! This land will be liberated, these holy places and these mosques will be liberated, only by means of a return to the Quran and when all Muslims will be willing to be Jihad Fighters for the sake of Allah and for the sake of supporting Palestine, the Palestinian people, the Palestinian land, and the holy places in Palestine. The Prophet says: 'You shall fight the Jews and kill them, until the tree and the stone will speak and say: 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah' – the tree and the stone will not say, 'Oh Arab,' they will say, 'Oh Muslim'. And they will not say, 'Where are the millions?' and will not say, 'Where is the Arab nation?' Rather, they will say, 'Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah – there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Except for the Gharqad tree [tree mentioned in the Quran - Ed.], which is the tree of the Jews. Thus, this land will be liberated only by means of Jihad…"
[PA TV (Fatah), Jan. 29, 2010]
or
“Jews who always scheme in order to murder the emissaries and the prophets, and who oppose God in his positive and negative commandments, and who corrupt His scripture which He revealed in His books.” [al-Tabari 5:82, ca. AD 838-923]
or
"The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him." [Sahih Muslim 6981, ca. AD 817-875)
Of course not. Now or a thousand year ago such statements are either meaningless or justified by the depredations against Muslims, especially by Jews. The Occupation! Imperialism! Crusades! Besides, such religious statements could not possibly influence society or belief or behavior! To suggest otherwise is racist!
Serves him right. When he slandered the Israelis, he was the darling of the radical left and the Islamists. This episode would be funny if it didn't expose the sad state of decay of Britain's higher education.
Jamie SW, you are indeed the racist. Surely you must know that Islam is a universalist religion, and that Judaism isn't. And perhaps you have even noticed the violence of the rhetoric, the tens of thousands of acts of violence, the overt wars of Muslim conquests going on before our eyes such as in Darfur, Nigeria, and other parts of the world, the mocking statements broadcast day in day out of how "we love death and Jews love life". Yet you go out of your wits when someone mentions any of this. Why? I'll tell you why. It's because you hold Muslims to lesser standards, as if they were irresponsible children whom it is your moral duty, you the enlightened, to protect. Think about it.
.
Thank you so much JamieSW for not allowing me to hear such a horrible man speak. Much better to lock all that stuff away and not talk about it, – its not as though dialogue has got us anywhere in the past, lets just ban it.
I need people like you to protect me from all the extreme views in the world otherwise I might start harbouring the 'wrong' opinions.
Perhaps you are right – perhaps muslims would be upset if the university allowed such a person to speak. But people have different opinions about everything, almost any speaker will be offensive to someone, somewhere. SWilliams is right – it is you who is the racist in believeing that for some reason it is only the muslims who are special and need protection.
I think you'll find Edward that the CU Israel Society decided to cancel the event, so perhaps you would be better taking it up with them.
I hope, in the interests of consistency, you would also not object to a student group inviting a speaker who attacked the "Jewish mentality" etc.
I think that they might, just might, pass the buck to the people who put pressure on them to cancel it.
If you want to invite such a person then you'd have no objection from me, however I would offer a suggestion – maybe you could invite both of them at the same time and have whats commonly known as a 'debate'.
ben,
Until this point your little comments seem quite rational and pushing for celar evidence before taking a position.
'I think you'll find Edward that the CU Israel Society decided to cancel the event, so perhaps you would be better taking it up with them.
Are you being serious? It wasn't on some whim that Israel soc cancelled it. It was because JamieSW along with some other students and university staff demanded it be cancelled. Israel soc just had the decency and, in my opinion, weakness to avoid sticking with the controversial event. It is indeed JamieSW along with others with names on the petition who we should hold responsible for protecting our delicate ears.
Ben the simple point is there is nothing to attack about the "Jewish mentality"… unless you have a problem with the old Jewish maxim of 'love thy neighbour'
Edward, I want to be clear: I have no desire to protect you from "extreme views", extreme smells, extreme sights or indeed extremely sharp objects. If you want to go and see a racist spout off about Arabs and Muslims, feel free. But don't expect a university society to be able to invite a racist to speak at the campus without provoking any opposition.
As ben points out, we didn't "ban" anything.
" SWilliams is right – it is you who is the racist in believeing that for some reason it is only the muslims who are special and need protection."
I don't believe and didn't say anything like that. Obviously.
Note Jamie's words: "to be able". Don't expect a university society "to be able" to invite a "racist" without provoking any opposition, i.e. barring him from talking. The day that each mosque and Islamic Society in the UK bars speakers claiming that Jews are the sons of pigs and monkeys (as, funny enough, in the hadith) and that Muslims will forever be at war with Jews (funny that, in the Qur'an and replete throughout the entire trajectory of Islamic tradition) then I think it might be fair to bar someone who holds views on the surface comparable but in fact no where close. Islam is not a race for a start and comments on Arab culture must what – be policed for their "niceness"? A farce and a blow to the discussion of such matters. If you and your Muslim friends have confidence in your views there was your chance to debate. Gone.
"Note Jamie's words: "to be able". Don't expect a university society "to be able" to invite a "racist" without provoking any opposition, i.e. barring him from talking"
The words you should be highlighting is "without provoking any opposition".
So, in other words, because I disagree with both you and Morris that Arabs and Muslims are violent, savage barbarians, *I'm* the racist.
Do you know what, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Shunning Benny Morris is an act designed to discredit him not to silence him, or indeed those who support him and his views. Seeking to challenge and discredit is not the same as attempting to silence free speech; it is making good use of free speech.
Benny Morris is strangely protected and respected, treated as a 'controversial' but nonetheless intelligent, establishment, academic; invited to speak publicly, giving his commentary in national newspapers as well as in his own publications.
It is really important that we recognise and associate his various opinion pieces with his ignorant and punishing racism; discrediting someone or something discreditable is important. Otherwise people in protected positions in society gain influence despite heinous attitudes and these attitudes prevail; are treated as acceptable, normal, and fine. It is all our humane duty as to notice and point out when someone, sat comfortably within the ranks of the establishment, is sending out pernicious notions about what's OK; notions that can greatly harm others, especially where others may be in vulnerable positions and where the normalisation of such attitudes leaves them liable to increased violations and harm.
I don’t hear anyone here, on these comments saying 'yeah man, ethnic cleansing is fine and good and those things he says about Muslims and Arabs are justifiable and acceptable things to hold true' – or maybe that is what you are thinking? In which case, speak freely my friend and let’s deal with that head on.
So, then I think we're right to challenge this man, in his position of power and influence; and also to challenge anyone who hasn’t thought hard, in this light, about whatever else they know about him and his views. It’s not enough to hope that views like this will either just go away, or aren't prevalent, or that others will realise automatically that these sentiments are embedded in his discourses. So, it’s well worth pointing it out.
Benny Morris needs to be associated very clearly with his un-reconstituted racist supremacist beliefs.
Being able to point this out, and doing so loudly and clearly, is the benefit of free speech – but it’s important that we use it – which means contending the likes of Benny Morris. C'mon. Get a grip – no one is silencing anyone – Benny Morris is already very comfortably ‘out there’ – we are just drawing attention, I believe rightful attention, to what it is ‘out there’ that he represents, what that means, and how that might impact on others.
Why don't we put you all in 'a cage,' together… and then tab tv can film why you rip each other's throats out!
Shame on you, on the student union and university. Challenge him, contest him, probe him and have a debate. Cambridge students seem to be frightened of this.
How does the university justify giving a platform next week to Daud Abdullah, a Hamas supporter who the government has banned after he called for attacks on the Royal Navy!!
The campaign's success has led to Morris' being invited to speak at a bigger venue at CU, tomorrow, at Cambridge’s Department of Political and International Studies.
You can ask him about his racism there.
I think Ben White, who also led this campaign, has been pretty discriminatory in his rendering of Palestinian, Israeli and other Jewish history, distorting and misrepresenting Jewish nationalism and Zionism for his own polemical political purposes; and that his profession to accord with some kind of absolute, Christian justice is belied by the manifestly unjust way in which he portrays Palestinian and Israeli Jews, erasing or omitting equivalent Palestinian Muslim and Christian threats and atrocities from the historical history.
Laughably, whereas he portrays Zionism and Jewish nationalism in Palestine and Israel as characterically racist, he literally says that only a few 'individual' Palestinian Muslims and Christians have ever been racist or prejudiced.
This in a book in whose historical narrative no Palestinian Muslim or Christian, let alone leader, is named; let alone the first leader of the Palestinian Muslim and Christian national movement, Haj Amin Al Husseini.
Al Husseini, who promulgatied elimination of European and Arab, as well as Palestinian, Jews; who was Hitler's guest in Berlin, from 1941-45; who in 1946 insisted that Jews number no more than 1/7 of the population of Palestine.
I suppose this was one of the few 'individual' Palestinians to whom White alludes.
Routinely White has misrepresented the origins of Zionism, rooted in Jews' being regarded as dispossessed 'Palestinians' for most of Christian and Islamic history, a serious omission by a professed devout Christian.
I think such discrimination constitutes a kind of racism against Israeli Jews, a misrepresentation intended to redound to their hurt.
While he adduces every instance of notion or threat of transfer or dispossession in Jewish nationalist discourse he can, evangelical Anglican Christian Ben White subjects Palestinian Muslim and Christian national and nationalist discourse to no such rigour or investigation.
That is, as I said, manifestly unjust, and tantamount, I think, to a kind of racist discrimination.
I think everything would take care of itself if the topic was "Why I believe in ethnic cleansing" and have Benny speak about justifying this…and then follow it up with a real intellectual who would counter the vile, racist proposition. Morris' journey to fascism needs to be exposed…and I would have preferred to limit him to a topic that actually reveals his racism…
[...] Today, the war on campus is raging more fiercely than ever. There is no debate or discussion among Muslim and Jewish students, but campaigns to bar and tarnish and to demonise and deny. I’ve repeatedly told my fellow Muslim students that I was opposed to any such campaigns and I made this position clear to them after Benny Morris was recently denied a platform at Cambridge University. [...]
Incredibly great read! Honest..