Russia bids for control over the Middle East

Russian FM Lavrov announced the upcoming financial support for Palestinians during Abbas’ visit to Moscow. As his presidential term expires on January 9, this seems Abbas’ last official visit - significantly, to Chechnya.

Russian support to Palestinians will come largely in military sphere. In Lavrov’s diplomatic speak, Russia supports Abbas’ “security measures.” The only Fatah’s security measures we see in Israel are related to terrorist attacks: scores of Fatah policemen are vacationing in Israeli jails for terror activity. Not a single Palestinian terrorist was intercepted by Fatah policemen. The few terrorists comfortably jailed in Palestine were arrested by IDF and released to Fatah.

Russian pledge to Palestine has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. Russians never delivered food or other humanitarian supplies to Palestinian refugee camps, but look for “security cooperation” with Palestinians. In plain English, Russians seek a military foothold at Israeli borders. To that end, they pledged ten MIG-29 jets to Lebanon’s Hezbollah government free, and build a mammoth navy base in Syrian port of Tartus. The navy base will host S-300 and later S-400 anti-aircraft defense which would protect most of Syria against Israeli reprisals. Under the Russian ABM umbrella, Syria can develop its nuclear weapons without fearing Israeli preemption.

Russia’s Middle East policy also includes TOR-1M and S-300 deliveries to Iran and joint nuclear program with Egypt.

Russian expansion comes despite that country’s economic troubles. Russian economy relies on oil, gas, and other natural resources almost as much as Saudi Arabia. Oil and gas revenues account for about 60% of Russian budget (both directly and through taxes on businesses which thrive on high oil prices). During the years of windfall oil profits, Russian government built currency reserves, but they dwindle quickly as oil prices fell.

Instead of minding its own business and building a modern economy, Putin-Medvedev’s government grew increasingly hostile. Domestically, the regime amended the high treason law: the new formulation easily includes all dissidents. The tax administration hunts down crisis-stricken businesses: the reduced tax revenues are blamed on evasion rather than economic downturn. In the “near abroad”, Russia continues military incursions in Georgia and introduced gas blockade of Ukraine. Russian Gazprom monopoly refused transporting Asian gas to Ukraine, and slapped it with gas prices substantially higher than those offered to West European customers.

Russia cannot gain rich or advanced countries on its side. They are either not interested in Russian overtures, or prefer relations with the West, if only for economic reasons. Russians have nothing to offer Saudi Arabia or Emirates, but court the world’s outlaws such as Iran or Venezuela.

The Old Europe also falls victim to Russian bullying: France and Germany, the EU cheerleaders, depend on Russia for gas supplies, as are most other European countries. Staunchly anti-American EU embraces Russia if not for any other reason than to slap the United States. In its latest meeting at FM level, NATO discussed Georgia: not the way of defending it from Russia, but how to get over it and re-establish ties with Russia.

US-Russian nuclear cooperation, arms reduction, and anti-missile treaties are practically abandoned. Russia threatened to stop dismantling its nuclear warheads and selling the uranium to America, though the deal went on smoothly for fifteen years. Putin resumed militarily useless but highly provocative flights of Russian nuclear-armed strategic bombers around Europe.

Russia’s increasingly strong relations with Hezbollah, Hamas, and PLO are best viewed on the background of its worldwide strategy. Lacking funds to buy clients with aid, having too little economic clout to obtain friends with trade advantages, Russia resorted to the old Soviet tactics of stirring trouble. That policy amounts to racketeering: if Russian role is not acknowledged, regional troubles ensue. Propping the miscreants like Iran or PLO is way cheaper than staging conflicts and immensely cheaper than any civilized way of spreading one’s influence.

Unless Russia breaks again into the post-democratic anarchy, it is out to create major troubles for the world.

Daily - Group efforts of SAFE

Recognizing the importance of the group behind a leader

To the Daily:

While I am thoroughly honored to have been recognized by the Daily in its "Students of the year" (03/26/2008) for my participation in Students Allied for Freedom and Equality - a diverse group of student activists organized to promote justice, human rights, liberation and self-determination for the Palestinian people - I would like to note that our success as an organization cannot be attributed to just one person. Nothing could have been achieved this year had it not been for the hard work and dedication of all SAFE's members, especially my co-chair Hena Ashraf, Bre Arder, Faria Jabbar, Ryah Aqel and Kamal Abuarquob.

This year, SAFE was steadfast in its effort to provide the campus community with a holistic and analytical outlook at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It did this in spite of being harassed by Internet and campus watchdogs who attempted to intimidate SAFE into silence through libelous blog postings and offensive fliers, which sometimes compared the SAFE members to the Ku Klux Klan. By ignoring and properly reporting these cowardly acts of hate and discrimination, SAFE demonstrated that it is possible to engage in a civil and analytical debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

As members of an institution of higher learning, we have a fundamental obligation to uphold the principles of freedom and equality. SAFE calls on people from all backgrounds and political persuasions to support peace and justice in the Middle East.

Andrew Dalack

LSA sophomore

The letter writer is the co-chair of SAFE

Severe misrepresentation of Palestine Awareness Week

unpublished

On Tuesday night, visiting Professor Neve Gordon from Ben-Gurion University of the Political Science Department gave a lecture titled "From Colonization to Separation: Exploring the Structure of Israel's Occupation" on behalf of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality. This event was the second event of Palestine Awareness Week, an attempt by SAFE to educate and engage the campus body regarding issues surrounding Palestine and the Zionist-Palestinian conflict.

Gordon's lecture proposed several different arguments regarding the nature of Israel's current occupation of the sovereign Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip. During his presentation, Professor Gordon explained Israel's fundamental responsibility to the Palestinians under direct Israeli control. Professor Gordon explained that because the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are under total Israeli domination, deemed illegal under international law by UN Resolution 242, Israel has a fundamental and inescapable obligation to the wellbeing of the Palestinians. In addition, Professor Gordon noted the difference and increase in Israeli state violence toward the Palestinians as part of a vicious cycle of bloodshed initiated by Israel's maltreatment of the occupied Palestinians since 1967 and the subsequent Palestinian response in 1987. Specifically, Professor Gordon juxtaposed the amount of Palestinians and Israelis killed between 1987 and 2000 to the number of Palestinians and Israelis killed between 2000 and 2006. Professor Gordon's numbers demonstrated that there was a substantial increase in the loss of Palestinian life; twice as many Palestinians were killed during the second Intifada than in the prior 34 years of occupation. Professor Gordon's statistics also showed that the number Israelis killed increased between these two respective periods.

Daniel Strauss, who covered the event, grossly misrepresented the content and message of Professor Gordon's lecture. First, Strauss both misquoted and misreported Gordon's discussion of the increase in violence by only citing Gordon's presentation of the increase in Israeli deaths in the period between 1987 and 2000 and that of 2000 and 2006. Professor Gordon's purpose in presenting these statistics was to demonstrate the dramatic increase in violence on both sides and that far more Palestinians had died than Israelis. Strauss's reporting made it appear that Gordon was trying to paint the Israelis as the ultimate victims of the increase in violence.

Second, Strauss implied that Palestinian laborers have benefited from Israeli occupation because they are in a better financial position than under traditional landowning. This is out of context, as Gordon explained that the occupier always has a responsibility to the occupied. The occupation has forced Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to be fully dependent on a colonizing power. Because of the occupation, the Palestinians are forced to endure ever-increasing Israeli attacks on every aspect of their lives, locking them into a subhuman and subjugated existence.

Daily Runs SAFE Statement on Pluto Press

The fight for academic freedom
By: Kamal Abuarquob and Ryah Aqel
Michigan Daily

Students Allied for Freedom and Equality applauds the University of Michigan Press for deciding to maintain its contractual arrangement with Pluto Press. Unfortunately, open academic debate is not valued by all.

The external push against the press by some pro-Israel organizations began with Pluto's publication and the University Press's distribution of Bard College Prof. Joel Kovel's book, "Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine." Though the book proposes a vision for peace, some have unfairly attacked it for the suggestion that Israelis and Palestinians should be treated as equal citizens in a state for both peoples. Kovel will be speaking about his experience in this struggle for open academic debate tonight at 8 p.m. in the 4th floor amphitheater of Rackham Auditorium.

Critical academic debate, which is needed now more than ever, is threatened because institutional supporters of Israel cannot tolerate views critical of Israel's policies and practices. This is antithetical to the mission of the University and its press, which seeks to offer "books that contribute to public understanding and dialogue about contemporary political, social, and cultural issues."

The principles of academic freedom have become increasingly difficult to uphold of late. Nobel Peace Prize-winning former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, leading political science scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt as well as Desmond Tutu, the anti-Apartheid legend who also won the Nobel Peace Prize, among others, face baseless accusations of anti-Semitism and bitter criticism and censure for taking positions critical of Israel.

For too long, pro-Israel activists have accused those who recognize Palestinian suffering and question Israel's system of discrimination of "hate speech" or anti-Semitism. The goal is clear: to make criticism of Israel's policies taboo. Nothing could be worse in the academic arena than taboos, especially with regard to important political conflicts and issues central to American foreign policy.

In light of the controversy surrounding Kovel's book, three members of the University Board of Regents - Andrea Fischer Newman (R-Ann Arbor), Laurence Deitch (D-Bingham Farms) and Andrew Richner (R-Grosse Pointe Park) - wrote a letter to the University Press calling on it to drop all distribution deals with non-University affiliated publishers. Such an irresponsible action is appalling. The letter indicates that damage to the University's reputation should be the primary criterion for a decision. However, the regents must be careful not to ignore the true mission of the University in favor of business and public relations.

The decision by the University Press to maintain its contract with Pluto Press is an important one given all the pressure it has faced. It bolsters the principle of open debate against those who oppose it and seek to present Israel as a state beyond critique. The latest offensive by those unwilling to stand by the University Press's decision should be discarded as counterproductive to the University's mission and the responsibilities of the press.

Several pro-Israel organizations - The Anti-Defamation League, Zionist Organization of America and B'nai B'rith International - spoke at a recent regents meeting and urged the board to take action against the University's partnership with Pluto Press. They did not cite directly from Kovel's book, and there is no proof they had even read it.

Instead, the groups critical of the University Press focused on the specter of anti-Semitism. For example, the ADL's regional director cited her organization's study on anti-Semitic attitudes in America. Yet she did not even try to show how Kovel's book is anti-Semitic.

To be sure, anti-Semitism is a problem - as all prejudice is. However, it is being used to broadly attack a book and a publisher who clearly stand for equality. Kovel's book proposes a vision of peace in Israel/Palestine in which Jews and Palestinians are equal. Deeming those sentiments hateful is as disingenuous as calling Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King, Jr. anti-White bigots for daring to demand equality in oppressive societies.

Because the statements and letters in the pressure campaign do not substantiate the claim of anti-Semitism with actual analysis, it is safe to conclude that this is a politically motivated campaign aimed at shielding Israel from criticism. The Board of Regents should protect the academic organs of this institution from baseless, political attacks. Otherwise, academic freedom loses.

Kamal Abuarquob is an LSA senior. Ryah Aqel is an LSA sophomore. They are members of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality.

Viewpoint by Ilana Weaver: Racism Lives in Ann Arbor

By Ilana Weaver on 11/16/07

Late Saturday night, I was walking up to the ATM on Church Street and South University Avenue, when a SUV full of drunk men yelled at me, "Fuck you, Afghanistan bitch!" I kept walking, ignoring this eloquent comment. They targeted me because I was wearing my keffiyeh, a checkered Palestine solidarity scarf, which is not in any way related to Afghanistan. I'm white and Jewish, yet I still experienced anti-Muslim racism.

When I reached the ATM, I felt something hit my shoulder, possibly a plastic bottle. I turned around to respond and was only met with more belligerent yelling. As I went to write down the car's license plate number, I noticed a police car right behind them. The cops either failed to notice what happened or simply ignored the incident. The SUV full of boys turned off the road, and the police drove off like nothing happened.

Ironically, I had just left an uplifting workshop at the Trotter House called the Arab Community Summit, which was sponsored by Multi Ethnic Student Affairs. The session foretold my experience with the group of drunk men: It was about the prevalence of anti-Arab racism at the University.

In the workshop, a Palestinian student told the story of being silenced and called an extremist in her classes, regardless of the subject, after pro-Israel students realized her heritage and ganged up on her. Another Arab student described sitting in class behind two non-Arab students while they discussed how Israel should kill all Palestinians to make more room for Israel's economy.

Make no mistake: Anti-Arab racism is alive and well in Ann Arbor.

The day after the incident at the ATM, I told a friend about it. In turn, she relayed a story of a friend on campus, a black woman, who was called the n-word while walking down an Ann Arbor street last month.

I am a hip-hop artist and community activist based in Detroit, but I was raised in Ann Arbor. I know from growing up here that this undercurrent of racism is deep, and it goes well beyond anti-Arab hatred.

Beneath Ann Arbor's facade as a liberal safe haven, the police disproportionately criminalize communities of color and poor people. There's a landfill on Ellsworth located across the street from low-income housing. And who can forget the historic moments in 1996 and 1998 when the city allowed the Ku Klux Klan to demonstrate on the roof of City Hall.

So how can these problems be addressed? The following are some of the solutions that were put forward by Arab Summit participants on Nov. 10, as well as students of race-related organizations throughout Ann Arbor:

First, we must speak out. These are only isolated incidents if we let them go undocumented. Second, student organizations should address hate crimes through programs and action. Third, change the race and ethnicity requirement at the University to an anti-oppression requirement. Such a requirement would educate students on how being privileged or harmed by systems of oppression can influence their mentality. This requirement would also support students in figuring out their role in ending racial oppression.

Beyond changes on campus, we must establish truth and reconciliation commissions, modeled after South Africa's post-apartheid resolution process - a process that is now being applied across America in communities that are no longer willing to sweep ongoing injustices under the carpet. Without addressing past wrongs, power dynamics will continue to be asymmetric, and the racial hierarchy will remain unchanged.

Ilana Weaver is an Ann Arbor-raised, Detroit-based emcee and activist.

Michigan Daily Editors Defend Pluto Press Distribution Deal

Start the presses
University Press's wavering is inexplicable and inexcusable

10/30/07

The University of Michigan Press is supposed to be devoted to publishing books that "contribute to public understanding and dialogue about contemporary political, social, and cultural issues." Sometimes that means defending controversial books, and it doesn't get much more controversial than the Israeli-Palestinian debate.

Unfortunately, in deciding whether to continue distributing Bard College Prof. Joel Kovel's book, "Overcoming Zionism" and whether or not to renew its contract with the book's publisher, Pluto Press, the University Press undermined all of its supposed values. Although the University Press made the right decisions in the end, along the way it wavered on its commitment to protecting academic debate and cowered behind decisions that lacked any transparency.
Editorial Board Members: Emad Ansari, Kevin Bunkley, Ben Caleca, Milly Dick, Mike Eber, Gary Graca, Emmarie Huetteman, Theresa Kennelly, Emily Michels, Robert Soave, Gavin Stern, Jennifer Sussex, Neil Tambe, Matt Trecha, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Wagner, Patrick Zabawa

Not everyone will or should agree with Kovel's book. Printed by Pluto Press, a Leftist independent publisher based in Britain, "Overcoming Zionism" argues that the ideology of Zionism amounts to "state-sponsored racism," which is incompatible with democracy. The book goes further to say that in order to achieve peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Zionism must be rejected in favor of a secular, single-state, democratic solution.

As criticisms of the book surfaced, the University Press balked at defending its reasoning for distributing the book. Instead, last August, the press's director, Phil Pochoda, decided to halt distribution, simply citing "serious questions raised by several members of the University community about the book." In other words, some people objected to a controversial book, and the press, rather than defending the principles it exists to serve, simply backed down.

There is no doubt that some people will have objections to Kovel's contentions, but is there any reason besides complacency and cowardice that those contentions should not be presented into the debate? The book has received its fair share of support, too - from historian Howard Zinn, for example. While people may not agree with the content of the book, it does add to the debate, and it is exactly the type of book the University Press should print.

A month after stopping distribution of the book, the University Press's executive board actually reviewed the book and decided to resume distribution. However, the controversy surrounding this particular book continued and the University Press considered whether it should continue to distribute books printed by Pluto in the future. While the University Press did ultimately announce its decision to renew its contract with Pluto late last week, it waited several days before releasing its decision, continuing to hide from the controversy

The University Press should have never stopped the distribution of Kovel's book in the first place, and the decision to continue distributing Pluto Press's books should have never been questioned. For all the high-minded defense of academic debate, the true test is what we do under pressure, and the University Press proved unable to live up to its ideal.

When criticisms of this book emerged, the University needed to visibly defend the author's right to make a well-informed but controversial argument. If the University Press feels that a certain book is so hateful that it must be censored, such a decision still should only be made after a careful review like the one in September - not simply by the knee-jerk reaction of any one person. Pochoda should never have been allowed to stop distribution without a reasonable explanation. Why should he be able to work against the values of our institution as a whole? His brash decision may have been a mistake, and it damages our University's reputation as a staunch champion of free and open debate.

If the University Press hopes to uphold its own values and those of the institution it is named for, it will often have to defend controversial books. It can't choose to selectively duck that responsibility.

Editorial Board Members: Emad Ansari, Kevin Bunkley, Ben Caleca, Milly Dick, Mike Eber, Gary Graca, Emmarie Huetteman, Theresa Kennelly, Emily Michels, Robert Soave, Gavin Stern, Jennifer Sussex, Neil Tambe, Matt Trecha, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Wagner, Patrick Zabawa

SAFE Issues in Michigan Daily

Michigan Daily runs two good letters to the editor on SAFE issue.


White supremacist has no place at MSU


To the Daily:

Nick Griffin, head of the British National Party, will speak today at Michigan State University, upon invitation from the Young Americans for Freedom. The BNP is a white supremacist party known to be racist against all non-white communities in Britain and to have a homophobic and anti Semitic history. In line with its xenophobia, the BNP has become explicitly anti-Muslim in recent years.

The BNP plays into the fears of white British people, pushing for an end to immigration, incentives for immigrants "to return home," denial of housing to immigrant families and denial of refuge to asylum seekers, among other racist agendas. The BNP is a succession of the National Front, which was infamous for inciting riots and hatred in the 1970s and '80s in Great Britain.

As a Muslim woman from Britain who recently spent nine months living and studying in East London (an area that the BNP and National Front have explicitly targeted because of its large Bangladeshi population), I am astonished that the head of the BNP, a leading British hate figure, will be speaking at MSU.

Griffin has a deplorable history of inciting hatred against immigrants in Great Britain. He envisions the country as a racially pure, white country. As history has shown, this is a very dangerous belief.
The British government convicted him in 1998 of inciting racial hatred. He is a well-known Holocaust-denier and a homophobe. He claims to have cleaned up his act, but his words are now just more misleading. The underlying message is the same: Britain is for white Christians. What can he possibly teach MSU students?

Hena Ashraf
LSA senior

-----

Why such a focus on silencing certain speakers?


To the Daily:

Thank you for running an important viewpoint about the University Press's decision to temporarily halt distribution of Joel Kovel's book (Undermining the academic debate, 10/24/2007). People do not understand how far aggressive opponents of academic freedom go to silence any criticism of Israel. Any discussion of the most important foreign policy questions requires real debate.

In the past year alone, people who refuse to tolerate dissenting views have protested in order to silence reputable scholars and world figures, including Prof. John Mearsheimer of Harvard, Prof. Stephen Walt of the University of Chicago, New York University Prof. Tony Judt and even South African Nobel Peace Prize winner, Desmond Tutu.

They have also attacked Middle East experts and pressured universities to deny them tenure or even to fire them. Enemies of academic freedom successfully pressured DePaul University to deny Norman Finkelstein tenure. They are waging a similar war on Nadia Abu El Haj at Barnard College. Now they want the University of Michigan Press to stop carrying controversial books as well.

With all this pressure to silence critics, one must ask what exactly they are trying to hide.

Ryah Aqel
LSA sophomore

UM PRESS SUPPORTS ACADEMIC FREEDOM; REJECTS PRO-ISRAEL PRESSURE

Statement By Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE)

SAFE applauds the University of Michigan Press for deciding to maintain its arrangement with Pluto Press.

Had Pro-Israel pressuring convinced UM Press to drop the contract, critical academic
debate -- which is needed now more than ever -- would have suffered.

UM Press stuck by the best principles of academic freedom, which is increasingly
difficult to uphold in this political climate. An ex-President, leading Political
Science scholars, and even anti-Apartheid legend and Nobel Peace Prize Winner are being attacked for taking positions critical of Israel. All of them -- Jimmy Carter, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, and Desmond Tutu -- face smear campaigns and concerted efforts to cancel their speaking engagements, some of which have been canceled.

For too long, recognizing Palestinian suffering and questioning Israel's foundational discrimination were falsely characterized as "hate speech" or, mysteriously, racist against Jews.

The decision by UM Press is an important one given this context. It bolsters the
principle of open debate against those who oppose it, and seek to present Israel, the number one recipient of American aid, as a state beyond critique.

Anti-fascist press statement

unpublished

WHITE SUPREMACIST TO SPEAK AT MSU FRIDAY
UM Student Group Alarmed by Hate Speech Promoter’s Invitation

ANN ARBOR, MI – A leading hate figure in Great Britain is invited to speak at Michigan State University. British National Party (BNP) head Nick Griffin will speak at MSU at an event hosted by the student group Young Americans for Freedom, which claims to be a Conservative group, this Friday.

Students Allied for Freedom and Equality are shocked that such a speaker – one heavily protested by anti-fascist groups in Europe – would receive an invitation to speak in this state.

The British National Party is a succession group of the National Front, a fascist group infamous for inciting riots, hatred, and promoting institutionalized racism against all non-whites in Great Britain. Griffin, the current head of the BNP, has a deplorable history of hatred against immigrants in Great Britain.

Andrew Dalack, SAFE’s co-chair, said “the BNP stands in opposition to the values in the fabric of our society. It is xenophobic, explicitly racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic.”

The BBC describes Griffin as such: “He has a controversial past, which includes a 1998 conviction for incitement to racial hatred for material denying the Holocaust.”

Griffin and his party are quite clear about pushing the vision of Great Britain as a country for straight whites. They propose paying large grants to immigrants to leave Great Britain. They also want to deny many asylum-seekers from seeking refuge there despite the clearly humanitarian necessity.

SAFE op-ed

[unpublished]

The continued Israeli military occupation of the sovereign Palestinian Gaza Strip and West Bank has brought much despair to the territories’ civilian population over the last 40 years. Although the Gaza Strip and West Bank were technically ruled by Egypt and Jordan respectively prior to 1967, since Israel’s military victory during the Six-Day War, the Palestinians have been the silenced victims of Israeli military violence, social inequality, and apartheid-like practices. More specifically, the Israeli occupation has had devastating effects on Palestinian schoolchildren, adolescents, and college-bound young adults yearning to live a normal life.

On October 3rd, 2007, the Israeli Supreme Court rejected Khaled al-Mudallal’s petition to be allowed to leave occupied Gaza in order to return to Britain’s Bradford University. Al-Mudallal, a third-year student at Bradford, had returned to Gaza in June to visit his wife Duaa and was prevented from leaving after fighting broke out between Fatah and Hamas. Because al-Mudallal has been stripped of his right to return to Britain, he will lose his place at Bradford University and will be unable to further pursue his degree. Unfortunately, al-Mudallal’s experience is not unique. No buses have left Gaza since September 6th and nearly 5,000 Palestinians with legitimate work and study visas remain trapped (Independent, October 3rd, 2007).

Israel’s military occupation has had even worse effects on the education of Palestinian children within the territory. Unemployment, rampant poverty, disparity, and the constant threat of violence have set up students from all grades up for failure. UNRWA figures illustrate that in their schools, which cater to Gaza’s 1.1 million person refugee population, the exam failure rate for students in grades fourth through ninth range from 34.9 percent at grade 4 to 61.1 percent at grade 8 (Independent, October 6th, 2007). The failure rate for mathematics is even worse. More than 65 percent of the population between fourth and ninth grades fail math, with a 90 percent failure rate amongst sixth graders (Independent, October 6th, 2007).

As students at an institution of higher learning, we have an obligation to protect peoples’ fundamental right to education wherever it is challenged. No matter how one feels about the current situation in the Middle East, there are innocent parties suffering, unable to enjoy the basic rights and liberties that we take for granted. Inadequate education within the territories, specifically Gaza, is only one of the consequences of Israel’s military occupation. Gaza has literally become a 1.4 million person prison, completely cut off from the rest of the Middle East, let alone the world, and completely under Israeli domination. In Gaza, more than 75 percent of the population lives in decrepit refugee camps with inconsistent electricity, gas, and running water. Palestinian politicians are constantly subject to assassination and incarceration, no matter what political party they are affiliated with.

In the West Bank, the situation is further complicated by the presence of nearly 187,000 Israeli settlers. In order to protect and expand established settlements, Israel has placed more than 500 checkpoints throughout the territory that are manned by soldiers with the ability to arbitrarily halt Palestinian movement. In addition, the presence and continued construction of a concrete “separation barrier” throughout Bethlehem and Jerusalem cuts right through privately owned Palestinian land, segregating an impoverished population from a thriving “democracy.”

As the situation continues to worsen throughout the Occupied Territories, one has to wonder: when will the occupation end? When will we acknowledge that military occupation of a largely civilian population is just plain wrong? When will we as a scholarly community condemn Israel’s conduct within the territories? When will today’s Palestinian youth, who have known nothing but violence and death, be freed from the hell that has become their world? For the sake of Khaled al-Mudallal and the rest of the occupied Palestinian population, that time better be soon.

Andrew Dalack
Hena Ashraf

Pluto Press: From the Commissioning Editor

Free speech threat over critical book on Israel
by David Castle
October 11, 2007

A controversy in the United States over a new book from a British publisher has raised questions over free speech on contentious political subjects. Progressive publisher Pluto Press has been attacked by a pro-Israel lobby group, Stand With Us (SWU), by whom it has been described as publishing “anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda”. In particular, SWU have targeted a new book by Bard College Professor Joel Kovel, Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine (OZ), which it claims is “a polemic against Israel” and “laced with contempt for Judaism”.

Pluto Press is distributed in the United States by the University of Michigan Press (UMP), and SWU have claimed that Kovel’s book, and much of Pluto’s list, is of no scholarly merit and therefore unsuitable for distribution by an academic press. SWU and numerous supporters have been pressurising the university to cease their relationship with Pluto, and for a brief period UMP suspended distribution of OZ. UMP are currently re-examining their relationship with Pluto in the wake of SWU’s attack.

Pluto vehemently refutes the accusations made by Stand With Us. Pluto publishes from within many traditions of radical scholarship – Marxist, anarchist, feminist, green, and others – which while often marginalised within the academy, represent vital, critical strands of academic debate. Although their loss might satisfy some on the political right, it would certainly narrow the terms of academic discourse, and weaken intellectual endeavour as a whole. Many prestigious scholars have published with Pluto; Joel Kovel himself is a widely respected radical thinker, author of a classic text of eco-Marxism, The Enemy of Nature, and editor-in-chief of the eminent journal Capitalism, Nature, Socialism.

Overcoming Zionism itself is certainly partisan in the sense that it argues that the present Zionist Israeli state is illegitimate and should be replaced by a new, secular democratic state for both Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Kovel argues his case through a well-documented critique of the history of Zionism and the modern Israeli state. Of course, many will disagree with Kovel’s argument. The question is, is it unscholarly? Kovel argues forcefully for a particular point, and takes a stance in a political conflict – should this be out of bounds for academic writing? The fact is that many academic texts argue unreservedly for certain principles – the benefits of the free market (in Economics), or for flexible working practices (in Management) or for international law based on principles on human rights (in Law). But within today’s political climate, these principles are so widely accepted as to be utterly uncontentious. Kovel’s sin is to argue for something that is not only unpopular, but regarded by many as beyond acceptable discourse.

The reason that Kovel’s argument is so controversial is not for any scholarly reason – the reason is purely political. The pro-Israel lobby is an extremely powerful force in US politics – highly organised, very well funded, with influence in the heart of government – and through persuasion, chastisement and not a little bullying, the lobby has managed to establish in many people’s minds that criticism of Israel and Zionism is no less than anti-Semitism – that is to say, that criticism of the actions of a state and a political ideology is equivalent to an attack and denigration of a whole people. It is a dangerous line of argument, because if extended to any state and people it would mean that criticism of any state other than one’s own should be considered a racist attack. Indeed, in the case of Israel, being Jewish does not seem to give you any more right to be critical of the state that claims to be your homeland, as Kovel himself has found out.

The controversy surrounding Overcoming Zionism is only one example of what happens when an academic crosses the line of acceptable discourse set by the Israeli lobby. Campus Watch, another lobby organisation, is in the business of identifying scholars who are critical of Israel and attempting to discredit them. It is widely accepted that Norman Finkelstein, author of The Holocaust Industry, lost his permanent position at De Paul University as a result of pressure from the lobby. There is currently a similar dispute over tenure for Nadia Abu El-Haj, an anthropologist at Barnard College, Columbia University, who has written a book about how archaeology is deployed to support political ends – specifically, to demonstrate the veracity of Israel’s supposed origins in a Biblical past, a claim at the heart of Zionism.

Israel is at the heart of today’s conflicts in the Middle East. Israel’s treatment of Palestinians enrages fellow Muslims across the world, and incites animosity towards both Israel and its main sponsor, the US. If it is not possible to discuss Israel freely within the US, how can the US come to develop a considered and just policy in the Middle East?

In the face of the controversy surrounding Overcoming Zionism, a group of scholars, campaigners and lawyers have established the Committee for Open Discussion of Zionism, which aims to defend the principle of free speech on debate over Israel. The Committee asks for your support - you can find them at www.codz.org.

Finally, for all that is currently being said about the book, both in favour and against, it is clear that few people have actually read it. I would encourage you to do so, and make up your own mind on what constitutes racism, propaganda and reasoned critique.

David Castle, Commissioning Editor, Pluto Press

Pluto Press: Letter from Will Youmans to UM administration

UM PRESS SHOULD STAND FOR OPEN DEBATE, NOT POLITICAL CENSORSHIP

Students Allied for Freedom and Equality is deeply concerned with recent concerted efforts to limit debate on Israel-Palestine. Some supporters of Israel are trying to limit the venues and forums for critical examination of the situation.

Nationally, this has taken the form of campaigns against the tenure of professors whose scholarship challenges Israel's official claims. Professor Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul University. Currently, outside organizations and ideologically-driven faculty are seeking to prevent Nadia Abu El Haj from attaining tenure at Barnard College. Debates and speeches by luminaries such as NYU intellectual Tony Judt, esteemed political science professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, as well as a San Diego concert by the world class Lebanese musician Marcel Khalife, have all faced cancellation due to pressure by those seeking to silence dissent.

Most outrageously a small university in Minnesota briefly canceled a talk by anti-Apartheid hero and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu because he compared Israel to apartheid South Africa. The school's administrators quickly saw the error of their ways and re-invited him.

It has come to our attention that the University of Michigan Press is now re-considering its distribution deal with Pluto Press, the small, independent publisher of critical scholarship. The precise reason is that those who seek to silence criticism of Israel are deeply opposed to the message of one book, Prof. Joel Kovel's, 'Overcoming Zionism.'

Their response to this book is rooted in a political difference. They see Israel as morally righteous and generally correct in its claims. Kovel argues that the principle of a state for one people forcefully imposed on a land of many people is the essential cause for the conflict. He describes the result as "state-sponsored racism," a view widely felt by Palestinians and many in the world, including prominent South Africans who liken it to apartheid.

The point is that scholars can reach different conclusions about this. Just because one passionate group is unhappy with Kovel's conclusion, it does not mean there is no value to it. If anything, Kovel contributes an alternative framework for peace, the one-state solution. This is a vision increasingly gaining currency among Israeli and Palestinian peace activists.

It is exactly views like these that need to enter public discourse. As history has shown, the dominant frameworks Israel supporters prefer have failed to produce anything but more suffering and conflict. Pluto Press is an important resource for new thinking about old problems.

This "controversy" and the effort to limit public access to Pluto Press's catalog is entirely antithetical to the notion of open debate. These pro-Israel advocacy groups should not seek to end this arrangement, they should confront the book's arguments with their own.

Instead of debating, they prefer silencing. It will be a tragic blow to the University's ideals if UM Press bows to this pressure.


Professor Peggy McCracken
Executive Board Chair
University of Michigan Press
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
peggymcc@umich.edu

President Mary Sue Coleman
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
presoff@umich.edu

Janet A. Weiss Dean of the Rackham Graduate School and Vice Provost
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1070
janetw@umich.edu

Teresa A. Sullivan Provost and Executive Vice-President for Academic Affairs
3074 Fleming Building
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1340
tsull@umich.edu