There looks to be controversy brewing inside the college Jewish community over J Street's honorable sponsorship of speeches on campus by John Ging, the director of the UN Relief and Works Agency who has done more than anyone to instil in the west the idea of the civility of the Gazans.
Ging spoke at Barnard last night. The day before the event (as commenter Psychopathic God noted here in comment 5) an email went out from Abby Backer, president of Just Peace at Columbia-- which organized the event and which says it has a similar mission to J Street--ending the group's sponsorship of Ging's speech.
As student organizers with Just Peace, we were looking forward to hosting an event for John Ging because we think it’s important to hear from experts on our issue that speak from many perspectives, even if we don’t necessarily agree with everything they have to say. Other community organizations on campus took issue with our involvement with Mr. Ging, and we are now unfortunately unable to co-sponsor the event....
We are thankful to the five Columbia groups, including the Columbia Political Union, the Institute for the Study of Human Rights, and the Columbia Democrats, for working with J Street U to hold this event.
Who are those "other" groups? Rebecca Wright at the Columbia Spectator did some reporting and showed that Hillel couldn't stomach Ging, and suggested that Hillel wanted to censor his goddamn speech, and the Just Peace group went along with Hillel:
“There was a lot of back-and-forth. ... Discussions went on for about a week,” said Abby Backer, BC [Barnard] ’13 and president of Just Peace. “There just wasn’t time to find a solution. We dissociated ourselves from the event so we wouldn’t have to dissociate ourselves from Hillel.”
Jonah Liben, GS [General Studies?] and Israel coordinator for Hillel, said that he would have supported the event if Hillel could control the format, but representatives from Just Peace said they wanted Ging to have the opportunity to deliver an uncensored speech. Backer said she also heard concerns that the conversation might spiral out of control in an unproductive way.
“It’s unfortunate that this event couldn’t happen with Hillel’s name on it,” Liben said—and both he and Backer said that time constraints, and not fundamental disagreements, prevented the two groups from reaching a compromise. Referring to the national Jewish organization that supported Ging’s trip to the United States, where he is visiting a number of campuses, Liben added, “We know that J Street isn’t bringing Ging in to bash Israel, and he tried to contextualize his statements … [but] Ging is a controversial speaker.”
Meanwhile, the head of the college branch of J Street-- J Street U director Daniel May-- affirmed J St's sponsorship of Ging. May says doing so is important to lessen the "polarizing" atmosphere on campus, and to acknowledge the "basic human rights" catastrophe in Gaza; but he halfway apologized for doing so:
This does not deny that his presence brings with it a measure of discomfort for some of us It must be acknowledged: Gaza is not an easy issue of discussion – for all who feel passionately about this conflict. The rockets that continue to terrorize innocent Israeli civilians living in Sderot are murderous and defy justification. And the conditions in Gaza – extreme poverty amidst a decimated economy, near complete limitations to movement – ought to trouble all who believe in basic human rights.
Yet despite the difficulty of this conversation, peace demands that we look at the most difficult issues and bring to bear upon them our convictions as well as our reason, our passion and our generosity. The historical moment demands it. For Jews, a tradition of argument and debate obligates it.
It is in the hope of encouraging such a discussion – difficult, challenging, crucial and reasonable – that I invite you all to continue involvement with J Street U. At universities across the country students are working to forge a middle path in a polarized debate; joining together to host programming and advocate powerfully on behalf of peace and human rights. We hope this is just a beginning of that ongoing conversation and it is with great hope in the potential of that conversation that I am so honored to welcome, with you, Mr. John Ging.
I can't sort this out. Ging is obviously a stretch for J Street, and that's a good thing. The usual J Street event is happening at Goucher College tonight, with Hussein Ibish as the Palestinian advocate-- though I would say that Ibish is not representative of Palestinian opinion. The panel is on whipping up the horse of the two-state solution. Is it alive?
Leading analysts will discuss the current progress--or lack of it--in the Middle East peace negotiations. Goucher President (and former NPR correspondent) Sanford J. Ungar will moderate a discussion entitled "Trying Again : Prospects for Peace in the Middle East " at 7:30 PM in the Hyman Forum of the Athenaeum on the Goucher campus. Attendees must reserve tickets in advance through Goucher.
The four panelists are as follows : Dr. Robert O. Freedman, the Peggy Meyerhoff Pearlstone professor of Political Science Emeritus at Baltimore Hebrew University and visiting professor of political science at the Johns Hopkins University; Dylan J. Williams, deputy director of government affairs at J Street; Hussein Ibish, senior fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine and executive director of the Hala Salaam Maksoud Foundation for Arab-American Leadership; and Ann LoLordo, who served as The Baltimore Sun's Middle East bureau chief in Jerusalem from 1996 to 1999.
“We know that J Street isn’t bringing Ging in to bash Israel, and he tried to contextualize his statements … [but] Ging is a controversial speaker.”
it sounds like hillel has issues w/the truth and reality. since both delegitimize (bash) israel. it would be helpful if hillel sited what positions of ging’s they find controversial. what is it they do not want spoken?
i read the whole j street student statement @ the link, impressive. i’m glad they are sponsoring ging. originally i interpreted PG’s post as stating the email came from j street and claimed j street was backing off sponsoring the event. that doesn’t seem to be the case. it appears j street has broken w/hillel at columbia.
phil, what can’t you sort out?
it seems like the j street college org at columbia has stuck with hillel over the j street official tour. i like j street a lot for sponsoring ging. i wonder why the young ‘uns couldnt side with j street against hillel. fireworks!
the j street college org at columbia has stuck with hillel over the j street official tour.
do you mean stuck together? that seems odd. one would assume they have parted ways. j street is sponsoring the tour and hillel is not. it stands to reason if hillel has threatened to dissociate w/just peace group over JP sponsorship to the degree JP would back out why wouldn’t they threaten j street w/the same dissociate action? i’d be surprised if j street and hillel were in association thru all this. intersting tho.
the Just Peace group went along with Hillel…”We dissociated ourselves from the event so we wouldn’t have to dissociate ourselves from Hillel.”
i wonder if that has to do w/funding? also i wonder how sponsorship (or lack there of) from the just peace group impacts the event for the students. they still get to attend.
The Independent (London)
The Holocaust survivor whose life is in danger again
In the Israeli city of Safed, an 89-year-old man has been accused of treachery for welcoming Arab students. Catrina Stewart reports
Monday, 15 November 2010
First they threatened to burn his house down. Then they pinned leaflets to his front door, denouncing him as a Jewish traitor. But Eli Tzavieli, an 89-year-old Holocaust survivor, is defiant. His only “crime” is to rent out his rooms to three Arab students attending the college in Safed, a religious city in northern Israel that was until recently more famous for Jewish mysticism and Madonna.
A campaign waged by Shmuel Eliyahu, the town’s radical head rabbi, culminating in a ruling barring residents from renting rooms to Israeli Arabs, means that Safed is fast emerging as a byword for racism.
“I’m not looking for trouble, but if there is a problem, I’ll confront it,” says Mr Tzavieli, a Jew who survived Nazi forced labour camps and whose parents perished in Auschwitz. “These [tenants] are great kids. And I’m doing my best to make them comfortable.”
link to independent.co.uk
This would no doubt be front page news if Mr. Tzavieli was being threatened by non-Jews for renting to Jews – anywhere in the world.
J St’s May:
“The rockets that continue to terrorize innocent Israeli civilians living in Sderot are murderous and defy justification.”
Reality and truth? What continues and is getting worse is Israeli subversion of a viable Palestinian state, the occupation and Jewish terrorism in the settlements.
Hussein Ibish not representative of Palestinian opinion? Ludicrous. Of course he is. Only, he is representative of more moderate Palestinians, especially those not living in the diaspora.
If the ‘Ibish Party’ ran against the ‘al-Awda Party’ in the WB and Gaza, he’d win by 30-40 points. (assuming no other choices….)
What’s your evidence? I’m not taking a stand here, but how do you know?
Also, is a “moderate Palestinian” a Palestinian who figures there is no way Israel will ever concede legitimate Palestinian rights and who is therefore willing to take what he (or she) can get? This isn’t entirely a rhetorical question (though even if it were, it’s still a fair one, because the word “moderate” is often used to marginalize people who aren’t sufficiently subservient to those with power.)
<blockquote cite=""(though even if it were, it’s still a fair one, because the word “moderate” is often used to marginalize people who aren’t sufficiently subservient to those with power.)
Donald,
I’m glad your BS detector picked up on that. You’ve got that right, of course.
clenchner,
Didn’t I tell you not to post unless you knew what you were talking about?
I come in regular contact with Palestinians in the US, especially several co-workers who consider Hussein Ibish to be a token and a hack.
You’re like the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sellouts are called “moderates”, while those who are genuine are called “fanatics”. The US does the same when it labels any national movement in the Middle East as “radical”, while calling puppet regimes like Jordan’s and Egypt’s “moderate”.
Thanks for confirming that Ibish is a puppet.
I attended. What I learned is that Ging is (as advertised) a UN official answerable to political processes, and especially (it would seem) to pressures from USA.
Thus, he says that he will not build much-needed new schools (for the 40,000 kids not now in school) because there is no cement (what about tents? weren’t tents UNRWA stand-bys for Palestinians in the bad old days?). Well, he said he could BUY cement on the Hamas-tunnel economy, but that would be “illegal” and he won’t do it. He mentioned THIS illegality (which he did not explain: illegal by Israeli law? illegal for anyone taking funds from USA to deal with Hamas?) twice or more times but only mentioned the general illegality of communal punishment once that I recall, and in passing.
He spent a lot of good time saying that there is still a large majority of Palestinians and Israelis who hope for peace, believe in peace, something like that, but that the number of Gazans who still believe in peace should go down as todays kids (especially those not in school) have kids of their own, and as the huge number of Gazans without jobs increases. He criticized Israel indirectly (“I don’t play the blame game”) by saying that the “siege or boycott or whatever you want to call it” is counterproductive: when it was weakened a bit recently, the profits from the Hamas tunnel economy diminished and Gazans bought more Israeli products (at least those Gazans who have any money did), and he suggested that only opening the gates to cement for rebuilding Gaza’s homes and economy would re-create wealth (so everyone could buy Israeli products?).
The whole talk was full of urgings that we all “hope” but without any analysis of the reasons why 20-years of “peace process” since Madrid have gotten nowhere. Well, he said, he is Irish, and he lived to see the opposite Irish factions come together to make peace — after saying they would “never, never, never, ever, never, ever” talk to the other side.
Nice (Jewish?) couple next to be said that they favored J-street, doubted it was merely AIPAC-lite (as I said), and were opposed to BDS (where my chastened self realized I shouldn’t go).
I have no idea why this talk was sponsored (or not sponsored) by the various groups, or how or whether the talk was censored. So anodyne, how could it raise hackles? Maybe because he suggested people try to learn about Gaza and the conflict.
My experience yesterday was slightly more encouraging. I went to an event in an Oxford church organised by Christian Aid, a leading UK charity. It was addressed by a representative of Xtian Aid and of (I think I’ve got the name right) Physicians for Human Rights and by the Bishop of Oxford, who is not an international big name like John Ging but who was quite ready to use the word ‘oppression’ of Israeli policy and to indicate support for BDS. The Bishop is about to enter the House of Lords, still of some importance in this feudal country, so we will have at least one realistic voice in Parliament. He indicated that he would have to summon up some courage to speak his mind, knowing ‘how the Israeli lobby works’. If they try to take him apart it will be interesting to see who rallies round.