A Dialog with Columbia President Lee Bollinger

By: Paula R. SternBarnard/Columbia graduate, Class of 1982

Columbia President Lee Bollinger and his counterpart at Barnard, Judith Shapiro, are not interested in freedom of speech when it comes to those who oppose the tenure of Joseph Massad and Nadia Abu El Haj. In those cases, we Barnard/Columbia alumnae/i are "outsiders." But outsiders were allowed to have a voice at Columbia last week when the university invited the President of Iran to speak. Ahmadinejad is well known for his remarks calling for the destruction of Israel and the denial of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad is known to have the blood of American soldiers on his hands - for selling advanced weaponry used to target Americans and innocent Iraqis, for calling for the destruction of Israel. Bollinger called it an issue of freedom of speech, but that is an excuse. Ahmadinejad had a platform at the UN. He had a platform on 60 Minutes. He had a platform with the national press. He didn't need a platform at Columbia and it is to Columbia's endless shame that they rushed to give it to him.

There was no open microphone at the event - it appears that only dictators and anti-Semites have a platform at Columbia these days. So - following is a dialog that was denied:

Bollinger: Second, to those who believe that this event never should have
happened, that it is inappropriate for the University to conduct such an event,
I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as
reasonable.

If the perspective was reasonable - that it was inappropriate to invite him, he shouldn't have been invited.

Bollinger: Fourth, to be clear on another matter - this event has nothing
whatsoever to do with any “rights” of the speaker but only with our rights to
listen and speak. We do it for ourselves.

Then why was there no open microphone to ask him questions? Why was he given the "right" to speak words that deny history, deny reality, that twist and corrupt...all on our ground, at a university that is supposed to be dedicated to honesty, scholarship, integrity and truth?

Bollinger: According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executed in
Iran so far this year – 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at least two children – further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors. There is more. Iran hanged up to 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more open, democratic society in Iran. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party.

And so we ask again...why give this murderer, this supporter of hatred a platform?

Bollinger: In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as a “fabricated” “legend.” One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda. When you come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. You should know that Columbia is a world center of Jewish studies and now, in partnership with the YIVO Institute, of Holocaust studies. Since the 1930s, we’ve provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren.
The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the "debate” over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who
continue to fear humanity’s capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory,
which is always virtue’s first line of defense.

To give today's Hitler a platform is to add insult and hurt to the thousands of survivors that remain, and the tens and hundreds of thousands in the next generation who continue to suffer from that dark and horrible period. You shame them and Columbia, by allowing this man a platform from which to continue his denial. Why give this Hitler a platform?

Bollinger: Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.” This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.” Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and
university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

There are mere words, President Bollinger, mere words. The fact is that Columbia has several people on tenure, or up for tenure, that say and feel the same as Admadinejad. Nadia Abu El Haj spouts the same lies and denies Israel's historical past in an attempt to undermine its legitimate place among the family of nations. You invite the devil, you condemn the evil, but you ignore the lies and hypocrisy that already lives at Columbia.

Bollinger: According to reports by the Council on Foreign Relations, it’s well documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent group
as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, the
Palestinian Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the US with intelligence and base support in its 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces. There are a number of reports that also link your government with Syria’s efforts to destabalize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination. My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and civil society in the region?

Shouldn't you have gotten the answer to your question BEFORE inviting this little Hitler to speak at Columbia? Before you denied your students the freedom of speech to question him?

Bollinger: In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.” A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy. Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

This, too, should have been asked BEFORE inviting this man to speak at Columbia. With blood on his hands, you have allowed this man to hurt and shame hundreds of Americans whose brave sons and daughters are fighting and dying in Iraq. This too will be your shame.

Bollinger: I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

We, too, wish you had done better.

Israel, Electricity, and Gaza

This article was recently posted to http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/electric.htm

Reprinted with permission: Collective Hypocrisy: Justifying Gaza's Rocket War
by Carlos


September 20, 2007 - There has been much hysteria over talk about Israel cutting off electricity to the Gaza Strip. It is time to defuse the hysteria - and also the hypocrisy.
First, it hasn't happened yet. What is actually happening:

For many months now Palestinians in Gaza have been launching rockets against Sderot and Israel's other southern cities, resulting in loss of life and much additional damage. The potential for further damage is very great, with schools and fuel centers within rocket range.

Israel has found itself in a deep dilemma. What is the best response? One response might be an Israeli incursion into Gaza - something Israel's leaders want to avoid if at all possible. As Israeli Prime Minister Olmert stated, "the price of a military operation in Gaza is known to all, and in any case conditions are not ripe for this."

Trying to find a measured response, the IsraelI government has declared Gaza a "hostile territory." This could allow Israel to impose sanctions such as limiting supplies of fuel and electricity, restricting the transfer of certain goods (especially anything that might be used in the manufacture of rockets), stopping visits to prisoners, and increasing the monitoring of funds.
The Israeli government rejected an option that would have totally cut off all fuel and electricity to Gaza. Instead, in the words of a senior Israeli government official: "We will reduce the amount of megawattage we provide to the Strip, and Hamas will have to decide whether to provide electricity to hospitals or weapons lathes." There would be exceptions for humanitarian reasons: the flow of power to hospitals for running their generators would not be decreased. Food and medical supplies would be allowed, but other goods restricted, such as pipes that can be used for making rockets. The object is not to make the Palestinian people suffer, but to make it harder for them to continue firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

The official Palestinian response is astonishing. Hamas said of the Israeli plan: "It is a declaration of war and continues the criminal, terrorist Zionist actions against our people." Firing rockets at cities is not an act of war? Gaza has been at war with Israel ever since Israel vacated all of its settlements there.

The response from Fatah was no more coherent. A minister in the government of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated: "It is collective punishment against the people of Gaza, and discourages serious political discussion." Firing rockets at cities is not "collective punishment"? Are those rockets meant to "encourage serious political discussion"?

The sanctions that Israel is contemplating are a way of trying to stop the flow of rockets without a violent response that would endanger Palestinian lives. Right now Israel is supplying Palestinians with the power they are using to run the metal workshops where they make their rockets. The Palestinians would now be given a choice: Here is your electricity, just enough for your people's needs or for killing Israelis. Which will you choose?

Examine the Palestinians' response very closely. If they simply stopped firing the rockets, there would be no need for Israeli sanctions. The Palestinians, who call themselves powerless, are actually in control. They can put a full stop to the sanctions by halting their aggression and returning to the peace process. Therefore all this moaning about "collective punishment" amounts to insistence on the right to keep firing the rockets. What else could it mean? The Palestinians are saying: "We have the right to make war on you, but don't you dare try to stop us or we will complain about human rights violations and war crimes." It's really simple: if the Palestinians don't want these sanctions, then stop firing the rockets.

It may be a simple solution, but you won't hear it on the BBC, and you won't hear it at the UN. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that Israeli sanctions would violate international law. "Such a step would be contrary to Israel's obligations towards the civilian population under international humanitarian and human rights law," Ban stated. Do rockets aimed at civilian targets violate international law? Would it be more acceptable to the UN if Israel fired rockets back into Palestinian villages, one Israeli equivalent for each qassam?

But, some demand, Israel should go after only those individuals who are firing rockets, and not take any measures that might affect others as well. Unfortunately this is very difficult when rocket-launching terrorists hide among the general population, using them as human shields. The hypocrisy of the demand is exposed on considering that when Israel does go after specific perpetrators of terrorist acts, it is accused of "targeted assassinations." What country would allow its citizens to be shelled without taking any measures to stop it? Not one. Yet that is expected of Israel.

Suppose you had an electrical generator on your property that was supplying power to your neighbor's house. Suppose your neighbor was using that power to make an electrical bomb to blow up your house. Would you continue supplying that power?

The Palestinians use "occupation" as a justification for everything, including war crimes. I would love finally to see an end to the dilemma of settlements and occupation. I would love to see two states, Jewish and Palestinian, with clearly defined and mutually recognized borders. But how can this happen, given the Palestinian response to any concrete gesture of peace? Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, and the result has been rockets falling on the Israeli south. Israel withdrew from Lebanon, and the result was rockets falling on the Israeli north. What will happen when Israel withdraws from the West Bank?

The great obstacle to peace today, greater even than the Israeli settlements, is the determined Palestinian effort to make life in Israel unlivable. This is no secret. The Palestinians have made their intentions clear: "We have decided to make Sderot a ghost town. We are not going to stop launching our rockets until they leave." The term for this is ethnic cleansing. That is what Israel is resisting. If the Palestinians do not like Israeli resistance, they should remove the provocation. Israel is not invading. It is not bombing. It is not shooting rockets back. Instead, for now, Israel is contemplating selective and limited sanctions. It is trying to find a way to stop those lethal rockets with minimum impact on Palestinian civilians. To cry "collective punishment" instead of stopping the rockets and coming to the peace table, to use a transparently phony morality to excuse continuing attacks on Israel's population centers, is not just hypocrisy. It is war.

CNN's "God's Warriors"

Usually, the task of setting the record straight is left to dedicated journalists who seek the truth, investigate and then report. Sadly, all too often, it is as a result of the journalist's work, that we must "set the record straight."

Thus it is with CNN's recent "God's Warriors" series, created, narrated and hosted by Christiane Amanpour. The problem begins with her personal, deep-seated bias that seeps into each program. But that is only the root. From there, the plant grows poison and evil because CNN allowed it, promoted it, and ultimately broadcast it despite deep and obvious flaws.

Many articles on the web are seeking to set the record straight...here is one of them:

Errors in CNN's "G-d's Jewish Warriors" Noted
by Hillel Fendel

CAMERA - the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - has published a detailed, scathing attack on the two-hour television program "God's Jewish Warriors."
CNN's Christiane Amanpour is the creator of a three-part CNN television series entitled "G-d's Warriors." The segment on Jews is the "most poisonously biased and factually shoddy feature to air on mainstream American television in recent memory," writes CAMERA's Executive Director Andrea Levin - and supports her claim with examples and refutations.

Levin begins by attacking the basic premise of the series, which purports to examine how Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious beliefs impact on the Middle East and the world. It is "deeply false," she writes, to equate "Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency with that of Muslims heard endorsing 'martyrdom,' or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe... To demonstrate the supposed threat of Jewish fundamentalism, the few cases of Jewish terrorism - a handful spanning decades with each one overwhelmingly denounced by Israeli society and with those involved arrested, tried and jailed - are elaborated on at length and cast as a profound peril."

Illegal, Illegal

Levin then focuses on Amanpour's repeated emphasis on the Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria and their supposed illegality - implying that just as extremist Moslems endanger the world with their terrorism, so do the Jews with their "settlements."

"Throughout," writes Levin, "Amanpour hammers the claim that Jewish settlements violate international law, and she seeks to paint this position as a universally accepted view with a lopsided parade of like-minded commentators. [However,] many legal scholars argue these communities are, in fact, legal... Such experts include Meir Shamgar, former Israeli Supreme Court Justice, internationally renowned legal scholar Professor Julius Stone and Former Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, among others. But not one scholar of this viewpoint is given voice in a two-hour feature largely devoted to decrying settlements and their residents."
Levin then moves on to Amanpour's presentation of US presidents speaking against the Jewish towns. "Ronald Reagan [is seen] making a tangential comment framed as agreeing" that "substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal," Levin writes - while in fact, Reagan did not agree at all. Levin quotes Reagan, based on a February 1981 New York Times story, as having said explicitly, "I believe the settlements there... they're not illegal."

More Errors
Others of the report's errors and deceptions noted by Levin:
* Jimmy Carter, whose recent incendiary allegations against Israel have been extensively debunked, declares that no Member of Congress could vote against aid to Israel "and hope to be reelected." Amanpour does not remind him or the viewers of the numerous Members who have opposed aid to Israel and have been repeatedly reelected, including Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd and more than a dozen Representatives.

* Amanpour claims that former Pres. Bush opposed loan guarantees for Israel but collapsed under the weight of Jewish pressure and backed down. In fact, however, when Yitzchak Rabin was elected prime minister, he offered concessions that satisfied the Administration - such that it was Israel that back-tracked, not Bush.

* Amanpour declares that "the 40-year tug of war over Jerusalem began when Israel bulldozed the Arab neighborhood next to the Western Wall and built a plaza where Jews now pray." Levin: "Obviously, the modern battle over Jerusalem "began" 60 years ago when the Arabs attacked in 1948 to destroy the newborn state of Israel, seizing the eastern side of Jerusalem, including the Jewish quarter of the old city. Every Jew was expelled or killed and all synagogues destroyed. Thereafter for 19 years, no Jew could pray at the Western Wall, and Christians had limited access to their holy sites."

"CNN needs to correct every error and slander against Israel and its American supporters," Levin demands. "More importantly, it needs to air an accurate and contextual documentary on these subjects, just as lavishly funded and promoted as Amanpour's, that will set the record straight."

Another CAMERA article comparing the "Warriors" programs on Jews and Muslims notes that while the former was heavily devoted to "the influence of pro-Israel activists in America, ... Amanpour utterly neglected to report on the powerful Oil Lobby, primarily Saudi-backed, and numerous other Muslim organizations seeking to influence American public opinion and foreign policy decisions."Four Times MoreCAMERA notes fascinatingly that Amanpour "harps on the phrase 'Jewish warriors,' repeating it 20 times in the first episode," while mentioning "Muslim warriors" only four times in the second program. "Why does she utter the words 'Jewish warrior' five times more often than 'Muslim warrior' when violent Muslims have inflicted thousands of times more death and destruction in the world than violent Jews have?"Furthermore, "There was a noticeably gentler and more cordial tone toward Muslim extremists, in contrast to the often snide and hectoring tone displayed toward pro-Israel Americans and Israeli settlers."

"Amanpour included two apolitical segments with appealing devout Muslim women," CAMERA wrote, "who talked about why they wear a head covering and how Islam enriches their lives. No such apolitical segment about devout Jews appeared in 'God's Jewish Warriors.'"