Independent Media Center, Israel
http://www.indymedia.org.il

Found on Usenet
author: John Veldhuis



A professor at Oxford University, Andrew Wilkie, finds himself in

serious trouble after having turned down an Israeli student who

applied to work in his lab on the stated basis that the student had

served in the IDF. The professor has had to apologize, and now the

university has apologized for him and has launched an investigation,

which may even lead to the firing of the professor for his alleged

discrimination. This raises a number of issues:





The alleged discrimination was not an the basis of race, creed, color,

gender, or sexual orientation, or any of the usual types of

discrimination. It was expressly on the basis of the student having

served in the IDF (contrary to much of what I've read, Wilkie is

completely explicit on this point, and did not turn the student down

on the basis of his race, religion or citizenship). Some people think

the IDF is a racist, murdering instrument of oppression and denial of

human rights to the Palestinian people. Does Oxford really want to get

into this debate? Would Oxford have disapproved of a professor in 1947

turning down a German student on the basis that he had been a guard in

a concentration camp? Would that be discrimination against Germans?

You may not agree with that analogy to the IDF, but doesn't the

professor have the right to hold that view? Can you really

discriminate on the basis of your feelings of moral disgust, when that

moral disgust is based on reasons which are perfectly arguable, and

indeed are the views of the vast majority of moral people who have

thought about the issue? Israel is on the wrong side of history. Just

how far on the wrong side of history is Oxford prepared to be?



The professor's real problem was that he tried to make a point of his

disgust at the policies of the Israeli government. If he had quietly

turned the student down, and not tried to make a political issue out

of it, none of this uproar would have occurred. In effect, the

university is trying to censor his political views, and the views of

anyone who might think like him, under the guise of policing its

anti-discrimination policies. Because they are threatening to fire

him, it will be abundantly clear that certain political views can no

longer be spoken aloud at Oxford University. Moral people will have to

meet in private to discuss their heretical views. If Oxford attempts

to use its anti-discrimination policies to police a political issue,

they will effectively destroy much of the moral force in their

anti-discrimination policies.



Since all Israelis who don't fall into religious exceptions have to

serve in the IDF, you could argue that discrimination on the basis of

having been in the IDF is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of

being an Israeli, and therefore unacceptable. It is here that the

irony in Oxford's position becomes exquisite. For it is not the case

that all Israelis who don't fall into certain religious exemptions

have to serve in the IDF. Israelis of Arab descent do not have to

serve, and as a practical matter most do not serve (Muslim Druze and

Circassian men are subject to military service on the decision of

their communities, and Bedouin can and do volunteer). Seeing as the

main role of the IDF now is to brutalize the Palestinian population in

the Occupied Territories, it is not unreasonable that Israeli Arabs

not serve in the IDF. What is amazing, however, is that Israel limits

the citizenship rights of its citizens depending on whether they could

be required to serve in the IDF (not on whether they did serve, as

that would limit the citizenship rights of ultra-Orthodox Jews who

didn't serve for religious reasons, and this point proves that the

limitations are essentially discriminatory against Arabs). All

citizens can vote, but there are a whole litany of other citizenship

rights that are denied to Arabs, some of which are denied for their

status as not being Jewish, and some of which are denied based on the

completely bogus excuse that such rights should be limited to those

prepared to defend their country. So the deep irony is that Israel

discriminates against its own citizens on the basis of whether they

could have served in the IDF, and Professor Wilkie is in trouble for

allegedly discriminating against an Israeli for having served in the

IDF. He could make the argument that his actions were intended to

protest the racial discrimination of the state of Israel based on its

denial of citizenship rights to those not allowed to serve in the IDF.

If he accepts students who had served in the IDF, isn't he being a

racist by implicitly endorsing the discriminatory practices of Israel?

Does Oxford want to be seen as siding with the discrimatory policies

of the State of Israel?



Much is made of the fact that Israel has some kind of moral

superiority over its Arab neighbors because it is a democracy. Once we

understand that Israel is only nominally a democracy, and actually

discriminates against its own citizens, can we understand where the

moral superiority really lies. Being a democracy entails more than

giving a minority group the ineffectual right to vote. For all intents

and purposes, Israel is a military dictatorship, and its policies are

those of the handful of generals who run the country. Even such

citizenship rights that Arab citizens of Israel now have are being

constantly eroded by the Israeli legislature and courts.



All of this fanfare hides an issue which is worthy of debate: is it a

good idea to academically boycott Israeli scholars until Israel does

the right thing by the Palestinian people? These type of boycotts are

already in place, and are becoming more common. Will they have any

good effect? Did similar boycotts against South African academics have

any effect in ending apartheid, an idea which is close to that of

Zionism (which is, regardless of what anyone will say, racism, a point

that was made in the UN conference held in early September 2001, and

forgotten in the light of what happened later that week)? Is it fair

to punish a group of people for the sins of their country, especially

if the group is more likely to contain people who disagree with these

sins? Will the boycott have any effect on the blockheads who run

Israel? Will it actually make things worse?



This particular instance of alleged discrimination is quite harsh.

Although people do refuse to serve in the IDF, their treatment by the

Israeli state is quite severe, and those who will not serve are true

heroes. It seems to be a bit much to refuse a student because he

didn't want to ruin his life in Israel by refusing to join the IDF.

There is also the issue of what he did in the IDF. He might have been

in an office filing reports, or he might have been in the Occupied

Territories shooting Palestinian children in the face. Should

Professor Wilkie have asked him some questions before deciding he did

not want him in his lab? Or is any participation in the IDF aiding and

abetting war crimes and crimes against humanity? Some of the things

that the IDF does are probably not objectionable, but much of what it

does is extremely objectionable. Given what the IDF does, it is quite

arguable that the Nuremberg Principles would require everyone to

refuse to serve in the IDF.



The Professor actually wrote:

"I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral

high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust, and then

inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because they

(the Palestinians) wish to live in their own country."



This was his real sin. The ultimate taboo is to point out that the

Holocaust is being used as a weapon against the Palestinian people.

'Never again' is used to justify any and all outrages, on the basis

that they will lead to absolute security for the Jewish state. This is

no less than a completely obscene argument, as the Palestinians have

nothing but stones and the bombs strapped to their own bodies to

defend themselves against the ethnic cleansing being imposed on them,

and the Israelis have one of the most powerful and effective armies in

the world, nuclear weapons, and the power of the United States behind

them. Anyone brave enough to point out that Hitler's ultimate victory

is to create this fake insecurity in the Jewish people which they use

to treat the Palestinians as the Nazis treated the Jews is labelled an

anti-semite. This argument is made on the basis that the Jewish people

are being held to higher standards than others, and so are being

singled out for hatred. Unfortunately, the State of Israel and its

apologists have given up any and all claim to insist that their

critics weigh the crimes of Israel against humanity against other

crimes in the world. You have to have clean hands to make that

argument, and their hands are covered in blood. It is an insult to

moral people around the world to hear that they cannot make up their

own minds about the horrors being imposed by the State of Israel, that

somehow they must weigh these horrors against other horrors in the

world, with the punishment for expressing one's moral opinion being

insulted with the label of anti-semite. Am I not allowed to make even

the slightest criticism of Israel because somewhere in the world

someone might be doing something that is arguably worse? Are we going

to stop criticizing murderers because there are mass murderers in the

world? Do I have to weigh some complex system of relative evils before

I can complain about any evil? In fact, Israel is so often criticized

simply because people feel that such criticism might have an effect on

the collective Israeli conscience - the criticisms of Israel are

actually a compliment in that people feel, perhaps wrongly, that the

Jewish history of being oppressed will lead the country of the Jews to

do the right thing. The fact that the apologists for Israel are

stooping to name calling betrays a desperate awareness that people are

slowly becoming alive to what the Zionist experiment entails. The

effect of all this is to render the term 'anti-semite' completely

meaningless. Any term that applies equally to Ernst Zundel and David

Duke on one hand, and Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu on the other, has

lost all meaning. As it is now most commonly used, 'anti-semite' seems

to refer to those who are against brutality and moral outrages against

humanity. By misusing the term, the current generation of defenders of

Israel have ruined a term which gained a considerable moral force in

the light of the Holocaust. Future Jews will not look kindly on them

for taking all the meaning out of the word just so their pet country

could continue its gross inhumanity against the Palestinian people.



There are Zionist arguments circulating, particularly in the United

States, that European support for the Palestinians is the new

anti-semitism, in that blaming the Jews for their treatment of the

Palestinians makes the European treatment of the Jews during the 30's

and 40's more understandable. Leaving aside the fact that the whole

world outside the United States is united in its moral disgust at the

actions of Israel, and the fact that Americans only support Israel

because of their appalling ignorance of the facts due to the

misleading coverage of the Middle East provided to them by the

disgusting American media, this is again an obscene argument. If the

Israelis or their apologists wish to test Europe's bona fides, they

should stop oppressing the Palestinians. Until then, they lack the

moral standing to criticize the natural moral outrage of the whole

world, including the Europeans. Remember, it was the failure of the

world to complain about the early actions of the Nazis in the 1930's

that led directly to the disasters of the 1940's. Some of the more

radical Zionists, even ministers in Sharon's cabinet, are making

public statements that if carried out will lead to a humanitarian

disaster. Is the world supposed to stand idly by because to say

anything will hurt someone's feelings? The Israelis and their

apologists have to come to realize that the jig is up - the world is

rapidly losing its patience with what they are doing to the

Palestinians. It is not just hurting themselves and the Palestinians,

but has led to much of the terrorism we have seen in recent years,

much of which Europe has had to suffer.



How did this become an issue of discrimination? Isn't it an issue of

academic freedom? As long as it does not fall under one of the

standard categories of discrimination, what we have here is a

discrimination action being used to stifle freedom of speech and

association. It is Professor Wilkie's lab; he has to work with his

students. The relationship of professor to student is a personal one.

Who will Oxford force him to associate with?



If every academic institution in the world boycotted anyone who had

ever served in the IDF, it would have an effect on Israel's ability to

oppress the Palestinians.





One of the many problems of Israel is that Israel provides citizenship

rights based on religious affiliation, or rather, on stated religious

affiliation (which explains why the country is full of Russian

Orthodox fake 'Jews'). Israel had the choice of defining itself as a

state whose purpose would be to support and encourage the Hebrew

language and culture, and other Jewish cultures, without

discriminating against any of its citizens, but instead has chosen to

define itself in explicitly discriminatory terms, a process which

continues to get worse (this isn't hopeless: Israel could still decide

to redefine itself). All of this of course was made possible by

Hitler, whose actions made the notion of a Jewish sanctuary seem quite

reasonable in the late 1940's. In the twenty-first century, allowing a

country to discriminate against its own citizens, people actually born

in the country whose ancestors were born in the country, seems

positively insane and evil. The deep contradictions in the State of

Israel itself put the alleged discrimination of Professor Wilkie into

its proper context.

(C) Indymedia Israel. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Indymedia Israel.