Letters to the Editor

Debating divestment

To the Editor:

In his guest column ("The Case Against Chomsky," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 10/4/02), Ariel Benson labeled the recently announced divestment campaign as "anti-Semitic." Unfortunately, this has become the knee-jerk reaction of many Jews when responding to criticism of Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza.

I am a Jew. I am critical of Israel's government. I am not an anti-Semite. I love Israelis and Palestinians because I have respect for all people. I abhor suicide bombings and the occupation for the same reasons. When either side uses extremist language to ostracize the other, out of fear that the other side may have legitimate claims, real dialogue stops altogether.

Regarding the divestment campaign, I remain undecided. I am unsure if the situation truly mimics South Africa or if divestment is an effective method for achieving peace in the region.

I did attend a Free Palestine Action Network meeting where the campaign was discussed, and one thing I know it is not is "anti-Semitic." I saw deeply concerned students, Arabs, Muslims, Americans and Jews, who simply want an end to violence. The petition itself condemns all attacks on Israeli citizens and recognizes that Israel should not be an exception, and the University should indeed divest from all companies which sell arms to human rights violators.

I do not deny that anti-Semitism exists or that it could be behind other divestment campaigns. There is simply no trace of it here.

This divestment campaign is the effort of many well-meaning, compassionate and thoughtful students who disagree with the tactics of a government, not of a religion. This campaign, and this entire debate, deserves to be judged on its merits, not ignored out of fear.

Rob Levy College and Engineering '03

•

To the Editor:

When my friends and I at the Free Palestine Action Network were discussing the launch of our campaign to call upon the University to divest from companies whose business promotes the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, we knew that soon enough we would be accused of anti-Semitism.

Indeed, the day after our public announcement of the divestment campaign, Ariel Benson listed a host of countries involved in occupation of land, concluding that "to single out Israel is pure anti-Semitism."

I grew up in Israel. My parents encouraged me to seek peace and equality. Our teachers taught us about anti-Semitism and its fatal historic consequences. I put two and two together -- as descendants of the Jews who had been persecuted, we had a responsibility both to combat anti-Semitism and to avoid oppressing or persecuting any other group. Obvious, I thought.

Yet, often in heated political discussions, I would be called an anti-Semite. Preposterous, because anti-Semitism is merely a form of racism and bigotry. Any believer in human equality cannot, by definition, be an anti-Semite, any more than he can be a white supremacist, a misogynist or homophobe.

Why then is our focus on Israel? Some of us are Israelis, and we are ashamed of our country's wrongdoings. Others are Jewish Americans, whose cultural connections to Israel are the source of their concern. And many of my friends involved in this process are Arabs -- some Palestinians. Why would they "single out" Israel? Because it is Israel whose soldiers bang on their cousins' doors every night, prevent their grandmothers from arriving safely at hospitals and shoot at their brethren on the streets.

Israel is not worthy of our support. Not when it violates international law and basic moral standards. Calling upon our university to refrain from investing in these violations is not anti-Semitism. It is common sense.

For more information on the divestment campaign, visit www.penndivest.org.

Uri Horesh Linguistics graduate student

In defense of Chomsky

To the Editor:

It is extremely disappointing to see a Daily Pennsylvanian column distort the truth. And in writing that Noam Chomsky wrote an "approving introduction" to Robert Faurisson's Holocaust-denying book, Ariel Benson is guilty of doing so.

Chomsky's piece was not written, as Benson falsely implies, approving the content of Faurisson's book; it was written championing Faurisson's right to publish whatever he wished, however loathsome those views were to the general public.

Faurisson was at that time on trial in France for "falsification of history," a charge which seems ludicrous to me, with the dangerous implication that the state is the arbiter of "true history." In Chomsky's own words, Faurisson being tried for his writings was particularly inappropriate because "It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers."

Given that Benson lauds Israel's protection of freedom of speech it is ironic that he should use Chomsky's defense of said right to make false and slanderous accusations of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Ivan Stoner College '03

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.