History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
The Sun continues its pathbreaking coverage of the MEALAC controversy, this time becoming the first paper to bring us inside one of Joseph Massad's classes. Reporter Jacob Gershman obtained access to the notes of three students who took not Massad's class on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but a general survey called"Topics in Asian Civilization." Massad co-taught the course with the wife of Professor Nicholas Dirks--who is overseeing the committee charged with investigating him.
The course assigned one book on Israel--Israel, a Colonial Settler State? The answer the volume offers, of course, is yes.
According to one student's notes, Massad explicated the following"Zionist myths":"1. Ancient Hebrews of Palestine lived exclusively in Palestine. 2. Mod. Euro. Jews are direct biological descendants of Hebrews. 3. Based on #1 and #2, Mod. Euro. Jews have exclusive rights to Palestine." Massad also claimed that Theodor Herzl allied with"anti-Semites" to"help kick Euro Jews out." To the class, Massad offered a joke:"What makes a Zionist a Zionist? A Jew who asks a Jew to send a third Jew to Palestine." He further denied that Israeli civilians have been the target of Palestinian terrorism, or blamed the Israeli Army for the civilians' deaths, and argued that Israelis originated the tactic of airplane hijackings.
As Gershman concluded,"Here's a quiz.
"Israel is: a) a Jewish supremacist state, b) the worst human-rights abuser in the Middle East, c) a major factor preventing the democratization of the Arab region, or d) all of the above.
"If you answered 'd,' you would fit right in at a core-curriculum course at Columbia."
Oscar,
You make some very good points in your post, and I think you are correct, our differences are merely in what weight we give to different factors relating to the creation of Israel.
Oscar Chamberlain -
2/9/2005
Adam,
Thank you for your comments. In part we may just be disagreeing about the relative importance of the many factors that led to Israel's existence. I consider the British shaping of their mandate as a central and crucial moment, despite their many second thoughts, particularly after 1936. The compactness of Palestine made it feasible for Zionists to work toward haveing a majority population.
I can see how a different interpretation could be valid, and I am not expert enough in this history to claim with utter certainty that I am right.
"The colonial settler state" idea--as the two of us are interpreting it--I think does hold, though like most comparisons it is not a precise match. I would simply note that in the case of the United States, even in the colonial period many free immigrants were not British. And as the United States expanded, people from many other countries benefitted from it.
Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach -
2/9/2005
College classrooms have long been the setting of ideological battles, from conservative complaints of liberal bias, to minority complaints of Euro-centric bias, to Jewish complaints of anti-Semitism or vitriolic anti-Zionism. Generally speaking, I am loath to interfere with what a teacher chooses to teach, and am open to points of view that may not be consistent with my own. However, surely there must be a line beyond which a professor should not be allowed free reign to teach or say anything he or she wants. We may disagree on where such a line stands or whether or not it exists at all. However, it is my opinion that such a point does exist and that in the case of the NY Sun article, I believe this particular professor crossed that line.
I would like to respond to the post of Mr. Chamberlain,
1) “The question of blood relation between ancient Israel and modern Jews is meant to refute a modern argument by more radical Zionists that, by right of blood, they and not the Arabs have the right to the land.”
Although I do not doubt that a few hardcore radicals believe this “blood right,” I am unfamiliar with any mainstream Zionist writer, Israeli citizen, or Jewish scholar who had argued that Jews have some form of racial right to the land. Jewish connection to Israel is based on culture, religion, history, and a shared ethnicity with other Jews, not on the belief that Jews are some kind of separate race who “deserves” to live there, as you say, “by right of blood.” Certainly, Israel’s decision to absorb thousands of Ethiopian Jews supports the idea of Israel as a historic homeland to all Jews, not the “right” based on racial characteristics. Judaism is either a religion, and ethnicity, or both, but it is not a “race” and I am not familiar with any major scholar suggesting otherwise.
2) “About Israel as a "Colonial Settler State." I don't know the book, so I may be interpreting the title incorrectly. But if it is asserting that most Jewish Israelis moved in despite the wishes of the majority of the indigenous population, that would be simply a statement of fact.”
I would agree that if the book is asserting as you say, that would indeed be a statement of fact. However, and it is not my intent to argue semantics here, I really don’t consider how Israel could be a “colonial” state since there is no other homeland from which they are establishing colonies. A settler state, certainly, but colonial implies some form of branching out from some home base and establishing colonies. I am not sure how this could apply to Israel.
3) “Whether one considers the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine right or wrong, it was a consequence of British imperialism.”
The way this statement is phrased, I would agree, Israel’s creation is the consequence of British imperialism, but that is misleading, and the tone suggests that you are implying that British imperialism created Israel, when in fact Israel’s creation, like the creation of all nations, was the consequence of many factors. It was a consequence of the Holocaust, Zionism, the European conception of nationalism, European anti-Semitism, Truman’s decision to recognize it, Arab-Jewish violence in the 1920’s, and many other factors.
However, it should be remembered that the British did all they could preceding the creation of Israel to limit Jewish immigration and prevent the mass influx of Jewish nationalists. The various White Papers, for example, as well as the refusal to allow immigration, even if it meant saving thousands (or more) from Hitler’s gas chambers, is evidence of the irony of contemporary pundits to credit the British for creating Israel. It should be noted that by the time Zionism took off as a major nationalist movement within the Jewish community with the aim of establishing an independent homeland in Palestine, the British were not in control of the area.
4) “Some of the other notes, for example the one about Herzl, do sound utterly off the wall.”
Agreed.
Oscar Chamberlain -
2/7/2005
Mr. Kehr rightly points out that it took more than British Imperialism to create Israel. And perhaps, just perhaps, an Israel might have emerged as a result of immigration alone.
But it was British imperial interest that led it to take over that territory in the guise of a British Mandate. It asserted imperial power in dividing the Mandate. In the absence of such a mandate what would the situation have been?
One possibility:
If the Middle East had been treated like Eastern Europe at the end of World War I, there would have been an attempt to create nations along ethnic and national lines. A locally controlled government might have allowed continued Jewish immigration. (As has often been pointed out, Zionists purchased land from Arabs.) But it is highly unlikely that these immigrants would have been allowed to push for a Jewish state. Even if they had, unless the boundaries had been very narrowly drawn, they would likely have been outvoted by an Arab Muslim majority. (I have no idea haw Arab Christians would have reacted)
At best such a situation might have led to a state that was secular or, somehow, both Jewish and Muslim. At worse, it might have led to its own set of wars.
As to the lack of balance in Massad's classroom, if reports are accurate I am in agreement with Mr. Kehr. It is lacking.
The point I was trying to make, perhaps with insufficient clarity, was that one could not make a case against him based solely on his inclusion of the opinions and historical interpretations that I addressed.
Grant W Jones -
2/7/2005
Or, was it European racism that made Israel necessary.
Harvey Klehr -
2/7/2005
Osacar Chamberlain's comment that "whether one considers the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine right or wrong, it was a consequence of British imperialism" is one of those half-truths that demonstrate just why ideologues like Massad who do not teach but indoctrinate are a problem. The Balfour Declaration was made by the British government but Jewish settlement in the area of the Mandate had been ongoing for decades before. The Jewish struggle for a national home was quite often directed against British interests and British imperialism, including armed struggle, and it was ratified by the United Nations. Does Massad teach any of this or does he simply demonize Israel? Does he discuss the virulent conflicts and disagreements among different schools of Zionism?
As for Rodinson's book, it is entirely appropriate for a teacher to use any book for pedagogical purposes, but I think most fair-minded faculty with strong points of view would want to ensure that their students get another view from the reaidng. If I teach a course on communism, I make sure students read Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. Why give them reading that simply reiterates my point of view? Since Rodinson is apparently the only reading on Zionism, his use further confirms that Massad is not interested in teaching but in converting.
Carl Patrick Burkart -
2/7/2005
I agree with Dr. Chamberlain that some of the claims made in the class are uncontroversial. It would be a shame if this particular incident made criticism of some Israeli claims off limits. In fact, I think that it could be legitimate to teach a class on Israel using the theme of imperialism as an organizing concept.
That said, if the charges are true, then Massad obviously has no business teaching undergraduates. It is possible to be convinced of the immorality of much of Israel's past and present without turning history into an unambiguous tale of one sided repression. In other words, this sounds like bad scholarship and bad pedagoguie. If nothing else, the idea that Israel is the worst human rights violator in the Middle East is laughable (it probably has one of the best human rights records in the region).
Oscar Chamberlain -
2/7/2005
KC
Some of this is less over-the-top than you think. The question of blood relation between ancient Israel and modern Jews is meant to refute a modern argument by more radical Zionists that, by right of blood, they and not the Arabs have the right to the land.
This does not mean that a true scholarly examination of both claims wouldn't be better. It would be.
About Israel as a "Colonial Settler State." I don't know the book, so I may be interpreting the title incorrectly. But if it is asserting that most Jewish Israelis moved in despite the wishes of the majority of the indigenous population, that would be simply a statement of fact.
Whether one considers the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine right or wrong, it was a consequence of British imperialism. In fact, it's pretty inconceivable without the British willingness to ignore majority sentiment when it split its mandate into Trans-Jordan and Palestine in order to allow Jewish immigration.
Some of the other notes, for example the one about Herzl, do sound utterly off the wall.
