In 1978, Arafat’s long serving deputy Abu Iyad (the brains behind the Munich massacre) published his memoirs. Perhaps his most amazing admission was that he led a Palestinian delegation to North Vietnam in the early 1970’s to learn why the Vietnamese had world-wide support for their struggle, while the Palestinians were considered terrorists. The brilliant strategist General Giap explained that the PLO needed to be a bit more circumspect about their final goals, and give at least the appearance of moderation to western audiences. Abu Iyad agreed, and initiated a decade’s long charade of disingenuous moderation by the PLO – goals remained, but gone were calls for Israel’s destruction. Giap also stressed the need to target gullible liberal institutions and to couch statements in terms seductive to America’s anti-war crowd. Ever since then the Palestinians have taken public relations very seriously, and the Palestinian narrative has come to dominate both the world’s media and academia.

Today their two-pronged strategy consists of money and information. Money is channeled into endowed professorships, and through outright grants to sympathetic institutes and universities. Information is disseminated through highly effective propaganda machinery such as the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, found at PASSIA.org. One of PASSIA’s most effective trainers of Palestinian advocates has been Rami Khouri, who has taught several courses including a “Public Relations (read propaganda) Training Seminar”. I’ve heard Khouri speak at the Houston World Affairs Council where he masqueraded as an unbiased media personality. His lecture was hands-down the most partisan and divisive speech I ever heard there, but I must say he does know how to rile up a crowd. The man is an artist.

That man was also the fifth speaker invited to Rice University’s seven part series held at the Baker Institute, “The Arab World: History, Politics and Culture”. The sixth speaker last week was the highly controversial Columbia professor Joseph Massad, who spoke on “Semitism and the Palestinians”. He was introduced by none other than Rice’s Ussama Makdisi as a sort of modern day hero – Columbia’s David to the Goliath of the Jewish organizations hell bent on the suppression of academic freedom and truth. The talk itself was a surreal journey into conspiracy theory, convoluted logic and a chillingly dark and cynical view of the ethics of the Jew in twentieth century Europe.

His thesis goes something like this. Early twentieth century European Jews tried to “de-Semitize” themselves by embracing the European fads of nationalism and colonialism through their own Jewish version, Zionism. Zionism, according to Professor Massad, was never just a movement to reestablish the historic Jewish homeland as was claimed, but rather a deceptive ploy by Jews to mimic Europeans in all ways, including colonial. Part and parcel of this “historical transformation” of Jew into European was the deliberate and sinister transformation of Arab into persecuted Jew. Since the Arabs are also Semites (a convoluted argument made with great effort), then the Jew essentially became the anti-Semite and the Palestinian became the victimized Jew. Therefore, reasons the good professor, you Jews are no longer entitled to whine about anti-Semitism, since you are the worst anti-Semites of all. Any questions?

It’s not hard to guess where Dr. Massad is going with this very contrived linkage between European Jews and Nazis on the one hand and Palestinians and Holocaust victims on the other. It is a transparent attempt to cast the victim as perpetrator while at the same time erode the legitimacy of the Jewish homeland. In reality it’s nothing new, only a repackaging. In the late 1960’s, the PLO was advised by the highly successful Algerian minister of information to “wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states”, and instead present them as the oppressor. It is the latest of a long series of successful propaganda offensives aimed at the Jewish state.

This lecture was neither illuminating nor constructive. It did not encourage the peacemakers. It did not present solutions. It is as far from religious tolerance as one can possibly get. Worse, it sucked all the oxygen out of the room. It extinguished dialogue and mutual understanding through dehumanization of both the Jew and the Israeli. Strangely enough, it is also a lecture that was sponsored in part by the Boniuk Center for Religious Tolerance. Strange I say, because Joseph Massad’s vicious tirades against things Israeli and Jewish are well documented, as are numerous accusations from Jewish Columbia students that he is intolerant of dissenting opinions in his classroom. From professor-cum-advocate Ussama Makdisi we expect no less, but the Boniuk center?

When my wife volunteered to help raise funds for the JCC Book and Arts fair, she approached many organizations for small donations. Many gave, some didn’t, and one surprised. That one was the Boniuk Center, who sent her this pompous response: “After careful consideration and a review of the speakers/author's list for this year's JCC Book Fair, the Boniuk Center for Religious Tolerance at Rice University has decided not to be a sponsor. Our decision this year is based partly on the fact that our mission is to understand and promote conditions conducive to sustainable, peaceful coexistence among people of different religions around the world. None of this year's authors appears to offer such a message in terms of religious tolerance.”

Huh? No authors offer a message of religious tolerance? What about Ambassador Dennis Ross, the man who did more to bring Arab and Jew to the peace table than anyone else on this planet? How about Naim Kattan, whose book lamented the lost world in Iraq where Jews, Sunnis, Shiites, Catholics and Kurds all lived together in “a rough, rewarding sort of harmony”? And what of “Just an Ordinary Jew”, a wonderful film about the healing of communities in modern Germany, followed by a healing lecture by our own beloved German Consul General Rainer Münzel? Or Jonathon Wilson’s book about Mark Chagall, the famous Jewish artist who was obsessed with the Crucifixion, the Jew who saw Christ as an “icon of Jewish suffering”- can anything more typify religious tolerance than that? Was there no message of religious tolerance in Peter Cole’s book that rejoiced in the Jewish poetry that flourished under Islamic Rule in medieval Spain?

In rejecting the JCC Book and Arts Fair, the Boniuk Center chose to reject the premier annual intellectual celebration of Houston’s Jewish community. Yet they saw fit to champion the likes of Rami Khouri and Joseph Massad, and even more outrageous speakers earlier in the series. Shame on them: their institute is funded by and named after one of Houston’s most tolerant, kind-hearted and well meaning Jewish families. The Boniuk name should rightly become more revered with time by Jew and gentile alike, a reminder of what we should all aspire to: it should not be hijacked by biased individuals or professors with their own agenda. And Rice University had better understand the slippery slope it is on – there are well-rehearsed machinations underway to radicalize its Middle East studies department. Rice has a well-earned reputation for being a fair-minded and non-politicized university; let’s hope it stays that way.

I started this column with a short history of the role that propaganda plays in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and concluded it with the sad news that at least some of the intellectual institutions of our great city seem unable to recognize propaganda for what it is and respond accordingly. More troubling, the same people that suspend critical thinking when it comes to Israel’s enemies seem all too ready to rediscover those skills when it comes to her friends. Are these institutions at fault? Not really. They are simply the latest to be hijacked by a highly sophisticated propaganda campaign that started in the early 1970’s and continues to this day.

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion