The Image of
Evil:
On the Hideous Slander
of Arab Students, Anti-Zionist Jews
and the Scoop-Chasing Media
David Bukay
Introduction
This article is personal, in the wake of
difficult experiences that I underwent in the course of the last semester at the
university (University of Haifa), and therefore I apologize for the fact that it
is emotional and lacking in scientific detachment; subjective and not objective.
In the framework of the many articles which
I have written for NATIV and other publications, I have addressed the
activity of the Left in Israel, distinguishing between the Zionist Left with
which I have a legitimate political argument, and the anti-Zionist Left
(mistakenly called post-Zionist), with which there is and should be no argument,
as its goals and objectives are not the peace and security of the State of
Israel. My assertion, that there is an extremely broad area within Zionism for
political and ideological discussions and negotiations – all legitimate – while
those who are outside the Zionist rubric, who for all intents and purposes
advocate the liquidation of Israel as a Jewish, Zionist state, is an enemy of my
country. According even to the European Union declaration, anti-Zionism is
anti-Semitic. I consistently emphasized the threat posed by the anti-Zionist
Left to the future of the State of Israel.
Many times, I also wrote about the
irresponsibility of the media, the fact that it is obsessed by ratings and
publicity; it is voyeuristic and gossipy in its search for scoops and
sensations. My primary assertion is that the media is a supreme superpower with
an unchallenged, conspicuous influence, which shapes public opinion. Everyone
courts it and seeks its favor, and everyone fears it and flatters it. I quoted
the author, David Grossman, in his harsh criticism of the media in which any
reviewer of a pub is a journalist, and everything is an item and ratings are
everything.
The era of great, reliable and responsible
journalism, epitomized by the immortal editor of Ma`ariv, Azriel
Carlebach, has disappeared. And while there remain serious, responsible and fair
writers today, the trend is toward splashy colors and scoops. The front page is
no longer a serious news page but rather a “referral page” – provocative
headlines in color and with pictures, pointing the reader to the appropriate
page. The internal division is usually clear: The page on the right contains
verbiage and articles, while the page on the left is devoted to advertisements.
That is because we turn the pages from left to right and we see and relate to
the page on the left first. That is the reason that the page on the left is
utilized more for advertisements – as that is what is important – since the
media is a business aiming to profit and that is its primary consideration.
Competition is the central phenomenon
motivating the world economic market, and the same is true of politics and other
areas as well. However, in the media, this phenomenon is a real catastrophe. The
proliferation of media channels, actually their inflation, leads to wild
competition for information, and to irresponsible reports, without checking or
researching the facts. The inefficacy of the slander and libel laws, the
difficulty in proving malice and the length and the cost of the trials,
discourage bringing lawsuits against the media for its lack of responsibility in
its articles and enable journalists to publish anything without understanding
the implications of their actions. The result: everything is legitimate;
everything is permissible; the ratings are what matters. Thus, it is
specifically the extreme, piquant and sensationalist information which will be
published.
The amazing thing is that in the eyes of
the media, “Watergate” is the paradigm of its role as watchdogs for the citizens
in the face of the subversiveness of government and its leaders, while the
investigative reporters, Woodward and Bernstein constitute the model of
brilliant journalism, winners of the Pulitzer Prize. The problem is that the
members of the media have forgotten, or have chosen not to remember that the
conduct during the Watergate incident was a display of astonishingly responsible
journalism. The reporters worked on the story for months. The editor of the
newspaper drove them crazy with the demand to check and recheck again and again
and did not let them publish anything until he was absolutely certain that it
was indeed true and etched in stone.
From my perspective, that is the most
important thing and it can be summed up in one word: Responsibility. The
media’s power is so great, that it is genuinely dealing with human lives. It can
build and destroy, kill and revive. It has tremendous influence in the shaping
of the political, economic and social agenda; it determines what topics are
important and what topics are not, what topic will “live” and be recycled and
which topics will be left to “die”. Above all, it pretends that it simply
reports and reflects reality. However, I could cite hundreds of studies and
dozens of books demonstrating the extent of the media’s influence on all of the
areas that we mentioned. Indeed, Marshall McLuhan was right: “the medium is the
message”.
Many media photographers will tell you that
the pictures that you see do not necessarily reflect reality, and that through
computer graphics it is possible to do almost anything and to create a composite
picture that will include any desired topic. Every amateur photographer knows
what can be done with computer graphics. Isn’t the same true regarding the text?
Therefore, there is a need for responsibility in reporting information so that
it is not distorted or false and will not cause harm to people. Perhaps I am
naïve, but to my mind responsible journalism means one thing: To verify whether
it ever happened. If the answer is yes – mobilize all resources to deal with the
story, because that is its responsibility and obligation. There is no more
important element than the media in monitoring governmental intervention and its
dangers; for constructive citizenship and to prevent the mistreatment and
exploitation of the citizen. Indeed the media is critical in its significance to
the proper functioning of the system in its entirety. However, if the report is
untrue, is there not an obligation to refrain from its publication? Why not just
toss the event into the wastepaper basket, even if the implication will be an
empty page? This is true especially when dealing with people’s lives. Thus, even
if it lasts several days, publication must be delayed until the reporter
ascertains the absolute truth. Among other reasons, this is because (as it is
commonly accepted that) the first report sets the tone and all subsequent
reports are irrelevant.
Unfortunately, the media reality in most
cases is: First of all: publish and afterwards – don’t check the facts either;
another story...another item. However, does anyone ask – what is happening on
the other side? What happens to the person, about whom they published the story,
despite his not being there? What is he going through?
Does no one care about the truth or how its
distortion can cause someone to hide in embarrassment and is perhaps even crying
over the fact that it was distorted? The amazing phenomenon is that the
reporters themselves don’t take their articles and the media in general at all
seriously, asserting: So what happened? It is altogether a small article in the
newspaper, life goes on and tomorrow we will write about something else. In
other words, the media’s lack of responsibility begins, to my mind, with the
news people themselves who, perhaps, do not understand that they are dealing
with the lives of people, and that actually quite a bit happened due to their
article. Our rabbis stated: “Life and death are in the power of the tongue.”
Doesn’t that include the written word in the newspaper? The item filmed for
television? The story broadcast on the radio? In my opinion, the media, in all
of its forms must act fairly and decently. Fairness and decency will lead to
responsibility. If that is important to them – there is no doubt that injustice
will be avoided and there will be much less aggravation. This will have no
economic cost, despite the fact that we know that the media is, first and
foremost, an economic enterprise; because the credibility will cause the public
to have a less cynical approach and will attract a more loyal readership that
identifies with the newspaper.
A Personal Position
I have taught in the Political Science
Department (today the School of Political Science) for many years. The topics of
my academic activity in the area of the Middle East are broad and variegated;
The Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict; the inter-Arab configuration;
international terrorism; fundamentalist Islam; and the Arab-Islamic political
culture. Due to the broad range of my professional subjects, I encourage
discussion of current events in my classes. I encourage my students to ask,
discuss and argue about matters on the national agenda. My lectures are not
static and banal, and they are certainly not chronological. My primary academic
message is providing a different perspective, offering a different picture
employing a broad system-wide perspective, an extremely critical focus and
topical assessment of failures in thought processes and distorted perceptions of
reality. For that reason, I must add with all due modesty, that in each of my
lectures there are several older auditors, people with life experience who come
to enhance their knowledge. I always appreciate their presence and encourage
their active participation, because they contribute to and enrich the regular,
younger students, with their questions and inquisitiveness.
The Incident in Question
In the framework of a seminar on “The
Inter-Arab Configuration and the Palestine Issue”, which I conducted during the
first semester of this past academic year, which concluded in the first week of
January 2005, a student entered in the middle of the fourth lecture of the
semester, and even before he sat down in an empty chair, he defiantly
discharged: “How do you know?” Who determined those things?” I spoke with him
during a break in the lecture and explained to him the accepted rules of study
and conduct in the class. I told him that formally, I could prevent his
participation in the course because he missed more than the allowed number of
classes according to the university regulations. He promised to behave in
accordance with the accepted norms, as I reminded him, “your actions will
determine your status in the seminar.” That student missed another class and
during those classes that he was present, he came and went as he pleased;
muttered in a disruptive manner, made extreme nationalistic declarations and
introduced unrest into the class. It was clear that he did not come to learn and
not even to listen. He was there to disturb. (In retrospect, when describing the
incident to several lecturers, their reaction was immediate and unequivocal: I
would have expelled him from the course immediately and not waited until the end
of the semester.) When students also began making comments to him, I informed
him that he was no longer a student in the course and on December 22, 2004, I
decided to file a complaint against him to the university’s disciplinary board
for violation of several of the university’s rules of conduct.
The legal and due process conduct of the
disciplinary authorities is slow, and when the student heard about the complaint
(it turns out that he characterizes himself as the “Chairman of the Council of
Arab Students in Israel”), a manic bacchanalia of hyperactive activity began.
KolBo, the local newspaper of the Schocken network, owners of the
Ha`aretz newspaper, “the paper for thinking people”, circulated, on Friday
January 14, 2005, a malicious, vitriolic, unfounded article, false from
beginning to end, containing not even one iota of truth (except for the date and
the names of the participants). And the reporter made things even worse when he
lied, twice, when he wrote in the sub-headline and at the end of the article as
if I had said to him: “I do not have time to respond.” I never said any such
thing. The headline of the inciting article determined: “Students in the
Political Science Department Demand the Firing of Dr. David Bukay: He is a
Racist”.
I do not read that newspaper and therefore
was unaware that an article had been published or what were its contents.
However, on that Friday, beginning in the afternoon, I began to receive a series
of phone calls from my students, who expressed their outrage over the article.
Several days later, they decided to write a letter to the dean of the school and
to express their opinion regarding the conduct of the matter. A group of adult
auditors spoke with me on Sunday night and one of them read to me the contents
of the article for the first time. I was shocked and asked him to send it to me.
The most awful phenomenon was not just the insane libel included therein, but
also the fact that one of the lecturers in the school, Dr. Assad Ghanam, joined
in the libel with the following quote:
There is a difference between political opinions and
professionalism. Academic freedom is based on that. However, to say that a
mosque could be destroyed upon the worshippers inside and that it should be
destroyed runs counter to every humane, human and academic principle. This is
racism for its own sake. Having racists working there does not bring honor to
the university.
This statement is shocking and provoking.
That is the true racism and the enormous scandal. I can imagine the pandemonium
that would have ensued had a Jew said something similar about an Arab lecturer
without first investigating the matter. Thus, I decided that there is just one
forum appropriate to deal with these matters: A complaint to the Academic Staff
Disciplinary Board, followed by a lawsuit filed against him for incitement and
slander. He did not ask me; he never spoke to me; he never checked or
investigated the matter; and he added his name to the article from the
beginning, serving as its central basis. Is this the way he teaches his
students? Not to check? As mentioned, the university’s academic authorities are
dealing with the matter.
However, if anyone thought that the matter
came to an end with that, it soon became clear that this was just the beginning
of a long-range, planned journey. A crazy series of articles began, along with
subversive activity of incitement to murder, from three points of attack. First
was the activity of a group of anti-Zionists at the university. Immediately,
with the publication of the article, they began to recycle the KolBo
article, each with his own addition, on the Internet. Then they began analyzing
articles that I wrote for NATIV ONLINE, especially the article about the
“Arab Personality”: Is he a racist and what racist foundations exist within him?
Incidentally, in the course of their “rationalistic discussions”, I received a
great compliment, of which I admit, I am unworthy: I was mentioned alongside
Bernard Lewis, the greatest and most brilliant Middle East scholar of them all.
Thus, there was some sweetness among the bitterness. A student in the Philosophy
Department, David Merhav, in articles that he wrote, led the entire process. He
is responsible for raising the matter on the Internet in Hebrew and English and
he strengthened the trend of slander and libel with the claim: “Perhaps Bukay
denies what he said in class, but can he deny what he wrote?” I filed a
complaint to the university’s Disciplinary Board against him for that activity
and his incitement.
The method of the anti-Zionists is
fascinating.
-
The Circles Method: One writes his
opinion and broadly “analyzes” it, mentioning the “accused” in a negative and
slanderous manner, then two or three others join him with their own comments.
The next day, another one joins and asks: One moment, I don’t understand what
this is about. Can someone explain this to me? Immediately, someone
“volunteers” to explain the situation to him, thereby opening a new circle of
participants expressing their opinion on the matter. Thus, ever-widening
circles develop, each one raising another aspect, each one expressing his
opinion on the matter, and the topic remains “hot”.
-
Recycling the topic, primarily
with the intention of keeping the topic on the public agenda. They know that
the information explosion will remove any topic from the agenda, thus the
approach is to keep it “hot” by means of its perpetual publication, utilizing
various media outlets. They don’t quote the article all the time, but they see
to it that it is publicized in a number of media outlets, as if it were new
information.
-
Testing Boundaries. Grasping the
matter at hand is not the point, but rather utilizing it to attack the
authorities (in this case, the university) and to assess their reaction and
their treatment, with a noisy demand to “execute judgment” and to further
stretch the areas of legitimate activity on the path to creating boundaries
for new discussions.
-
Silencing anyone who becomes
involved in the matter and is not “one of them”, whether by means of attrition
(they have plenty of time, for them it is a way of life and an objective), or
by means of threats, to refrain from any attempt to touch them or interfere
with their actions or to scrutinize their actions, as they are always for
“universal justice”, “absolute truth” and “equality and solidarity among
nations”.
-
Group Activity. Ultimately, their
relative “power” stems from the fact that they are a group and not
individuals, thus they reinforce and strengthen each other. They do not act
alone, and thus that is also the way to confront them. This is true both in
terms of generating a lot of noise regarding both the entire matter of their
activity and in the attack/defense against opponents.
The really amazing phenomenon in the
anti-Zionist activity is the fact that it is one-sided and single-valued. Only
we are right and if you do not belong to us, it is clear that by definition, you
are guilty. However, beyond that, a difficult question arises: They teach at the
university, some in senior positions, if so, what and how do they teach their
students? The role of the university is to investigate and examine and not to
accept anything as a given, to doubt and only after all that, to determine
positions and attitudes. Science is dialectic and moves forward in the form of
thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Furthermore, in my opinion, in the humanities
and social sciences there are no facts, only assessments, theories and
positions. If so, how dare they do what they do – without checking, without
asking, without clarifying? How do they make such harsh accusations, blood
libels that are liable to incite to murder, without investigating and finding
whether or not it is the truth? What is that almost inhuman apparatus that
causes them to act in so awful a burst of incitement and slander?
This clarifies another phenomenon as well.
I would very much like to be present at one of their lectures, if they had a
student like the one that I had, who then quoted things that were never said,
like the distorted lies that they told about me. I would very much like to see
their response apparatus. I can assume, with a high degree of probability what
they would do and how they would react. However, I restrained myself – because I
love my students and do everything I can for them. I love to teach and love
challenges. And above all, I did not want to disrupt the class. On the other
hand, I can imagine how they would have reacted and therefore I offer them my
warm recommendation to consider what is liable to take place in their classes if
this method is successful and students began doing the same to them.
Above all, in contrast to them, I am not
even hiding behind the slogan of “academic freedom”. I said nothing even
resembling the slanderous statements attributed to me in the media articles, and
that can be easily proven. I say (yes, and write) harsh things, in a direct and
blatant manner; I do not hide behind vague phrases; and I do not speak in the
language of “political correctness”. At the same time, all of my answers are
documented and substantiated, including extensive quotes. Do those anti-Zionists
who attacked me do the same? I sent some of them personal letters, more or less
in the following format:
...and if it turns out that this is a blood libel, crude and
baseless slander, will you apologize? Will you deliver your apology through
all of the networks in which you slandered me? Am I mistaken in my assumption
that you will not have the human decency to do so? Is there any reason for me
to question the fact that despite the conclusions, you will not accept them
because from your perspective, everything is clear and there is no other side
other than your own?
The second point of attack is the extensive
and distorted publications on the Internet, in Hebrew and English. It began with
an article on the “Nana” website whose headline was: “Lecturer in Haifa
University: Shoot All of the Arabs in the Head”, and continued with the same
quotes, more or less, from the article in KolBo, continued a week later
in a similar article on the Netvision website, which was translated into English
several times on various websites, under the same headline, including two
“investigative reports” by a known left-wing person, residing in the United
States, named Kurt Nimmo, who characterizes Israel, “the outlaw state of
Israel”. He is the cooperative friend of David Merhav, the same student who
passed on the information and perhaps translated it into English. In addition,
he published articles on various Internet sites: For example, <footlog.net>, in
which he analyzes phenomena of visions of colonialism and publicized a special
investigative report about: Arabs “Must Be Shot in their Heads”, and recycles
the slander again. Dr. Ghanam appears in all of the articles with the same
quotes, more or less, and in David Merhav’s article, Dr. Ghanam is mentioned as
if he approached me in order to clarify what I said and as if I responded to
him. Those are the publications that were found but it certainly could be that
there were additional publications.
However, worst of all, was the Arab press
in Israel. It began with an article on Friday, January 14, 2005, in the Arab
newspaper Panorama, published in Nazareth, concurrent with the KolBo
article, an article that was less malicious than the KolBo article. A
Christian Arab in Nazareth, with whose father I have had a close friendship for
many years, sent me the article. He did not suffice with that and also sent a
detailed letter to the head of the School of Political Science and to the
rector, in which he expressed his opinion based on his familiarity with me. The
climax of the campaign was in an article genuinely inciting to murder in the
A-Sinara newspaper, with the headline: “Lecturer in Haifa University: The
Prophet Mohammed Was the First Terrorist”. The Dutch filmmaker, Van Gogh, was
slaughtered by a Moslem for less than that a few months ago. The article
continued with threatening phone calls to my house. A student who “took” the
course provided the material for these articles and the editorial staff of the
newspaper did the translation. The journalist who translated and published the
article told this to me. He also drafted the inflammatory headline.
In other words, there is a very clear division of labor. A
Jewish student, whom I do not know, managed and provided all of the material to
the Israeli and international media, and all of the material to the Arab sector
was provided by a student who “took” my course. In addition, a number of
discussions were held on Radio “Shams”, which broadcasts in Nazareth and has,
according to the editor, high ratings among the Arabs in Israel, and the Arab
student was the activist and initiator.
The third point of attack is simpler. David
Merhav, the Jewish student, is behind it. He instigated all members of the
network, in Israel and abroad, in every article and letter that he wrote, to
send emails to the head of the school, the dean of the department and the
president, protesting the racist scandal. The funny thing was that most of the
letters were uniform, with the same confusion in gender. However, the number was
impressive. Everything was intended to create the impression of quantity
equaling quality, which would impel the university authorities to take action
under pressure. What was the problem? Goebbels taught us that the greater the
lie, the more it turns into truth. The media teaches us that the more an item is
publicized, on more channels and in more extreme expressions, it will gain more
momentum and more people will believe it. The hackneyed clichés contribute to
the cause, like: “There is no smoke without fire”; “if it appeared in the
newspaper, there must be some truth to it, even if it is only partial.” The
result is clear: It matters not who you are, what matters is what they say about
you. A close friend provided the proof. When we met he called out to me: “Tell
me something. Are you crazy, saying those things?” My immediate reaction was:
“The slanderers were successful if even you believe what was written.” Another
proof was provided in an encounter with a lecturer in the Arabic department.
Usually, when we meet, we have a brief, cordial and enjoyable conversation,
while this time when we met in the library and I said hello, he looked at me
with an angry look and said nothing.
Beyond the jabbering of the letters and the
nonsense of the third point of attack, they themselves are harmless unless one
takes their letters seriously and attributes to them a modicum of reason, a
course of action not recommended as the signers are automatic on every topic.
That is the method of the anti-Zionist Left. The activity of the anti-Zionists,
the first point of attack, beyond the self-righteous rolling of their eyes, is
very problematic in the national context and less in the internal context. I
must say, their subversive activity is very unpleasant; however anyone who knows
them can view the phenomenon with a cynical and even mocking perspective. The
media articles, on the other hand, are awful and should engender a charge of
incitement to murder, beyond libel and slander. In our agonized country, with
the severe problems of personal and national security, and with the police
having an agenda beyond conventional police duties – what is the likelihood that
it will deal with the matter seriously? At the same time, the matter of a libel
suit has definitely not been ruled out and it remains an option, beyond the
complaints that I filed to the university authorities against the lecturer, the
Arab student and the Jewish student.
Unfortunately, from the perspective of
mid-February 2005, the episode has not yet been resolved and it has harsh
ramifications: I am unable to prepare the courses for the second semester, which
I always refresh and update; and it has been more than a month since I’ve been
able to work on the book that I am writing about the religious and exegetic
sources of the homicide bomber phenomenon, those which the media calls “suicide
bombers”. Most of all, I will say this as gently as possible, it is very hard
when the media writes defamatory, slanderous things about you, and you weren’t
even there and did none of the actions attributed to you. The manner in which
the media shapes phenomena makes them problematic. Imagine this episode without
media involvement; all that would remain is hot air.
Now for the important question: Why didn’t
I respond and pay any attention to the items publicized? First, I waited
for the university’s investigation and reaction, like a good soldier. I must
say, I work in an organized system and I feel responsibility towards it. Just as
I insist, when being interviewed regarding the areas of my professional
concerns, upon mentioning the name of the university where I teach, so too I am
committed to its investigation and its conclusions. I consider this the most
basic tenet of loyalty to the system and the price that law-abiding citizens
must pay. Second, I have a big problem reacting to the event that I
experienced. The most egregious character assassination takes place when the
media, “in fairness”, provides the “accused” with the right of response. From
its perspective, as soon as it receives a reaction to its accusations, it has
then completed its investigation and exhausted its responsibility. Thus, the
article will appear in its original form with a few lines appended to the end:
“So-and-so denies the contents of the article and claims that it is all lies.”
And that is the problem in all its severity. Everything must be checked and if
that which appears in the article is false, all that needs to happen is that the
article should not be published, even if the virtual implication is an empty
page in the newspaper, as human lives are at stake. Under these circumstances, I
don’t even expect that the opposite should happen: That the defamer be defamed,
as that requires checking as well. However the media does not want to take the
trouble and investigate, the main thing is to publish – quickly – especially if
it is a scoop. And I must admit: The accusation regarding defamation of Arabs
and things like “put a bullet in their heads” is a “hot” item with high ratings.
Thus, I seek to challenge the media: Let’s
say that I would have reacted extensively to the episode in each of the articles
(of all of the publications, I was given only two opportunities to respond: To
KolBo and Nana), and let’s say that I would have unequivocally
denied it – would the article not have been published? Would the headlines have
changed? All that would have happened, and I challenge the media to deny it, is
that the articles would have taken up a few more lines, with my statement at the
end of the article. I would have thereby granted legitimacy to the article and
justified its publication, even if I absolutely denied its contents and even if
it is absurd and has no basis.
This is precisely the problem of a
law-abiding citizen: They told tales about you and now you have to undergo
torture and anguish and are put into the position of apologizing and explaining.
These law-abiding citizens are the ones that need to bite their lips and
continue. On the other hand those who break the law, manipulate the media with
no pangs of conscience, specifically because they know that it will publish,
with outrageous irresponsibility and stunning lack of fairness.
The Positive Side of the Story
Now, I would like to discuss the reactions
of the students at the different levels of their involvement. I omitted all of
the compliments, and they really were numerous and caused even my dark skin to
blush. I only left the quotes vital to the event. As I said, already on the day
that the first malicious article appeared, I received phone calls from my
students, whose organization was amazing. Indeed, to expect students, who at the
time were busy with exams and especially, as it is natural that they would be
hesitant to involve themselves in the struggles of the “adults” and display
active involvement; that is my greatest reward and proof that my investment in
them is worthwhile.
I must point out that almost all of the
reactions were limited to the article in the local KolBo newspaper.
However, it seems to me that that is enough as most of the subsequent
publications were just more of the same. First, I’ll deal with the reactions of
the students who attended the course: A group of students wrote:
...the quotes cited in the newspaper totally distort reality.
Most were never said and the few that actually were said, appeared in a
different context. Thus, the article misrepresented their practical meaning...
The student sought to arouse provocations during the classes... He called the
lecturer a racist several times... He did not come to study but rather to
disturb, to trip up the lecturer... The quote “it is preferable that a mosque
fall on the heads of its worshippers”, was never said nor was anything similar
said... In our opinion, a blood libel was hatched against Dr. Bukay.
A [female] student wrote:
Abu-Youness’ statements as quoted in the article do not at all
reflect the statements made by Dr. Bukay... He did not incite to racism and
his lectures were very informational and were delivered in the course of a
free and open discussion...
Another student wrote:
The style of Dr. Bukay’s lectures constitute intellectual
stimulation that encourages thought... The charges leveled in the newspaper
suffer from in a variety of areas – lack of understanding of what was said,
taking content out of context and attribution of statements that were not
sounded in the framework of the lectures... I wish to thereby undermine the
fraudulent document that was disseminated in his condemnation and to prevent
an injustice... It will be proven that the baseless call has its source in
ulterior motives.
Among the auditors:
-
“...As to the content of the article:
There is not one word of truth... The article is a blood libel against Dr.
Bukay.”
-
“...We participated in all of Dr. Bukay’s
lectures and never heard him say that Muhammad was a terrorist and that
mosques should be destroyed on their worshippers and we are upset that Dr.
Ghanam became involved in dangerous lies and blood libels. Dr. Bukay’s
restraint and his refraining from entering into a shouting match with the
shouter, Abu-Youness, is praiseworthy.”
-
“It is Dr. Bukay’s obligation as a
lecturer and researcher to present reality as it is without beautifying it or
softening it and it is unfortunate that some of the listeners, upon looking at
the mirror placed before them and at the resulting picture, see fit to break
the mirror instead of improving the picture... Dr. Bukay employs a clean style
of speech. I never heard him make the statements that appeared in the article.
Dr. Bukay never said those things and it is unfortunate that they are
attempting to falsely accuse him instead of admitting that he exposed them to
the reality of the situation.”
-
“I hereby attest that the statements made
in that article are fundamentally false.”
However, the climax is the words of that
student, who took the course, specifically the one that the student mentioned in
the articles who sought to publicize as if she challenged me and I silenced her.
Pay attention:
All of the quotes cited by Mr. Abu-Youness, without exception,
are pure speculation that hatch an offensive blood libel, which in my opinion,
was planned against Dr. Bukay... Mr. Abu-Youness collected phrases including
the word “Arab”, “Palestinian”, “terrorism” and others, divorced them from
their original meaning as provided them by the lecturer, and gathered them
into one decisive, baseless indictment – “he is a racist”, an accusation that
he hurled at the lecturer time after time, disturbing the course of the
lecture and humiliating him before all those in the class and later in the
newspaper... He edited Dr. Bukay’s statements in the best tradition of yellow
journalism, injected them with a different conceptual meaning and insulted him
again and again... Mr. Abu-Youness’ course of action arouses profound
resentment – pull out a word, remove it from its context, provide it with a
meaning foreign to its original intent and then scream “racist” for as long as
you can... However, the statements of Dr. Assad Ghanam are even more upsetting
and disturbing... The impression one gets in the article is of a person who
gathers statements of which nothing else can be said about them than “a cheap,
baseless distortion of the truth”, and he also attacks Dr. Bukay... And he
accused him of racism...The integrity and code of ethics of academia should
guide doctors, whose entire scholarly activity is aimed at ascertaining the
facts, to treat their colleagues that way. My careful reading of the article
in the newspaper left the impression that a blood libel was hatched against
Dr. Bukay.
Many more letters were written by my
students who attended my other courses during the present school year and by
students from previous years, who read the articles and called to express
willingness to do whatever necessary. There were also letters from students in
the various branches of the security establishment, in the past and in the
present, in astonishing numbers, expressing willingness to do whatever
necessary, even though most of them could not appear by name. But above all, the
amazingly powerful organization of the Druse community, especially its members
serving in the security forces, who came en masse and declared their willingness
to do whatever necessary: Letters, meetings with the university authorities,
guarding my house, petitions and demonstrations. My profound gratitude and love
are extended to that wonderful community, which is more Zionist than many Jews.
Summary
First, the episode began with the
distress of a student in the course who had been educated to believe the claim
that Jerusalem is “mentioned many times in the Qur`an” and approached the local
hero, the “Chairman of the Association of Arab Students in Israel”, to help her
“let the lecturer have it”. At the end of the semester the problem ceased to be
an individual problem, and became, with the use of other factors, broader, well
planned and dedicated to academic liquidation. Ultimately, that student’s “hero”
proved his cowardice, and renounced the headlines that had been published and
even falsely accused her of being responsible for some of them. When the episode
expanded, two others became critical in their significance to the process: One
openly, the other clandestinely. The front man, who agreed to become involved at
the request of the student, approached the clandestine element and received
advice on how to proceed and the two of them were responsible for the division
of labor in three languages and throughout the Internet, as described above.
Second, one can learn from the event
about the extent of the anti-Zionists’ determination to eliminate anyone not
affiliated with them, to create universities “free of foreign influences”.
Unfortunately, the problem that they pose is expanding and becoming more
profound and its huge damages threaten the existence of the State of Israel.
More and more, theirs is the voice heard in Israel’s universities; more and
more, that is the voice heard in academic institutions around the world; more
and more these phenomena are infiltrating the world’s political systems; more
and more, the Palestinian elements, which continue to aspire to destroy Israel
as a people and as a state, receive encouragement and support from them, because
their path is just, and time is on their side and ultimately Israel will
disappear. Jan Maseryk addressed this reality: “A people whose back is broken,
will not be saved, even if each of its citizens has a tank in his yard and a
fighter jet on his roof.” George Orwell’s words are also recommended: “There are
ideas so inane that only intellectuals are capable of believing them.”
Third, throughout the process, the
rector of the university was active and took the initiative. As opposed to most
members of the academic staff, he understands that decisions must be made; and
that there are phenomena that cannot be covered up; and that one cannot avoid
everything and attempt to achieve quiet at all costs. Very often, avoidance and
lack of decision exacerbate the situation. The rector did not treat the episode
as an individual problem but rather as a watershed in the course of the proper
running of the university, which can be characterized as an attempt to hijack
academic freedom: Distorted use of that which is said in the classroom for the
furtherance of political objectives; disruption of the routine course of study;
perverse utilization of the media in all its forms in order to defame a
university employee.
Fourth, in the wake of the episode,
the rector would do well, after publicizing the conclusions of the entire
establishment in its various forms, to issue up-to-date guidelines regarding
decent relations between members of the academic staff, to prevent slander among
the staff and in creating operative means to deal with students who come to
disturb rather than to study. Ultimately, the university will emerge stronger:
The anti-Zionists will learn that pluralism in general and in academia in
particular is a significant component of human progress and it is specifically
the uniformity of values towards which they strive that is dangerous. Perhaps
the time has come, in the words of the journalist, Mark Stein, that “all of the
self-haters in the West will ask themselves why do we hate ourselves so much.”
University of Haifa,
February 2005