UC Berkeley Course: The Travesty of the Distortion of History Under the Guise of Academic Discipline

[ericson00]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/uc-berkeley-course-the-tr_b_12421580.html

At Camp David in 2000, during the most hopeful discussions about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a Palestinian representative at the table denied any Jewish historic connection to Jerusalem. Speaking of the Holy sites, he referred to the Dome of the Rock and Al Aksa mosques sitting on the Temple Mount, but labeled as fantasy the notion that there had ever been a Jewish Temple on that spot or in the city at all.

This allegation at a critical juncture undercut the aspiration of achieving a two-state solution — the Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state — and proved devastating to the left-of-center Israeli delegation seeking a compromise that would serve the interests of both peoples. With the hope that each side was finally willing to accept one another’s narrative, now the Israelis were being told once again that they had no legitimacy in their historic homeland.

This came to mind as we learned about a “DeCal” student-led course being offered at the University of California, Berkeley, called “Palestine: A Settler Colonial Analysis.” The class thesis and much of its syllabus are built on the foundation of the denial of the Jewish connection to the land of Israel.

[Little Tich]

1. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Just because the course is totally one-sided and promotes an totally uncritical pro-Palestinian narrative doesn't mean it can be replaced by nationalist nonsense that promotes the Zionist view...

Sigh, tsk...



Anyway, the actual content of the course is outlined in another thread:
UC Berkeley suspends course labeled anti-Israel by critics
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134132606

[aranthus]

2. What are you talking about?

Where does the author of the article suggest replacing the course with anything, let alone something partisan supporting Israel?

[Little Tich]

3. The whole goal of the OP is to replace one narrative for another.

It doesn't solve the problem with the course which is that it's one-sided and doesn't promote critical thinking. I would have no problem with such a course teaching about both narratives and not taking sides for either. It would make it possible for students to understand the issue better and form a sound opinion of their own.

However, for the author of the OP, fair and unbiased are probably dirty words...

[aranthus]

4. No it isn't.

The goal of of the article is to show that the class is based on a denial of history and truth. They might as well be teaching a class on how the Holocaust never happened, or how the Japanese never bombed Pearl Harbor. That isn't an academic course. You know the saying, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts." Well that class is trying to create its own facts. It's based on a huge antisemitic lie. A narrative based on lies is not the academic or moral equal of a narrative based on evidence.

[Little Tich]

5. Bias and falsehood isn't the same thing.

There are no obvious anti-Semitic lies being promoted in the course, it's merely biased. Take a look at the course description I posted in another thread and see if you can find anything anti-Semitic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134132606#post1

Merely claiming anti-Semitism is no proof.

[shira]

6. Did you really forget so soon, or is this all just a game?

Last edited Thu Oct 13, 2016, 04:53 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134132606#post7

7. That week 6 Agenda proves....

....that the people behind this course do not believe Israel has any right to exist, being a colonial settler program from 1948-1966.

BEFORE the 6 day war and 1967 occupation.

Response to shira (Reply #7)Wed Sep 14, 2016, 08:11 AM
Little Tich (5,647 posts)
8. Ah. The penny dropped.

I understand your point and will return to it later. In the meantime,

From pp. 233-237, Sayegh writes that the Jews are a colonial alien presence (alien body) in the land. That Jews have a "supposedly" common ancestry. He then goes on with nonsense about Jewish racial purity, exclusivity, and supremacy - code words gutter racists in the KKK & neo-Nazis use all the time about Jews. He lies about Israel having to be exclusively Jewish, that the chosen people cannot co-exist in Israel with Arabs, that the Zionist goal is the racial elimination of Palestinians....

Blech. Gross racism denying Jewish peoplehood, demonizing them all as racists against the indigenous Palestinians - not being indigenous themselves as Jews but foreign usurpers, colonists...

Is it that you cannot see anti-Jew hatred, or just refuse to see it?

[Little Tich]

7. The penny dropped because I understood your distinction between accusing Israel and the settlements

both being colonial projects, and not only the settlements.

However, framing either as such isn't anti-Semitic in itself, IMHO.

The writings of Sayegh are unsuitable as background material, but I can't go further than saying that it's possible that his writings are anti-Semitic. But then again, it would probably be hard to find writings about Palestinians from Israel's founding fathers that weren't racist either...

BTW, I found a book by someone called Zeev Sternhell, "The Founding Myths of Israel". My understanding of the founding of Zionism is a bit hazy, perhaps reading a book about it will help me...

[shira]

8. More denial from you. It's hateful to see Jews as non-indigenous, as a foreign element....

Last edited Fri Oct 14, 2016, 04:31 AM - Edit history (1)

....within Israel. To deny their peoplehood is hateful. Remember, antipathy towards Jews. Who are you trying to fool here?

Any genuine anti-racist can see this hate for what it is.

[Little Tich]

9. Do you consider Palestinians to be indigenous to Palestine?

I'm wondering because I seem to perceive a double standard here...

[shira]

10. Can't answer simple questions b/c they're inconvenient for you. Pathetic.

Why should it come down to me answering first before you can define something as racist? I'm going with your antipathy definition and now you seem allergic to it.