What would Obama say about this, Marty?

Why do you care, Jackson?

It's a relevant question. Obama's an alum, and just made an appearance (with McCain) at Columbia. He and McC both called on Columbia to drop its opposition to ROTC (per the WSJ, the undergrads booed McC, were sullenly silent when Obama made the same point).

So what's preventing Obama from meeting with Bollinger and having a friendly chat on the degradation of Columbia's Middle Eastern studies dept, not to mention its reputation overall?

Another relevant question:

One of Obama's principle advisers on all things Middle East (in particular the Arab-Israeli conflict) is Danny Kurtzer, the ex-US ambassador to Egypt & Israel and close adviser to that passionate Zionist James Baker.  Kurtzer earned his Ph.D. at Columbia U.  It would nice, but out of character, to seem him come down on his alma mater for Mitchell's appointment.

Some background info to explain my skepticism:  Kurtzer started out life as a nice yeshiva guy (Yeshiva College class of '71) who went off to Columbia U. a year or two later for a Ph.D. in middle eastern studies (or in a related area but his thesis was on one aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict).  Already in his Ph.D. thesis Kurtzer demonstrated antipathetic tendencies to the notion of Israel using force to defend itself against Arab terrorism (his thesis dealt with the period of the 1950's, well before the 1967 6 Day War).

Given that Kurtzer's graduate career dovetailed with the rise of Columbia U. professor Edward Said & his politically correcticist and highly highly influential  dogma of "Orientalism" (and of course Said's deep hatred of Israel) it's hard to believe that Kurtzer was not influenced either directly or indirectly by Said.  Furthermore, after a short stint back at Yeshiva University both as an assistant professor in PoliSci, and as dean, Kurtzer made his way into the State Department  and began his meteoric rise through the ranks Foggy Bottom (what an appropriate name).

In view of the deep seeded and long standing State Department hostile attitude toward Israel, Kurtzer could not have risen through the ranks without being vetted for the "proper", State Department sanctioned attitude toward Israel.  And indeed over the years, Kurtzer's policy recommendations, statements, and associations (including and especially those groups he chose to speak to during his stint as US ambassador to Israel) must have done those State Department vetters proud.

And so, in light of Kurtzer's history & sorry track record, having him as Obama's principle adviser on the Arab-Israeli conflict is quite worrisome.  Iif Kurtzer would forcefully come out against the Columbia U. appointment of Mitchell, even if only for Charlie Tuna style politics, it would at least give a fig leaf to Obama's pro-israel supporters.  If Kurtzer won't even do that, then the message should be loud and clear to those same pro-israel Obama supporters, unless they are thoroughly ostriched or simply afraid of losing their P.C. certifications.

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

rozenson said:  "Why do you care, Jackson?"

Why don't you care, Rozy?

jacksondyer,

He  and  Marty know the answer, but they are stuck with Obama.

Marty,

You should be pleased at this news. He's gone from the Political Science Department at NYU to the Department of Middle East and South Asian Languages and Cultures at Columbia. Instead of teaching Middle-Eastern politics survey courses he will now be in a department that has courses such as 'Culture & Power in Iraqi Literature'. As far as I'm concerned. send the far-left and post-modernist academics out to 'culture' departments and they can incomprehensibly talk among themselves.

Ginzy:  I am a pro-Israel former Hillary Clinton supporter who now supports Obama for the simple reason that I live in and am a proud citizen of the US.   A McCain administration would be disastrous for our economy and further weaken our standing in the world.  The evangelical Christian agenda -- embraced by McCain in the persona of Sarah Palin -- threatens my Constitutional rights and the separation of church and state upon which this nation is premised.  

The fate of Israel deeply concerns me.  The need to "support and preserve Israel because, as a Jew, I never know when I will need to go there" was firmly inculcated in me as a child and I believe this still.  But  if the United States is, literally, bankrupt and loses its leadership position in the world, then our support of Israel will be meaningless as we will be unable to implement anything.  Israel has already felt the pinch of the declining value of the US dollar and the declining financial ability of the American Jewish community to support Israeli charities, projects and programs.  This will only get worse under a McCain presidency.  As an American and a Jew I feel that Obama represents the best hope -- and is the best choice -- for this country and, by extension, for Israel.

Ginzburg, your logic is nonsense. I share your contempt of Kurtzer, but to say that just because he was a grad student when Edward Said was rising, he must have shared his opinions - well. that's really crazy.

Some of us have been grad students at US universities when faculty initiated anti-Israel boycotts. By your logic, we should have become anti-Israel. Instead, we publicly confronted such anti-Semites, were threatened very publicly and ran some risks of losing our PhD student positions there. That is why I  find our logic faulty and really insulting to those of us who have actually confronted anti-Semites.

Perhaps Natan Sharansky is an anti-Semite too? After all, the Russia he grew in was anti-Semitic. By your logic, he was probably influenced by it...

"As far as I'm concerned. send the far-left and post-modernist academics out to 'culture' departments and they can incomprehensibly talk among themselves."  Good one Liamvt.

Sleepy, is there any way we could ever get a Sleepy bio?  Far more interesting than my hum drum, somewhat privileged life here in the states.  Also, are you this confrontational in real life?  I'd like to think that somewhere out there, Sleepy is sticking it to the man.  

Sleepy, you totally misunderstood what I wrote. My point was that it appears that Kurtzer may have been strongly influenced by Said or by others in the Columbia U. middle eastern studies establishment who in turn were influenced by Said.  My reasoning:

First off, that Kurtzer's views are in harmony with Israel's far left wing is a given.  When he was ambassador here he made a point of speaking before some of these groups even though they are far from mainstream Israeli thinking at the time (now even less so).

Second, I knew Kurtzer (not well) in college.  He was a year ahead of me at Y.U. but we were on the same dorm floor in my freshmen year and my roommates (one in particular who took a course together with him) became somewhat friendly with Kurtzer and his roommate.  In addition, another acquaintance of mine (here in Efrat) was a classmate of Kurtzer's and a co-poli sci major who knew him well then, and continued to have extensive contact with him over the years both socially and professionally.  To all of us who knew him, Kurtzer did not have such extreme views when he was in college but by the time he had his Ph.D. it was clear that he bought in to most (if not all) of the Palestinian narrative.

For example, in his thesis on Israel's retaliatory raids (initiated and led by then IDF officer Ariel Sharon) in the early 50's Kurtzer pointedly did refer to the Palestinian terrorists who raided Israeli communities and killing civilians as "terrorists" but as "guerrillas", a term which in the mid-1970's served to compare them favorably to the darlings of America's left wing elite, the Viet Cong.  When he returned to Yeshiva College after getting his Ph.D. and taught courses on the Israeli-Arab conflict, it was even clearer that he was already in "blame Israel" mode, again buying the Palestinian narrative (this I heard from some Yeshiva College grads who took his course).

So it appears quite strongly that Kurtzer's views were changed and shaped heavily during his graduate studies at Columbia.  Now I should point out that this is not that surprising.  Anyone who has gone to graduate school and pursued a research-oriented degree (full disclosure:  I have an MSc. &  Ph.D. in molecular biology and genetics) will tell you that your academic thinking is usually influenced significantly by that of your adviser and to a large degree by your committee members and other faculty members with whom you have contact.  This is much more a characteristic of graduate school -- in particular research degrees -- than it is of undergraduate education.  For a whole variety of reasons, this phenomenon is even more pronounced in the humanities and social sciences than in the natural sciences, and I can tell you that it's there in the natural sciences.

So given that Kurtzer's current views appear to have been shaped while at Columbia, and given that his views reflect an acceptance of the Palestinian narrative, including, I might add, their mis-interpretation of UN Security Council resolution 242 and their twisted interpretation of Article 47 (or is it 48?) of the fourth Geneva Convention, without even acknowledging the possibility of the plainer, but more favorable to Israel reading of these documents, what might have contributed to that change?

By the late 1970's - early 80's Edward Said already was making a tremendous impact on the whole field of middle eastern studies even though that was really not his field of academic expertise (he was a professor of English literature).  His book came out in the mid or late 1970's.  If Said was able to have such an influence on the entire field, it is eminently reasonable to assume that he had a similar influence first within his own academic bailiwick among the middle eastern studies faculty members AND graduate students in Columbia U., an influence which is felt to this day.  And Kurtzer was part of Said's academic bailiwick during this period.

Kurtzer might say that he does not share Said's views 100%.  And I accept that as true, since Kurtzer, as of this writing, still accepts Israel's right to exist presumably as a Jewish state.  But one does not have to accept 100% of Said's views in order to nonetheless be influenced by them.  And clearly Kurtzer was in a close position to be influenced by them, just as Said influenced the overwhelming majority of the middle eastern studies establishment.

Can I prove this? No or at least not yet.  I suppose I could try to get a hold of a copy of his Ph.D. thesis and read it and look for citations or acknowledgments of Said.  But often times influence in academic thinking does not have to come from citable publications but simply from seminars, conversations in the hallways, journal clubs and the like.  Given Kurtzer's history over the past 30 years or so I would argue that my gut feeling about him is eminently plausible.  The dots are there; I just connected them.

It would be nice, however to find a smoking gun or at least one that smells a bit from cordite.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

dalerenee,

Let me say at the outset that none of the candidates (P or VP) thrill me.  At this point I am considering who to vote for by who will be the least bad.

Given that I live on Mad Mahmoud & the Ayatollah's Bull's eye, it should not be surprising that my prime concern is the expected and predicted effectiveness of each of the candidates in dealing with the Iranian nuclear ambitions.  I have explained my concerns fairly extensively (but not, as yet, exhaustively) in these august blogs.  Here is a link to one such case where I have several postings which go into far more detail than I can now at 1:15 AM Israel Time: blogs.tnr.com/.../draft.aspx

Please read Marty's posting (which provides the background context) and all of the subsequent comments.

tanx lodes,

hg

jack, you don't need to reply, but I couldn't resist one further small comment on the Wolfson thread, and two even smaller comments--one correcting what I took to be yor misimpression about somethingh I said, when I didn't--on the Koch thread.

dalerenee said:

"Ginzy:  I am a pro-Israel former Hillary Clinton supporter who now supports Obama for the simple reason that I live in and am a proud citizen of the US.   A McCain administration would be disastrous for our economy and further weaken our standing in the world.  The evangelical Christian agenda -- embraced by McCain in the persona of Sarah Palin -- threatens my Constitutional rights and the separation of church and state upon which this nation is premised"

1. Do you think that the surge "weakened our standing in the world"?

2. Let me assure that  your children wouldn't not be forced to pray in school, you wouldn't not be forced to convert or to walk on Shabbat. The worst that might happen is a prayer at a graduation ceremony in  schools. It's not the end of this nation.

3. The President Obama will sign all bills submitted Pelosi. This is all he would do to  fix" our economy . Do you trust Pelosi with unchecked power to "fix"  our economy ?

Ginzy:  Having now read your earlier post and the others on that thread, I do see your point and understand your position.  I have grave reservations about Obama vis-a-vis Israel, but McCain and Palin scare me on both domestic and foreign policy issues.  (Indeed the nature of McCain's campaign tells me that he is totally unprincipled and untrustworthy.)

Thanks for your always thoughtful and thought provoking posts.

jacobt1:

1.  The war in Iraq, which I never supported, has drained our military and financial resources, leaving us ill prepared for future crises in the middle east or elsewhere in the world or here at home.  It has also allowed Iran to expand its sphere of influence.  If a non-failed state does emerge in Iraq, it will likely be an islamist  one.  Yes, Sadam Hussain was a dangerous man.  But I don't think that our actions in Iraq, including the surge, have made or will make the middle east any safer, more stable, or democratic.  

2.  I grew up with prayer and Bible reading in school.  (That's how old I am!)  That part doesn't really bother me.  Banning abortion and contraception concern me.  Teaching creationism concerns me.  Abstinence only (non) sex-ed concerns me.  Making one religion's doctrine the law of the land is un-American and really concerns me.  You are a fool if you think that "The worst that might happen is a prayer at a graduation ceremony in  schools."  There is no room for free thought or non-conforming behavior in the evangelical world.

3.  McCain will veto all bills submitted by Pelosi and nothing will get done.  Republican corporatism, laissez-faire, benign neglect and deficit expanding policies have been strong contributors to our current dire straights.  These same policies will not get us out of this mess!

dalerenee,

1. Based on your dogmatic opinion about surge, you should vote for Obama.

2. Banning abortion and contraception should not concern you. It's not going to happen. The worst case is that each state would decide on abortion restriction.

"Making one religion's doctrine the law of the land is un-American and really concerns me."

I guess, your life is so easy of this imposible danger  really concern you.

3. Last time with Republican congress and Democratic president things were not that bad.

Correction and Post Script:

In my massive missive above I wrote, "...Kurtzer pointedly did refer to the Palestinian terrorists ...as "terrorists...".  That should have been  "...Kurtzer pointedly did NOT refer to the Palestinian terrorists ...as "terrorists...".

Post Script to Sleepy Avi, "Perhaps Natan Sharansky is an anti-Semite too? After all, the Russia he grew in was anti-Semitic. By your logic, he was probably influenced by it."

If you ask Sharansky (or if you have opportunity to hear him talk) he will readily admit to being heavily influenced by his growing up in the Soviet Union in general, and by its traditional anti-Semitism in particular.  It was those experiences (and he freely and proudly says as much) that made him into a prouid Jew, a Zionist, a believer in the idea of national identity, and perhaps more than anything else a fierce advocate for democracy and freedom of speech (what he calls the "Town Square Test"). (Full disclosure:  I voted for Sharansky's party, in large part because of him, in the last two elections of their existence).

My point is that influence can be both positive and negative.  Postive when your beliefs and ideas take on more agreement with the source of influence (even if for a bad cause) to the point of total acceptance, or negative when your beliefs and philosophy become less in agreement with the source of influence to the point of total recoil.  So yes, Sharansky was negatively influenced by the Soviet Union (and I am grateful for that) and for all the reasons I laid out above, I strongly suspect (but can't prove)  that Kurtzer was positively influenced by Edward Said, either directly or indirectly.

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata