Friday, December 30, 2011

Anti-Semitism at Warwick University

Smadar Bakovic, a Jewess from Neveh Ilan near Jerusalem, has won a long campaign against Warwick University and her anti-Israel dissertation supervisor Professor Nicola Pratt. Miss Bakovic was studying for a Master’s degree in the Department of Politics and International Studies, under the academic direction of Professor Pratt. Her dissertation was concerned with the identity of Israeli Arabs after the second intifada.

It transpires that Professor Pratt is a notable activist against all things Israeli, and is a leading proponent of the campaign to boycott, divest and impose sanctions. She was a signatory to a letter in the Guardian calling for Israel to lose the battle with Hamas, stating that the ‘massacres in Gaza are the latest phase of a war Israel has waged against the people of Palestine’.

Understandably, Miss Bakovic was a little perturbed by this, and asked the university to assign her an alternative supervisor. “I am not challenging Prof. Pratt’s intellectual abilities,” she wrote politely. “I’m sure she is extremely competent... (but) I would be much happier that a person who is not involved in anti-Israel campaigns be my supervisor.”

Her request was refused.

In due course, Miss Bakovic’s dissertation was awarded a ‘pass’ (60%) by Professor Pratt. This was substantially beneath the standard of the rest of Miss Bakovic’s degree work, which was of ‘distinction’ level. One of Professor Pratt’s criticisms of the dissertation was that Miss Bakovic had a tendency to ‘adopt Israeli/Zionist narratives as thought they were uncontested facts’. As an example, Professor Pratt cited the student’s point that minorities in Arab countries did not have equal citizenship rights. Professor Pratt countered: “That is not strictly correct. Minorities in Arab countries have the same citizenship rights as the majority but there are usually restraints on the freedom of religion (except Lebanon) and also limits on minority cultural expression in Syria. More significantly, there are restraints on citizenship rights in general for the whole population.”

Right.

Professor Pratt is supposed to be an ‘expert’ in the politics of the Middle East, and apparently has no knowledge at all of Egypt’s Coptic Christians or of Gaza’s gays. If minorities in Arab countries have the same citizenship rights as the majority, why are minorities so persecuted? Is she not aware of the plight of the kuffar and infidels throughout the region? Of their systematic eradication under autocratic Arab regimes? And minorities aside (since Professor Pratt is also keen on feminist narratives), is she not aware of how women are treated in Arab countries?

It is quite incredible that the concerns of a Masters level student went unheeded by Warwick University. It is equally incredible that Miss Bakovic had to contend for seven months against the pervasive Guardianista culture of the education establishment in order to have her academic thesis assessed fairly. After further consideration, the University re-marked the dissertation, and Miss Bakovic was awarded a distinction (71%). One might expect examiners at this level of academia to differ by a few percentage points, but 11% is an unbridgeable gulf.

There is little point in trying to get Professor Pratt put through competency or disciplinary procedures, because her superiors have already shown themselves to be blind to her anti-Semitic views. Of course, had this been a Muslim student complaining against a Jewish professor, the University would have bent over backwards to address the student’s concerns (and the Jewish professor would probably have been summarily dismissed for racism). The academic world appears to be oblivious to the fact that by calling for a boycott of all things Israeli, or by singling out Israel alone as a target for sanctions, amounts to an irrational hatred for Israel and loathing of Jews.

There is prima facie evidence that Professor Pratt's personal political opinions prejudiced her academic objectivity. His Grace would advise Miss Bakovic to leave Professor Pratt to progress her career (the LSE would welcome her with open arms) and focus on suing Warwick University for breach of contract, breach of trust, and failing in their duty of care. This blog stands ready to support her every step of the way.

196 Comments:

Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

Whereas I agree with the general thrust of your article, I don't agree that "....calling for a boycott of all things Israeli, or by singling out Israel alone as a target for sanctions, amounts to an irrational hatred for Israel and loathing of Jews."

For example, I am know that during the apartheid regime in S. Africa, there were people calling for boycotts of all things S. African, and sanctions against that nation, and that for some of those people, S. Africa was the only nation that they were targeting. I don't think that this would necessarily mean that they hated the citizenry of that country.

30 December 2011 at 11:55  
Blogger PJH said...

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/statement_on_recent/

"Secondly, the assertion that the “The dissertation was marked by another professor ....who gave me a higher mark. But....the total mark was very low.” In fact both markers individually independently gave broadly similar marks to this first piece of work, neither of which could in any way be described as “very low”. In fact both those marks equated to a very strong pass.

Thirdly, the University disputes the assertion by the student that there were only marginal differences between the original dissertation and the newly submitted work. The student’s new supervisor, who she was happy with, and who marked the significantly reworked dissertation, says that is incorrect and that there were significant changes between the two submitted pieces of work. At no time was there any 're-mark' of the student’s original submission.
"

30 December 2011 at 12:07  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Good article Your Grace. Calling for boycotts against nation states is the refuge of bigots and charlatans in my view. Who gains from them? Usually those the boycott is intended to "help" suffer most since economic necessity means jobs are lost and factories close down. Good, so now the economy is ruined. What now? Perhaps a popular uprising? A change of government? Let's see one example where that has helped - and South Africa isn't a good example, since the boycotts and sanctions actually hardened attitudes and prolonged apartheid and it will take at least another twenty years for that economy to recover to anything like it's levels of the 1950s and 60s.

Boycotting Israel isn't a sign of racial prejudice? I beg to disagree, since modern Israel is essentially a Jewish dominated state with minorities such as Christians, Gays and those of no faith enjoying freedom of expression and activity, what does the Professor think will be achieved by handing it over to an Arab Regime such as Hamas? Hamas has repeatedly stated that it will accept nothing less than the complete cleansing of ALL Jews from "Palestine" which, again, in their own words includes ALL of Israel and not just the "occupied" bits so beloved of the Professor and her ilk.

I like the universities response to this report and their claim that the dissertation was "substantially" different - but again they don't state which bits were different and what was amended. Your Grace is very right when you point out that the Professor claims to be an "expert" on the Middle East and its politics, yet blithely dismisses as "Zionist Propaganda" and "erroneous" the facts the student included in her report concerning the position of minorities, women and others.

Such bigoted and blinkered thinking should be rooted out of our universities and exposed for the fraud it is - but I won't hold my breath, the Education Establishment is now solidly in the control of the Left and there is no chance they will take any action to correct the abuses they are perpetrating at every level.

30 December 2011 at 12:23  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

The only way that this kind of hatred is going to be expunged from the education system is if there is a concerted effort to have normal people introduced into all levels of the educational establishment. But to do so, there will have to be a substantial support system to protect the normals from the socialists, who undoubtedly will try to destroy the incomers.

30 December 2011 at 12:39  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Oh what a tangled web .... Just who has a tendency to:

‘adopt Israeli/Zionist narratives as thought they were uncontested facts’?

Why has this turned into a personal attack on a particular Professor's politics when the issue is whether she acted improperly in her role as an academic? Where is the evidence of anti-semitism in her dealings with
Miss Bakovic?

It seems the University did explain its position and say this was ignored by the Jewish Chronicle and the published interview with Miss Bakovic presents a narrative "that is quite simply at variance with many of these facts" and makes erroneous assertions.

A polite way of saying someone's telling untruths.

According to the University this student asked for a change of supervisor in one email and subsequently expressed appreciation for the help she received. Until, that is, she failed to get a mark of 'Distinction'. After complaining about this and following a hearing and due process, she was allocated a new supervisor, reworked her paper, resubmitted it and then achieved a higher mark.

30 December 2011 at 12:48  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Mr ABC said ...

"The academic world appears to be oblivious to the fact that by calling for a boycott of all things Israeli, or by singling out Israel alone as a target for sanctions, amounts to an irrational hatred for Israel and loathing of Jews."

Not at all!

Being pro-Palestinian politically is not the same thing as being anti-semitic and hating and loathing Jews. Anti-Israeli? Yes, perhaps, but anti-semitic?

30 December 2011 at 12:59  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Bravo Cranmer - Bravo!

30 December 2011 at 13:00  
Blogger tim 2.0 said...

Anti-Israeli bias? Yes. Anti-semitic? No. They're not the same thing. Sloppy. C minus, could do better.

30 December 2011 at 13:22  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

So let me see if I understand this (and everything I know about this case is contained in Cranmer's blog - I'd never heard of the case before today): 1) A Jewish student objected to having a pro-Palestinian professor; 2)In a single email communication with the university, said Jewish student requested a new professor; 3) University declined; 4)Said student accepted the university's decision until; 5)Said student got a strong pass mark, but not the distinction she wanted; 5) It's all a plot to get the Jews; 6) the 'Guardianistas' at the university, having had the 'anti-Semite' word invoked against them, fold faster than a Brighton deckchair; 7) Cranmer sticks his beak in.

I have got all that right, haven't I?

30 December 2011 at 13:34  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Sorry if I sound facetious, but I do find Cranmer's antics quite laughable at times. I had considered myself as one of the faceless masses who regularly make the exodus from liberalism to conservatism as they get older, but then I started reading this blog. I watch Cranmer as he rants against the so-called 'Guardianista culture' on the one hand (like when it comes to Israel) and I watch when he gets equally red in the face when Muslims attempt to invoke their rights under British law. I watch as he holds up Israel as some kind of beacon of democracy in the Middle East while in the same post holding that its moral standards should only be judged against Arab dictatorships, not the western democratic tradition of which it claims membership.

To quote John Major, I'm just being tough on hypocricy and tough on the causes of hypocricy.

30 December 2011 at 13:42  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Ah, now I remember what I had against conservative values all these years - the hypocricy. Thanks for reminding me, Cranmer.

30 December 2011 at 13:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DoDo

'Being pro-Palestinian politically is not the same thing as being anti-semitic and hating and loathing Jews.

I would say this is totally wrong.

Hamas and Fatah are the acclaimed 'democratic' choices of the displaced yet thriving Islamic people of Gaza and The West Bank. Therefore by their choice of representatives they subscribe to the Charter of Hamas which unambiguously states amongst many similar statements:-

... 'that the Jews deserve God’s/Allah’s enmity and wrath because they received the Scriptures but violated its sacred texts, disbelieved the signs of Allah, and slew their own prophets...

...The Nazism of the Jews does not skip women and children, it scares everyone. They make war against people’s livelihood, plunder their moneys and threaten their honor. In their horrible actions they mistreat people like the most horrendous war criminals. Exiling people from their country is another way of killing them'...


Article 27 of the Charter, describes the PLO [Fatah] as a father, a brother, a relative, a friend; it is talking about Arafat's Fatah, that is linked directly to the policies of his uncle the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the 'Arab Revolt' of 1936 - way before the establishment of the State of Israel.

If as it would appear by Cranmer's evidence the Professor is politically pro-'Palestinian', then unless she condemns their claim to legitimacy, by default she must logically also subscribe to the Hamas Charter principles.

If what I have outlined is not evidence of antisemitism, can you or Corrigan provide an alternative perspective; maybe based on the history of the antisemitism of RC Church?

30 December 2011 at 14:18  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Without knowing all the facts, an instance like this can be too easily misjudged. I too have heard of instances where there has been a clash of wills and ideology between student and Mentor. Additionally cases of so called Christian persecution in the course of their employment have been supported by the popular press but all the facts have not necessarily been declared. In other cases the individuals have not been wise in their actions and it is too easy to play the racist card to support a cause.
We all have to live in a society of very mixed beliefs, see the commentators on this site alone for evidence of this. It is therefore incumbent upon us all to walk with wisdom in what we do. I’m not suggesting that this student knew the circumstances of her Professor before she started her course but I do know that they do have pre Dissertation meetings to go through the content.
I know of other Christians who have written papers that present a Christian perspective and the examiners have been of atheist or other persuasions and have been marked down as a result.
All this should not be, but despite the law, people are people. We must take account of this and without bowing the knee, as I have said before, we need to be as wise as serpents and harmless as Doves.
The Pink lobby have learnt this principle and infiltrated society to the extent whereby there view and position can hardly be contested. Christians and Jews have in history suffered much persecution and their faith has been strengthened in those times. Today, we lack the church leaders to lead their followers in to battle; they are weak kneed liberal apologists. Christians and Jews! Stand up to oppression, but be sure that the case you present is accurate and true so that our enemies can’t claim that we cry Wolf!

30 December 2011 at 14:37  
Blogger English Viking said...

Corrigan1@13:34

No. And John Major would at least have managed to spell it correctly.

With regard to the wench - Pratt by name, prat by nature.

The sooner Israel removes the stain on the map that is Gaza and the West Bank, the better.

30 December 2011 at 15:07  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Mr Integrity said ...
"Today, we lack the church leaders to lead their followers in to battle; they are weak kneed liberal apologists."

Speak for your own Church, please. One can hardly accuse Pope Benedict of this!

Dreadnaught
Have you lost all your senses?

Yeah, yeah, we know Hamas represents all things evil. But Hamas is not the only political alternative to the current intransigent Israeli policies.

You can be pro-Palestinian, in the sense of backing some of their claims and being opposed to current Israeli strategies and tactics, without supporting Islamists and their hatred of the Jews.

Its the either/or way of thinking that's at fault.

Corrigan
You forgot to mention Cranmer has offered the student the support, "every step of the way", of this blog should she wish to sue the University for breach of contract, breach of trust and failing in their duty of care.

The blog owner must have deep pockets!

30 December 2011 at 15:21  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DoDo

'You can be pro-Palestinian, in the sense of backing some of their claims...'

Please explain how this can be so, and which particular 'claims' and what fate for the Israelis if they yield to the demands of Hamas/Fatah and the wider Islamic movement?

30 December 2011 at 15:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Not keen on charges of "anti-semitism" myself. As the Inspector said recently, it's almost akin in the UK to being called a concentration camp guard. Undoubtedly anti-semitism exists and is corrosive but the charge shouldn't be overused I think.

As for this story, I'm always a little suspicious when partisan media, like the Jewish Chronicle in this case, gets involved. By observation, there's usually extra unreported facts to emerge. The statement from the University in comment#2 is quite interesting reading.

30 December 2011 at 15:46  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Dreadnaught
Stop playing games.

Why is seeking agreement on a two state solution and returning disputed territory, or stopping further settlements on this land, presented as giving into Hamas or Fatah and a wider 'Islamist movement'? Resistance seems to me to be feeding the movement.

It's that or endless attrition for both sides. Effectively we have a stale mate. Israel can continue to try and contain the extremists and keep check-points in place and retaliate when terrorist acts occur. This is not working. Or it could use superior force to pound the Palestinian settlements into the ground. Job done. This option is tempting for some but can't succeed because of the anticipated reaction of the West and other Muslim countries.

What's your grand plan for peace?

30 December 2011 at 15:54  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

A blog poster by the name of Dutch Boy at another site serendipitously posted the following, which although unrelated, I think succinctly endorses the thrust of Cranmer's OP.

“West Bank cancels Leonard Cohen concert in protest against Israel”, The Guardian, 14 July 2009.

However:

“Leonard Cohen’s plan to play a sister concert to his Israel gig in Ramallah was scuppered due to pressure from western academics and not primarily due to objections from within the Palestinian community - Cohen’s manager, Robert Kory, told the Forward”.
Forward, 25 September 2009.

Western academics, what poor unguided souls would we be without them?

30 December 2011 at 15:54  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Weak-kneed liberal apologists they are, but surely you'll agree, that is better than being a child molester?

This is where the cat-licks really get my goat, banging on about rag-heads and all the alleged injustice.

They'd have something to whine about if I was in charge - the overtime bill for Mossad would be astronomical, and worth every last shekel.

30 December 2011 at 16:11  
Blogger KCB said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 December 2011 at 16:51  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Viking
Please, let's not compare apples with pears. Abandoning the true mission of the Gospel and misleading people can cause ethernal harm. Assaulting a child causes untold harm to that poor victim.

As for Catholics banging on about the Arabs and alleged injustices, well why not? As I pointed out above the options is Israel are limited. You're proposing removing Gazza and the West Bank from Israel, by force of arms I assume. That is one option but just think of the consequences. I suspect Israel would have done it by now if they thought it was realistic.

30 December 2011 at 16:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

It’s not looking that good is it. Even the knee jerk Inspector smells something ripe nappy-wise. That chap Integrity among others has it right. Missing facts scream out. Being acquainted with ‘honours’ degree types in a work environment, they certainly don’t do or accept second best. In fact, the Inspector believes they put ‘Hons’ next to their academic achievements as a warning to others, (…yellow / black bands on a wasp’s behind comes to mind…).

Must also mention the rank of Professor has been sorely devalued over the years through inflation of numbers. The majority of Professors are holding positions that would have been graded ‘Reader’ or even Senior Lecturer in the past. However, that’s just one opinion and is for information only. [LEGAL NOTE]. The Inspector does not imply that Nicola Pratt is, in his opinion, holding a position she is not eminently entitled to.

30 December 2011 at 17:24  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

Well done for highlighting this one, Cranmer.

This is a situation where we don't know all the facts. But on the face of it, it sounds unsatisfactory. It sounds as if politically motivated discrimination was happening.

If so, in the interests of the university's reputation, the matter should be independently investigated. A court case would certainly be one way to address this.

All of us are human, so bias is inevitable. The question is whether the system curbs this tendency, or allows it free reign. I have a nasty feeling that in the humanities the system does not work in this area at all.

30 December 2011 at 17:26  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

If you think Israel will not do it one day - after being forced into that position - you're mental.

Ooooooh! I looooooove the smell of napalm in the morning!

30 December 2011 at 17:48  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Roger Pearce said ...

"It sounds as if politically motivated discrimination was happening."

Is it possible to be entirely 'objective' when considering 'political' realities? There is no evidence of discrimination in this that I can see, just a difference in perception about 'facts' and in how to present academic arguments. of 'evidence'.

And even if there is tangible evidence of 'political discrimination', which I doubt, is this the same as charging Professor Pratt (unfortunate name)with an irrational hatred of Jews?

30 December 2011 at 17:55  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Don't think I'm going all John Lennon on you, but imagine, just for a moment, a world without mooslims.

See, it's better, isn't it?

C'mon Israel - drop that fecker! Twice!

30 December 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Viking

Now youknow as well as I do that the world would be better without a lot of things. Just imagine one with no heretics - all devout Catholics. That is no longer considered sufficient reason to eliminate people or nuck nations. This isn't a Liverpool v Manchester United derby! Besides, God permits all these things for a reason. What might it be?

30 December 2011 at 20:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

On the subject of football...

Primary Teacher explains to her class that she is a Liverpool fan.

She asks her students to raise their hands if they too are Liverpool fans.

Everyone in the class raises their hand except one little girl.

The teacher looks at the girl with surprise and says, 'Mary, why didn't you raise your hand?'

'Because I'm not a Liverpool fan,' she replied.

The teacher, still shocked, asked, 'Well, if you are not a Liverpool fan, then who are you a fan of?'

'I am a Man United fan, and proud of it,' Mary replied.

The teacher could not believe her ears. 'Mary, why, pray tell, why are you a Man United fan?'

'Because my mum is a Man United fan, and my dad is a Man United fan, so I'm a Man United fan too!'

'Well,' said the teacher in an obviously annoyed tone, 'that is no reason for you to be a Man United fan.

You don't have to be just like your parents all of the time… What if your mum was a prostitute and your dad was a drug addict, what would you be then?'

'Then,' Mary smiled, 'I'd be a Liverpool fan.

30 December 2011 at 21:09  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Inspector
Good one!

30 December 2011 at 21:38  
Blogger English Viking said...

OoIG,

You just made the list.

YNWA.

BTW 3-1.

30 December 2011 at 21:49  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Mark in Mayenne

The boycott of Israel is utterly different from the boycott of South Africa.

In the time of apartheid South African trade unionists travelled to other countries to ask them to boycott the businesses they were trade unionists in. They wanted a better country and were prepared to suffer to attain it.

The people boycotting Israel are the enemies of Israel who would put an end to the Jewish state if they could,

That's a very simple truth and there really isn't anything else one needs to know about the boycotts except that they are reminiscent of Nazi boycotts of German Jewish businesses in the 1930s.

30 December 2011 at 22:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ariadne. Black Africans were far better off with white rule. It was when their own took over did the suffering begin and indeed continues today...

30 December 2011 at 22:20  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Office etc.

I purposely kept my statement narrow.

No-one would be better off if Israel were to disappear.

Your Grace

I can only echo Dreadnaught's "Bravo!"

Bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo, bravo... !

I'm overwhelmed!

30 December 2011 at 22:41  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

Your post at 22:15 is pure 'Goyism' to coin a phrase.

30 December 2011 at 23:27  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace, thank you for raising the profile of this case. So much bias prevails throughout academia, and this fires a warning shot, at least.

The young woman here is fortunate in that she can prove existence of the injustice, and that it parallels other fashionable exempla. I love the bonus that her victimiser is a feminist :) The 'sisterhood' is, of course, merciless in quashing other women who refuse to toe the line, and this case can highlight that dynamic.

Clearly then, I concur with Mr. Pearse @ 17:26 -- 'Humanities' has largely espoused what it terms the 'underpinning' for argument/thought: Marxism. Most of the "theory" they require (including feminisim) bows to that altar and employs its lexicon. A lucky student occasionally deploys 'interdisciplinary studies' as an escape, so I suspect that approach is part of the strength behind Your Grace's final suggestion.

Bravo, as the others say!

30 December 2011 at 23:42  
Blogger English Viking said...

All hail the Jews!

No, really, the masters of the world, with any luck.

I show my private parts to mooslims, epecially those feckers in Gaza and the West Bank.

Utter feckers.

31 December 2011 at 01:56  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Israel hates Arabs (most of them Muslims) so much they constitute almost 20% of Israel's population and enjoy full equal rights as citizens, some holding high office (Knesset, diplomatic service etc.).

On the other hand non-Muslims under the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Egypt, Iran and Saudi Arabia (to name but a few) absolutely do not, no matter what anti-Semitic morons like Prof. Stupid-Pratt claim, have a governing system that would permit Jews/Israelis any kind of equality, let alone high office. They only call for death and destruction.

Meanwhile, the increasingly put upon and diminishing returned UK taxpayers will pick up the bill for the fall-out of this unspeakable leftist crap.

Again!

Why aren't we issuing P45's already?

31 December 2011 at 09:15  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you for tackling this issue, You Grace. This sort of stuff, rabid anti-Israel profs penalizing dissenting students, is regular fare in US universities, and has been tried in Canada with far less success, as our media and all three major political parties, especially our governing Conservatives, oppose such nonsense. True, the details will be coming out, but I've no doubt that your "instincts" on this case are sound.

Don't think I don't know what you're up to, English Viking, with your "all hail the Jews!" thing. You undoubtedly recall my promise of free single malt on tap in every home should Her Majesty decide to retire and to bypass her odd son, the Prince of Wales who is too busy with his organic gardens and architectural pastiche projects, and crown me as your jolly monarch. I hope you like pickled herring too, because there will be a lot of it everywhere. I see plots within plots brewing...yes, yes, there will be free ale flowing from public fountains too.

I observe, with some amusement,that your over-the-top bellicose advice on Arabs has stumped the usual suspects. If I were to say, for example, that Israel needs to retain and secure Judea and Samaria, a shit-storm would rain on my head within minutes. You, though, somehow get away with everything. There is something to be said for the in-your-face approach, I guess.

2 January 2012 at 02:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "This sort of stuff, rabid anti-Israel profs penalizing dissenting students, is regular fare in US universities [...] True, the details will be coming out, but I've no doubt that your "instincts" on this case are sound."

What did you make of the University response:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/statement_on_recent/

which PJH posted in comment#2?

The story in the Jewish Chronicle is here:

http://www.thejc.com/node/61139

and reports:

"After a year-long campaign, Ms Bakovic's study on Israeli Arab identity was re-marked by two other Warwick professors and an external marker and received a mark of 71 per cent - a distinction."

yet the University claims that:

"[T]he University disputes the assertion by the student that there were only marginal differences between the original dissertation and the newly submitted work. The student’s new supervisor, who she was happy with, and who marked the significantly reworked dissertation, says that is incorrect and that there were significant changes between the two submitted pieces of work. At no time was there any 're-mark' of the student’s original submission."

On what basis might one favour the Jewish Chronicle report over the University response?

2 January 2012 at 12:03  
Blogger Ariadne said...

On the basis that a lot of people like to keep their jobs no matter what perversions they have to stoop to to do so?

2 January 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ariadne: "On the basis that a lot of people like to keep their jobs no matter what perversions they have to stoop to to do so?"

I mean from our perspective here given that we don't have copies of the work to compare. The actual test of this will be an external assessment of the two submissions, including the differences between them. Anything else at this point is surely based on existing prejudices, which is fine I suppose for a colloquial medium like this ... except perhaps when one is throwing words like anti-semitism around like confetti. It then risks becoming what Sir Humphrey Appleby might call 'a courageous policy'.

2 January 2012 at 13:17  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

Oh dear, is that the full extent of your defence of the one sided report in the Jewish Chronicle? So you think the world is full of 'antisemites' waiting to jump on poor Israelis at University and that nobody really cares?

Evidience, please.

2 January 2012 at 13:31  
Blogger Ariadne said...

DanJ0

The student herself said the pressure was on her to deny her own beliefs from the start.

A Jewish chaplain from another university where Pratt worked earlier said he was pleased when she left because of the hatred she had generated.

However it is good to see the post from UCL above. It is one of the great ones I'd hate to see among the fallen.

2 January 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DanJO, none of us can fully assess the case at this point from news reports and statements by the university which were written by their lawyers, no doubt. However, my experiences as a student, my familiarity with similar battles in universities in the US and Canada, and my trust in His Grace's assessments, lead me to the reasonable assumption that this is yet another case of academic bullying by another politicized academic shlock. We are not a court of law and we are allowed to speculate here.

But you miss the point. Regardless of what the particulars in the dispute between the student and the university are I, among many, define the boycott of Israel movement, which singles out only Israel and Israelis (and lately any Jew unwiling to condemn Israel) and mimics Nazi Germany's boycott of Jews, as a crystal clear case of antisemitism. I have no qualms in calling its supporters and activists, be they tenured professors, naive students, morons or "dissenting" Jews, "antisemites."

2 January 2012 at 16:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "We are not a court of law and we are allowed to speculate here."

You're not just speculating, you've decided already based on your prejudices. Whilst noting the "prima facie" bit, I think the blog owner has rather loaded it one way too. Of course, blog articles are often better with a bit of oompf behind then but he could look rather foolish over this. We Liverpudlians have a phrase for situations like this: "look, cool 'ed. Cool 'ed, eh?" Much better to keep a cool head at this point, I think.

The anti-semitic label thing will end up, or perhaps already has ended up, in the same camp as "the race card" with this sort of over use. Israel, like any other country, almost certainly does stuff that can be legitimately criticised. To do so does not make people anti-semitic.

2 January 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger Ariadne said...

It's a denial of free speech issue too, DanJ0.

Who goes to university to be gagged? And what about Israelis planning to study here?

2 January 2012 at 17:20  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DanJO, while this case drags on through inquiries and possibly the courts, having the limelight on the universities is certainly benefitial, I think. The attention and publicity in North America has certainly chilled the trend of leftist professors penilizing conservative students and colleagues and those with balanced or pro-Israel views. Grading requirements are being standardized and made more objective, with greater oversight by department heads. Acedemics who were afraid to speak up in the past are doing so now. These a good developments, the screams of "censorship" and "McCartyism" not withstanding

You are asking me to give the benefit of the doubt to a professor who has declared her sentiments. I don't have to; as I said I'm not running a court of inquiry and I'm free to judge things in view of my experience and upon opinions of those I find credible.

"The anti-semitic label thing will end up, or perhaps already has ended up, in the same camp as "the race card" with this sort of over use. Israel, like any other country, almost certainly does stuff that can be legitimately criticised. To do so does not make people anti-semitic." Yes, yes, over-use is unwise and how Israel can be criticised because it isn't perfect. Sure, yes to both; I see examples on the blogs of fellow travellers jumping the gun all the time, and it's both strategically unwise and ethically wrong. But what you saying exactly? Does it mean that the dreaded word must be dropped from use until someone approves? Does it mean any criticism of Israel, including outright lies and slander and unfair singling out must be respected and accepted? Can you give me one example where I have been cavalier in my use of the term? You may not agree with me about my targets and wording, but I can at least provide logical and consistent arguments for my judgments, whereas all you've been consistently expressing are canned polyanish warnings without an attempt to define what antisemitism is or is not.

2 January 2012 at 17:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ariadne: "It's a denial of free speech issue too, DanJ0."

Whose speech? The professor's or the student's?

The assumption in the article, and in some of the comments, is that the professor in her academic role was biased against the student given the professor's personal views. It's clearly a contested point and I've yet to see anything substantive to show that she was. Some of this stuff is bordering on libel.

"Who goes to university to be gagged? And what about Israelis planning to study here?"

One goes to university for many things but primarily for most people it's for the academic award at the end of the study. Especially as a full Master's course costs £10K or more the last time I looked.

The student submitted a dissertation, or two different versions of it if the university is to be believed, in support of her degree.

Dissertations aren't polemics or opinion pieces, they're formal papers falling under a marking strategy. Which numpty demands free speech for the content of one of those?

2 January 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Smadar obviously needed such a right!

She was interviewed by Adam Levick of CiF Watch.

Pratt's conduct is being investigated.

And perhaps you should look at the petition "Fire Professor Nicola Pratt now".

I certainly didn't write a dissertation in which I couldn't back up every point and I have no doubt that Smadar had the same intention.

A decent university would have been delighted to have an Israeli insider's knowledge of Israeli Arabs.

2 January 2012 at 20:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've already read those things, including that the QAA has not yet received a complaint. "I have no doubt that [...]", "A decent university would have been [...]", etc. You're down to groundless assertions, slurs, and so on now, rather ironically exhibiting unreasonable bias simply on the basis of the 'Jewishness' of one side of it. It's not great, is it? Give it up.

2 January 2012 at 22:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

A link to the QAA thing. Note the Update - 30 December box in light blue.

The thing that stands out for me in this story is that the student had reservations at the start, the university didn't act when they were raised (once, by email, according to them), and they have recognised that it would have been better to have done so. That is not to say that the reservations need have any merit of course. A perceived conflict of interest perhaps should be enough.

2 January 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne said ...

"A decent university would have been delighted to have an Israeli insider's knowledge of Israeli Arabs."

Deary me!

What can you mean by "insider's knowledge"? Presumably the University expected academic rigour and balanced, evidenced based arguments.

2 January 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger Ariadne said...

DanJ0

Perhaps you should look at the "Events" that university put on in 2011.

Then look at the company Pratt keeps. Hisb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood.

If you think there's actual knowedge of Israel - real learning - there, prove it.

2 January 2012 at 23:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ariadne, scraping barrels to try to prop up your clearly very partisan position is not helping you here.

The professor may have strong and arguably unreasonable personal views but this case turns on whether she was able to separate them from her professional role as supervisor, not the fact that she has them.

Earlier, you were raising a point about freedom of speech in universities [1]. Tell me, does the professor have that too?

[1] I'd normally argue that personal and professional lives should be kept separate but academia seems to be one recognised exception to this general rule.

2 January 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

So anyone who publically objects to Israeli actions and calls for protests against that State should be excluded from University teaching.

All very free thinking and democratic. The ADL must be so proud of you. Just take it a step further, why don't you? Anyone who makes an Israeli feel unaccepted or that their views are not accepted, should be removed.

2 January 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, I know you really like it when I "butt-in" as you lovingly call it, so here I go.

Professor Pratt isn't really just "anyone who publically(sic.) objects to Israeli actions and calls for protests against that State," as you put it in your characteristically oily way, is she now? She gallivants with the most disgusting Islamicists and publicly backed a murderous terrorist organization, Hamas, which has stated its genocidal goals in its official charter and which routinely targets Jewish schools and daycares with rockets. And amidst all of the horrors in the Middle East and the world this dirtbag, masquerading as a scholar, sides with a Nazi-style boycott of only one state, the Jewish State. You have clued in, I hope, that His Grace was being Old World gentlemanly when he politely referred to her as an "antisemite."

But let me see if I understand you, Dodo. You routinely rile against the Gays and their supposed "influence," bemoan the loss of "Christian values" in the schools and then you puff-up your chest to supposedly defend the "right" of a terror-supporting antisemite to essentially impose her psychosis and collaboration with criminals on hundreds of students and you trust her to actually evaluate anyone's work?

3 January 2012 at 01:49  
Blogger Sarah said...

DanJ0 - I appreciate the logic of your comments, which seem quite compatible with finding Pratt's views extremely uncongenial and being strongly oppposed to boycotts.

3 January 2012 at 08:51  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi
Did I say I agreed with the Professor?

Where is your evidence she "gallivants with the most disgusting Islamicists" or "publicly backed a murderous terrorist organization, Hamas"?

And, of most relevance to the point in question, where is your evidence she is imposing her political views on her poor unthinking, presumably mentally challenged students? This particular case, on the evidence presented so far, shows no such thing.

She and others are perfectly entitled to question and publically challenge Israeli use of overwheming force on the Palestinian communities - whether you or others like it or not and neither are my particular views are relevant. And as an academic she is charged with requiring logic and proper balance based on evidence - that is seeing and presenting positions from both sides of any divide - from her students.

This comment of yours is sheer lunacy:
" ... defend the "right" of a terror-supporting antisemite to essentially impose her psychosis and collaboration with criminals on hundreds of students ..."

Supporting a boycott does not make anyone a "terror supporting antisemite" and it is certainly not evidence of "psychosis" or "collaboration with criminals"!

Have I ever advocated banning anyone from sharing their views on atheism or homosexuality? No! Have I ever suggested they should be removed from public service or teaching? No! True, I believe their ideas are toxic and deluded and should be kept away from children. But I would never deny them their right to advocate these views , provided I am given an equal right to oppose them.

3 January 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo,

Left a comment on the other thread we're fistiffing on, but my comments keep on disappearing.

Anyway, here you're complicating matters again with unrelated fluff. First of all, I'm going by HG's description and conclusions because, as I said, I think that he is right about his general assessment of the story.

No one is trying to shut up the professor. Evidently, she is quite able to express her idiocy for the world to see. However, students fork out a lot of money and expect to receive competence and integrity among the other stuff they pay for. Pratt is an activist, with a documented history of hostility to Israel and support for a terror organization...read His Grace's post for the details. The Israeli student, who described her experiences with Pratt quite credibly (at an interview) in my opinion and justifiably concluded that Pratt is biased and would not provide an objective evaluation, asked for another professor before she began her dissertation. The university refused it and now it looks to me like it's compounding its pigheaded stupidity with mendatious lawyerly gobledeygook.

This is not a unique situation. This occurs all too frequently lately, perhaps because as the Inspector rightly points out, professors are not what they used to be. Until flakes who can't separate their ideologies, whatever ideologies they may be, from their duty start getting dismissed for their incompetence, this will happen again and again.

Similar thing happenned to me in a summer course, where the prof and I were waging a veritable war of ideas in his class over his extreme anti-Israel bias. The guy was teaching a 19th century course on the ME, but kept popping off unrelated anti-Israel remarks at any chance he got. As you may well imagine, I didn't hold my peace.

However, this is where the comparison ends. My prof was not only fair with evaluating my work on its scholarly merits alone, but accepted late submissions from me and without being asked, gave me a chance to rewrite an essay I sort of bungled for a better mark. That is an example of an academic with integrity and honour. I despise his politics, but appreciate the opportunity he gave me to learn so many things about the "other side" and I hope that he had a long and successful career at my alma mater.

4 January 2012 at 02:44  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi

You've no real evidence to base your opinion of this Professor's academic integrity on, have you? The student's interview and the University's statement stand as the testimonies and I don't read latters as legal gobbledygook.

60% is a good, solid mark for an MSc paper, with 45% being a pass if memory serves. Dissertations have to be balanced, present opposing views and reference sources. Isn't it possible the student's personal experiences, whilst valid, resulted in the deficits the Professor identified? Until we know the extent of any rewrite, we're speculating the change of superviser was critical and defaming her character.

Until there is hard evidence her political views interferred with her academic professionalism its best to hold one's tongue.

4 January 2012 at 13:46  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo,

Again, you obfuscate matters, with you rather familiar way of puting words into others mouths. I note with amusement that you have taken your religious ideologue's hat in this case and have transformed yourself into a human version of small-type at the back of an aspirin bottle.

I, as a commentator on a blog do not have or need whatever you may approve as "real evidence," to ask questions or to form and express opinions. As I said, in every post it seems, my evidence comes primarily from His Grace's article and from what I know about the general problem of politicized academia, professional incvompetence and bias and censorship. I also said, that no matter what the facts in this case may turn out to be, the larger issue of academic bias and incompetence, and well-documented and clear cases of suppression of pro-Israel expressions in Western universities all need to be seriously investigated.

So, again, from where I sit a student has made a complaint that is not unusual at all and she has also provided very believable details about her interactions with the professor in question. That is real evidence. In my opinion, the university ha submitted its own real evidence, which is inferior to the student's. I charge that the university is attempting an administrative white-wash in the pattern of what we have seen in the US and Canada and the kind that is being challenged here more than in Europe. I see it as an attempt to nudge the debate in the direction you clearly prefer, by offering a boilerplate glowing report on their employee, by hinting sadly that the student is merely involved in a personal kerfaffle with a single professor, and by burrying facts under a mound of legalistic and administrative minutia. If I'm right, this is the same dirty strategy of protecting employees and cronies while shafting students, and investigations are in order with some substantial penalties for any misconduct.

So, of course you want people to hold their tongues. If people held their tongues nothing would have happened. The student would have accepted her mark as good-enough (your suggestion) and His Grace and others would not have heard of the case and the dreaded charge of antisemitism, a phenomenon which according to you is no longer a problem, would not have been levelled. And without a free debate no publicity, and without that no need ever for a "real investigation," right? What a clever Dodo you are.

4 January 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

In the UK, we have a phenomenon of howling mobs outside of court rooms calling for punishment in some high profile cases before due process has occurred. The due process of course involves looking at the evidence in a systematic way with a view to reaching a judgement. The mobs in some cases run along side the prisoner van banging on the sides and shouting abuse. It's very unedifying. As Ariadne posted up there, there's a petition currently signed by 531 such people calling for her to be fired from her job. This is presumably her livelihood and she may well be innocent of the charges. As far as I'm concerned, there's quite a difference between 'fair comment' and 'defamation' and a lot of this stuff is the latter at this point.

4 January 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We never got an answer to this either: "Earlier, you were raising a point about freedom of speech in universities. Tell me, does the professor have that too?" Funny, that.

4 January 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Is that the royal "we" Komrad DanJ0? You and Dodo, perhaps?

4 January 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi
Goodness, you are like a dog with a bone.

When did I ever say anti-semiticism is no longer a problem? Unlike you I don't believe it lurks unspoken, as a kind of metaphysical energy, behind every criticism of an individual Jew or of the State of Israel.

To assume because someone's political convictions are anti-Israel that they must be a Jew-hater and that this colours all their other dealings with Jews, is frankly absurd. And that's what going on here.

The University played by the rules and the student got the Distinction after reworking and resubmitting her paper. Thereafter, the charges were made. I've read the same material as you and arrived at a different perspective. Add to this my dislike of Ed Miliband and I guess this makes me an anti-semite.

4 January 2012 at 20:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ariadne: "Is that the royal "we" Komrad DanJ0? You and Dodo, perhaps?"

Komrad DanJ0? Well, look at that.

I carefully argue the case in a non-partisan way and I'm faced with blatant pro-Jewish prejudice. Bigotry, really. And now slightly bizarre abuse.

Does the professor not have freedom of speech too, Ariadne? You're clearly avoiding the answer now.

4 January 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

DanJ0

The word's anti-goyism! Yes, it exists and unsavoury it is too.

4 January 2012 at 21:22  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Israel barred Pratt's entry in 2004.

Pratt was at the University of Exeter. Enough said for anyone who knows anything about Israel.

Pratt, Gramsci, Marx.

4 January 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

I thought she was barred entry to the West Bank in 2009? Perhaps because she signed a petition against Israeli policies she was seen as a threat to national security. A potential terrorist, perhaps?

Anyway, I guess that its then. The revelation about the University of Exeter seals it ... nudge, nudge, wink, wink. We all know what that means.

I see this 35 year old student is claiming in interviews she suffered all this stress and trauma "for the sake of Israel". She'll go far!

4 January 2012 at 23:00  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DanJO, did you address the freedom of speech thing to me? If so, yes, freedom of speech is important in universities. For academics and students. Important too are competence, transparency in hiring and promotions, academic integrity and tolerance for genuine diversity of views. If you are so big on freedom of speech as you are claiming, help out students hauled in and penalized for politically sensitive expression; well paid, unionized and university-protected academics don't need your worries as much.

Dodo,

Seems like your attacks on imaginary statements and positions are keeping you busy enough. Talk with yourself.

5 January 2012 at 00:10  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi

My imagination and capacity for telling tales is dwarfed by yours!

5 January 2012 at 01:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "DanJO, did you address the freedom of speech thing to me?"

No. It was Ariadne's point. Though she appears to have abandoned it and left it to die now she has been hoisted by her own petard.

"If you are so big on freedom of speech as you are claiming, help out students hauled in and penalized for politically sensitive expression [...]"

It is a contested point, the main contested point, whether the student in this case was penalised like that at all.

It is entirely possibly the student simply played the 'Jewish card' after being disappointed at her legitimate mark. Clearly, we are unable to say one way or the other here. Except you, Ariadne, and the article (the prima facie noted) have decided from afar anyway.

The professor appears to have rather strident, very politicised views. She also makes full use of her right to free speech, perhaps inadvisedly so to my mind. However, that is not the same as being unprofessional in regard to supervision of a masters degree.

There are real and individual people involved here and the professor in particular could lose her job, reputation, and perhaps livelihood over this. It needs to be resolved properly, not have pro-Jewish prejudice maliciously try to trash her professional reputation anyway.

5 January 2012 at 06:21  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Avi

When individuals ignore the antisemitism of boycotters whose acts are based in falsehood and hate there is nothing to talk to them about.

There are rewards in academic life for being antisemitic and that is monstrous.

5 January 2012 at 11:17  
Blogger Ariadne said...

From the archive:

http://www.isurvived.org/2Queries/Q1-DrWilkiesLab-NoJews.html

An editor's note:

2. It is important to note the nature of Dr. Wilkie's apologies and namely that Dr. Wilkie does not apologies herein for his views but rather his apologies are directed squarely on Mr. Duvshani's feelings that may have been hurt.

That was very large-scale discrimination. Do Israel's enemies really doubt that smaller-scale discrimination exists?

And what other end of the road for Israel do these enemies envisage but extinction?

5 January 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Introduction to the blog Point of No Return

In just 50 years, almost a million Jews, whose communities stretch back up to 3,000 years, have been 'ethnically cleansed' from 10 Arab countries. These refugees outnumber the Palestinian refugees two to one, but their narrative has all but been ignored. Unlike Palestinian refugees, they fled not war, but systematic persecution. Seen in this light, Israel, which which absorbed most of these Jewish refugees, is the legitimate expression of the self-determination of an oppressed indigenous, Middle Eastern people.

This website is dedicated to preserving the memory of the near-extinct Jewish communities, which can never return to what they once were. It will attempt to pass on the stories of the Jewish refugees and their current struggle for recognition and restitution. Awareness of the injustice done to these Jews can only advance the cause of peace and reconciliation.

(Iran: once an ally of Israel, Iran is now an implacable enemy and numbers of Iranian Jews have fallen drastically from 80,000 to 20,000 since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Their plight - and that of all other communities threatened by Islamism - does therefore fall within the scope of this blog.)


Is there any BDS movement against these Arab and Muslim countries?

5 January 2012 at 12:52  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne said ...

"When individuals ignore the antisemitism of boycotters whose acts are based in falsehood and hate there is nothing to talk to them about."

Well, well, well. So much for freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom to hold a political opinion that might be contrary to Israeli interests!

5 January 2012 at 12:53  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

'Point of No Return' - will Israel ever agree to the Arabs and their descendants (was it (750,000?) who were living in the mandated Palestine area prior to 1948, returning to the lands they once owned and lived on?

5 January 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DanJO,

As you know or should know, Pratt would never have been hired or kept as an associate prof had she been an activist campaigning against Blacks, Muslims or Gays. Instead, Pratt is in the fashionable field of "gender studies," and a supporter of Hamas, a terror organization with a stated goal of destroying Israel and a record of targetting Jews. She is also an activist in the boycott of Israel (only) and Israelis (Jewish ones) movement. These things may make her acceptable in the echo chambers of today's academia, but to others she is merely a modern antisemite, someone on the level of a Klan member, White Power activist or a skinhead...in my dreadful Zionist imperialist opinion, of course, which I presume I'm also free to express as long as I still can.

Your touching concern over Pratt's reputation and career is sweet but unnecessary; she has her department, professional associations and union behind her. Not to mention scores of sympathetic fellow travellers for which Europe's academia is known for. Her students have nothing much, apparently not even the right to ask for another dissertation and to voice complaints after their hassles.

Miss Bakovic seems hardly like the clever Jewess trying to shill for Israel and to game the system as you imply. When she thought that the prof was unlikely to provide an objective evaluation, she sensibly attempted to avert trouble, asked for someone else and was refused. That was obviously a mistake and the university agreed eventually and she was granted a review and the opportunity to make even substantial changes to her submission. I chuckle at the thought that if the university initially believed that they scored another anti-Israeli Jewish mascott for its activists to use as a fig leaf cover, they were disappointed to find a proud former officer in the IDF and an Israeli patriot instead.

There isn't and never was such a thing as freedom of expression in universities, DanJO. Today there are formal speech policies which substantially limit rights to expression on campus and proactive efforts to urge academics and students to follow particular positions, specifically positive attitudes towards and "celebrations" of diverse cultures and sexual orientation. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree, it's the way things are. This is why you will not find professors who criticise the ending of slavery in the US, student societies hailing racial purity, history courses on the benefits of colonialism or professors openly promoting mysogyny or homophobia. You are free to side with anyone you want to, DanJO, but aknowledge to yourself at least that what you are doing is calling for an exceptional kid gloves treatment for an activist opposed to the very existence of a country you don't particularly like.

6 January 2012 at 05:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "Your touching concern over Pratt's reputation and career is sweet but unnecessary [...]"

I don't have a concern, touching or not, over the professor's specific career. This is a matter of justice and basic decency.

"Miss Bakovic seems hardly like the clever Jewess trying to shill for Israel and to game the system as you imply."

I imply no such thing. It's actually astonishing that you're so deep in your hole that you're seeing it that way.

"You are free to side with anyone you want to, DanJO [...]"

It seems impossible to get the point across, it's like talking to a KU Klux Klan member: I am siding with no-one here. None of us can without displaying undue prejudice. You presumably see this neutral position as partisan in the opposite direction because you are in such an extreme position yourself. Here in the sidelines to the case, I think you and Ariadne are the extremists and bigots. You're as guilty of this as you imagine the professor to be and openly by your own words too. It's a bit sad to see, to be frank, and quite eye-opening.

6 January 2012 at 07:29  
Blogger Ariadne said...

I think you and Ariadne are the extremists and bigots.

Of course you do. All antisemites are dictatorial but it's not your way or the highway.

Short of brain lesions or other damage it is almost impossible to reverse knowledge. But fellow-travellers never stop either trying to do that or to ridicule or insult truth out of existence. It doesn't work.

6 January 2012 at 09:34  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Avi

I was struck by your use of the phrase "Israeli patriot". It's anathema to Marxists but that isn't why it's interesting.

On a quick Google I found quite a few pejorative or skewed uses of the phrase. But here's one very good one.

An Israeli patriot: an interview with Druze MK Ayoub Kara

6 January 2012 at 09:50  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Dreadnaught

Your point on 30 Dec at 15:54 on the Leonard Cohen concert is a very important one.

It is far more than ridiculous for Western "academics" to interfere in a foreign country. It is an outrage that foreign-funded NGOs act against Israel's interests.

If all the interfering unbalanced lying Marxist and other halfwits with nothing better to do with their time than ignore Muslim slaughter and victimise Jews in the form of the Jewish state just slid into the vast cesspool of their own fictions Israeli - Arab peace could become much more likely.

For some of the war-loving halfwits of course there is a financial reward for their hateful bigotry and violence.

6 January 2012 at 10:31  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Right, DanJO, when no answers to nagging questions come to mind and when poor arguments go nowhere, it's back to the level-headed, reasonable moderate persona, the exasperated even-Steven man "on the sidelines": "It seems impossible to get the point across..." (perhaps harder than getting a decent cup of coffee, even) "...it's like talking to a KU Klux Klan member" I am siding with no-one here."
Which is how we get such paragons of rhetorical fairness from you:

"It is entirely possibly the student simply played the 'Jewish card' after being disappointed at her legitimate mark...It needs to be resolved properly, not have pro-Jewish prejudice maliciously try to trash her professional reputation anyway."

Yes, the well-known spectre of malicious "pro-Jewish prejudice" haunting the cowed halls of academia resulting, understandably, in such defensive strategies as physical attacks on Jewish students at major universities. Coupled to Dodo's crisis of rampant "anti-Goyism" by 0.19% of the world's population against unfortunate billions, and we have clear signs of a civilizational crisis. Good thing you guys are on the ball, though.

PS: In comparing Ariadne and me to the KKK, are you sure you didn't make this mistake: http://worldto3d.blogspot.com/2011/09/man-in-ice-cream-cone-costume-mistaken.html

6 January 2012 at 16:03  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ariadne, the Druze MK, who has honourably served in the IDF, and the growing number of Muslims in government are rarely mentioned and almost never featured in the MSM, with the result that I still hear people asking if an Arab in Israel is allowed to vote or speak his own language. Total information blackouts and banal repetitions in the approved "narrative" are the doctrines of the New Journalism. They trump "old fashioned" reporting and laugh at the old hands who worked their way up from a paper route. Plain facts are so yesterday nowadays.

I recently heard a senior journalist have a rare candid moment on a radio show in which he blurted out that a Palestinian state and a strategically weakened and a geographically split Israel would already have been a reality, with the second phase, the "one state" solution, well in progress. All seemed to steam ahead nicely through the placid waters of public opinion until, out of nowhere, decades of hard and coordinated work between the "responsible" media and international organizations and governments, and their spectacular successes in "educating" the public about the Middle East, all suddenly collapsed with the Internet explosion and the unforseen emergence of "irresponsible" rightist blogs which viciously destroyed the credibility and authority of the "professionals." I suppose he had the Photoshopped images by Reuters, staged rock-throwing fests, the Al Dura hoax and streams of skewed editorials in mind. The interviewer asked him, rather politely, what remedies he would suggest, and the journo lit-up and went on to rattle-off in scary detail the urgent need for UN-led and internationally implemented policies and measures to tax and "clean up" the Internet by monitoring and controlling ISPs, by requiring certification of bloggers and imposing fees, fines, bureaucratic controls and even mandated membership in existing writers' unions. The Internet, he explained, can be used as a force for good, by allowing qualified researches to speedily correct errors and to supply apropriate content affordably. Obviously he and his kind have thought about this rather deeply, a process no doubt energized by the plummeting authority and income the MSM has been hobbled by lately. For some reason.

6 January 2012 at 17:12  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Avi

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. We have to be gagged because we need Arab oil. We have to be gagged since so many other Muslims swallowing Arab lies have come to our countries from their murderous hellholes to turn ours into a murderous hellhole if we tell the truth. And now we have to be gagged because a little truth is getting "out there" on the web.

There were reports of the moderation of post-protest Tunisia in all that Arab delirium. Tunisia has just welcomed Haniyeh with shouts of "Kill the Jews".

There's some blackening of Smadar's character going on here. And I've had a look at some postgrad work on Israeli Arabs and all I've found is Marxism-based ideology.

I don't know how we get back to knowledge from here. A new David Hume, perhaps? A messiah? Hope that doesn't summon up Dodo.

6 January 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "Yes, the well-known spectre of malicious "pro-Jewish prejudice" haunting the cowed halls of academia resulting, understandably, in such defensive strategies as physical attacks on Jewish students at major universities."

The pro-Jewish prejudice is right here. No spectres needed. No airy hands waved elsewhere needed. Here. Demonstrably written in black and white. Writ large, too. It's for all to read. This sort of thing happens: people can become what they profess to despise. In this case: bigots and extremists over Israel.

The blog owner has used the term Gay Mafia in the past to describe a similar process in gay rights groups. What we have here is the equivalent: Jewish Mafia. Criticism of Israel will not be tolerated. Even being even-handed in a case like this is anti-semitism in this environment. The Independent is famous for the nutters in the comments area of its Israel-Palestine articles. I'm suddenly seeing how and why it happens now.

6 January 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 January 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Gosh, DanJO. That should learn us. Let it all hang out, eh? Now I'm all gun-shy. Would any pushback against the canards, antisemitism and the elusive "criticism" against Israel be ok ? I mean, you're for defending the right of a professor to say any ugly crap she wants, but any talk-back and we run into the incalculable dangers of "pro-Jewish prejudice" and "Jewish Mafias." Whoo-whee, does stuff ever roll out of people for the weirdest of reasons.

With billions in funding for anti-Israel NGOs, terrorists and the entire UN aparatus chisling at the Zionist Entity, it's the "biggots and extremists over Israel" on this blog. That's why we need even-handed people on this blog like you, I guess.

6 January 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "I mean, you're for defending the right of a professor to say any ugly crap she wants, but any talk-back and we run into the incalculable dangers of "pro-Jewish prejudice" and "Jewish Mafias.""

No. The two of you have gone well beyond the notion of fair comment regarding this case, I think you're in malicious defamation territory ... but that's not the actual point here. The whole form of this is what makes it Jewish Mafia stuff but it doesn't appear to be visible to you in your trench. It has an unintended irony: moaning from a prejudicial and biased position about the evils of prejudice and bias. That I am apparently "Komrad DanJ0" and an anti-semite simply for being even-handed, as I must be, about the case given that the facts themselves are contested shows it in stark relief.

6 January 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger Ariadne said...

I omit to mention "Jewish Mafia".

There are not two sides to choose from if one thinks truth matters.

Big Lies: demolishing the myths of the propaganda war against Israel Part 1 with Parts 2 & 3 linked

Nakba: Reclaiming a Historical Truth

Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine under International Law

6 January 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If only we knew what the truth was between the student's account and the university statement. Not that it matters to you by the look of it, the student is Jewish and the professor has personal political views about Israel which are unpalatable so the Jewish account is manifestly true for you even if it might actually be false. It makes me an anti-semite for saying stuff like that, and probably Marxist too.

6 January 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Nyet, tovarishtch DanJO, you don't qualify as an antisemite yet! I obviously didn't throw that dastardly charge at you, so I guess it was your level-headedness that kicked in to provide the necessary drama. You'd have to do better than drop awkward gigglers like "pro-Israel prejudice" or "Jewish Mafias."

As I look around from my trench, I still see no Jewish Mafia but observers paradox perhaps, as you say. With the minions of invisible coreligionists sneaking about here, I thought I'm the only Jew on this blog...well, unless you take Dodo's possible "half-Jew" status at face value. Now, with Dodo around trumpeting his connections to the Tribe whilst up to his charming antics, I can see how anyone could easily become a spittle-flecked, goose-stepping antisemite, but that would be understandable. And treatable, if assisted suicide ever gets the Parliamentary pass.

Your hissy-fit makes quite a splash, but as blinded by prejudices as my poor eyes may be, I can't help noticing that you are still puzzled that some (not too many) people may have a bit of a problem with people who are working openly and proudly towards the destruction of Israel and who are trying to kick-start a one-and-only 1930s-style boycott against the one-and-only Jewish nation. Ok, maybe you think that I'm a provincial with my certainties or that not only is she entitled to her views, but is entitled to imunity from hostility and mockery on account of her being a what? An associate professor? There, that must be it.

Fun and games all this, but that a Gay man is ok with a professor...and a prestigious "gender studies" specialist no less...who declares herself for the Gay-torturing and murdering Hamas terrorists and claims all is hunky-dory with the minorities in the Arab world, is beyond astounding. You're not an antisemite, DanJO, you're just an effing tool.

wv: mates

6 January 2012 at 21:14  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

P: I missed your additional shot at silliness: "...Not that it matters to you by the look of it, the student is Jewish and the professor has personal political views about Israel which are unpalatable so the Jewish account is manifestly true." This is truly embarrassing, DanJO, I must have really pissed you off to get you to spew out such things. Namaste. Have a great one, must run.

6 January 2012 at 21:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It seems that no amount of times I say it, it simply doesn't make the trip. Nevertheless, I'll say it again: I am not supporting anyone in this case. Whether the professor has certain views is immaterial, it's whether she let those views interfere with her supervision of a student that matters. We simply don't know. The very facts are contested. No amount of wide balls, obfuscations, arm flaps, indignation, ascribing positions to me that I don't hold, etc, from you or Ariadne changes that.

6 January 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "This is truly embarrassing, DanJO, I must have really pissed you off to get you to spew out such things."

Can you actually see Ariadne's posts? You don't seem to be able to match up comments and points, sorting the ones directed at you and the ones directed at her. Or were you too angry that someone hasn't taken up an offer he can't refuse, so to speak, that you didn't read the thread with a clear head?

6 January 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi said ...

" ... unless you take Dodo's possible "half-Jew" status at face value. Now, with Dodo around trumpeting his connections to the Tribe whilst up to his charming antics, I can see how anyone could easily become a spittle-flecked, goose-stepping antisemite ... "

Let's be clear Avi I may be a Jew for the purposes of immigration to Israel, given my parentage, but I do not follow the Jewish religion. It is only Jews who can immigrate to Israel, based on their parentage, their faith or convertion, so one day it might prove useful.

I wonder, can citizenship be declined if one is shown to be critical of Israeli politics? Is there an oath of loyalty?

6 January 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger Ariadne said...

An Amazon reader's review of Smadar's book Tall Shadows:

This is a great research tool, one of the most important sociological books to be published about contemporary Israel in English in recent memory. Bakovic's subjects are rarely heard but their complex feelings about their identity as well as their wide-ranging political perspectives on Jews, terrorism, and the state of Israel deserve far greater attention from Jewish Israelis, Palestinians living outside the Middle East, academics, and anyone interested in the current tensions of the Middle East.

7 January 2012 at 19:26  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

Oh well, that's it then. One review settles it. Are you her agent in promoting this book? I guess publicity helps, eh?

7 January 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger Ariadne said...

I wonder if Smadar thought she'd be supervised by a kindred spirit.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/people/pratt/research/

I wonder why Pratt was barred from Israel in 2004.

I wonder if the fact that violence has all been Arab-instigated is reflected in Pratt's work.

8 January 2012 at 12:38  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne said ...

"I wonder if the fact that violence has all been Arab-instigated is reflected in Pratt's work."

So the Irgun, the Lehi, the Haganah and the Palmach were Boy Scouts?

22 July 1946 - 91 people were killed at King David Hotel Bombing mostly civilians, staff of the hotel or Secretariat, 41 Palestinian Arabs, 15-28 British citizens, 17 Palestinian Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian.

One of the most lethal terrorist attacks of the 20th century or a legitimate act with a military target with the deaths the result of British inaction, as claimed by Netanyahu in 2006?

April 9, 1948, 120 fighters from Zionist paramilitary groups attacked Deir Yassin, a Palestinian-Arab village of 600 people. 107 villagers were killed, including women and children.

8 January 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm hoping some more stuff is forthcoming about this case. I see that the former student is working for MediaCentral now. MediaCentral describes itself as "a not-for-profit project, supported by people around the world who care about accuracy." and seems to relate to HonestReporting which uses the subheading "Defending Israel From Media Bias". At the end of the statement from the University disputing the facts is this: "The University explained many of these points to the Jewish Chronicle reporter when asked about this case and we were very disappointed to see that this information was not included in their editorial" i.e. complaining about the accuracy of the article in the Jewish Chronicle.

Perhaps Smadar Bakovic will now say whether the University has presented the facts correctly given her new media position? The contested facts being that the 60% and the 71% relate to two different submissions, the latter being a revised version of the former, and therefore one cannot necessarily infer from the difference in marks that the original submission was mismarked because of anti-semitic bias. In fact, I'd like to see her respond to each of the points raised by the University. If she believes the University itself is behaving inappropriately then this would be fairly easily shown given their public statement. I'd like to know whether the professor did behave unprofessionally and whether the University is covering it up.

8 January 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This is like watching a chamelion crossing a colour chart, DanJO (hmmm, I like that one). Now you've reduced and streamlined your arguments to soporific procedural fairness doctrines. The scramble to regain the high road after being a tad too frank?

And so you announce, "I'll say it again: I am not supporting anyone in this case." Indeed? References to Pratt as a mere critic exercising freedom of expression, an academic unfairly threatened by loss of credibility or position, versus Bakovic playing the "Jewish card," the talk about "pro-Israel conspiracies" and a "Jewish Mafia"

"Whether the professor has certain views is immaterial..." Says who? What of her instruction to her student that there is no oppression of minorities in the Islamosphere is limited only to religious inequalities? You do see a problem with this, I hope? As in blatant suppression of easily-checked and evident-to-all facts for obvious political purposes highlighted by her activism on behalf of a terrorist organization. I see that alone as professional misconduct, if not gross academic fraud worthy of tarring and feathering and a boot to the arse. How long...in terms of hours or at best days...do you think that a professor claiming IQ differences between races or genders, instructing that homosexuality is a mental illness or teaching Creationism in a biology course might last at a university?

"...it's whether she let those views interfere with her supervision of a student that matters. We simply don't know." Bull-fiddles. We do know. By belatedly allowing a re-evaluation and by the different results obtained by that re-evaluation, the university established this. What I argue is that we'd know more if there were to be an independent investigation or a lawsuit, hopefully leading to a closer look at what is happening at our universities lately, leading, hopefully to a drive to improve quality.

As for me mixing up your responses to me and Ariadne, my bad, I suppose. The fog of war, you know. And I'm not angry, btw; I've been too long in the "trenches" as you'd put it, to get my pulse rate up over such garden variety stuff.

8 January 2012 at 14:33  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo: "It is only Jews who can immigrate to Israel, based on their parentage, their faith or convertion, so one day it might prove useful."n No, many non-Jews and tens of thouands of non-Jewish refugees, especially from Africa, have been given citizenship through a normal immigration or a refugee determination process. You'd be a real catch, though, I see.

"I wonder, can citizenship be declined if one is shown to be critical of Israeli politics?" I don't know, but I should hope that a proper investigation in a general application for residency or citizenship would be conducted. "Is there an oath of loyalty?" I don't know, but I would imagine there is one for a general application, as would be the case for all countrie in the world which accept immigrants.

8 January 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi, you really need to learn to read properly rather imagine what you want to be there in what people write.

8 January 2012 at 15:07  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I see, Dod, that you are reduced to scraping for standard fare with the King David Hotel and Deir Yassin.

The King Hotel David bombing was a clear and legitimate insurgnce operation. You cleverly fail to mention that the target was the purely military section of the hotel, and that it was documents, not people, which were targetted. Responsibility for the deaths should be placed at the British command which decided to ignore warnings issued by the bombers to them and to the French embassy which passed these on.

Deir Yassin was at most a botched operation where inexperienced partisans lost control in a fire fight with Arab fighters who do what Hamas and other terrorists continue to do today, mainly hide behind the skirts of civilians. In the Deir Yassin case it was worse than that; most of the Arab irregulars dressed as village women, fired from the houses and prevented the villagers from evacuating.

Neither case meets the generally-accepted standard of "terrorism." Both were responses to immediate and pressing military threats. The first incident targetted sensitive data in a military installation (not holiday makers, as the typical accent on the hotel bit suggests) and in the second a contingent of the Arab irregulars in the heat of the battle for Jerusalem in which Jewish civilians were routinely targetted. Little facts that the usual suspects fail to mention. Carry on, Dodo, let me know when you reach the bottom of the barrel.

8 January 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

What's "properly" DanJO? Am I missing something by directly commenting on your own words? Is my copy-paste function faulty? My English comprehension? Is there a secret code, should I be attempting telepathy?

You and Dodo are rightly famous here for never ever conceding a single point, no matter how crazy or hopeless and I'm curious to see how far you can go.

8 January 2012 at 15:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "Now you've reduced and streamlined your arguments to soporific procedural fairness doctrines."

What I wrote has been the core point in my comments from the start. If you read them, just them, from the top it's obvious. You are unable to maintain a clear head on anything involving Israel, this much is very clear to me, and anyone with whom you disagree is ascribed whatever variable positions you chose, distorted with emotion you imbue by yourself, in order for you to argue against them. It's bonkers, completely bonkers.

"Bull-fiddles. We do know. By belatedly allowing a re-evaluation and by the different results obtained by that re-evaluation, the university established this."

This is not a remarking of the same work by another supervisor, resulting in a leap from 60% to 71%. Even the Jewish Chronicle accepts that two submissions were made, albeit just with "tweaks" in the second. Do you accept this? Or in your "fog of war" are you missing this? It's a core fact. The extent of the differences is the most important contested fact, and the one which makes reasonable people unable to take sides. Trying to airbrush inconvenience away using phrases like "soporific procedural fairness doctrine" is not going to help you, other than perhaps in your own biased, prejudiced mindscape.

8 January 2012 at 15:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "You and Dodo are rightly famous here for never ever conceding a single point, no matter how crazy or hopeless and I'm curious to see how far you can go."

You and Ariadne, and in particular Ariadne, don't have a leg to stand on in this particular argument. You have to try to shift the argument, and you both have, to hide this fact. It may frustrate you that I won't concede ground here but why would I when I am on completely solid ground and you are up to your neck in bog? You know, I'd be surprised if the blog owner didn't want to pull back a fair bit from his article after the University released its own statement. The prima facie take on the story has turned out to be insufficient as many of these sort of stories show.

8 January 2012 at 15:35  
Blogger Ariadne said...

What a pathetic Dodo. It is estimated that 300m were murdered as a result of Communism and 270m as a result of Islam.

If you have no idea of history, say from 1850 to the the present day - Google is your friend.

8 January 2012 at 15:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "What's "properly" DanJO? Am I missing something by directly commenting on your own words?"

You are unable to read the meaning of my words in their context if you write stuff like this:

"References to Pratt as a mere critic exercising freedom of expression, an academic unfairly threatened by loss of credibility or position, versus Bakovic playing the "Jewish card," the talk about "pro-Israel conspiracies" and a "Jewish Mafia""

You make them what you want to be, firming up carefully qualified phrases and changing carefully argued points to suit yourself. And pro-Israel conspiracies? Where on earth have I mentioned those? Bonkers, completely bonkers.

8 January 2012 at 15:42  
Blogger Ariadne said...

And dictatorial DanJ0. Why would a press release aimed at keeping people in their jobs be all you want it to be?

Remember Dr Wilkie at Oxford? It was noted that his apology referred to the student's feelings and not to the toxic matter Dr Wilkie propagated and claimed for his fellow scientists. But he did resign which at least has some honour.

And nobody gagged him.

8 January 2012 at 15:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ariadne: "Why would a press release aimed at keeping people in their jobs be all you want it to be?"

The press release may not be the truth. Nevertheless, the core facts underpining the claim for personal bias in a professional role, are clearly contested, and contested in the public domain too. The University has put its credibility on the line now, not just the credibility of the professor. Btw, for the hard of reading this is just a restatement of what I've said time and again.

8 January 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Alas, DanJO, a victory declaration does not usually a victory make, but if you want a victory of sorts I can give you one: I concede that there is nothing I or anyone can ever say or produce to get you to concede anything on this issue. I therefore consider myself spent and vanquished.

Regarding His Grace, he is his own man in this, but I think it unlikely that he will retract anything. This is because everything he has written on this is reasonable opinion...dead-on, in my view from the proverbial field hospital for the vanquished, actually. The statements cobbled together by the university and the union lawyers on behalf of an employee are no more credible than the statements of a student concerned over her grades, unless you implicitly accept arguments from authority and the illusion of institutional disinterest. I'm for a genuine investigation of the case specifically and in general, a discussion and an investigation of how universities determine which views get a pass and which ones not, and how acedemia wields authority over students. Universities themselves have proven themselves incapable of managing themselves very well in this area...as this case suggests purely by the fact that the administration could have avoided problems by doing what it should have done and eventually did do. Hopefully, such an investigation will not be of the East Anglia CRU variety, I hope. Any possibility for agreement on this last point, DanJO?

8 January 2012 at 16:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "I concede that there is nothing I or anyone can ever say or produce to get you to concede anything on this issue. I therefore consider myself spent and vanquished."

A bigot to the last. But that's why bigots are bigots, you can rub their noses in things that completely undermine their beliefs and assertions but they still cherish them beyond measure.

8 January 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, should this eventually go to the QAA and the QAA determine that the original submission was worth 71% or thereabouts then everything I have said still holds now because at this point we don't have a reasonable basis to sentence the professor for wrongdoing when supervising the masters degree in question.

8 January 2012 at 16:25  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Profuse apologies, DanJ0. Really. An error based on my being too lazy to slide up and down and reread everything. You didn't say "pro-Israel conspiracies," you referred instead to something you call "pro-Jewish prejudice." As in, "It needs to be resolved properly, not have pro-Jewish prejudice maliciously try to trash her professional reputation anyway"(5 January 2012 06:21).

As for my comments on your statements, I sympathise with your inability to nail me on misquoting you on anything substantial or misunderstanding the plain meaning of your statements. But coming up with a vague, "You make them what you want to be, firming up carefully qualified phrases and changing carefully argued points to suit yourself" is rather lame. In my opinion, of course.

8 January 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Okay Avi. What about:

"Miss Bakovic seems hardly like the clever Jewess trying to shill for Israel and to game the system as you imply."

Where do I imply this? What I did say was this:

"It is entirely possibly the student simply played the 'Jewish card' after being disappointed at her legitimate mark. Clearly, we are unable to say one way or the other here. Except you, Ariadne, and the article (the prima facie noted) have decided from afar anyway."

I've added some helpful emphasis.

8 January 2012 at 16:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Btw, how does my comment that some people here, especially you and Dodo, never concede in arguments make me a bigot to the last? Can I not criticise argument styles? And for amusement's sake, can you prove me wrong?

As you brought up the issue of bigotry, and seeing the rather open interpretation of the term you prefer, does your references to a "pro-Jewish prejudice" and a "Jewish Mafia" qualify?

8 January 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "You didn't say "pro-Israel conspiracies," you referred instead to something you call "pro-Jewish prejudice." As in, "It needs to be resolved properly, not have pro-Jewish prejudice maliciously try to trash her professional reputation anyway"

Conspiracy? I have said that you and Ariadne have demonstrated pro-Jewish prejudice here [1]. It's obvious given the contested nature of the core facts and your bias towards the student because she's Jewish. We don't know who is right yet you have tried to trash the professor's professional reputation anyway. There's no vagueness there. It's all in this thread. But I think you're not being truthful here anyway, I think you introduced the idea of conspiracies because you misread the stuff about MediaCentral. You're too in your trench to see clearly, I think, and respond to what you want to be there.

[1] Which I have highlighted as particularly ironic given the case is about bias and prejudice.

8 January 2012 at 16:49  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DanJO, deep textual forensics now? Eeech! Reminds me of univerity too much. Fine. My accusation was quite clearly directed at the general thrust of your arguments, not solely at a specific line. The operative word in my statement was "imply." At most, you might disagree with my harsh assessment of your direction, even of hyperbolae, but I can still, in all fairness stand by this one.

8 January 2012 at 16:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "Btw, how does my comment that some people here, especially you and Dodo, never concede in arguments make me a bigot to the last?"

*sigh*

It doesn't. It's that you'd rather throw another brick and run away than accept the argument. Wouldn't you be better taking a break if you struggle so much with textual argument?

Since you're back and throwing bricks again, fancy visiting the point I made before you decided to concede without conceding? Here it is again:

"This is not a remarking of the same work by another supervisor, resulting in a leap from 60% to 71%. Even the Jewish Chronicle accepts that two submissions were made, albeit just with "tweaks" in the second. Do you accept this?"

8 January 2012 at 16:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "At most, you might disagree with my harsh assessment of your direction, even of hyperbolae, but I can still, in all fairness stand by this one."

Oh for god'sake, I clearly implied no such thing. It's not "deep textual forensics", it's the meaning of words and basic reading for comprehension. Look at what I wrote in emphasis immediately afterwards. It's at the core of the argument and my position of even-handedness. No wonder you're struggling if you don't get something as simple as this. Sheesh.

8 January 2012 at 17:00  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Keep digging yourself in deeper, DanJO:

"It's obvious given the contested nature of the core facts and your bias towards the student because she's Jewish."

Really? How? Did I state, suggest, imply, hint or give off psychic vibes in that direction? Do you actually think that, for example, if the professor was a Jewish antisemite (e.g., Noam Finkelstein) or yet another Jewish academic hostile to Israel (not uncommon at all) and the student non-Jewish, that my response to the case would be different? If so, on what evidence or hint of evidence? Did I not specify the professor's activism and specific prejudices regarding Middle East realities?

8 January 2012 at 17:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There's this one:

"I can't help noticing that you are still puzzled that some (not too many) people may have a bit of a problem with people who are working openly and proudly towards the destruction of Israel and who are trying to kick-start a one-and-only 1930s-style boycott against the one-and-only Jewish nation."

I'm not puzzled at all. I have acknowledged time and again that the professor's personal views are strident, political, unpalatable for some, etc. The point is though, this case is all about her alleged bias against the student when supervising the student's work. It's a contested fact as I keep saying. That I focus on that all the time rather than get dragged off by you or Ariadne into incidental political discussions is not an indication that I am puzzled that people disagree with the professor's personal views at all. That's another one you're making up.

8 January 2012 at 17:07  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

And what about the changes to the submission? Wha point are you trying to make? It is a stated and apparently acceptable policy by the university to allow changes to re-submissions. Otherwise, the student would have been graded only on what she already submitted...an easier option, since they already had the paper in hand.

8 January 2012 at 17:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "Really? How? Did I state, suggest, imply, hint or give off psychic vibes in that direction?"

Yes. You've accepted the truth of it immediately and you clearly state your prejudices at the end.

"Thank you for tackling this issue, You Grace. This sort of stuff, rabid anti-Israel profs penalizing dissenting students, is regular fare in US universities, and has been tried in Canada with far less success, as our media and all three major political parties, especially our governing Conservatives, oppose such nonsense. True, the details will be coming out, but I've no doubt that your "instincts" on this case are sound."

There's some more here:

"You are asking me to give the benefit of the doubt to a professor who has declared her sentiments. I don't have to; as I said I'm not running a court of inquiry and I'm free to judge things in view of my experience and upon opinions of those I find credible."

8 January 2012 at 17:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "And what about the changes to the submission? Wha point are you trying to make?"

Do you actually read any of this stuff properly? The blog article, presumably based on the Jewish Chronicle, made the assumption the same work was reassessed by someone else and the mark increased by 11%.

It said: "In due course, Miss Bakovic’s dissertation was awarded a ‘pass’ (60%) by Professor Pratt."

And went on to say: "After further consideration, the University re-marked the dissertation, and Miss Bakovic was awarded a distinction (71%). One might expect examiners at this level of academia to differ by a few percentage points, but 11% is an unbridgeable gulf."

The implication (yes, I know what the word means) is that the professor marked it unfairly and she did it because of prejudice and bias regarding Israel.

The blog article the goes on to be more explicit: "There is prima facie evidence that Professor Pratt's personal political opinions prejudiced her academic objectivity."

I've noted that prima facie qualifer throughout my comments. I expect the blog article was written before the statement by the University was published or its existence known. To stand by the article in its entirety now would be a bit rash, I'd say, as the core evidence on which the argument was based has been contested.

8 January 2012 at 17:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DanJO, bbl, but a quick note: Referring to a common problem of anti-Israel bias in academia is not the same as backing a student because she is Jewish, which is what you accused.

8 January 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger Ariadne said...

The core issue:

20 No religious, racial or political test shall be imposed upon any person in order to entitle that person to be admitted as a member, professor, teacher or student of the University or to hold office therein or to graduate thereat or to hold any advantage or privilege thereof.

Charter and Statutes of the University of Warwick.

A "Jewish card"?

8 January 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "Referring to a common problem of anti-Israel bias in academia is not the same as backing a student because she is Jewish, which is what you accused."

That's true, it's not the same. However, in this case all elements are involved and you have favoured the student's interview, which is full of political stuff, and her input to the Jewish Chronicle over the University's rather drier statement. You're identifying with her. I've accused you of pro-Jewish prejudice too all through this thread though I use the term quite loosely as a political one for convenience.

8 January 2012 at 18:48  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

I have to say my eyes have been opened on this thread to a rather nasty bigotry which sees all things from one point of view. Aggressive, persistent, stubborn and personalised. Can see no fault at all with anyone on 'their side' and everything wrong with those on the 'other side'.

8 January 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 January 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi said ...

"The King Hotel David bombing was a clear and legitimate insurgnce operation ... Responsibility for the deaths should be placed at the British command which decided to ignore warnings issued by the bombers."

What outrageous untruths! Do you know truth from fiction?

"Deir Yassin was at most a botched operation where inexperienced partisans lost control in a fire fight with Arab fighters ..."

Oh yeah? And then parading prisoners through Jerusalem to be spat at and abused by crowds before disposing of them. Please!

Ariadne

My point is that Jews are just as capable as Arabs of acting inhumanely and have done so. Do you deny this?

8 January 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ok, DanJO, back to the basics, again. The university granted a new supervisor, presumably because it agreed that there was bias, an entirely believable event, given what one sees with the new crop of radicalized profs in Middle E dep'ts. Then the university decides to back the prof with "dry" boilerplate...as it's usual with contracts, union requests and departmental dynamics. You can't have it both ways, where the prof gets replaced, but she is perfect and "exemplary." It's sheer bull to anyone who follows such events and HG called it righ.

My own opinion hasn't changed...because the important facts haven't changed. I think that that someone who openly supports genocidal killers like Hamas, a declared and banned terror group with a record of murder, oppression, kidnapping, war crimes and clearly stated genocidal intents, is a person without respect for the laws and policies of one's own country and lacks basic humanity. Hamas terrorizes its own people, has murdered opposition officials, oppresses women, uses children as shuman shields and bombs, persecutes Gays and secularists. Anyone who sees it fit to support such a group is, in my book, a psychopath whose poor judgment, poor credibility and extreme bias should be taken for granted. Such activities should have disquilified her from an academic position, as much as being an open neo-Nazi, racist or a Gay-basher would and should. That the university decided to call her "exemplary" and to waffle pedantics about the student is beyond nauseating.

This is not just a Jewish issue as you keep on charging. I don't hide my politics and have repeatedly stated that I am staunch Zionist, but I don't mindlessly back someone because he or she is Israeli. Had this been a British non-Jew claiming bias from a radicalized prof, my response would have been identical. Christians and conservative students complain of bias frequently and I tend to believe them, knowing very well what the culture in today's liberal arts departments is. Had I opined in a similar manner in such a case, you might...possibly... have cared enough to argue with me as well, but you wouldn't have brought up Jewish prejudices and mafias. So, it's not my bias that's a problem here, but yours.

8 January 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Actually, no, Dodo. There is controversy over the two events to be sure, but I gave you the bare facts you will find general agreement with among most historians.

And I realize moral equivalence is an easy position to take, but reality matters. Reality involves unfolding of true events and frequency of certain behaviours and scales. Jews, being humans, may be capable of anything, but in the manner of civilized nation states, Israel polices itself very well, operates with a discipline above the norm for any country at war and punishes the rare, and I mean rare, bad people who have done terrible things. The other side turns its killers into heroes and martyrs and trains pregnant women and children to blow themselves up...just to kill Jews. How you could prattle on about religion as you do, moralize and lecture to anyone on anything and at the same time miss out on basic good judgment and ethics is beyond me.

I tire of this game.

8 January 2012 at 23:33  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi

Point of information, does the Professor actively support Hamas? She signed a petition calling for a boycott of Israel in the face of what she and many others regarded as Israeli excessiveness in the indiscriminate bombing of Gazza and use of excessive military force.

Whether she was right or wrong is a matter of opinion. However, is this the same as support for Hamas?

8 January 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "The university granted a new supervisor, presumably because it agreed that there was bias, an entirely believable event, given what one sees with the new crop of radicalized profs in Middle E dep'ts."

No! Read the University statement. It's part of the actual evidence in this case. You can't simply imagine things are the way you want them to be and use it to convict the professor for professional bias anyway. Clearly she has personal bias, but that's not the same thing! Especially if someone like Ariadne is arguing about freedom of speech in universities.

"Anyone who sees it fit to support such a group is, in my book, a psychopath whose poor judgment, poor credibility and extreme bias should be taken for granted."

Yet the argument made in the blog article, and in the Jewish Chronicle, and at the start of the interview, is that the difference in mark shows that professional bias occurred. However, the marks relate to two different submissions, not a remarking of the original. The core contested fact is the extent of the differences and we just don't know at this point. This came out after the story in the Jewish Chronicle and I imagine after the blog article was written.

"Had I opined in a similar manner in such a case, you might...possibly... have cared enough to argue with me as well, but you wouldn't have brought up Jewish prejudices and mafias. So, it's not my bias that's a problem here, but yours."

The Jewish Mafia thing is about allowing no criticism of Israel etc as I said at the time. You may note that I was very quickly labelled "Komrad DanJ0" by Ariadne, and later an anti-semite, and for what? Carefully and even-handedly arguing the core of the case in the article and not bowing to the biased outrage of the two of you.

The pro-Jewish prejudice is about favouring the student over the University when the evidence is contested, and trying to convict the professor anyway when the argument about profession bias in the marking has turned out to be rather dubious.

That's the irony here as I have pointed out several times. You convict the professor and the University of professional bias, without the necessary evidence, yet you're exhibiting prejudice and bias in the opposite direction. You admit the prejudice yourself. Even my being even-handed is not satisfactory to you, and I'm assigned positions by you which I don't hold so you can argue against me, when it seems to me that we must stand back on this given that the evidence is currently contested.

9 January 2012 at 07:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And that cameleon over a colour chart thing is outrageous. I've not budged at all from my position on this from the start. Why would I? The charge of professional bias has not (yet) been proved. Even on a balance of probabilities test, it would be uncertain. Yet we have people in a petition calling for the professor to be fired and the University itself is being damned here.

9 January 2012 at 07:24  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Dodo

Your being sneaky doesn't conceal your bigotry.

And isn't it interesting that the two groups which have carried out the most murders are the two groups which were and are most antisemitic.

Ask a Hindu.

9 January 2012 at 07:26  
Blogger Ariadne said...

An educational site

9 January 2012 at 07:34  
Blogger Ariadne said...

DanJ0

Yes to the Komrad. I don't always resist temptation.

You may not have the knowledge to see how pervasive Marxist-Muslim rot is in universities but if you don't open your mind to it you will do a great injustice. To Jews first and then to other non-Muslims.

It was reported that the JISoc in Warwick couldn't help her and there are not only Theobold Jews out to besmirch her character but others from Warwick.

That press release may mean very little and you must know that. There may also be something on Smadar's side that you missed such as the other marker who contributed to the aggregated 60%.

Must go and howl at a prison van now.

9 January 2012 at 07:52  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

I asked you:
"My point is that Jews are just as capable as Arabs of acting inhumanely and have done so. Do you deny this?"

You replied:
"Your being sneaky doesn't conceal your bigotry.
And isn't it interesting that the two groups which have carried out the most murders are the two groups which were and are most antisemitic.
Ask a Hindu."


Now I'm sorry but you've lost me in your meanderings! Is this some sort of coded mystical revelation that an alleged bigoted, antisemitic gentile is precluded from fathoming and you're forbidden to explain?

9 January 2012 at 10:37  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Dodo

Have you heard the phrase "immoral equivalence"?

I direct you to Daniel Greenfield's words of wisdom.

9 January 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

So you're suggesting the annilalation of the Palestinians living in Gazza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Logically, this seems to follow from the position you appear to support. It is also the policy some think is being adopted by Irael. By extention, it probably also means the elimination of all Muslims from middle east and whereever else they exercise influence.

Can't you see the madness of this?

I think it has to be accepted that the construction of Israel was preceeded by dishonesty on the part of Western politicians and Zionist groups and by illegal, terrorist activities.

I also believe no nation is so morally corrupt, whatever its religion, that its people cannot discern right from wrong and will be predisposed towards the former given the opportunity. Evil groups do dominate a people and it is they who have to be removed.

9 January 2012 at 12:50  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Dodo

What's that?

Jihadi couscous?

There is no "West Bank". There is Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem is one. Why do you cling to Arab violence, illegal occupation and the ethnic cleansing of Jews? Your true path?

How dare you talk about dishonesty?

Jews fought and died on the Allied side in both World Wars. And look at Chaim Weizmann's contribution in WWI:

In 1916 - in the midst of the World War I - Weizmann, who worked as a research chemist at Manchester University, discovered a process for synthesizing acetone, a solvent used in the manufacture of munitions. His contacts in Manchester society and his supervision of mass production of synthetic acetone for the Allies opened doors for him in British government circles, where he continued to serve as an eloquent spokesman for Zionism. Royalties on his acetone patent granted the Jewish scientist financial security and independence - both material comfort and the option to devote himself to Zionism, including presidency of the Zionist movement without remuneration.

I suppose you hate Churchill too.

9 January 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

Sorry, but your somewhat deluded! Where have I indicated any support for Arab violence or ethnic cleansing?!!

Indeed, you are now prosing a one state solution with Arab residents of the West Bank and East Jersulem presumably becoming ull Israeli citizens. Or are you advocating removing them from Israel - oneway or another? And what of the Gazza? Come to think of it, what about the rest of the Promised Land covenanted to Israel? Surely you must want that too?

The dishonsety I'm referring to is the diplomacy and double-dealing behind the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Palestinian Mandate. Surely you're not disputing this? It has nothing to do with the decency of individual Jewish people and everything to do with finance, colonial self interest and encouraging the USA into WW1. The Arabs were repeatedly misled and lied to by the British. It's a matter of public record.

9 January 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Dodo

You need more history.

The double-dealing in the Mandate was Britain's. Britain and France between them made quite a mess but Britain unforgiveably and illegally gave 78% of the Mandated land to Arabs. Why should Arabs have more?

Every time you reproduce some lying propaganda - unwittingly or not - you act against Israel and are in very bad company.

There are far better sources than Wikipedia.

This is Samaria.

There is plenty of homicidal hate directed towards Israel that makes Israel's voluntary suicide rather superfluous.

And don't you really notice Syria, for example? How many Arabs are murdered by other Arabs? That's the real problem in the Middle East and. Muslim on Muslim. in wider Islam. As long as fools swallow their propaganda Israel will suffer. Try putting blame where it lies. And how convenient for those murdering their fellows that Israel can be kept centre-stage as long as the haters keep on lying.

There have been no other dynastic "refugees" in the history of the world. So "Palestinians" who didn't murder for a state during Jordan and Egypt's illegal occupations have no grounds for murdering for one now. And Arab new-borns are "refugees" from a conflict that ended over 60 years ago. The far larger number of Jews ethnically cleansed from Arab countries was not only not cosseted. It was just ignored.

There is of course the little-mentioned fact that when the PLO decided Jordan was Palestine King Hussein slaughtered tens of thousands of them. The PLO remnant then claimed Lebanon as Palestine and ruined Lebanon.

How badly do you really want to get rid of the Jewish state?

9 January 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ariadne, you're a trooper. Holding the fort very able all by yourself. Kol ha kavod. Good link on the Shomrom.

I'm in mountain country, with spotty connections and serious driving, so I can't be of much good to you.


I think I've said everything I could about the case, DanJO. Your obection, ..."The charge of professional bias has not (yet) been proved. Even on a balance of probabilities test, it would be uncertain. Yet we have people in a petition calling for the professor to be fired and the University itself is being damned here."... is not really relevant. To prove a charge you need an investigation. To get an investigation, you need an accusation and political pressure, which is what the calling for the expulsion of the prof is. Otherwise, nothing will be done...and nothing was done for decades about rogue faculty with the pliant socialist "student unions" we had to pay for until recently, when blogs and students groups began accusing and demanding.

This is the reality; students squeezed and silenced by an academic lunatic fringe with questionable ethics and qualifications, one backed by wealthy institutions, unions, associations and outside political NGOs, many of them sponsored by domestic and foreign governments. It is not the scenario you have been building here, one of a poor brave prof whose fundamental freedoms of expression are threatened by irresponsible accusations, pro-Jewish prejudice or Jewish mafias. The system and its processes are not working in this case and you, among other minorities out there should know the ability of activism to get things cooking.

Nice going, Dodo, let me know when your "investigations" of Jews and Israel get to the horns, hoofs, poison wells and such. As Ariadne pointed out, there is plenty of trash out there for you to mine, so I guess you can go on googling indefinitely. Doesn't mean I have to always dignify your "poignant questions" with a response or even a read.

9 January 2012 at 21:10  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Thank you, Avi. If you can think of a way to get an email address to me I've something I'd like you to see. Perhaps you could make a single use address and post it here? Or I could do that - if email addresses will be posted, of course.

9 January 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi & Adiadne

As someone once asked: What is truth?

Clearly an elusive concept between those Israelis and Arabs determined to 'win'. Actually this is something I'm quite happy to leave you to get on with. You say 'potatoe' and they say .... It's clear there is no room for reasoned debate.

Let's hope some way is found to cut through the evident hatred and disinformation on both sides in all this.

9 January 2012 at 22:26  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Watch out with that immoral equivalence, Dodo.

Behold he shall neither slumber nor sleep, that keepeth Israel.

9 January 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

The problem I have with political Zionism and its nationalism, is that to me it appears to be attempting to force God's hand. Not a good idea. I see little real evidence of a Commonwealth of God's Chosen People being established; a nation committed to living by His Torah.

The Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate referenced a 'homeland' for the Jewish people not a seperate Israeli State. That's the lie behind the events leading up to 1948.

The hatred on both sides can only result in a blood bath. Inevitable?

Yes, God loves and cherishes Israel. Pray that He is keeping it safe. However, He loves Justice more. Isn't that the history of Israel and Judea? It's a covenant - a two way agreement. Can you honestly say the modern state of Israel lives according to God's law?

10 January 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Dodo, Israel isn't a theocracy but your comments are very reasonable. There is Zionism of very numerous kinds in a democratic state.

It is the only country Jews have and it was intended to be a Jewish state and a much larger one. Antisemitism then bungling put paid to that. Aside from Arabs and their later affinities to Nazis.

I recommend Palestine Papers: 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict by Doreen Ingrams. 1972, I think.

Ingrams was an Arabist but she certainly doesn't show Arabs in that case in a good light.

I can't emphasise enough that the problem is Arabs. They aren't happy with their millions of square miles and the kingships given to some. They did little to deserve them and Jews with far, far less given to them - and having given far more - made a country. In the Yishuv - pre-state - groups would build houses overnight. Why haven't the so-called Palestinians done the same?
And even the ghastly Qaradawi asked that.

Don't think their fellow Arabs love them. They don't but they are useful pawns and diversions. And slaughtered and expelled at will.

There isn't hatred on both sides. There's a cult of death on one.

Don't forget Iran.

Islam is far too often bloodbath. And the Arabs who want to live in peace with their neighbours aren't spared it.

I think you have to look at individuals when you think of God's law. Otherwise you have seething cauldrons of hate based on seventh-tenth century savagery.

Israel isn't like that and Avi has explained the anti-Zionist Jews very well.

Now, goodnight!

10 January 2012 at 00:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "It is not the scenario you have been building here, one of a poor brave prof whose fundamental freedoms of expression are threatened by irresponsible accusations, pro-Jewish prejudice or Jewish mafias."

As usual you distort the truth of it to suit yourself. That is not the scenario I have been building at all. If you can't see the simplest of things here then lord knows how you manage to make any sense of a complex situation like the Israel-Palestine issue. You probably don't. It'll be the same sort of distortions, ungrounded emotive responses, and prejudiced conviction in the absense of known facts.

10 January 2012 at 04:46  
Blogger Ariadne said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 January 2012 at 07:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Let me guess, DanJO, this was your concluding "higher criticism." Your predictable finale in the form of a resigned critique of my debating style, comprehension, honesty and subject competence. No evidence required, of course.

Nonsense. You're lost in this debate because you've no idea what you are debating exactly or why. Like most, you've been a passive, semi-interested lounger in the echo chamber of the Guardian-type editorializing on Israel...the fashionable UK fare for all these years. But when challenges come up against the "settled science," you've no other tools than generalities, stereotypes and a feeling, a sense of being right. So, now you're left with character attacks and whining about being misunderstood. You'll exit in your signature manner, by declaring that you're really indifferent to an issue you spent almost a whole week on.

10 January 2012 at 20:14  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ariadne, I'll be sending you an email presently, but I may be slow in replying today and tomorrow as I'm still not out of the woods...or the mountains, to be exact.

Our Dodo is more of a slippery eel than an extinct bird, so don't expect to get a grip on him. I see now that he has stood up for the long-gone Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate to authoritatively declare that Jews are not a nation, and do not deserve more than a vague "homeland" on the rationale that, according to him at least, they are no longer "a nation committed to living by His Torah." He's been googling non-Zionist ultra-Orthodox info, I bet. In that epistemological goulash of pseudo-legalism and replacement theology, he has also plopped the equivalency fallacy where "both" sides are equally guilty of hatred, lying and warmongering. Yawn. Nothing new yet.

10 January 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Avi, there is no hurry. We are all agog now at the Egyptian football match that none of our press reported on although there was quite a Nuremberg-like display of torches and banners. The theme was "One Nation for New Holocaust".
A well-shot placard said F*** ISRAEL.

It is funny that Dodo should think that Israel should be all one thing. I wonder if he's heard of Tel Aviv.
Safe travelling!

I picked this up in a Nicola Pratt opus:

Meanwhile, the threats to the "axis of resistance" (Iran, Syria, Hizbollah and Hamas) from below may provide new opportunities for renewed attempts by the "axis of evil" (that is, US, Europe, Saudi Arabia and Israel) to deepen its penetration of the region and enhance the neoliberal order, at the expense of the rights of most ordinary people, including the Palestinians.

Link

10 January 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Sorry if I munged that post.

10 January 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

LOL, Ariadne, so our dear prof is not just another flake, but a committed shill for Iran. How pathetic. Perhaps Danjo, who is big into investigations, should call for a look-see at the university and its faculty, to examine just what exactly and how much it takes to sway "ideologies" towards one of the world's most repulsive of fascist regimes. Yuck!

10 January 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Indeed, Avi. Remember Neda. And laugh at Nasrallah in his cellar.

10 January 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi

The original 'public' notion of political Zionism in the late 19th century and early 20th century was a political movement to solve the "Jewish problem" and find them a homeland where they could live in peace. It was never presented as a movement to establish a state for the Jews of the world. Do you deny this?

The other strand was a religious Zionism that hoped for a return to Israel of the Jews when God desired it. Again, do you deny this?

And yes, you are correct in your estimation of my position. The only justification for Jews returning to their ancient homeland and establishing a state that I can see is a theological one. The only problem is that other people were actually living there!

Wouldn't life be simple if all the Arabs packed up and peacefully left all of ancient Israel? Instead of which what we appear to have is an eternal struggle until one side wipes the other out. How wonderful!

10 January 2012 at 23:18  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Expand your mind, Dodo!

Zionism - An Introduction

10 January 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Avi

And lest you think I'm a Jew hater let me say that I loath Islam and see it as a degenerate 'religion'. However, I don't hate Muslims.

I cannot see a way for pure Islam ever to live in peace with either Christianity or Judaism. The latter two faith systems have moved on from their fundamentalist positions which viewed unbelievers as less than human. Modern Judaism and Christianity both have the capacity to be more tolerant and live alongside other faiths. Islam, as preached, is not a religion of love or tolerance and its sacred texts leave no room for accomodation.

Politics is politics and either a solution has to be found or, as I've said, one side will have to remove the other.

10 January 2012 at 23:36  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

If you promise to expand yours too.

And by the way, Tel Aviv is not a place to be proud of!

10 January 2012 at 23:39  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Dodo

If I did it wouldn't have to be to convert to reality!

I wonder if you think Ben-Gurion was a fool. In the mid 1930s he was still looking forward to some restoration of the land that was allocated in San Remo.

It is never mentioned by those who hate Israel that Jews - additional Jews - who went there went there as a right and to share. And Arabs were willing to share until other and largely imported Arabs took to terror in order to acquire land that was never theirs.

Now, goodnight!

11 January 2012 at 00:01  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

Now don't go getting all impatient with me - I thought you were trying to win me over by argument!

I do have mixed views about Ben Gurion but agree he was no fool. Certainly a warrior and an opportunistic political leader. Maybe without him there would be no modern day Israel. No Moses, more like the army of Joshua in his approach to local inhabitants, I'd say.

Can't you recommend a less partisan web-site? A more academic one, perhaps? I think the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is maybe a little biased.

11 January 2012 at 01:09  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ben-Gurion's reaction to the Peel Commission's recommendation in the 1930's of partitioning Palestine and establishing Jewish and Arab states:
" ... there could be no question ... of giving up any part of the Land of Israel,... it was arguable that the ultimate goal would be achieved most quickly by accepting the Peel proposals."

Opportunism, not genuine acceptance.

11 January 2012 at 01:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "Your predictable finale in the form of a resigned critique of my debating style, comprehension, honesty and subject competence. No evidence required, of course."

Evidence? For goodness'sake, it was your assertion. Where have I said or even implied that I think the professor is brave? Where? You're making it up again, spinning it, to suit yourself because you're up to your neck in bog. You're incorrigible. Moreover, the thing about freedom of speech was Ariadne's though it doesn't seem to apply to the professor for some reason as far as Ariadne is concerned. That's why I pushed it. My position throughout is that this story is based on a dodgy premise: that the differing marks show professional bias. It's a matter of justice and decency for me really, and banging on the side of prison vans before the court has reached a verdict for you.

"Nonsense. You're lost in this debate because you've no idea what you are debating exactly or why."

Lol. It's like Alice in Wonderland in your mind. I can't actually lose this debate since it's about known facts not opinions, and I know it full well which I why I won't budge. You and Ariadne have had rings run around you and you can't bear it because it's probably the topic closest to your heart. The irony of being shown to be just like the people who attack Israel in the media at your core must really sting too.

"You'll exit in your signature manner, by declaring that you're really indifferent to an issue you spent almost a whole week on."

No, not indifferent at all. In fact, it's been a real eye-opener here ... even though I see all commented Israel-Palestine articles in the Independent go the same way. I'm unbiased and unprejudiced in the matter of whether there was professional bias in the marking. All reasonable people must be as soon as the University statement came out. The bias and prejudice in this thread is lumped up in your camp for all to see. You even admit it yourself.

11 January 2012 at 08:16  
Blogger Ariadne said...

DanJ0

It is Warwick that has gagged Pratt. For fear of what?

I can't imagine why it employs her.

It's rather pitiful to see you clinging to the wording of that press release.

Maybe you think we are part of the "Axis of Evil" too.

And I wonder if you equate hate speech with free speech.

11 January 2012 at 09:10  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Dodo

It is usual for Israel- and Jew-haters to see bias whenever they are confronted with truth.

No matter how many times their misperceptions are corrected they continue to spout the Arab fantasiya. More recently merged with Marxism and Nazism and enriched with a lot of paid-for propaganda in the 1990s.

I am sure I have posted these before but there really aren't better sources that are freely accessible. A lot of the history is in books costing £100 or more.

Big Lies: demolishing the myths of the propaganda war against Israel Part 1 with Parts 2 & 3 linked

Nakba: Reclaiming a Historical Truth

Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine under International Law

Although the antis have heads of sawdust more reasonable people will see these posts.

11 January 2012 at 09:26  
Blogger Ariadne said...

1969: Melanie Phillips's experience at Warwick University

11 January 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ariadne, I'm clinging to nothing. The story was published and appeared, on the face of it, to show a case of professional bias. The University later published an official statement which presents the facts rather differently. As such, the original story is now suspect. This is the form of it and has been since the start of my comments. In no sense am I clinging to anything. If anything is pitiful here then it's the bias, prejudice, and bigotry of the two of you proceeding as though the original story is uncontested because the original story suits the narrative you personally want to be true.

11 January 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 January 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I laughed at the link regarding Melanie Phillips btw. Germaine Greer et al are many things but I'm not the phrase "supremely evil co-feminists" is really something one can take seriously. I suppose throwing mud at the University based on the 40+ year old experiences of a much ridiculed right-wing columnist from the Mail is a great help to your cause. Afterall, surely after all this mud something must stick and achieve your aim and you managed to tick the Gramsci box in the process which must be good. All I really have to say about the article in the link is that homosexuality was decriminalised, not legalised and abortion still remains technically illegal. Subtle points, I know, and therefore probably off your radar as a result I expect but I just wanted to point them out anyway.

11 January 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Keep running, DanJ0. It's quite a feat while clinging to that threadbare press release.

11 January 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

One last time:

The Professor is perfectly entitled to view the Palastinian situation in any way she decides and to exercise her rights as a citizen and express these views.

The Israeli-Arab can be understood in a number of ways and 'evidence' marshalled to support a number of narratives. Supporting one side or the other does not demonstrate delusion, antisemitism or Islamophobia.

There is no evidence in this case that the Professor's politics reflect a hatred of Jews or that she acted prejudicially towards this student because of this. There is an allegation and supposition based on her politics.

11 January 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger Ariadne said...

You are rather betrayed by the use of the word "narratives", DanJ0.

Perhaps you haven't read what that associate professor has written.

People are not barred from Israel for nothing.

11 January 2012 at 23:11  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Well, DanJ0 and Dodo

You have become indistinguishable!

A DanDodo.

11 January 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Or a DanJ0do...

11 January 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

NEVER!

That you cannot see actually see any differance says more about you than us.

11 January 2012 at 23:52  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne said ...

"People are not barred from Israel for nothing."

Indeed not! It's called 'cultural hegemony'. You really should read Gramsci on this. Israel sees itself at war, fighting for its very survival. You are either with them or against them. Territorial gain, preemptive attacks and retaliation are all justified in the face of an enemy intent on their destruction and unwilling to negotiate.

Tell me, is there any secular, political movement amongst Jewish Israelis that is sympathetic towards the Palistinian Arabs and critical of the state's approach?

I know there is academic disputes about Jewish history and archaeology and this is tolerated even though some of it raises doubt about the 'accepted' history of Israel and Judea. Is any such academic criticism permitted about the rise of Zionism and the creation of the Jewish State?

12 January 2012 at 00:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ariadne: "Keep running, DanJ0. It's quite a feat while clinging to that threadbare press release."

When the "Komrad DanJ0" and anti-semite labels have been exposed for what they are, the incidental mud been flung at the University and the professor, the political obfuscations made, and the arms flapped wildly to distract, all you're left with is passive aggression. Not great, is it?

12 January 2012 at 05:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ariadne: "Well, DanJ0 and Dodo You have become indistinguishable!"

Where have I actually talked about the politics surrounding Israel? Unlike Dodo, I've studiously avoided it. I was even berated on a past thread by Avi for refusing to take a stand one way or the other over the Israel-Palestine issue. My excuse that I simply didn't know the full picture and in enough detail to be willing to pin my colours to a mast wasn't deemed acceptable as I recall. I still maintain that position.

In fact, it seems impossible to reasonably discuss or debate or ask questions about the issue anywhere on the 'Net. By my observations, as soon as the topic comes up anywhere in the public space there, groups descend en masse and try to force opinion one way or the other. It's essentially propaganda warfare as far as I can see. For instance, any commented articles on the Independent are almost immediately trashed by each side, flagging all opposing comments for moderation until the threads are in tatters.

12 January 2012 at 07:42  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Oh, dear!

Obsess away, DanJ0do. Enjoy your "Axis of Evil" while you can.

12 January 2012 at 10:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Does anyone have any idea how or why this "Axis of Evil" thing she is waving around is relevant to me? Yet more bizarre stuff.

12 January 2012 at 10:58  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Losing the Enlightenment
A civilization that has lost confidence in itself cannot confront the Islamists.

12 January 2012 at 11:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Blimey, it's like a 'bot': programmed, relentless, unthinking.

12 January 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne
Any comment on my questions @ 12 January 2012 00:33?

Just wondering.

DanJ0
But don't you see, you have to take one side in this? Are you with or against Israel?

12 January 2012 at 12:07  
Blogger Ariadne said...

DanJ0do

It's getting a little Animal Farmish around here with your perseverative oinks aimed at Israel and those who support her.

I suppose the more antisemitism spreads and infects those who cannot think the less noticeable it is going to be to the unawake and unaware.

That's why we keep posting. There's one just man, then another...

And woman too. Of course.

12 January 2012 at 13:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Araidne: "It's getting a little Animal Farmish around here with your perseverative oinks aimed at Israel and those who support her."

I've said nothing about Israel itself. This is not about Israel. You are becoming increasingly delusional here.

12 January 2012 at 14:10  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne
Political stupidity in the West and ignorance about Islam, if that's what it is, is NOT the same thing as hating Jews. Admittedly, from your point of view, it could result in the destruction of the Israel if it leads to an encouragement of Islamism (and ours!). However, they are not the same thing and need to be approached differently.

Any comment yet on my post @ 12 January 2012 00:33?

12 January 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Bakovic responded furiously to the accusation: “When it was re-marked, I didn’t change anything in the dissertation… the claims by the University are completely and utterly false.

“I’m willing for anyone who wants to read both dissertations to see for themselves. I have nothing to hide.”


[Preceded by the three points made in the university press release]

The Warwick student newspaper, The Boar

13 January 2012 at 10:38  
Blogger Dodo the Katholikos Dude said...

Ariadne

Have you actually read the article you've posted the link to? It seems quite balanced and makes a number of salient points.

Still no reply to my post @ 12 January 2012 00:33?

13 January 2012 at 15:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lol. Selective reading of the link or what? Read it again Ariadne. After you have dug the bullet out of your foot, of course.

13 January 2012 at 18:53  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older