Judea Pearl is a professor of computer science at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, named after his son. He is co-editor of “I am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl” (Jewish Lights, 2004), winner of the National Jewish Book Award.
I am writing to you as an alumnus of NYU-affiliated school who is deeply concerned with the recent boycott resolution by the American Studies Association (ASA) and its adverse impact on the reputation of NYU.
I am writing to you as an alumnus of NYU-affiliated school who is deeply concerned with the recent boycott resolution by the American Studies Association (ASA) and its adverse impact on the reputation of NYU.
There are many good reasons to oppose the American Studies Association (ASA) decision to boycott Israeli universities. But there are some bad reasons as well. Many arguments against the boycott play exactly into the hands of the pro-boycott propagandists and give them the ammunition they need to continue their racist campaign with renewed vigor and self-righteousness.
Eleven years ago, when tragedy blackened our skies, and millions of people resonated with our mission of rolling back the hatred that took our son’s life, we were quick to learn that the journalistic community is not only our strongest partner but also a special member of our extended family.
Even as the sound of “Hatikvah” reverberated in the auditorium of the American Jewish University, where Los Angeles commemorated the 65th anniversary of the historic United Nations vote of Nov. 29, 1947, another U.N. vote was casting its shadows on our consciousness — the vote for Palestinian statehood, on Nov. 29, 2012.
I felt terribly guilty when Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told the U.N. General Assembly: “Enough! It is time for the Palestinian people to gain their freedom and independence.” How can we deny to others what we claim for ourselves?
Recent weeks have not blessed us with much good news.
Say what you will about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House last month, there is no question that things did not go exactly as planned. If you believe that President Barack Obama is Israel’s staunchest friend, trying his best to save it from unsustainable status quo and from the wrath of September’s proposed vote for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, you must admit that he did not expect to see a defiant Bibi receive a hero’s welcome in Israel after spelling out Israel’s final red lines. Such entrenchment does not make Israel’s position palatable to the Europeans.
By the time this article is published on May 19, President Barack Obama will be putting the final touches on his policy speech on the Middle East, scheduled for the same day. Many see it as an important speech, for it could signal a dramatic shift in U.S. policy in the wake of the Arab uprisings, the demise of bin Laden and the resignation May 13 of George Mitchell. For Israel, though, the crucial test is whether Obama will take bold steps toward a lasting peace in the Middle East or merely express his displeasure with the now-stalled “peace process.”
Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, passed away on Dec. 13 at the age of 69. He has been hailed by several Jewish newspapers as a friend of Israel, although he was not prominently involved in American-Israeli relations. Indeed, in a column in the Washington Post two years ago, he wrote something we don’t often hear from presidential envoys and State Department officials. Holbrooke wrote that President Truman should be admired for having recognized Israel as a state on May 14, 1948, and that the State Department’s attempts to undermine President Truman’s decision was not something Holbrooke was proud of. There are people whom you meet once and know you will never forget. I met Richard Holbrooke once, in Doha, Qatar, in April 2005 — a meeting I will never forget.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.