Steven Albert: SPME, University of Pittsburgh: Response to National Lawyer’s Guild Event

  • 0

SPME- University of Pittsburgh and SPME Board of Directors SPME members, along with students from the University of Pittsburgh Hillel-Jewish University Center and the local ZOA director, responded to speakers hosted by the Law School chapter of the National Lawyer’s Guild.

The website of the National Lawyers Guild claims the organization “is dedicated to the need
for basic and progressive change in the structure of our political and economic system” and that the Guild “works locally, nationally and internationally as an effective political and social force in the service of the people.”

The National Lawyer’s Guild has taken a large interest in the war in Gaza. It sent a nine-member fact-finding mission to Gaza “to assess the effects of the recent attacks on the people there [and] to determine what, if any, violations of international law occurred and whether U.S. domestic law has been violated as a consequence” (_http://www.nlg.org/news/_ ). One member of the Pitt Law School faculty, Jules Lobel, served on the delegation. He and a visiting professor of cultural studies, Dr. Magid Shihad, presented their view of the war, the region, and history of conflict.

SPME was alerted by a law student and mobilized to present an alternative voice. The law student reported that the Guild denied the podium to speakers who might have challenged the two speakers, or at least made it difficult to include a third speaker.

The event attracted about 100 students. The students represented a mix of Arab speakers, church activists, Students for Justice in Palestine, and others with an interest in the issue. The panel was held shortly after Israel’s unilateral cease fire.

Shihade gave the usual maximalist line: Israel is occupation, everything is justified to end occupation, Hamas is a legitimate expression of Palestinian society, Israel is responsible for all the problems of the region, the war was fought to consolidate Israeli electioneering, Israel has a genocidal program, etc. When challenged by a student, he responded by calling the student a
propagandist.

Lobel was more insidious. He insisted that Israel mounted a disproportionate response and purposefully attacked civilians. He likened Israel to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany but then backed away insisting he was not saying any such thing. Only after the talk, when confronted directly, did he admit that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Missing from his talk was any
serious analysis of legal issues, most likely because it would not support any of his claims.

The vocal opposition forced the speakers to engage and added needed context to the presentation. Students and Hillel staff very effectively joined in the debate. The debate remained civil. Still, students without prior knowledge of the history and politics of the region would leave such an event with a terribly skewed picture. Virtually every fact and figure mentioned by the speakers was selective, biased, and in many cases flat out wrong.

SPME, students, and local organizations mobilized well for the event. But we will be called upon again soon. The University has authorized funds to bring Ali Abunimah, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, on Feb 28.

Steven Albert: SPME, University of Pittsburgh: Response to National Lawyer’s Guild Event

  • 0
AUTHOR

Steven M. Albert

In early 2000, I read the newsletter of the American Anthropological Association and was surprised to see an essay by Jeff Halper, who founded the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. The essay was biased in every way: selective in evidence, slanted in language, naïve in reasoning. In preparing my reply I searched the web and found that for every one balanced entry on Israel’s position, there were perhaps 20 negative entries. Many were stridently rejectionist and anti-Semitic; those that were not betrayed woeful ignorance or frank silliness about the Middle East. My reply was published and the editor asked if I would countenance a reply from Halper and perhaps a dialogue. I agreed. Halper never replied, suggesting that he could not face argument informed by facts. This was my introduction to the politicized world of the academic Middle East.Since then I have narrowed my focus to anti-Israel bias in the public health and academic medical literature, which is monitored by the SPME Public Health and Medical Task Force. There is no shortage of bias in this field. Key British journals, such as Lancet and the British Medical Journal, devote major resources to academic partnerships and journalistic coverage designed to show Israeli policy is responsible for poor health, limited hospital access, and psychological trauma in the occupied territories. In fact, the evidence suggests that health is not poorer in the territories and that people do have access to hospitals. It also true that Israelis suffer poor mental health in war. These inconvenient facts, now published in 2 letters in BMJ and 4 in Lancet, help, we hope, in stemming the tide of 60 years of anti-Israel propaganda, which has finally managed to make its way into academic medical research.The Task Force continues to monitor and respond to the most egregious instances of bias in the most prominent journals. It consists of 5-10 academics across the globe, from Israel to the UK to the US, who take the time to respond to such falsehoods. We are pleased to see that most journals are willing to admit fault and publish our work. Our monitoring has led to one journal retracting a bad piece of science and to others publishing corrections.In this effort, we have also crossed paths with virulent anti-Semites, such as the one who wrote me privately and said he would never accept Zionist facts. Others are more subtle. But at heart these critics cannot admit that the medical and public health record of Israel simply does not support their claims of a terrorist, racist, imperial regime. So they make stories up or simply ignore statistics from the UN, WHO, and other international medical organizations.Facts and reasoned argument support the claims of Israel and can be used to undo the propaganda of its enemies. But we need to marshal this evidence and face the false claims directly. The biggest challenge here is time. The members of the Public Health and Medical Task Force all have day jobs. I run a major research effort on aging, chronic disease, and health promotion. My colleagues are similarly busy with academic medicine, psychological research, bioethics, and other areas. Still, we take time from these efforts to play a small but important part in ferreting out propaganda that may bias others less informed about Israel and the Middle East.


Read all stories by Steven M. Albert