Editorial III

Censorship = Cowardice

You may have supported Israel during the war in Gaza, or you may have not. But I believe that anyone who supports the ostracism of those who subscribe to antagonistic viewpoints is nothing short of a coward.

The source of my outrage is this article, on Ilan Pappé. For those of you who don’t know, Pappé is known for his strong condemnation of Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and has previously supported economic and political boycotts of Israel.

Now considering I knew nothing of Pappé before reading this article, I figured it was apropos to look him up. Here were some of the criticisms I found of his work:

• "Unfortunately much of what Pappé tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication. [...] This book is awash with errors of a quantity and a quality that are not found in serious historiography. [...] The multiplicity of mistakes on each page is a product of both Pappé's historical methodology and his political proclivities[.] [...] For those enamored with subjectivity and in thrall to historical relativism, a fact is not a fact and accuracy is unattainable." – Benny Morris
• "Readers are told of events that never happened, such as the nonexistent May 1948 Tantura "massacre" or the expulsion of Arabs within twelve days of the partition resolution. They learn of political decisions that were never made, such as the Anglo-French 1912 plan for the occupation of Palestine or the contriving of 'a master plan to rid the future Jewish state of as many Palestinians as possible. And they are misinformed about military and political developments, such as the rationale for the Balfour declaration . ." – Ephraim Karsh

Let’s assume the comments of Karsh and Morris are 100% true. Let’s say Pappé is crummy historian, who fabricates events and misinforms his readers. Given this, it is still wrong to censor him, or any other academic. Censorship is the last refuge of cowards. If you take such offense to this man’s work, if you feel it is flawed to the point of hilarity as the aforementioned scholars suggest, then challenge him to a public debate and publish counter-arguments.

To label someone like Pappé an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew and deny him tenure, is really no more than a thinly veiled effort to deny him a fair fight. If you feel strongly about an issue, and are deeply bothered by critical comments, take some advice from the streets: man up! A crude message? Sure. But a valid one nonetheless.

To silence one’s voice is to be a moral and intellectual eunuch. In the end, you fuel your enemy’s fire by not engaging him.

Take a look at this debate between Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz. A paradigm for discourse? Probably not. Regardless of who you agree with however, at least Finkelstein and Dershowitz show some modicum of academic fortitude by engaging one another. Also, check out the famous Chomsky/Buckley debate from 1969.