Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu Banned From Campus Over Israel Criticism

By Cecilie Surasky, Jewish Voice for Peace. Posted October 3, 2007.


University of St. Thomas hears from a few right-wing Jews and calls it a "consensus."
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Rumors have been circulating for some time that Archbishop Desmond Tutu was banned by the University of St Thomas in Minnesota because of statements he made that some consider anti-Semitic. Now it's official: winning the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't protect you from charges of anti-Semitism if you criticize Israeli human rights practices. Neither, apparently, does being one of the most compelling voices for social justice in the world today, or even getting an honorary degree from and giving the commencement address at Brandeis.

Minneapolis/St.Paul's City Pages just reported that members of the St Thomas Justice and Peace Studies program were thrilled when Bishop Tutu agreed to speak at the University" but administrators did a scientific survey of the Jews of Minneapolis, which included querying exactly one spokesperson for Minnesota's Jewish Community Relations Council and several rabbis who taught in a University program" and concluded that Tutu is bad for the Jews and should therefore be barred from campus.

… in a move that still has faculty members shaking their heads in disbelief, St. Thomas administrators--concerned that Tutu's appearance might offend local Jews--told organizers that a visit from the archbishop was out of the question.
"We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy," says Doug Hennes, St. Thomas's vice president for university and government relations. "We're not saying he's anti-Semitic. But he's compared the state of Israel to Hitler and our feeling was that making moral equivalencies like that are hurtful to some members of the Jewish community."
St. Thomas officials made this inference after Hennes talked to Julie Swiler, a spokeswoman for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas. "I told him that I'd run across some statements that were of concern to me," says Swiler. "In a 2002 speech in Boston, he made some comments that were especially hurtful."
Just to send the message home, Swiler says:
"I think there's a consensus in the Jewish community that his words were offensive."
To be clear here, Swiler and the other rabbis have the right to say whatever they think, though representing those opinions, as Swiler does, as a Jewish consensus, is laughable.

Ultimately, groups like Minnesota's JCRC, the right wing fringe group Zionist Organization of America, and the increasingly embarrassing Anti-Defamation League, who have all attacked Tutu for his criticism of Israeli policies, will face the consequences of smearing Tutu -- a hero to millions and leader of a movement that was known for the massively disproportionate involvement of numerous South African Jews.

But it's the craven behavior of the administrators of St. Thomas that will likely be a mark of shame for years to come. While it's understandable, given the Church's history of virulent anti-Semitism, that a Catholic institution would be extra sensitive about relations with Jews, it's not clear here that there was any real pressure to cave in to. Did groups threaten to picket? Who knows what administrators were thinking?

Regardless, the backlash has already begun. Marv Davidov, an adjunct professor within the Justice and Peace Studies program said:
"As a Jew who experienced real anti-Semitism as a child, I'm deeply disturbed that a man like Tutu could be labeled anti-Semitic and silenced like this," he says. "I deeply resent the Israeli lobby trying to silence any criticism of its policy. It does a great disservice to Israel and to all Jews."
To make matters worse, when Cris Toffolo, the chair of the Justice and Peace Studies program told Tutu what happened and warned him of a possible smear campaign, she was immediately demoted.

Davidov again:
"This is pure bullshit," says Davidov. "As far as fighting for civil rights, I consider Tutu to be my brother. And I consider Cris Toffolo to be my sister. They're messing with my family here. If Columbia permits a Holocaust denier [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to speak at their university, why are St. Thomas officials refusing to let Tutu, an apostle of nonviolence, speak at ours?"
"What happened at the University of St. Thomas is not an isolated event," says Toffolo. "Until we have an honest debate about U.S. policy related to Israel, and about Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories, the spiral of violence will continue."
Why Tutu? Why now? Are his statements anti-Semitic?

Bishop Tutu is closely associated with Sabeel, a Jerusalem based Christian liberation theology organization started by Palestinian Anglican pastor Rev. Naim Ateek. Sabeel is "an international peace movement initiated by Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land who seek a just peace based on two states-Palestine and Israel-as defined by international law and existing United Nations resolutions."The group, and founder Naim Ateek in particular, have come under considerable attack by mainstream Jewish organizations that see their influence on domestic Christian organizations as a threat.

Sabeel works with local Christian partners to hold conferences in major cities across the United States. To the consternation of many, Bishop Tutu will be the featured speaker in late October at the Boston Sabeel conference. The conference title? "The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel:Issues of Justice and Equality."

Members of my group, Jewish Voice for Peace, have spoken at a handful of Sabeel conferences, and our Boston chapter is sponsoring a peace walk at the Boston conference.

As one JVP colleague who participated in several Sabeel conferences told me, she believed that Naim Atteek was guilty, at most, at times of being unaware of Jewish sensitivities around using certain Christian theological language (in fact, she publicly challenged him on this issue), but that he is ultimately advocating for a nonviolent resolution that recognizes the humanity and rights of both Jews and Palestinians. Of that, she has no doubt. (There are, to be sure, plenty of Palestinian sensitivities around language as well, though there is little interest among leaders of a variety of faiths in learning what those might be.)

Interestingly, the same can perhaps be said for Bishop Tutu, whose 2002 Sabeel speech seems to be the primary evidence offered for the cancellation of his talk. It's impossible to convey the spirit of his talk by quoting only bits and pieces, so read it. Read the whole thing, especially the part cited by St. Thomas' Doug Hennes where he says Tutu compared Israel to Hitler.

The talk is notable for its philo-Semitism and its equally passionate condemnation of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and people. For anyone who has been to the Occupied Territories, let alone lived through it, his words of condemnation are impossible to argue with. His language is challenging in part because it is imbued with the disappointment of a Christian raised to look up to Jews, and the heartache of an anti-apartheid leader who was once buoyed by passionate Jewish support. He struggles to make sense of the checkpoints, the home demolitions, the land confiscations, done by a state that says it represents the very same people.

What is clear is that he at times uses language loosely without understanding how it might hurt or offend us Jews. Does that make him an anti-Semite? Of course not. Should he be banned for using a term like "Jewish lobby" that makes many of us uncomfortable? Are you kidding?

Tutu never wavers in expressing his love of and hope for peace and security for both peoples. "Peace based on justice," Tutu says, "is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God's dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers. "

Action alert: Jewish Voice for Peace is asking people to go here to send a message to university officials asking them to let Tutu speak.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: israel, anti-semitism, tutu, new anti-semitism, st. thomas, muzzlewatch

Cecilie Surasky is Director of Communications for Jewish Voice for Peace.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
sickening
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 3, 2007 12:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy,"


Uh, you mean like... INTERNATIONAL LAW??? Dropping clusterbombs into civilian areas is a war crime.

Killing as many civilians (by Israel's own admitted numbers) as militants in Lebanon is outright murder.

But, of course... no one is supposed to say ANYTHING against Israel... no matter what that nation does.

Politics over humanity.. pure and simple.

» Admirable Restraint Posted by: gellero
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Admirable Restraint Posted by: 1gma
AIPAC Mentality ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Oct 3, 2007 12:54 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
I'm not Jewish , so at least I'm not a self hating Jew ...

We've seen this before .

Mersheimer and Walt , Jimmy Carter and Norman Finklestein to name a few who have been villlified as anti-semetic by the hateful Podhoritz , or 'a self hating Jew' the venomous Dershowitz .

Anyone who describes the plight of the Palestinians with any degree of truth is pilloried .

The beat goes on for Neocons .

I read recently where in the past Jews would critisize anyone who used Hitler as a comparison . Noone could compare , noone was in his league .

Now the name Hitler is bandied about by the Neocons and the Republicans to the point where is has lost its shock value, it has lost its currency.

Saddam was the new Hitler now Ahmanedinejad is the new Hitler .
.

simple answer as to why
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Oct 3, 2007 1:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" If Columbia permits a Holocaust denier [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to speak at their university, why are St. Thomas officials refusing to let Tutu, an apostle of nonviolence, speak at ours?"

Simple... Tutu is respected and would be taken seriously.

So we don't offend the Jews, but we offend everyone else?
Posted by: american on Oct 3, 2007 1:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have an issue with the relative valuation of opinion here. This certainly isn't akin to some standard like the greatest good for the greatest number. And what about the right to say something even though it may be wrong? What if the Jews are wrong?

» RE: Evidence please Posted by: PakiBoy
The rapture...
Posted by: chomsky on Oct 3, 2007 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you want to be saved when rapture comes, you have to be friend with the jews...
Because God will only save the jews and, apparently, their wealthy and obedient american friends!
The rest of the planet will be abandonned by God, of course.
So, excuse me, I need to get started quickly and find a jew to befriend...

Decline of an institution
Posted by: northerner on Oct 3, 2007 2:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How sad to see one of the world's great universities head down the path of mediocrity.

Wait, was that University of St. Thomas in Minnesota?

Never mind then. My bad.

read the speech
Posted by: kh on Oct 3, 2007 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks to the author for providing the link to the speech in question, at http://tinyurl.com/2fsml9

It's short. Read it to cleanse your mind of the absurdity.

Anti semitic?
Posted by: diarmaid on Oct 3, 2007 3:05 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, if you criticize negatively about Israel, such as her foreign policy, IDF, Palestanian issue, you'll be called anti-semitic at that moment. Which is bullshit. People don't know what semitic and anti-semitic means OR they just use it against you, one of the fallacies, more like ad hominem.

From time to time, I find this very similar to being called racist when you do something and a black person doesn't like it. They go like "you did it because I am black right?" but actually you did it because you wanted to. That's the moment you are called racist.

Anyway. I see no point in discussing about anything related to a State which is not sitting on their legal borders and occupying neighbours land.

Shutting Down Dissent
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 3, 2007 5:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What this reflects is the degree to which Israeli and American Policy have become synonymous and intertwined. Most nation states are quite capable of determining their self-interests, and most act accordingly. But, in the case of the USA, to criticize Israel, is perceived now in many quarters, as also criticizing the USA. The "boundaries" between the USA, and being an American, have become the boundaries of being an Israeli, and the policies of the Israeli state. Now, I think this is more the crux of what is going on then this so-called "anti-semite" rubbish stuff. Banning this speaker then is because he dares to criticize America and American Policy. We say he is criticizing Israel and her repression of the Palestinians, not the USA. Awwh yes, but go back to my argument, the policies, the boundaries of how the people (USA, Israeli) perceive themselves, are now almost essentially the same. After all, when Israel bombs countries like Lebanon, they are using American bombs and American planes. When they "terminate" Palestinians and also kill nearby civilians, they have the approval for this from Washington and once again are using American guns and bullets. And, when they kidnap and torture dissidents or Palestinians, they are taking a play right out of the CIA's own modus operandi. Next, to criticize Israel or Israeli policy will be deemed an expression of "terrorist speech." Punishable by appropriate actions by the FBI/CIA or Mossad (all the same). So, it is coming. Better watch what you say, what you do, who you associate with. Needless to say, you better not dare criticize Israel, not unless you want to be "water boarded."

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Nothing is Free
Posted by: rocketman on Oct 3, 2007 6:36 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is this any worse than Columbia banning the minutemen?

While I believe Israel has many problems - some created by themselves and some created by Arab nations constantly threatening them, most jews in this country support Israel over the US! It's no surprise that anyone with a anti Israel sentiment would be banned..

Free speech doesn't exist on the left or right!

Anti-semitism has lost its meaning.
Posted by: humanity101 on Oct 3, 2007 6:57 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's like when you criticize the Iraq War or Bush's spying on Americans, they will call you unpatriotic or aiding the terrorists; like Rush Limbaugh calling those soldiers "phony soldiers" then attacking the left for criticizing him. Those people have no credibility. I said it before. Even if the Israelis murder innocent people, they can get away with it because Americans are still frightened by the "anti-semitic" weapon. Keep abusing it and one day it will lose all its meaning. Actually it might not if we don't speak out against it. It's like Rush and his gang. When being criticized, the first and only thing they do is attack attack attack all those who criticize them and it works every time. Amazing! There must be a pay back somewhere and I think even though they feel like they win the fight, they will be hated and isolated in the world for their dirty tactic.

nolie
Posted by: spreadtruth on Oct 3, 2007 7:07 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey I love a good Jew and Bush bashing site as much as the next guy but from what I've read here most of you lack anything resembling intelect or facts? But keep up the good work, Saalam Alechem my brothers!

Don't paint all Jews
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Oct 3, 2007 10:11 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with the blood spilled by the Israeli government. It's no more accurate than saying that Bushco is acting on behalf of and with the approval of all Americans.

plur

What a wonderful way to celebrate banned books week!
Posted by: Infamous on Oct 3, 2007 10:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ban Bishop Desmond Tutu. Yeah! I hope someone has written a children's book about him. What a wonderful man.

apartheid?
Posted by: lotus23 on Oct 4, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comparing Israel's occupation to apartheid....how dare he? After all, what could Desmond Tutu possibly know about apartheid?

I guess Nelson Mandela is will be the next persona non grata. They can invite Daniel Pipes -- expert of Palestinians the way an exterminator is about insects -- as a replacement.

» Reminds me a bit... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: apartheid? Posted by: opeluboy
Open and democratic
Posted by: davmills on Oct 4, 2007 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bishop Tutu expressed his opinions in an open and democratic manner. He should therefore be permitted to speak at the university. He is really against violence more than Isreal, and perhaps believes Isreal can exist without practicing such.

Ann Coulter spoke at UST
Posted by: katinmn on Oct 4, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please be aware that UST invited right-wing hate monger Ann Coulter to its campus and allowed her to speak. The public outrage following Coulter's talk forced the president to issue a statement that her remarks did not reflect UST values.

I'm confused about what UST's values are, if not peace and tolerance and if not Coulter-esque.

Imagine.....
Posted by: FedUp on Oct 4, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the USA governed for one year by a Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, or Evo Morales..........sigh.
I can dream, can't I? (BTW: trivia buffs, that's a song by the Andrew Sisters)

Where's Yellow?
Posted by: opeluboy on Oct 4, 2007 6:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I saw that this piece had been published here, I knew that yellow must be working overtime calling all the responders morons, anti-Semites and Jew-haters. Imagine my surprise to find his furious entries nowhere.

Maybe he just hasn't got the memo yet.

Jews are Doin' It for Themselves
Posted by: opeluboy on Oct 4, 2007 6:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fostering anti-Semitism, that is.

There isn't even the need to do this shit behind the scenes any longer, so arrogant have the Zionists in this country (and around the world) become. And they get away with it.

There isn't even the pretense that a war with Iran is to protect us here at home (or to save France). It's about Israel, "Holocaust denial" and "wiping Israel off the map." Everyone knows Iran poses no threat to us. Yet we must further bankrupt our nation and give more blood to satisfy the Zionists. Our Congress and our media willingly go along.

It is obvious to all but the most blind exactly who the people are beating the drums for war with Iran. Even Ed Koch was worried about it, because this used to happen behind the throne, not in front. It makes all Jews look bad (he said).

Yes, anti-Semitism, if not on the rise now, will be soon. And not just here, but around the world. And, no, I am not looking forward to it and the thought of it frightens and saddens me, but more and more people, when they see these sorts of things, realize that 2% of our population simply have too much control.

That never goes over well. You'd think that would sink in by now.

» Its not antisemitism Posted by: dustdevil
Astounding that anyone could be offended by that beautiful and moving speech
Posted by: asilsfable on Oct 5, 2007 1:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a Jew and I have also met Archbishop Tutu and I have to say he is the most gracious, principled and committed person I've ever known. His words are stirring, mostly because they are so heartfelt and full of intention. To keep him from speaking at a campus is completely unacceptable.

Naomi Klein's excellent thesis in the Shock Doctrine applies to Israel and many Jews as well. Fear, paranoia and a cherry picking of facts keep the populace easy to manipulate. An inability to accept criticism of any kind shelters right wing ideology from being exposed to the light.

Still, I find comments here to be sometimes dispiriting, because they tend to spur the 'everybody hates us' mantra of (sadly) most Jews. Until the Jewish community decides to shrug off the fear that kicks a sense of reason and compassion to the curb, little will change.

The way I see it, peace and justice will save lives. Archbishop Tutu knows this--it worked in his country.

Desmon Tutu and Mandela are both antisemites
Posted by: EretzYisrael on Oct 5, 2007 12:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no question about it. Now I know it is not very popular here to criticize liberal icons like Mandela and Tutu, but the fact is that both have called Israel an apartheid state. They also defend the terrorist tactics of the Arabs against the Jewish state.

Martin Luther King once remarked that Anti-Zionism is the same as Antisemitism. Both these liberal icons are guilty as charged.

Tony Karon's Take on This
Posted by: opeluboy on Oct 5, 2007 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://tonykaron.com/2007/10/03/my-favorite-anti-semite/

It occurs to me that they far right might be using AIPAC to achieve its own political goals.
Posted by: yellow on Oct 7, 2007 10:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It could be that the far right might be using the Zionist groups as cover to oppose political figures that it opposes itself. Using the rightwing Jewish groups, which are not representitive, is a good way to hide behind someone else letting them take the fall for one's own narrow political repressive tactics. Anti-semitism has been used by the fringe right, mostly non-Jewish, to delegitimate left causes and figures not tolerated by the mainstream far right. This seems like their classic modus opporandi and a case in which they would relish employing it.

I don't believe AIPAC acted alone because, as the article says, the Jewish groups were approached by the authorities and nearly goaded into opposing TUTU. They very well may not have had they not been approached in such an encouraging manner. It also is a way of opening up the way for future episodes should this one succeed. Karl Rove is no tactical dummy. Besides, this makes a great rightist tactic. Hide behind the Jewish Right. The Jewish Peace Movement has its work cut out for it. They seem quite friendless.

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement