g-d bless progressive liberal politics
a doctoral candidate to oxford has been rejected by a university official for being israeli.
in an e-mail to the student, prof. andre wilkie writes,
“Thank you for contacting me, but I don’t think this would work. I have a huge problem with the way that the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust, and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because they [the Palestinians] wish to live in their own country.
“I am sure that you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who had served in the Israeli army. As you may be aware, I am not the only UK scientist with these views but I’m sure you will find another lab if you look around.”
has the academic boycott of israel gone too far, encouraging the same sort of discrimination these activists claim to be against? or is this a case of the new “acceptable” anti-semitism?
I think this is relatively straightforward; it’s called discrimination on the basis of national origin. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for instance, reads (Art. 2):
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”
nanook rubs it!
“has the academic boycott of israel gone too far, encouraging the same sort of discrimination these activists claim to be against? or is this a case of the new “acceptable” anti-semitism?”
Duh. The academic boycott of israel went too far the minute it started.
I think the last comment is patently false. Although the issue at hand is clearly an example of “the academic boycott of israel gone too far” many of the issues that the said boycott protests are very righteous indeed. Israel is in violation of a plethora if human rights issues and until it wakes up and gets back into step with the rest of the world, the so-called boycott will continue to “go too far” in the eyes of many.
I think that Prof. Wilke has every right to reject his application. If Wilke feels uncomfortable working with a Jew, then it is his personal problem. Not his academic responsibiltity to accept on basis of religion. However, he rejected him on political basis. I, for one, think that the Israeli army is too harsh and in all honesty criminal. The Jews have for too long gotton an easy ride on account of semitic sympathy.
“I think that Prof. Wilke has every right to reject his application. If Wilke feels uncomfortable working with a Jew, then it is his personal problem. Not his academic responsibiltity to accept on basis of religion.”
Actually it is his responsibility to uphold the hiring policies of the organization he works for, Oxford U, which he is not doing. it is also his responsibility as an employee of his boss, to carry out his boss’ policies. His boss has expressed deep dismay at Wilkie’s actions. If Wilkie is so clueless as to act like a loose cannon, he has no business taking on the responsiblity of running a lab, or any other activity where he has managerial authority. For this alone he should be sacked.
He wrote his famous email in his professional capacity on company time, yet it was grossly unprofessional in its tone and in the fact that it didn’t seem to occur to him that it could be used to publicize his refusal to abide by Oxford’s policies. Therefore he has demonstrated that he doesn’t know how to behave in his job, and for that he should be sacked. After all – the guy is an adult, this is not his first job, and he should know better. He demonstrates that he does not have the maturity to enact his job.
I’m not even going to respond to the “Israel = criminal state” bullshit. Evidently you believe the same things Wilkie believes, but you are the recipients of propaganda, and you should learn some history.
“Israel is in violation of a plethora if human rights issues and until it wakes up and gets back into step with the rest of the world, the so-called boycott will continue to “go too far” in the eyes of many.”
I don’t see boycotts of other nations which are in violation of many more human rights, and which are not battling brainwashed suicide bombers and struggling for their very existence. As long as the boycott advocates single Israel out and magnify her “crimes” while refusing to condemn the actual crimes of others, they have no credibility.
The UN has treated Israel differently from any other nation since her birth, because of the power of the Arab block and for a time the Soviet Union, directly contravening the UN’s own principles. So all those “resolutions” are not coming from a credible source.
I have a lot of links on the Wilkie case here.
http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2003_06_29_kesher_archive.html#105718192456342213
Socialism = anti-semitism, it always has, and it always will. The Nazi’s were just a different breed of Socialist. Israel has done nothing wrong except defend itself against war-mongering Muslims from the first day of its existence. When are Jews going to wake up and realise that the Left is their enemy?
Shawn,
The Left is an enemy to the Jews? How bout the Right?
We all need to stop making so many enemies and focus on how to make friends.