Clash of Worldviews

Franklin B. Krohn, Edward S. Boylan, W. C. Meecham

To the Editor:

I am shocked and disappointed that Academe would publish the letter from Sadanand Nanjundiah attacking Israel without editorial comment or another balancing letter.

Nanjundiah's letter is part of the worldwide conspiracy to delegitimize the only democracy in the Middle East. Even as I read his hateful and bitter letter and respond to it, reports of vicious Palestinian terrorist attacks pour in.

What the apologists for Palestinian terrorists fail to understand is that deliberate murder of civilians is morally far different from the measured response of Israel's defense forces. The actions of Israel are designed to prevent further murders of its people. Nanjundiah's twisting of facts makes it appear that restrictions of Palestinians are simply mean-spirited acts of repression rather than responses to indiscriminate slaughter of Israeli civilians. Nanjundiah complains about the effect of Israeli defensive responses on Palestinian students but ignores the deliberate Palestinian terrorist murders of Israelis, including little children, high school students, university students, and civilians of all ages.

Those who are ignorant of the Middle East would assume from Nanjundiah's letter that Israel is the only country in the world worthy of criticism. What about homosexuals who are routinely imprisoned and threatened with execution in Egypt? What about women who are beheaded for sex outside of marriage in Saudi Arabia? What about China, which has occupied Tibet for over half a century? What about Iraq, where political opponents are routinely murdered and no dissent is permitted? What about African countries that execute women by stoning for violation of sexual mores? What about the lack of religious freedom for Bahá'ís and Jews in Iran? What about genocidal slaughter in some African countries? Are Israel's methods to combat terrorism worse than those used by Russia against Chechen rebels? Why are there no petitions circulating on college campuses against countries that enslave minorities, imprison dissidents, murder political opponents, and torture suspected terrorists?

The simple truth is that the Arabs fear Israel not for its military strength or its economic power but for its vibrant democracy. The Arabs need to understand that their problems are not the fault of America and Israel but of their own medieval culture and beliefs. Totalitarian Arab leaders feed lies to their own people to divert them from asking questions about their own deplorable economies, educational institutions, lack of freedom, and poverty. Even now, state-controlled Egyptian television is presenting a miniseries on The Protocols of Zion, a czarist fabrication designed to inflame hatred of Jews.

That Academe would acquiesce in publishing without comment or balance the fanaticism shown in Nanjundiah's letter is deplorable. The editors owe an apology to readers and members.

Franklin B. Krohn
(School of Business)
State University of New York, College at Fredonia

To the Editor:

Quoting from an article in the May-June issue of Academe by John Akker, Nanjundiah alleges that Akker's statement that "[i]n many parts of the world, being a college or university academic or student is not a safe thing to be. The same holds true for elementary and secondary school teachers and, increasingly, for students" is "[n]owhere . . . truer today than in the West Bank and Gaza." Nanjundiah's claim is absolutely false. It was Hebrew University, not Bir Zeit University, where a lunchroom was bombed. It is Israeli children who face the threat of bombs whenever they board buses to schools.

It certainly is true that Israeli actions to prevent terrorism have interfered with the ability of students to travel freely in the West Bank and attend school. Alas, it is difficult to institute measures that disrupt only travel by terrorists. Moreover, one of the main educational objectives of the Palestinian educational system seems to be to induce as many impressionable students as possible to become suicide bombers. That endangers their lives at least as much as any action taken by Israel. It is difficult to believe that Academe's editors are unaware of these facts. But perhaps, not wishing to choose sides, they simply thought it appropriate to publish a one-sided letter and await an inevitable reply.

What is more difficult to understand is the inability of the editorial staff to count. Right next to Nanjundiah's letter is a box about how to contact Academe, clearly stating that letters to the editor have a "word limit of 300." By my count, the Palestinian professor's communication has over 450 words. Why was Nanjudiah allowed to go over the "limit" by over 50 percent? Is Academe so desperate to promote the Palestinian cause as to discard its own rules?

Edward S. Boylan
(Mathematics and Computer Science)
Rutgers University-Newark

To the Editor:

W. C. Meecham
Pacific Palisades, Calif.

The Editor Responds:

There is no graven rule on letter length in this column. We ask correspondents to limit their letters to 300 words in the interest of not monopolizing space in the magazine. Indeed, we can count, but sometimes choose—as in the case of two of the letters printed above—not to sacrifice robust discussion to overly zealous word counting.

Nanjundiah wrote his letter in response to an article published in Academe on the situation of academics struggling in less than civil societies. This article recounted at length many examples of such struggle from around the globe.

We do not solicit letters. The responses to Nanjundiah's letter published here prove that balance can best be supplied by open debate and discussion. The letters in this column represent the opinions of Academe's readers and AAUP members; as such, they arrive to Academe's readers without editorial endorsement or apology.

LAWRENCE HANLEY
(City University of New York)
Editor, Academe

 Printer-Friendly Page