I found the May 9 public talk in the Erb Memorial Union Ballroom by David Zev Harris illuminating, but not in the way expected.
Several people I spoke with after the talk said they were disturbed by the same thing that bothered me. They, like I, were attracted by advance publicity describing Harris as an “international journalist.”
The top line in the promotional
advertisement printed in the Emerald stressed his identity as a former BBC reporter. Familiar with the BBC and its image of integrity, I was anxious to hear his views on the Palestine tragedy.
Early in his talk, it became clear that whatever his journalist identity once was, today he is an Israeli propagandist. That may not be an honorable title, though it is shared by public relations types on both sides of most political questions. But it is
antithetical to integrity, just as is the place of PR in a school of journalism.
Misleading ads and PR are always with us. We just have to be able to see through them. That is what many of us had to do as Harris spoke. He was persistent in describing Israel’s
response to Arab bombers as right and proper, even when its excessive actions brought criticism from almost every nation except the United States.
Propagandists have a right to be heard. But their sponsors (in this case, they included the Jewish Student Union and the Schnitzer Judaic Studies program) owe it to the audience to make clear whom the speaker represents.
Misleading rhetoric and advertising become even more negative as they feed tragic suffering among Palestinians and Israelis. They also risk building antagonism in an audience that publicity has misled.
When I asked Harris about the misleading promotional ad, he said (rightly) he could not control how his appearances nationwide would be advertised by host groups. That’s where the problem lies: the host groups. A forum of this type on an issue of such importance derives credibility from its sponsors. The Schnitzer Foundation and Jewish Student Union are respected groups with good credibility — except on the subject of Israel and Palestine.
Such a program would have respect and credibility were it sponsored by an uncommitted host, such as a Middle East studies program. Unhappily, that’s where the University, an otherwise fine liberal arts school, has a gaping vacuum. There may be isolated classes on the subject. But absence of a solid curriculum, on one of the most critical subjects of the past
half century, is an embarrassment
to the University.
If funding is given for a program in Judaic Studies, I have no argument with it, even though it serves a small minority of students, most of them already familiar with the Jewish Temple. The irony is the vacuum in Middle Eastern studies, a vital program that would serve so many more.