I had an iphone “moment of truth” last week while attending one of the many “Ignore the Fact that the Arab World is in Flames and Instead Listen to Us Rehash Accusations Against Israel for the Umpteenth Time” events that take place at Boston College every Spring.
This one featured Tel Aviv University professor Anat Biletzki (file her origin in your mind for now, as it will be relevant soon) talking about The Goldstone Report. More specifically, she was talking about how since Righteous Jew Richard Goldstone published his landmark report, Israel has become even more repressive, more McCarthyite, more (dare she use the word) fascist than ever before in order to prevent its truth from becoming global policy.
Now I haven’t heard Professor Biletzki talk before but others I know have and, more importantly, she is just one of a class of speakers that have been providing similar background noise in the area for decades. This class consists of relative lightweights with impressive sounding titles who, despairing of getting their countrymen to vote the way they want, instead travel the globe to denounce their nation and fellow citizens to the cheers of a ready market of Israel-dislikers hungry for content (preferably delivered with an Jewish or Israeli accent).
Such talks are usually peppered with un-provable accusations (is Israeli military intelligence really tapping the phones of BC students?), and easily exposable fabrications. Which is why talks like this must be engineered to avoid any actual exchanges with the audience during which lies can be exposed.
My iphone moment came when Ms. Biletzki claimed that Alan Dershowitz, during a lecture at Tel Aviv University, called for the firing of two professors (by name) for their political views and activity.
Now I have been exposed to Alan Dershowitz since he first yelled at my mother in the 1970s (a story for another time), so even though I understand him to be one of the best assets supporters of Israel have against legions of accusers like Biletzki, I also know that (especially during heated exchanges with hostile audiences) he tends to say controversial things.
But given that everything I’ve ever heard Dershowitz say on the subject of academic freedom involves countering bad academic speech with good speech (not punishing professors for their beliefs), I couldn’t imagine him calling for the firing of professors as part of a planned public address. And so I pulled out my phone, fired up Safari and Googled his address.
Interestingly, the full text of the speech was linked from another sitewhich denounced his talk in terms similar to those used by the BC speaker. But nowhere in the speech itself could I find a single reference to what Biletzki had just said. In fact, Dershowitz seems to go out of the way to re-enforce the point he makes regularly: that the best way to deal with professors telling lies is for other professors to tell the truth.
And far from being an example of McCarthyism, his speech is actually an accusationof McCarthyism directed against Biletzki and several other Tel Aviv academics who he claims have been routinely using their influence and authority within the university to undercut those with whom they politically disagree, as well as using the classroom as a platform for political indoctrination, rather than educational enlightenment.
Now I have no idea if Dershowitz’s accusations against Biletzki and like-minded academics at her institution are true or not, but I can confirm that at least one player in this heated exchange (Biletzki) was easily exposed as using lies to smear a political adversary, something that certainly smacks of McCarthyism more than any Israeli or pro-Israeli activity she denounced from the stage that evening.
Since the highly controlled Q&A session did not allow for the type of give and take that would let this lie be fully exposed, I instead questioned her about it after the event, during which time she assured me that she had the whole talk on tape and would provide me support for her accusation by e-mail (I’m still waiting).
After thinking the whole event over, I can only think of a few alternative explanations for why Ms. Biletzki said what she said:
* She spoke the truth and does have the evidence she claimed, but has not yet found the time to provide it. (Given that others I know who have challenged her in other forums were also promised supporting data that was never delivered, I think this explanation the least likely.)
* She made the whole thing up in hope that her audience (mostly BC undergraduates) would simply accept what she said at face value, given her role as a professor (i.e., an argument from authority)
* Her self-regard is so huge that any accusation that she or people who believe as she does can represent anything other than the pure distillation of virtue can only be understood as the attack of a McCarthyite fascist
This last option is re-enforced by the nature of the audiences speakers like Biletzki choose to speak before: like-minded Palestinian hasbarah ditto-heads who willingly lap up any accusations against Israel and lash out at anyone who uses their free speech rights to criticize such anti-Israel propaganda masquerading as peace activism.
It should be noted that Ms. Biletzky is a professor of philosophy, which may explain why she made reference to rhetoric on more than one occasion. Which brings me to the title of this piece which is one of the three modes of persuasion identified by Aristotle which include logos (an appeal to reason), pathos (an appeal to the emotions) and ethos(an ethical appeal to the audience based on the integrity and character of the speaker, usually demonstrated through the strength of the presentation itself – i.e., not as an appeal to authority because of the speaker’s title or broader reputation).
If I were to subject Biletzky’s talk to an analysis based on these three categories, she seems to be feigning logos by presenting accusations (many untrue) as unquestionable facts (usually backed up by nothing more than appeals to authority, either by individuals like Goldstone or organizations like the United Nations). The heart of her talk was actually pathos which is the cornerstone of all BDS-style arguments, counting on they do of the emotional impact of gut-wrenching stories and picture of suffering Palestinians, absent any context (or logos) to ensure their effectiveness.
Which leaves us with ethos, i.e., the integrity of a speaker who engages in this type of behavior in order to please one audience at the expense of, among other things, the truth. And as far as I can tell, Ms. Biletzky, like those that invited her, indeed like everyone making up the BDS “movement,” has none.