Mitchell Plitnick and Cecilie Surasky: A disservice to Jews, with best intentions

Stifling criticism of Israel, as the University of St. Thomas has done, makes matters worse.

By Mitchell Plitnick and Cecilie Surasky

Last update: October 9, 2007 - 6:57 PM

The Rev. Dennis Dease, president of the University of St. Thomas, recently barred Archbishop Desmond Tutu from speaking on campus because of remarks about Israel that many Jews found offensive.

If the cancellation of Tutu had been an anomaly, the story would likely have quietly faded away. Instead, it is earning widespread news coverage and international condemnation because it fits into a broader pattern in which people critical of Israeli human-rights violations are either censored or self-censor because they fear being attacked for their views.

Dease seems to have been motivated by a genuine desire to avoid hurting Minnesota's Jewish community. However, he ended up not only making a wrong and unethical decision, but also hurting Jews everywhere and harming hopes for a more-enlightened American attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For those of us who have seen the occupation up close, it is a searing experience filled with the humiliating treatment of Palestinians at checkpoints, home demolitions with little warning, the arbitrary destruction of family farms and much worse. Tutu, who toured the occupied Palestinian territories, has not held back in his condemnation of these abuses, and his remarks have sometimes been harsh.

But Tutu's credentials as a staunch defender of human rights are unimpeachable. He is one of our age's great heroes, and most Jews, whether they agree with everything he says or not, believe he has every right to be heard.

The controversy stems from a speech Tutu delivered in 2002. An extreme right-wing group, the Zionist Organization of America, issued a report that made it appear he had compared Israel to Hitler. In fact, Tutu said nothing of the kind. He merely listed numerous unjust regimes that have fallen, as he believes the occupation regime will fall. In the same speech, Tutu condemned acts of violence against Israelis and unambiguously supported Israel's right to exist within secure borders.

Sadly, the misinformation about Tutu's statements has become much more prominent than the man's actual words.

That said, Dease's decision does the Jewish community a great disservice on several counts. First, by giving the impression that Jews do not value a free and open debate on Israeli policies and mobilized to squelch Tutu -- which they did not -- he has fomented greater anti-Semitism.

Second, just as friends don't let friends drive drunk, true friends of Israel should refuse to silence debate about the occupation, no matter how uncomfortable that debate may be. True friends don't let friends occupy another people. Not for 40 years, not with U.S. financial and diplomatic support, and not when it makes a peaceful future for both Israelis and Palestinians virtually impossible.

By barring Tutu, Dease has opened the door for even more people to believe that to criticize Israel is to be labeled an anti-Semite, making it more difficult to have an honest discussion about one of the most important issues of our time.

Too many self-appointed representatives of the Jewish community act as thought police to anyone, Jewish or not, who dares to question U.S.-Israeli policy. The last thing we need is for non-Jews who sincerely want to be our allies to take up the same torch of censorship and silencing.

After all, while some of Tutu's harsher words may make us uncomfortable, millions of Jews around the world find the facts of the occupation, and what it's doing to both Palestinians and Israelis, infinitely more offensive.

Mitchell Plitnick is director of policy and Cecilie Surasky is director of communications for Jewish Voice for Peace, a peace group with chapters across the country.

Recent Commentary stories

D.J. Tice: It's easy to pounce on that political football - October 9, 2007

D.J. Tice: It's easy to pounce on that political football - The tougher issues involve the cost of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program -- and whether it is a just endeavor to begin with. More

Comment on this story | Be the first to comment | Hide reader comments

New ideas for the public sector

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME to create a more efficient Minnesota. Facing large budget deficits at the state, county and local levels, Minnesotans are seeing with new clarity that the public sector must adapt to new economic realities. Only the smartest, most strategic reinvention will ensure that our tax dollars are spent on the best programs and services. Read more

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS