Antisemitism History in the United States : CSPAN3 : June 23, 2024 2:52pm-4:07pm EDT : Free Borrow & Streaming : Internet Archive (2024)

my name is christopher scalia. i'm a senior fellow here at aei. and it's my my pleasure to welcome you all to the fifth installment of the american dream lecture series, a component of aei, american dream initiative. this series seeks to revitalize our nation's core institutions and values by inviting prominent writers, academics and thinkers to address some of the most significant political, cultural and social issues facing the united states. as we approach the 250th

anniversary of america's founding, these lectures are an opportunity to ask how healthy are our national institutions and foundational principles? what threats do they face and what prospects for reform are available? last september, ember, we invited tonight's speaker to discuss anti-semitism in the united states. that was nearly a month before hamas's attack on israel and the ensuing pro-hamas anti-israel protests on campuses around the united states. i wish our invitation had not become so much more relevant. in january, the anti-defamation league reported more than 3000 anti-semitic incidents between october 7th and january 7th, an increase of 361%. compared to the same period the previous year and as we've seen, campus protests explode over the past month into encampments and building takeovers with the

overt hatred expressed toward -- and the jewish state of israel. it's more important than ever to understand the history and nature of anti-semitic racism. this evening's guest is an invaluable guide for these times. someone who can bring both light and when necessary, heat to questions about antisemitism as a distinctively political phenomenon about the connection between anti-semitic ism and anti liberalism more generally, about how anti-semitic isms roots in 19th century germany as well as its eventual adoption by the soviet union, can help us understand what we see going on around us today and whether legislation such as the anti-semitism awareness act that recently passed the house is the best way to address the problem. dr. ruth weiss is harvard university's martin peretz, professor of yiddish literature and comparative literature emerita. born in romania in 1936, she was

four years old when her family emigrated to montreal. she earned her b.a. from mcgill university and her master's from columbia, and then back to mcgill for her phd. there she helped found the department of jewish studies before venturing to harvard, where she taught until 2014. she's the author of several books, including if i am not for myself the liberal betrayal of --, -- and power and free as a --. a personal memoir of national self liberation. apology. she's to those of you watching online but we have free copies of that memoir for all of you attending in person today or for many of you attending in person today, probably not all of you. she has also co-edited or edited collections of yiddish fiction and poetry and has contributed essays to many outlets, including national affairs commentary in the wall street journal. her honors include the national

humanities medal and an honorary degree from yeshiva university. dr. weiss will speak about anti-semitism for about 30 minutes, after which she'll be joined on stage for a discussion with matthew continetti. mr. continetti is the director of domestic policy studies and the inaugural patrick and shirley neal, chair in american prosperity here at aei, where his work focuses on american political thought and history. he was opinion editor at the weekly standard, as well as the founding editor and editor in chief of the washington free beacon. he's a contributing editor at national review, a columnist for commentary and has been published in the atlantic. the new york times, the wall street journal and the washington post. you may have seen him on tv, fox news channel's special report with brett bair, nbc's meet the press, and you'll hear his dulcet tones in the commentary podcast a few times every week. he's the author of three books,

including most recently the right the 100 year war for american conservatives. and he, like dr. weiss, has a degree from, of all places, columbia. dr. weiss and mr. continetti will converse for about 20 minutes. then we'll turn to audience question, audience questions. afterwards, i hope you'll join us for light refreshments and conversation in the adjoining gallery. but now, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming dr. ruth weiss. to the u.s. thank you. shall i put this down a bit. thank you very, very much. this is the place to be. and among people i read and admire and and just i.

i'm just overwhelmed by what you tell, what you say, because, in fact, i've been thinking about and writing about these ideas for years and one does not want to have them come to life in the way that they have done recently. so i think that it is customary to try to warm up an audience with a joke. so why don't i try one? this one from the first world war. the mayor of a french town. directs his deputy to round up all the -- and all the bicyclists and the deputy says, why the bicyclists. you're not laughing. but if and if it didn't. if it didn't bring down the house, i'm sure that it's not just my telling, although i'm not a comedian by nature.

but you're not yet in the spirit of our subject, antisemitism, which is the most improbably successful ideology and political strategy of modern times. can you think of anything that is weirder than american students in the land of the free and the home of the brave of supporting hamas, islam lists against israel. in 1945, americans the decisive force defeating hitlerism discovered the remnant of the six-day million -- whom the germans and their willing executioners in daniel gold, hagen's felicitous phrase had managed to cleanse from the continent. but anti-semitism had done no less to destroy germany. fact that we sometimes overlook and that should be emphasized, i would say more than the fact that it destroyed the -- once the general, the center of european culture. go to schiller park.

beethoven, brahms. archeology, philosophy. psychology, modernism and whatnot. its reputation was now forever ruined. scrubbing its hands like a deathless lady macbeth. in that same decade of the 1940s, the -- reestablished their national sovereignty in the land of israel that had been under foreign occupation for two millennia, and that is the difference between a civilization of builders and a civilization of destroyers and ti semitism is not about the --, but about those who organized polity against them and any society governed by that ideology is doomed. yet here we are with a growing part of the student population and not just the student populace of america, advocating the same politics of destruction that america went to war, to defeat. it is certainly the stuff of black humor, but i feel

compelled to take it seriously, as of course you do here. so our subject is antisemitism in america. but the only way i can understand it, as chris said, is to say how we got here and in order to do that, one has to understand what anti-semitism really is, how it works, why it succeeds. i realize how hard committees have worked to craft the international holocaust remembrance alliance definition of antisemitism, and i do hope that its adoption will make some difference. but i view antisemitism rather as the organization of politics against the -- and as an instrument of modern politics directed at whatever the -- represent. to begin to understand it. what we ask is who are its sponsors? and its adherents? whom does it benefit?

what do they gain by it? how do they advocated? who is susceptible? what are its functions? how does it succeed? now, there are always good reasons for targeting the -- rather than any other group. but these follow from the anti-semites need for them as target. so the obvious point of departure, as was said, and some of this i have written about in national affairs actually. so thank you to its editor. the obvious point of departure for understanding anti-semite ism is the movement. by that name established by wilhelm meyer in 1879 in germany as the anti-semitic legal or the antisemitism league. ma was a disappointed man of the left who had come to fear the consequences of emancipation that were taking hold of europe. he identified --, the most

obvious beneficiaries of liberalization as the cause of its problems. warning the -- were conquered in germany from within. warning against the victory of the student tombs. if it does gather momentum that the poor germans were being overtaken, he claimed, by jewishness. so rather than actually address the serious difficulties and they were serious that germany faced in adjusting to its many political economic culture ral challenges his movement explained them as the fault of the -- and called for political action against them. and i would say that here are some of its functions. so first, the politics of the pointing finger. it offered explanation and solution as explanation. the rothschilds have taken your

money. the -- have taken your jobs. -- have taken over. journalism. music. literature. art. high net corrupts. art. poetry. freud corrupts our use. some christians blame -- for weakening the authority of the church. the rising middle class resented the -- strong competition, the visible prominence of -- made them a credible explanation. while the political dependency of the -- made them an ideal target. this explanation came with a simple solution. it was profitable to remove or to destroy the -- and there was no political price to be paid for their elimination. so next, scapegoating a word which is always used in this connection. it deflected attention from the real causes of the problem, and it masked the accusers.

anti liberal attempt to gain power. a negative campaign needs no positive program beyond the promise of more lebanese scum. more of everything. once the -- are cleared away and if i may demonstrate what a pointing finger does, if you follow the pointing finger, you see what you don't see in prestidigitation. it is the hand of the person who's actually performing the deed. so it takes attention away from whatever those people are doing, what they are, what they stand for, and that makes it very effective. third, and i would say that this is one of its most important functions. antisemitism is the great coalition builder, although maher differentiated his movement from christian opposition to judaism, which is why he chose that name, not anti judaism or anything like that.

he drew on the negative stereotype of the -- and he was joined by conservative christians as well as secular ultranationalists. other movements forced and still force choices between internationalism and nationalism, secular and religious, liberal and conservative, left and right. a small people with a hugely inflated variable image. -- were the ultimate unifying target. coalition building remains one of the main functions of organized housing politics against the --. and if you think ahead, we'll come to that to the u.n. and of course, intersectionality on the campuses. so explanation, solution, deflection, coalition builder, anti-semitism was also a unilateral or negative campaign. now, negative campaigning may be vulgar, dishonest, cruel.

trump is a criminal demagogue. sleepy joe can't find his tongue and so on. but all democracies engage in it. not so against the --. a minority by choice that needs coexist. instance, it needs reciprocal tolerance from the surrounding society, and it needs tolerance from precisely the people who are most against it. so -- lack any incentive for attacking the surrounding majorities. they have every disincentive to attack those who are doing them harm. now, i'm not speaking here about the moral basis of jewish civilization, but about its political consequence. inss -- are an anti imperial people except putting the torah at sinai create a contractual self-limiting relationship with the divine. the authority that granted them

a small land with no guarantees of keeping it and no claim to any other. this unique arrangement created not just disparity, but a radical political contrast between -- and other nations. that makes them uniquely susceptible to attack. there is much more to be said about the jewish side of this complementarity. but for the moment, our focus stays on those who exploit this unique political opportune duty that the -- represent. now, this is to say that antisemitism had a winning political strategy by the end of the 19th century. the mayor of vienna was elected on a platform of anti semitism. hitler rose to power in germany in the 1920s, defeating liberal and communist opposition to become the chancellor of germany in 1933, waging that same anti jewish war comes to which nazi

ism had added the accusation of polluting the aryan race. by 1945, -- had been eliminated, not just from germany, but for most of europe. so what we have here is not, as you hear it all the time, the longest hatred, the dislike of the unlike discriminate nation or any of the ways that social scientists have tried to theorize this as one example of something larger. anti-semitism is the larger idea or ideology that takes over societies by seeming to be only against the inconsequential --. but before getting to the here and now, we have to go back to see how anti-israel scientism, although not yet by that name, emerged in tandem with anti-semitism, the enlightenment wreaked past religion in

political terms, and unlike christianity, which separates what is owing to caesar from what is owing to god. judaism is a national religion. or as mordechai kaplan put it, a religious civilization. jewish religion is indivisible from nationality. so the french national assembly's idea of toleration accorded equal rights to -- as individuals, but granted them nothing as a nation. captain alfred dreyfus could become the ideal french citizen, yet remains suspect of treason. as a --. bruno bauer and karl marx's debate over the status of -- as citizens in a postwar and post-national world. confirmed. first, the -- were now to be considered in political, not religious terms. but this made the jewish question or the jewish problem as it had become the main

sticking point of internationalism. marx claimed to be speaking in socio economic political terms. yet he drew from christianity the notion that the existence of the -- prevented universal salvation in order for his conception of historical progress to work. the -- would have to dissolve themselves as a people. now, marx was explicit in defining the -- as huckster. hence the need for his elimination. and i would say that rereading marx on the jewish question is a good way to fathom what is being taught in our universities. and here i'll quote an organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for and therefore the possibility of huckster ing would make the -- impossible. his religious consciousness would be dissipated like the thin haze in the real vital air

of society. on the other hand, if the -- recognize that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricated himself from his previous development and works for human immense passion. as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self estrangement. we recognize this is still marx. we recognize in judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which, through historical development, to which in this harmful respect the -- have zealously contributed, has been brought to its present high level at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate. in the final analysis, the emancipation of the -- is the emancipation of mankind from judaism. now the political functions of

this eliminationist anti jewishness were the same as wilhelm marr's pointing finger as explanation and solution scapegoating. coalition building, negative campaigning. and so on. but this, i would argue, proved much more lethal because it spoke in the name of progress. and progress on the way to universal salvation. why more lethal? well, let me suggest some ways. whereas opposition to the -- as enemy alien is required only their physical removal. which led moses hand. excuse me. moses hess and theodore hertzel. and many zionists to believe that they could normalize the jewish condition by recovering the national sovereignty in the land of israel. and they did. the internationalist ideals, magical versions of socialism and communal ism required the

removal of jewish civilization dissolve from the -- was the precondition for the international and the first necessary step in the process. secondly, whereas, opposition to the -- as enemy aliens excludes them by definition and to zionism demanded the -- participate in the higher cause of self dissolution. like -- for jesus, but without the need for conversion. communism, insisted the -- transcend their jewishness and that they eliminate fellow -- who wouldn't and to jewish -- in the process of, you know, being more progressive, could feel themselves to be idealistic while aggressing against their fellow -- as they would never dare to do against gentiles. so just parenthetically, the

marxist intellectual, of course, isaac deutscher, writing very engagingly, described the non-jewish --. that's the kind of paradoxical formulation that intellectuals adore. but many marxists were actually anti-jewish --. not paradoxical at all, but committed to the evolutionary disappearance of the jewish people. and thirdly, whereas american democracy could accommodate the idea of a jewish people by allowing its citizens freedom of religion and association. communism termed zion ism reactionary. the national movement that prevented human progress. in 1929, the soviet union hailed the muslim brotherhood's pogroms in palestine as the start of the arab revolution and demanded that all jewish communists include the thousands in america. do likewise it disseminate it

all the current slogans against zionism as colonialist, imperialist and racist. moscow's patrice lumumba university educated third world students like muhammad abbas in anti-zionism and exported it to countries that had never known --. the anti-jewish political strategy of nazis. soviets and arab nationalists and islamists were aligned in the 1930s. despite their hostility to one another, you see coalition and building jewish -- were not inactive through all of this of course. their main response to a emancipation not unlike the poles and italians and others, was to reclaim national sovereign ity without awaiting divine intervention. though that was not the main impulse for its founding, the zionist movement expected that by removing the -- from where they were not wanted and

normalizing their political status, they would end antisemitism. in this alone, zionism was greatly mistaken. although the recovery ofsrael gave the -- agency and self-defense once they mastered it. organizing politics against the -- in their homeland proved to be even more political effective than it had been against them in dispersion. the arab league was founded in 1945 as an anti zionist league with all the familiar functions, the pointing finger console of dating, the arab muslim unity against a common target, and of course, deflecting attention from the daunting challenge -- of modernization, that all these regimes and their leaders faced. conquest is to islam, as

coexistence is to judaism, creating the familiar for political complementarity between the desire for hegemony expansion. on the one side, and the need for accommodation on the other. muslims knew -- as subject and they expected them to stay that way. in the 1950s, common opposition to israel led arab and muslim leaders to form a coalition with the soviets. and after the arabs had lost the soviet backed war against israel of 1967 and 1973, they commandeered the united nations to mount an ideological war from that platform. ideological, of course. and deeply political. and this begins to bring the subject home. it was the united nations that sanctioned the partition of palestine in 1947 and welcomed israel as its 57th member. the following year.

yet the arabs refused partition outright, insist, noting that the palestinian arabs remain refugees as permanent claimants to the jewish state, vowing to drive -- into the sea and by the way, i think people here know that that is the mediterranean right? because these countries launched against israel a war. so asymmetrical that it could only be ended by the belligerence. to all the existing functions and strategies of organizing politics against the --, these leaders added a perpetually display based refugee population to be maintained as the alleged victims of jewish occupation and to be used as a permanent excuse for continued aggression. now, christianity, which has come a long way, i think i know, had once used the imagery of

christ's stigmata to incite violence against the --, but these never to be settled refugees were to be living victims while also active terrorist proxies whose usefulness to their fellow arabs and muslims would be defined by the damage they could do to israel. now, on november 10th, 1975, the soviet and arab muslim voting blocs passed the un resolution. 3379 determined that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination through an inversion that was bolder than that of wilhelm ma. arab countries refusing coexistence blamed israel for its racism. the us representative to the united nations, daniel patrick moynihan, called november 10th a day of infamy.

aware the democratic israel was a proxy for the united states and its democratic allies. but rather than wage war against this infamy, the western democracies allowed the un and its agencies to promote anti-zionism in countries that had rarely seen a --. now it's that u.n. resolution cemented that route, that very resolution, which. no one seemed to pay any attention to. it cemented the red green alliance against israel. and what it did was it ingeniously shifted antisemitism of the arab muslim world from right to left from. we will drive you into the sea to defining palestinians as the victims of colonialist, discriminatory israel. and this is how anti-zionism

penetrated the liberal left and how it became the poster child of the grievance coalitions. of course, politics is not a schematic tous. i am putting it here. and there are many stages of of the process that i'm describing. and nor, by the way, is this intended to deny the suffering of refugees which many of us have personally experienced. it just turns the pointing finger back to where it belongs. that to those who do the pointing. arab and muslim leaders freed of their colonial overseers. but at a great competitive disadvantage found in anti-israel politics. the same opportunities as fascism and communism, but on a much larger scale. anti-zionism. nay anti-semitism. why don't i just call it anti ism? penetrated the united states both from the outside and the inside. the arab lobby used its economic

and political advantages to further anti isms. belligerent aims funding universities was only the most obvious of its methods. many of those professors, students, imams from arab and muslim lands were imbued with anti ism. and some were professionally engaged, urged by their host countries to spread it. others went into politics and formed political constituent ses. no one doubts the sincerity of ilhan omar and fellow members of the squad. in jewish terms we call this sb from from birth and they were raised on anti ism and this being a free country, they insist that they have a right to promote the destruction of israel as part of their culture. her and that just as american german americans rallied openly against the -- in the 1930s. yet here is something

interesting. no one told the immigrants from lands where israel is demonized and where martyrdom promised to its destroyers that it is anti-american to promote arab war against the -- in this country. they obviously realized that some of their beliefs were taboo. they do not promote the prosecution of hom*osexuals and lesbians or the practice of female circumcision, which are also practiced in some of their home countries. yet they may have grown ever more confident in spreading the infamy of anti zionism. why is that now? barack obama, who was raised on muslim anti-semitic ism, schooled in the anti zionism of his radical left colleagues in chicago, exposed to the anti-colonialist atma sphere of edward saeed's. columbia university topped off in the antisemitic church of

reverend jeremiah wright, may i say that i don't think the -- and other men on the planet any individual on the planet that was formed by the four major kinds of anti ism, but you see, he knew that he could not run for the presidency on a platform of antisemitism, and indeed he knew that he would have to repudiate it in order to win election. although the only branch of antisemitism that he repudiated was the one of reverend wright's, not the others. but that is no longer true for the young hamas and louisiana who are training to run for office. as you can see from their bullhorns, what is changed? and whom does that benefit? so the activist assault from inside america has been even greater than that from. the outside powered by the old

and new leftists and a professoriate, part of which wants to transform america. the anti-war movement of the 1960s that traced its lineage back to the anti-capitalist movement of the 1930s, found its home in the universities. it joined forces with the radical feminist against patriarchy, with black nationalists, against white supremacy in an intersectional coalition of grievance and blame. so intersect rationality needed something, however, to coalesce against. it found its uniform in the kca, its anti-colonial cause, and anti-zionism, its outlook for anger in taunting -- and so on. the grievance movements mounted many, many. but until now, they had lacked the advantage of anti ism. the war against the -- galvanized aggression against the jewish target and its effect

cannot be denied. i don't think the enormity of the palestinian hamas attacks on israel of october seven has yet fully sunk in. but the greatest shock for some of us was that more than a 30 harvard grievance groups were ready to accuse israel of the following day after 21 years at harvard, having called attention to the expansion of anti ism. i was nonetheless stunned by how well-organized highly motivated, full throated incels confidence and passionately focused this coalition had grown. you are all here experts on american politics. yet i imagine that most of you are also surprised. raised by the revealed power of the antis. and not be blind to what i have always seen as being so important to this.

the exquisite fun of that unit lateral campaign against the -- and israel. it is more obvious to see the -- run to put them on the defensive, to feel superior at their expense. it is great fun to have infiltrated the democratic party and make and help to make it ensure a mass victory over israel, which it seems to me that parts of the democrat party are now intent on doing. the war against the --. cannot end well for america or for the middle east unless all of this is repudiated and crushed as decisively as one hopes that israel will be able to dismantle hamas. this cannot end well unless the united states and, its willing allies, stop iran from promoting the islamist version of the anti-assad coalition.

so we are here to fight for our precious republic and for the precious state of israel. in the war of ideas, i hope that it has helped somewhat to try to explain the nature and the danger of organizing politics against the --. the object fitting of its appeal. and what happens when liberals don't confront it in time. thank you. thank you, ruth, for that amazing lecture. as i was listening, i recalled it something that our colleague howard hughes talked, reminded me of the other day, which is a comment by prime minister netanyahu that you are of equal value to the state of israel as a division of the idf.

and when howard reminded me of this, he said, you know, it could be apocryphal, but i told him that back in my journalism days we had something called too good to check if it's going to state it is true. for the record. that lecture was so rich, it's hard to know where to begin. i have so many questions and we will have time for audience questions as well. i thought we might approach the subject by focusing just on a few dates and then i have some more general conceptual questions for you too. and i want to focus on the campus first. a lot of parallels have been drawn between what is happening on campuses now and what happened in 1968 with campus protests over the civil rights movement and vietnam war. i'm wondering, though, that rather than parallels isms, we can also view what's happening as a consequence of 1968. and i think of two things that

happened as a result of those press protests. almost 60 years ago. one was the establishment of studies departments, ethnic studies, african-american studies, eventually middle east studies and the other, particularly on ivy league campuses, was the banishment of the reserve officer training corps from elite schools. and you've written about both subjects in the past. could you trace for us how those decisions 60 years ago created the culture that we see festering today? well, i particularly grateful to you for that, because if one is connecting the dots, the dot that i would have started with on how this penetrated the united states from within is actually the second of those. and that is the vanishing of rosie from campus. i came to harvard from canada, and i had always looked to the united states. i'm a i'm blessed with dual

citizenship. and canada is a great country and proud to be a canadian as well. but i had always looked to the united states and as the freer country actually and and i came to harvard in that spirit. and the first real greatest disappointment i had, it remained, by the way, the greatest disappoint from the beginning to the end of my 21 years. there was the banishment of rothesay from campus, and i spoke out against it as often as it came up. i could not believe it because you see that the age of those students is precisely when people go into the army. and here is one of your best universities. and of course, this is not just about harvard, but it's a lot of the elite schools banished lots of that time, presumably against the war in vietnam or against war and so on. but what did that mean?

what it really mean meant and i said this was this country is not worth defending. i mean, that's what it clearly says. because if you're taking the best young people at the age when they're supposed to train for the military, and you're telling them, no, the military is not allowed on this campus under any circ*mstances. and by the way, this kept coming up every couple of years and things kept adding to it. now you don't do it because of then don't ask, don't tell. now you don't do it because of this. you see, there is always a new excuse for banning it and it was only a small group of well, it's always only a small of people on the campus, but they were able to persuade the rest of the of the their fellow faculty members and the administration went along with it and the army pulled back. i mean, the military pulled back. so you have this i mean, you have this is astonishing thing.

for 40 years for 40 years, the military was taboo on campuses. and the kids who wanted to be who were there on right on the rotc scholarships had to go to m.i.t. at 5:00 in the morning because that was where this was available. i mean, it was such a shame and and that's i think where it started. this is this is not just anti-american. this is really determining the collapse of the country. and when you contrast it with israel, you see you can see the difference. i mean, israel is a much smaller country, much more vulnerable in every way. but my goodness, i mean what it is to be young, there to be a high school student at the end of high school is you're preparing to protect this country. and people vie with one another to be in units that protect the best and most.

so, by the way, i would say that if one is going to reverse anything and this is what we all dream of, is any of this ever going to be pushed back? my first point of pushback would be 10% of the students at these university should be there on raazi scholarships. if you do admissions on the basis of who is in rotc or who is in another branch of training for the military now, because, of course, you have now a military which needs much more than people with rifles and and on tanks. right. you need an intelligence service. but i would say 10%, at least of these colleges should now really and they should insist that these kids go around in their uniforms, that this is this is really what and it's, you know you know, we all believe in small changes making big changes. right. and i think that that would be a great start. so you mentioned how you noticed this absence of raazi when you

set foot on the harvard campus when you came there. i want to also talk about some subsequent events at harvard in 2006. lawrence summers, the president of harvard, was forced to resign after a speech he had delivered across the street at mit on reasons why there were. there was no parity between males and females in math and sciences. you had a front row seat that and you wrote what i think was just an amazing essay in commentary recently, pointing out how in some ways the summers episode was the beginning of a cycle that would culminate with clouding gay's resignation last year. what didn't you take away from what happened to larry summers? well, one thing when i take away is happily now is that lawrence summers, who exists today, is the person who was running harvard at that time. he has become a very feisty

defender of everything that he feels is important and true at the time. and i don't think he would disagree with that. he he was to my mind. well, i'm sorry, but he was a naive. the first thing that happened was not the women's thing that came later. first thing that happened was that he had the courage to stand up in one of his first addresses. and he spoke out against a resolution that was being brought in from m.i.t. to harvard. and it was a four, four divestment. a divestment petition signed by 70 professors. and he said, this is anti-semitic in. help me out in not in intent. it is anti-semitic, in effect, if not in intent. a brilliant formulation.

that means that he didn't blame them for being anti-semitic. but he said it was anti-semitic. in effect, if not in intent. okay. that was it. at the next faculty meeting. and professor of african american studies got up and said, the president of this university is just denying us free speech. now, that's trick. you see, this is so brilliant. he's denying us free speech. well, because he said that it was anti-semitic. therefore, that means what i mean, he was expressing free speech, right. but this is what i tried to describe in the memoir as a kind of a three step, i call it. first, you choose israel. then when somebody says that's anti-semitic, you come back and you say, oh, you're denying free speech, right? it's like a dance. and and that happened. and this person did not let up, by the way.

so that was the first attack. and there were people in the anthropology department. you could just see that formula. and the same people who are against rotc really said, yes, antisemitism. and by the way, it made the front page of the boston globe the next day. and i found that interesting because you see the press is not allowed at the faculty meetings. so how did the person at the other covers harvard? how did he have it on the front page the next day? right. so these are calculated things. so that was the first thing. and then briefly, yes, the women's movement that was very crude and very cool. and also, of course, raunchy, because one of the things that lawrence summers did when he came in as president, he would go to the swearing in ceremony. of roberts. and he made it clear that this was something that he approved

of. right. so, in other words, he was giving the impression of being well, in those terms, of course, he's a great liberal, so on. but that was like the sign. these are conservatives positions, right, to defend israel, to be for the military you know, they should become sort of taboo positions on the harvard faculty. and that, as you say, the dates matter because that already goes to 2006. well, it's interesting that the the first attack there was on a divestment platform. so it was already kind of percolating at the turn of the 21st century. i'm struck when i look back to kind of the course of events over the past 20 years or so, it was it proliferates in of bds activity during the obama years and. what should we take away from that? was there was there is that

change on the campus you were at somewhat of a remove from the campuses by this point, but throughout 2013, 2014, 2015, when america entered into the nuclear deal with iran, the campuses were raging with bds activity, and it seemed to have quieted down until october. was there something happening or had it just gained a sort of momentum by the 20 tens that this was it was becoming visible? i think. i think the momentum was there, of course. but i think that, you know, the obama years and obama's becoming president of the united states proves much more complicated in retrospect than it felt at the time. obviously, we understood that this was a kind of that this had

race behind it, that in a sense, the civil rights movement, the civil rights act, had passed, but gloriously past to my mind, that should have been a turning point in america. and it was. i mean, now legally, it did what it should have done. maybe 100 years earlier. of course. but there it was a civil rights act that guaranteed equality before the law, irrespective of irrespective of gender, race, all these categories. so that was the great achievement. now, we were free. you see, women and women were fighting for that freedom and african-americans fighting for that freedom under whatever word they to choose. or if it wasn't --, it would be black americans. black is beautiful americans. anything that you wanted and it had to be worked into the system. right. but then come the schools and

then comes the liberal part of the left. liberal part? i don't know what to express it that says, no, no, no, this is not good enough. look, there's still not equality. there's still not equality of outcome. i look at the universities now. where are all these? what is the percentage of african americans in this country? why aren't there 10% here in this university? now, what you see so it jumped instead of allowing it to really live itself out and do everything possible at the early stages of education to make sure that education is better for those who need it more, and to put more resources, human resources. what harvard could have done, it could have established a school for, you know, african american kids who come, who have talent and so on, and could have done anything. but it didn't do that. what it did was the cosmetic thing from the top. oh, let's see if we can bring these people in. we will all pretend that

everything is, you know, equal and better and all the rest. so you know, so this impulse of speeding it up, of what? when do we want it? we want it now. well, for protesters for young kids to say we want it now is one thing. but for the greatest universities, for the people who are supposed to say democracy requires patience, it requires teaching a generation you know, it is it is so painful because you see, you're talking about the introduction of ethnic studies and all that, which is, of course, part of what you say is true, that this was just very destructive. but before it let me point out what was really happening is that americanism was not taught at all, that the history department, you know, was being decimated and people were teaching the civil war, as you

know, the opposite of what it was. you know, all these ideas, bad ideas were driving the good and and people were being hired to teach those bad ideas, driving out the building. and i would put, by the way, a i will bring that up. i thought that radical feminism was one of the most dangerous of these movements. it's not said often enough. i sometimes at night, like i, i watch television and don't know what to watch. and i've become, you know, used to like what law and order. and the only thing of law and order that you find now is law and order specials victims unit. well, my god. i mean, i don't know. do you know what goes on night after night after night? every show after show were you raped? oh, tell me about it. tell me. oh, no. you have to talk about it. oh, no. you have to complain about it. oh, no, you have to go. and men as rapists, men as

violent. and then the metoo movement, all of it. but that came at the conceptual level as well. and my goodness, i mean, that is, you know, that is catastrophic. why not maybe connect something, you know, it's fascinating to me that over the course of the recent protests around the country, it's not just israel being attacked, but certain symbols associated with the united states are being vandalized, used and defaced as well. so here in this city, george washington university, the statue of george washington went viral after it was vandalized. of course, it's hamilton hall, a columbia so named after a founding father. and then at you went to see, i believe was the episode where the frat rose protect the american flag from protesters

who were targeted. what is the connection between israel and the united states in the imagination of the antis? it seems like they see a symmetry. they go hand in hand. well, they do go hand in hand. i mean, it's not for that. one says that israel is the only democracy in the middle east and it's not the only united states of america is the great protector of the democratic world. if america is not going to be the protector of the democratic world or the free world is not going to be one, it is connected. and and of course, part of the world has always said that the little satan is only a stand in for the big state. but your point is the most important thing of all. that's why i say it's never about the --. it wasn't about the --. and germany. i mean the --, of course, we feel it the most as --. that's why i called my book free

as a --. you know, i knew that if i put harvard in the title, it would get reviewed and if i called it free as a --, it would not get reviewed. and which is pretty much the case, of course, the -- sounds so parochial. you see, my point is it's very opposite that. it is. it's it seems parochial that it can be used as the lever against american. if these kids were out there shouting death to america for them, you know, from ocean to shining ocean, we're going to take this country, you know? i think that would be people pushing back much more than they are. right. but if you say the --, israel, you see how quickly the press falls for it all. they've bought completely into the hamas interpretation of the war. they don't blame hamas for the. i mean, and this is this is the most pathologic trickle of all

anti jewish enemies. it in history may i say. i don't think that there's another enemy of the -- in history that wants to kill off its own population to the last person. so that the -- can be blamed for it because they could not defeat the -- militarily, but they found a way this ingenious way, if we can suck them in and put all this ammunition underneath the civil society so that the -- will have to come in because the attack against them was so horrific, that of course, you couldn't not come in to wipe ourselves. but then we've built 16 years of entrapment so that you will have to kill the whole population of gaza. and that's why they're not surrender and never will. that's why this is being dragged out by hamas because they want

all the gans to be killed. and that's why egypt is not allowing anyone to flee into that huge, empty area that it controls. right. this is this is monstrous. i mean, we focus it's monstrous enough to want to do away with israel, but to be willing to to take your whole to take your whole population and hold it hostage so that you should be able to destroy israel. boy, i mean, that takes a kind of genius. you know, that that that takes an act of the imagined nation to really put yourself in that place. i'll just say parenthetically that it i'm often told, oh, ruth, you know, you just don't emphasize, you don't understand the other side. well, my problem is i do understand the other side. i don't reimagine other side. i read what they write.

i pay attention what they do. what i refuse to do is to imagine that they are like me. my civilisational ideas are very different, and it's just a fact. so one has to live with that fact. maybe one or two questions for me before we turn the audience. he said in a recent interview. something that really stuck with me. there's all this discussion about liberalism and democracy going on in the united states and in the west more generally, but when you put it like this, you said that liberalism is the prevention of evil rather than the promotion of good. what is it? what do you mean by that? how should we think about liberalism? well, i would like to take that back. maybe not rather than hopefully that could be both.

right. the maximal ization of good, obviously. i mean that very seriously. you know, way back in the 1970s, i began to write a book about the liberal betrayal of the --. now what does that mean? the --. i was a liberal. i mean, who was liberal? that's what i grew up in. who doesn't want to be liberal? i mean, in the best sense. and peter berkowitz, who is here, written really so persuasive fully about not giving up that term of liberal and all its good about it. but the fact is that what liberals are weakest at is confronting evil. and so i say in terms of america, you have to know where your weakness lies. the weakness does not lie in this country's not wanting to maximize the good. yes, it does. and if you take israel, for example oh my god, from day one,

who can we help. you know, what catastrophe can we run to and help the water? question? how can we export that to the surrounding world? do good, do good, do good. help, help, help to improve. you know, tikkun olam, this made up idea of what judaism is supposed to be, you know, improving the world. but it's there in our dna, right? that one does that. but that's not saying we see it now. the question is not whether america is going to be able to improve the world, whether it's going to be able to defeat this evil. that announces itself as evil, as you say, against america. can it stand up to it? how does one do it? you know, i'm following a feed of five harvard professors who are really the most wonderful people, and they're all arguing about freedom of speech. how are we going to protect freedom speech? you can't imagine the ingenuity,

the debates, the wonderful things is this freedom of speech and how does it my gosh, i mean, i. i don't know what to say. there's not a there about how are we going to crush this monster that we have created in our midst, not word about that. nothing. you know, how are we going to stop these ideas? we let this happen on our campus. you see nothing about that. that's i mean, by, you know, making sure that you defeat evil. right. the test of moral clarity is the ability to recognize exact put it exact center. it. exactly. of which we have a few moments for audience questions. you start right here. thank you very much. you just wait for the microphone, sir. thank you. thanks for coming early. enjoyed it. i have a sort of a compound question there. there's no debating it seems to

me that the arab world, so to speak, has the better pr program, and it's kind of jordan as to how much of there is of an historical misunderstanding in the united states and on college campuses. what do you think is necessary to turn that around? and even if you did that around with good historical education, how much would that fix the problem and how much is just that anti-semitism just deeply endemic to the society? so interesting that you ask that because, you know, in the few minutes that we had talking just among ourselves before, this is exactly what came up. how come that we can't fight back in the culture? i was saying that today, you know, sometimes i can't i can't even name how many wonderful people there are writing today, have great ideas.

and they're all the young people. i mean, there are more voices today that are speaking with moral clarity and with sanity than i have ever imagined, let alone seeing in my lifetime. they're all they're. but it doesn't make a dent in the culture, and it isn't affecting anything. so that is the big question is how do you make it? i would you know, how do you make it popular? how do you get it to how do you get people to to know that it is wonderful to stand up and and be, you know, and be morally clear and to stand up against goons and thugs of the mind as well as of the body. i think part of it is really a kind of follow the leader thing. great to disappointment. for example, is this, you know, i spend a lot of time talking about -- in culture and in literature and so on. well, you know, do you realize

that all these filmmakers, these jewish filmmakers, all all these people who are writing television programs, everybody they have not made one movie about the greatness of what to my mind, is the greatest human miracle on a collective basis ever. and that is in the 1940s, in the same decade that a third of the jewish people not just eliminated, but in, you know, conditions are just unspeakable. in that same decade, --, their sovereignty in the country that had been under foreign domination for 2000 years. now we're in human history. do you find something like that? so to my mind, you know, the exodus story that we go over in passover is really a fantastic

story. but what does the exodus story have to compare with? the rise of israel in the 1940? you see what i mean? let's just say the greatest story ever told. but guess what? it's made by cecil b d.m. it's made by others. and the book exodus was made. i was going to say paul newman's movie, paul newman. but that in itself is revealing because that came out decades ago. and of course the most famous american jewish filmmaker, steven spielberg, made munich. yes, except his story of israel. exact not exodus. absolutely. and if you read, munich was supposed to be this great thing where the mossad actually took out all these murderers and how they did it. but in his thing, it's guilt. oh my god. munich. that operation in which netanyahu's brother was killed. i mean, it was a fantastic operation. and then so in other words,

we're afraid of our own bravery. we're afraid of all that's good about us. we're afraid. i don't mean, you know chest thumping, you understand? but you have to liberate italy. teach that i come back to i come, you know, when i was coming to america to become an american, i knew pitifully little about the of this country at all. but i started to read the federalist papers. well, i had never read anything like that. and i would i mean, had never read anything stirred me so. and guess what? this was something i don't see anybody's guess what it begins with. i mean, i'm telling you all, you know what it begins with. how do we defend ourselves? that's the first thing they think of as the great value of having a federalist government. right. they're back symbolizing the good to begin. the first thing they're thinking, how do we this great thing that we building here.

you see that's how sane people think. now, what do we teaching our children? why don't we say pledge of allegiance every morning if you don't say the pledge of allegiance? then do you express allegiance when has to know you at harvard meetings, i would say democracy, is not biologically transmitted it. and and no one you know, you know it didn't it was not the popular view, may i say, but it has to be done. i mean the school and it has to be done on the popular level too. but this is who i am speaking to. the people who do it here in front. just wait the microphone. thank you. my name's deborah weiss. that was a phenomenal speech. i never say that to say, you know, thank you so much for

coming. i wondering if you could comment and give an analysis of the anti semitism awareness act that's that was just passed in the house and specifically, the two questions i have about it are the i are a definition again, of anti-semitism, you know, a certain perception that's vaguely worded and. some of the examples like the -- killed jesus, which i mean, that obviously we can all do it. but, you know, i'm not sure that should be the definition. and then the second thing is i'm almost afraid to bring this up after, your comments. but the free speech issue, i totally understand that the issue is how did we get here? why did they think this how can we crush it? but there are a number of conservatives, including like ben shapiro, you know, who's obviously orthodox -- and charlie kirk, matt walsh, who oppose this and fire because in

this situation in addition to addressing the issue, do we or do we not allow them speech, to what extent and i you know, i'm hearing that your your comments on the moral part but we still have to address to what extent do we let them speak and could you comment on that? thank you. you know, thank you for being. no, no fantastic questions. i wish i know. of course, i free speech is of course one has to allow it. the only serious argument of i say 65 years of marriage, my husband died very recently and the only can you imagine 65 years was skokie. my husband was a lawyer and he said, they've got to march skokie. see, this is the neo-nazi, this is the neo-nazis in skokie. skokie was a jewish neighborhood.

he said they've got to that's that's freedom of speech. and i look i'm not comfortable with that. they're only going to skokie because that's where the -- are it's only provocative and so on. but said they've got to march he won i ceded and i would in that sense but would say that in that situation if it were nazi germany what would you say. so you've got to take the measure of the society of where you are at any given time. yes. of free speech to the max. but when you see that the people who want to destroy free speech and all your freedoms with, it are the ones who are not just marching, but they have gained the power over your institutions. then you have to worry as as the other question was, why haven't we been able to persuade people of what we want to persuade them of? so you first have to make sure that this is being protected in other words, you understand that

you have to have the society that allows free speech to be protected so that you can have freedom of speech. does that make sense? that's that's the point. and when you are losing the society and when you feel actually it's going to be destroyed and it can be destroyed, doesn't have to be. not everything is not sadism in germany. it is, you know, the soviet union. there are many model laws. but if the weakness is so great that is actually that ideas have driven out. good. then what do you do then? you know, you have to find a way of the country that exists. and i think that, you know, much more has to be done to make sure that this is what student teaching being taught. you have to be taught. what an amazing country this is, you know, an amazing system of government. this is what it means to have

checks, balances, what you know. but if you don't teach that, how can you have it as you know, how can the society perpetuate itself? it just won't happen. i'm going to take the moderator's prerogative to ask the final question. of course, you are all welcome to join us at the reception afterward as a ruth wisse stand. i've read pretty much everything you've written and one of those essays you wrote that post 1948. a -- will be judged by he or she defended the state of israel. how or she defended the state of israel. how how best can we defend state of israel? post october seven. well, look, all the people i know who wanted to send it are finding of defending it. it not simple.

and in this country, it's particularly complicated. but i would say that if you're an american and you want to protect the state of israel, the only way to do it effectively is through the government that you elect. because without the you know, without the support of the states of america, ukraine will not exist. and israel, strong as it is and independent as it has to remain. it can't do it without american and to feel the american government of the moment playing with israel, playing with it. so some mean political advantage which will not even the political advantage that is so disappointing. you know, at this hour of what that country is going through. so this is what we do.

i think we elect. and and that's one does support with please join me in thanking ruth weissmy name is colleen sh. i'm the archivist of the united states. and i want to welcome to the national archives, of course, as the archivist of the united states. my job is to preserve, protect and share our nation's records with 13 and a half billion records here at the national archives. we certainly have a lot of stories to share and to tell. but the story of our nation really begins upstairs with the declaration of independence, when in the course of human events, it becom

tv

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Israel 29, United States 15, America 12, Germany 11, Us 9, Harvard 8, Skokie 5, Washington 4, Weiss 3, United Nations 3, Aei 3, Lawrence Summers 3, Munich 3, Un 2, Ruth Weiss 2, Netanyahu 2, Paul Newman 2, Canada 2, Europe 2, U.n. 2

Notes

This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code).

info Stream Only