By Ronda Stark, , Seattle
Morris Malakoff’s article (“On boycotts, divestiture and sanctions,” Feb. 26) certainly gives a free pass to Gad Barzilai — would that his comments have been half as innocuous as the article suggests. While Gordon castigated Israel as an apartheid regime, Barzilai refused to counter such blatantly false accusations, saying merely that he did not wish to engage in “semantics.” This is certainly not the response I would expect from a lawyer and certainly not the response we would want to hear from the chair of the Jewish Studies Program at the University of Washington. I have a son who is a student at the University of Washington and he is engaged in defending Israel during so-called “Israeli Apartheid Week” — apparently he can not expect to receive any factual information or other support from Barzilai. I am deeply concerned that a man who will not defend Israel against false charges of apartheid is in a position to teach our children at the university level.
Malakoff writes that Barzilai did “acknowledge that the United States is in a unique position to wield power over the Israeli government to bring about change through assertive diplomacy by cutting back on the $3 billion a year in foreign aid that flows from Washington, D.C. to Tel Aviv.” He further asserts that this statement prompted Gordon to say, “Barzilai was supporting a de facto form of BDS [boycotts, divestments and sanctions], only at a higher level.”
At first it appears that Gordon’s statement is a deliberate misinterpretation of Barzilai’s intent. But, in fact, Barzilai argued that the Obama administration “should impose its own solution on Israel.” Further, he urged that should Israel try to alter the terms of an imposed solution, “all aid to Israel should stop completely.”
It is only when one considers Barzilai’s own words that it becomes apparent that he and Gordon are indeed in agreement as to what should be done to Israel, although perhaps there is some difference in tactics to be employed.