Two weeks ago, the blatantly liberal magazine The Nation published a blockbuster article claiming that the so-called “Godfather of Human Rights,” Ken Roth, former director of Human Rights Watch, had been denied a scholarship to Harvard University’s prestigious Kennedy School of Human Rights. Government for its virulent denunciation of Israel.
Michael Massing of The Nation wrote that Kennedy School Dean Douglas Elmendorf overturned the resolution of Carr Center for Human Rights officials who had submitted the scholarship (Roth was never officially presented for the position). According to Massing, Elmendorf told his Harvard colleague, Kathryn Sikink. that Roth had an “anti-Israel bias” and that “Roth’s tweets about Israel were troubling. “
Massing, however, takes his argument a step further. It notes “the dominant presence of the U. S. national security network. “He speculates that those two tough players played a role in Elmendorf’s resolve to deny Roth a scholarship.
But Massing does not accumulate the slightest hint of evidence for this incendiary accusation. In fact, aside from Sikkink’s indistinct statement, Massing’s argument is based almost exclusively on innuendo and conspiracy theories.
But this is more than just a case of questionable journalism. Massing’s premise is based on a centuries-old anti-Semitic trope: that rich, tough Jews secretly influence elite decision-makers. Massing has publicly met several prominent Jewish donors to the Kennedy School who support Israel and other Jewish causes. The inference is not misleading. to dominate: those wealthy Jewish benefactors used their influence to deny Roth a scholarship and protect Israel from scrutiny.
Persistent critics of Israel (and they are overwhelmingly liberal) jumped on the Nation article and joined Roth. There is now a petition at Harvard calling for Elmendorf’s expulsion after the incident. (According to James F. Smith, spokesman for the Kennedy School, “It is the particular and consistent policy of the Harvard Kennedy School that we have no interaction with donors or funders in our deliberations or decisions similar to fellow-designations. )” However, Harvard critics don’t seem concerned about the fact that there is no evidence for Massing and Roth’s allegations. The sometimes accepted theory seems something like this: “There are wealthy Jewish donors in the Kennedy School and they Israel. . . You know what those other people are like, you can understand the rest.
Now, you don’t have to tell me that Massing’s claims are unproven. Roth confirms this.
In an op-ed last week in The Guardian, he wrote: “Elmendorf has not publicly defended his decision, so we can only guess what happened. . . But as The Nation showed in its presentation on my case, several major donors to the Kennedy School are big supporters of Israel. We don’t know, but that’s the only credible explanation I’ve heard for his decision.
For the former head of a primary human rights organization, recommending, without evidence, that hardcore Jewish donors derailed his network demonstrates a staggering point of callousness to how his words become long-standing anti-Semitic tropes.
Moreover, while Massing’s argument is circumspect, Roth is transparent and says the only “plausible explanation” for his refusal to name is an obscure cabal of pro-Israel donors.
(NOTE: A few hours after the printing of this article, Douglas Elmendorf reversed his previous ruling and awarded Roth a human rights fellowship at the Carr Center. In response, Roth continued to insist on his baseless allegation that Elmendorf’s decision was motivated by donor pressure, a rate that the dean of Harvard flatly denied. Roth tweeted: “Who were the other ‘caregiver’ people who convinced @Harvard @Kennedy_School Dean Douglas Elmendorf to veto my human rights scholarship because of my complaint from Israel?”)
For those who have long followed Roth’s work, there is an explanation: his consistent and virulent complaint of Israel has sometimes veered into anti-Semitism.
As head of Human Rights Watch, Roth has not been discouraged in his denunciation of Israel, which he refers to as an apartheid state, and accuses his army of committing war crimes. In 2009, HRW founder Robert Bernstein wrote an op-ed for the New York Times denouncing the organization’s disproportionate focus on Israel (under Roth’s leadership) compared to other Middle Eastern countries with far worse human rights records. Supporters of Israel, from the right-wing NGO Monitor to the American Jewish Committee, claimed that Roth had an anti-Israel bias and was an apologist for Palestinian terrorism.
Indeed, HRW’s complaints about Israel are the norm in the human rights world, which has long maintained a disproportionate and, according to some, one-sided approach to Israel. In themselves, they are probably not a sufficient explanation for why to deny it. a scholarship in human rights.
This 2021 tweet from Roth is more troubling:
This is the first time Roth has linked anti-Semitic violence in Europe to Israel’s behavior. In 2014, he tweeted: “Germans are demonstrating against the anti-Semitism that has erupted in Europe in reaction to Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war. “Merkel Join us.
While it is true that anti-Semitism increases during and after the Israeli-led wars, Roth’s argument goes even further. It suggests that Israel’s conduct is to blame, leading to an apparent and disturbing conclusion: if Israel simply acted differently, then some anti-Semitic incidents would not occur.
The accusation amounts to victim-blaming and is the geopolitical equivalent of suggesting that if Israel had worn a proverbially longer skirt, no bad things would have happened to Diaspora Jews. Israel’s creation, or the rise of anti-Jewish violence in the United States coinciding with the rise of Trump (who largely had no connection to Israel), knows that anti-Jewish hatred persists.
For those who would say that Roth only notices a correlation between Israel’s movements and anti-Semitic incidents, it is vital to note that he is striving to point the finger at those he believes “claim” that Israel’s habit is not a precipitating factor. Blaming Jews for the prejudice and violence they face is another long-standing anti-Semitic trope. In fact, Hitler defended his anti-Semitism by suggesting that the movements of the Jews led him to hate them. Roth, as his proponents point out, is the son of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany and is a prominent human rights activist. If anyone deserves to know that he should not manipulate such insinuations, it is him.
One might imagine, even expect, that after a spike in anti-Semitic attacks, the head of a human rights organization would talk about how anti-Semites use the movements of their co-religionists and members of co-ethnic teams in Israel to justify and excuse their anti-Semitic action.
Anyone who links the habit of Jews in Israel to Diaspora Jews has deeply entrenched and racist perspectives on Jews. It would be nothing more than attacking other people of Asian descent because COVID-19 originated in China. However, no one suggests that anti-Asian violence, to paraphrase Roth, are lying who claim that the Chinese government’s conduct does not have such destructive prospects. Indeed, when President Trump has consistently referred to COVID-19 as the “Chinese virus,” it was liberals who were the strongest in condemning such connections and warning (rightly) that they can lead to hate crimes.
But perhaps the biggest revelation about Roth’s notorious July 2021 tweet is his response. After a flurry of complaints from most Jewish voices, Roth refused or acknowledged the possible insensitivity of his comments.
“It’s interesting to see how many other people claim this tweet justifies anti-Semitism (it doesn’t and I don’t do it anyway),” Roth wrote, “rather than addressing correlation. . . between the recent conduct of the Israeli government in Gaza and the rise of British anti-Semitism. (Roth would later delete his original tweet, claiming it had been “misinterpreted. “)
Once again, Roth is a persistent critic of Israel. He calls it an “apartheid state. ” The concept that he simply establishes a correlation between Israel’s behavior and anti-Semitism, without any other motivation, is so ridiculous that it is laughable.
In his most recent Guardian editorial, Roth argues that the accusations of bias against him are “sufficient if they come from other people who never criticize Israel. “, I can verify that yours is fake. But most importantly, Roth’s comments show a disturbing lack of introspection. In its formulation, anyone who criticizes its s (and not just government officials, but independent teams and personal citizens) is a servile advocate. of Israel and therefore deserve not to be taken seriously.
If Elmendorf decided that Roth’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and his dismissive attitude toward Israel’s critics and supporters would make him a poor candidate for a Harvard sinecure, that would be entirely legitimate. Of course, we don’t know if this is the case, as Elmendorf refused his decision.
Smith, the Kennedy School spokesman, told me in an email that “we are not discussing our deliberations on who is under consideration” and did not provide additional details.
Indeed, it is conceivable that a potentially negative reaction to Roth’s hiring through Kennedy School donors influenced Elmendorf’s decision. But the concept that there was no valid explanation for why Harvard denied Roth the scholarship is belied through his statements further.
However, there is a much bigger prospective task than that of Ken Roth (he has since won a scholarship to the University of Pennsylvania).
Why are so many self-proclaimed liberals, who denounce racism and ethnic prejudice, so distant and so quick to adopt an argument that not only lacks evidence, but is based on long-standing anti-Jewish tropes?
Where is the uproar over Roth’s shameless use of anti-Semitic language and his slander of who seeks to raise the issue?
As is occasionally the case, those who raise the factor of anti-Semitism when it comes to criticizing Israel are temporarily branded apologists for the Jewish state and fired. They are accused of playing the anti-Semitism card as a shield to protect Israel. Criticism
In Roth’s case, however, accusations of insensitivity to anti-Semitism are far from fabricated. But it turns out that for many on the left, they don’t need to hear it.