Why did Israeli extremist Ben-Gvir speak at Yale? | Arwa Mahdawi

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Yale's Controversial Invitation to Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir Sparks Debate on Free Speech and Human Rights"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.4
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, exacerbated by a blockade that has lasted nearly two months, has reached alarming levels, with aid organizations warning of dire consequences for the population, particularly children. With no food, water, or medical supplies entering the region, thousands of children are suffering from malnutrition, which could have long-term effects on an entire generation. The situation is further complicated by a media blackout imposed by Israel, making it difficult to fully understand the extent of the crisis. The author emphasizes that the deliberate starvation of civilians, especially children, is inexcusable and violates international human rights laws, yet this perspective seems to be overlooked by influential figures in the U.S., including those at Yale University.

The controversy surrounding the invitation of Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel's far-right national security minister, to speak at Yale-affiliated organization Shabtai highlights a troubling trend in the U.S. Ben-Gvir's extremist views, including advocating for the deportation of Arab citizens and celebrating acts of violence against Palestinians, raise questions about the legitimacy granted to such figures by elite institutions. While some members of Shabtai have expressed discontent with Ben-Gvir's presence, Yale's lack of a clear condemnation suggests an implicit endorsement of his ideology. The article critiques the broader silencing of pro-Palestinian voices in the U.S., citing recent actions against activists and media coverage that often neglects Palestinian perspectives. This trend not only affects public discourse but also serves to normalize extreme positions that contribute to the ongoing suffering in Gaza, prompting a call for more robust outrage and action in response to these injustices.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The article raises significant concerns regarding humanitarian issues in Gaza and critiques the presence of Israeli extremist Itamar Ben-Gvir at Yale University. It presents a strong moral stance against the suffering of civilians in conflict and highlights the perceived complicity of Western institutions in endorsing controversial figures.

Moral Imperative and Humanitarian Crisis

The opening statement underscores the author’s firm belief that the deliberate starvation of civilians, especially children, is utterly indefensible. The article emphasizes the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, suggesting that international law is being ignored. The assertion that children are suffering from malnutrition highlights the urgency of the crisis and aims to evoke an emotional response from readers.

Critique of Western Institutions

The author criticizes Yale University for hosting Ben-Gvir, portraying it as a tacit approval of his extremist views. This point serves to question the moral integrity of academic institutions and their role in facilitating dialogue with controversial figures. The mention of Ben-Gvir's lavish dinner at Mar-a-Lago adds to the narrative of complicity among American politicians, suggesting a disconnect between elite discussions and the realities faced by ordinary people in conflict zones.

Manipulative Language and Targeted Audience

The language used throughout the article is emotionally charged, aiming to provoke outrage and mobilize public opinion against perceived injustices. By framing the discussion around the suffering of children and the actions of politicians, the author seeks to engage a socially conscious audience that prioritizes human rights. This approach may alienate those who support Ben-Gvir or hold opposing views, indicating a potential manipulation of sentiments to reinforce existing biases.

Comparative Context and Broader Implications

When placed alongside other news articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this piece fits within a broader narrative of condemnation towards actions that harm civilians. It contributes to a growing discourse that challenges mainstream narratives and seeks to elevate the voices of those affected by military actions. The article may influence public sentiment and policy discussions regarding aid to Gaza and the U.S. stance on Israel.

Impact on Society and Politics

The article could have implications for public opinion surrounding U.S. foreign policy and its approach to Israel and Palestine. It might galvanize activism and advocacy for humanitarian support, potentially affecting political agendas and elections. The framing of Ben-Gvir as an extremist may also lead to increased scrutiny of similar figures in political discussions.

Audience and Support Base

The article is likely to resonate with progressive communities, human rights advocates, and individuals concerned about humanitarian issues. It may alienate those who support Israeli hardline policies, reflecting a clear division in the audience the article seeks to engage.

Economic and Market Considerations

While the article does not directly address economic impacts, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza could have broader implications for international relations and economic stability in the region. Companies involved in defense or foreign aid may face scrutiny depending on public reactions to the unfolding situation.

Geopolitical Relevance

This article is relevant to ongoing discussions about power dynamics in the Middle East and the role of Western nations in supporting or opposing various governments. It reflects current global sentiments surrounding human rights and may influence diplomatic relations and negotiations in the region.

The use of artificial intelligence in crafting this article is unlikely, as the tone and emotional weight suggest a deep personal investment from the author. However, AI tools may have been used for fact-checking or data analysis, ensuring the accuracy of humanitarian claims stated.

In conclusion, the article serves to amplify urgent humanitarian concerns while critiquing the complicity of Western institutions in endorsing extremist views. Its persuasive language aims to mobilize public sentiment towards advocating for better treatment of civilians in conflict zones.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Let me start with a statement that should be obvious: deliberately starving 2 million people – half of whom are children – is indefensible. It is not complicated, it is not a nuanced situation that requires a PhD to parse. It is not an unfortunate and unavoidable part of war. It is quite simply indefensible. I would say that it is also very much prohibited by international human rights law, but that doesn’t seem to exist any more, does it?

As I write this,no food, water or medicinehas been allowed intoGazafor almost two months. It is impossible to know just how bad the situation really is because Israel has imposed a media blackout on the region. However, aid organizationshave said: “The Gaza Strip is now likely facing the worst humanitarian crisis in the 18 months” since the war began. Thousands of children are malnourished. Childhood malnutrition, I can’t stress enough, has long-term consequences. An entire generation’s future has been violently stolen from them.

“Starving kids to death is bad, actually” isn’t a statement that should require any debate. Over in the White House and the hallowed halls of Yale, however, they seem to think otherwise. OnWednesday night, an organization called Shabtai, which is based at Yale though not officially affiliated with it, hosted Israel’s far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, for a talk.

Ben-Gvir has had the red carpet rolled out for him by the US. The extremist politician came to New Haven following an extravagant dinner, presumably paid for by US taxpayers, atDonald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort the night before. While he ate fancy food with Republican party officials they all reportedly discussed how they could starve kids in Gaza more efficiently. “[Lawmakers] expressed support for my very clear position on how to act in Gaza and that the food and aid depots should be bombed in order to create military and political pressure to bring our hostages home safely,” Ben-Gvir tweeted following the dinner.

I’ll give Ben-Gvir his due. He doesn’t even try to hide his hatred for Arabs. If Ben-Gvir were a Palestinian, every single politician and media outlet would be in an uproar that he was anywhere near Yale. The man lives on an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank and has advocated for the deportation of all Arab citizens. He had a picture in his living room for years of Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Muslim worshippers in Hebron in 1994. He has previous convictions forinciting racism and supporting terrorism.

Again, Shabtai is not officially associated with Yale but it very much looks like a Yale organization, especially as it is based there. It was founded by the Democratic senator andYale alumnus Cory Bookerand the New Haven rabbi Shmully Hecht. Speaking to Shabtai, with all its elite associations, grants Ben-Gvir respectability. It gives his violent and racist ideas legitimacy. Particularly as Hecht – a man closely associated with Booker – has saidhe admires Ben-Gvir. At the time of writing, Booker hadn’t made a public statement about Ben-Gvir’s Shabtai invitation and had not responded to a request for comment.

Several Shabtai members, I should note, have objected to Hecht’s comments about Ben-Gvir and two have resigned from the society. But Yale has not issued a clear condemnation of the far-right politician. Again: Shabtai is not an official Yale organization but it has enough ties to the university that, by not speaking out, the Ivy League institute is in effect endorsing one of the most extremist politicians in Israel. Particularly since Yale has simultaneously been very busy doing what US colleges seem to enjoy doing most: demonizing anyone who speaks out about genocide. A pro-Palestinian student group was stripped of its official recognition by Yale after it was accused of involvement inprotests against Ben-Gvir.

But I don’t want to focus too much on Ben-Gvir because he’s not the real issue here. This isn’t about one man giving a speech – it’s about who is allowed to speak and who isn’t. What facts get reported and what don’t. What the media, politicians and thought leaders choose to get outraged about and what they ignore. It’s about the real-time manufacturing of consent for the US-enabled atrocities happening inGazaand the West Bank, and the systematic quashing of dissent.

Pro-Palestinian speech is beingsystematically eradicatedin the US on multiple fronts. Palestinian viewpoints are being erased, punished or ignored. Ice, of course, has been very busy for weeks nowdetainingand deporting pro-Palestinian activists. Meanwhile, on Wednesday the FBI violently raided the homes of pro-Palestinian activists linked to University of Michigan protests. And earlier this week a performance by the R&B star Kehlani at Cornell University in New York state was cancelled, with the university’s president saying the booking of the singer had “injected division and discord” at Cornell because ofher stance on Israel.

The message from the government and from elite institutions is very clear: speak up about Palestine and you will be punished for it. These raids and deportations, the cancelling of contracts and opportunities, aren’t just meant to punish individuals, but to have a chilling effect on the masses.

More insidious silencing is happening on social media, where it is getting harder to share pro-Palestinian content. According to leaked internal Meta data recently obtained byDrop Site News: “A sweeping crackdown on posts on Instagram and Facebook that are critical of Israel – or even vaguely supportive of Palestinians – was directly orchestrated by the government of Israel … The data show that Meta has complied with 94% of takedown requests issued by Israel since October 7, 2023.”

On cable news, Palestinian perspectives are routinely ignored. (Networks that were preoccupied with issues of campus safety in the past certainly don’t seem to have run any segments about how Arab students at Yale might feel threatened by having Ben-Gvir celebrated on campus.) Last December, the Nation analyzed a year’s worth of Palestine-Israel coverage by four Sunday morning news shows – NBC’s Meet the Press, ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Face the Nation and CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. It found that “withthe exception of one interview, the Sunday shows covered and debated the so-called ‘Israel-Hamas war’ for 12 months without speaking to a single Palestinian or Palestinian American.” The shows featured Israeli guests 20 times, along with multiple appearances from pro-Israel US guests. This is what “objectivity” on Palestine and Israel looks like in the media.

On cable news, Palestinian perspectives are routinely ignored. (Networks which were preoccupied with issues of campus safety in the past certainly don’t seem to have run any segments about how Arab students at Yale might feel threatened by having Ben-Gvir celebrated on campus.) Last December, the Nation analyzed a year’s worth of Palestine-Israel coverage by four Sunday morning news shows – NBC’s Meet the Press, ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Face the Nation, and CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. It found that “withthe exception of one interview, the Sunday shows covered and debated the so-called “Israel-Hamas war” for 12 months without speaking to a single Palestinian or Palestinian American.” The shows featured Israeli guests 20 times, along with multiple appearances from pro-Israel US guests. This is what “objectivity” on Palestine/Israel looks like in the media.

Once again: kids are being actively starved to death in Gaza as I write this. This should prompt nonstop outrage in the media. And yet there seems to have been far more outrage in certain sections of the US media about the fact that the Irish rap group Kneecap recently ended their Coachella set by displaying the message: “Fuck Israel, Free Palestine.” Fox News went into acomplete tizzyabout it. Meanwhile, Sharon Osbourne denounced their “aggressive statements” and called for the group to have theirUS visas revoked. Kneecap responded to Osbourneby noting: “Statements aren’t aggressive, murdering 20,000 children is though.” If only that were more obvious to people.

Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian US columnist

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian