Good for Seligman, who appears (like former Harvard President Lawerence Summers) to be one of the few in Academia willing to stand up for Israel, albeit in a limited fashion.

BHG

What is Arun Ghandi trying to do? From what I've seen, His institute is more of hate than of peace. Sadly, he lacks the brain of his revered late grandfather, MK Ghandi. If his purpose is to wage an anti-Jewish campaign, Arun should stay in India and is not welcome in the US

"jews privileged and beyond scrutiny" Mr Ghandi? Shame on you for your ignorant, biased and shameful statement! At least be fair and consider the centuries of despicable humiliations and massacres the Jews have undergone... merely for beings Jews. And where does your funding come from M.r Ghandi? Is there a piper paying for your off-key lament? Better a paid lobbyist hustler than a mere knee-jerk commonplace antisemite!. Or do I detect an hint of some kind of inferiority complex there?

The University of Rochester disappoints me. The reason that we are a free country is because we have the right to our opinions and freedom to express our concerns. The United Nations is also concerned with the policies that Israel is using and how they are treating their Palestinian neighbors. Peace will never be achieved by mistreating people. The Holocaust was horrible. It is over now, and the people of Israel are in control. They should show compassion towards the Palestinian people. Ghandi has the right to express his opinion. I am a 1961 graduate of the University of Rochester, and it greatly offends me that people in the United States belittle those who have opinions that are not politically correct. Our founding fathers would be ashamed!

I would like to respond to / comment on Mr. Gene Stark's post.

Mr Arun Gandhi, is a black-blot on Indians (Hindus) as well. It is owing to policies that he supports (and were also propagandized by his late grand father MK Gandhi) that India has been suffering under the onslaught of Islamic terrorists. The stooge of senior Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru was the "leader" of the farcical "non-aligment movement" and so on.

Had India been friendly with Israel rather than Islamic terrorists posing as soldiers for liberation; it would have been much better.

It is a well recognized fact of history that Jews and Hindus lived in peace while Jews spent their time in India before returning to Israel.

On the other hand, senior Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and the whole list of their admirers have been appeasers of terrorists and bullies.

The letters senior Gandhi wrote to Jews, Winston Churchill or Hitler during WWII / Holocast clearly show his complete insensitivity to human suffering, and this "insensitivity", he "marketted" as "non-violence".

I am happy that the bluff is being recognized. My only request is that please donot take these Gandhis and Nehrus to be the repersentatives or spokespersons of Indians or Hindus.

Hindus have suffered as much as, if not more than, Jews under barbaric onslaught. And Arun Gandhi has mocked at Hindu suffering as much by blaming violence on Israel and Jews, while the real culprits are appeasers like he himself along with pepetrators like Hamas and Pakistan.

The letters senior Gandhi wrote to Jews, Winston Churchill or Hitler during WWII / Holocast clearly show his complete insensitivity to human suffering, and this "insensitivity", he "marketted" as "non-violence".

I think this is a great point. PURE non-violence is inherently devaluative of life and blind to suffering.

Yes, and profoundly Indian. Buddhism devalues all things of this life, including the body and life itself. Hinduism similarly values the spirit over mere life, but with the added twist that when the worthy suffer in this life they gain a higher status in their next incarnation.

Ideas matter.

Weren't the Jews who were led to the gas chambers the best illustration of where ultimately the non-violence principle leads to?

Gandhi has some nerve preaching to Jews about non-violence.

I would suggest to Joyce McMullen that when 40% of your body has been cut off, you cannot pretend that the injury is over. Speaking of compassion.

I would like to respond to / comment on Mr. Anna's post.

I am not so knowledgeable on Buddhism, so I cannot comment on his statement: "Buddhism devalues all things of this life, including the body and life itself."

However, as per his biography, Buddha himself was not "insensitive" to human suffering. In one of his celebrated examples: A hunter chasing an animal reaches a person who is at cross-roads and asks the person which direction the animal went. In normal course of action "truthfulness" is enjoined, but in this context Buddha said that "truthfulness" would amount to the animal getting hunted, and so permitted compromise on truthfulness. One can debate about the correctness of such a point of view but this shows that he was sensitive to suffering of even fellow animals, let alone humans. More over, he has also been claimed to have had the power to transform violent people into peaceloving people by his mere presence.

Regarding Mr Anna's comment on Hinduism: "Hinduism similarly values the spirit over mere life, but with the added twist that when the worthy suffer in this life they gain a higher status in their next incarnation." seems to portray an incomplete picture.

Any belief-system which postulates life after bodily-death, does also postulate a recompensation (either as heaven or hell) for un-compensated actions in this life. This is the law of balance which staes that your actions and deeds will not go unrewarded or unpunished (as the case may be).

However from this if one concluded that we must therefore be insenstitve to suffering of fellow beings in front of our own eyes, assuming that the suffering is either a result of previous action (this or previous life), or will be compensated in future (this or future life), is the TWIST.

A teaching of forbearance or tolerance might advise one to be more accommodating towards iniquities on himself/herself. It certainly does not enjoin you to be unmoved by your neighbour's suffering.

Many great persons (in many religions) therefore, have fought great wars (seemingly "violent") to eradicate suffering of fellow human beings; even though they, as individuals, may have been very tolerant toward their personal discomfort.

These Gandhis and Nehrus have always had self-aggrandising principles, but have made OTHERS pay the price for them. Hindus paid the price in India, and this Mr. Arun Gandhi now wants Israel to open its bosom for terrorists. A simple question is, why should Mr Arun Gandhi enjoy the secure life in the US while the Jews whom he is perscribing his imbecile principles must face the insecurity? Why does he "himself" not go and live in "Gaza" and "preach" non-violence to Hamas?

His grandfather never had any guts to preach "non-violence" to Muslims. His stooge Jawahar was blind to the inhuman treatment meted out by Stalin in Russia.

The short answer to all this is that such persons are HYPOCRITES. They want to wear the crown at the cost of others' suffering.

Fortunately, of late, the bluff of these blighters are being caught.

Arun Gandhi's awful comments caused me to do some research into his grandfather's relationship to Jews and to Israel. What I found was a history, going back to 1938, of an anti-Jewish bias, that continued in Arun Gandhi's 2004 meeting with Yassir Arafat and his speech before the Palestian Parliment. Although he preached "nonviolence" to them, they apparently didn't get the message, but that didn't stop Mr. Gandhi from embracing their cause, and blaming Jews and Israelis for the culture of violence which infects our world.

If rockets were arriving in Texas each day from places in Mexico, how long would it take before we responded militarily? Why is it all right, when it's only Jewish lives which are put at risk? With the trillions of dollars we're sending to Saudi Arabia and other arab countries, where are the universities they are building, the cultural centers, the museums? Why are they funding anti-American madrasas instead?

Mahatma Gandhi's forked tongued approach to Ahimsa has been critically examined and exposed by Belgian Indologist scholar Dr. Koenraad Elst. Check this:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhimistake.html