How does this make sense? Because one professor was a Nazi collaborator, all professors are Nazi collaborators?

Or because one professor was a Nazi collaborator any professor which disagrees with Israel's policies is a Nazi collaborator?

That's one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard!!

It is what as known as "wingnutetics", a special type of logic similar to dialectics.

First you take your head (thesis) and then your ass (antithesis) and you shove the former up the latter (synthesis).

And ta da, you can manufacture such stunning leaps of logic as featured above.

Everything is connected. To think that 'professors' or 'academics' can divorce themselves from the 'real world' is wrong. Politics cannot be divorced from academics. History is not 'one-sided' but many sided.

These professors can have their views aired, here in the West. That's cool. But can the opposite be said about views exposing for instance, 'islamofascism' in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt or Indonesia?

Ya right!

That's right. The main point here is that just because one has "smarts" or academic credentials it's not a guarantee that one is moral or one's pronouncements in other areas have any merit.

My favorite example is that of Arthur Butz, tenured professor of Engineering at Northwestern...also one of the world's foremost Holocaust deniers. Butz's expertise in engineering in no way validate his writing on WW2 topics.

Jeebus- a good portion of college professors are Jewish. To think that they really hate themselves. Hmmmm.

Non-sequitur. Neither I nor the article make the point that all college professors are anti-semites.

Solomon,
You didn't finish your thought in the final sentence of your post citing the (presumably academic) research of Edward Kaplan and Charles Small.
According to your logic it should go:
" So when researchers Edward Kaplan and Charles Small demonstrate in Europe that anti-Israel sentiment "consistently predicts" the probability that an individual is also anti-Semetic, is the objective to further scholarship and science, or rather to move politically toward a time when removing all critics of Israeli policy from the community would be possible?

Sadly, no.

First, it's not my thought, it's a blockquote from the linked article. Second, the two academics named in the paragraph, Massad and Qumsiyeh, are not critics of Israeli "policy," they are dedicated, unabashedly, to the state's destruction and willing to associate with the worst of the worst in order to achieve that goal. Qumsiyeh, for instance, regularly posts to an email list populated by Holocaust deniers and anti-semites (by virtually any definition).

I realize that neither you, nor the people popping into this thread are likely to actually read or care about this response, but there may be others who read this that might be interested.

Oh, and while the article is somewhat off-hand in its reference to the study in question, the point is that many even well-meaning "critics of Israeli policy," particularly the most vociferous, often find themselves in the company, and in common cause with, people whose motivations are far less humanitarian. They should be aware of it.

To repeat the point: Just because it's happening on a college campus, doesn't make an activity ensconced in virtue.

"To repeat the point: Just because it's happening on a college campus, doesn't make an activity ensconced in virtue."

It's just a strange point to be making, considering that I've never heard anyone claim otherwise.

Solomon,
I've gone to the link and read the original article. I have no excuse for my sloppiness in not realizing that this was a link and not an original post by you.
From your post #9:
"To repeat the point: Just because it's happening on a college campus, doesn't make an activity ensconced in virtue."
If this is the point of your post and the original article then I agree with you, but I don't think that this is the case.
I saw David Mamet recently on Charlie Rose and he stated that a college education is worthless and that all that American Universities teach is anti-Semetism.
To me the point of this article ( and your post #9) is to link Nazism, Academic critics of Israel (as exemplified by the worst cases obtainable) and anti-Semetism in order to create a "guilt by association" for "well meaning critics" of Israeli policy, especially the "vociferous" ones.

Thank you for at least coming back and correcting the record.

The trouble, for those who follow these things closely, is that it's very difficult for well-meaning critics to make their criticisms without associating with a lot of unsavory characters on campuses today.

The odds are that an honest *critic* of Israeli *policy* is going to find themselves associating with what are commonly called "pro-Israel" groups, while the activist anti-Israel groups are run by people like Qumsiyeh -- a guy who travels the country going from campus to campus doing organizing and activist activity, and who is not a critic, but someone who wants to destroy the state.

We disagree as to the point of the article.

I don't know about David Mamet and didn't see the interview so of course I can't comment on that, likewise I suspect it's not entirely useful to take a short op-ed with a fairly concise point to be made and extend it out too far. I suspect the thread would be lost fairly quickly, as it already has been I think.

Person A is the world's greatest humanitarian.
Person B is the world's most virulent anti-semite.
Both A & B criticize Israeli policies.
Therefore they are both anti-semites.

Or

Person Y is the world's greatest humanitarian.
Person Z is the world's most virulent racist.
Both Y & Z are strong supporters of Israel.
Therefore they are both racists.

One can end up with any conclusion one desires using a logical fallcy.
Chris Neil is a punk
Chris Neil is a Senator.
Therefore all Senators are punks.

I guess I kind of see your point. It's sort of like the fact that black conservatives can't seem to espouse their beliefs without making common cause with people who are convinced that blacks are genetically inferior, and don't have a problem saying so.

I personally feel that Israel shouldn't exist either, but that doesn't make me anti-Semitic, it makes me anti-Israeli-State. I have lots of Jewish friends, and am in no way anti-Semitic. I just feel that using borrowed equipment after WWII to steal a bunch of land from the weak Palestinians (just because 'God' 'gave' you the land in the Bible) doesn't make what you did right, nor does it make your 'country' legitimate.

God didn't give anything to anyone, the UN recognized the state, and no one "stole" anything, they bought it and developed it or lived there previously like anyone else.

You bring up a good point, though. Sometimes people repeat anti-Semitic tropes out of ignorance, rather than malice, in many cases because they simply intend to go good...in fact they end up simply doing the wrong thing because they don't know any better.

I'm glad you have Jewish friends.

pimozideula, an antipsychotic, cry yourself to sleep.

bought and developed it? while this is in some sense correct (e.g. purchases by the Rothschilds from absentee landlords in the first half of the 20th century) you are making the creation of the state of israel sound like a benign property transaction. to begin with UN recognition is to leave out the Irgun, the Stern Gang, King David Hotel, and on and on. makes for a nicer story, i guess, but let's be honest and not leave out the nasty parts.