Talking Israel and South Africa

WHAT military and economic connections exist between South Africa and Israel?

How does Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza parallel South African apartheid?

How should America respond to reports of Israeli-South African collaboration?

And what's so wrong with asking these questions at Harvard?

Divinity School administrators recently cancelled plans to host a conference that would detail ties between Israel and South Africa. Organizer Nancy U. Murray said the purpose of the conference--dubbed "Apartheid's Arc and the Palestinian Uprising: Making the Connections"--was "to give information" on an issue "kept from view."

That wasn't good enough for Divinity School Dean Ronald Thiemann, who decided to bar the conference. "It is not an appropriate event to have here," said another Divinity School administrator.

In other words, the way Harvard dealt with controversial speech on the Middle East was to bar it from campus.

NOT that administrators should allow every group to hold a conference on campus. Harvard should not lend its limited resources to a speaker whose theories have absolutely no basis in fact. Likewise, administrators should not feel compelled to publicize an irrelevant topic. And Harvard should not accommodate speakers who espouse doctrines such as race-hatred.

Within these broad limits, however, Harvard's mission as an academic institution demands that the University should encourage speakers with controversial viewpoints, even if some do not find them appropriate--especially if some do not find them appropriate.

And this includes the conference on Israel and South Africa. The issue of Israeli-South African ties is real, relevant and ripe for exposure to the critical eye of an academic community.

U.S. intelligence officials told The Washington Post last week that Israel had given ballistic missile technology to South Africa in exchange for uranium for Israeli nuclear bombs. The previous night, NBC broadcast television footage of Israeli military officials on assignment in South Africa.

Such reports of Israeli-South African ties have surfaced periodically since Israel announced it would not initiate new contracts with Pretoria, but would honor old contracts.

This summer, Rep. Ronald Dellums (D-Calif.) called for a Pentagon investigation into the Israeli defense firm Tadiran. Dellums said he suspected that the firm had business ties with South Africa, despite an international ban. If these allegations proved true, Dellums said the Pentagon should void its multimillion-dollar defense contract with Tadiran.

Israeli officals publicly deny the existence of military ties with South Africa. Maybe it's all a conspiracy to make Israel look bad. But how can we know? By discussing the evidence for the connection, or by banning the evidence from campus?

Israel's ties with South Africa are extremely relevant to U.S.-Israeli relations. America's pledge against arming South Africa loses meaning when its closest ally does it instead. When Israel provides the means of defense for the most vicious racist system in the world, the U.S. ought to take notice. And Harvard ought to as well.

Israeli politicians have long taken for granted American aid of $4 billion a year. Now, American Jews must warn Israel that such aid is in danger as long as ties to South Africa persist. Black members of Congress, who are ordinarily loyal members of the pro-Israel coalition, will bolt unless Israel cleans up its act.

ISRAEL is a very emotional issue for many Jews, including myself. It isn't easy to hear Israel associated with South Africa. I hate to hear of Israeli soldiers abusing commonly held standards of human rights. And I know that I would feel uncomfortable at Apartheid's Arc.

I do not believe Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is morally equivalent to South African apartheid. However, my disagreement with others' interpretations of historical events does not give me the right of censorship. Their speech doesn't denigrate me; at most, it makes me uneasy.

Evidently it makes Harvard administrators uneasy, too. But Harvard's role isn't to make people comfortable; it's to foster critical thinking and dialogue.

We might not have been happy with Apartheid's Arc, but we probably would have learned something.