Turmoil in the American Academy: Did the "Knight of Human Rights" lose a senior position due to criticism of Israel? | Israel today

An uproar in academic circles in the United States: 

an article published this week in the liberal magazine "the nation" accuses the prestigious Harvard University of rejecting the candidacy of Kenneth Roth, the head of the "Human Rights Watch" group for three decades, for a senior academic position at the institution due to his critical positions towards Israel. 

Under the title "Why the godfather of human rights is not welcome at Harvard" the article in the magazine states that "Kenneth Roth, who ran the human rights watchdog for three decades, was blocked from the Kennedy school membership because he dared to criticize Israel."

In the article, directed by the writer and intellectual Michael Messing. 

The writer claims in the article that the members of the Kennedy School of Government at the university, and specifically the Carr Institute, which deals with human rights, were surprised to learn that the university management rejected Ruth's request to join its ranks.

According to what is claimed in the article, the dean of the school explained to the head of the institute, Catherine Sikkink, that Ruth has an "anti-Israeli bias" and highlighted his anti-Israeli tweets on the social network Twitter. 

However, unlike Massing, others define Ruth's words not as a criticism of Israel but as an "anti-Semitic obsession".

Professor Gerald Steinberg, founder of the conservative "NGO Monitor" organization, responded to the article: "For a long time, Ruth used his position in the human rights watchdog to engage in deep, personal and obsessive enmity against Israel." 

Harvard University // Photo: AP

Steinberg cites an article published by Robert Bernstein, Ruth's predecessor at the Human Rights Watch, in which he condemned the anti-Israelism of his successor and called on him to withdraw his positions towards Israel.

"In every democratic country there are flaws and violations of human rights, but we believe that in open societies where you can operate freely, pressure must be exerted on internal executive structures and bring about change," wrote the founder. 

Apart from the discussion of the difference between criticism and opposition to the existence of the State of Israel, the case demonstrates quite unusually how the leadership of a central university in Israel acted consciously with the aim of preventing an anti-Israel personality from accepting a significant role in it, out of fear that he would be used in order to spread his views. 

were we wrong

We will fix it!

If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us