Mr. Ruling Class, a.k.a. Richard Haass, Proposes Brainwashing Anti-Zionism Students, and All Others As Well
But pay attention: the content of the brainwashing he proposes might surprise you
Richard Haass is President emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is the chief ruling class think tank whose members for decades have occupied the top executive positions of the federal government such as CIA director, Secretary of State, Defense, etc. Haass on June 18, 2024 has an opinion piece in the Boston Globe, copied in full for your convenience in this footnote1, that makes a proposal for how college administrators should handle anti-Zionism students who broke campus rules when they protested Israel’s genocide in Gaza (although Haass never actually refers to any “genocide” of course.)
Here’s what Haass proposes. Students who have charges against them for their protest activity should have the charges dropped if they pass two examinations: one examination about civil disobedience based on the writings of Thoreau, MLK, Jr., and Gandhi, and the other examination about the history of the Middle East with respect to Palestine and Israel.
Why do I call this “brainwashing”? Isn’t this all perfectly reasonable?
No. This not reasonable even though I suppose many people (you too?) think it is, and Yes, it is brainwashing. Let me explain why.
Let’s start with the examination about civil disobedience. The works that Haass wants students to read about civil disobedience are all works based on the philosophy of nonviolence (although this philosophy hadn’t been explicitly developed when Thoreau wrote). As I have written about here, the philosophy of non-violence is a) wrongheaded and b) exactly what oppressors want the oppressed to follow. Read my linked article, please.
In brief, the philosophy of nonviolence absurdly says that one can make the oppressors stop oppressing by appealing to their conscience (“moral suasion” as Gandhi put it) and that the way to appeal to their conscience is to demonstrate the sincerity of one’s convictions and the way to demonstrate that sincerity is to voluntarily accept whatever punishment for civil disobedience the oppressor chooses to enforce.
Haass also wants students to learn that civil disobedience must align with his (and the ruling class’s) ideas about freedom of speech. I have written about how this “Freedom of speech” notion is bogus here and also here. Please read it so you will understand how Haass’s proposed examination on civil disobedience is ruling class brainwashing. The essence of Haass’s “freedom of speech” view is that the ruling class has a right to use speech to oppress people and oppressed people do not have the right to stop the ruling class from doing so.
Now lets’ look at Haass’s proposed examination about the history of the Middle East with respect to Israel and Palestine. Haass doesn’t spell it out, because doing so would make the brainwashing aspect just too obvious, but if you look closely at his words you can tell what he has in mind for this examination. He spills the beans when discussing how the curriculum that anti-Zionism students should be examined on to avoid punishment is also a curriculum that ALL students should have to study. Here are Haass’s words that give the game away:
Debates focusing on the Israeli-Hamas conflict for the foreseeable future should be a central feature of any such curriculum. The format would demand students research both sides of an argument and advocate for one and then the other, building both an understanding and empathy sorely missing on many campuses.
Specifically, note the two words above, “both sides.”
What do you think the two sides are? Obviously the two sides Haass has in mind are the “pro-Israel” side and the “pro-Hamas side.” Our mass media (controlled by the likes of Richard Haass) make sure that there is never any discussion of the Middle East except based on the framework—the totally FALSE framework—that the two sides are pro-Israel versus pro-Palestine. The true framework, as I prove here (and additionally here and here) is ordinary working class Palestinians AND working class Israelis on the one side versus on the other side the billionaires who control BOTH Hamas and the Israeli government and who oppress working class people by pitting them against each other to control, oppress and get rich off of them.
There is no way in hell that any Haass-approved curriculum will even HINT that the true CLASS framework is the appropriate way to understand the conflict in the Middle East. As I have written about here, the mass media and the Zionists love it when the conflict is understood in the false “the Palestinians versus the Jews” framework. Haass and his Zionist buddies don’t care if people learn the “pro-Palestine” side in this framework. Why? Because the Zionists know that this non-class “pro-Palestine” narrative does not change the pro-Israel view of people in western nations such as the United States (whose governments ensure the Zionists remain in power) who support Israel because they know about and are horrified by the Holocaust and who think supporting Israel is what one must do if one wants to be on the side of the Jews and not on the side of antisemites.
To make this more evident, look at what Israel’s prime minister (1969-74) Golda Meir said. She said:
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us." [Source is here.]
Please note that Golda Meir, like Zionists generlly, ADMITS that Israel kills Arab children. The Zionists ADMIT that they commit terrible violence against Palestinians. The Zionists say that they wish it were not necessary, but alas they must “kill Arab children” to make Israeli Jews safe (which is a lie as my linked articles above prove, but a lie that the “pro-Palestine” side never refutes—never!)
When the “pro-Palestine” side (that Haass wants students to learn about and debate) criticizes Israel it does so ONLY by pointing out that Israel (to use Golda Meir’s shorthand phrase) “kills Arab children.” It never explains the TRUE reason that Israel “kills Arab children,” that it has nothing whatsoever to do with making Israeli Jews safe but on the contrary is for the purpose of enabling the billionaire Israeli ruling class to control, economically oppress and get rich off of the israeli Jewish working class. Students learning Haass’s curriculum will never learn this key fact, and as a result they will never be able to win over the vast majority of Americans to oppose Zionism. They will never be able to do THIS: persuade passionately pro-Israel Jews like my neighbor to become anti-Zionists, as I persuaded my neighbor to do. Richard Haass knows this, and counts on it.
The false framework (“the Palestinians versus the Jews”) is perfect for dividing good, well-intentioned, people. Some will support the “pro-Palestine” side because they are horrified (as they should be!) by the “killing of Arab children” and others will support the “pro-Israel” side because they are horrified by the Holocaust (as they should be!) and wrongly believe that the “killing of Arab children” is sadly required to make Israeli Jews safe.
Promoting this false and divisive framework, coupled with promotion of the “don’t do anything to actually stop oppressors from oppressing” nonviolence philosophy and bogus “freedom of speech” notion is nothing short of ruling class brainwashing.
Coming up with such a clever brainwashing scheme is why people like Richard Haass are top ruling class leaders.
Read here how YOU can help build the egalitarian revolutionary movement toRead here how YOU can help build the egalitarian revolutionary movement to remove the likes of Richard Haass from power.
In the wake of campus protests, school administrators must educate students
Students should be required to take two examinations in order to have charges dropped.
By Richard Haass Updated June 18, 2024, 3:00 a.m.
The latest debate roiling many of America’s campuses is less over the war in Gaza than it is over what college and university administrators should do about students charged with crimes or violating school rules when they were busy this spring protesting and building encampments.
More than 3,000 people have been arrested or detained on charges ranging from trespassing to vandalism and assault. Many more violated school rules about assembly. Not surprisingly, a great deal of the students involved are calling for all charges to be dropped and for any penalties to be rescinded, maintaining that what they were doing amounted to free speech.
To be sure, speech is heavily protected under the Constitution. It is a basic right of this democracy. But it is not an absolute one. In the landmark 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, the Supreme Court argued that speech was not protected if it sought to incite imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such an action. There are other legitimate grounds for limiting speech, including when it threatens public order or is libelous.
On campus there are additional reasons to view speech as necessarily constrained. Campuses are communities built and maintained for the purpose of learning. The right of free speech must be balanced with the rights of others — to allow them to exercise their own right of free speech; to allow them to hear speech some find objectionable; to go to class; to attend commencement; to go about their lives and studies free of intimidation. Here as elsewhere, individual rights must be balanced with obligations to others.
Some administrators and faculty believe denying degrees or calling for expulsion of those students found to be guilty of one or more infraction to be overly punitive, while others argue that students made informed choices and now must face the consequences if rules are to have any deterrent value and if every student is to enjoy access to the education they signed up for.
Related
Don’t compare the Israel-Hamas war protests to VietnamWhat friends of Israel and the Palestinians should be demanding nowIsrael and America are having a disagreement. That’s OK.
Such determinations are never simple or easy. In many instances (where violence or the destruction of property were not evident), expulsion or degree denial does seem a bit draconian, especially in cases where existing rules did not readily apply or the penalties for violating these rules were unclear. It is also punitive rather than purposeful. At the same time, simply letting those who knowingly broke the rules off without paying a price sends a terrible message. So let me suggest an alternative path: remedial education.
I recommend that administrators require protesters who violated the law and/or university rules to pass an examination in two areas to have the charges dropped, receive their degrees, or be reinstated. We are talking about educational institutions after all, so what better way forward than to insist on education relevant to the behaviors judged to be unacceptable?
First, students facing disciplinary or legal charges would be required to demonstrate competency in civics, including familiarity with the writings central to civil disobedience, which call for those who break the law to eschew violence but to be prepared to pay a price for their actions. They would be required to read texts from Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and other central thinkers. The course should also include instruction on Supreme Court rulings regarding free speech and assembly.
Second, students would be required to demonstrate an understanding of the history of the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. Assigned readings would, among other things, expose them to the history of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism, the multiple legacies of the British Mandate in Palestine, attempts at partition, Israeli independence and reactions to it, the 1967 War and its lasting consequences, successful and unsuccessful diplomatic efforts, evolving demographics and politics, and the events before, during, and after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel.
There is no reason such education should be for only those students facing penalties. Ideally, all students would be required to take a mini-course at the start of the school year, one covering civics and how it applies to contending with differing points of view on controversial issues. Debates focusing on the Israeli-Hamas conflict for the foreseeable future should be a central feature of any such curriculum. The format would demand students research both sides of an argument and advocate for one and then the other, building both an understanding and empathy sorely missing on many campuses. Civility and nonviolence would be a must. Professors would instruct students on where to go for information that is accurate and for analysis as opposed to advocacy.
No school official should operate under the illusion that what took place this past spring was a onetime thing. Peace is not at hand in the Middle East; protests are likely to resume in the fall if not before. The goal should be to protect free speech but in a manner that is consistent, protective of the rights of all students, and supportive of the mission of schools to educate.
Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior counselor at Centerview Partners, is the author of “The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens.”