Meir Kahane at Brandeis University (Hebrew subtitles)

This article provides a comprehensive overview of Rabbi Meir Kahane's controversial speech at Brandeis University, focusing on his views regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the nature of a Jewish state, and his proposals for resolving the conflict. The event itself was marked by significant tension and protest, highlighting the deep divisions within the Brandeis community and beyond regarding Kahane's extreme positions. The speech delves into historical narratives, religious interpretations, and political arguments, challenging conventional notions of peace, democracy, and coexistence in the Middle East. Kahane's unapologetic stance on the expulsion of Arabs from Israel, his interpretation of Jewish law, and his critique of Western democratic ideals provoked strong reactions from students and faculty, leading to heated exchanges and debates during the event. The article aims to present Kahane's arguments and the context of their delivery, allowing readers to understand the controversial nature of his ideology and the impact it had on the audience.

Controversy and Free Speech at Brandeis

The event at Brandeis University featuring Rabbi Meir Kahane was steeped in controversy from its inception. The student who organized the event, identified as the Vice President of the Brandeis Debating Union, described facing significant obstacles. Posters announcing Kahane's visit were repeatedly torn down within 24 hours, and the university administration, along with various student organizations, actively tried to prevent the speech from occurring. The administration imposed a "security fee" of $1,628, which the organizer compared to "poll taxes imposed on the Blacks," suggesting it was a deliberate attempt to deter Kahane's appearance. Although the student Senate allocated $1,000, the decision was made on principle not to pay the fee. The organizer also received a letter threatening personal liability for any harm resulting from the event and possible suspension or expulsion from the school if Kahane were brought as a personal guest. Undaunted, the student contacted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and was informed by the President's Office that it was indeed his clear right to invite Kahane as a personal guest without further restrictions. This pre-speech turmoil established a contentious atmosphere, underscoring the tension between free speech principles and the strong opposition to Kahane's views.

Historical Narrative of Arab-Jewish Conflict

Rabbi Kahane challenged the common understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that its origins predate the 1967 war and the establishment of the state of Israel. He asserted that the conflict began much earlier, specifically in 1920 in Jerusalem, when Arabs massacred Jews, and again in Jaffa in 1929, where 67 Jews were murdered in a single day in Hebron. Kahane critically questioned the notion that these massacres were triggered by the "occupied lands of 1967," sarcastically asking why he hadn't realized that before. He pointed out the massacres of 1936, 1937, and 1938, during which 510 Jewish men, women, and children were killed before the existence of the state of Israel. His argument aimed to demonstrate that Arab hostility was not a reaction to Israeli occupation but rather an inherent opposition to any Jewish presence in the land. He cited the 1947 UN Partition Plan, which proposed a Jewish state and an Arab state, noting that Jews accepted it while Arabs rejected it and subsequently went to war, resulting in the deaths of 6,000 Jews. Kahane concluded that "what was bothering them was the fact that there was a Jewish state of any size, of any shape, of any form." This historical account formed the basis of his argument that peace through territorial compromise was impossible because the core issue for Arabs was the existence of a Jewish state itself.

Critique of Zionist and Arab Intentions

Zionists Against Racism and the Law of Return

Kahane directly addressed a sign displaying "Zionists Against Racism," challenging its meaning in the context of Israeli law. He focused on Israel's Law of Return, passed by David Ben-Gurion in 1950, which grants any Jew the right to come to Israel and automatically become a citizen. He provocatively asked if this law was racist, asserting that since it applies only to Jews and not non-Jews, it "certainly does" have a racist component. However, he clarified that he did not pass the law and that "Judaism is a religion, not a race." This statement served to highlight what he perceived as a contradiction in the "Zionists Against Racism" slogan, implying that if they are truly against racism, they should acknowledge the inherent "racism" of the Law of Return. He further questioned whether any Arab in Israel would consider the Law of Return non-racist or would desire to live in a country called the Jewish State, drawing an analogy to Jews not wanting to live in a "Christian State."

The Arab Nightmare and Lack of Compromise

Kahane stated that the existence of a Jewish state was the "Arab nightmare," emphasizing their unwillingness to compromise or accept a Jewish presence. He mentioned that Arabs in Israel do not sing the Israeli national anthem, "Hatikvah," with pride because its words, "the soul of a Jew yearns," symbolize a dream for Jews that is a nightmare for Arabs. He argued that Arabs have had "opportunities over and over and over again for a state called Palestine and they refuse." He dismissed the concept of "moderate Arabs" or "moderate terrorists," suggesting that these are sophisticated versions of those who still aim to eliminate Israel. According to Kahane, Arabs genuinely believe that the entire country belongs to them and view Zionism as "colonialism, imperialism, racism." He asserted that this fundamental belief makes true compromise impossible, leading to a "tragic struggle with people who will not compromise." He concluded that Arab reluctance to compromise stems from their historical attempts to "swallow land which didn't belong to them" and their continuous dream of wiping out Israel.

Contradiction Between Western Democracy and a Jewish State

Rabbi Kahane presented a central theme of his ideology: the inherent contradiction between Western democracy and the concept of a Jewish state. He defined Zionism as "the movement for the creation of a Jewish State," which for him meant that "the Jew will control that state always." In contrast, Western democracy, based on majority rule, would imply that if Arabs "peacefully and democratically become the majority," they would have the right to run the state and potentially "vote Israel out of existence as a Jewish State." He challenged his audience, asking if they, as democrats, would agree to such a theoretical outcome. He argued that while any democrat would theoretically say "yes," a "normal Jew" would say "never, never." Kahane forcefully rejected the idea of applying Western democratic principles that could lead to the demise of the Jewish state, especially given the history of the Holocaust. He emphasized that Jews "owe the world nothing and they owe us everything," thus justifying a stance that prioritizes Jewish survival over strict adherence to Western democratic ideals if those ideals threaten the existence of Israel.

Solutions: Expulsion and No Compromise

Expulsion of Arabs

Kahane's most controversial proposal for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the expulsion of Arabs from Israel. He openly stated, "I want to move the Arabs out of Israel, I make no bones about it." He argued that this was a more humane solution than daily violence or breaking bones. He cited historical precedents, such as the expulsion of 12 million ethnic Germans from countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II, justifying it by claiming that these Germans had acted as a "fifth column" for Hitler. Kahane asserted that Arabs inside Israel, who identify as Palestinians, constitute a similar "fifth column" and pose a "tremendous threat." He pointed to areas like the Galilee, which now has an Arab majority, as evidence of this internal threat. He stated that Arabs residing in Israel would be moved "whether they want to leave or not," and if necessary, "I will use violence against them." He clarified that he doesn't want to kill Arabs but wishes for them to live happily in any of the 22 Arab countries. He assured the audience that if he were prime minister, Arabs would "be across the Jordan River." He maintained that there is no difference between an Arab in Israel and one in the West Bank, as both consider themselves Palestinians, leading to the conclusion that their presence poses an existential threat to the Jewish state.

Consequences of Compromise and Land for Peace

Kahane vehemently rejected the notion of territorial compromise for peace, particularly the "land for peace" formula. He argued that Arabs have started and lost four wars, and "winners do not give up land, losers who started wars lose." He proposed an alternative: "I am all for land for peace. I'll give them the land and they'll have the peace," by suggesting that Palestinians could have their state inside Jordan. He was prepared to "allow the Palestinians to create a state for Palestine" on the land that is now Jordan, which he claimed was "the eastern part of Herod's Israel." He expressed willingness to sit down with the PLO not to compromise, but to tell them "no" to their demands for Israeli land while offering them a state in Jordan. He warned that if Israel gives up the lands of 1967, the next demand would be for the lands of 1947, eventually leading to a demand for all of Israel. He concluded that compromise is a "deadly, deadly serious game in which they have dreamed and still dreamed of wiping out Israel."

Rejection of Arab Coexistence

Kahane dismissed the possibility of genuine coexistence between Jews and Arabs within Israel. He argued that simply raising living standards or providing services like electricity and indoor toilets would not buy an Arab's national pride. He stated, "You do not buy an Arab's national pride by raising his living standards." He asserted that Arabs sincerely believe the entire country belongs to them and view Zionism as colonial. He maintained that this fundamental difference means that "we are in a tragic struggle with people who will not compromise." He also drew a cynical comparison to Arab-on-Arab violence in Lebanon, where various factions constantly kill each other, stating, "It is such a pleasure watching Arabs living together... Everybody kills everybody else there, but of course we will live with them because we have so much in common." This statement underlined his belief that the idea of Jewish-Arab coexistence was naive and unrealistic given the inherent Arab opposition to a Jewish state.

Interpretations of Jewish Law and Ethics

During the speech, Kahane also delved into his interpretation of Jewish law and ethics, particularly as they relate to conflict and national survival. He quoted from the Torah, specifically the verse "When you shall go to war against your enemy," explaining that the Torah commands to "go against them as enemy, just as they will not have pity on you, don't have pity on them." He interpreted this as a divine instruction to show no mercy to enemies who show no mercy to you. He also cited a story from the Talmud about a shepherd who had pity on a baby wolf, nursed it, but ultimately had to kill it because it grew up to be a dangerous wolf. Kahane extrapolated this to human relations, saying, "He who has pity on the cruel will someday be cruel unto people of pity and mercy." He warned against what he called "mercy of fools"—showing mercy to those who would destroy you—asserting that such actions would be detrimental to Jewish survival. He stated that Jews have historically been victims, suffering countless deaths, and it is time to be winners rather than losers: "It is better to be a winner than to be a loser and it is better to live than to die." He insisted that there is no mitzvah (commandment) for a Jew to die, but rather a mitzvah to live. These interpretations served to justify his hardline stance and rejection of compromise or conciliation with Arabs.

Impact and Reactions to Kahane's Speech

The speech elicited strong reactions from the audience, leading to numerous interruptions, shouts, and heated exchanges. Many students expressed outrage at Kahane's views, accusing him of promoting hatred, racism, and violence. One student asserted that Kahane was "making us into murderers by not looking at the Torah and the Torah's teachings about compromise and an effort to make peace in difficult situations." This student also accused Kahane of distorting his compassion for the Jewish people into "hatred for everybody else" and blinding him to the sufferings of Palestinians. Another student spoke about the "true war hero" being someone who can "make an enemy into a friend." The Brandeis Debating Union Vice President, who invited Kahane, explained his decision to try and stop Kahane from speaking: "The one person who shouldn't speak in a democratic society is somebody who wants to end democracy." Students challenged Kahane on his religious interpretations, his historical narratives, and the practical implications of his proposals, particularly regarding the potential loss of U.S. aid if his policies were implemented. The passionate protests and direct confrontations during the speech highlighted the deep moral and ideological divisions among the Jewish students and the broader university community regarding the future of Israel and its relations with Palestinians.

Takeaways

Controversial Event: The organization of Meir Kahane's speech at Brandeis University was marked by significant opposition from the administration and student groups, highlighting intense debates over free speech versus the potential incitement of hatred.
Historical Narrative: Kahane argued that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict originated in early 20th-century Arab massacres of Jews, not in the 1967 war or the creation of Israel, positing that Arab hostility is fundamental opposition to any Jewish state.
Critique of Zionism and Arab Intentions: He challenged the idea of "Zionists Against Racism" by pointing to the "racist" nature of Israel's Law of Return, which prioritizes Jewish citizenship, and asserted that Arabs fundamentally oppose the existence of any Jewish state, making compromise impossible.
Contradiction with Western Democracy: Kahane argued that Western democratic principles, which support majority rule, inherently conflict with the concept of a Jewish state, as an Arab majority could democratically vote Israel out of existence.
Proposed Solution: Arab Expulsion: His most controversial proposal was the expulsion of Arabs from Israel, which he justified by citing historical precedents and claiming it was a more humane alternative to violence, viewing internal Arab populations as a "fifth column."
Rejection of Land for Peace: Kahane rejected territorial compromise, stating that "winners do not give up land" and proposing that a Palestinian state be established in Jordan instead.
Interpretation of Jewish Law: He drew upon rabbinic texts and stories to justify his hardline stance, emphasizing that Jewish law permits showing no mercy to enemies who show no mercy to Jews, and that Jewish survival supersedes other considerations.
Audience Reaction: The speech provoked strong reactions, interruptions, and accusations of racism and violence, reflecting the deep moral and ideological divisions within the Brandeis community regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.