“Security Concerns”?
- 11.19.2007 - 2:10 PMLast week, the American University in Cairo’s faculty senate reconvened to discuss the possibility of academic exchanges with Israeli universities. AUC President David Arnold, who has refused to take a stand for academic freedom and defend these proposed exchanges, has now offered an official excuse to forestall any resolution that would open the campus to Israeli academics: security concerns. “My opinion is that it will be ill-advised and unwise for the senate to adopt a formal resolution dealing with cooperation with Israeli universities and research institutions,” Arnold said. Provost Tim Sullivan was more blunt, saying that AUC has to uphold “the high principle of security.”
But security from whom? The AUC campus, where I studied last year, is remarkably safe—its gates are protected 24 hours a day by security patrols, with bags and ID’s checked at every entrance. Moreover, little of what happens on campus permeates beyond these gates, as the Western dress of many female AUC students is rarely otherwise seen on the surrounding streets. Finally, AUC currently is situated in one of the most heavily policed—and thus safest—parts of Cairo, and will be moving to the outskirts of the city by fall 2008—where it will be even more insulated from those who might wish to do Israeli visitors harm.
Indeed, one is forced to wonder whether the “security concerns” to which AUC’s leadership alludes exist within AUC itself. As I reported two weeks ago, AUC students—outraged by the prospect of exchanges with Israelis—have threatened to hold strikes and sit-ins should Israelis be permitted on campus. On most campuses, the cancellation of proposed academic activities due to real security concerns might raise the alarm of students. Not so at AUC, however, where one active alumnus called Arnold’s decision a “win-win situation.” Meanwhile, another student deplored that AUC did not take a more explicitly political stance against exchanges with Israelis, saying that, “They have no right to say that AUC is only an academic institution.”
The facts of this case indicate that President Arnold is less motivated by “security concerns” than by a fear of challenging large segments of his student body. His American patrons need to call him on this shortcoming. If AUC is to serve its declared mission of fostering “freedom of expression” and “the exchange of ideas on campus,” its President must be the first to stand for these principles, leaving matters of security to his guards.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
November 19th, 2007 at 11:34 PM
The mealy-mouthed we have always with us.
November 20th, 2007 at 12:41 AM
If an Exhibit A were required as to why Israel should never seek to arrive at “peace treaties” for the sake of accumulating wallpaper, this piece would serve as well as any. The idea that a ‘peace’ may be said to exist between two entities possessed of the attributes of sovereignty where one party reserves to itself the prerogative to deny all incidents of normal relations under various pretexts and has its relevant non-governmental civic institutions following suit according to the political whim (or prevailing agenda) of the former is enough of a travesty to empty all notion of what can be associated with “peace” of all but perverse meaning. What sovereign, other than Egypt, might be said to exist at “peace” while retaining the right to assist or acquiese in the largescale transfer of arms into a Gaza run by thugs who have at least the virtue of public candor where it comes to their aims.
At the threshold where Israel may be induced to approbate, proleptically, the birth of a twenty third Arab sovereignty - one at that which refuses to renounce its enmity even in conditions where it stands to gain much - this ought to serve as a cautionary tale.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Mark Devenow’s comment confuses me, or perhaps Mark Devenow himself is a bit confused.
There were 4 wars between Israel and Egypt, here’s a brief desription of each:
1- “independence” war of 1948, basically started when the UN gave more than half of Palestine to Israel, so Arabs formed a blockade on Jews in Jerusalem, which eventually led to a war between Israel and an Arab League army.. this war was inevitable.
2- 1956, Israel joined Britain and France in a massive war against Egypt, where cease-fire was later reached due to the Soviet and US threats to the attacking nations, after Egypt had suffered hundreds of bombings and thousands of civilian casualties.
3- 1967, no comment
4- 1973, Egyptian army crosses the Suez canal and attacks Israeli army in Sinai in an attempt to win Sinai back..
After the 1973 war, Egyptian president Sadat initiated peace with Israel and even visited Tel Aviv in 1979 to improve relations. Egypt was consequently thrown out of the Arab League (which it had began) and all Arab countries denounced the peace treaties and called Sadat a “traitor”. Egypt, however, continued with the peace process and has been the foremost peace-making force in the region since then.
Yes, the Egyptian feeling on the street may be different, most Egyptians do not want to have anything to do with Israel, and I believe the AUC President was wise to decide not to have exchange students come to Cairo, because there would be a security issue.
But peace by Israel? What are you talking about? When did Israel ever try to make peace? Do you really believe their crap about being threatened by all their neighbors.. please, just read a history book, and book, even your Western books with distorted facts about the Middle Eastern conflict.. but don’t talk about Israel and peace. Don’t be rediculous, we’re not 5-year olds!