Talk:Joel Beinin

Notability

He is quoted in several other wikipedia articles. --Aminz 05:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a good argument in favor of notability. At the very least, he must be discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. Beit Or 08:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In any case, an AfD is the way to go, not this tag. --Aminz 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Both are possible. If some editors believe that the subject of this article is nonnotable, this concern must be recorded. Please do not give instructions to other editors. Beit Or 10:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But the tag is a waste of time if you don't follow it up. It is supposed to indicate that there is an issue to resolve, not sit there permanently. Alex Middleton 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

missing articles

Why has somebody removed the links to lots of his articles on the web? :-( Regards, Huldra 11:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit section

An anonymous IP which resolves to Cairo removed the entire section on the Horowitz lawsuit, could someone address that edit, which I have reverted? Corvus cornix 20:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the section concerning his controversies at Stanford including former students alleging he taught nonfacts repeatedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.201.49 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that someone, probably the subject of the piece, Beinin, sanitized the biography so that it looks like a piece on George Washington. I also see from the edits that Beinin, or his defender, objected to criticisms of his work on Egyptian Jewry. Enclosed are several book reviews from Amazon.com that describe Beinin's whitewashing of persecutions of Jews . In case the reviews themselves are edited due to policy, in answer to Beinin's query, Beinin omits tortures that occurred from 1967-70 in Abu Zaabal and Tura, and ignores eyewitness testimony and personal testimony.

:

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

  43 of 55 people found the following review helpful: 
Dishonest scholarship, June 17, 2003 

By Linda. (Nashua, NH) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora (Contraversions, Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society, 11) (Hardcover) The author is not honest when presenting the plight of Egyptian Jews. He belittles their suffering. In fact, he omits the most serious calamity that befell Egyptian Jewry: Incarceration and torture in the detention camps of Abu Zaabal and Tura between 1967-70. It is indeed dishonest scholarship, because the author covers the period before and after 1967-70, but not these three years. It seems that he is interested in blaming Israel for the fate of Egyptian Jewry, which is unfair. Israel welcomed Egyptian Jews after Egypt denied them citizizenship in in 1929 and employment in 1947 (The Company Law).

Comment | Was this review helpful to you?   (Report this) 

  26 of 42 people found the following review helpful: 
Utter nonsense, December 27, 2004 

By Alyssa A. Lappen (Earth) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora (Contraversions, Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society, 11) (Hardcover) Joel Beinin loathes Israel, and in this book, admits as much. He reports his ideological transformation on Kibbutz Lahav in 1970, his course from Labor Zionism to the "new left" at Hebrew University, from which he migrated to Trotskyite anti-Zionism and Maoism and concluded, "I was no longer a Zionist." An admitted Marxist, Beinin has for 30 years vigorously opposed "the Zionist project."

As a consequence, this book is not history. Rather, it accepts facts only for ideological use. No subject escapes unharmed. Like his prior books, this one attempts to advance Marxism while denigrating Jews, Judaism--and Israel.

Beinin claims that Israeli and Egyptian "political considerations" prevented Jewish refugees from telling their story. Yet he dismisses bona fide histories produced by refugees like Bat Ye'or and Yehoshafat Harkabi as gloomy "neo-lachrymose interpretation." They're accurate.

But Beinin counts these historians worthless because their work carries the "imprimatur of...Israel, the Zionist movement, world Jewry, and...normative Zionist interpretation"--and because they diminish Palestinian claims. By this flawed logic, only Arabs or anti-Zionists could report on 1 million Jewish refugees forced from their homes in Arab lands and the victims must remain in perpetual silence.

Not surprisingly, given his own bias, Beinin minimizes Egyptian anti-Semitism as well. He dismisses pervasive Egyptian media ridicule of Jewish leaders during the 1940s, 50s and 60s. It is not "an expression of primordial Arab or Muslim anti-Jewish sentiment."

Beinin likewise dismisses the waves of false arrests to which Egyptian Jews were subjected in the 1940s, 1950s and 60s. This was not anti-Semitism, either. He cites rabbinic denunciations of Zionism, made under duress, as "proof" that Egyptian Jews were not Zionists and claims that Jewish leaders "shamelessly exploited" and "grossly exaggerated" Egypt's "Nazi-like anti-Semitism."

But Egypt's government frequently published hateful tracts like Shawki Abdel Nasser's Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Teachings of the Talmud. Moreover, former Nazis and SS officials seamlessly joined Egypt's government, and had huge influence.

--Alyssa A. Lappen

Comment | Was this review helpful to you?   (Report this) 

  38 of 41 people found the following review helpful: 
Dishonest scholarship indeed, July 3, 2003 

By "zz2122" (Ashdod, Israel) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry: Culture, Politics, and the Formation of a Modern Diaspora (Contraversions, Critical Studies in Jewish Literature, Culture, and Society, 11) (Hardcover) As someone who was incarcerated in 1956 and later, from 1967 to 1970, I consider that Benin committed an intellectual crime when he refused to mention that we, Egyptian Jewish males above the ages of 19, were incarcerated in the detention camps of Abu Zaabal and Tura. One of the detainees from Alexandria was 82 years old! I, as well as others, were personally tortured. For instance, I was forced to walk barefoot on broken glass. Another inmate was told to face the wall, and insult himself. He had to say: " I am a coward Jew, I am a Jewish donkey". Beinin must have known about Abu Zaabal and Tura. He wrote that he was in Egypt during that period. From the names he mentions in his book, it is clear that he talked to some of the former detainees.

Israel gave me a second chance at life, and helped me recover. I believe his hatred of the Jewish state led Beinin to hide the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.201.49 (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

I only noted this was a protected site after editing the page. If I have acted improperly, whoever is protecting the site can, unless they intervene directly, drop me a note and I will revert the edit (innocuous enough, perhaps, but one never knows). ApologiesNishidani 07:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted Talk's additions to the previous text. These passages were removed:-

(1)'Beinin's work has been criticized by Egyptian Jews, who contend he deliberately ignored persecutions of Jews by Egyptians.'

(2) 'However, Beinin also was, during his tenure at Stanford, a magnet for criticism by students who charged that he ignored or even made up facts to support his a priori political agenda which was against Israel. These critiques were published in the Stanford Review, Camera, Campus-Watch and the Stanford Daily.'

(1)The first quote is unsourced, inaccurate, and grossly misleading. Which specific book is alluded to? Which former Egyptian Jews made the criticism? Who of them used the adjective 'deliberately'? If the editor is familiar with Beinin's work, he will know that Beinin devoted pages in his 1998 book on the diaspora to a deconstruction of both an official Egyptian government view that 'Egypt has been a shelter for persecuted Jews', and of a Zionist construction comparing the treatment of Jews in Egypt to Jews under Nazism. He writes a nuanced history of the modern period, wary of both Egyptian and Israeli nationalist reconstructions that give either a rosy or a black portrait of the condition of Egypt's Jews.

Actually, Joel, the first quote is from a book review on Amazon.com. It disputes that your review is nuanced and claims that you ignored persecutions. The full review(s) describe some of the feelings your review caused among Jews who lived through and suffered those persecutions. The comparison is not to Nazism, but to other Arab dhimmi states. Of course, that line of thinking does not lead to criticism of Israel, so the narrative of those Jews is totally discounted.

(2)The second is a ragbag of assorted criticisms from some students (not as written 'students', generically) and David Horowitz's various polemical sites. They are a synthesis bundling together a variety of sources written by people who themselves have an 'a priori political agenda', but who insinuate their agenda is 'fact-based' unlike Beinin's. I suggest that if they are to be considered for inclusion they be broken down into their respective elements. Horowitz apparently is involved in a civil suit with Beinin, so any material from sources he controls, sponsors or promotes must be subject to the severest standards of 'Reliable Source' and 'Living Persons' criteria.

Joel, "some" "Shmum" of course its some students, only someone who is thin skinned would assume I am saying all students, of course it means some students. You claim your critics have an a priori political agenda. How do you know that? Have you ever had a discussion with the author of the article (I happen to know you have not). The course was an online course taught at Stanford and and nothing whatever to do with Horowitz, the lawsuit, or previous criticisms of you in the Stanford Review. It was a sincere critique by someone who took your class and felt it had dozens of errors, only some of which were catalogued in that article. Italic text

Principles. This is about a living person, and the kind of travesty of the facts which was posted in here and sustained until recently must not be tolerated. A section on his politics, and controversies is to be welcomed, but, as with other controversial living persons, editors contributing to such a page should strive to get quality material, not gossip from partisan tabloid screeds, to document the controversies surrounding Beinin's politics and teaching.

So, the Stanford Review is a "tabloid screed?" I don't think that the students who work on the newspaper would agree. Some might even think of it as a respite for the Stanford Daily, which is also a model of bias, just like your classes. Italic text

In the meantime, it would be most welcome for editors familiar with his work to provide a NPOV synthesis of his various books, something which requires patient reading, not facile scanning of the net for scandalous hearsay

In other words, only noncritical POV are tolerated, is that it, Joel? Are you that thin-skinned that you cannot tolerate this? When did you start to use the name "Nishidani?"Italic text

Nishidani 10:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. I'm being accused of some version of sockpuppetry!! Take your complaints to the appropriation noticeboard. Nishidani 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed, for reconsideration

His class has been described as a "model of bias" by Dr. Martin Kramer of Tel Aviv University,and students of his class have complained that he manufactures facts to support his virulent political opinions against Israel. One student took an online class of Beinin's and described a series of errors, omissions, mischaracterizations, and mistakes in an editorial in the student newspaper (see external link). Beinin himself has carried placards in White Plaza at Stanford on "Nakba Day" (known elsewhere as Israel Independence Day) and has stated he sees no contradiction between the political and academic hats. Some students, such as the one above, evidently disagree, citing the factual mistakes in his teachings.

Nishidani 13:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There are about a dozen mistakes of method and of POV language here, which are banned by a variety of rules. 'Virulent' ,'Nakba Day' is not known 'elsewhere' where elsewhere means 'Israel', confounding Israel with the world, as'Israel Independence Day'. It is the Palestinian term for what in Israel is celebrated as Independence Day. His 'class has been described as' Which class? when? The editor assumes that Beinin teaches only one class? There is nothing noteworthy about a professor joined a public parade in favour of Palestinians. Most professors who divide their time between teaching and making public policy statements on Israel, from Plaut to Dershowitz, find no 'contradiction' between their expressing their political positions and being academics. As for the naive student, tell me one example of a professor who has not been caught out making a slip, or an error, in the classroom.(The standard reviewe article can stand in the notes, but it is a sloppy piece of work , showing that the writer has little grasp of historical methods, and a very wobbly knowledge of what constitutes a 'fact' (the figure for US aid is underestimate, for example). The list is endless. It's a smearjob, hasbara pastiche, poorly cobbled together.Nishidani 13:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Joel, the piece was meticulously researched and detailed, and that is why it was printed. Hasbara it was, which means explanation or enlightening for those who took your class blindly, without hasbara. I would add that your assessment of the work is biased, and not to be taken seriously, because you have an axe to grind, Joel. So whether you think it is sloppy or not, is of no consequence, since in the real world, you are not giving out the grades. Oh, and I assume you mean "Stanford Review" not standard reviewe (sloppy?). The charge made in that article was that you quoted the total US aid to Israel in your lecture since 1948 as one trillion dollars and the true number was closer to 80 billion, or one tenth your "slip" and moreover, you had been called on that in a previous version of the class and yet not changed the videotape. That is not a slip, that is outright dishonesty. That begs the question of your other errors, such as your implication that there were two millenia without Jewish life in Palestine for example (don't deny it, the transcripts are available) Italic text

Well, thank you then, 'Daniel H Jacobs, MD'. Feel free to use this talk page as a blog. Keep your sophomoronic chat, and citations of Amazon reviews from Cairo and Alexandria Egypt complaining about Beinin's anti-Zionism (good for a laugh, but really you guys on the hasbara teams should get your acts together to get just a minimum of credibility), off the actual Wiki page. Ps. the 'meticulous research' underestimated the amount of US money given to Israel (from 1967 to 1991) by about 13 billion, small change compared to Dr Beinin's slip, but proof enough Doc Jacobs not only learnt little from Beinin's class, but from any other historical class he may have attended.Nishidani 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)