In Exile From Truth

"To reject the validity of a nation of 7 million and say this is a society with violence on the brain is shocking." Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Simon Wiesenthal Center

"Gandhi does not specify that he's speaking of a few groups. But to target him rather than engage with him in dialogue is sad and cruel." Angana Chatterji, California Institute of Integral Studies

When Mahatma Gandhi's grandson wrote a blog accusing Israel and Jews of being the biggest players in a "culture of violence", he had hoped to stir up a "healthy discussion". But what Arun Gandhi ultimately achieved was just the opposite—a backlash so severe that it prompted him to resign from a nonviolence institute he had founded on the principles of his illustrious grandfather. And though most academics here accept that Gandhi didn't make his arguments with adequate intellectual sophistication—and was guilty of stereotyping the Jews—they believe he is the latest 'victim' of the pro-Israeli lobby whose inordinate clout has again become a matter of intense debate.

Gandhi's comments were part of a discussion on the future of Jewish identity on The Washington Post's religion blog On Faith. He wrote that Jewish identity is "locked into the Holocaust experience," which Jews "overplay to the point that it begins to repulse friends". He accused Israel of being too reliant upon weapons and bombs. "Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you?... Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that culture of violence is eventually going to destroy humanity," he wrote.

Raju Rajagopal, a San Francisco Bay Area-based social activist who works on communal harmony issues, agrees with the "gist" of Gandhi's comments on the culture of violence endangering the world, and the "need for the Jewish community to move on beyond their moral paralysis, which is not allowing them to sufficiently feel the pain of the Palestinians to make an honourable peace with them." But he is surprised Gandhi was willing to ruffle feathers on an issue on which many prominent personalities have had to "capitulate to pro-Israel forces". Rajagopal believes Gandhi is the pro-Israel lobby's latest 'victim'.

Other 'victims' of this lobby include Norman Finkelstein, who has accused Jews of exploiting the Holocaust for monetary gains and attacked Israel for oppressing the Palestinians. He was denied tenure at DePaul University, Chicago, despite being the author of several well-regarded books. Even former US president Jimmy Carter was not spared the wrath of this lobby. His criticism of Israel's policy in the occupied Palestinian territories in his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid prompted the publisher of the pro-Israel New Republic to say that the Democrat "will go down in history as a Jew-hater".

University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer has experienced the clout of the pro-Israel lobby first-hand. He and Stephen Walt, a professor at Harvard University, were lambasted for a well-documented essay and book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, which described how the Israeli lobby constrains Washington's conduct of foreign affairs. Mearsheimer, however, says Gandhi is in part to blame for making controversial arguments with "insufficient care". While he doesn't agree with everything Gandhi wrote, Mearsheimer concedes he makes a "number of important points that are controversial but legitimate". For example, he says, it is widely recognised that many Israelis and American Jews use the memory of the Holocaust for political purposes and that Israel adopts violent strategies in the Arab world.

"You cannot make these arguments in the US without incurring the wrath of the Israel lobby, which is a remarkably powerful interest group," Mearsheimer told Outlook. "In short, Gandhi would have gotten into serious trouble with the lobby even if he had chosen his words carefully, simply because he criticised Israel and its American supporters, which one does at his or her own peril. " The furore over Gandhi's remark didn't surprise Vijay Prashad, professor at Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut. But he feels Gandhi should have held his ground, particularly as the onslaught against him upholds his argument. "Instead of a rebuttal, he is forced to silence," he notes.

Gandhi resigned from the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence on January 24. He admitted in his resignation letter that his blog posting "was couched in language that was hurtful and contrary to the principles of nonviolence". He said it was his intention to "generate a healthy discussion on the proliferation of violence. Clearly I did not achieve my goal. Instead, unintentionally, my words have resulted in pain, anger, confusion and embarrassment. I deeply regret these consequences." The institute's board of directors promptly accepted the resignation.

Gandhi founded the institute in 1991 with his late wife, Sunanda. The institute moved to the University of Rochester from Christian Brothers University, Memphis, in June '07. He did not receive a salary from the institute or university.

University of Rochester spokesman Bill Murphy said Gandhi had not been asked to resign and the board "recognised" this was his own decision. University president Joel Seligman said Gandhi's comments did "not reflect the core values of the University of Rochester or the values of the M.K. Gandhi Institute". He called the resignation "appropriate".

Gandhi's comments elicited a sharp response from the Jewish community. Says Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, "His statement that 'Israel and the Jews are the biggest players' in promoting a 'culture of violence that is eventually going to destroy humanity' is an outrageous libel of an entire people and of a country that wants nothing more than to live in peace and security with its neighbours." Had Gandhi not resigned, Foxman says, "he would have brought disgrace to the peace institute."

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center in LA, describes Gandhi's comments as repulsive. "To reject the validity of a nation with 7 million people and say this is a society that has violence on the brain is shocking. We look to people, especially those with that important name, to emphasise ways to bring us together," Cooper argues, believing it was "wholly appropriate" for Gandhi to have resigned.

Perhaps Gandhi was guilty of stereotyping the entire community. Walter Andersen, of Johns Hopkins University, recognises Gandhi's right to free speech. But he points to the problem with his piece: "He is identifying all Jewish people with Israel. That is a fundamental flaw in the argument." True, Gandhi doesn't clarify that he is speaking about the Israeli state and certain Ashkenazi and Sephardic groups with right-wing positions, agrees Angana Chatterji, associate professor, California Institute of Integral Studies. But, citing Gandhi's apology, she says, "To target him, rather than engage with him in dialogue, is sad and cruel."

Gandhi may not have wanted to spark a debate on the pro-Israeli lobby, but this could well turn out to be one he would be best remembered for.