Free speech sometimes means ugly speech

To me, usually an Israel-supporting American Jew, Kareem Tannous is a loathsome creep with a distorted view of history and vicious, ill-informed anti-Israel opinions.

He was fired as an assistant business professor by Cabrini University in Radnor last August after despicable tweets of his were discovered.

“#zionism is the disease #Free Palestine is the cure dismantle #ApartheidIsrael by any means necessary,” tweeted Tammous, identified by the Philadelphia Inquirer as a 45-year-old Philadelphian-born Palestinian Christian.

In another tweet, he likened Israel to Nazi Germany, which is about the most vicious, and false, statement one can make about the Jewish state: “Today in Zionazi Ukraine, one upping zionazi Israel,” and “Israel and Ukraine are societal cancers and must be eradicated.” Cancers? The radical Tammous seems to have a problem with embattled democracies.

The thing is, the tweets were vomited out on his personal Twitter account, and there is no indication he shared his odious opinions with his students. 

His firing, then, is a violation of his freedom of speech, and he has hired a lawyer to sue the university, claiming his firing for “anti-Semitism” has made him an unhirable pariah.

In effect, attorney Mark Schwartz says, Tammous has been “blacklisted.” [Personal disclosure: Schwartz was my attorney in my successful defamation suit against the Inquirer and is defending me against the Inquirer’s retaliatory lawsuit that claims I “disparaged” them.]

There is a lot to unpack here.

First, being anti-Israel is not identical with anti-Semitism. They are not one and the same, although there can be overlap. None of Tammous’ hateful messages were directed at Jewish people, despite the interpretation of groups such as the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, which fired off a letter of complaint to Cabrini before Tammous was canned.

It claimed his remarks were anti-Semitic and he called for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Yes to destruction, no to anti-Semitic.

As loathsome as calling for Israel’s end may be, it is protected speech as long as he does not foment the violence.

“Posts by Prof. Tammous exploit the sacred memory of the Holocaust for the purpose of painting its primary victim, the Jewish people, as the ‘new’ oppressor in the form of the State of Israel,” the Federation wrote. 

Tammous did that, but it is protected political speech, even if the Federation and I don’t like it.

The Inquirer referenced a 2018 incident in which Temple University Prof. Marc Lamont Hill, an all-purpose tool for the “oppressed,” made a habit of calling Israel an “apartheid” state and calling for its destruction.

“Apartheid” is a lie, but it is an opinion, so I held my nose and wrote in his defense, and Temple did not succumb to calls for him to be fired. If you want to know what “apartheid” means, think of the former South Africa, not Israel which seats Arab Muslims in its Knesset (parliament), educates Arabs in its universities, and allows Israeli Arabs to live anywhere.

Nice speech, pleasant speech, needs no defense.

In their genius, the Founding Fathers recognized what needed protection were unpopular ideas (such as cutting ties with the king).

Free expression seems to be unpopular on Woke college campuses, which think that words can cause physical harm, and the sensitivities of sniveling sophomores should be elevated over the exchange of ideas. 

That’s not what made America great.

As to Tannous’ revolting opinions about Israel, attorney Schwartz tells me, “My own relatives . . . were instrumental in the founding of [Israel] back at the beginning of the 20th century. As their descendent and as a Jew I must take issue with the government’s treatment of Arabs, some of which bear a resemblance to Nazi tactics.”

I think that is an overstatement. I print it not because I agree with it, but because a commitment to free speech demands it.

And how anti-Semitic can Tannous be when he hires a Jew to defend him?