Six Statements on Salaita in Search of a Thesis

UI President Bob Easter: “Professor Salaita’s approach indicates he would be incapable of fostering a classroom environment where conflicting viewpoints would be given equal consideration.”

All evidence to the contrary.

UI Trustee Patrick Fitzgerald: “Trustee Patrick Fitzgerald said it wasn’t an easy decision for him, but the board’s duty is to ensure that students have a campus ‘where they feel that their views will be respected and not hated.’ He said he would vote similarly if a professor had posted something homophobic or racist, noting the university has to be an inclusive campus.”

And what about the views of those students who are homophobic and racist? Are we to respect and not hate those views, too?

UIUC student Josh Cooper: “I personally know many students who would feel intimidated by a professor who endorses violence.”

Would they feel intimidated by a professor who had endorsed the Iraq War? Or the killing of Osama bin Laden? Or the Israeli war on Gaza?

UIUC Chancellor Phyllis Wise: Prior to his being fired, Steven Salaita’s appointment went through “many procedural steps, including my initial approval.”

So the initial approval for his appointment went as high as her. I don’t think that’s been publicly revealed before. This is not going to help the university in court.

Chair of UI Board of Trustees Chris Kennedy: “I think there’s a lot of case law about what you should do when this sort of thing occurs. So we’ll try to be consistent with best practices in the university environment and the corporate world as well.”

When this sort of thing occurs? The AAUP had to reach back as far as 1964 to find even a remotely comparable precedent for “this sort of thing.” No wonder Kennedy wants to look to “the corporate world as well.”

Wearer of Many Hats Cary Nelson: A $1 million settlement with Steven Salaita “would not be unreasonable.”

He’s baaaaaack.

All quotations compiled from stories in yesterday’s News Gazette and today’s Inside Higher Ed.

117 Comments

  1. James Hutchinson September 12, 2014 at 11:19 pm | #

    President Easter’s approach indicates he is incapable of fostering a university environment where conflicting viewpoints are given equal consideration.

  2. Timothy Shortell September 12, 2014 at 11:31 pm | #

    The Board is certainly fostering a campus climate where no big donor’s views are not respected.

  3. Nurit Baytch September 13, 2014 at 5:54 am | #

    “This sort of thing” is vague. A tenured University of Kansas professor was placed on indefinite leave last year when he tweeted a call for violence in the aftermath of the Washington Navy Yard shooting: “The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters.”
    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/23/u-kansas-professor-suspended-after-anti-nra-tweet

    In response, the Kansas Board of Regents issued a new policy on the use of social media by faculty that gives the administration the authority to discipline and even terminate faculty for improper use of social media:
    http://www.kansasregents.org/policy_chapter_ii_f_use_of_social_media

    https://twitter.com/stevesalaita/status/479805591401922561

    • jonnybutter September 13, 2014 at 10:14 am | #

      Only a moral idiot can’t or won’t tell the difference between the actual violence (and actual calls for violence) coming from the government and streets in Israel every day, and what these profs said.

      You cite the Kansas Board’s new policy as if their having made it proves a moral point.

      I am not too refined to say it: I wish all the fucking hasbara trolls would go live in Kansas.

      • Nurit Baytch September 13, 2014 at 6:51 pm | #

        I cited the University of Kansas controversy b/c Robin claimed “The AAUP had to reach back as far as 1964 to find even a remotely comparable precedent for ‘this sort of thing,'” when “this sort of thing” just happened less than a year ago.

        As for your claim that I (along with the editorial boards of the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, both of which specifically cited Salaita’s “go missing” tweet in their editorials supporting Chancellor Wise) am a moral idiot, I suggest that you look into the concept of intention in criminal law.

    • NattyB September 13, 2014 at 11:20 am | #

      What are you talking about? Calls for violence in the US are fine. Just so long as the targets are consistent with US policy.

      So calls to violence against ISIS, HAMAS, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen generally, in which, such violence will inevitably lead to significant civilian deaths. Calls to violence against Muslims and Iran –> that’s fine too. Accepted on the TV all day.

      Of course, the quote in question, isn’t a “call for violence” under any reasonable interpretation.

      Of course, our friendly Hasbara troll leaves out the context in which this tweet manifested.

      At the time, at which those 3 students were missing was a period in which:

      (i) Israel used their deaths as part of a purposeful propaganda campaign to further oppress Palestinians, as indicated by;
      (ii) Israel knew within hours that those 3 kids were dead, but yet (iii) started a #hashtag campaign, in ENGLISH, #BringBackOurBoys.

      And what did Israel do, in which they knew those 3 kids were already dead? why (iv) they killed about 15 Palestinians while searching for those kids, (v) bulldozed homes of suspects involved, rendering entire families homeless (and, as you might be aware, multiple-families reside in one home, so we’re talking extended families put on the street, (vi) over 800 hundred Palestinians were arrested without any charges whatsoever, (vii) West Bank checkpoints were closed rendering thousands unable to go to work and (viii) hundreds of homes were ransacked, as described by one IDF veteran:

      The things that I saw in houses in Hebron, I never saw in my life, not after the Second Intifada and not during my service as a combat soldier—houses completely wrecked and children’s room completely destroyed, kitchens, bathrooms completely destroyed.

      So, if (x) the world media is outraged over 3 kids (who are, through not fall of their own (parents’ fault)) are illegally occupying Palestinian land, but (y) is yet completely silent about the greater harm being imposed on all West Bank Palestinians (unfortunate as those 3 deaths were, 15 killed and massive collective punishment imposed on innocent population, is objectively worse), then in that context, his “angry tweet,” isn’t unreasonable, or “full of hate,” whatsoever. It’s a reasonable and passionate reflection of dispair in which those “missing settlers” lives are viewed by US political and mainstream discourse, as more important than all Palestinian lives, even though the Settlers invite violence by their mere illegal presence on occupied lands. Remember, Israel created the settlements to serve as a “Security Buffer,” in a way, they are the original “human shields,” and their eventual deaths are to be cynically exploited as an excuse to further oppress the Palestinians.

      • Lynne September 13, 2014 at 2:22 pm | #

        Thank you. The way Salaita’s tweets are taken out of context might be the single most depressing thing about this for me.

      • Nurit Baytch September 13, 2014 at 7:02 pm | #

        You wasted a lot of characters on misdirection. I’m not defending Operation Brother’s Keeper (though I believe you grossly exaggerated the number of Palestinians killed in OBK).

        Many people who aren’t anti-Israel partisans have correctly interpreted Salaita’s tweet as a call for violence:
        http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-salaita-u-of-i-professor-hate-speech-edit-0911-20140911-story.html
        http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/29702758-474/u-of-i-makes-the-right-call-on-tweeting-professor.html#.VBTMBGRdU_1
        https://twitter.com/Max_Fisher/status/499688809593069568

        Indeed, one of the trustees specifically cited that tweet as his rationale for voting in support of Chancellor Wise:

        I need not appeal to authority to make my case, so I also explain here why that tweet is clearly a call for violence, despite Salaita’s supporters disingenuous attempts to whitewash it:
        https://sites.google.com/site/stevensalaita/

      • an observer, not an academic September 13, 2014 at 8:25 pm | #

        There was nothing reasonable about Salaita’s tweets. They were an extended, long-term rant. Unprofessional at best. A call to violence. Is this the best we can expect from academics?

      • Brian September 14, 2014 at 5:43 am | #

        Not to mention that on of the kids was 19 and therefore a legitimate target of resistance by an occupied force. Moreover Israel kills and imprisons kids of all ages and treats perpetrators 12 and above as adults in military court. By this logic the 2 16-year-olds are also adults and legitimate targets of resistance. And btw I fail to understand why wishing all the settlers to go missing isn’t a legitimate sentiment. He’s being ironic about their illegitimate and ultimately dangerous presence (for themselves and mostly for others) and he wants them to disappear from the West Bank. What’s to argue about that? Yesterday a Zionist group in South Africa compared Tutu to Hitler? Anyone lose their job or tenure for inciting violence?

    • ROM September 14, 2014 at 2:13 pm | #

      First, the quoted tweet refers only to the “fucking” settlers and says nothing about the settlers who are not fucking. Second, it does not distinguish between Israeli and Palestinian settlers.

  4. Brian September 13, 2014 at 7:10 am | #

    The board and overly sensitive Zionists on campus are showing themselves incapable of critical thinking (and of course of the most uncharitable interpretations of Salaita’s comments). Amazing. People who actually do research that develops weapons and kills civilians get lifetime tenure. Academics who provide the rhetorical and political backing for Israel’s murderous policies get a free pass. People proudly say “I’m a Zionist” and suffer no consequences — for supporting racism, colonialism, murder and dispossession of a captive population. But a Palestinian American who speaks up against a despicable war of choice on Twitter is apparently responsible for inciting violence against Jews.

    • an observer, not an academic September 13, 2014 at 8:25 pm | #

      Salaita’s tweets were not at all representative of “critical thinking.”

      • Brian September 14, 2014 at 5:44 am | #

        Neither is your analysis.

      • an observer, not an academic September 14, 2014 at 12:43 pm | #

        Really Brian? I am not seeking a life-time guaranteed position at U of I. And I do not engage in the “discourse” Salaita used. His tweets were a very, very poor representation of what academics can do when arguing a case. We can hope for better from those who choose to live the “life of the mind.”

  5. Narc September 13, 2014 at 10:54 am | #

    This coming from the university that had an employee say in his column a few years back in the Daily Illini that feminists were all “sluts and harlots.” I can’t tell if he’s still an employee (but did recently get appointed to the local school board!), but is still listed in the directory. I guess some viewpoints are more worthy of consideration than others.

  6. narciblog September 13, 2014 at 10:57 am | #

    This coming from the university that had an employee say in his regular column in the Daily Illini that all feminists were “sluts and harlots.” I can’t tell if he’s still an employee (but was just recently appointed to the local school board!), but he is still listed in the university’s directory. I guess some viewpoints are more worthy of consideration than others.

    (Stupid WordPress for eating my comment the first time…)

    • David Green September 13, 2014 at 11:35 am | #

      Yes, John Bambenek is still on the Champaign School Board, which has had trouble keeping its positions filled. He has actually been otherwise pretty quiet for years, perhaps because of his position on the SB. Back in 2007 I responded to him with the following letter:

      “John Bambanek claims that those on both sides of the political divide—as understood by him—can no longer discuss ideas or events, “only people.” While there is ample evidence of this phenomenon on the right, there is little on the left—that is, on the left that does not include most of the Democratic Party and the “liberal media.” Bambanek offers no examples, and apparently has not looked for counter-examples. He claims Cindy Sheehan’s “ideas are beyond reproach.” Says who? Those who call for immediate withdrawal simply agree with her. He claims that some who oppose social security reform call it a plot to “kill old people.” Says who? A mountain of evidence has shown that it is a healthy program, and privatization is in the interest of the rich and investment bankers. Does Bambenek care to set an example by engaging facts? No, too much trouble, easier to generalize about groups, rather than address facts, ideas, and class interests. He pleads that we “grow up and discuss ideas.” Is there a substantial idea, supported by facts and logic, to be found in any of Bambenek’s columns? I fail to see one through all his transparent “middle ground” posturing.”

  7. Mark Estelle September 13, 2014 at 12:18 pm | #

    Dear Corey. Please move on. Your readers are waiting for a new idea, a new insight, a new topic. Thank you.

    • Corey Robin September 13, 2014 at 12:28 pm | #

      With all due respect, Mr. Estelle, this is my blog. If you’re tired of the topic, you’re free to move on.

      • Mark Estelle September 13, 2014 at 12:48 pm | #

        Mr Robin. I meant no offense and clearly you will write as you wish. My note was a simple, and I hope, respectful, request that you focus your considerable intellect on a different issue. Academic freedom is important, but I’m not sure that there is anything new to say at this moment. Regardless, I will keep checking in. Best Wishes, Mark

      • Mark Estelle September 13, 2014 at 1:00 pm | #

        I also didn’t notice your recent post on Arendt. Apologies.

      • Ash September 13, 2014 at 3:52 pm | #

        I beg to differ, Mark. I have been very touched by Steven Salaita’s case and the way in which Corey has been so crucial in drawing attention to it. This blog been one of the best sources of info ANYWHERE for what as been going on at UIUC.

        So yeah, like CR said, if you’re tired of the topic, YOU’RE free to move on.

      • an observer, not an academic September 14, 2014 at 1:45 pm | #

        I do not always agree with Corey, but I appreciate his blog and his advocacy. He is someone who acts on his beliefs. And in his blog, he gets to focus attention on whatever he wants. We get to choose if we read it or not.

    • Wes Hamrick September 13, 2014 at 1:00 pm | #

      I come here precisely to read about the Salaita affair and issues like shared governance, the university as corporation and the institutionalization of job insecurity — all of which are closely related and ably addressed on this blog.

    • adam3smith September 13, 2014 at 5:43 pm | #

      not that I’m terribly concerned you will, but the extent it matters: please don’t move on. That’s exactly what the board & Wise are hoping for.

  8. donald September 13, 2014 at 2:34 pm | #

    Fitzpatrick’s claim that they wouldn’t hire someone who is homophobic makes me wonder if they would refuse to hire a conservative Catholic or evangelical Protestant professor who has openly stated that he or she thinks homosexual behavior is sinful and unnatural? I have a particular person in mind as an example, but won’t name him. This person has written a pretty good introductory book (IMO) published by Oxford summarizing the various theories of consciousness and he’s also written another book that is homophobic. The first book is scholarly–he makes it clear which theory he prefers but he does his best to be fair to proponents of other theories and I think he succeeds. The other book is polemical and extremely hostile towards gay marriage and its proponents. I find his views on the latter subject offensive, but since I think he works in a college that is state-run I assume he is not abusive to gay students in his classroom, even assuming that he wanted to be.

    So does the University of Illinois have a policy of not hiring religious conservatives of that sort?

    • jonnybutter September 13, 2014 at 3:02 pm | #

      Fitzpatrick’s claim that they wouldn’t hire someone who is homophobic makes me wonder if they would refuse to hire a conservative Catholic or evangelical Protestant professor who has openly stated that he or she thinks homosexual behavior is sinful and unnatural?

      Good one Donald. For those of you who see this as an opening for a detour to Tangentville, this is a rhetorical question. We know the de facto answer to this question already.

      All this trolling reminds me of a wonderful proverb that Saul Bellow invoked in an interview. I saved the language from the interview verbatim but am not sure where it came from – I think Paris Review:

      Mr. Bellow was not interested in responding to criticisms of his work that he found trivial or stupid. He quoted the Jewish proverb that a fool can throw a stone into the water that ten wise men cannot recover.

      • donald September 13, 2014 at 4:01 pm | #

        I wasn’t quite sure if I understood you jonnybutter or if you understood me–I think you did, but I want to be sure. Yes, I meant it as rhetorical. I don’t think Fitzpatrick is being honest. I don’t think that the University of Illinois refuses to hire conservative Christian faculty. And I don’t think that universities should refuse to hire faculty because of some intemperate tweets or because the faculty person takes offensive positions. I suppose there might be some extreme case where I’d reconsider, but it would have to be really extreme and I’d be open to counterarguments.

        I also suspect that the U of I probably already has faculty who hold all sorts of opinions that I and many others would probably find offensive. Someone in the comments section of one of Corey’s posts at Crooked Timber said that there were racists on the faculty there, but I don’t recall who and am too lazy to go find the post.

        Incidentally, from what little I’ve seen I’m not a fan of Salaita, though I consider myself anti-Zionist. I think his rhetorical style is counterproductive. But that’s no reason not to hire him.

      • jonnybutter September 13, 2014 at 4:47 pm | #

        Hi Donald,

        That you weren’t sure if we were agreeing is probably my fault. ‘Nice one’ sounds sarcastic, I suppose. I’m tired. I sincerely did think it was a nice observation.

        I’m not sure I agree that prof Salaita’s tweets are counterproductive because I find it hard to fathom what ‘counterproductive’ means in this context: what could he do that is productive? What is *anyone* likely to do (ahem, Israel) which is productive? The whole thing seems to be a fixed tragedy. Hope I’m wrong.

      • an observer, not an academic September 13, 2014 at 8:29 pm | #

        From Donald ” I think his rhetorical style is counterproductive. But that’s no reason not to hire him.”

        This is hilarious. Let’s not have any standards for academic rhetoric. Because why? We must protect the right of academics to say what ever pops into their head. And we must protect their right to argue poorly, unprofessionally, in ways that wallow with the Fox News propagandists. Why have standards that would rise above the manure pit? Counter-productive to the tenet that tenured academics are protected to act like morons.

      • jonnybutter September 13, 2014 at 9:25 pm | #

        From Donald ” I think his rhetorical style is counterproductive. But that’s no reason not to hire him.”

        This is hilarious. Let’s not have any standards for academic rhetoric.

        Don’t they teach you Observers to argue rationally? You are the hilarious one, my friend. How is it that you get from ‘counterproductive rhetoric’ to ‘no standards for academic rhetoric’? We certainly do need standards in rational argumentation, and you should brush up on what they are. You don’t have to be an academic to make a sound argument.

      • donald September 14, 2014 at 1:00 pm | #

        Observer, not an academic–It’s hilarious to you because you’re posturing rather than making an argument. I don’t approve of some of Salaita’s tweets, but I don’t think they were bad enough to justify firing him. If he came out in favor of suicide bombing, that would give me pause. But then Benny Morris supports the Nakba and regrets that the expulsion of the Palestinians wasn’t more thorough–would that keep him from being hired at the U of I?

      • an observer, not an academic September 14, 2014 at 1:52 pm | #

        To Donald & Jonnybutter, first, I think U of I’s handling of the Salaita case to be wrong. Salaita is Salaita – he didn’t magically morph into something else in July. The university should perhaps not have offered him the job in the first place, but once they did, this is very poor way to get out of the deal. I think they will pay dearly for this action.

        Second, Salaita’s tweets are extremely unprofessional – to use “academic freedom” as the defense for a professor to use highly unacademic language and irrational ranting diminishes the very real and significant need for academic freedom. It seems – to me, an outsider to academia – that there are no standards for professors to follow – whatever they say, however they say it, must be defended as part of academic freedom.

  9. egoarcadiainet September 13, 2014 at 2:38 pm | #

    Can Salaita’s legal remedies possibly include the forcing of UIUC to give him his job back? I’m asking this because the trustees seem to be comfortable with paying him money to make the issue go away, and they don’t seem to fear their firing decision being overruled by a court.

  10. mike donnel September 13, 2014 at 8:21 pm | #

    Here is (former) Professor Salaita, in the International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies
    . I quote extensively so that there can be no doubt I’m misquoting him:

    “This is, I suppose, a personalized exordium to the point that I am a devoted advocate of Palestinian
    nationalism. Again, I use the term in a specific incarnation, to mean nationhood and self-determination
    for the Palestinian people. In the past century, the Palestinians have been dispossessed of their land,
    repressed in every facet of their civic and political life, and subjected to a 40-year military occupation that
    Desmond Tutu has described as worse than South African Apartheid (Paulson 2007). Others around the
    world have faced similar forms of oppression. What stands out in the case of Palestinians is the fact that
    they are blamed inveterately for their own dispossession. Their oppressors, the Jews, not only have
    managed to cast themselves as victim in the Israel-Palestine conflict, they have justified that self-image
    through an assiduous emphasis on their specialness, which grants them access to exceptional privileges. ”

    I don’t think I need to explain why this is anti-semitic. Salaita condemned himself by his own words–if the University had no legal obligation to associate with him, the principles of basic decency would dictate that they shouldn’t.

    • NattyB September 13, 2014 at 8:33 pm | #

      Please explain why it’s anti-semitic? I need it explained to me because it’s in a peer reviewed academic journal, and you’re dropping it in, without context. So, please explain.

    • David Green September 13, 2014 at 8:37 pm | #

      “I don’t think I need to explain why this is anti-semitic.”

      Yes you do. It’s not obvious, and I’m not a mind reader.

    • Ligurio September 13, 2014 at 9:13 pm | #

      I am willing to bet you real money that earlier in that article Salaita lays out what he means and does not mean in referring to the “Jews” in the section you quote. The whole passage reads as if a narrow use of the term is in play, in any case. (“again, I use the term [Palestinian nationalism] in a specific incarnation, meaning… “). Ten-to-one he has already provided such a meaning for” the Jews” as used in his article.

      If this was an honest mistake on your part, fine. But if, as I suspect, it was an intentional attempt to misrepresent Salaita’s actual claims, be forewarned. You are fucking with real academics now, and we’ll get tired of this kind of shit real fast.

      • Mike donnel September 13, 2014 at 10:30 pm | #

        You could read the paper as it’s short. In it he always uses the term Jews according to its plan meaning.

      • tree September 14, 2014 at 6:17 pm | #

        Here’s the paper that Mike Donnel quoted from:

        http://www.isrn.qut.edu.au/pdf/ijcis/IJCIS.Salaita.pdf

        Why he did not link it himself, I can’t say, although I suspect that he probably got it from a cherry-picking source rather than from the Journal itself. The article is 11 pages long and the quote from Donnel appears on page 7. The word “Jews” shows up in the article 6 times: Twice in a quote from Cherokee writer Thomas King as victims of Nazi extermination and as displacers of Palestinians, once in a reference to Protestant “fascination” with “restoring” the Holy Land to Jews, once as quoted by Donnel, once in a final paragraph that reads in part,

        ” Without the ability to speak for themselves, Natives will continue to exist in a manner that suits white interests economically and psychologically. The Palestinians outnumber Israeli Jews, but cannot access any of their power. They currently are being strangulated of lands and livelihoods; they have already been strangulated of their history and humanity.”

        …and once in the Bibliography.

        Clearly, without even approaching the content and context of the entire article, the statement Donnel quoted was not anti-semitic. The oppressors of the Palestinians are Jews. The Nakba was carried out by Jews, Israel is governed by Jews, with the expressed interest in favoring Jews over all other ethnicities/religions there. Israel has instituted apartheid in the occupied territories, including the enforcement of two sets of unequal laws that vastly favor Jewish settlers over the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants, who have no say over the Israeli government that ultimately rules them. To state that Jews, in this instance, are oppressors and Palestinians are the victims, is simple fact, just as Salaita notes, by way of King’s quote, that, in other circumstances, Nazis were the oppressors in exterminating Jews, or that whites were the oppressors of Native Americans (and of African slaves and their American descendants, among others).

        In fact,the concept that Jews are incapable of being oppressors, which I surmise is Mike Donnel’s reasoning on this, is a form of essentializing Jews as eternal victims. That concept is itself anti-semitic, by refusing to allow Jews to be judged as individuals or finite political groups according to their actions, rather than being judged solely by their ethnicity/religion.

      • Bor September 14, 2014 at 6:49 pm | #

        “The oppressors of the Palestinians are Jews. The Nakba was carried out by Jews, Israel is governed by Jews, with the expressed interest in favoring Jews over all other ethnicities/religions there.”

        In other words, when Salaita claims that Zionists have made “antisemitism” honorable since 1948, what he means is Jews, not Zionists, just as critics have been noting all along and despite his denial.

        In fact, according to you and all the others feigning shock that this paragraph from his article could be construed to be antisemitic, his explanation for what he means by “antisemitism” (his quotation marks) can no longer mean what he and his defenders are claiming, which is that it isn’t really antisemitic to criticize Israel since Zionists aren’t necessarily Jewish and Jews aren’t necessarily Zionist. The argument, therefore, that anti-Israel criticism can’t be labeled antisemitism. Instead, it is “antisemitism,” appears to be moot. Since Jews oppress Palestinians, what Salaita meant can only be antisemitism or a dismissal of “antisemitism.”

        This is great. Since Salaita wrote in a published paper that the Jews oppress Palestinians, and you claim this isn’t antisemitic but merely factual, then you have some interesting decisions to make. Either Salaita is writing accurately, as one would expect in a published academic paper, in which case all of his nasty tweets that target Israelis and Zionists are indeed antisemitic, or they’re not, in which case Salaita wrote a paper that either contains an egregious error or worse, an intentional accusation directed at Jews.

        I don’t envy you the pretzel-shaped arguments you’re about to make.

      • tree September 14, 2014 at 8:21 pm | #

        bor, you are the one utilizing pretzel logic, as usual. White Europeans were responsible for oppressing Native Americans and African slaves when they came to America. No logical person thinks that this is a racist thing to say about white Europeans. Its simply a fact and acknowledged as such. It is not an indictment of every single white European, regardless of their individual actions, or time or place of their existence.

        You, however, want to claim special rules apply when referring to Jews, and claim that any factual acknowlegement that the individuals and groups oppressing the Palestinians in the name of Zionism, were and are Jews must, a priori, be intended as an indictment of all Jews everywhere, when it is not the case when referring to any other ethnic/religious group that engaged in historical oppression of another such group.

        Or, against all evidence to the contrary, are you going to say that making a factual statement that white Europeans oppressed blacks and Native Americans in the US is necessarily a racist one? Are you going to argue likewise that a statement that Germans were the oppressors (and executioners) of Jews during World War II is also a racist statement? If you are not willing to argue that same point with respect to identifying the ethnicity of those who oppressed blacks, Native Americans and Jews, respectively, then you are being distinctly hypocritical and dishonest. If you are making such an argument, then at least you are being consistent, although wrong. I’m betting on hypocrisy. It fits the tenor and misleading character of many of your posts here.

    • SMD September 14, 2014 at 9:07 am | #

      Obviously, you do. What is anti-Semitic about this passage?

    • Harold September 15, 2014 at 12:34 pm | #

      Yes. Yes, you actually do need to explain why that quote is anti-Semitic. The Palestinians were forced out of their land by Jewish colonialism which culminated in the state of Israel.

      How is stating the truth anti-Semitic?

  11. Kevin F. September 13, 2014 at 8:32 pm | #

    This is one of the tweets that’s received its share of mainstream media coverage:

    Salaita: “#Israel is rounding up people and murdering them at point-blank range. The word ‘genocide’ is more germane the more news we hear. #Gaza”

    The tweet, dated 8/1, seems to be describing (or purporting to describe) a specific event or series of events. However, while no source is provided, the reference to “news” seems to imply that Salaita had in mind not only a specific event, but also a specific revelation of that event.

    I was unable to find anything from that time period that fit Salaita’s description. Can anyone shed light on what event(s) Salaita might have been referring to (or believed he was referring to)?

    The first statement in the tweet is clearly being used to support the second, which concerns the appropriateness of “genocide” as a description. So I’m wondering what basis Salaita had (or believed he had) for that first claim. Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed further light.

    • NattyB September 13, 2014 at 8:46 pm | #

      Here’s the reference:
      Who Is Behind Gaza’s Mass Execution?
      Piled in one room in a Gaza home are rotting bodies—and shell casings marked “IMI,” short for “Israel Military Industries.”

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/01/who-is-behind-gaza-s-mass-execution.html

      Here’s some analysis as to whether israel’s conduct rises to Genocide. Note, the oppression in question need not require industrial scale systematic killing, to constitute genocide, under the applicable legal conventions:

      (i) http://www.vice.com/read/israels-war-on-gaza-is-it-genocide-813

      (ii) http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/committing-genocide-palestinians.html

      Did you think it was wrong of him to suggest that genocide might be appropriate to describe the IDF’s conduct?

      If you think it’s wrong, what do you believe is the appropriate impact on his accepted job offer, in light of that tweet?

      • bor September 13, 2014 at 9:41 pm | #

        Permit me to explain genocide and Salaita to you.

        In the first 18 months of WWII, the Einsatzgruppen, Nazi mobile killing units, moved through countless villages in conquered territories, rounded up Jewish families and individuals and shot them dead in cold blood, usually on the outskirts of town near trenches and rivers. Even Holocaust deniers such as David Irving, as he stated under oath in his case against Deborah Lipstadt, acknowledge that approximately 1,500,000 Jews were murdered in those 18 months. To put that into perspective for you, consider there were only 9,000,000 Jews in all of Europe at that point and, without gas chambers, the Germans murdered approximately one in five. Or consider that this number is about 10 times all the dead in Syria over the past couple of years with two (or more) sides fighting each other – the Jews of Europe were not fighting the Nazis at that time.

        Israel has existed since 1948 and has been in actual war with the Arabs now known as Palestinians since 1947. Over these past 67 years of conflict, there probably haven’t been more than 20,000 Palestinian deaths, although if we want to err on the side of caution, let’s make it 25,000. By the way, there have been approximately 23,000 Israelis killed. Does that comparison shame you, Natty? Because it should. To compare that to genocide is reprehensible.

        Also in the period since 1948, Palestinian Arab infant mortality plummeted, fertility has increased, life expectancy rose incredibly so that Israeli Arab men outlive American men and Palestinian men and women outlive all regional Arabs and rank somewhere in the middle if compared to the world’s countries, the Palestinian Arab population has grown to about 6 times its size in 1948 if we exclude all those Arabs who are not in Gaza, Israel, Judea and Samaria, and far more than 6 times if we include the outsiders.

        That’s without getting into other issues like Israel ensuring that all interested foreign bodies such as the EU and UN can support the Palestinians as they see fit, enabling the development of towns such as Ramallah so that they look as if you were inside Israel, sending in thousands of tons of food and supplied DURING their wars with Gaza, repeatedly offering to improve all sorts of water facilities in partnership with the PA (only to be repeatedly rebuffed), attempting mightily to avoid this recent war, sending in warnings to Palestinian civilians before attacking thus essentially enabling all the Palestinian combatants to evade death, offering the Palestinians a state and peace twice officially and once unofficially over just the past 14 years, and on and on and on and on.

        Rhetorical tricks claiming genocide aren’t the same as, you know, GENOCIDE.

        Salaita, supposedly an academic of the first rank according to his supporters, must know everything I’ve just written because it’s all recent history and fairly common knowledge. For him to claim that Israel is perpetrating genocide in a war launched by the other side, with all of the caution it is using in the fight (caution with results that outdo UK, US and NATO forces in their fights in recent decades in places such as Yugoslavia and Iraq) and particularly to make these claims in the very same days that ISIL was/is murdering hundreds of Yazidi civilian men while enslaving their women and children while also clearing Mosul of all of its Christians, has to rank up there with some of the most disgusting, dishonest propaganda one could ever see expressed anywhere. And in saying that, unlike Salaita and his genocide comment, I am not exaggerating.

      • Ligurio September 13, 2014 at 10:11 pm | #

        bor,

        You are beginning to persuade me of your case. Thanks for being patient. The one issue I am having trouble with is your claim that Israel had “attempted mightily to avoid this recent war”?

        This seems an odd description of Israel’s behavior. Even though Israel knew the three kidnapped youths had been murdered, they launched an entire PR campaign on the premise that they were alive and could be returned. As has been well-documented, this led to increasing calls for action against the Palestinians, and stirred most of the Israel citizenry into a kind of war fever. How can all this be described as an effort to “avoid” going to war? It just doesn’t fit somehow.

      • bor September 13, 2014 at 11:18 pm | #

        Ligurio,

        If I am indeed beginning to convince you, then I am mightily troubled. I must be doing something wrong.

        The Israelis didn’t launch an “entire pr campaign” regarding the boys. They did not have absolute proof that the boys were dead. They had a recording that indicated that some shooting took place in the vehicle. However, that could mean that one of the boys was killed and the others became silent from fear, it could mean that the boys were injured, or that one was killed and others injured, that some shots were taken and may have hit but may also have missed. Under what circumstances, exactly, would any police force, military force, parents, friends, Red Cross workers or anybody trying to find some possibility of saving even one of the boys, be expected to simply give up the search on the basis of the recording that was heard?

        Nobody would because even if there is a slight chance that even one of the boys remains alive, you would do everything in your power to find him. I thought you guys were all about humanity, and fairness and justice. Does it seem reasonable to you for Israel to walk away from these boys just because it suits your propaganda? During the war, when that soldier, Goldin, was killed and dragged into a tunnel, he was followed inside by fellow unit-mates. They went in there at great risk to themselves and once inside apparently found some materials that indicated he was severely injured and possibly dead. Yet, at great risk to their own lives, they continued pursuit. That’s the way things work.

        As for what is well documented and what isn’t regarding the war’s start, it is well documented that for many days Netanyahu balked at going to war even as some of his ministers and many people in Israel were demanding it. He kept warning and warning and warning Hamas to stop. Hamas simply increased the number of rockets launched at random civilian targets.

        And if that isn’t sufficient proof, since you doubt Zionists, why don’t you simply consider what Mahmoud Abbas said after the war where he accused Hamas of irresponsibility because, as he correctly stated, they ended up with precisely the same cease fire terms after 2100 Palestinians were killed as they would have received had they accepted and not violated the first cease fire offer by Israel, which was made after several dozen Palestinians were killed.

        Not only “does it fit,” it’s not even complicated.

        By the way, since you’re now weaning yourself from the teat of Hamas propaganda, you should really enjoy finding out how many of the “civilians” they claimed were killed are now being outed as Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives. Every day brings a few more revelations. Eventually the truth will come out and the combatant to civilian dead ratio will be about 55:45 or almost 1:1. No other modern Western army comes even close.

        http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/search/label/Fake%20Civilians%202014

        The shame is on the UN for publicizing Hamas propaganda during wartime, and on media sources as well as NGOs such as HRW for promoting lies.

      • s. wallerstein September 14, 2014 at 9:13 am | #

        Bor,

        There’s no evidence that Israel commits or is planning to commit genocide, but there is plenty of evidence that they do commit serious war crimes. Here’s just the first article from Amnesty International on the subject. Google “Israeli war crimes Amnesty” and you’ll get a long list.

        http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israelgaza-attack-un-school-gaza-potential-war-crime-must-be-investigated-2014-07-30

      • Bor September 14, 2014 at 7:16 pm | #

        Wallerstein,

        It’s possible that Israel committed a war crime or war crimes. I’ve never been to war but I understand that there’s a good reason the phrase “fog of war” exists. People make mistakes or get confused sometimes. Certainly, the idea that Israel intentionally committed war crimes is false because if they wanted to kill randomly, you’d have had ten times the number of dead that we saw in the recent operation.

        When it comes to accusations of war crimes, I would caution you about a couple of problems. The first is that it appears that Israel spends an inordinate amount of time, expense and manpower in both educating its entire commanding staff regarding the laws of war and supporting a very robust legal infrastructure to avoid breaches of the laws of war.

        Therefore, I would suggest to you that even if Amnesty decided on the spot that it knows what happened in that incident (pretty challenging to do considering that no less than 800 of Hamas’s rockets landed inside Gaza), chances are that it doesn’t. Presumably this incident will be investigated, not only by the Israelis, but at this point by two separate UN investigations, so we’ll know more about it in the future.

        Needless to say, nobody is investigating Hamas.

        The second issue is that just because something comes from Amnesty, that doesn’t mean it’s factual. Amnesty and HRW are both signatories to one of the most embarrassing events in the human rights movement of recent decades when in 2001 at Durban in a forum that included thousands of NGOs and which excluded Jewish and pro-Israel NGOs, of all the countries in the world singled out for supposed human rights violations, Israel was the one they selected. It’s a little difficult to accept that these organizations could offer an accurate assessment of anything Israel does. HRW actually sent its representatives from the region to Saudi Arabia to fundraise, and they promoted their reports on Israel as one reason for Saudis to offer their support (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07/fundraising-corruption-at-human-rights-watch/21345/)! So read and learn, but do it with a grain of salt.

        You’ll be interested to learn, also, that despite claims by the BDS movement that it originated in 2005 after Palestinian “civil society” requested the intervention of the world, in actuality the movement was given its new life (boycotts against Israel having been launched 70 years ago already) in 2001 at Durban. It’s just that initial attempts to launch boycotts failed miserably so the movement re-booted in 2005.

      • s. wallerstein September 14, 2014 at 7:53 pm | #

        Bor,

        Here is one of several Amnesty International articles about Hamas rocket firing as war crimes, so it is not true that they do not condemn Hamas.

        Google Human Rights Watch and you’ll also find a condemnation of the Hamas rocket firing.

        http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE15/017/2014/en/5b79b682-8d41-4751-9cbc-a0465f6433c3/mde150172014en.html

      • tree September 15, 2014 at 5:20 pm | #

        Kevin,

        The back and forth is getting a bit hard to follow because reply buttons are only embedded two or so deep and its hard to know if one is replying in the correct place. I’m back at work in a few hours and don’t have much time to continue the back and forth but I do want to respond to this statement of yours:

        “What you say here is correct:
        “Hamas entered into a ceasefire agreement with Israel in February of 2005, prior to the Israeli withdrawal of settlers from Gaza. This was nearly one year prior to Hamas winning the election in January of 2006, and taking elective control of Gaza in March of 2006.”

        But this isn’t:
        “The [June 1st, 2006] incident marked the first time Hamas was involved in rocket attacks on Israel since the agreed-upon lull in violence was announced over a year ago.””

        First off, I think its important for me to note that the second statement you quoted, which does in fact appear to be incorrect, was a direct quote from YNet, which I relied on as accurate. Interestingly, you countered it with another article from the same YNet, so perhaps both articles may have issues with accuracy.

        In any case what happened on the 25-26th seems to have been a limited incident rather than a long term change in policy.

        Second, to wrap up my position on this, I see both Hamas and Israel engaging in retaliatory strikes of whatever type, the big difference between the two being that Israel’s strikes cause much much more damage, death and injury. It seems more emotional than rational to solely blame Hamas for engaging in the same method of response that Israel uses. Since Hamas strikes cause such limited destruction in comparison and Israel has such a heavy arsenal I would expect Israel to show more restraint in its responses but it does not, rather it goes in the opposite direction. I can’t see this latest “operation” of Israel’s as anything less than the Dahiya doctrine, which was both grossly immoral and highly counterproductive to peace, which it seems clear that Israel does not want. (Netanyahu has even recently announced that he has no interest in achieving peace or a “two-state solution”.) And I think that blaming Hamas for Israel’s actions is reprehensible. No one forced Israel to destroy whole neighborhoods as well as civilian infrastructure or kill over 2000 people, including 500 children. Israel needs to take responsibility for its own actions, and not act like a 4 year old blaming Hamas for “hitting me back first”.

    • Brian September 14, 2014 at 5:52 am | #

      Bor is back. With the fabulous argument that our genocide is not as bad as the Nazi genocide. I love such arguments as well as arguments like “we aren’t as bad as Assad.” When you have to compare yourself to monsters that’s what you’ve become.

      • SMD September 14, 2014 at 9:10 am | #

        Once again, Palestinians are the only victims responsible for their own dispossession, according to this ridiculous logic.

      • Kevin F. September 14, 2014 at 9:30 am | #

        I just read Bor’s post and Brian’s response.

        Brian attributes to Bor the conclusion that “our genocide is not as bad as their genocide.” But Bor was clearly defending a very different conclusion: that it’s a cynical abuse of the concept of genocide to accuse Israel of genocide.

        So I’m wondering what was actually going through Brian’s mind when he so patently misrepresented someone else’s argument in this way. Others can speculate, but Brian is in a unique position to answer.

      • Snarki, child of Loki September 14, 2014 at 10:31 am | #

        Kevin F explaining(?) Bor: ” it’s a cynical abuse of the concept of genocide to accuse Israel of genocide.”

        So one could tweet something like:

        “Bor: transforming ‘genocide’ from something horrible into something honorable since 1945.”

  12. Kevin F. September 13, 2014 at 11:33 pm | #

    @NattyB: I’m grateful for the link to the Daily Beast story, which does provide some context for Salaita’s tweet.

    If this article was Salaita’s basis for the first claim in the tweet, I don’t see how it justifies the confidence with which he makes that claim. And I don’t see how the first claim, with the Daily Beast report as its basis, supports the genocide claim. Of course, that’s not to deny that the event described was a war crime, which would be a serious enough matter in its own right.

    Part of what’s unclear from the tweet is what Salaita is alleging the genocide to consist in. Is it Israel’s actions during the recent fighting in Gaza, the situation in Gaza during the last seven years, or the entirety of the Israel-Palestine conflict?

    To answer your other question, I don’t think Salaita should have had his offer rescinded. But I see one common version of events as simplistic and even self-serving: I don’t believe that the administration simply caved under pressure from donors, as Salaita and others have suggested. It seems far more likely that the administration found his tweets genuinely disturbing and worried that he might abuse his position. (Some seem to believe that there’s no such thing as abusing one’s position if one is a critic of Israel, but the prevalence of that belief merely attests to the danger of the abuse.) The appropriate course of action, I think, would have been for the administration to explain their concerns to Salaita, and to give him a chance to respond on record. If he really couldn’t see what others found disturbing, that would certainly be a bad sign, but I don’t think he should have had to feign comprehension to keep his job.

    • David Green September 14, 2014 at 9:03 am | #

      Do you think that any UI faculty members have ever abused their position as a supporter of Israel? http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/what_kind_of_academic_signs_th.html

      • SMD September 14, 2014 at 9:11 am | #

        The basic point here is that he was making comments on his own personal Twitter account. He was not writing an academic paper in a scholarly journal. People should not be analyzing a 140-character statement and trying to extrapolate from it his entire viewpoint.

      • Kevin F. September 14, 2014 at 10:00 am | #

        Let’s be specific. Are you suggesting that Gottheil’s petition as described in his article *constitutes* an abuse of his responsibilities in the classroom? Or are you suggesting that that the petition is *evidence* that he has abused, or is liable to abuse, those responsibilities? If you think the answer to one or both of these questions is Yes, I’d certainly be interested to see an argument(s) or specific evidence to that effect.

      • an observer, not an academic September 14, 2014 at 12:53 pm | #

        SMD “He was not writing an academic paper in a scholarly journal. People should not be analyzing a 140-character statement and trying to extrapolate from it his entire viewpoint.”

        People should not use Twitter as some private journaling forum. Once one hits “post” – the tweet is public.

        Salaita did not tweet one or two offensive tweets – he was on a rant for weeks – and for weeks exhibited poor use of language, with no reasonable arguments presented. Salaita gave plenty of meat to those who oppose him. This is less about “civility” and more about professionalism. In this very public forum, Salaita decided to wallow with the trolls. Yay academia!

        It is unfortunate that academics continue to view social media as somehow “private” communications. Please consider that you are representing yourself every time you post. If you want to be represented as somehow smart, an academic, an expert in a particular area, don’t act like a troll in your social media communications.

      • David Green September 14, 2014 at 1:38 pm | #

        “Let’s be specific. Are you suggesting that Gottheil’s petition as described in his article *constitutes* an abuse of his responsibilities in the classroom? Or are you suggesting that that the petition is *evidence* that he has abused, or is liable to abuse, those responsibilities? If you think the answer to one or both of these questions is Yes, I’d certainly be interested to see an argument(s) or specific evidence to that effect.”

        I’m suggesting that Gottheil has been free, during his 55 year tenure as a much-ridiculed intro to econ professor at UIUC, to spend his public life playing the Zionist, the racist, and the fool. I’m suggesting that both he and Robert Weissberg have had every right to publish their ignorant and pompous views on American Thinker or any other lurid right-wing website.

    • NattyB September 14, 2014 at 11:42 am | #

      It seems far more likely that the administration found his tweets genuinely disturbing and worried that he might abuse his position.

      Seems reasonable, though as you justly note, they should follow procedures and check with experts and Salaita. Of course, his class eval’s show someone who doesn’t “push his opinion” and fosters open classroom discussions. But, he’s Arab. So can you really be sure? Snark perhaps but .. .

      I think this is one small example of how systemic racism, influences this case (I’m not calling YOU a racist). As, I believe this incident is part and parcel of how anger is viewed through the prism of privilege. I highly doubt a White professor, tweety angrily about IS [and their necessary destruction], would ever be questioned over concerns re: ability to teach their class free of overly [pro-US intervention] militaristic views or willingness to listen to the concerns of pacifist students.

      re: Genocide —

      When it comes to Apartheid. I think there’s little doubt that Apartheid is practiced in the occupied territories (including Gaza). I think it’s debatable re: Israel proper (though, institutional and state sponsored overt racism exists), and, for example, treatment and on-going displacement of the Bedouins [There’s just something really f’d up about a state that has so many bulldozers expressly for destroying homes!] would support the contention that Apartheid is on-going in Israel proper. In fact, the only civilian killed in Israel from a rocket during the Gaza conflict, was a Bedouin in a community, which the state of Israel had denied them the permit to build a bomb shelter.

      When it comes to Genocide, I suggest you read the published literature, as I believe you seem to be overly focused on the existence of single events here and there and/or the absence of a systematic extermination regime, to be necessary for a finding of genocide. Whereas, I think, one must look at the bigger picture and overall systems of oppression, displacement and killing and how they function in concert.

      After reviewing the literature I cited above, I find the evidence of Genocide to be persuasive, though, I cannot personally conclude as such, as I’d want to review more literature and read good-faith counter arguments (and not, stupid BS arguments like Bor’s above).

      As for the tweet in question, it refers to summary execution of about 12 Palestinians. Coupled with the recent disclosure re Unit 8200 and the indifference towards targeted killings’ collateral damage, it’s hard not to conclude that the bombs which wiped out entire families and apartment buildings, were undertaken with the knowledge of extremely high likely civilian casualties (if you bomb a home to kill one person, who is sleeping, and you know it’ll kill 20 additional family members, then what do you describe that indifference to those people — to say nothing of that fact that under the laws of war, a sleeping at home police captain, is not a legitimate target!!!).

      In fact, it’s been alleged (and admitted in some cases), that this was a primary purpose of the War. To beat them into submission and forgo resistance. Resistance is futile and we’ll show you. The Famous Tom Friedman quote:

      Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?” You don’t think, you know we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This. That Charlie is what this war is about.

      • Kevin F. September 14, 2014 at 12:58 pm | #

        Well, let me try and address some of your main contentions. Start with Israel’s ongoing settlement policies in the West Bank. I would say that any person of conscience should be able to see that those policies—together with the arbitrariness, repression, and hopelessness they impose on the Palestinian population—is evil and grotesque. And yes, it is an apartheid system, or at least certainly one that is morally intolerable in the way that an apartheid system is. I also believe that Israeli administrations have been culpable both in seeking to perpetuate that injustice, and (at other times) in not doing enough to end it. So I don’t see myself as an apologist for inexcusable policies, policy failures, and attitudes on Israel’s part. I think it’s extremely important to make criticisms of such abuses loud and clear.

        But my opposition to Israel’s oppression of Palestinians is rooted in my belief that the victims of that oppression are *people* whose lives—and rights and aspirations—matter. I see ending that oppression as a moral imperative.

        Now look at the history of Gaza in the last ten years. When Israel imposed its very harsh blockade in 2007 following Hamas’s takeover, this was soon followed by what looked like very serious negotiations between Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert. If those talks had succeeded, the result would have been an end of the occupation of the West Bank, and the situation today would undoubtedly be very different. What’s frustrating is that Abbas never gave a clear account of why he didn’t accept the offer. Given the importance of ending the occupation, it’s very important for leaders to communicate clearly why they’re taking (or rejecting) steps in negotiation. If you don’t do that, you undermine those who are really trying to resolve the conflict.

        Back to Gaza. In 2005, many of us saw how damaging it could be to the Palestinian national interest if Hamas increased its rocket campaign in response to Israel’s withdrawal. I mean, the potential damage was just plain obvious. So we found it hard to understand how some could pretend that this wasn’t happening, or else claim that it either didn’t matter and/or was justified.

        Do you believe that Hamas has regularly put the interests of Gaza’s civilian population and the Palestinian national interest above its own organizational objectives? Do you think Hamas had a right to increase rocket fire at that moment, even if it meant plunging the civilian population into renewed conflict? Or do you think that the civilian population should have had an opportunity to focus on stabilizing its economy (which, incidentally, would have strengthened both Abbas and Olmert with their constituencies during the ensuing peace negotiations)? What do you think the rationale was for increasing rocket fire then as opposed to taking a “time out” to see what transpired on the (rocket-free) diplomatic front?

      • donald September 14, 2014 at 1:11 pm | #

        I’ve always wondered if the people who use the fact of Hamas rocket fire as an excuse for Israel’s behavior understand that Israel put the entire population of Gaza under siege and sometimes shoots innocent Gazan civilians? I see the reference to Hamas rocket fire constantly on this subject, but the fact of Israeli violence towards Gazan civilians during peacetime seems to be a closely guarded secret except to those who read human rights reports.

        On other aspects of the Israeli withdrawal, Peter Beinart wrote a piece about it here–

        http://peter-beinart.com/israel/haaretz-what-american-jews-havent-been-told-about-gaza/

      • Kevin F. September 14, 2014 at 3:06 pm | #

        I’m familiar with that Beinart piece. He notes that the Hamas rocket fire from Gaza occurred both before and after Israel’s withdrawal, and opines that the rocket attacks damage the international legitimacy of the Palestinian cause.

        But he still manages to duck the inconvenient question. When Israel completed its withdrawal on 9/1/05, what did Hamas hope to accomplish by firing rockets *then*, as it did several times during that month?

        Was it motivated by
        (a) a concern with the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants
        (b) a desire to advance the Palestinian national interest
        (c) a need to demonstrate its own clout and ability to shape events (d) a desire to show Iran that it was an effective vehicle for projecting Iranian influence against the Zionist enemy
        (e) (c) and (d).

        Even if you believe that the answer is (a) or (b)—or more improbably, all of the above—the question remains: Given that resuming rocket fire so soon after Israel’s withdrawal clearly risked plunging the civilian population back into conflict, do you personally believe that Hamas had a RIGHT to make that choice on behalf of the entire civilian population of Gaza?

      • Kevin F. September 14, 2014 at 3:14 pm | #

        Because I think it’s important to do our best to be factually accurate, I shouldn’t have let this pass without comment:

        “In fact, the only civilian killed in Israel from a rocket during the Gaza conflict, was a Bedouin in a community, which the state of Israel had denied them the permit to build a bomb shelter.”

        You might want to double check on that.

      • David Green September 14, 2014 at 3:56 pm | #

        “the question remains: Given that resuming rocket fire so soon after Israel’s withdrawal clearly risked plunging the civilian population back into conflict, do you personally believe that Hamas had a RIGHT to make that choice on behalf of the entire civilian population of Gaza?”

        http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n21/sara-roy/a-dubai-on-the-mediterranean

        As for the international community – in particular foreign donors – almost all its attention has been on ‘developing’ the Gaza Strip, a focus painfully reminiscent of some of the mistakes of the Oslo period. The same three misguided assumptions are made: first, that the pre-existing structures of occupation – Israeli control and Palestinian dependency – will be mitigated, perhaps even dismantled; second, that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will have the effect of shifting the priorities of both Israelis and Palestinians from issues of territory and security to the economic interests of entrepreneurs and nations; and third, that innovative ways of thinking about economic co-operation will lead to political stability and peaceful coexistence in the Middle East.

        These assumptions proved completely unfounded in the wake of Oslo (when, at least initially, there was a modicum of bilateralism and co-operation); why would one hope for something better now, with a unilateral disengagement plan that makes no secret of being a diktat, at a time when the structures of occupation and control are far more deeply entrenched? Given all this and the Plan’s aim ‘to reduce the number of Palestinian workers entering Israel to the point that it ceases completely’, there is every reason to expect the Israeli authorities to use economic pressure not only to ensure control but to extract political concessions, much as they did during the Oslo period. Despite this – arguably because of it – international donors are again displaying their unwillingness to confront the occupation, preferring instead to mitigate the damage by helping the Palestinians deal with this unjust solution, whatever their private reservations. In so perverse an environment and in the absence of any challenge to Israel’s structure of control, international assistance will not eradicate poverty but simply modernise it. In so doing, donor aid – despite its critical importance – will solidify the structures of occupation by simply ignoring them. How, given this scenario, can Palestine ever become a productive society?

      • David Green September 14, 2014 at 4:02 pm | #

        http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n21/sara-roy/a-dubai-on-the-mediterranean

        The result of Israel’s ever shrinking ‘offers’ is that compromise becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, and Palestinian violence more likely. With the Gaza Disengagement Plan, Israel’s generous offer has gone from a weak, cantonised entity in the West Bank and Gaza to the encircled and desperately impoverished enclave of the Gaza Strip – 1 per cent of historical Palestine. The disengagement from Gaza (while encircling it and absorbing the West Bank) is the most extreme illustration to date of Israel’s power to determine and reduce what there is left to talk about.

      • NattyB September 14, 2014 at 6:42 pm | #

        @Kevin F.

        Because I think it’s important to do our best to be factually accurate, I shouldn’t have let this pass without comment:

        “In fact, the only civilian killed in Israel from a rocket during the Gaza conflict, was a Bedouin in a community, which the state of Israel had denied them the permit to build a bomb shelter.”

        You might want to double check on that.

        Emphasis on rockets. A couple others were killed by mortars near the border (one was a child, another was a volunteer on a base (still a civilian in that case?) and another was a Thai foreign worker).

      • tree September 14, 2014 at 9:40 pm | #

        Kevin,

        You said: “Back to Gaza. In 2005, many of us saw how damaging it could be to the Palestinian national interest if Hamas increased its rocket campaign in response to Israel’s withdrawal. I mean, the potential damage was just plain obvious. So we found it hard to understand how some could pretend that this wasn’t happening…”

        Unfortunately, our mainstream media does a very poor job of providing balance on the topic of Israel/Palestine, so I’m not surprised that your memory of events is incorrect on this. Hamas entered into a ceasefire agreement with Israel in February of 2005, prior to the Israeli withdrawal of settlers from Gaza. This was nearly one year prior to Hamas winning the election in January of 2006, and taking elective control of Gaza in March of 2006. In February of 2006, Hamas offered Israel a long term (10-15 year) truce in return for Israel ending the occupation and returning all 1967 lands to the Palestinian people. Israel refused (Olmert) claiming it intended to keep for itself all West Bank territories presently settled by Israelis in any future “peace” agreement. At that time Hamas said that, while it would not fire rockets toward Israel, it would not prevent other political groups in Gaza from firing. According to all reports, including this article from Ynet (Israeli newpaper’s internet site) of June 1, 2006

        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3257913,00.html

        “The [June 1st, 2006] incident marked the first time Hamas was involved in rocket attacks on Israel since the agreed-upon lull in violence was announced over a year ago.”

        In other words, Hamas had NOT fired any rockets into Israel for 16 months, since the start of its agreement. Meanwhile, israel had imposed restrictions on Palestinian imports and exports from Gaza and had committed several ceasefire violations itself.

        Whether in fact Hamas was involved in that first rocket attack in the beginning of June or not, it declared an end to the ceasefire over violations committed by Israel during that time, culminating in the killing of a family of seven Palestinians on a Gaza beach on June 9th, 2006 by Israeli artillery fire. Between November 2005 and the end of June 2006, according to IDF reports, 757 rockets had been fired from Gaza into Israel ( and none from Hamas iiself) . Israel, for its part, had fired 6100 artillery shells into Gaza during the same time period, and in February 2006, in response to the election of Hamas, had tightened travel restrictions, including on imports and exports from Gaza, and refused to turn over Palestinian tax revenues it collected to the PA, as required by earlier agreement. After Shalit was captured by Hamas operatives in the end of June, in response to the kidnapping of two Gazans by the IDF the day before, Israel declared Operation Summer Rains, then a few months later Operation Autumn Clouds, both of which involved numerous Palestinian deaths and massive destruction of Palestinian infrastructure. This destruction rained down upon Gaza by Israel has continued intermittently since 2006, as has the Israeli blockade of Gaza, despite the fact that Israel has “agreed” to ease the blockade as part of earlier ceasefire agreements and has refused to live up to that condition of the ceasefires.

        My point in all of this enumeration is to illustrate that the idea that Hamas simply continued to fire rockets into Israel without pause or reason is simply false, and also to point out that Israel was just as much, or even more so, guilty of violating the ceasefire agreements as was Hamas, or other Palestinian political entities in Gaza. This fact has continued through numerous ceasefires that existed from 2006 onward to today. Yousef Munayyer, from the Jerusalem Fund in Washington, D.C, has written an accounting of the steady stream of Israeli violations of the 2012 ceasefire. Israeli violations occurred as early as the very next day after the November 21st agreement and continued throughout 2013 and the first six months of 2014 until the beginning of Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” in July of this year. Rocket fire killed no one and caused only very minor destruction during this time before OPE but Israeli fire in the same period caused multiple Palestinian deaths and injuries and major destruction, although nothing comparable to the destruction wrought by Israel DURING OPE. Look up the Dahiya Doctrine if you want to understand the massive destruction that was inflicted on many Gaza cities in OPE, and earlier in Cast Lead.

        Its the usual double standard in the Western press. We are asked “Doesn’t Israel have a right to respond to attacks on its citizens?” but you never hear that the Palestinians have the very same right in response to the much more deadly Israeli attacks on its citizens. And the press seldom enumerates the Israeli violations. Instead there is discussion of “rocket attacks” as if they are solely provocative and never retaliatory in nature, while Israel attacks are couched as if they are all retaliatory, if they are mentioned at all, and not provocative.

      • tree September 14, 2014 at 9:51 pm | #

        i forgot to include the link to Yousef Munayyer’s accounting of Israel ceasefire violations from 2012 to 2014 in my comment above.
        Here it is:

        http://blog.thejerusalemfund.org/2012/12/israeli-ceasefire-violations-in-gaza.html

      • Kevin F. September 15, 2014 at 4:40 pm | #

        Tree,

        For some reason, I can’t seem to find my original response to your post. Summarizing: I appreciate your use of facts to support your position. However, my recollection of the events from that time is accurate.

        What you say here is correct:
        “Hamas entered into a ceasefire agreement with Israel in February of 2005, prior to the Israeli withdrawal of settlers from Gaza. This was nearly one year prior to Hamas winning the election in January of 2006, and taking elective control of Gaza in March of 2006.”

        But this isn’t:
        “The [June 1st, 2006] incident marked the first time Hamas was involved in rocket attacks on Israel since the agreed-upon lull in violence was announced over a year ago.”

        Here’s another Ynet story from 9/24/05 that describes the attack:
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3146445,00.html

        As the BBC story I originally linked to makes clear, Hamas took sole responsibility for the overnight rocket barrage on Sept. 23rd 2005, about 10 days after the withdrawal was completed. (They also took joint responsibility for the lethal attack on July 16th, 2005.)

        Here’s the BBC link:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4277358.stm

    • donald September 14, 2014 at 1:18 pm | #

      I don’t use the genocide claim myself and sometimes get into arguments with pro-Palestinian types (who I otherwise agree with) about this, but the debate hinges around the fact that there are two meanings being used. The common meaning of “genocide”, the one that gives it its emotional force, is the deliberate mass slaughter of an entire group with the intent of wiping them out. So people think of the Holocaust or the Armenians or Rwanda. But there is a legal definition that the people who use the term commonly cite which involves five different actions and in my opinion is so vague that any violent repression of any ethnic group would qualify. (You can look up the definition online–I’m too lazy). So the people who argue that the Gaza slaughter was genocide will point to incidents where it seems clear (or at least plausible) that Israel deliberately aimed at civilians and claim that these were genocidal acts.

      I don’t make that argument because I think it’s a kind of bait and switch–people use it because they want the emotional force of the word “genocide” and they’re perfectly sincere in saying that Israel’s actions fit the definition they cite, but the emotional force of the accusation comes from the fact that the word “genocide” conjures up images of atrocities that were vastly larger in scale.

      Israel is guilty of war crimes and apartheid–that should be enough.

      • jonnybutter September 14, 2014 at 4:55 pm | #

        I don’t think the definition of ‘genocide’ is so vague. It just means that intent matters more than exactly how high the stack of bodies is.

        My shorthand definition would be: the intent to erase a people, perhaps by a combination of tactics – instant death, slow death, psychic trauma (e.g. constant humiliation for generations), expulsion, and immiseration. Surely this intent is more than a simple war crime, or else it is *the* war crime.

        The word means ‘to kill a people’, right? If you have decided that a whole people is garbage, you have the genocidal intent, whether you can kill them all or not. There are only about 10 or 11 million Palestinians in the world. How many would have to die at once before the ‘body count’ definition would kick in? A certain percentage?

        I think the body count way of defining the term is more arbitrary than the Convention definition. It’s true that we would want the larger atrocities, like the Holocaust, to be categorically different because of their sheer scale. But are they qualitatively different? Or maybe I have the question backwards.

        Either way, because the really gigantic genocidal atrocities are (so far!) more rare, the main problem in the world most of the time is the various nationalist intents to neutralize smaller peoples, and often to do it slowly. E.g. the Kurds, the Palestinians, etc. etc. What do you call that? What do we lose if we call it ‘genocide’?

      • s. wallerstein September 14, 2014 at 5:07 pm | #

        There’s a theory here on stages of genocide and it seems that Israel is well on the way, although I don’t think that they’ve gotten there yet.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Stages_of_genocide.2C_influences_leading_to_genocide.2C_and_efforts_to_prevent_it

      • Bor September 14, 2014 at 7:32 pm | #

        Blah blah blah, genocide. Blah, blah,blah, apartheid. Blah, blah, blah, Nazism. Blah, blah, blah, Rosa Parks. Blah blah blah blah blah. The problem and tragedy of the anti-Israel movement is that it has successfully undermine the legitimacy of human rights movements, of the UN and of these terms that used to actually have a real meaning and definition.

    • Kevin F. September 15, 2014 at 8:31 am | #

      Tree,

      The second link in my previous post, to the NYT, should have been to this story:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/25/international/middleeast/25mideast.html?_r=0

      The link that I actually pasted in by mistake was to the 7/16/05 story that I referenced later.

      Aside from the fact that the 9/25 attack wounded several civilians, it drew a lot of coverage at the time because Hamas claimed it was retaliation for a lethal explosion that occurred during a Hamas demonstration in which live explosives were exhibited to a crowd. A Hamas spokesman later claimed to have extracted shell fragments with Hebrew writing from the bodies of the victims, to substantiate its claim that an Israeli air strike caused the blast, but eyewitnesses said there was no air strike, and–I’d have to search for the quote–a PA spokesman said that “we told them not to use live munitions at public events” (or something very close to that).

      • tree September 15, 2014 at 4:49 pm | #

        Kevin, I can’t even find the link that you referred to as having posted earlier. Perhaps it never quite made it. Nevertheless, I’ll address the September 25 NYT article you posted, and add this one from the very next day

        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/international/middleeast/26mideast.html

        My synopsis of events would be that two weeks after the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza, there was an explosion that killed 15 Palestinians. It appears it was probably not caused by Israel, but was a tragic (and recklessly foolish) accident. However, it seems that Hamas initially believed it was caused by Israel. Given Israel’s violent history in Gaza (and its earlier use of mistaravim) and the confusion that may have occurred after the blast, such a mistaken belief was not out of the realm of likelihood. So Hamas fired 40 or so rockets into Israel in presumed retaliation Friday evening, then Israel retaliated and on Sunday evening Hamas officials announced that they were ending their rocket fire.

        From my posted link:

        “But late Sunday night, Dr. Zahar said Hamas “declares an end to its operations from the Gaza Strip against the Israeli occupation.” He also said Hamas would abide by a pledge that several Palestinian factions made early this year for a temporary suspension of attacks against Israel.

        [On Monday, Israel launched multiple missile strikes in Gaza, hours after the Hamas announcement, Reuters reported. While Hamas said it was halting attacks, not all militant factions have followed suit. Israeli aircraft attacked at least five targets across the Gaza Strip, including a metal workshop and buildings used by Hamas, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.]

        In recent months, Hamas has carried out far fewer attacks than in recent years, but it has unleashed rocket fire on several occasions, saying it was in response to Israeli military action.”

        So, to summarize again, two weeks after the settler withdrawal, there was a limited and mistaken “retaliatory” action on the part of Hamas, followed by Hamas’ pledge 2 days later to suspend attacks against Israel; a pledge which lasted until Israel broke the ceasefire in June of 2006. s.

        So, realistically, it doesn’t seem to be fair or a reasonable characterization to claim that Hamas was “resuming rocket fire” right after the disengagement. Although I may not agree with much of Hamas’ governance or its actions prior to governance (which the action in Sept. 2005 was), I would note that it appears to be a rational actor, and its rocket fire is directly correlated and in response to Israeli violence against Gaza or the West Bank. Its clear that this one instance was not a long standing “resumption” but an individual case that was an exception rather than the norm, and had no lasting effect on the ceasefire that existed up until June of 2006, nor did it prevent Hamas from offering Israel a long-term truce in February of 2006, which Israel declined.

      • Kevin F. September 17, 2014 at 9:46 pm | #

        Tree,

        You say several things here.

        1. “However, it seems that Hamas initially believed it was caused by Israel. Given Israel’s violent history in Gaza…and the confusion that may have occurred after the blast, such a mistaken belief was not out of the realm of likelihood.”

        Do you *really* believe this? On what basis? Is it really even remotely credible that Hamas couldn’t figure out what happened for several hours, despite the fact that eyewitnesses had no trouble telling reporters what they saw? Hamas leaders surely knew that their faction was staging a demonstration at that time with live munitions. But even if they couldn’t put 2 and 2 together at first, why would they make up a story about recovering shell fragments with Hebrew writing from the victims’ bodies? (As if all shell fragments come individually engraved…Incidentally, the Hebrew writing claim was reported, without much skepticism, on Albawaba, and with a good deal more skepticism by the BBC, as I recall.) And when pressed to take responsibility by the PA, why wouldn’t Hamas admit that it had screwed up and shouldn’t have fired on Israel?

        Finally, if—as seems *vastly* more credible—Hamas knew perfectly well that its own operatives had caused the blast, what does it say about the organization that it would nonetheless “retaliate” with indiscriminate rocket fire on an unsuspecting civilian population?

        2. “Although I may not agree with much of Hamas’ governance or its actions prior to governance (which the action in Sept. 2005 was), I would note that it appears to be a rational actor, and its rocket fire is directly correlated and in response to Israeli violence against Gaza or the West Bank.”

        I’m not persuaded by this claim either. Hamas said openly during that time period that it wasn’t going to prevent other groups from launching rockets. Nor did they say that they weren’t going to supply rockets to the groups firing them. When the rocket attacks struck targets in Israel, it was Israel that retaliated. It’s also true that Israel carried out attacks against rocket crews and facilities. But to say that responses to that were merely retaliation for Israeli attacks on Gaza seems to leave that out.

        3. “Its clear that this one instance was not a long standing “resumption” but an individual case that was an exception rather than the norm, and had no lasting effect on the ceasefire that existed up until June of 2006, nor did it prevent Hamas from offering Israel a long-term truce in February of 2006, which Israel declined.”

        I agree that rocket attacks for which Hamas took responsibility were comparatively rare during that period, and that the cases on which it did fire rockets didn’t undercut the ceasefire that existed until 2006.

        And yes, Israel rejected Hamas’s truce in 2006. This is one thing I think Israeli got right. Besides the fact that a truce could easily be exploited (a possibility Israel had every reason to take seriously—just as the Palestinians had no reason to take Israel’s assurances on faith), the more fundamental question is this: Why not accept past (PA) commitments as binding, at least until they were officially reviewed or overturned? That’s a basic condition on the legitimacy of any government (as is giving up any armed force that isn’t subject to the governing body’s authority). So Hamas was asking that special exceptions be made for it. Why? In part, to accommodate its religious prohibition against recognizing Israel. It should never have stood for elections if it wasn’t prepared to meet this perfectly reasonable condition of legitimacy. If it had been serious about governing, meeting these conditions would have been far more sensible than the tunneling/kidnapping attack it staged that summer, which didn’t exactly boost its legitimacy.

  13. louisproyect September 14, 2014 at 6:06 pm | #

    Israel is fucked. Even Jewish professors at Brandeis have had enough of Zionist depravity.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/09/11/emails-within-faculty-klatch-at-brandeis-reveal-anti-israel-bias/

  14. Kevin F. September 15, 2014 at 9:33 am | #

    David Green,

    This is part of what you quote from the LRB piece:

    “Given all this and the [Gaza Disengagement] Plan’s aim ‘to reduce the number of Palestinian workers entering Israel to the point that it ceases completely’…”

    The quote within the quote is taken madly out of context. The actual reference is to an envisioned *long-term* goal of Palestinian economic self-sufficiency:

    http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/mfadocuments/pages/revised%20disengagement%20plan%206-june-2004.aspx

    A major component of the disengagement plan was to increase the number of workers from Gaza entering Israel, as well as to facilitate the movement of goods via more efficient crossings with Egypt and Israel.

    • David Green September 15, 2014 at 9:53 am | #

      The article of the article from which I excerpted is Sara Roy, the foremost historical authority on the economy of Gaza. In her work that goes back at least to the 1980s (see her article in JPS, 1987), she documents the effects of colonization, dependency, and what she calls “de-development” (I’m not sure if she was the first one to coin that phrase, in this context or others). The general point I’m making by copying those excerpts is that Gazans (and all Palestinians) have never been allowed independent economic development, and the conditions that would foster that. These entries were meant to counteract the implication of your discourse that somehow improvement was on the horizon in 2005, if only Hamas had behaved itself. There is ample historical evidence that Israel had no intention whatsoever of allowing this to be the case, whether in Gaza or on the West Bank post-Oslo. Beyond that, in recent times, Hamas has been subject to an enormous amount intended provocation by Israel. But I do applaud you for the civil and diplomatic style with which you propagate a more sophisticated version of hasbara.

      • Kevin F. September 15, 2014 at 11:36 am | #

        You also write: “(1) These entries were meant to counteract the implication of your discourse that somehow improvement was on the horizon in 2005, if only Hamas had behaved itself. (2) There is ample historical evidence that Israel had no intention whatsoever of allowing this to be the case, whether in Gaza or on the West Bank post-Oslo.”

        I don’t think (1) accurately characterizes the implication of my discourse. I don’t believe that “improvement was on the horizon” in 2005, if that means immediate economic improvement. On the contrary, I think there’s pretty clear evidence that the economy in Gaza would have taken time to stabilize. I don’t think the rocket fire by itself sealed off that opportunity, since the PA and Israel still signed the Agreement on Movement and Access in November 2005, in which called for the building of Gaza’s seaport. But I think it created real concerns about what Hamas’s intentions were regarding Gaza.

        Regarding (2), then, what “historical evidence” do you believe shows that Israel intended to block economic development, freedom of movement, and political development, independent of Hamas’s (and Islamic Jihad’s) stances and actions? And how does this evidence bear specifically on the negotiations between Abbas and Olmert, which included creating a passage to connect Gaza to the West Bank?

        The reality is that governing institutions aren’t monoliths with a single overarching intention. There is little doubt that there are powerful forces in the Israeli government and society that want to continue to colonize the West Bank and subjugate the Palestinians forever. But there are also moderates who supported the Gaza withdrawal because they saw it as an opportunity for genuine progress. I personally believe that there was a genuine opportunity there, not by any means a guarantee of success. And I think rocket fire from Gaza at that time was damaging to the prospects of success, even if it wasn’t fatal by itself.

        But if you think Sept. 2005 was an optimal time to increase rocket attacks, in terms of either the Palestinian national interest or the interests of the inhabitants of Gaza, I’d be interested to hear why.

      • David Green September 15, 2014 at 11:55 am | #

        “But if you think Sept. 2005 was an optimal time to increase rocket attacks, in terms of either the Palestinian national interest or the interests of the inhabitants of Gaza, I’d be interested to hear why.”

        I’d be interested to hear why you would think I would think that. I’d be interested to know why it is so hard for you to understand the intentions of policies that are so clear and consistent over a long period of time. You talk pretty, but you speak in bad faith.

      • David Green September 15, 2014 at 11:57 am | #

        “But there are also moderates who supported the Gaza withdrawal because they saw it as an opportunity for genuine progress. I personally believe that there was a genuine opportunity there, not by any means a guarantee of success.”

        And there are “moderates” in the Democratic Party who saw Obama’s election as an opportunity for genuine progress.

      • Kevin F. September 15, 2014 at 12:28 pm | #

        Me: “But if you think Sept. 2005 was an optimal time to increase rocket attacks, in terms of either the Palestinian national interest or the interests of the inhabitants of Gaza, I’d be interested to hear why.”

        You: “I’d be interested to hear why you would think I would think that. I’d be interested to know why it is so hard for you to understand the intentions of policies that are so clear and consistent over a long period of time. You talk pretty, but you speak in bad faith.”

        I haven’t said that you think that. Rather, I’m trying to understand whether or not you agree that Hamas has sometimes put its own organizational interests over the interests of Palestine and Gaza’s population?

        Notice that I haven’t denied that Israel has historically sought to hinder the emergence of a Palestinian state or to exert illegitimate control through economic means. So a different future would certainly require a departure from the past. I think Rabin showed that such a departure was possible, as did the negotiations at Camp David and Taba, and the ones in Annapolis.

        The bit that Sara Roy opportunistically quotes doesn’t bear out the specific claim she makes. If anything, it seems to make the imagined future goal conditional on achieving a situation in which Palestine is self-sufficient. There is no concrete “plan” to ban Palestinian workers at any set time, but only talk of an “expectation.”

        And as Sara Roy undoubtedly knew when she wrote that piece, part of the plan was to increase access for Palestinian workers from Gaza to Israel, as well as to increase the flow of goods into Gaza.

        As you can probably guess, there are many things for which I blame Israel and believe are solely or primarily Israel’s fault. But I don’t think that’s a good reason not to acknowledge ways in which Palestinian leaders and factions have screwed over the Palestinians. The Israelis shamefully steal Palestine’s land. Hamas and Fatah shamefully steal its money.

        Or do you think I’m being unfair to Hamas and Fatah, singling them out for overly harsh criticism?

      • David Green September 15, 2014 at 12:48 pm | #

        As I’ve said, Kevin F., you act in bad faith, and your gambit is clear. I’m not a spring chicken in this matter. You “blame” Israel just enough to give yourself permission to turn your attention to why we should blame Hamas. Norman Finkelstein makes justified criticisms of Hamas for their unwillingness to cultivate international support. But that is not blaming them, or imagining that things would be that much different. It’s tactical advice. Ultimately, your choice is not to oppose Israel’s policies in any way that might be effective. That is the result of your continuing to rationalize the behavior of Rabin and the whole gang.

      • Kevin F. September 15, 2014 at 1:35 pm | #

        That’s interesting that you would accuse me of speaking in bad faith. I was actually beginning to suspect the same of you.

        The latest confrontation in Gaza has made it impossible to ignore the glaring conflict of interests between Hamas as a fundamentalist militant faction and the people it so brutally rules. Its leaders have grown disgustingly rich through extortion and stealing aid money intended for Gaza’s desperately poor inhabitants. It arrests, tortures, and even executes people for the “crime” of peacefully voicing dissent. It routinely store munitions in kindergartens, which it also uses to indoctrinate young children into its genocidal ideology.

        You still haven’t said what you think Hamas’s end game is, or how you see its actions as serving the Palestinian national interest. As far as I can tell, all you’ve suggested is that you think criticism of Hamas (except the kind sanctioned by Norman Finkelstein?) is somehow out of bounds. But if I’ve misunderstood you, please explain in your words.

      • David Green September 15, 2014 at 4:45 pm | #

        “You still haven’t said what you think Hamas’s end game is, or how you see its actions as serving the Palestinian national interest.”

        For quite some time, it’s been clear that Hamas’ “end game” is a political solution to the problem along the lines of a unity government accountable to the Palestinian people.

      • Kevin F. September 17, 2014 at 10:58 pm | #

        Accountable to the Palestinian people? Their end game? That can’t be quite right, can it? If they just wanted that, they could have pressed for international guarantees against Israeli incursions in exchange for a credible, limited disarmament regime on their part.

    • David Green September 15, 2014 at 10:09 am | #

      BTW, are you really serious in providing an document from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs as evidence in this debate?

      • Kevin F. September 15, 2014 at 11:17 am | #

        This document was the *official cabinet resolution* that set out the terms of the disengagement plan.

        It’s the *very same* document that Sara Roy, in the quote you provided, saw fit to quote from as “evidence in this debate.”

        I merely pointed that the quote she extracted from the resolution was taken astonishingly out of context, given what the resolution actually says.

      • David Green September 15, 2014 at 11:44 am | #

        The report states: “In the longer term, and in line with Israel’s interest in encouraging greater Palestinian economic independence, the State of Israel expects to reduce the number of Palestinian workers entering Israel, to the point that it ceases completely. The State of Israel supports the development of sources of employment in the Gaza Strip and in Palestinian areas of the West Bank, by international elements.”

        Out of context? She’s pointing out that Israel’s plan to bar workers from Gaza was not a plan for economic “independence”, but one for control and deprivation, putting Gaza “on a diet.” The pretty words in the last sentence are, of course, hasbara.

      • Kevin F. September 15, 2014 at 12:47 pm | #

        Look at the language:

        Sara Roy writes of “the [Disengagement] Plan’s aim ‘to reduce the number of Palestinian workers entering Israel to the point that it ceases completely’…”.

        But what the resolution actually says is: “In the longer term, and in line with Israel’s interest in encouraging greater Palestinian economic independence, the State of Israel *expects* to reduce the number of Palestinian workers entering Israel, to the point that it ceases completely.

        Roy makes no mention of the fact that the resolution refers to a *longer-term* scenario, which is *conditional* on greater Palestinian economic independence, and that it speaks of an *expectation*. There is no suggestion of a concrete plan to bar Palestinian workers from entering Israel at any set time in the foreseeable future.

        So, yes, if you compare the Roy quote with the original text, I see no way to escape the conclusion that the quote was taken wildly out of context. (The word ‘aim’ in her sentence is either very careless or else intentionally misleading.)

      • David Green September 15, 2014 at 12:59 pm | #

        Roy understands the meaning and implications of the quote just fine, as befits her record of scholarly integrity.

      • Kevin F. September 15, 2014 at 1:04 pm | #

        So you still maintain that she’s accurately described what the document actually says, as opposed to having instead provided an interpretation of its presumed subtext?

      • David Green September 15, 2014 at 1:15 pm | #

        Roy has a lot of experience distinguishing what Israel does from what it says.

      • Kevin F. September 15, 2014 at 1:39 pm | #

        But here it sounded like she was purporting to describe what the resolution actually said. If that wasn’t her intent, that should have been made clearer. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here.

      • David Green September 15, 2014 at 4:10 pm | #

        “In the longer term, and in line with Israel’s interest in encouraging greater Palestinian economic independence…”

        Perhaps after reading this in the Israeli report, Roy fell down laughing.

      • tree September 15, 2014 at 4:12 pm | #

        Kevin,

        You said:

        “Roy makes no mention of the fact that the resolution refers to a *longer-term* scenario, which is *conditional* on greater Palestinian economic independence”

        This is an incorrect interpretation of the document on your part. There is absolutely no mention of the word “conditional” in the document. It only speaks of decreasing the number of Palestinian workers entering Israel and eventually banning them all together, “in line with Israel’s interest in encouraging greater Palestinian economic independence”. There is no condition applied to this eventually and in fact it is the ONLY directive from Israel in ‘support ‘of “Israel’s interest” in such “economic independence”.

        The paragraph just prior to the one you cite clear indicates how uninterested Israel is in fostering Gaza’s ” economic independence” outside of its one stated plan to bar Palestinian workers in Gaza from Israel. I quote from this paragraph:

        “In general, the economic arrangements currently in operation between the State of Israel and the Palestinians shall remain in force. These arrangements include, inter alia:

        One. The entry and exit of goods between the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the State of Israel and abroad.

        Two. The monetary regime.

        Three. Tax and customs envelope arrangements.

        Four. Postal and telecommunications arrangements.

        Five. The entry of workers into Israel, in accordance with the existing criteria. ”

        Everyone of these existing arrangements allow for continued control by Israel over money ( the Palestinian government and banks in Gaza are required to use the Israeli shekel as the currency standard), Imports and exports from Gaza, tax and custom revenues (Israel is allowed to collect them, and then transfers the money to the PA-and Israel often withholds these monies for punitive reasons), and telecommunications. These “arrangements” are exactly what are referred to by the international community when they correctly state that Gaza is still under occupation by Israel, because of Israel’s continued control of Gaza’s economy through tax policy, monetary standard, imports, exports, broadband communications, borders, etc. There is no acknowledge interest in the document in fostering any kind of “independence” from Israeli control other than a stated Israeli “interest” in eventually banning all Palestinian workers from Gaza entering Israel.

        To claim that the document makes this future ban “conditional” on an economic independence that Israel clearly indicates it has no interest in fostering is counter to rational thinking.

  15. Kevin F. September 16, 2014 at 10:20 am | #

    Tree, I do want to respond to your post. Super busy today, I’ll respond tomorrow morning.

    • Kevin F. September 17, 2014 at 9:31 am | #

      Tree,

      The five conditions contained in the resolution do carry over arrangements from before the withdrawal until after the withdrawal. These arrangements in turn preserve an unhealthy degree of control over Gaza’s economy by Israel. And susceptibility to that control does in turn limit the space within which economic initiatives in Gaza could occur. That’s all important to keep in mind in assessing the post-withdrawal state of affairs.

      But there’s nothing in the resolution that have prevented Palestinian leaders from making it a priority to stabilize Gaza’s economy, to use the substantial foreign for development projects, and to continue to attract foreign investment, as Gaza had already started to do. If Hamas had decided to throw its weight behind that effort, that too would have helped create momentum. And if it had been clear that that’s where the priorities lay, that would have enhanced the leverage of PA leaders in the international community when they indicated what was needed for successfully managing the economy.

      I believe that trying this course would have been the clearly right move, and that it was very damaging not to take it. Gaza’s economy was in bad shape in 2005, but the Palestinians did have some cards to play. That its population was denied the chance to try that course seems like an outrageous waste. If the PA had had its head in the game, it could at least have signaled that it was serious about tending to the economy, while outlining clearly the challenges it anticipated. Instead, it was itself a huge part of the problem, since the international community had to factor in tremendous theft by PA officials.

      The resolution doesn’t say that workers from Gaza would be irrevocably banned at a specified time regardless of what happened with Gaza’s economy. I do think, however, that Israel foolishly hoped to end work permits to Gaza in the coming years. But these things never seem to be set in stone. And at the end of 2005, they did issue 2000 work permits for Gaza, amid upgrades to the crossing points.

      On the Israeli side, I see a major step that wasn’t well thought out or well executed (except for the evacuation itself), and that mixed some good intentions with some maddeningly arrogant attitudes and neglect/indifference. (I could probably describe this better, but that’s an approximation.)

      But I still believe the Palestinians had more constructive options than you seem to want to acknowledge. And I see no reason to deny that the failings on their side were real, gratuitous, and damaging.

      • Kevin F. September 17, 2014 at 9:34 am | #

        Typos: “that *should* have prevented”; “substantial foreign *aid*”

      • David Green September 17, 2014 at 12:53 pm | #

        Summary: Hamas has bad intentions. Israel has good intentions, badly done. Kevin, you speak in a colonialist/paternalist voice,

      • Kevin F. September 17, 2014 at 8:14 pm | #

        David,

        Not quite. I don’t think it’s helpful to speak of Israel’s intentions in withdrawing from Gaza. I see the reality as more complicated, with a range of intentions—some good, some bad—on the part of different politicians, a range that resulted in an awkward and defective disengagement plan. I strongly suspect that some Israelis supported the disengagement despite reservations about its unilateral nature, believing that the priority was to remove Israel’s settlers and soldiers from Gaza. And I think Netanyahu’s opposition to the disengagement was badly motivated.

        As to your suggestion that I have a colonial mindset, is it possible that you’re projecting? I’ve often had the sense that the post-colonial international left has bequeathed to the Palestinians a damning colonial legacy (denial of agency).

        On the Israeli side, I see plenty of narrow-mindedness, chauvinism, cynicism, inertia, and duplicity, as well as grave failures of leadership. But I don’t see the point of ignoring the very grave failures of leadership on the Palestinian side. I suspect that the chances of finding a mutually acceptable way out of the conflict are poor. But I’m pretty sure that whatever chance there is depends on some degree of recognition by each side of its own contributions to how events have played out. Place the lion’s share of blame on Israel. If the Palestinians aren’t interested in recognizing their own agency, what can they realistically expect to accomplish?

  16. David Green September 17, 2014 at 10:08 pm | #

    “On the Israeli side, I see plenty of narrow-mindedness, chauvinism, cynicism, inertia, and duplicity, as well as grave failures of leadership.”

    I see occupation, racism, and murder. You seem to have left that out.

    • Kevin F. September 17, 2014 at 11:16 pm | #

      I was referring to factors that explain why Israel has typically acted to perpetuate the occupation instead of ending it, so I didn’t include the occupation itself among those factors,

      Another factor I didn’t mention is Hamas willingness to arrest, torture, and execute those who openly criticize it or peacefully criticize its repressive rule, and its ostentatious disregard for the lives, rights, and welfare of those it rules. I think it would very valuable for Palestinians in Gaza to have freedom speech to discuss their interests and Hamas’s goals. But you don’t seem to hear many calls for free speech from the Palestinians’ ostensible supporters in the West. (Free speech? What do they need that for?)

      • Kevin F. September 17, 2014 at 11:18 pm | #

        …peacefully protest its repressive rule and the direction in which it’s leadership has taken Gaza…

      • David Green September 18, 2014 at 8:41 am | #

        They had a free and fair election. Hamas won, Israel attacked. Cast Lead began with the murder of a couple of hundred Palestinian policemen. Why don’t you just give it up?

  17. David Green September 18, 2014 at 1:53 pm | #

    Correction: It was 42 police cadets that were murdered.

    • Kevin F. September 19, 2014 at 5:30 am | #

      “They had a free and fair election. Hamas won, Israel attacked. Cast Lead began with the murder of a couple of hundred Palestinian policemen [correction noted]. Why don’t you just give it up?”

      Operation Cast Lead didn’t occur until nearly three years after Hamas won the election. After winning the free and fair election, Hamas’s next step should have been to give political legitimacy–and the international leverage that would have brought–a chance. Instead it asked for a special exemption from being bound by past PA commitments (a basic condition of political legitimacy), due to its religious scruples about recognizing Israel, proposing a “truce” as a workaround.

      It’s something of a mantra among the international left that Hamas truce offers should be taken at face value, but I find that confidence rather mystifying. When the international community balked and Hamas didn’t get the foreign aid to which it felt entitled, it staged a tunneling/kidnapping attack. Things deteriorated from there.

      It’s true that Israel made a choice not to accept Hamas’s truce offer, just as Hamas made a choice to offer a truce in lieu of the full requirements of political legitimacy. Winning the election put the ball in Hamas’s court, something for which it evidently wasn’t ready.

      • David Green September 19, 2014 at 5:45 pm | #

        “The media constantly intone that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. In reality, Hamas leaders have repeatedly made it clear that Hamas would accept a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus that has been blocked by the U.S. and Israel for 40 years.

        “In contrast, Israel is dedicated to the destruction of Palestine, apart from some occasional meaningless words, and is implementing that commitment.

        “The crime of the Palestinians in January 2006 was punished at once. The U.S. and Israel, with Europe shamefully trailing behind, imposed harsh sanctions on the errant population and Israel stepped up its violence.

        “The U.S. and Israel quickly initiated plans for a military coup to overthrow the elected government. When Hamas had the effrontery to foil the plans, the Israeli assaults and the siege became far more severe.

        “There should be no need to review again the dismal record since. The relentless siege and savage attacks are punctuated by episodes of “mowing the lawn,” to borrow Israel’s cheery expression for its periodic exercises in shooting fish in a pond as part of what it calls a “war of defense.”” — Noam Chomsky

        http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-nightmare-in-gaza/

      • Kevin F. September 19, 2014 at 8:34 pm | #

        So you’re reduced to quoting Chomsky now?

        Well, at least that guy’s predictable.

Leave a Reply