Instead of focusing on legitimate grievances about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, the protestors are engaged in a baseless effort to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state.
Such a clear and strong argument for why these camps need to stop… and of course they will, once schools are not in session. It is too bad these few students may hurt Biden’s chances with young voters.
Bravo! One addition for the historical record. “Settler colonialism” is derivative of the French occupation of Algeria, which made the European settlers, colons, citizens of France at the expense of the Arab and Berber populations. The Algerian FLN is the model for secular Palestinian resistance going back to the 50s. The colons or pied noirs as French citizens returned to France.
Excellent analysis of the situation --this report deserves to be read to or by the protestors, both students and non students, but realistically I do not expect these close-minded hypocrites, backed by similarly blind faculty, to consider views contra to theirs. Thankyou David
"Increasing" was a bad choice of words. My hypothesis is that a few decades ago, these departments were funded by special interest groups, perhaps from Middle Eastern countries, creating endowed professorships with a long term agenda, not necessarily committed to nor monitored for accurate historical representation.
Mike - This is not something I know a lot about and I doubt that entire departments at many institutions would be funded through outside donations from foreign governments - although there may be some of that. Certainly some professorships could be and I do think it is true that a lot of anti-Israel, anti-Zionism scholarship and activism emanates from some faculty from Middle East Studies departments. There have certainly been efforts from the right to paint these departments as hotbeds of anti-semitism and radicalism - some of this effort has been to blunt legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, some has been a valid critique. And keep in mind there are often Jewish Studies departments at universities where the same kind of criticisms are leveled from the other direction. All I can say is that at Duke we have an Asian and Middle East Studies Department that has courses addressing issues on all aspects of the Middle East, including Israel. The chair since 2020 has been an Israeli (perhaps Israeli-American, I don't know for sure). We also have a Jewish Studies Center, a Middle East Studies Center and a (mostly defunct) Islamic Studies Center. This semester I became aware of a deeply biased course at Harvard in which the syllabus itself described Zionism as a "genocidal project." The faculty came from the Divinity School, the Law School, and the Department of Religion - so these pockets of bias can come from many places within a university.
Thanks for your reassuring perspective. Conspiracy theories are too easy to come by these days, with declining sources of trustworthy investigative journalism.
There is no question that Jewish populations across Europe faced pogroms in the 1800s and atrocities during WWII. Simply because that was the impetus for the wave of Jews settling in Palestine doesn't make it any less of a colonizing exercise. The father of the Zionist movement Herzl wrote in his diary: "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly." The atrocities towards Jews was barbaric. But it's unclear why the Palestinians had and continue to have to pay the price of Europe's crimes. The definition of colonizer is to send settlers to a place and establish political control over it. Regardless of the “why”, by the strict definition of the word, the shoe would seem to fit.
David also highlights the '48 UN resolution in the creation of Israel as sanctifying all the means taken to accomplish that outcome. This seems to insinuate, therefore, that it could not be a “colonizing” exercise. That argument alone is the wrong conclusion. The UN has done wonderful things but also had its share of mistakes. It represents the interests of its member states which brings with it the frailties of those interests. There is a reason Arab states did not support the resolution at the time. Specifically, that it violated the rights to self-determination of Palestinians who were entirely marginalized by the decision. What's more, if you choose to hold UN resolutions as sacrosanct then it must also mean that Israel should remove itself from the land captured during the '67 war and confine itself to the '48 borders. By the angle of your piece, I'm assuming that isn't palatable for you. But you can't have it both ways - that the UN is infallible, but also ignore Resolution 242 that calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied during the '67 war.
Regardless, of whether you agree with my above points or not your write up unnecessarily gets hung up on the word "colonizing." Let's hypothetically assume Herzl and the waves of Jewish settlers do NOT fit the strict definition of colonizing force. Even if one changes the "means" to the end, the end was still a total disregard for the rights of and atrocities committed toward Palestinians who inhabited the vast majority of the land. Your hyper vigilance on the word "colonizing" as a means to delegitimize the protests is missing the forest through the trees. Related to the historical context you attempt to set, you should also clarify how your comment that Palestine was uninhabited can coexist with the undeniable fact that more than 700k Palestinians were displaced during the formation of Israel. The reality is the vast majority of land was occupied by Palestinians. Jewish settlers under the protection of British and later American military marginalized, ethnically cleansed and committed their own pogroms toward Palestinians. The ’48 Deir Yassin Massacre being only one example. Feel free to remove the brand of “colonizing force” but it doesn’t wash their hands of the humanitarian catastrophe that Israel was built on.
You also make the point that more gruesome atrocities are ongoing in the world that are even worse than Israel’s crimes against Palestinians. You then draw a conclusion that because protestors lack enthusiasm to speak out against those catastrophes then these protests are just a misguided extension of George Floyd protests. This is an attempt is to discredit protestors by suggesting ulterior motives or misguided energy. Coincidentally, some months ago I made your same argument to my niece who’s finishing up at Brown. Her quick response was “that may be true, but the US has played a much more proactive role in shaping the contours of this conflict than most of those other examples.” This would extend to all the ones highlighted by David. Yes, all of us should care about all problems everywhere, all the time. But my niece is also right that the US has a greater obligation to fix this problem given its heavy hand in shaping this conflict and arming Israel with the weaponry being used to indiscriminately slaughter tens of thousands of Palestinians. The only reasonable link to the BLM movement and reactions to George Floyd is that was yet another example of where the US, our institutions and policies were directly involved with setting the stage for that crime. So, similar to Israel’s attacks on Gaza we are doubly obligated to fix it and I, for one, am very glad these protestors are asking us to be accountable.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. I'll respond to a couple of the points.
First , I do support UN Sec. Council Res. 242, the end of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, and the creation of a Palestinian state on a negotiated basis. I've also bemoaned in Perilous Times Israel's failure over the past 15 years to continue a peace process designed to get to a negotiated settlement, the increased settlement of the West Bank, and the harsher and harsher measures Israel has used to continue its occupation. It is worth noting, however, that the key protagonist in Gaza, Hamas, has never recognized Israel's right to exist or a willingness to negotiate a permanent settlement of the conflict that provided Israelis "their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" as called for in UNSC 242. This point is especially cognizant when you consider what transpired on Oct. 7.
Second, like the protestors, you speak of the atrocities that drove Palestinians from their property in 1948, but ignore the reason there was a state of war in which they occurred, which is that the Arab states and many Palestinians refused to accept the decision of the UN and attacked Israel the very night it declared its statehood with the express goal of obliterating it. I do not excuse all the actions of the Israeli Army with respect to what transpired during this war, but history is littered with the horrors of war and the violation of the rights of civilians. And this is why I do think that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should include some form of compensation for those who were ethnically cleansed from Israel and their progeny. But the idea that all the territory should be returned to these refugees is contrary to any settlement that Israel should or would accept as it was the victor in the war of aggression that was launched against it in 1948. It is a hard truth that the victims of war never fully recover what they lost - it is unclear to me why of all the wars in history, it is only this one where it is being demanded that the victor in the war dismantle itself to make the civilian victims whole.
When it comes to the plight of the refugees, it is also worth noting the mistreatment they have experienced from their host countries like Jordan and Lebanon. These countries have not provided citizenship to these refugees, including the children and grandchildren of refugees. They have not allowed them to work legally in their countries (even if they were born there) -- creating huge populations of permanently impoverished people. I have visited the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps in Beirut. They are among the worst places I have ever experienced. Why are these countries so abusing the Palestinians and failing to absorb them into their countries as many other countries that receive refugees (like the United States) do for their refugee populations? The reason is to keep the political dispute with Israel and regarding Israel's existence alive instead of trying to relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people - using individuals, including children, as props of political grievance. Perhaps the BDS movement should be calling on these countries to provide the Palestinian refugees with their due rights, in accordance with international treaties, so they can lead lives of dignity instead of being trapped in dire poverty in horrific "camps" for decades upon decades.
I fully agree with you that the United States should be deeply engaged in attempting to resolve the conflict in Gaza and the settlement of the Israeli-Palesitinian conflict. I would be more supportive of the protestors if they were advocating measures that would move in this direction, as the Biden Administration has been doing since the beginning of this episode, rather than advocating policies, like the right of return, that would destroy the Jewish character of the national homeland of the Jewish people. An end to the conflict will require some plan for governance of Gaza that does not allow Hamas to regain power and threaten Israel again. The Biden Administration has been working tirelessly on a plan that would do this. But the protestors exclusively criticize Israeli actions but make absolutely no demoands on Hamas, which instigated this round of violence and is holding over 100 innocent civilians hostage. I am for a cease-fire, but I am also for Hamas being required to lay down their arms, for the complete demilitarization of the region, and the arrest and detention of the Hamas leadership to hold them accountable for the Oct. 7 attacks. Why is the focus of the protestors' ire entirely on Israel and not on Hamas, which has been abusing the Palestinian people in Gaza for decades and has done so again in this conflict? Why is there no outrage that instead of investing the billions it has received from Arab sponsors on schools, roads, and factories that would have benefitted every day Gazans, Hamas built 500 miles of underground tunnels and tens of thousands of rockets. If the protestors were advocating for a genuine peace and measures that would provide a better future for both Palestinians and Israelis, I would be all for what they are doing. But they are not.
Are the increasing numbers of Middle Eastern Studies departments a partial cause of false views of regional history, by not teaching accurately the history as you've portrayed it?
Some Middle Eastern studies departments have been hotbeds of anti-Israel, pro-BDS thinking, to be sure. I am not aware of evidence that these departments are increasing, however. At Duke, and many universities, humanities departments are shrinking not growing, in terms of budgets and number of students that major in these areas.
Such a clear and strong argument for why these camps need to stop… and of course they will, once schools are not in session. It is too bad these few students may hurt Biden’s chances with young voters.
Bravo! One addition for the historical record. “Settler colonialism” is derivative of the French occupation of Algeria, which made the European settlers, colons, citizens of France at the expense of the Arab and Berber populations. The Algerian FLN is the model for secular Palestinian resistance going back to the 50s. The colons or pied noirs as French citizens returned to France.
Excellent analysis of the situation --this report deserves to be read to or by the protestors, both students and non students, but realistically I do not expect these close-minded hypocrites, backed by similarly blind faculty, to consider views contra to theirs. Thankyou David
Thanks for the powerful history lesson that sadly will not reach the minds of many protesters.
"Increasing" was a bad choice of words. My hypothesis is that a few decades ago, these departments were funded by special interest groups, perhaps from Middle Eastern countries, creating endowed professorships with a long term agenda, not necessarily committed to nor monitored for accurate historical representation.
Mike - This is not something I know a lot about and I doubt that entire departments at many institutions would be funded through outside donations from foreign governments - although there may be some of that. Certainly some professorships could be and I do think it is true that a lot of anti-Israel, anti-Zionism scholarship and activism emanates from some faculty from Middle East Studies departments. There have certainly been efforts from the right to paint these departments as hotbeds of anti-semitism and radicalism - some of this effort has been to blunt legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, some has been a valid critique. And keep in mind there are often Jewish Studies departments at universities where the same kind of criticisms are leveled from the other direction. All I can say is that at Duke we have an Asian and Middle East Studies Department that has courses addressing issues on all aspects of the Middle East, including Israel. The chair since 2020 has been an Israeli (perhaps Israeli-American, I don't know for sure). We also have a Jewish Studies Center, a Middle East Studies Center and a (mostly defunct) Islamic Studies Center. This semester I became aware of a deeply biased course at Harvard in which the syllabus itself described Zionism as a "genocidal project." The faculty came from the Divinity School, the Law School, and the Department of Religion - so these pockets of bias can come from many places within a university.
Thanks for your reassuring perspective. Conspiracy theories are too easy to come by these days, with declining sources of trustworthy investigative journalism.
There is no question that Jewish populations across Europe faced pogroms in the 1800s and atrocities during WWII. Simply because that was the impetus for the wave of Jews settling in Palestine doesn't make it any less of a colonizing exercise. The father of the Zionist movement Herzl wrote in his diary: "We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly." The atrocities towards Jews was barbaric. But it's unclear why the Palestinians had and continue to have to pay the price of Europe's crimes. The definition of colonizer is to send settlers to a place and establish political control over it. Regardless of the “why”, by the strict definition of the word, the shoe would seem to fit.
David also highlights the '48 UN resolution in the creation of Israel as sanctifying all the means taken to accomplish that outcome. This seems to insinuate, therefore, that it could not be a “colonizing” exercise. That argument alone is the wrong conclusion. The UN has done wonderful things but also had its share of mistakes. It represents the interests of its member states which brings with it the frailties of those interests. There is a reason Arab states did not support the resolution at the time. Specifically, that it violated the rights to self-determination of Palestinians who were entirely marginalized by the decision. What's more, if you choose to hold UN resolutions as sacrosanct then it must also mean that Israel should remove itself from the land captured during the '67 war and confine itself to the '48 borders. By the angle of your piece, I'm assuming that isn't palatable for you. But you can't have it both ways - that the UN is infallible, but also ignore Resolution 242 that calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied during the '67 war.
Regardless, of whether you agree with my above points or not your write up unnecessarily gets hung up on the word "colonizing." Let's hypothetically assume Herzl and the waves of Jewish settlers do NOT fit the strict definition of colonizing force. Even if one changes the "means" to the end, the end was still a total disregard for the rights of and atrocities committed toward Palestinians who inhabited the vast majority of the land. Your hyper vigilance on the word "colonizing" as a means to delegitimize the protests is missing the forest through the trees. Related to the historical context you attempt to set, you should also clarify how your comment that Palestine was uninhabited can coexist with the undeniable fact that more than 700k Palestinians were displaced during the formation of Israel. The reality is the vast majority of land was occupied by Palestinians. Jewish settlers under the protection of British and later American military marginalized, ethnically cleansed and committed their own pogroms toward Palestinians. The ’48 Deir Yassin Massacre being only one example. Feel free to remove the brand of “colonizing force” but it doesn’t wash their hands of the humanitarian catastrophe that Israel was built on.
You also make the point that more gruesome atrocities are ongoing in the world that are even worse than Israel’s crimes against Palestinians. You then draw a conclusion that because protestors lack enthusiasm to speak out against those catastrophes then these protests are just a misguided extension of George Floyd protests. This is an attempt is to discredit protestors by suggesting ulterior motives or misguided energy. Coincidentally, some months ago I made your same argument to my niece who’s finishing up at Brown. Her quick response was “that may be true, but the US has played a much more proactive role in shaping the contours of this conflict than most of those other examples.” This would extend to all the ones highlighted by David. Yes, all of us should care about all problems everywhere, all the time. But my niece is also right that the US has a greater obligation to fix this problem given its heavy hand in shaping this conflict and arming Israel with the weaponry being used to indiscriminately slaughter tens of thousands of Palestinians. The only reasonable link to the BLM movement and reactions to George Floyd is that was yet another example of where the US, our institutions and policies were directly involved with setting the stage for that crime. So, similar to Israel’s attacks on Gaza we are doubly obligated to fix it and I, for one, am very glad these protestors are asking us to be accountable.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. I'll respond to a couple of the points.
First , I do support UN Sec. Council Res. 242, the end of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, and the creation of a Palestinian state on a negotiated basis. I've also bemoaned in Perilous Times Israel's failure over the past 15 years to continue a peace process designed to get to a negotiated settlement, the increased settlement of the West Bank, and the harsher and harsher measures Israel has used to continue its occupation. It is worth noting, however, that the key protagonist in Gaza, Hamas, has never recognized Israel's right to exist or a willingness to negotiate a permanent settlement of the conflict that provided Israelis "their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" as called for in UNSC 242. This point is especially cognizant when you consider what transpired on Oct. 7.
Second, like the protestors, you speak of the atrocities that drove Palestinians from their property in 1948, but ignore the reason there was a state of war in which they occurred, which is that the Arab states and many Palestinians refused to accept the decision of the UN and attacked Israel the very night it declared its statehood with the express goal of obliterating it. I do not excuse all the actions of the Israeli Army with respect to what transpired during this war, but history is littered with the horrors of war and the violation of the rights of civilians. And this is why I do think that a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should include some form of compensation for those who were ethnically cleansed from Israel and their progeny. But the idea that all the territory should be returned to these refugees is contrary to any settlement that Israel should or would accept as it was the victor in the war of aggression that was launched against it in 1948. It is a hard truth that the victims of war never fully recover what they lost - it is unclear to me why of all the wars in history, it is only this one where it is being demanded that the victor in the war dismantle itself to make the civilian victims whole.
When it comes to the plight of the refugees, it is also worth noting the mistreatment they have experienced from their host countries like Jordan and Lebanon. These countries have not provided citizenship to these refugees, including the children and grandchildren of refugees. They have not allowed them to work legally in their countries (even if they were born there) -- creating huge populations of permanently impoverished people. I have visited the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps in Beirut. They are among the worst places I have ever experienced. Why are these countries so abusing the Palestinians and failing to absorb them into their countries as many other countries that receive refugees (like the United States) do for their refugee populations? The reason is to keep the political dispute with Israel and regarding Israel's existence alive instead of trying to relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people - using individuals, including children, as props of political grievance. Perhaps the BDS movement should be calling on these countries to provide the Palestinian refugees with their due rights, in accordance with international treaties, so they can lead lives of dignity instead of being trapped in dire poverty in horrific "camps" for decades upon decades.
I fully agree with you that the United States should be deeply engaged in attempting to resolve the conflict in Gaza and the settlement of the Israeli-Palesitinian conflict. I would be more supportive of the protestors if they were advocating measures that would move in this direction, as the Biden Administration has been doing since the beginning of this episode, rather than advocating policies, like the right of return, that would destroy the Jewish character of the national homeland of the Jewish people. An end to the conflict will require some plan for governance of Gaza that does not allow Hamas to regain power and threaten Israel again. The Biden Administration has been working tirelessly on a plan that would do this. But the protestors exclusively criticize Israeli actions but make absolutely no demoands on Hamas, which instigated this round of violence and is holding over 100 innocent civilians hostage. I am for a cease-fire, but I am also for Hamas being required to lay down their arms, for the complete demilitarization of the region, and the arrest and detention of the Hamas leadership to hold them accountable for the Oct. 7 attacks. Why is the focus of the protestors' ire entirely on Israel and not on Hamas, which has been abusing the Palestinian people in Gaza for decades and has done so again in this conflict? Why is there no outrage that instead of investing the billions it has received from Arab sponsors on schools, roads, and factories that would have benefitted every day Gazans, Hamas built 500 miles of underground tunnels and tens of thousands of rockets. If the protestors were advocating for a genuine peace and measures that would provide a better future for both Palestinians and Israelis, I would be all for what they are doing. But they are not.
Are the increasing numbers of Middle Eastern Studies departments a partial cause of false views of regional history, by not teaching accurately the history as you've portrayed it?
Some Middle Eastern studies departments have been hotbeds of anti-Israel, pro-BDS thinking, to be sure. I am not aware of evidence that these departments are increasing, however. At Duke, and many universities, humanities departments are shrinking not growing, in terms of budgets and number of students that major in these areas.