Corey Robin, who I believe was recently arrested for protesting the war in Gaza, is understandably upset that an “online” friend of his just lost his professorship at the University of Illinois because of his vociferous criticism of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu on Twitter.
Here’s a sample tweet: “At this point, if Netanyahu appeared on TV with a necklace made from the teeth of Palestinian children, would anybody be surprised? #Gaza.”
Professor Steven Salaita was slated to take a job in Urbana–Champaign teaching American Indian Studies, so it seems that he has in interest in oppressed populations that may help explain his outrage at the civilian losses on the Palestinian side of the Gaza conflict.
Here’s the thing on this. There are a whole lot of issues at play, including the principle of academic freedom, the distinction between dismissing a professor and rescinding a job offer, the right of a university to object to embarrassing or overly controversial behavior by their staff, etc. But, from Israel’s point of view, I don’t think it really advances their cause to be seen as some kind of policemen who can dictate who can and cannot be a professor in our universities. It’s true that there are some kids at Illinois who might have been subjected to some offhand anti-Israel comments during their time taking a course on Native Americans’ experience in this country, but I don’t think the State of Israel was going to be seriously threatened by that. Even the cumulative effect of dampening down criticism of Israel by taking a few scalps seems to me to be of dubious value. Academics aren’t going to decide how they feel about the Israel-Palestine conflict based on intimidation, unless that intimidation causes them to become resentful. You might keep some people quiet, but overall you will make them more hostile.
Unfortunately, this also fits right in with the stereotype that Jews control the media, banks, academia, etc. If you don’t want people to believe those stereotypes, you should be very selective about trying to exert that type of control. It’s one thing to push back against a professor who you think is unfairly critical, but it is another to call for his job. I don’t think that is helpful. I think it’s counterproductive.
Yes. Such lack of objectivity is most unbecoming in a professor. I’m glad my state fired the anti-Semitic son of a bitch.
Must remember for future reference that you’re also a Zionist and apologist for all things Israel. How many Palestinian children did Israel kill in its latest “mowing the lawn” mission?
Can’t wait for the Rightwing Noise Machine to begin its defense of this prof and lament his suffering at the hands of the Political Correctness Brigades. Oh, wait…
This is (I think) a public institution and they now may have a first amendment lawsuit on their hands….
Don’t forget the Israel Lobby stuffed Prof Juan Cole’s transfer to Yale for his persistent exposes and criticism of our little ally…
Juan Cole is objectively pro terrorist and pro Muslim, don’tcha know!
I don’t know why you are writing about what is productive or unproductive for Israel, as if the Israelis had any involvement in this event. As far as I can tell, they did not.
This is a tough case for me, because of course I believe in academic freedom–and it would be unacceptable if U of I had fired a standing professor, as opposed to rescinding (technically, failing to finalize) a job offer. The tweet about Netanyahu doesn’t seem offensive (actually, I think the observation is quite trenchant). But some of the other tweets do verge towards hate speech. For example “Zionists: transforming `anti-Semitism’ from something horrible into something honorable since 1948″
I hadn’t seen the Tweet you just quoted, which I think it a game-changer.
You can’t say that anti-Semitism is “honorable.” Period.
It’s poorly worded, but quite obviously he was referring to the Likudnik habit of smearing anybody who doesn’t kiss Bibi’s ass as an antisemite. And I agree 100% about that. It’s a badge of honor to be slimed by the apologists for murdering children.
I think my position on the Likud and right-wing Israeli politics is clear.
But there is no way to word it better. You can say that Israeli’s policies cause anti-Semitism, but you can’t call it “honorable.”
That is saying that people are duty-bound to hate Jews just for being Jews.
Sorry, but that crosses the line and can’t be explained away as expressing yourself poorly.
Maybe the only defense conceivable is letting your emotions get the people of you for a moment.
meant “the better of you.”
Again, it’s quite clear to me that he was saying it’s an honor to be smeared as an antisemite by supporters of Netanyahu’s murderous policies. I agree, and based on your stated views so should you.
Netanyahu did not assume office in 1948. Netanyahu is not the only Zionist in the world. In no way is he limiting his attack to Netanyahu of even the Israeli right.
I understand that you are saying that it’s ironic, in the sense that he means “getting charged with anti-semitism for making anti-Israeli remarks.”
But that’s not what he wrote. And he in no way limited it.
Saying strongly-worded things in public may have unintended consequences. Again, there may be freedom of speech, but there is no freedom of consequences from speech. Say what you want, but it may have effects which you did not expect.
If I were applying for a job at U of I, I would say nothing of that sort. I have greatly tempered my public comments under my own name in the last 5 years. I do not have a tenured position, can be fired at any moment. Thus, comments which are intemperate, which cast aspersions on either me or my employer, are simply not made publicly.
Pretty much nothing Israel – or its various allies – is doing at the moment is in Israel’s best interests.
But part of this squelching, be it borderline cases like this or the Juan Cole debacle, is driven by one of the great tragedies happening in Israel in the last couple of years: its loss of vigorous public debate within its own borders. Over and over I’m reading that propaganda rules there now, just like it does in Putin’s Russia, authoritarian china, etc. Yes, Israel has more freedom of the press, on paper, than those places, but it appears to have all but dried up in practice from what I’ve read. Self-censorship. Intimidation. Etc. And no, a few english-language articles by Gideon Levy won’t disprove that.
So that culture of speech containment is simply exported abroad. We see it with other countries, too, as much as they can get away with. China squelches things when it can get away with it, too via various backdoor methods, hollywood connections being one of them, donations to universities or schools another.
If there’s one thing that will tip Israel over it is total insularity from outside public opinion. Previously a healthy contingent in Israel acknowledged their own imperfections to an admirable degree, and at least understood their precarious standing in the world – now the dissenters are silent or ignored or driven away. The safety net of actually knowing what the hell is going on in the world, and how Israeli actions may be perceived, is no longer there for them. They’re flying blind. They will stumble, and already have, and it will get far worse.
it’s too bad they don’t have more friends in the world who care enough to save them, to challenge them to save themselves. We’re finding out right now how few “friends” Israel really has and how many of their supporters are just playing a sick long-distance video game.
Pentagon Pundits because the NYTimes Judith Miller and Gordon propagandists weren’t enough.
Steven Salaita might have more than a disinterested relationship to the situation. If you had personal relationships involved, how would you respond to the deliberate targeting of a UNHCR shelter?
Israel and AIPAC have for a decade carried out a campaign conflating criticism of Israel and Israel’s leaders with anti-Semitism. Give the toleration that Netanyahu has had for argument for ethnic cleansing from his own government and given the debate among some (a small minority I hope) about when is genocide permissable, the sort of angry hyperbole that Salaita exhibited on Twitter is more than understandable. One wonders how lost Netanyahu’s moral compass is.
A scholar who has studied how settler colonialism and the creation of frontiers tend toward slavery and genocide in America and the Middle East is IMO academically qualified to present his views in an academic setting.
Let’s get some right-wing professors fired for their intemperate remarks on twitter about Barack Obama. But Nooooo, Der Perfesser gets a continual pass because that’s his grifting shtick. Or let’s get Charles Murray fired because no only is he a bigot of the first order, he provide clever defenses acceptable to the establishment to justify his bigotry.
There is a huge double-standard for who gets fired in this country for intemperate remarks. And a lot of nicey-nice liberals act as co-dependent enablers of it by never examining the details.
That my friends, is how Red scares and hysteria about terrorism shut down thinking.
Gentiles in the media executive suites are perfectly capable of bending the news to support Israel out of their own personal interests on their own. The fact that AIPAC exists just makes those decisions easier to justify to others. Republicans are tilting toward Netanyahu because he’s gone out of his way to diss Obama on behalf of Netanyahu’s good friend Mitt Romney. Let’s not allow phoney charges of anti-Semitism to distract from that relationship.
I wonder if this would of happen if he had been saying some of the things RW says about President Obama?
Just asking
A promotion and/or raise.
I’ve said this before in other forums but social media has just become a tool of intimidation and harassment. Twitter is a career killer for those whose filter isn’t perfect. I don’t know why anyone takes that risk. Heck, I probably shouldn’t even be commenting on sites like this one.