Ezra Klein, using himself as an example, says that “Criticizing Israel is not an act of courage because it’s not actually dangerous for your career.”
Well, it’s certainly true that it hasn’t been a problem for some people’s careers. Ezra is fine. Stephen Walt’s career seems okay, although I doubt he’ll be getting a White House nod.
But there are two important areas where people’s careers are threatened. First, and most importantly, you’d have a hard time finding a single Senator or Representative willing to criticize Israel’s policies — a unity that puts the US Congress radically out of line with the country’s split beliefs. Jon Stewart aptly described how Israel is treated by national politicians: “It’s the mobius strip of issues — there’s only one side.”
We also saw this during the presidential campaign, when Obama dumped Robert Malley as an adviser, after Malley was criticized for being pro-negotiations and anti-Israel. I’d say that Malley’s criticism of Israel has damaged his career prospects. I doubt Obama will be calling on Professor Khalidi’s advice anytime soon, either.
Secondly, there are persistant attempts to squash the careers of academics who criticize Israel. Because tenure and hiring processes tend to be secret, it’s impossible to know which complaints are legitimate — but the widespread (and correct) perception that if you criticize Israel, powerful academics like Alan Dershowitz may not just disagree with you but attempt to destroy your career, has surely had some sort of silencing effect.
This doesn’t mean that criticism of Israel has been wiped out; many academics criticize Israel quite loudly, despite the opposition. But I don’t think “speech hasn’t been entirely wiped out, so there’s no problem!” is a persuasive argument.
UPDATE: Ezra clarifies that he only meant to refer to journalists:
Barry Deutsch is right that congressmen and potential political appointees have more problems. Just ask Rob Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski what happens to your access in Obamaland after the Israel Lobby decides you’re on the wrong side.
I think that the effect on your career or otherwise depends on the circles that you travel. This issue polarizes group identity and if you don’t toe the line, whichever line your usual identity group prefers (and loudly, and single-mindedly) you can find yourself pushed out in the cold.
I think you’re over-stating both problems. Politically, I think the problem is that one can be (and what I submit we want) is politicians who recognize that being “pro-Israel” is not inconsistent with being “pro-Palestine” and recognizing there are two sides. We just elected a President who epitomizes this dynamic. There are not many specifically “anti-Israel” politicians out there, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing, and I think the defeats of the folks who have been tagged that way (Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard, both Congresspersons representing MBDs) is more a function of the fact that being actively anti-Israel (as opposed to pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian) is really unpopular with Americans of all stripes. I think a lot of people are frustrated by the fact that actively anti-Palestinian politicians aren’t balanced by actively anti-Israeli politicians, but I really don’t think that represents the type of “progress” we want.
On the academic side, first, I’d note that in virtually all these cases, the opponents of the professors at least say that their objections are scholarly, not political. Now it’s true that might be a facade, but it’s also true that some of these professors might be claiming they’re being attacked by the big bad Jewish Lobby(tm) as a shield against legitimate criticism. One of the reasons used to deny Finkelstein tenure, for example, was DePaul’s determination that he is more interested in polarizing polemics than it scholarly rigor, and that this is incompatible with their mission as a Christian university. El-Haj won her tenure battle at Columbia, which, incidentally, has one of the most strongly pro-Palestinian middle eastern studies faculties in the country. Walt’s career improved after his publication of “The Israel Lobby”. Cole was merely denied a move from one elite university to another.
In general, it’s difficult to say that the problem in Western academia is that it is too unaccepting of anti-Israel criticism. Certainly, all these examples pale in comparison to the systematic effort to boycott Israeli academics coming out of the UK and, recently, Canada. Given that, it’s really difficult for me to find this siege mentality, this “narrative of persecution and bravery” over standing up to the all-powerful Lobby, particularly credible.
But how often, in other fields, is the matter of whether someone is hired or given tenure a matter of intense lobbying efforts by people outside that particular institution? That’s an honest question. All the academics I know personally are in the sciences, and internal political dynamics of a given department certainly can get nasty, but it’s almost unimaginable to me that anyone outside their department, much less outside their university, would care. Is outside lobbying common in other disciplines?
I think, David, that you are being a little bit disingenuous–though I also think that the use of the word “squash” in the original post is a little bit of an exaggeration, at least when it comes to someone like Cole. In what other field is there an organization like Campus Watch that will act as a watchdog in the way that organization does? Maybe there used to be something on the Christian right–at least there was on Long Island, where I teach–but nothing that has the power and the scope of Campus Watch, as far as I can tell. You are right that none of these people will have their lives ruined by their tenure battles; that doesn’t mean the larger point of Barry’s point, i.e., that people are politicizing a process that ought not to be politicized in this way, and there are people who will go after you if you cross what they consider to be the line in terms of criticizing Israel and/or supporting the Palestinians, is invalid.
I also think the tactic of comparing what goes on here to the abhorrent calls for boycotts from in the UK and Canada is intellectually dishonest. Just because what they are doing is “worst” doesn’t mean the problem here does not deserve attention.
As Amp likes to say, you deal with Sue’s broken arm before Bob’s skinned knee. I think that professors of all orientations deserve the right to pursue their studies freely and without deterrence. But at least the critiques of these pro-Palestinian professors come under the veneer of scholarly criticism. The academic boycotts are both more systematic, and do not even pretend to be anything but an attack on particular viewpoint or citizenry.
Put another way, though there are definitely some countervailing pressures operating against pro-Palestinian academics in the West, there are plenty of avenues in academia where their views are expressed, and no place where I think you can argue they’re being actively excluded or marginalized. In contrast, I’d literally be afraid to take a job or a fellowship in the UK, because the academic there is so unremittingly hostile that I think I would not be able to function.
How is McKinney “anti”-Israel and not “pro”-Palestinian. I don’t see her position as being anti-Israel at all. She adamantly criticizes Israeli policy and has fought for the rights (or at least spoken of the rights) of Palestinians. I would call her pro-Palestinian. In no way would I think her position on the conflict would make her more of a rabid “anti-Israeli” politician than a pro-Palestinian politician.
And why are you insisting on only the view of being “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestine”? Is no other view legitimate enough in your mind?
In my opinion it would be like saying that, during the 1980s, one had to be both “pro-ANC” and “pro-Apartheid.”
On McKinney, see here.
I do think that the only valid stance in this conflict is one that is both “Pro-Israel” and “Pro-Palestine” (and consequently “pro peace”). I find the alternatives — pro-Israeli with (at best) indifference towards what happens to Palestinians and Arabs, or pro-Palestinian with (at best) indifference towards what happens to Israelis and Jews, to be very, very scary, bordering on inhumane. “Israel” =/= “apartheid” anymore than “Palestine” = “terrorism”. Terrorism and occupation/discrimination are both unjust tools the respective sides have deployed to pursue valid agendas (security for Israel, self-determination for Palestine), although some members of both sides have agendas on top of this that are quite illegitimate (e.g., Greater Israel for some Israelis, destruction of Israel and subjugation of Jews for some Palestinians) — my intuition is that those most likely to advocate for the unjust tools are also those most sympathetic to the unjust ends. But defining the camp you dislike as the embodiment of its unjust tactic is illegitimate, inflammatory, and counterproductive; it is a maneuver taken by those who prefer being on a side to trying to end the competition.
In South Africa, things were slightly different because the conflict wasn’t between national groupings but races within a single nation, but the ANC would be, I think, very adverse to being described as “anti-White” because they were “pro-African”. I imagine they would describe (and I would concur) their agenda as “pro-African” and “pro-White.” If you’ve read Lani Guinier’s autobiography, she tells a story of a Republican Senator suspicious over her views on voting rights and democratic representation once tried to trip her up by asking her if her opinions applied to minority groups like South African Whites. She surprised him by saying, absolutely, it would.
Guinier, like the ANC (and like myself) recognized that justice for the oppressed only makes sense as part of a broader commitment to justice for all. Without that, liberation politics becomes vengeful, merely a question of whose ox gets gored, and one finds oneself uncomfortably aligned with the likes of Mugabe (sort of the ANC’s evil twin), or Hamas, who (very much unlike the ANC) would be quite comfortable describing themselves as anti-Israel in addition to being pro-Palestine.
There are many things that Palestinians say, do, or advocate for, that are unjust to Israeli Jews in a very objective, transcendent way. They deserve opposition, but it would not be justified for Israel’s defenders to use that as an excuse to be “anti-Palestinian”, “anti-Arab”, or “anti-Palestine” (as a concept, anyway, rather than “as applied” to particular policies). If I’m claiming that one should oppose injustice directed at them, or indirectly, at me, for any reason other than naked self-interest, I have to say that I am as “pro-Palestinian” as I am “pro-Israeli”, and support Palestinian self-determination as fervently as I do Jewish self-determination. There are many things that Israeli Jews say, do, or advocate for, that are unjust to Palestinians in a very objective, transcendent way. They deserve opposition, but it would not be justified for Palestine’s defenders to use that as an excuse to be “anti-Israeli”, “anti-Jewish”, or “anti-Israel” (as a concept, anyway, rather than “as applied” to particular policies).
True liberation comes from those who break past the idea that Africans and Whites, or Israelis and Palestinians, are implacably opposed to each other, and so one has to choose sides — you’re with me, or you’re against me. I refuse to choose, because I think it is in the interest of Israel that there be a safe, secure, and free Palestine, and because I think it is in the interest of Palestine that there be a safe, secure, and free Israel. In essence, I think people are (or ought to be) “interested” in their neighbors being able to live lives of dignity, and any conception of “interest” that doesn’t include that basic other-regard is not one I subscribe to.
Consequently, I am unabashedly pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, and pro-peace. I don’t see any other way.
Good Lord, even Ezra’s correction ignores us college teachers. Finkelstein lost his career; Larudee lost her job for defending him; Kassabian, at Fordham, dealt with the harassment she’d suffered by leaving the country; Holstun had his work disrupted for some time. Just to name the few I know. Thanks for standing up for us, Dr. Newman.
Josh: I am not sure if you are being sarcastic towards me or not.
David: I still think you’re being disingenuous regarding the point Barry was making; this does not need to be seen as a triage situation where what is going on in the UK needs to be treated before we talk about Campus Watch, but you make excellent points in your response to Jack.
David says he finds:
Like you, I’m against both these views.
But the latter view is basically non-existent in our Federal government, whereas the former view is very close to the only view ever expressed by national politicians, to the extent that Obama feels obliged to politically distance himself from people like Carter, Malley and Brzezinski.
And rather than taking seriously the problem of the US government being overwhelmingly dominated by a view you find “very, very scary,” you dismiss it with hand-waving. Given how consequential the near-banning of pro-Palestinian views from Congress is, I don’t think your dismissal is compatible with your concern for Palestinian rights or lives.
[Edited to clarify: I’m not saying that your concern for Palestinian lives is insincere. I’m saying that your views are contradictory in an unsustainable way.]
* * *
Finally, my “triage” statement (iirc) was particular to a situation — affirmative action — in which sometimes goods really are in conflict. We can’t have Affirmative Action to help (say) Mexican-American students if we decide that the very, very, very small harms to white students caused by AA is unacceptable. In that context, saying “you deal with Sue’s broken arm before Bob’s skinned knee” makes sense.
As Richard correctly points out, no such choice is necessary to make in the context you’re talking about. Your concern with discrimination against Israeli academics in the UK in no way requires you to dismiss my concern with attempts to harm the careers of pro-Palestinian academics in the US.
Regarding McKinney, I have cooled on her a bit because of that story, because I think politicians should make public statements in situations like this, where a bodyguard said an antisemitic statement — just as I think Obama should have made a public statement distancing himself from Jessie Jackson Jr’s misogyny.
However, just as I’m not willing to decide that Obama a misogynist because he failed to condemn Jessie Jackson Jr., I’m not willing to decide that McKinney is an antisemite — or anti-Israel — just because she’s failed to condemn what her bodyguard, or her father, has said.
But I do agree she acted badly, and she should have condemned her bodyguard’s statement (and her father’s statement years before). It was extremely disappointing to me that she did not.
The latter view is, thankfully, barely present in the USFG. The former view, unfortunately, has quite a few adherents. But it is not true, I think, to assert that there is no or virtually no political representation for those who share (roughly) our outlook — pro-Palestine, pro-Israel, pro-peace. I think the President rather clearly espouses it. The man he just appointed mid-east envoy (George Mitchell) also pretty clearly espouses it. J Street has its slate of Congresspersons who espouse it. And as Klein himself notes, all we really need to have a “balanced” policy towards Israel is to actually put some muscle behind what we already say Israel has to do. The table is already set, in other words, to get this discourse out.
So color me confused. There are a lot of Congresscritters who are pro-Israel and anti-Palestine, and that’s bad. There are some who are pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, and I think that’s good and what we want more of. It seems like you’re saying, though, that we need some anti-Israel, pro-Palestine voices to balance out the pro-Israel/anti-Palestine voices already present, even though you don’t really support that position either, in the hope that… what? The pro-Israel/pro-Palestine position shoots up the middle? I think that greater polarization would make the PI/PP position more tenuous, not less (as they’d inevitably start taking fire from both sides), and in any event where possible I’d rather pursue my political commitments directly, than hoping to bank shot them off a different type of bad actor.
I can’t imagine why it would “seem” that way, David, since I didn’t say that or anything like that. This frankly looks like you’re beating a strawman.
I think you’re right to say that the US could potentially change from its past habits and become, as they say, “an honest broker.” And there are a couple of encouraging signs. But I think it’s way, way too early to suggest that Obama has reversed the history of vastly unfair, one-sided US partianship in the Israel/Palestine conflict. Maybe you should wait for Obama’s second week before implying that there’s no longer reason for concern?
Roger Cohen points out, correctly, that if Obama’s middle east advisers and negotiators consisted mainly of distinguished Arab-Americans and Persian-Americans, without a single Jew, few would say that Obama was being fair or even-handed. I think it’s reasonable to say that the political pushback, from the media and from Congress, would be enough to make Obama rapidly change his mind. But no one is bothered by a team that consists nearly entirely of Jewish men, with (so far) not a single Arab-American, let alone a Palestinian-American. That may look “pro-Palestinian” to you, but it doesn’t look like it to me.
I’m not saying that Obama is a bigot. I’m saying that he’s part of our mainstream political culture, and our mainstream political culture is so enormously biased against Palestinians that exclusions and biases which would be unacceptable, were they against Israel or Jews, are both acceptable and for the most part invisible.
Really. Are they able to get a single bill, resolution or statement passed? Do they have any influence at all on the policy that actually happens? If so, I haven’t seen any sign of it.
There is nowhere near the kind of full-throated support for Palestinian lives and rights in Congress as there is for Israel; not even a hundredth. The imbalance is extreme and unfair and — again — would be absolutely unacceptable to many American Jews, and rightly so, if it went in the other direction.
[Edited to remove a single snarky sentence.]
The point is that the lack of the latter view (anti-I/pro-P) does not go from being a good thing to a bad thing simply because it might “balance” a different bad view (pro-I/anti-P). The absence is not “problematic”. What’s problematic is that there is some, but not enough, representation of the pro-I/pro-P stance.
But they are simply not null entities. J Street listed off around 45 Congresspersons (including 2 Republicans!) who released statements roughly in line with the values we want to see. To complain that these Congresspersons haven’t passed any bills in the first week of the new administration is a bit harsh. Particularly since the only concrete move that has come since Obama has taken office is the appointment of Mitchell as the mid-east point man, who has, concretely, criticized Israel quite seriously before (and has taken criticism from the rightward members of the Jewish community for it), is clearly in the pro-P/pro-I camp, and is, as it happens, a Lebanese-American, I think it might be just to take some of the thunder out here.
I think the election of a guy who once said that “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians” in the mid-east conflict (a true statement that I think in no way is inconsistent with being proP/proI), followed by his appointment of another guy who is quite clearly committed to a genuine pro-peace agenda to a key position, is a good sign that things are moving in the right direction. This isn’t to say we don’t need a much stronger consensus — of course we do, and the primary problems in the USFG are folks who are anti-Palestine. But we do have a not insignificant foothold, and I think it’s one we ought to be expanding on.
Because that foothold is present and real, I assumed that you did not consider it part of the positional framework you considered virtually entirely absent from (and in fact, politically lethal in) Washington, because it isn’t absent or lethal — it’s very present, has recently scored some key victories, and has some important momentum. I’m glad to see you’re onboard with them, but politically it doesn’t help them when they are dismissed as relevant, serious players by their friends.
So to sum: pro-I/anti-P — very prominent in Washington, extremely problematic — we’d like them to go away. Pro-I/Pro-P, also in Washington, obviously not as powerful as we’d like, but still quite present and scoring some important victories — we’d like to see them get bigger. Pro-P/anti-I — almost entirely absent from the political scene, and politically suicidal, but that’s not a bad thing. Focus on turning group one into group two, but don’t act like group two is nowhere to be found.
My take on the point Barry is trying to make is that while there is indeed a growing community in Washington that is Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine, Pro-Peace, Palestinians are not part of that group. Indeed they are very distinctly excluded, even if they too are Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine, Pro-Peace (someone like Rashid Khalidi, for example). How can any group possibly be truly Pro Palestinian without the presence of actual Palestinians?
Until Obama feels confident in having Palestinians — in addition to Jews — among his advisers — hell, even feels confident in publicly socializing with them — we will not have a Washington that is truly and authentically Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine, Pro-Peace.
Michelle: I think that is a very solid point. The appointment of Mitchell, a Lebanese American, is a step in the right direction (as a rejoinder to the idea that it’s impossible in America to appoint an Arab-American to that sort of position), but obviously Palestinians deserve their own voice at the table.
I’d be interested to see if and how J Street (to use one example — I don’t mean to keep waving them around as some saintly incarnation of right; they’re just the best example of the type of politics I want to see) incorporates Palestinian perspectives in their advocacy. Khalidi is someone whom I’d like to see back in the room. Any other candidates?
A couple off the top of my head would be Omar Dajani and Amjad Attallah (alas, the only woman I can think of at the moment is Laila Abu-Laghoud, though I think she sticks to the academy pretty much). IMEU has a nice list of prominent Palestinian-Americans, though only a handful would be part of negotiation/lobby work.
A Jewish group that I’ve been following for awhile and really like is Brit Tzedek v’Shaloam. Jewish Voice for Peace is also a good group, though I didn’t end up on their email list like I did with Brit Tzedek so haven’t followed them as closely. ::grin::
I was rather pleased with the appointment of George Mitchell. Not that I’m at all worried about this with Mitchell, but I will point out that Lebanese and Lebanese-Americans are not necessarily automatically pro-Palestinian. Some of the most Islamaphobic, anti-Arab racists I’ve known have been Maronite Lebanese.
Also in terms of Arab Americans in significant government positions, I would mention John Sununu, Bush I’s Chief of Staff was also of Lebanese descent. Lebanese (or Syrians as they used to be known) were the earliest Arabs to come to the US in the late 19th century/ early 20th and thus have become more part of the political infrastructure than other Arabs.
I hadn’t heard of these people — thank you! Prof. Abu-Laghoud will undoubtedly raise hackles stemming from her support of the academic boycott movement, however.
I wrote:
My google-foo was lacking; McKinney did in fact put a statement on her website distancing herself from those statements (and denying that the people in question worked for her).
I’m not trying to dredge an old thread, but the original instincts on Rep. McKinney seemed to have been borne out, as she’s been associating with some pretty nasty far-right figures spewing anti-Semitic bile.