Last week the Nation ran a piece dubious of academic boycott by Michelle Goldberg. Yesterday it published two more pieces, pro and contra: Alex Lubin’s call for the American Studies Association to pass a resolution for academic boycott of Israel and Ari Kelman’s piece against the measure.
So it would appear that the Nation has now published three Jewish writers on the matter. Let us be clear: This is a reflection of the importance of Jewish voices inside the left (an importance that our site also seeks to parlay). But let’s also be clear, these assignments reinforce an ugly color-bar on speech. Years ago, I asked, Do the goyim get to register an opinion on Walt and Mearsheimer (after virtually every review had been assigned to Jews). Indeed, when the late Tony Judt wrote positively about those authors in the New York Times, he was asked by editors to identify himself as Jewish. The editors knew: the piece would then carry weight inside the community they think matters the most.
On his twitter feed, Scott Roth, who is Jewish, says this discourse has to change. He wrote that “there should be Palestinian viewpoints on this issue” in the Nation. (And Roth is both our publisher and on The Nation’s team).
Lubin’s piece is excellent. It is plainspoken about why we single Israel out; and notice how Lubin walks right by the charged issue of Right of Return by describing Israeli policy as “forced exile.”
Boycotts are the weapons of the dispossessed; they are pleas for global solidarity from people who have few other forms of power. They are peaceful attempts to disrupt business as usual by setting up a global picket-line and by asking us not to cross that picket line. The ASA National Council has heeded Palestinians’ call for an academic boycott, and ASA members have been asked to give their endorsement.
The boycott movement has clearly defined goals of ending the occupation, ending discrimination against Palestinians with Israeli citizenship and ending forced exile and ongoing expulsion of Palestinians from their homes. All three of these place profound restrictions on Palestinian academic life….
As former ASA President Amy Kaplan has pointed out, the occupation is a de facto Israeli boycott of Palestinian academe, and Americans pick-up the bill. While the ASA boycott asks members not to establish relationships with Israeli institutions, it does not prevent Israeli scholars from attending the ASA conference, nor does it prevent ASA members from collaborating with Israeli scholars. Most importantly, the boycott acknowledges and seeks to address the actual and ongoing violation of Palestinian academic freedom.
The ASA boycott targets Israeli academia for legitimate reasons. The United States and Israel share a “special relationship” that links American taxpayers to Israeli state policies and hence to the occupation. Israel is the single largest recipient of US foreign aid, and the US has frequently used its veto in the United Nation’s Security Council to prevent international condemnation of Israeli violations of international law in the state’s treatment of Palestinians. In this way, the US is a third, indeed an interested, party to the Israeli occupation.
Don’t know where to put this. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is now discussing and questioning Kerry on the nuclear deal with Iran. It’s on CSPAN, 10-1240PM today.
Rep Brad Sherman (D Calif) is now saying Iran is getting lots of investors and its centrifuges are rolling. He’s saying it’s not safe to wait to employ more sanctions while Iran is churning out nuclear energy. Says we need to stop said energy being converted now during the interim deal. Kerry says Sherman’s setting up a straw man.
Kerry: We are committed to additional sanctions on Iran if we fail. I ask you not to do sanctions now. Iran has 19ooo centrifuges, which they are not allowed to hook up now. If they do, Iran knows we have the capacity to stop that militarily and that has not been taken off the table.
Rep Chris Smith (R NJ): US has abandoned (named) Christian imprisoned in Iran. Devastating US abandoned him in the Iran deal.
Kerry: We have not linked this directly to the nuclear deal. We didn’t want that play which Iran can counter. There are back channels we use.
Smith: The Christian is at risk of death now.
Kerry: We are trying our best.
Smith: Why trust Iran?
Kerry: It’s trust and verify. We believe the subject would be risky pawns.
Smith: Israel released four Iranians, was that linked?
Kerry: No. Iranians support terrorism, but that is not tied to Iran deal either because it’s a lower priority.
Rep Albio Sires (D, NJ): Who determines the timing of sanctions?
Kerry: We will. We will brief you in congress as we go along.
Sires: Will you say we need more time?
Kerry: There’s an outside chance we can do it in 6 months. We’d be reluctant to extend the time.
Sires: It will send a bad message if the time period is extended. I don’t know if this diplomatic effort is serious on part of Iran.
Kerry: It’s my job to lay down ways to measure that. This is based on test and verify.
Sires: Iranian regime doesn’t care what their own people think.
Kerry: The Iranian supreme leader is just that.
Rep Dana Rochrabacher (R Calif): He’s not even addressing the issue, going on about other stuff, not involving Iran, examples, he says of “test and verify” as groveling.
Rep Ted Deutch (D FLA): If we don’t set some marker saying if there’s no deal, 6 mo or 12, we should put sanctions in place in case there’s no deal. Why not make clear what will happen if Iran doesn’t deal?
Kerry: Iran knows what the stakes are. We told them no new sanctions during this deal; if congress makes some, it’s going off on its own. If they do, Iran has a right to object. We are negotiating so Iran doesn’t get nukes, not just to be negotiating.
Deutch: Let’s t it up with sanctions certain. Why not? Sanctions relief to export oil–
Kerry: We put in place for China, India, etc a place to get oil (Iran) when they really need it.
Rep Joe Wilson (R S Carolina). I agree with Bibi and Bolton this Iran agreement is a mistake, is putting S Arabia, Israel, Gulf states, etc at risk. Iran may have gained all the time it needs to have dozens of nukes. This is a bipartisan concern, the America people are concerned.
Kerry: Issue is what will we do about a sudden breakout (of Iranian nukes)?
Under our plan Iran is going in the contrary way, minimizing such a breakout.
Rep Ami Bera (D Calif): Given Iran’s history, we remain skeptical of Iran. Any agreement must lengthen nuclear breakout by Iran. How can we guarantee Iran won’t enrich above 3%?
Kerry: Purpose of our 1st step is to know with certainty what Iran is doing. They are allowing access to their underground and all nuke facilities. This framework allows us to assure Israel, and skeptical Arab states this is a peaceful Iranian program. It’s up to Iran to show us how far they will go to show us its a peaceful program.
Rep Michael McCaul (R TX): This deal sends message its ok for a state sponsor of terrorism to enrich. Iran can hit Israel and EU, and USA by 2015.
Iran is playing N Korea playbook & USA. Don’t lift any sanctions until Iran ends its nuclear enrichment of uranium.
Kerry: Iran is very limited in what it will be able to do. Iran has accepted severe restraints, limited to practical medical needs. It will not be possible for Iran to turn its enrichment to nuke weapons when this deal is done with Iran. This makes objectors more secure.
Rep Gerald Connolly (D VA): Why have an interim agreement when only a final agreement is effective?
Kerry: It’s not an interim agreement, but a first step towards a final agreement. We are not getting sucked into the N Korea trap. So we worked to hold things as they are until we can get more.
Connolly: What’s in it for Iran?
Kerry: Iran wants to get out from other sanctions; their economy is in shambles. The supreme leader was not the choice of Iran’s current president.
Rep Ted Poe (R TX): Re Iran’s IBMs–Israeli leaders told me those are being developed against US. Iran has a new smooth talker, but hangs his own people while doing so. Iran killed folks in Camp A–etc. Has the Supreme Leader changed his stance that Iran wants to eliminate Israel and USA.
Kerry: No. Do I believe? Iran’s rhetoric is dangerous and threatening, counterproductive.
Poe: Iran got a nuke bomb, would others in the region?
Kerry: Yes. Everybody plays to their constituency. While Obama is POTUS, Iran will not get a nuke bomb.
Rep JUan Vargas (D Calif)
I am totally against this Iran deal. We need a comprehensive deal. Why be naive?
Kerry: It’s not naive. I’ve been thinking about this for years. Ratcheting up the sanctions? The Russians, Chinese, Eu will not be with us on this. US Intel hardliners are not either. Iran won’t surrender to the Great Satan in such a case, because that’s all US understands. We are at a level of reasonableness that is new. Before war, better exhaust diplomacy, which we are doing–and the options to war remain, as always.
Rep Matt Salmon (R Ariz): Who will be accountable if Iran Deal fails?
Kerry: I’m hanging out there–I know I will be held accountable.
Salmon: With the $7B coming into Iran, will you assure me none of it will kill an American soldier?
Kerry: The money is fungible. I can’t promise this.
Salmon: Iran can get peace nuclear power by buying it abroad. A small quantity of 20% can be jacked up quickly.
Kerry: For 6 months they can’t do that. We think it’s important to sit down and try to resolve this.
Rep David Cicilline (D RI): Speak to Iran default on what they promised.
Kerry: Iran does not expect us to pass new sanctions during the 6 month.
Cicilline: What about the dual use issue? The widow allows this opportunity it seems to me.
He wrote that “there should be Palestinian viewpoints on this issue” in the Nation.
and other non jewish voices too (the vast majority of americans who prop up this criminal state are neither jews nor palestinians). our silence, or our perceived silence, is at the heart of the matter. because even if the nation publishes palestinian views that still sets up a discourse between jews and palestinians. and if we’re going to turn this thing around we need all the people.
maybe the nation doesn’t know any non jewish writers who care about this issue. maybe they don’t think it’s relevant what non jews think about the academic boycott.
i wonder how many voting members of the ASA are neither palestinians or jews. and would they be the majority of the voters? who are the majority of americans impacted by our country going down the drain supporting this criminal apartheid state and all their little whims, like iran sanctions and invading iraq.
Smith: The Christian is at risk of death now.
Kerry: We are trying our best.
Smith: Why trust Iran?
Bradley Manning had to make plea deal to avoid the death penalty right here in the land of the free and the home of the brave. In the dwindling number of countries that still have a death penalty, espionage is still considered a valid capital offense. If you don’t want the Iranians to view the USA as an enemy state, then you should probably stop adopting legal sanctions that it considers to be acts of war.
Of course Palestinians deserve a voice. And Walt, Mearsheimer, Chas Freeman, too, whose scars continue to warn off “neutral” intelligentsia about the cost of treating this issue as anything other than “Jews only.” Those who inflict those scars need to be held accountable, called out and shamed.
At least people are talking about this colorline, this racial demarcation zone.
Better than it being the 800-pound gorilla in the room which nobody wants to adress.
Remnick referred to it on the Charlie Rose discussion, where the three guests were all Jews, noting a complete lack of Palestinians even if the entire population under Israel’s control(Gaza, West Bank included) is 50% Palestinian.
Never the less, at least the Nation is debating the issue. Hopefully we will get to see what Munayyer has to say in the pages of the Nation, and not just a Jewish club, which tends to be the case on the Israeli/Palestine conflict in the American discourse.
But let’s not be hypocritical. I’ll freely admit I am more interesting in a Jewish site which is progressive on Middle Eastern issues than a site run by non-Jews. Because the basic framework, even if non-Zionist, is much more relevant to my personal experiences. But we should be open about this.