Trending Topics:

Five lessons from the struggle to reinstate Steven Salaita at the University of Illinois

Activism

At around 12:15 p.m. last Thursday word began circulating around the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) Campus that Arab-American scholar Steven Salaita’s appointment to the faculty had been voted down by the Board of Trustees.

Salaita, a distinguished scholar of six books, was fired by the University Chancellor two weeks before his appointment at UIUC was to begin because of pro-Israel and donor complaints about his tweets criticizing Israel’s massacre in Gaza.

But the scene at the reception of this news was anything but defeatist.

At the Alma Mater statue on campus, more than 250 people had gathered in protest against the University Administration, a many-headed hydra of UIUC’s angry, enraged and dispossessed.

They included members of the University’s AFSCME unit who were in the middle of a hard-fought contract negotiation with the administration.

They included members of the Campus Faculty Association, as well as the AFT/IFT/AAUP local 6546 of Non-Tenure Track Faculty, who had been hit with a “wage freeze” by the administration.

They included members of the University of Illinois Chicago faculty union who had driven 90 miles to show solidarity with their brothers and sisters at UIUC.

And they included a wide layer of students and faculty representing both the Graduate Employees Organization on campus, Students for Salaita, a support group, and an ad hoc faculty collective led by among others Robert Warrior, the head of American Indian Studies which had recruited and hired Salaita to his position.

As the rally got under way two things became clear:

First, that the University administration had been consistently arrogant across the board, alienating wide swaths of people—especially ones who did the hard work of keeping the campus running.  Staff members had been disrespected, faculty members had been denied their say. And now the Board of Trustees—an elite group— who had never taught a class on campus or kept a departmental office functional, got to put their final seal on the hire decision of a preeminent scholar.

Second, that the campus had figured out a way to fight these multiple crimes of their administrators.  They had put in organizing practice the old slogan: an injury to one is an injury to all.

A scene from the protest at the Alma Mater statue on campus where more than 250 people gathered to protest the university administration. (Photo: Facebook)

A scene from the protest at the Alma Mater statue on campus where more than 250 people gathered to protest the university administration. (Photo: Facebook)

As we stood there listening to speaker after speaker connect the threads between Salaita’s firing, Apartheid Israel and the violation of labor rights at home—we realized that these people at UIUC was showing us something important: they were showing us the way to a new social movement that could constitute a fighting force against neoliberalism, both at home and abroad.

So here are five lessons we learnt from our friends and colleagues at UIUC campus that day:

1. A broad Struggle is needed against Neoliberal University Administrators because they Serve Political interests not Academic Ones

The convergence of the Salaita firing and attacks on workers at UIUC had made clear to all that the University administration was in many ways a proxy for an American political elite whose agenda they were defending.

What people were realizing is that the contours of academia were no protection from a political class determined to run roughshod over campus democracy.

As we have argued in Electronic Intifada recently, the decision making process about whether the Arab American scholar Steven Salaita could teach at UIUC, branched out all the way from the Chancellor Phyllis Wise’s office, through Chris Kennedy’s business empire, and on to the Illinois Governor Pat Quinn’s junkets to Israel.   As has been documented as well, pro-Israel donors and advocates made clear to the University that they didn’t want Salaita on campus.  This is politics, pure and simple.

2. Labor Organizing Cannot be blind to Palestine

Traditionally, US Labor leaders have urged their members to shut their eyes to this panoramic view of US imperial interests and how such interests have affected wages and working conditions at home.

In 2009, newly elected AFL-CIO President, Richard L. Trumka stood before the Jewish Labor Committee to denounce efforts to boycott Israel.

Significantly, Trumka’s attack on the boycott of Israeli apartheid and Occupation echoed charges of anti-semitism that have been used by Steven Salaita’s detractors like the Anti-Defamation League which lobbied UIUC President Robert Easter to fire Salaita.

For someone entrusted with leading the struggle of ordinary people against powerful interests, Trumka most irresponsibly tried to squash all resistance by Palestinian supporters against Israel by equating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism.

Luckily, rank and file union activists have not always followed this path dictated by their leaders.

The longshoremen union, ILWU in Oakland, recently refused to cross a community picket line set up by Palestinian and Occupy activists, an action that stopped an Israeli ship from docking at the port.  The ILWU have had a proud history of engaging in similar actions. In 1978 and 1980, ILWU refused to load military cargo headed for Chile and El Salvador. And in 1984, most famously, the union refused to unload a South African ship for eleven days.

3. An Injury to One is always an Injury to All; Palestine is not an exception

This kind of inspiring intersectional solidarity between struggles was on full display at UIUC last Thursday.

For example, Robert Warrior, Chair of American Indian Studies at UIUC, argued for the importance of continuing to connect the struggles of unionized AFSCME workers on campus to the fight for faculty governance and Salaita’s reinstatement.

As speakers mounted their attacks on the University administration, American Federation of Teacher campus organizer, Anne Dietz-LaVoie, outlined for us how solidarity formed the connecting tissue between the various struggles on campus.

The same administration, Ms. Dietz-LaVoie said, that was “disregarding shared governance, squelching academic freedom… or going against their own process to ‘de-hire’ someone based on personal communication rather than scholarly attributes ” was the very same one that was “freezing non-tenure track wages [and] refusing to bargain with them.”

We asked her how the Occupation of Palestine or the question of Israeli Apartheid has affected the labor contract battles on campus.

“I think”, said Dietz-LaVoie, “any time people stand up for what they believe to be a just and right course it does nothing but good. So for us, having people who are linking multiple tough issues together, and saying there is still a common solution you can have, has given us a lot of motivation and energy.”

This creative labor organizer is pointing to an important approach to organizing working people, namely that the working person’s struggle for a better life extends beyond the workplace.

Dietz-LaVoie told us, any good labor organizer knows that organizing workers must not be limited either to the work place alone or between 9 am and 5pm because attacks on the community are part of any working person’s life.  So school closing, police shootings, reduced public services due to war spending— are all part of the fabric of workers’ lives.  Community organizing and workplace organizing should learn from each other and when the need arises, act in concert.

4. Tearing down Organizational Silos

This idea of a deep and braided struggle was echoed by UIUC Ph.D. student Julie Laut, who told us she planned to put up signs in super markets saying “Steven Salaita can be my neighbor.”

Julie’s idea was a reminder that since the beginning of Operation Protective Edge we have seen emerge new forms of solidarity and public consciousness that has refused to stay in traditional organizational silos.

Who can forget Palestinians tweeting out support for Ferguson residents under siege, or Ferguson residents referring to police seizure as “Occupation” and strolling streets waving Palestinian flags.

The inspiring Ferguson-Palestine example, however, also helps us understand what we are up against.  While public consciousness of intersecting oppressions has never been higher, the structures in which people are currently organizing their resistance remain discrete.

We need new social formations and new social movements in which the fight against Islamophobia and racism is seen to be as important and central to the fight for workers’ rights.

We need existing structures that fight injustice, like Richard Trumka’s AFL-CIO, to understand that smashing Zionism and Israeli apartheid are actual building blocks of labor solidarity.

That is why we are heartened by the resolution passed this week by the Trade Union Congress, the national federation of trade unions in England and Wales (roughly equivalent to the AFL-CIO) to “increase the pressure on Israel to end its occupation of all Palestinian territories, the TUC, working in conjunction with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, is calling for a targeted consumer boycott of goods from the illegal Israel settlements.”

photo (4)5. “Our Masters are Joined Together and We Must Do the Same Thing”

If Steven is not reinstated to his position at the University of Illinois, it will not just be a blow to workers’ rights on campus, a blow to academic freedom, or a blow to the cause of Palestinian struggle.  It will be blow to all of them.

As the UIUC campus is showing us, solidarity between our various struggles is not an optional nicety—it is the only specter that can haunt the bosses of our Zionist-Neoliberal University.

Tithi Bhattacharya and Bill V Mullen
About Tithi Bhattacharya and Bill V. Mullen

Tithi Bhattacharya is a Professor of South Asian History at Purdue University, a long time activist for Palestinian justice and on the editorial board of the International Socialist Review. Bill V. Mullen is a Professor of American Studies at Purdue University. He is the author of many books a member of the organizing committee for the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI).

Other posts by .


Posted In:

73 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    September 15, 2014, 9:49 am

    UIUC will try to divide these fine people. And to conquer these groups, one by one. That is what power does.

    The Salaita matter made blatant and very public what “power” (capitalism, big-money political donors, big-money educational donors, who so openly regard themselves the masters of our society that they don’t trouble to hide their machinations) does and how it does it.

    These people are right to seek a broad coalition. Power has become absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It’s no joke.

    Power, instead, to the people!

  2. hophmi
    hophmi
    September 15, 2014, 11:17 am

    “As the UIUC campus is showing us, solidarity between our various struggles is not an optional nicety—it is the only specter that can haunt the bosses of our Zionist-Neoliberal University. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/struggle-reinstate-university#sthash.pLNgmEef.dpuf

    Jeez. With screeds like this, I can’t imagine why the Salaita affairs failed completely to penetrate any mainstream consciousness.

    Maybe you should tell a few more lies about the “Zionist-neoliberal university (whatever the hell that means), and you’ll have more success.

  3. Prof Ethan
    Prof Ethan
    September 15, 2014, 12:10 pm

    No intelligent discussion of the Salaita case is possible unless it is acknowledged that Salaita has written provably anti-semitic statements. Otherwise all discussion goes forward on false premises..

    Never mind the tweets. Here is a collection of evidence from his publications. I am not claiming originality here–just displaying what has been discovered.

    In “Israel’s Dead Soul” (his book in 2011) in the chapter on the Anti-Defamation League, Salaita wrote that “It is worth noting that numerous cases of antisemitic valdalism in 2007 and 2008 were found to actually have been committed by Jews” (p. 45).

    A very serious accusation, no? (and he’s not talking about israelis, or the israeli govt–he’s talking about JEWS.)

    There were about 630 cases of antisemitism reported in 2007 and 2008. Salaita cites a total of four. First of all–is that “numerous”?

    But second, in two of those four cases in the footnotes (pp. 146-147), Salaita INVENTS nefarious sneaky Jews. In one case, a girl had carved a swastika into her own leg. But the BBC report which Salaita cites says she was a German (and the incident had nothing to do with Jews at all). [The recent Tablet article said that the ethnicity of the girl wasn’t mentioned on the BBC; this is incorrect.] Salaita here simply invented a sneaky nefarious Jew.

    A second case is Ivan Ivanov. Salaita describes it this way: Ivanov, “a Bulgarian Jew in Brooklyn was arrested in January 2008, for numerous instances of spray painting anti-Semitic graffiti on houses, vehicles, and synagogues. The New York Times reported that Ivanov was trained by the Mossad.”

    In fact, what the Times reported was that Ivanov told police that he was ITALIAN by birth, raised in Bulgaria and CLAIMED to have been trained by the Mossad. Here, too, Salaita had created a sneaky nefarious Jew –this time by falsifying a Times story in order to use the prestige of the Times to support his general thesis of Jews concocting antisemitic incidents– as if the Times had reported as a fact that Ivanov had been trained by Mossad. In fact, what the Times reported was merely the likely delusional account of a troubled man.

    Inventing false nefarious Jews in order to support a general accusation against Jews–that’s Exhibit A of antisemitism.

    And we also now have a candidate for a position who has falsified data in order to “prove” his general thesis. (Of course the thesis itself–that Jews invent numerous antisemitic incidents–is itselt antisemitic.) You want him training your graduate students in the use of sources?

    And then there’s THIS, first pointed out by Martin Kramer:

    Salaita in “Israel’s Dead Soul”, writes the following: “It is well known by Palestinians that anytime one of them enters or exits Israel, regardless of nationality, he or she will likely undergo an anal or vaginal probe. These probes… aren’t intended to be pragmatic. They are acts of psychological domineering and political assertion.”

    This accusation is (a) sheer invention. And (b) the sexual imagery is traditional antisemitism: right out of Der Sturmer or “Jude Suss.”

    Those who read Salaita’s tweets became worried. They were right. The antisemitic statements here form the *context* of the over-the-top tweets

    • annie
      annie
      September 15, 2014, 12:24 pm

      he’s not talking about israelis, or the israeli govt–he’s talking about JEWS.

      and if they were jewish how is that deceptive or anti semitic? did he imply all jews? no. for example, are these article deceptive because it mentions the perps were jewish? http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jewish-man-who-spoke-gaza-7732352 https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jewish-mob-force-anti-zionist-jew-manchester-home-104123414.html#q38E6ou
      should it have referenced british mobs instead? i’m not following you. and why is citing only 4 sources as examples not enough. it’s common to not list every single incident when citing examples of circumstances.

    • annie
      annie
      September 15, 2014, 12:27 pm

      No intelligent discussion of the Salaita case is possible unless it is acknowledged that Salaita has written provably anti-semitic statements.

      iow, No intelligent discussion of the Salaita case is possible unless we concede you’re right first? so why are you here discussing salaita? why not go to site where everyone agrees with you already? or maybe you’re just into having, by your own standards, non-intelligent discussions.

    • annie
      annie
      September 15, 2014, 12:48 pm

      There were about 630 cases of antisemitism reported in 2007 and 2008. Salaita cites a total of four. First of all–is that “numerous”?

      But second, in two of those four cases in the footnotes (pp. 146-147), Salaita INVENTS nefarious sneaky Jews. In one case, a girl had carved a swastika into her own leg.

      first of all, i highly doubt that is his wording “nefarious sneaky Jews”, second, you have not established, in the case of the german girl who carved a swastica into her leg, that his writing was anti semitic. since you appear to have the book, assuming you are not just copying someone else’s accusations. could you please cite the paragraph or at least the sentence, specifically, prior to the footnote? if he wrote she was jewish, and she was not and that is not backed up by any news reports, perhaps the point he was making was that some of the incidents were fabrications. why are you stating he’s fabricating nefarious sneaky jews when his point seems to be that not all of these anti semitic attacks are what they are reported to be?

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        September 15, 2014, 3:08 pm

        It sounds to me that, on the evidence presented, Salaita’s style is rhetorical to the point of being, in certain respects, misleading: which does not exclude the possibility that he draws attention successfully to certain important points which people who write a more dry and more careful style might not convey.
        His citation of four discovered pseudo-incidents may not in itself be enough to justify, without more ado, his use of the word ‘numerous’: he presumably believes that it is enough to suggest that quite a few more incidents were pseudo-incidents but have not been identified as such. That is at least worth thinking about.
        His statement that probes are ‘likely’ may convey the impression that any Palestinian traveller has a more than 50% chance of being probed. I had a quick look at stories about Israeli airport security and came up with an entry for Feb. this year in Haaretz about a female teacher from Eilat at whose treatment the Haaretz journalist waxed indignant and another about successful legal action by two brothers who had been subjected to the supervision of a female agent – causing a dispute which became rather sharp when one of them wanted to go to the bathroom. These cases had caused great complaint, but not even they mentioned probes (but then I couldn’t read the entire Haaretz article because of the paywall) – which seemed to me to be enough evidence to suggest that the probability of being probed is fairly low: though surely not zero.
        It was also enough to convince me that a Palestinian planning to use an Israeli airport has to prepare him/herself for a thoroughly unpleasant experience – there is sufficient probability to make that preparation reasonable – which may even include an element with rather blatant sexual overtones. The important thing is, of course, that this treatment exists and is a disgrace. The important thing is not that Salaita uses language that might mislead in certain respects.
        The use made of the idea that ‘this recalls what anti-Semites have said’ is excessive. It is hard to see how any objection can be made to anything done by anyone who is Jewish without in some sense recalling at least some words or ideas used by people who objected to everything done by anyone who was Jewish.
        If I said that the sexual overtones sometimes evident in Israeli treatment of Palestinians at airports recalls the extremely negative sentiments about non-Jewish women found in the Book of Proverbs I would expect to be told that airport security has to be considered on its own merits in the contemporary world – and that it makes no difference whether the Book of Proverbs (whose influence on the situation may well be nil) was excessive in its view of non-Jewish people.
        I do not think we have even the beginnings of a case for terminating Salaita.

      • justicewillprevail
        justicewillprevail
        September 15, 2014, 5:20 pm

        He’s copying and pasting from a negative review by someone called Liel Leibovitz

        http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183813/steven-salaita-academic-work

        The prof doesn’t do attribution, apparently

      • Prof Ethan
        Prof Ethan
        September 15, 2014, 6:38 pm

        Justice, you can’t read: In my original posting, I wrote explicitly that I didn’t claim originality here. But in any case, I pointed out in the origianl posting that the Tablet article was incorrect in some respects–that is, I referred to the Tablet article. Nor does the Tablet article have any material about Salaita’s accusation of Jewish sexual violation of men and women–which I do. You’re off base.

      • justicewillprevail
        justicewillprevail
        September 15, 2014, 7:32 pm

        I take the prof hasn’t actually read the book in question, since he is relying on hearsay ‘evidence’ about two footnotes which he appears to think is the sum total of the book’s arguments.

      • annie
        annie
        September 16, 2014, 2:12 am

        I take the prof hasn’t actually read the book in question, since he is relying on hearsay ‘evidence’ about two footnotes which he appears to think is the sum total of the book’s arguments. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/struggle-reinstate-university/comment-page-1#comment-710088

        thanks jwp. i also notice he has not, or is unable to address my request assuming you are not just copying someone else’s accusations. could you please cite the paragraph or at least the sentence, specifically, prior to the footnote? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/struggle-reinstate-university/comment-page-1#comment-710088

        so it looks like we’re dealing with unsourced heresay.

        He’s copying and pasting from a negative review by someone called Liel Leibovitz – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/struggle-reinstate-university/comment-page-1#comment-710088

        ah. i noticed he referenced the tablet article wrt the german girl, didn’t link to it and gave no indication he was copy pasting or even referencing that article. interestingly, Leibovitz makes the claim/ accusation “any serious academic would agree, something is worth noting if it represents a statistically significant occurrence; in the footnote purporting to support his claim Salaita provides no concrete numbers for how many cases of anti-Semitic vandalism ”

        but that’s not true. if something is worth noting, if it represents a significant occurrence, the footnote should provide evidence. and notice that Leibovitz, while providing numbers, provides no evidence whatsoever, besides a link, that provides completely unsourced numbers. it tells us nothing but allegations. whereas off the top of my head i can think of numerous times i have heard of threats (including murder) of left wing jews. here is Leibovitz’s source. http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/main/showNews/id/7384

        and the history of zionism and the ‘gathering of jews’ from arab countries to palestine to necessitate a labor force w/a little help from mossad is compelling. plus the offers to ‘trade’ jewish populations in arab states such as iraq (governed by a british tool at the time) for palestinians, they’ve frequently engaged in trading violence against jews to further the zionist cause. i was just reading about how that happened in morocco circa 56 earlier today.

        anyway, no source, copy/paste/rumors and allegation from a pro israel advocate is nothing but allegations.

        anyone who has watched the movie defamation knows how ADL goes about collecting (alleged) anti semitic statistics.

      • tree
        tree
        September 16, 2014, 5:58 am

        There were about 630 cases of antisemitism reported in 2007 and 2008. Salaita cites a total of four. First of all–is that “numerous”?

        Annie, the “Prof” also makes an error here in understanding how anti-semitic vandalism is reported and counted. It isn’t counted by the number of people who commit the vandalism but by number of individual acts of vandalism, regardless of how many people may be involved in perpetrating them.

        So, in other words, the vandalism committed by Ivaylo Ivanov (the correct name used in the NY Times and other sources for the suspect, and later convict) included at least 23 instances of vandalism according to the NY Daily News, and perhaps as many as 90 or more. He was charged on a 100 count indictment, but a few of those counts would have been related to the explosives found in his home, and the false report he filed claiming someone had shot his finger.

        So, contrary to this commenter’s assertion that Salaita only mentioned 4 cases, the Ivanov vandalism alone would have included somewhere between 23 and 90-ish separate acts of vandalism.

        And Ivanov was identified early on as Jewish by his attorney, although Prof Eitan fails to mention that fact, and implies that Salaita simply “fabricated” Ivanov’s Jewishness.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/nyregion/22arrest.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

      • Prof Ethan
        Prof Ethan
        September 16, 2014, 6:43 am

        1. Giles, Annie, Justice, and Others: I provided the page number for the original statement and quoted it, and the number of the page footnote page. Can’t you read? Did Tablet do this? Yes or no?
        Case closed.

        2. It doesn’t matter what Ivanov’s lawyer said–(a) he’s trying to get his client off any way he can, and (b) Salaita was depending on the NYTimes, not on Ivanov’s lawyer. Salaita’s talking about Jews faking antisemitic incidents and claimed the NYT as his source of information.

        But the Times identified Ivanov as an Italian. Salaita claimed the Times identified Ivanov as a veteran of Mossad. But the Times did not: it only reported that Ivanov *claimed* to have been trained about Mossad.

        (c) Salaita claimed the swastika girl as a Jew on the basis of the BBC. Period. But the BBC identified her as a German. (Not, as Tablet said, with no ethnic identification at all). Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7730125.stm, 14 November 2008.

        Annie: Salaita’s whole point is that these anti-semitic incidents are made up by Jews (p. 45). Not that they are fabricated in general. You can’t escape the facts that way!

        Annie: Salaita was writing about the ADL in that chapter. He’s depending on ADL numbers himself. It’s too late to raise doubts about them the way you do. In any case, the FBI statistics are in the same range as ADL: 1,100 antisemitic hate crimes (only actual crimes–not the broader “acts”) for 2008. But now you’ll go into a rant about the FBI, I suppose.

        Annie’s 2:15 a.m. devolves into an anti-Zionist rant that has nothing to do with the subject of Salaita (with no sources given herself–unlike me, who has given exact citations for my assertions)

        The Sixth Lesson: serious people should look carefully before they think they’ve found a martyr to champion. That is, if you are serious.

        .

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 11:07 am

        “And Ivanov was identified early on as Jewish by his attorney, although Prof Eitan fails to mention that fact, and implies that Salaita simply “fabricated” Ivanov’s Jewishness.”

        I’m sorry, this is tangential, but it just occurred to me, and I’m simply howling over it!
        Think about it:

        Can anybody truly be an authentic, ‘unfabricated’ Jew, if they don’t have a valid Israeli identity card?.

      • tree
        tree
        September 17, 2014, 5:15 am

        It doesn’t matter what Ivanov’s lawyer said–(a) he’s trying to get his client off any way he can, and (b) Salaita was depending on the NYTimes, not on Ivanov’s lawyer. Salaita’s talking about Jews faking antisemitic incidents and claimed the NYT as his source of information.

        But the Times identified Ivanov as an Italian. Salaita claimed the Times identified Ivanov as a veteran of Mossad. But the Times did not: it only reported that Ivanov *claimed* to have been trained about Mossad.

        This is a perfect example of your double standard. You say the Times identified Ivanov as an Italian. But the Times only indicated that Ivanov said he was Italian, just as he said he was trained by the Mossad, and just as his lawyer said that he was Jewish. You take the reportage of what Ivanov said as the truth and a proven fact when it comes to his Italian heritage, but then use a different standard with respect to a similar claim from the same source, Ivanov, that he was trained by Mossad, and the same source, once removed, that he was Jewish. The Times, in its reporting simply stated what Ivanov, or his lawyer, said about his background. If you are going to disbeleive what he said, then there is no more proof that he was Italian then there was that he was Jewish.

        You also seem to think that either being Italian, or claiming to be Italian, precludes one from being Jewish as well. You seem overall to be quite confused and flailing with your argument, and haven’t addressed the fact that Ivanov committed acts of anti-semitic vandalism that numbered in the double digits, not just one act, thus his acts alone constitute “numerous” acts, as described by Salaita.

    • marc b.
      marc b.
      September 15, 2014, 1:10 pm

      In “Israel’s Dead Soul” (his book in 2011) in the chapter on the Anti-Defamation League, Salaita wrote that “It is worth noting that numerous cases of antisemitic valdalism in 2007 and 2008 were found to actually have been committed by Jews” (p. 45). A very serious accusation, no? (and he’s not talking about israelis, or the israeli govt–he’s talking about JEWS.) There were about 630 cases of antisemitism reported in 2007 and 2008. Salaita cites a total of four. First of all–is that “numerous”?

      is he really, is he really talking about JEWS? (cap lock). and is it you, or Salaita, that conflates ‘cases of anti-Semitism in 2007 and 2008’ with ‘cases of anti-Semitic vandalism in 2007 and 2008’?

      • Prof Ethan
        Prof Ethan
        September 15, 2014, 3:52 pm

        M. Hughes, Salaita says “Likely”: that is clearly untrue, and you have come up with one specific case. You fail to inform the readers that acc to Haaretz there was no strip search of this person; you might have said so, to avoid any wrong impression. Your argument is that Salaita’s rhetoric is excessive. The sexual description is also I suppose a bit rhetorically excessive–but why is it there at all, except to stir up anger at sexual penetration by the evil ones? All of this is excessive –and it is excessive in only one direction.

        Marc b: “Numerous” certainly should mean more than “four.” Moreover, in fact it is only *two* because the other two incidents of lying Jews are invented. And he says these false incidents were “committed by Jews.” So by what subtlety do you question that he’s not talking about Jews? (This is Jews–as opposed to Israelis or the Israeli govt).

        Annie Robbins, Salaita said that the girl who carved a swastika on her leg was Jewish, as part of his proof of “numerous” cases of Jews inventing anti-semitism. She wasn’t Jewish. Inventing lying Jews is anti-semitic.

        Annie Robbins: I didn’t simply make the initial statement that we can’t discuss Salaita unless we know all the facts;, I then backed that statement up with specific citations.

        Annie Robbins: Salaita cited the invented Jewish girl to SUPPORT the following general statement: “It is worth noting that numerous cases of antisemitic valdalism in 2007 and 2008 were found to actually have been committed by Jews” (p. 45). He invented the Jew Ivanov, trained by Mossad, in order do the same thing

        I must say that when I posted a version of this list of citations on CHE, one of my interlocutors was disbelieving, ran to the library, and came back and said, “You are accurate. I am not going to war for this guy.” That is a reasonable reaction.

      • annie
        annie
        September 16, 2014, 2:27 am

        Annie Robbins, Salaita said that the girl who carved a swastika on her leg was Jewish – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/struggle-reinstate-university/comment-page-1#comment-710098

        according to whom? not you presumably because you are just copy pasting! can you provide some source for this that provides a quote? or don’t you do source links “prof” ethan (ha, professor my a**)

      • bilal a
        bilal a
        September 17, 2014, 4:39 am

        Talking about Zionist Vandalism:

        Israeli air su and medical support to al nusrah

        Video: after Al-Nusra Front’s success in the Golan Heights, Syrian ambassador to UN accuses Israel and Qatar of assisting the rebels.
        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/185186#.VBlHjxY1PAw

    • September 15, 2014, 4:28 pm

      And what punishment for all those professors and politicians and Jewish “leaders” who frequently make anti-Muslim statements? I mean, for real. Not some made up anti-Semitic stuff.

      • Prof Ethan
        Prof Ethan
        September 15, 2014, 4:35 pm

        I don’t think we give them tenured positions in American Indian Studies.

      • annie
        annie
        September 16, 2014, 2:19 am

        I don’t think we give them tenured positions in American Indian Studies. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/struggle-reinstate-university/comment-page-1#comment-710097

        ha ha ha! and how long was the known islamophobe marty peretz tenured at harvard!! is this a joke?

      • Prof Ethan
        Prof Ethan
        September 16, 2014, 7:34 am

        Peretz was not a Professor of American Indian Studies. He had a Ph.D. in government and he worked as a lecturer in social studies (NOT Islam) at Harvard–perfectly reasonable, given the field of his Ph.D.

        Salaita’s work is primarily on Palestine, and on Arab Americans, not primarily on American Indians. His Ph.D. is in English. The Chair of AIS at Illinois was on Salaita’s dissertation committee and is a personal friend and close ally in BDS. The “national search” which came up with Salaita was corrupt from the beginning, on grounds of personal favoritism and political alliance.

        Salaita’s qualifications for the position he was offered were minimal. Again, I do not claim originality in what follows. But anyone who is “anti-colonialist” should really take note (though I doubt people will care on mondoweiss..).

        Salaita is not really engaged in scholarship in the subject for which he was hired. To the extent he pays any attention to any Native American issues at all, it is to make very generalized and somewhat mythologized stereotypes about Native Americans for purposes of drawing analogies in political essays about his real subject, the Palestinians, rather than to investigate Native Americans for themselves or attempt to describe them in their own merits. He actually *admits* that this has been his approach in his article, “The Ethics of Intercultural Approaches to Indigenous Studies: Conjoining Nataives and Palestinians in Context,” in lInternational Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, vol. 1 (2008), p. 7.

        That is, the only reason he pays attention to Native Americans is for purposes of exploiting them for is own ideological purpose. That is, he relates to Native Americans in a strictly colonialist way, strictly as objects to be used–not as unique peoples and cultures to be known in their own right.

        The guy has done little research on American Indians, no archival research (only widely published material: frankly, I’ve done more archival research in this field than Salaita, and it’s not my primary field either). And what Salaita has written about Native Americans is completely tangential to his main focus; he has found an ‘esoteric” way to use them as stand-ins for Palestinians in the furtherance of his narrative that the Jews are the worst people on Earth. Thus, clearly, he is qualified to teach Native American studies at the most prestigious university in the University of Illinois system!

        As a colleague who is himself a minority said to me 20 years ago: “If the Humanities Depts do not stop making completely irresponsible hires, there is going to be a blowback. And it won’t be pretty.” And that is where we are now.

        bests,

    • September 15, 2014, 4:55 pm

      A couple of more points on Ethan’s comment.

      1. Your accusation of anti-Semitic comments refer to things that took place before Professor Salaita was offered a job. It was not until his tweets during the Gaza massacre that the wealthy Jewish donor contacted the school and told them to get rid of Salaita — with the “or else” made either explicitly or implicitly. Hence, your argument has nothing at all to do with what took place. Just more nonsensical hasbara.

      2. The prof states that numerous such acts were committed by Jews and gives 4 examples. You then spin this to pretend he only knows of 4 such incidents and is being disingenuous by calling 4 acts out of 630 numerous. This is yet more dishonesty not from the professor but from you. I don’t spend my time documenting such things but from memory and google alone I can find dozens of incidents that were alleged acts of anti-Semitism that were perpetrated by Jews. Clearly the word numerous fits. And I bet if we were to go thru the alleged 630 acts of anti-Semitism, we would find that many, if not most, were fabricated. Recently at a school, for example, in the Boston area some kids drew a Christian cross on their school and we were all treated to a day of two of tv, internet, and newspaper reports of this “anti-Semitic” act. Watch the Israeli film “Defamation” where the writer tries to actually gets some detail on all these alleged acts of anti-Semitism from the ADL. Watch the Rudoren / Foxman tape where Foxman pines for the old days when actual acts of anti-Semitism took place.

      • Prof Ethan
        Prof Ethan
        September 15, 2014, 6:35 pm

        1. Giles: At Illinois, a Departmental offer letter that says “subject to the approval of the Board of Trustees” is not a contract. This will no doubt be debated in court, but it looks as if the hiring process was stopped by the Chancellor, and the hiring process certainly now has been rejected by the Board. He wasn’t fired because he wasn’t hired–though again, no doubt this will be debated.

        What is clear is that this Board is no rubber stamp. A coupla years ago they rejected Professor Emeritus status for Billy Ayers–though normally this is much more pro forma than approving a hire. Again, it was something it was discovered that Ayers had written–namely, a dedication of the Weather Underground book “Prairie Fire” to Sirhan Sirhan (among many others)–that is, the murderer of the father of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. This was a cause celebre on the Left and it is hard to believe that Salaita didn’t know about it.
        The approval of the Board was no pro forma matter. It has now rejected Salaita.

        2. Giles: You say you have dozens of alleged acts of anti-semitism “perpetrated by Jews”. This raises questions, all right–about you. But in any case Salaita had four–and only four. It’s his book. And two of his examples were false accusations. Thus he invented lying Jews to make his case. You can’t get around it.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        September 16, 2014, 11:16 am

        five lessons about the ‘professor’:

        1. his use of ex post facto rationalizations for Salaita’s firing is instructive. although Salaita was properly, thoroughly vetted and approved as a candidate by late 2013, including by Wise, the ‘professor’ attempts to smear Salaita retrospectively. red herring.
        2. his use of Martin Kramer ( Martin Effing Kramer) as an objective source of analysis is also instructive, professor Kramer of the ‘let them eat 1000 calories a day’ school of engagement with Gaza.
        3. his reflexive resort to the anti-Semitism card. thus, reference to sexual abuse of gentiles by jews is incontrovertible evidence of anti-Semitism. this despite the fact that there is a documented history of the Israeli security services sexually assaulting or threatening the sexual assault of persons in their custody, to include juveniles.
        4. his ignorance of or minimization of provocations. ‘we’ were just treated to the history of a jewish ivy league grad who posted anti-Semitic and otherwise incendiary commentary at Common Dreams, and other less savory sites, using multiple identities, all in service of the ‘new anti-Semitism’ meme.
        5. the conflation of Israel and ‘the Jews’, and the inclusion of such logic into analysis of current trends of anti-Semitism, renders useless the statistics compiled on anti-Semitism.

    • annie
      annie
      September 16, 2014, 2:15 am

      There were about 630 cases of antisemitism reported in 2007 and 2008.

      and you cite none, and you want to be taken seriously?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 11:10 am

        “and you cite none, and you want to be taken seriously?”

        Gosh, I would think a man who styles himself “Prof” is very serious about being taken seriously.

        Dad, he’s serious!

      • September 16, 2014, 7:30 pm

        Annie.

        You know that the reflexive Zionist apologists demand detailed sourcing of any claim made by anyone not sharing their view yet are not required to give any proof at all for their claims.

        And again Ethan lies (that is becoming a true refrain). Saying that I claimed that I “have dozens of anti-Semitic acts committed by Jews. I am not sure what he means by my “having” these claims but this is clearly not what I said. I do know that he then goes onto call me an anti-Semite (“This raises question all right — about you”). Gee. That’s novel for his ilk — accusation of anti-Semite. IN any event, I made it clear that anyone with a computer and knowledge of how to use google can find dozens of such incidents for himself. Something Ethan clearly does not want to do.

        So I have done it for him.

        Here is what I found in five minutes.

        Listing these really is besides the point but I do want to document my assertion. Ethan demands it.

        In 2010, a Jewish student complained to the George Washington University administration, as well as the local media, that she had been a victim of a hate crime. She told reporters that swastikas kept popping up on her dorm room door for no apparent reason. Seemingly appalled and frightened by the incident, the student was cooperating with the subsequent FBI investigation; that is until a dorm room camera revealed that the alleged victim was actually painting swastikas on her own door.

        — Al Rubin and his son Steven were sentenced to prison for arranging to have the Hillel Community Day School, where Steven worked, vandalized with anti-Semitic slogans. The pair aimed to profit from the expected repair work. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/971103/archive_008173.htm

        In Cooper City, Fla., Jerry and Jamie Roedel were accused of defacing their home with swastikas and other signs of vandalism to cover up a burglary they apparently staged themselves. The crime sparked an anti-hate rally that drew more than 500 people to a local synagogue. The face of Jerry, who is Jewish, was blacked out of family photographs. Jamie filed a $48,000 claim with her insurer and collected $28,000.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/516936/posts?q=1&;page=139

        In 2000, a New York lawyer falsely accused a New Jersey state trooper of calling him a “Jew kike” in an effort to get out of a speeding ticket. Unfortunately for the lawyer, the whole encounter was taped.

        In 2004, a jury convicted Claremont Mckenna college professor Kari Dunn of insurance fraud for vandalizing her own car with anti-Semtiic slurs and reporting the incident to the police as a hate crime. Dunn originally claimed that her car was vandalized while she was on the Mckenna campus to give a speech about racial tolerance. Two witnesses later reported seeing the professor vandalize her own car,

        In 2012, the ADL warned that incidents of hate crimes against Jews were on the rise in New York and across the country. Swastikas painted on walls and doors had been popping up in Brooklyn, Midwood, and Manhatten. These hate crimes even included anti-semitic phone calls made to elderly Jewish women. The culprit in this recent string of attacks was finally apprehended, and much to the shock and dismay of the ADL, it turned out that the perpetrator, David Haddad, was Jewish. In fact, some of the victims in these alleged hate crimes were actually his relatives.

        In 2012, 3 cars were firebombed in a heavily Jewish Brooklyn neighborhood. The cars had swastikas painted on them and the letters KKK. After capturing global media attention for the “anti-Semitic event”, a group of Jewish gangsters were arrested for what turned out to be an elaborate insurance scam.

        In 2012, a Michigan State University student named Zachary Tennen was attacked at a party and had his mouth stapled shut. Tennen told the authorities and reporters that he was attacked because he was Jewish, and claimed that the perpetrators gave a Nazi salute and chanted “Heil Hitler”. The Anti-Defamation League immediately expressed their disgust and called for a hate crime investigation. After interviewing 50 witnesses, all of whom discredited Tennen’s entire account of the event, the police concluded their investigation and determined that no hate-crime transpired. Even the Anti-Defamation League had to acknowledge that the attack was not a hate crime.

    • annie
      annie
      September 16, 2014, 2:33 am

      Here is a collection of evidence from his publications. I am not claiming originality here–just displaying what has been discovered.

      you’ve provided no evidence whatsoever. nor evidence anything has been “discovered” if all you’ve got is unsourced allegations. your ONLY mention of tablet (in your ‘discovery’ post) was this: “In one case, a girl had carved a swastika into her own leg. But the BBC report which Salaita cites says she was a German (and the incident had nothing to do with Jews at all). [The recent Tablet article said that the ethnicity of the girl wasn’t mentioned on the BBC; this is incorrect.] ” ?? and your handle is professor? a professor of what? hasbara?

      • Prof Ethan
        Prof Ethan
        September 16, 2014, 7:16 am

        Annie, I gave the exact citation of Salaita’s false and anti-semitic claims in “Israel’s Dead Soul”, both the quote and the page number of the quote, plus the page-number of Salaita’s footnotes with their false data. Did Tablet? Yes or no.
        Annie, I gave the exact statement of the BBC–the girl was a German. Did Tablet? Yes or no?

        Now comes an accusation of “Hasbara”–the last refuge when faced with really uncomfortable but actual facts, in this case that Salaita invented lying Jews out of his own head. Annie has now given herself away as to her ideology, which was also clear from her (unsourced) assertions. Thanks for being so revealing, Annie.

    • bryan
      bryan
      September 16, 2014, 6:48 am

      Professor, “the thesis itself–that Jews invent numerous antisemitic incidents” surely has a certain plausibility: Zionism and the state of Israel are built upon the hypothesis of an eternal, ineradicable Gentile hatred of Jews, (also shared apparently by many self-hating Jews). It would thus not be entirely surprising if the highly organized and very effective advocates of Zionism did not exaggerate, misconstrue or even invent incidents that hugely benefit their cause. Ali Abunimah, in his 2007 book ‘One Country’ argued that “The quest for immigrants has led to inflation of charges that Jews across Europe are facing a new wave of anti-Semitism, that led French Jewish leader Roger Cukierman to express his shock and surprise at the way the Israeli government and Jewish Agency was exploiting the situation in order to undermine French Jewish life.

      Abunimah proceeds to cite a January 2003 incident in which a Rabbi claimed to have been stabbed outside his synagogue by a masked Arab, chanting “Allahu Akbar”. A police investigation concluded the wounds were superficial and self-inflicted, using a knife from the synagogue’s kitchen. He also quotes a July 2004 brutal attack on a woman in a train by an Arab mob, condemned by President Chirac and exploited by Israeli PM Sharon to urge French Jews to move to Israel, but which turned out to be “a cruel hoax by a compulsive liar”. An August 2004 arson attack at a Jewish community centre in Paris was condemned by Israeli foreign minister who exclaimed “I don’t think any of us could believe that sixty years on, Jews would again live under threat in Europe. Shortly afterwards French police arrested a disgruntled and mentally disturbed Jewish employee at the centre after finding equipment in his home used to draw swastikas in order to frame neo-Nazis for the incident.

      The evidence is simply overwhelming that SOME misguided and over-enthusiastic Zionists have planted bombs in Cairo (the Lavon Affair) and thrown hand-grenades in Baghdad, in order to speed aliyah to Israel. Surely “no intelligent discussion” of the the moral argument for Zionism “is possible unless it is acknowledged” that a significant number of such incidents have occurred. “Otherwise all discussion goes forward on false premises.” The previously laudable efforts of the ADL to combat bigotry in all its forms have now descended into a very one-sided magnification of one form of racism as fanatics attempt to bolster a failing cause.

    • justicewillprevail
      justicewillprevail
      September 16, 2014, 7:08 am

      Oh I can read alright – you mentioned the Tablet piece without indicating that you had taken it verbatim, with a slight annotation of your own, as if you had either read the book or had any acquaintance with it. So you post the opinion of a blogger without any indication of context as if it is fact. You back it up with another copy and paste from another blogger with an agenda, Kramer. Incidentally, if you read the recent articles about Israeli surveillance and control from the disillusioned IDF members, you will realise that sexual humiliation is part and parcel of the occupation, one of many weapons of control. Any non-Jew or non white Westerner leaving Israel is subject to humiliating and degrading treatment by the border guards – I have seen it myself, and it was of a sexual/intimate nature. That doesn’t mean it is that way every time, but it is common enough, and it is nothing to do with the guards’ cultural group – the Stasi didn’t behave like they did because they were eastern Europeans, or Slavic or whatever group they identified with.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        September 16, 2014, 9:35 am

        The Feb.26, 2014 Haaretz headline does indeed say, bold as brass, ‘teacher strip-searched’, mentioning Eilat. The use I made of it was fully justified. The policy in question does indeed have sexual overtones and is indeed evil. Salaita’s ‘likely’ is false if it implies a more than 50% chance each time, arguably true if it means ‘probable enough to cause unpleasant concern each time one travels’.

      • Prof Ethan
        Prof Ethan
        September 16, 2014, 9:47 am

        No actual sources are cited for these accusations. And Salaita cited none himself in the book.

        Do you deny that Salaita made this accusation? You seem to be defending it. Yet you claim I simply pasted this. Yet now you admit Salaita made this exact accusation I’m talking about–and you def nd the accusation not only with no sources but with an addtional claim that ANY non-Jew (not just Palestinians) is subject to sexual violation at the border. Amazing.

      • justicewillprevail
        justicewillprevail
        September 16, 2014, 10:57 am

        If you had read what I said, you would have noticed that I didn’t make any of the claims you impute to me. I explained the climate in which these claims are made, a climate many Palestinians and travellers are only too well acquainted with. I didn’t say it happened to everybody or all the time, but it does happen frequently to Palestinian and non Western travellers – it is as simple as putting different coloured stickers on their luggage which channels them to a different, and usually humiliating procedure. I have witnessed it, as have thousands. The IDF members of Unit 8200 recently quoted extensively know they use of humiliation strategies in the occupation, which often involve sexual elements:
        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/12/israeli-intelligence-unit-testimonies

        Nothing amazing there. Best

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 11:12 am

        Gosh, I wish I had some unthreshed grain for the “Prof” to work on. Why waste all this effort?

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        September 16, 2014, 3:45 pm

        Well, I found two sources in about two minutes. Neither confirmed ‘probing’ and I mentioned this. I also mentioned that I had not gone behind the Haaretz paywall but treated – and would still treat – the Haaretz report, full of indignation as it was, as reasonably credible. I think that this is enough to confirm, as jwp also confirms from personal observation, that Salaita’s ‘likely’ is a reasonable word if it implies that any Palestinian using the Israeli airport system has reason to consider sexual humiliation a serious risk. Evil.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 5:28 pm

        All that flailing for naught.

      • marc b.
        marc b.
        September 17, 2014, 9:40 am

        See UNCRC Report of 2013, which found that Israeli military and police engage in ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children during arrest, transfer and interrogation, to include hooding of neck and face, threats of physical violence, death and sexual assault against arrestee and family members, placement in solitary confinement, up to months in duration, etc.

        http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/co/CRC-C-ISR-CO-2-4.pdf

  4. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    September 15, 2014, 12:12 pm

    As has been documented as well, pro-Israel donors
    I noticed how this article mentions the term Israel, and now is as good a time as any to mention this: I propose using the term “pro-Israeli” instead of “pro-Israel”, and using “Israeli” or “Israeli State” instead of “Israel”.

    First, we say pro-Amrican, pro-Russian and “pro-Canadian donors”, not “pro-American donors”. Grammatically, pro-Israeli is a more correct as an adjective than using the noun, “Israel”.

    Second, but perhaps more importantly, there is a common confusion between people uninformed about the issue between the ancient, Biblical, Israel having a full, direct relationship with God’s presence in the Temple, and the modern Israeli state.

    I myself had this confusion until I was about college aged and learned what Christian and Muslim villages were going through, which made me learn more about the topic. In my mind, the two societies were practically the same, and so it made me think of the modern state in semi-Biblical terms, even though my Christianity was not Fundamentalist. This had a major impact on my thinking about a conflict that I did not know much about. Based on surveys, many other mainstream and conservative American Protestants have the same tendency, and this is a major factor in the conflict, although perhaps often an unacknowledged one

    In case you haven’t realized it by now, the Israeli state can at most only represent part of the “People of Israel”, for at least two reasons. First, very many Palestinians are in fact ethnically part of the ancient People of Israel, yet Israeli society rejects them. Second, Israeli society defines the People as excluding converts to other faiths, despite Halakha’s inclusion of those converts as part of the People. Third, that conversion of those ethnic Israelites (ie. Palestinians) to Islam should not have excluded them from belonging to the People of Israel, because they still believe in the same God.

    Thus, the correct adjective is “pro-Israeli”, while the name “Israel” leads to a religious confusion with the broad, ancient People of Israel. People who wish to make a more objective approach should use the term “Israeli” to avoid confusion.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      September 15, 2014, 7:24 pm

      “the ancient, Biblical, Israel having a full, direct relationship with God’s presence in the Temple”

      Those were the days, weren’t they? Talk about a meeting, talk about a good time! “A full direct relationship with God’s presence”? Okay, that’s nicely said, probably metaphysically accurate, and theologically correct to boot, but does it really do it justice? It was prob ably all that and an Ice Cream Sundae, with a cherry on top, too.

      But gee, W Jones, I gotta ask, why didn’t it last? I mean Yaweh His-Own-Self (not a picture or hologram or graven image!) was in da’ house, takin’ idolators names and kickin’ Amelikite butt. So what happened?
      How come He ain’t takin’ our calls or returning our e-mails?
      O God, why hast Thou De-friended us?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        September 15, 2014, 8:07 pm

        I thought you told us earlier that God made a deal with the Jews, but the Jews didn’t keep their end of the bargain, and so God gave them up. (You didn’t go into details, but I recall introducing you to a bunch of other Gods for you to negotiate with.)

        (And, re the article, it’s depressing to see a professor put a comma after a subject clause.)

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        September 16, 2014, 1:00 am

        There’s two answers possible. One is that the story about there being a divine presence in the Temple was just made up.

        The second, which the Bible gives, is that the Israelites weren’t celebrating the 7 year cycle of keeping the fields fallow. The moral importance of this was, which some might overlook, was that the 7 year cycle and its fallowness were part of the concept of the Year of the “Jubilee”, when debts were supposed to be forgiven and society acted in a way that we would consider to be somewhat socialistic or communitarian.

        As a result, the ancient Jews were in Babylonian captivity for a period that reflected the time when the 7 year cycle hadn’t been observed. I think it may have been about 70 years of captivity reflecting a total 70 years of nonobservance.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        September 16, 2014, 2:07 am

        But gee, W Jones, I gotta ask, why didn’t it last? I mean Yaweh His-Own-Self (not a picture or hologram or graven image!) was in da’ house, takin’ idolators names and kickin’ Amelikite butt. So what happened?

        As the prophet Zechariah put it, in his prophecy to Zerubabel:

        ‘Thus hath the Lord of hosts spoken, saying: Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother; and oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart. But they refused to attend, and turned a stubborn shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they might not hear.

        The obvious remedy is (same prophet, next chapter):

        These are the things that ye shall do: Speak ye every man the truth with his neighbour; execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates; and let none of you devise evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath; for all these are things that I hate, saith the Lord.’

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 11:17 am

        “I thought you told us earlier that God made a deal with the Jews, but the Jews didn’t keep their end of the bargain, and so God gave them up.”

        Yes, RoHa, that’s what I’ve heard, but I was wondering if W Jones had some info on the subject.
        You know, it’s the kind of thing people mutter about, you hear bits and pieces (who wants to kvell on something like that?) you see things in books sometimes…. I was hoping he had more info.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 11:19 am

        “(And, re the article, it’s depressing to see a professor put a comma after a subject clause.)”

        Everybody has to empty their commastomy bag sometime.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 11:23 am

        Due to comment nesting, I answered RoHa before I read the interesting and informative replies from W Jones and Shmuel. Thanks very much.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 11:55 am

        Thanks again, Shmuel andf W. Jones. So it was either an ethical and moral collapse, or a failure to abide by Biblical EPA regulations (and in those days, they knew how to handle a corporation!) May have been both? I’m sure a syncretic explanation can be derived.

    • bryan
      bryan
      September 16, 2014, 7:22 am

      Rather than pro-Israel or Pro-Israeli, surely the term Zionist adequately identifies the sympathies of these donors, as well as doing justice to the diversity of a society composed of Palestinians, non-Zionists, post-Zionists, anti-Zionists and universalist Jews. perhaps on second thoughts no – an ideology once so enthusiastically advocated by pioneers like Herzl is now tainted and discredited by bigotry, war-crimes, oppression, occupation and ethnic cleansing.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 11:28 am

        “advocated by pioneers like Herzl”

        Such a pioneer Herzl was! A man who could live off the land, and make the desert bloom with his own two hands! Like Daniel Boonies!,

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 11:43 am

        “justice to the diversity of a society composed of Palestinians, non-Zionists, post-Zionists, anti-Zionists and universalist Jews.”

        Wow, I didn’t know Israelhad that elaborate an identity system. I thought the identity cards pretty much said “Jew”, or “Arab”. And the laws pretty much lined up with that.

        So all the rest of that oojah-cum-spif about “diversity of a society”, you know where you can put that? Yeah, down there with the taint.

  5. just
    just
    September 15, 2014, 4:24 pm

    Definitely creepy junk:

    “The Amcha Initiative, the Zionist organization that has repeatedly intimidated, spied on and harassed students and faculty, appears to be escalating its campaign by publishing what amounts to a target list of “anti-Israel” professors.

    Amcha says that the list is made up of “218 professors identifying themselves as Middle East scholars, who recently called for the academic boycott of Israel in a petition.””

    more here: http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/zionist-group-publishes-target-list-anti-israel-us-professors

  6. Mooser
    Mooser
    September 15, 2014, 7:29 pm

    “Amcha says that the list is made up of “218 professors identifying themselves as Middle East scholars, who recently called for the academic boycott of Israel in a petition.”

    Well, it’s only natural, don’t you think? After all, with Protective Edge, and all the stuff happening in Israeli politics, a windfall, a bumper crop, a veritable pornocopia of benefits is sure to devolve on to Israel, and Zionists want to make sure those unworthy get none of them, or even any of the credit and glory which is sure to accrue to Israel and Zionism.

    In other words, they’ve gone insane.

  7. Prof Ethan
    Prof Ethan
    September 16, 2014, 10:15 am

    I am signing off; that’s what I meant by “best”, up above.

    For some reason, I thought Mondoweis was a serious site for serious people. I was wrong.

    Clearly no one here wants to face the fact of the things that Salaita has said. There’s a lot more coming on that subject. But if you can’t face it, there is nothing I can do. That’s too bad. Others on other sites–even original supporters of Salaita–could.

    • justicewillprevail
      justicewillprevail
      September 16, 2014, 11:06 am

      Well, a serious person might actually read or listen to what Salaita has said – there is plenty here – as opposed to waging a campaign based on the claims of others with their own agendas. So a full scale witch hunt is now in progress, I take it from your over excited claims.

    • Pippilin
      Pippilin
      September 17, 2014, 2:33 pm

      Bye, bye, ProfEthan– a welcome departure. You have already attracted too many responses on Mondoweiss. I was going to suggest that the site’s commenters cease responding to your long and boring diatribes– and that if they did, you might go away. BTW, it has been said that one sign of intelligence is the ability of a person to express themselves clearly and succinctly. You fail in that regard.

  8. Mooser
    Mooser
    September 16, 2014, 11:31 am

    “For some reason, I thought Mondoweis was a serious site for serious people. I was wrong.”

    Wait, don’t go, “Ethan”, excuse me, I mean “ProfEthan”. If you will be serious, I’ll be Roebuck! We can start a store!

    Gosh, they took you seriously enough to do the bit of research necessary to demolish you. What more do you want?

    • Prof Ethan
      Prof Ethan
      September 17, 2014, 8:04 am

      I promised myself I wouldn’t come back to you bunch, but some of the stuff here needs a reply.

      Tree–you misunderstand the use of sources. The Times was Salaita’s source–his only source. He claimed the Times said that Ivanov was Jewish and trained by Mossad. That is untrue. The Times said that Ivanov claimed to be Italian and claimed to be trained by Mossad–that’s what the Times said. And Salaita was only depending on the Times. So he INVENTED him being Jewish, because the Times did not say that. (Annie–if the Times had wanted to identify him as Jewish, as Salaita implied, it would have said he was Jewish, not that he claimed to be Italian. Period.)

      So it doesn’t matter HOW many acts of vandalism Ivanov committed, you can’t use that in Salaita’s defense–because as far as Salaita could know,–only from the Times–they were not committed by a Jew. He invented this.

      Just as, using the BBC, he invented as a Jew the swastika girl identified as a German by the BBC. It’s the same pattern.

      This is basic understanding of Salaita’s use of sources. And it doesn’t matter how many lying Jews the rest of you come up with–those were not Salaita’s “proofs”, and Salaita’s “proofs’ are the issue, nothing else.

      “Justice”: Salaita was talking about anal and vaginal penetration of Palestinians by Jews, folks–not about putting stickers on suitcases!!

      A bit more from Salaita:

      He tweeted on April 25 (that is, well before the recent fighting in Gaza): “I’ve had a horrible influx of Zio-trolls today. It’s like getting a case of the scabies. They burrow in and you want to rip off your skin.”

      Or this one, from July, 9: “There’s something profoundly sexual to the Zionist pleasure w/#Israel’s aggression. Sublimation through bloodletting, a common perversion.”

      1. the first is Jews as vermin. “Scabies” are mites that spread infection. Bring on the Zykon B.

      2. The second is–as in “Israel’s Dead Soul”, Jews taking sexual pleasure in perverse ways–in this case, bloodletting. We’ve seen this particular obsession from Salaita before–have we not?

      These are traditional anti-semitic memes. I won’t tell you how my colleague in German history, an internationally renowned scholar, reacted when he saw these.

      Finally, the “pressure from donors” theme apparently comes down to one person who had given several hundred thousand dollars to Illinois and threatened not to give any more. But the budget for the University of Illinois is about $4.5 BILLION a year. If it’s, say, $500,000 that had been given and nothing more would be, that is not small. But it is also not at all huge, or particularly threatening.

      Now, I really am signing off. You people are not a serious group.

      • tree
        tree
        September 17, 2014, 4:00 pm

        Eitan,

        Tree–you misunderstand the use of sources. The Times was Salaita’s source–his only source.

        No, Eitan, again it is you who is having trouble comprehending sources. If you actually read Salaita’s footnote you’d see that the source he provided (with link) was not to the NYTimes, but was instead to the Jewish Federation of Tulsa’s newsletter, “Tulsa Jewish Review”. His link is no longer functional, as happens when websites reorganize their files, but I was able to find the original source through a search function on their site. Here it is:

        http://www.jewishtulsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/23167.pdf

        The short article is on page 3 of the February 2008 newsletter, under the column called “What’s Nu?” I quote directly from the Tulsa Jewish Review:

        A Jewish Brooklyn man has pleaded not guilty to charges of anti-Semitic hate crimes. Police arrested Ivan Ivanov after discovering pipe bombs and other weapons at his home. Ivanov, who had long been suspected of a September spree of spray-painting anti-Semitic graffiti on houses, cars, playgrounds, and two synagogues in his Brooklyn Heights neighborhood, implicated himself in the graffiti incidents during a search of his home and was arrested. After Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge John WIlson set bail at $150,000 and ordered Ivanov to surrender his passport, his attorney Adrian Lesher revealed to reporters that his client was Jewish. The New York Times had reported that Ivanov told police that he was Italian by birth, raised in Bulgaria, and trained by the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.

        According to the Tulsa Jewish Review Ivanov was a “Jewish Brooklyn man”.

        So if you are going to accuse anyone of “fabricating” Ivanov’s Jewishness, you better start with the Jewish Federation of Tulsa with that accusation. Perhaps Mooser can enlighten us on the fine points of “fabricating” Jewishness through the auspices of Jewish Federations.

        And of course, as you now indirectly admit, if you are going to accuse Salaita and the Jewish Federation of Tulsa of fabricating Ivanov’s Jewishness, by the same token you should be accusing yourself of “fabricating” his Italian heritage. The warped standard you use to accuse someone of falsifying someone’s ethnicity applies to both yourself as well as Salaita since Ivanov self-identified as both Italian and Jewish.

        And BTW, claiming Jewishness does not get one out of a charge of anti-semitic hate crimes. Any lawyer knows that so your flailing attempt to accuse his lawyer of lying in order to help his client only reveals your own desperate attempts to deny Ivanov’s Jewishness. You believed him to be Italian because he said so. You even put Italian in all caps as if that made it more true. But when Ivanov said he was Jewish suddenly you find it not believable and even go so far as to claim that Salaita made it up.

      • justicewillprevail
        justicewillprevail
        September 17, 2014, 4:57 pm

        You have a great way of misquoting and deliberately misunderstanding people, as per your myopic comment regarding luggage stickers which completely misses the point. Yet you persist in your obsession with Salaita’s quotes – perhaps you would be slightly more believable if you didn’t indulge in what you accuse Salaita of. Bye

      • annie
        annie
        September 17, 2014, 5:52 pm

        I promised myself I wouldn’t come back to you bunch, but some of the stuff here needs a reply.
        Ethan, if you can’t keep your promise to yourself we might help you. in the future when making accusations of lying, you need to provide a link to the source, and not just a link to allegations in a hit piece. you’re obviously relying on other people’s resource that you have not even verified. note how tree took a little time out of her day to rebut your arguments with a source, one could easily argue is not biased in her (tree’s) favor? you should try that sometime, along with putting quote marks around other people’s allegations you’re copying.

      • Susie Kneedler
        Susie Kneedler
        September 17, 2014, 6:20 pm

        Wow, Great policy: Thanks, Annie, for this and all else.

      • annie
        annie
        September 17, 2014, 11:09 pm

        i think he could be conceptually challenged susie. i had to go back and bold certain sections on my previous comment because he seems to think he can bully his way thru this offering not one link to back up his allegations basically just repeating what he said before with his copy/past job that he cannot verify. it’s very clear he does not have the book and is just bent on carrying on spamming the thread with this same hatchet job article. fail.

      • Keith
        Keith
        September 17, 2014, 11:34 pm

        PROF ETHAN- From your profile: “professor of history.” From your comment: “I won’t tell you how my colleague in German history, an internationally renowned scholar, reacted when he saw these.”

        Ah, lofty credentials by innuendo! It has been my experience that folks who tout their credentials realize that their arguments are too weak to stand on their own. In your case, implied credentials.

        Prof Ethan: “This is basic understanding of Salaita’s use of sources. And it doesn’t matter how many lying Jews the rest of you come up with–those were not Salaita’s “proofs”, and Salaita’s “proofs’ are the issue, nothing else.”

        What you are saying is that among your “colleagues” form is more important than substance. Reality is of little import, it is the correct sourcing that matters. Bullshit, properly sourced, is the stuff of your “scholarship.”

        I don’t know who you are or who you work for but it seems obvious to me that academic scholarship is of little concern to you. Your comments on Salaita are a hit piece, nothing more. I predicted as much in earlier comments.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 19, 2014, 12:56 pm

        “putting quote marks around other people’s allegations you’re copying. “

        Zionists have the strangest relationship with quote marks I have ever seen. Their love-hate affair with double-quote marks (they got no love for single-quotes, only commoners have to use those) has been on full display at Mondo for many years. Most extraordinary thing.

  9. Susie Kneedler
    Susie Kneedler
    September 16, 2014, 2:30 pm

    “If Steven is not reinstated to his position at the University of Illinois, it will not just be a blow to workers’ rights on campus, a blow to academic freedom, or a blow to the cause of Palestinian struggle. It will be blow to all of them.”

    Thanks, Prof. Bhattacharya + Prof. Mullen​,​ for discussing political-corporate clout at UIUC other schools over study​, ​teaching​, shared governance, and fair working conditions for all.​ ​ Unfortunately, distraction over a few lines from Prof. Salaita’s many books (and any scholar knows that words taken out of context are easily distorted) diverted the Comments; the American Indian Studies Program had already “properly vetted” Salaita’s hiring, including his research and teaching: http://www.ais.illinois.edu/news/current/noconfidence/ .

    The problem is that pressure from Big Donors frightened the University into violating due-process protections. Injustice wreaked on Prof. Salaita threatens free inquiry and political expression for everyone else.

    • Susie Kneedler
      Susie Kneedler
      September 16, 2014, 2:32 pm

      Sorry, that’s “clout at UIUC AND other schools.”

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 16, 2014, 5:32 pm

        And this is a State university, too. And so dependent on donors. What must the situation be like a private colleges?

      • Susie Kneedler
        Susie Kneedler
        September 16, 2014, 7:14 pm

        Hmm, according to the Illinois Board of Higher Education, Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise rakes in $249,000.34 “Base Salary” and more than double in $281,500.66 “Additional Compensation” http://www.ibhe.org/pa96266/search.aspx .
        IU system President Robert A. Easter makes do with a mere $462,375.00 http://www.ibhe.org/pa96266/search.aspx

        Screwy priorities: an article about moderate Illinois salaries for college leaders lists Wise’s pay as $641,392 with a base salary of $512,500, with Easter’s a pitiable $478,892 total and $450,000 base http://www.suntimes.com/27490196-761/more-college-presidents-in-us-joining-millionaires-club-but-not-in-illinois.html#.VBi5tC5dXJA .

        That’d buy a lot o mousse for your fur, eh, Mooser, or rings for yer antlers–and brain for me (scarecrow) straw?

        Do “state” (“public”) schools choose donor money over academic freedom so they can pay administrators as if they were corporate execs–or royalty?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 19, 2014, 1:01 pm

        Okay, I thought “donor money” went toward athletics, stadiums, and to endow tendentious chairs. I can’t imagine it’s part of the Chacellor’s salary.

        Yes, but isn’t it nice, instead of alloting sufficient amounts for a State-supported University and living within them, they have created a situation where schools which were instituted to avoid this kind of pernicious donor funding are now dependent on it. Good work.

  10. Susie Kneedler
    Susie Kneedler
    September 16, 2014, 7:16 pm

    The Institute for Policy Studies, reveals in “The One Percent at State U,” that:

    “The student debt crisis is worse at state schools with the highest-paid presidents….

    “As students went deeper in debt, administrative spending outstripped scholarship spending by more than 2 to 1 at state schools with the highest-paid presidents.

    “At state schools with the highest-paid presidents, part-time adjunct faculty increased 22 percent faster than the national average at all universities.

    “At state schools with the highest-paid presidents, permanent faculty declined dramaticallyas a percentage of all faculty….

    “Average executive pay at the top 25 rose to nearly $1 million by 2012 — increasing more than twice as fast as the national average at public research universities.”

    http://www.ips-dc.org/one_percent_universities/

  11. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    September 17, 2014, 11:17 am

    Our MEC (middle east collective) hosted Salaita on the Univ of Colorado’s campus. Invite him to your community, university etc. Full of facts and wisdom

Leave a Reply